# question about hopper receiver fee?



## comizzou573 (Aug 6, 2007)

So I been a dish customer for 13+ years, was reading a thread on here that dish doesnt really want to keep customers and doesnt do anything for their longterm customers as well. I called dish since my current receiver is leased I wanted to see if I can exchange it for a hopper, they gave too options...

1. $50 dollar upgrade plus $11 fee added to my bill per month to use the hopper features, 2 year lease agreement

2. $100 dollar upgrade an no $11 fee for 12 months

My question now is, if I buy a hopper, would I still have to pay that 11 dollar fee per month


----------



## thomasjk (Jan 10, 2006)

Yes.


----------



## comizzou573 (Aug 6, 2007)

if thats the case I am sticking with my leased dvr 522....i been $138 dollars for everything pak for 13 years...well it used to be cheaper but dish keeps raising their price, i might end up switching to directv to be honest


----------



## garys (Nov 4, 2005)

Direct's receiver's fees are higher than Dish's.


----------



## 3HaloODST (Aug 9, 2010)

If you're not willing to pay Hopper fees you could always go with the 722k.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

That quote is for a Hopper and a Joey. You are already paying $6 DVR fee. Hopper/Joey would be additional whole home fee $4 plus $7 for the Joey. If you only have one TV, you should contact a DIRT team member or a local dealer to try to get a Hopper without a Joey. If you have 2 TVs, there will always be a fee for the second TV box if HD with Dish or any other provider including DirecTV.


----------



## comizzou573 (Aug 6, 2007)

no they quoted me for one 1 tv, i spoke to the representative and said I only have one tv I told them...and they wanted $11 for dvr fees just for the hopper


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

For 1 TV it'd be $4 more only, the $11 includes a Joey.


----------



## comizzou573 (Aug 6, 2007)

coldsteel said:


> For 1 TV it'd be $4 more only, the $11 includes a Joey.


nope without the joey its $11...but I will call dish one moretime and confirm what you said


----------



## comizzou573 (Aug 6, 2007)

I see now, they try to trick you in getting the hopper with the joey, when i dont need the joey at all


----------



## garys (Nov 4, 2005)

He might have it wrong, the Whole Home fee is $4 and there is a $6 dvr fee. New literature lists them as one fee for the 1st Hopper being $10.


----------



## SJ HART (Feb 12, 2003)

DVR fees are ridiculous to me at this point as DVRs are becoming the standard. What does this cover as the technology is built into the unit which you own/lease....SJ


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Remember TiVo lawsuit ? We pay that license fee starting from DVR510


----------



## SJ HART (Feb 12, 2003)

"P Smith" said:


> Remember TiVo lawsuit ? We pay that license fee starting from DVR510


Yeah, you are right....


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

the company did predict that outcome pretty well, since imposed the fee in advance


----------



## ggotch5445 (Sep 27, 2009)

For me, the extra cost incurred by the DVR fees, for the Hopper, has been something of a deal breaker for me.

Admittedly, I have been blowing hot and cold regarding the Hopper. When it was first announced, I was excited, thinking that we would have at last wireless extensions of TV, to various rooms in our homes. When it was apparent that that was not to be, I voiced my disappointment.

After reading of Hopper owners delight with the new technology, and seeing where a few of those refinements might benefit my family, I began to reconsider the Hopper as an alternative to my 722 and 211 ( with EHD).

Despite the very generous offer, that was presented by a DIRT member, we too were still left with the prospect of paying monthly DVR fees that added $11 more per month, to what I feel is approaching a rather steep cost for the service and programming we presently receive. And I would suspect that a new price increase is soon to appear for our Dish service in February.

We truly love Dish, and the programming/service we receive from them, but we feel that, comparing what we have now against what the Hopper offers, the new system offers very little more to justify an extra $11/month- at least for now. Probably in 2 to 3 years, the Hopper will become the standard, with the idea of an individual receiver in each TV occupied room being the more expensive alternative!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SJ HART said:


> DVR fees are ridiculous to me at this point as DVRs are becoming the standard. What does this cover as the technology is built into the unit which you own/lease....SJ


It covers the development of that technology and the licensing of that technology. Both DISH and DirecTV charge a DVR fee. Both DISH and DirecTV charge additional for whole home. They invested in the technology, the fee aimed at people using the technology helps recoup the cost.

Moving from a single 722 DVR with two outputs to a Hopper+Joey with one output each (two outputs) costs $11 per month more due to the whole home portion of the fee plus the 2nd receiver portion of the fee. The upgrade provides a 2nd HD output, which is a major complaint against the ViP receivers ... plus a third tuner.

Moving from two 722 level DVRs (providing four outputs) to a 2 Hopper + 2 Joey setup (providing four HD outputs) replaces a $17 fee for the second 722 with the $4 whole home fee and three $7 receiver fees. $8 more per month to get every output in HD and be able to watch programs recorded on each Hopper on any of those outputs.

Yes, the price of having better technology means paying for it.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

ggotch5445 said:


> For me, the extra cost incurred by the DVR fees, for the Hopper, has been something of a deal breaker for me.
> 
> Admittedly, I have been blowing hot and cold regarding the Hopper. When it was first announced, I was excited, thinking that we would have at last wireless extensions of TV, to various rooms in our homes. When it was apparent that that was not to be, I voiced my disappointment.
> 
> ...


The DVR fee for the Hopper is exactly the same as for the 722, $6. The only extra for the Hopper is the $4 whole home fee. Now, if you are using the 722 second output for an SDTV and with your 211 you're feeding 3 TVs, a Hopper/Joey system for 3 HDTVs would add up to $11 more. Any extra box including a 211 for a third TV to be HD would have the $7 fee. It seems that you are comparing apples to oranges. If you only have 2 TVs the extra would only be $4.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

James Long said:


> It covers the development of that technology and the licensing of that technology. Both DISH and DirecTV charge a DVR fee. Both DISH and DirecTV charge additional for whole home. They invested in the technology, the fee aimed at people using the technology helps recoup the cost.
> ,,.
> Yes, the price of having better technology means paying for it.


James, a couple remarks.
That your first paragraph, just restate current condition, not reveal a reason for the DVR fee, not procure it really.
As you knew first DishPro line of devices has been design before year 2000 and include two base models - a receiver [DP301] and DVR [DP501].
NO fee been imposed to the PVR [DVR] DP501 as it e* model in contrary of previous DVR endeavor with M$ [models 7100/7200].
As soon dish realized potential lawsuit from TiVo (it happen in year or two when DP510 released - no, it wasn't new development, it's just DP501 with 120 GB drive inside ) they start collecting a fond for that by taking money from OUR pockets - invented "DVR fee".
The result of the infringement well known - hundreds millions $$$ fine and worst implementation of trick modes EVER ! Include the 'famous' hopper. 

Secondly, the technology is not that great to pay the money for it - as we discussed many times here - the multiple fees is what they can get from customers, not what procured by inventing.
For example - EHD fee for VIP 622/722/922. Added and what ? Removed. Because "we want - we can".

As to implementation of trick modes.
It's something now !
After they lost TiVo lawsuit the trick modes become so annoying - tell me about the "invention" what is require to pay by customers !

Unbelievable ! Simple mode - get a list of I-frames and jump on this forward/backward with different speed ... What could be simple?! But NO, it doesn't work in favor of users, it working as butchered TiVo version against it's meaning. Duh !


----------



## garys (Nov 4, 2005)

It seems the additional receiver fees tend to keep those with one or two receivers on their account to keep them rather than upgrade to the Hopper/Joey.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> James, a couple remarks.
> That your first paragraph, just recitate current condition, not reveal a reson for the DVR fee, not procure it really.
> As you knew first DishPro line of devices has been design before year 2000 and include two base models - a reciver [DP301] and DVR [DP501].
> NO fee been imposed to the PVR [DVR] DP501 as it e* model in contrary of previous DVR endeavor with M$ [models 7100/7200].


DISH now charges a DVR fee for the 501s ... but credits the charge back on the account as they "transition" to newer receivers.

The 501 was not charged a fee due to marketing. It was one of the promises DISH kept (up until now) that the model as sold had no DVR fee.

Development costs money. Even when they were developing in house and not paying Tivo any fee it cost money. With the 501 they decided to eat the cost to gain a marketing edge. With other models they decided to charge a fee - and even if you can rip one open and show how the models are not that much different it is a different model not covered by the promise that marketing made when the 501 was released.

Ask DISH ... they explain their DVR and whole home and sling enabling fees the way I have explained them. One is paying for the development of the technology they have at their fingertips.



> Secondly, the technology is not that great to pay the money for it - as we discussed many times here - the mutlple fees is what they can get from customers, not what procured by inventing.
> For example - EHD fee for VIP 622/722/922. Added and what ? Removed. Because "we want - we can".


If you don't want to pay DISH's fees go to DirecTV and pay their DVR and whole home fees.

The early adopters of technology have historically had to pay a fee to enjoy such technology. What was the additional fee to have a 921? A 922? The lease upgrade fees were fairly high (and still extend to the Hopper). Asking the early adopters to pay a one time $40 fee to use 622/722 EHD technology and then an additional fee to use 211 EHD technology charged those who wanted such technology for the technology they would have at their fingertips. Call it an "early adopter fee".

Perhaps those who pay the fee can complain that the Johnny come latelys don't have to pay for their EHDs. But now it is older technology.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

James Long said:


> DISH now charges a DVR fee for the 501s ... but credits the charge back on the account as they "transition" to newer receivers.
> 
> *The 501 was not charged a fee due to marketing.* It was one of the promises DISH kept (up until now) that the model as sold had no DVR fee.
> 
> ...


Really ? Marketing plot ? I don't buying it. You should disclose the statement as IMHO kind...
As to changing a name of DVR to impose the "DVR fee", it's RIP OFF trick ! No more then that. You should remember a court note: 'colorably different' - the DP510 is NOT colorably different from DP501. As your PC with different hard drives or RAM size.

As to implementation of trick modes.
It's something now !
After they lost TiVo lawsuit the trick modes become so annoying - tell me about the downgrading "invention" what is require to pay by customers !

Unbelievable ! Simple mode - get a list of I-frames and jump on this forward/backward with different speed ... What could be simple?! But NO, it doesn't work in favor of users, it working as butchered TiVo version against it's meaning. Duh !


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Really ? Marketing plot ? I don't buying it. You should disclose the statement as IMHO kind...


OK, here is your disclaimer: The statements made by P Smith are expressions of his own opinion. 



> As to changing a name of DVR to impose the "DVR fee", it's RIP OFF trick ! No more then that. You should remember a court note: 'colorably different' - the DP510 is NOT colorably different from DP501. As your PC with different hard drives or RAM size.


Colorably different only applies to the court case, which included all the 501/508/510 models as they were _similar_.

There were material differences between the 501, 508 and 510. They deserved a name change to reflect the difference in receivers. And although there are people who have modified their receivers, DISH sells their receivers as is in one configuration per model without the options one has on a common PC.



> After they lost TiVo lawsuit the trick modes become so annoying - tell me about the downgrading "invention" what is require to pay by customers !


The workaround meant they had a DVR. Without it DISH would have had to disable their hard drives and they would not have had a DVR.

Perhaps DISH should have just given up then and paid the outrageous fees that Tivo wanted to charge ... but that is a topic for a different thread - and something that was argued out at the time. The Hopper came along well after the lawsuit was settled.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BTW: Unless otherwise stated by the author, all posts, regardless of author should be considered the opinion of the person making the post. It is one of those obvious things that shouldn't need to be stated in a forum like this.

Now back to the fee discussion ...


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I'm wondering - how much you should 'love' your sat tv provider to pay for a broken trick play functioning of new DVRs ? 

And how the inventions, new features, new gadgets could possible be worst in next generation in such simple functioning [ just *basic *DVR's - FF/skip/rewind/etc ] what you pay for ?


----------



## 3HaloODST (Aug 9, 2010)

ggotch5445 said:


> When it was first announced, I was excited, thinking that we would have at last wireless extensions of TV, to various rooms in our homes. When it was apparent that that was not to be, I voiced my disappointment.


Actually, I have one of my Joeys hooked up to the DISH USB wireless dongle (ONLY) and I watch TV wirelessly all the time. It may not be officially supported, but it's darn near flawless (granted I have huge wifi antennas.)


----------



## bnewt (Oct 2, 2003)

3HaloODST said:


> Actually, I have one of my Joeys hooked up to the DISH USB wireless dongle (ONLY) and I watch TV wirelessly all the time. It may not be officially supported, but it's darn near flawless (granted I have huge wifi antennas.)


Would you mind explaining how you did this? IF the ota module becomes available for the hopper/joey set up, I may switch, but I don't want to run all new wiring if possible


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Isn't the sidetracking should be in other or its own thread ? - Check the topic.


----------



## 3HaloODST (Aug 9, 2010)

patmurphey said:


> The DVR fee for the Hopper is exactly the same as for the 722, $6. The only extra for the Hopper is the $4 whole home fee.


Soon DISH is going to merge the $6 DVR fee and the $4 "whole-home fee" together for a $10 DVR fee just like the 922.



bnewt said:


> Would you mind explaining how you did this? IF the ota module becomes available for the hopper/joey set up, I may switch, but I don't want to run all new wiring if possible


I plugged the DISH-supplied USB wireless adapter into the USB port of the Joey. I gave it the encryption details and assigned the Joey (and all the other receivers) static IPs. I have a single Hopper connected to Ethernet and bridging is enabled. So all the Hoppers/Joeys get Internet. Now I can link the wireless Joey to any of the Hoppers.

Granted, this is unsupported, and you will need coax ran to any Joey location in case they for some reason disable this functionality (doubt they will.)


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Really, enough of WiFi off-topic ...


----------



## 3HaloODST (Aug 9, 2010)

Alrighty then, if anyone wants more information feel free to make another thread and/or PM me...


----------



## ggotch5445 (Sep 27, 2009)

patmurphey said:


> The DVR fee for the Hopper is exactly the same as for the 722, $6. The only extra for the Hopper is the $4 whole home fee. Now, if you are using the 722 second output for an SDTV and with your 211 you're feeding 3 TVs, a Hopper/Joey system for 3 HDTVs would add up to $11 more. Any extra box including a 211 for a third TV to be HD would have the $7 fee. It seems that you are comparing apples to oranges. If you only have 2 TVs the extra would only be $4.


Yes, actually I didn't want to go into all aspects of my own setup, but we have a SD, "under-the-counter" 7" TV in the kitchen that is fed by the 722's SD output. So to exchange that for a Joey in that room would add the additional charge making for the $11. Even if we eventually replace the kitchen SD TV with a similar sized HDTV, I'm not sure it would be worth paying for an HD Joey for that room.

Maybe I was comparing a Granny Smith to a Golden Delicious, rather than a whole different fruit.

And I should mention that we generally do not watch more than an hour or two of "network" programing each week, making little need for squeezing very much prime time programing onto the DVR.

So, for us, the only real justification for the Hopper, at this time, is that part of my brain that insists on being the first to get the latest/coolest electronics.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

garys said:


> It seems the additional receiver fees tend to keep those with one or two receivers on their account to keep them rather than upgrade to the Hopper/Joey.


No. The Hopper/Joey system is designed for whole home distribution to HDTVs. You pay additional receiver fees for HD boxes. HDTV cannot be distributed the same way that the duo receivers do for whole home - by SD coax. The fees per HDTV are pretty universal - DirecTV even charges them for connecting an SVU TV with no box. If your secondary TVs are SD, the 622/722 setup is adequate and reasonably priced (unless you need more than one DVR). Additional boxes in the Hopper/Joey system are the same as 211s with far more capability.


----------



## garys (Nov 4, 2005)

patmurphey said:


> No. The Hopper/Joey system is designed for whole home distribution to HDTVs. You pay additional receiver fees for HD boxes. HDTV cannot be distributed the same way that the duo receivers do for whole home - by SD coax. The fees per HDTV are pretty universal - DirecTV even charges them for connecting an SVU TV with no box. If your secondary TVs are SD, the 622/722 setup is adequate and reasonably priced (unless you need more than one DVR). Additional boxes in the Hopper/Joey system are the same as 211s with far more capability.


This is the point I was trying to make, for example someone with a 722 with a 211 (three sat tuners) can feed two HD tv's and one sd tv with additional fee of $7 and the $6 dvr fee total $13. A Hopper with two Joeys (three tuners) to feed three tv's, HD or sd would run $4 for the Whole Home fee, $14 for the two Joeys and the $6 dvr fee total $24. If the subscriber is only looking at the additional fees, they may not want to pay the $11 additional fees per month. Obviously there are other factors (OTA for one), but some won't want to pay $132 more every year.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

patmurphey said:


> No. The Hopper/Joey system is designed for whole home distribution to HDTVs. You pay additional receiver fees for HD boxes. HDTV cannot be distributed the same way that the duo receivers do for whole home - by SD coax. The fees per HDTV are pretty universal - *DirecTV even charges them for connecting an SVU TV with no box*. If your secondary TVs are SD, the 622/722 setup is adequate and reasonably priced (unless you need more than one DVR). Additional boxes in the Hopper/Joey system are the same as 211s with far more capability.


You are put a carriage before the horse ! Present to us fictional info as a fact.
It's future *RVU* client what no one has it, not talking about the price.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

P Smith said:


> You are put a carriage before the horse ! Present to us fictional info as a fact.
> It's future *RVU* client what no one has it, not talking about the price.


Go to SatelliteGuys and read the Samsung RVU TV thread!! I'm talking about RVU TVs not RVU client boxes that may or may not appear over a DirecTV.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

If you came here - discuss here. If not - continue at other site.

Per your phrase "DirecTV even charges them for connecting an SVU TV with no box":
- what is SVU ?
- DTV do not charge for RVU client - no such FW in TV or a [C30/C31-700] box for customers
- there is no customer's Samsung RVU FW for DTV
-


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

It's RVU, pardon my typing, and the RVU TV discission is on the DirecTV section of this forum.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

patmurphey said:


> It's RVU, pardon my typing, and the RVU TV discission is on the DirecTV section of this forum.


That's what I TOLD you ... Don't mix a discussion here and what DTV COULD charge, not charging.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

P Smith said:


> That's what I TOLD you ... Don't mix a discussion here and what DTV COULD charge, not charging.


Then why do they say there is a mirroring fee for an RVU TV over on the DirecTV tech forum?


----------



## idahocouchpotato (Aug 7, 2012)

I think Dish needs to do a better job of explaining the value proposition offered by the Hopper. We were really excited about upgrading to one until we stumbled across these extra costs. We currently have a 722, and from what I can tell the hopper is a 722 with apps (meh), an extra tuner and a bigger HDD. All three of these seem ike minor incidential costs that should have been offset o by the increasing efficencies in technology since the 722 was developed. How does this justify the extra ongoing fee? Judging by the threads on the difficulty of installing hopper/joey setups there must be more going on, but Dish isn't explaining it very well, IMHO.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

idahocouchpotato said:


> I think Dish needs to do a better job of explaining the value proposition offered by the Hopper. We were really excited about upgrading to one until we stumbled across these extra costs. We currently have a 722, and from what I can tell the hopper is a 722 with apps (meh), an extra tuner and a bigger HDD. All three of these seem ike minor incidential costs that should have been offset o by the increasing efficencies in technology since the 722 was developed. How does this justify the extra ongoing fee? Judging by the threads on the difficulty of installing hopper/joey setups there must be more going on, but Dish isn't explaining it very well, IMHO.


The Hopper/Joey system is designed to serve multiple HDTVs with whole home access to all recordings. If you have only one HDTV, the 722 will do just fine, but for $4mo you can get a much better DVR with a Hopper. Extra HDTVs will have fees anywhere you go and the whole home/DVR fee is only $4 more than the 722 DVR fee. Since they are promoting whole home, they are not catering to those with one HDTV, but one Hopper no Joey can be done if you look around. What's to explain? BTW Hopper/Joey fees are lower than adding 722/622/612 HDDVRs and the same as 211s that can only do local recordings if you buy and EHD.

I had a 722, a 622, and a 211 for 3 HDTVs and believe a 2Hoppers/1Joey system is a huge upgrade and has lower fees.


----------



## garys (Nov 4, 2005)

1 722, 1 622 and 1 211 with Dvr fee should be $27. 2 Hopper, 1 Joey should be $24 so it should be less expensive even more so if you have an EHD on the 211, one-time $40. H/J would allow easier use of all recordings to each tv.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

722, 622, 211 - $6 DVR, $17 622, $7 211, total $30.


----------



## garys (Nov 4, 2005)

patmurphey said:


> 722, 622, 211 - $6 DVR, $17 622, $7 211, total $30.


Yes, you are right, I keep thinking $14 instead of $17.


----------

