# Are we reaching a tipping point in regards to cost??



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

I thought I would start a fresh thread on this, it has been brought up in other threads a fair amount lately. Are we reaching a point where the cost/value equation of pay TV just does not make sense anymore? I am not referring to the economy and 'I cant afford it because my pay was cut', but the actual value of what you get. I realize there are circumstances such as being housebound where TV is about your main connection with the outside world,but for the average person who watches 2 or 3 hours a night with a good chunk of that being available OTA is the value there? 

i admit I have been evaluating this a lot myself lately, while I still have a year left in my latest commitment I could be leaving when that is up. I cant do without a DVR, but a TiVo subscription is only about what the DVR fee is and I can get the majority of what I 'must' watch that is not available OTA, online

How it works out for me is $1000+/yr for DirecTV or about $300/yr for TiVo sub plus online subscriptions? Is what I would be giving up worth$700/yr?? I'm honestly not sure it is...


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

When it is more than my mortgage, I will have to weigh which is more important.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

I think you are right on the money longrider....

I flip the channels and I get more commericals than program content it seems thesedays...Even if you want to watch a say National Geo program, I would bet that more than half the alloted time is commercials.

I am certainly going to consider dropping D* and not having any pay service in the next couple of years. The content doesn't seem worth it anymore.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

If you are a sports fan, you won't drop pay TV because more and more of the sports is showing up on Regional $ports Networks and E$PN and less on Over-The-Air. Gee, guess which are the most expensive "regular" channels on a per-subscriber basis?

When I initially subscribed to DirecTV, it was on one of those annual "NFL Sunday Ticket" deals with Total Choice Premium. Anyone care to guess how many NFL games I watched or TiVo-ed? None, partially because on Sundays at the time, I was working. As soon as the promotion was over, I switched to Total Choice Plus.

What is the channel I watch the most? Turner Classic Movies because of OAR and uncut movies. And, most of the movies are on DVD or BluRay now.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I will admit that I recently scrutinized my own bill to decide if I was using every service for which I'm paying. I don't think we're anywhere close to a tipping point, because people in this country place a huge value on entertainment. However, I can see a point where IPTV could take the place of a lot of the satellite-delivered content. That point is still far in the future for most subscribers, though.


----------



## Joe C (Mar 3, 2005)

I'm not at the tipping point yet. I have the grandfathered TC+ package with HD service. I have a total of 3 DVRs on my account. I have no use for sports programing and would drop E$PN on principle if it were possible.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

when its a choice of 4 ota channels only or satellite (no cable/fios/uverse,ect in town) then that tipping point is FAR away still.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Between BlackBerry and iphone data plans + plus the other costs, Directv costs, cable internet costs, rent, electric, blah blah blah, something has got to give or go. I guess if there is one thing I would have to give up..bye bye Dtv. Besides, I'm behind on my 'REAL" book reading.


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 18, 2006)

It is not necessarily even the rising cost that may be pushing things toward a tipping point. It's the abundance of other options that advancing technology provides. I can now see entire episodes through my computer (especially when connected to one of my HDTVs!) at about the same point that that new episodes are released. 

Even more options at Hulu. Then there's Netflix giving me access to entire seasons of shows, not to mention the ability to stream content. As these options become more viable, I can see cable/satellite being relegated to the same fate as the landline at some point - something that was unthinkable not that many years ago.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Joe C said:


> I'm not at the tipping point yet. I have the grandfathered TC+ package with HD service. I have a total of 3 DVRs on my account. I have no use for sports programing and would drop E$PN on principle if it were possible.


QFT, have 0 need for any sports related channel, they need to yank it and make it a option for those that want the stock sports related channels


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> QFT, have 0 need for any sports related channel, they need to yank it and make it a option for those that want the stock sports related channels


It's an option for those that don't want to watch it now .. Just like I have the option of not watching We or HGTV.


----------



## awblackmon (May 20, 2009)

Oh yeah, I hadn't thought about that. I don't watch sports. If there was a option of taking sports out of my package and I got a lower price, I would love it. Then those who want it can opt for the sports package to be added back, and that makes the price the same as they are paying now. I hate being forced to pay for something I just don't watch.


----------



## Max Mike (Oct 18, 2008)

Boston Fan said:


> It is not necessarily even the rising cost that may be pushing things toward a tipping point. It's the abundance of other options that advancing technology provides. I can now see entire episodes through my computer (especially when connected to one of my HDTVs!) at about the same point that that new episodes are released.
> 
> Even more options at Hulu. Then there's Netflix giving me access to entire seasons of shows, not to mention the ability to stream content. As these options become more viable, I can see cable/satellite being relegated to the same fate as the landline at some point - something that was unthinkable not that many years ago.


It is both... as cost rise the other options look a lot more attractive. For the $1300 a year DirecTV is costing me I can buy a lot of content from other providers and then thrown in the free options and DirecTV gets iffy.

I only really watch a handful of channels on DirecTV and no sports anymore I do not need or want all the other crap in my package. I am paying $80+ a month in program cost to watch about 10 different channels... give me a cheaper alternative way to get those channels/content and I am gone.


----------



## ronsanjim (Mar 19, 2008)

It's pretty much a captive audience out here in rural America, where OTA is not available. So I subscribe to the DNS, even though I hate the NY locals, but thats the only way to secure our favorite "network" programs. 

What I can do without are the cable, including sports, networks. And the cheapest is the Family or Preferred Choice package, or the $12.99 Basic. I realize prices must go up, everything usually does, so will make decisions based on the next round of Directv price adjustments. No matter what the "package" prices are, will keep the DNS, and the Direct service.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I will admit that I recently scrutinized my own bill to decide if I was using every service for which I'm paying. I don't think we're anywhere close to a tipping point, because people in this country place a huge value on entertainment. However, I can see a point where IPTV could take the place of a lot of the satellite-delivered content. That point is still far in the future for most subscribers, though.


I've got all the premium movie channels and ten HRs and my bill hovers around $200 a month depending on how much PPV my son and wife sneak in. I never use PPV myself. Last month's bill was $183, but I'm still getting credits for the torture I've endured. We watch a lot of TV, but I'm starting to watch a lot of shows on NetFlix both streamed by a Roku box and the DVDs. And I'm starting to wonder if I really need the premium channels. Yeah, the scripted shows on HBO and Showtime and Starz are great, but I can get the whole seasons on NetFlix.

I guess I'll just keep everything till the wife realizes how much we could save. If she ever does. 

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Boston Fan said:


> It is not necessarily even the rising cost that may be pushing things toward a tipping point. It's the abundance of other options that advancing technology provides. I can now see entire episodes through my computer (especially when connected to one of my HDTVs!) at about the same point that that new episodes are released.
> 
> Even more options at Hulu. Then there's Netflix giving me access to entire seasons of shows, not to mention the ability to stream content. As these options become more viable, I can see cable/satellite being relegated to the same fate as the landline at some point - something that was unthinkable not that many years ago.


As soon as I started using a Roku box the first thing I thought was, "Here is the future". The Roku isn't ready to replace HD DVRs yet, they don't have that much HD content and that's only in 720p, but in couple three years...

Rich


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

ronsanjim said:


> It's pretty much a captive audience out here in rural America, where OTA is not available. So I subscribe to the DNS, even though I hate the NY locals, but thats the only way to secure our favorite "network" programs.


I'm with you on that one. NY locals suck.

As far as the questions at hand, I don't think I am at the tipping point yet, as I am a huge Boston sports fan living in NY, but I sure would like a way to trim some of the fat from my bill. I probably watch 10-15 channels tops other than the sports packages (sub to NFLST, MLBEI, and NBALP). Seems crazy to have to pay for all of that junk I have no use for.

On a side note, I am surpirsed at just how many non-sports fans there are. So contradictory to my way of life.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

rich584 said:


> As soon as I started using a Roku box the first thing I thought was, "Here is the future". The Roku isn't ready to replace HD DVRs yet, they don't have that much HD content and that's only in 720p, but in couple three years...
> 
> Rich


A lot depends on how ips's decide to start charging for service. Right now everyone sees IPTV because it's cheap. If people start having to pay for metered bandwidth. TV will look a lot better again to most folks.

As to the OP I don't think we're anywhere near the tipping point yet. Cell phones are TV's are about the safest "luxury" items that will ever exist from a company perspective. People will give up a lot to still have them.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> I'm with you on that one. NY locals suck.
> 
> As far as the questions at hand, I don't think I am at the tipping point yet, as I am a huge Boston sports fan living in NY, but I sure would like a way to trim some of the fat from my bill. I probably watch 10-15 channels tops other than the sports packages (sub to NFLST, MLBEI, and NBALP). Seems crazy to have to pay for all of that junk I have no use for.
> 
> *On a side note, I am surpirsed at just how many non-sports fans there are. So contradictory to my way of life*.


You are kidding? There are plenty of people who couldn't care less about sports..I'm one. I record the Superbowl to be able to fast forward through the game and just watch the commercials. Just have better things to do with my time than to sit on the couch all day watching sports. To each there own.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> A lot depends on how ips's decide to start charging for service. Right now everyone sees IPTV because it's cheap. If people start having to pay for metered bandwidth. TV will look a lot better again to most folks.


Agreed. Twill be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next few years.

Rich

As to the OP I don't think we're anywhere near the tipping point yet. Cell phones are TV's are about the safest "luxury" items that will ever exist from a company perspective. People will give up a lot to still have them.[/QUOTE]


----------



## MartyS (Dec 29, 2006)

rich584 said:


> A
> 
> As to the OP I don't think we're anywhere near the tipping point yet. Cell phones are TV's are about the safest "luxury" items that will ever exist from a company perspective. People will give up a lot to still have them.


YEs, but when I find that the money I spend on the cell phone is getting me more bang for the buck than what I'm spending on TV, then I might consider what the options are.

I have lots of options where I live, but the best one for me is DirecTV. If I do reach a tipping point, then services will need to be cut. I may not pay for the NFL package. I may drop an infrequently used receiver, but I'll most likely stay with D*


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

If it weren't for my wife and daughter I would likely cut back to OTA (using BeyondTV as a free DVR) and Hulu via PlayOn through my Wii. Admittedly this only works as long as my DSL isn't metered, but until then it's still a good choice. For movies I would likely add NetFlix.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

BubblePuppy said:


> You are kidding? There are plenty of people who couldn't care less about sports..I'm one. I record the Superbowl to be able to fast forward through the game and just watch the commercials. Just have better things to do with my time than to sit on the couch all day watching sports. To each there own.


I didn't say there was anything wrong with not being a sports fan. Again, I said it was just so contradictory to my way of life. I guess growing up as a rabid sports fan, I have surrounded myself with like minded people.


----------



## iamqnow (Dec 26, 2007)

Joe C said:


> I'm not at the tipping point yet. I have the grandfathered TC+ package with HD service. I have a total of 3 DVRs on my account. I have no use for sports programing and would drop E$PN on principle if it were possible.


Me too. I have no sports packages and that is what seems to make D* popular for so many subscribers.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> A lot depends on how ips's decide to start charging for service. Right now everyone sees IPTV because it's cheap. If people start having to pay for metered bandwidth. TV will look a lot better again to most folks.
> QUOTE]
> 
> IP metering will happen. The proliferation of IPTV will be the cause for it to happen. IPTV is only good for those with super fast connection speeds, that is if you want the same quality HD picture as OTA, FIOS or satellite. Be very, very careful what you wish for. No matter how content is delivered the cost will go up.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

As to the OP I don't think we're anywhere near the tipping point yet. Cell phones are TV's are about the safest "luxury" items that will ever exist from a company perspective. People will give up a lot to still have them.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

I gave up my cell and dont miss it a bit.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

hilmar2k said:


> On a side note, I am surpirsed at just how many non-sports fans there are. So contradictory to my way of life.


Yep, I'm another person who doesn't need the sports channels, and would be willing to drop them if I could reduce my monthly bill.

I realize for many having the sports programming is essential, and a large part of, if not entirely, why they are DirecTV subscribers. That's great, and I'm glad the service is there for you. I just don't want to have to pay for it as part of my recurring cost.


----------



## texasmoose (May 25, 2007)

Other countries offer their citizens many free options without every having to pay any of their hard earned $$ for their TV viewing. But here in the states we are obsessed with our entertainment/sports to the point that we will pay a premium to enjoy what it is we enjoy. But these various vendors will charge whatever the market will bear, and until we speak up or rise up that we're fed up with shelling out so many benjamins per month, they will continue to gouge us. If it wasn't for D* outstanding sports coverage, my wife & I would've left long ago to OTA/Netflix/DTVPal HD-DVR and other streaming options from the web.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

carl6 said:


> I realize for many having the sports programming is essential, and a large part of, if not entirely, why they are DirecTV subscribers. That's great, and I'm glad the service is there for you. I just don't want to have to pay for it as part of my recurring cost.


The bottom line is we are all paying for service we don't want. Certainly no reason to single out sports. I could do without 3/4 of the channels that I am paying for as part of my recurring cost.

A la carte seems like the only solution to that.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

longrider said:


> ... and I can get the majority of what I 'must' watch that is not available OTA, online
> 
> ... Is what I would be giving up worth$700/yr?? I'm honestly not sure it is...


It wouldn't be worth it to me. But I get nothing OTA, myself, so I've be giving up all TV, if I dropped D*.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> It's an option for those that don't want to watch it now .. Just like I have the option of not watching We or HGTV.


I do utilize that option, but it is a waste of bandwidth and subscription costs for some people. Same as shopping networks, but at least they assist in paying the cost of the bandwidth


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

biggest issue I have with streaming is there is no infrastructure here to support it. 3M dsl is fastest in area and its hard to watch tv over that.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

With HULU, netflix, and since most of the shows I watch are OTA (Except for Sons of Anarchy, and Dark Blue) I have been contemplating using my SWM to get my OTA through out my house and investing in a couple DTVPAls a couple media extenders and moving my pc next to my main tv (It has OTA and will DVR shows too). If I do I have 2 owned R22s and 1 owned HR22 and 1 owned HR23 that will pop up for sale....


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

texasmoose said:


> Other countries offer their citizens many free options without every having to pay any of their hard earned $$ for their TV viewing. But here in the states we are obsessed with our entertainment/sports to the point that we will pay a premium to enjoy what it is we enjoy. But these various vendors will charge whatever the market will bear, and until we speak up or rise up that we're fed up with shelling out so many benjamins per month, they will continue to gouge us. If it wasn't for D* outstanding sports coverage, my wife & I would've left long ago to OTA/Netflix/DTVPal HD-DVR and other streaming options from the web.


This country has "free" TV, too - put up an antenna.

When you say "Free" of course you mean taxpayer funded? There's no such thing as a free lunch.


----------



## wmj5 (Aug 26, 2007)

I have been with D* since 1995, and I am like a lot of other people, I don't watch sports and very few movies, some times I wonder what I am paying D* far, I haven't rented a movie from D* in over 10 yrs. I have a sony dvd player and ever day I go get dinner I go right by a place that rents them, I have a brand new tv antenna and I don't think I would loose very much if I just started comming off that, at least it's free (now),what gets me is D* charges you for a package and say you have x amont of hd channels in that package then they turn around and charge $10.00 per month to watch hd, thats a little like double dipping, but somebody has to pay to put those birds up there.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hilmar2k said:


> The bottom line is we are all paying for service we don't want. Certainly no reason to single out sports. I could do without 3/4 of the channels that I am paying for as part of my recurring cost.
> 
> A la carte seems like the only solution to that.


I've been hoping for an a la carte option for years. All I watch, with a few exceptions such as _Mad Men_, is HD programming and I've got so many channels that are not used.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

David MacLeod said:


> biggest issue I have with streaming is there is no infrastructure here to support it. 3M dsl is fastest in area and its hard to watch tv over that.


And yet, I'd love to live in Maine. Been there, like it. And D* seems as if it's the perfect fit. Here in Central NJ, I can get 56 channels on OTA and I have no idea what they are. Been meaning to run a line to the antenna in the attic, but haven't gotten around to it.

Rich


----------



## Joe C (Mar 3, 2005)

hilmar2k said:


> The bottom line is we are all paying for service we don't want. Certainly no reason to single out sports. I could do without 3/4 of the channels that I am paying for as part of my recurring cost.
> 
> A la carte seems like the only solution to that.


You are correct but channels like e$pn do charge the providers more to carry them then any other channel on the system.


----------



## soloredd (Oct 21, 2007)

I've reached a tipping point when it comes to premium channels (HBO, MAX, Starz). I just do not get the value out of them. As was mentioned earlier, you can get the shows on DVD or even iTunes. What irks me is the amount of times per day a movie is run. 3-4 times a day is a bit too much. There are so many movies out there they could run, I don't need to see Pirates of the Caribbean every day for two weeks. That's always been my gripe with HBO, though, and now that there are alternatives (iTunes, Netflix) it really doesn't make sense to keep the channels. 

All I need is the sports package and my wife could care less what we have beyond E!, Bravo, Discovery, etc. What cracks me up is there is absolutely no way to get the bill under $100 when you have HD with Choice Xtra DVR.


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

One OTA channel, 250K internet that's spotty at best. I really don't have a choice other than no TV but I can't stand paying for all the channels that are useless to me. I would rather pay more per channel for A la carte than have to pay for channels and radio I NEVER tune to.


----------



## Dazed & Confused (Jun 13, 2007)

If I were on a tight budget, there would be no way to justify the cost of my TV viewing. I have that $75ish plan whatever it is called, NFL ST, MLB EI, the Sports Pack, and 2 HD DVR's. Those things alone make my TV viewing cost $1+/hour of viewing, which kind of seems excessive.:lol: However, I want to watch what I want to watch, when I want to watch it, so DirecTV will be able to continue smiling all the way to the bank on me. Convenience is worth a lot to me, and frankly, I could easily cash in ST if money ever became an issue.

The best entertainment value for the dollar is my $10.99/mth Netflix subscription. The hard copy Blu-Rays plus streaming throught the PS3 more than satisfy my movie appetite.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Dazed & Confused said:


> If I were on a tight budget, there would be no way to justify the cost of my TV viewing. I have that $75ish plan whatever it is called, NFL ST, MLB EI, the Sports Pack, and 2 HD DVR's. Those things alone make my TV viewing cost $1+/hour of viewing, which kind of seems excessive.:lol: However, I want to watch what I want to watch, when I want to watch it, so DirecTV will be able to continue smiling all the way to the bank on me. Convenience is worth a lot to me, and frankly, I could easily cash in ST if money ever became an issue.
> 
> The best entertainment value for the dollar is my $10.99/mth Netflix subscription. The hard copy Blu-Rays plus streaming throught the PS3 more than satisfy my movie appetite.


I'm on my second Roku and I'm gonna send it back. Not enough HD content and I'm not gonna watch SD, HD has spoiled me. NetFlix should do something to upgrade their streaming resolution and increase the number of 720p programs that they stream. I'd much rather increase my NetFlix sub to the highest level than put up with streaming SD. And crappy 720p movies. In two months, I've found one movie that I watched all the way thru.

Rich


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

I too don't really watch sports too often. It's been less and less as time goes by. I guess with age comes wisdom, and that wisdom tells me that they aren't worth the $.

I'd also like to see D* offer an option to remove sports channels from my package. If it could save me 15 or 20 per mo, I wouldn't miss them one bit.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

If you don't watch movies or sports, if you really like living in the belly of an urban hub-bub with all that comes with that - dropping off the satellite may make sense.

I live in a state with less population than the cities some of you call home. The biggest city has 5 "major" channels including PBS + a clot of Spanish soap opera channels, religion channels and matching English religion channels - all tacked on to OTA.

That produces a couple hours of watchable TV a day - maybe 5 days a week.

That's fine if you don't care for more choices than existed in 1959.

Why own a TV, then?


----------



## HerntDawg (Oct 6, 2008)

longrider said:


> I thought I would start a fresh thread on this, it has been brought up in other threads a fair amount lately. Are we reaching a point where the cost/value equation of pay TV just does not make sense anymore? I am not referring to the economy and 'I cant afford it because my pay was cut', but the actual value of what you get. I realize there are circumstances such as being housebound where TV is about your main connection with the outside world,but for the average person who watches 2 or 3 hours a night with a good chunk of that being available OTA is the value there?
> 
> i admit I have been evaluating this a lot myself lately, while I still have a year left in my latest commitment I could be leaving when that is up. I cant do without a DVR, but a TiVo subscription is only about what the DVR fee is and I can get the majority of what I 'must' watch that is not available OTA, online
> 
> How it works out for me is $1000+/yr for DirecTV or about $300/yr for TiVo sub plus online subscriptions? Is what I would be giving up worth$700/yr?? I'm honestly not sure it is...


If you can get what you want OTA then do it. i cannot.


----------



## scr (Feb 5, 2008)

I'm a full time RVer so OTA is pretty much out of the question. Most times I get about one or two watchable OTA channels.

When the price goes up again I will pay it, but I may trim what I watch to keep in budget.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Boston Fan said:


> It is not necessarily even the rising cost that may be pushing things toward a tipping point. It's the abundance of other options that advancing technology provides. I can now see entire episodes through my computer (especially when connected to one of my HDTVs!) at about the same point that that new episodes are released.
> 
> Even more options at Hulu. Then there's Netflix giving me access to entire seasons of shows, not to mention the ability to stream content. As these options become more viable, I can see cable/satellite being relegated to the same fate as the landline at some point - something that was unthinkable not that many years ago.


Hopefully HULU will stay free, otherwise I won't pay. Isn't that called double dipping?


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

carl6 said:


> Yep, I'm another person who doesn't need the sports channels, and would be willing to drop them if I could reduce my monthly bill.
> 
> I realize for many having the sports programming is essential, and a large part of, if not entirely, why they are DirecTV subscribers. That's great, and I'm glad the service is there for you. I just don't want to have to pay for it as part of my recurring cost.


I think you would have to agree that its still the best answer to get us all the channels we want. I am sure I pay for some channels I dont like that you love to. All in all I think it benifits us all more to share the costs. With more people paying for the channels the more they can add at a lower cost. In my opinion it benifits everyone this way.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Ed Campbell said:


> I live in a state with less population than the cities some of you call home. The biggest city has 5 "major" channels including PBS + a clot of Spanish soap opera channels, religion channels and matching English religion channels - all tacked on to OTA.
> 
> That produces a couple hours of watchable TV a day - maybe 5 days a week.
> 
> ...


It's definitely a situation you wouldn't want to go into "naked". Either a HTPC or the Echostar ATSC DVR for subscription free or TiVo HD for $13/mo. so that you're not stuck with viewing whatever happens to be on. Then a Netflix sub to supplement that. Even that TiVo/Netflix option would be under $23/mo., but that doesn't disprove your premise that if you feel like "all these channels and nothing on" describes your cable/sat situation, it's nothing compared to OTA.


----------



## chhc84 (Oct 2, 2009)

longrider said:


> i thought i would start a fresh thread on this, it has been brought up in other threads a fair amount lately. Are we reaching a point where the cost/value equation of pay tv just does not make sense anymore? I am not referring to the economy and 'i cant afford it because my pay was cut', but the actual value of what you get. I realize there are circumstances such as being housebound where tv is about your main connection with the outside world,but for the average person who watches 2 or 3 hours a night with a good chunk of that being available ota is the value there?
> 
> I admit i have been evaluating this a lot myself lately, while i still have a year left in my latest commitment i could be leaving when that is up. I cant do without a dvr, but a tivo subscription is only about what the dvr fee is and i can get the majority of what i 'must' watch that is not available ota, online
> 
> how it works out for me is $1000+/yr for directv or about $300/yr for tivo sub plus online subscriptions? Is what i would be giving up worth$700/yr?? I'm honestly not sure it is...


give us ALL of the channels listed below with no price increase and then we would have value for the high prices we are paying for DirecTV

- arts
classic arts showcase
colours

- animation
funimation

- etc
american life tv network
america one
bluehighwaystv
familynet
lifetime real women
military history channel
superstations

- movie = premium
- cinemax
@ max
5 star max
action max
outer max
thriller max
w max
- epix
- hbo
comedy
zone
- showtime
beyond
family zone
next
women
- starz
cinema
indieplex
retroplex
- tmc xtra

- music
cmt
pure country
eye music network
harmony channel
imf
soundtrack channel

- public interest
cspan 3
documentary channel
free speech tv
good samaritan network
link media
pentagon channel
research channel
starfish tv network

- sports
blackbelt tv
mavtv
the america channel
the fight network
the horsetv channel
the racing network
versus / universal sports
water channel
world fishing network


----------



## Boston_bill (Jul 23, 2009)

hilmar2k said:


> The bottom line is we are all paying for service we don't want. Certainly no reason to single out sports. I could do without 3/4 of the channels that I am paying for as part of my recurring cost.
> 
> A la carte seems like the only solution to that.


I'd agree with that. I'm my own worst enemy and I pay big bucks every month. I pay for the sports pack mostly for SNY during baseball season. The rest of it I hardly watch. I can think of quite a few channels I wouldnt miss.

PS it infuriates me when certain programs are blacked out on the RSN's.


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 18, 2006)

Paul Secic said:


> Hopefully HULU will stay free, otherwise I won't pay. Isn't that called double dipping?


Where's the double-dip?


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

joshjr said:


> I think you would have to agree that its still the best answer to get us all the channels we want. I am sure I pay for some channels I dont like that you love to. All in all I think it benifits us all more to share the costs. With more people paying for the channels the more they can add at a lower cost. In my opinion it benifits everyone this way.


In general I do agree with that. Further, I would expect a la carte to actually end up being more expensive if it were to be implemented, unless you had an extremelly limited selection of channels.

However, if there is a particular channel with a specific focus (and my comment is not limited to just sports) that is substantially more costly for DirecTV to provide, and there is sufficient demand to provide it, then I feel that it would be fair to make those that desire that channel to pay a premium for it. I am currently paying such a premium for HBO and also for the HD Extra Pack, for two specific examples. The broader Sports supplement is a premium subscription. However, all of those examples are of groups of channels as opposed to a specific channel, so I agree it isn't entirely apples to apples.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

I am sure they could come up with a better solution but for the most part it would be alot more expensive like you said for a la carte. The sports channels being seperate including ESPN and all sports channels that are not in the sports pack would greatly increase. Can you imagine the price they are getting per sub and when you shrink the subs down the price would go through the roof making alot of people not want to pay it. Even though its not a perfect solution it works pretty decent at least from D*'s point of view. It allows them to give alot of channels that appeal to a broader group that all contribute to the costs. Maybe not the most effective method but not bad either. I would be open to changes. I would not mind paying more for the sports I love but if the cost were to jump a ton just for ESPN then no I would not want to do it. I have to say that it does not bother me to pay for channels I dont watch that others do in the packages we have. Thats just kind of how it goes. Time will tell. At some point the packages will change to something different.


----------



## Darcaine (Aug 31, 2009)

I too would like an a la carte plan. There's probably 5 cable channels I'd subscribe to.

AMC
FX
Syfy
NeoGeo
and USA Networks.

Give me those 5 channels and the four major networks and I have more than enough content to keep me entertained through 90% of the year.

I'll jump ship to IPTV as soon as it's a viable alternative for me.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Unfortunately you'd probably end up paying 75% as much for just those three channels as you do now. There are a lot of reasons a la carte would be cool and an equal number why it just won't work.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

What i am looking for is a package that will work for about 50 bucks,this is the closest i can get.

Family
HD acess
HD extra pack
Dvr service
I would do it in a minute if it included History Ch.

Also looking into the basic international package.


----------



## Darcaine (Aug 31, 2009)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Unfortunately you'd probably end up paying 75% as much for just those three channels as you do now. There are a lot of reasons a la carte would be cool and an equal number why it just won't work.


If I'm paying 25% less than I am now though, it would still be a more attractive alternative to me. 25% more for unused content, or 25% less. Not a hard choice.

I'm just simply not interested in 98% of what Directv or any cable/satellite service provider offers, so any amount of money saved from not having to subscribe to that unused content is a benefit.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

I looked at my DirecTV bill and even including some credits I'm still over $2K per year for hardware and programming. I think that once they announce the 2010 price increases it's time for a hard look at what can be eliminated.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

If ala carte were to even come into the scenario, which I don't see it doing for atleast 5 years, all they would offer are the packages as offered to the provider. So that means you're still going to get tons of fluff you don't want because viacom will package all their channels together to keep their subscriber counts up to help with revenue. All providers will still give you all the free and public access they are required to carry. Most people wouldn't see much of a change really.


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Unfortunately you'd probably end up paying 75% as much for just those three channels as you do now. There are a lot of reasons a la carte would be cool and an equal number why it just won't work.


Worked for C-Band, I don't see why it wouldn't work for DTV


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

BKC said:


> Worked for C-Band, I don't see why it wouldn't work for DTV


How well is C-band doing these days? There are also more channels by less owners than C-band in it's hey day.


----------



## Darcaine (Aug 31, 2009)

Shades228 said:


> If ala carte were to even come into the scenario, which I don't see it doing for atleast 5 years, all they would offer are the packages as offered to the provider. So that means you're still going to get tons of fluff you don't want because viacom will package all their channels together to keep their subscriber counts up to help with revenue. All providers will still give you all the free and public access they are required to carry. Most people wouldn't see much of a change really.


Which is why I don't believe Directv can afford to keep me as a long term subscriber. Once IPTV takes off and I have all my favorite shows at the click of a mouse button on the night they air, there will be little incentive to subscribe to a "live" service that's pushing content on me that I don't want.

As for metered bandwidth, Comcast now has a huge stake in internet access, content creation and content delivery (assuming the NBC/U deal goes through, but lets face it, no one is going to step in and stop it). I'm sure they will offer an IPTV package that includes the bandwidth to deliver it. I'd pay a monthly fee for something like Hulu if it meant I was getting all the shows I like on the night they air, without having to pay extra for 200 channels I'm not watching.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Darcaine said:


> Which is why I don't believe Directv can afford to keep me as a long term subscriber. Once IPTV takes off and I have all my favorite shows at the click of a mouse button on the night they air, there will be little incentive to subscribe to a "live" service that's pushing content on me that I don't want.
> 
> As for metered bandwidth, Comcast now has a huge stake in internet access, content creation and content delivery (assuming the NBC/U deal goes through, but lets face it, no one is going to step in and stop it). I'm sure they will offer an IPTV package that includes the bandwidth to deliver it. I'd pay a monthly fee for something like Hulu if it meant I was getting all the shows I like on the night they air, without having to pay extra for 200 channels I'm not watching.


You're making some rather large assumptions. You're assuming that everything will get cheaper. It won't. IPTV will eventually become a profit business model. Hulu will charge a premium and eventually shows themself will charge for the "top 5" in order to recoup the cost they will have to eat for not getting the same retrans costs. Remember if they devalue something then other prices go down as well. You're not looking at it from a business model you're looking at it in today's model with what it could do for you.

IPTV has a long way to go before it can compete with any DBS or cable provider.


----------



## thomas_d92 (Nov 29, 2004)

I had Starchoice for a while and they let you buy buy a channel for $2.98 and they let you pick themes of programing with about 5 channels to a theme. Why can't providers in the U.S. do the same thing?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

thomas_d92 said:


> I had Starchoice for a while and they let you buy buy a channel for $2.98 and they let you pick themes of programing with about 5 channels to a theme. Why can't providers in the U.S. do the same thing?


Depending on the country Starchoice is from it would be a difference of free market vs government regulated systems.


----------



## Darcaine (Aug 31, 2009)

Shades228 said:


> You're making some rather large assumptions. You're assuming that everything will get cheaper. It won't. IPTV will eventually become a profit business model. Hulu will charge a premium and eventually shows themself will charge for the "top 5" in order to recoup the cost they will have to eat for not getting the same retrans costs. Remember if they devalue something then other prices go down as well. You're not looking at it from a business model you're looking at it in today's model with what it could do for you.
> 
> IPTV has a long way to go before it can compete with any DBS or cable provider.


I never said IPTV would continue to be free. Infact, I said I'd be willing to pay a premium for IPTV that allows me to only pay for the shows I watch.


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> How well is C-band doing these days? There are also more channels by less owners than C-band in it's hey day.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess C-Band isn't doing all that well because of the 10' dish you had to have.......


----------



## photostudent (Nov 8, 2007)

I think there is always a tipping point for the average subscriber as long as alternatives exist. I started out years ago with premium movie channels and lots of PPV rentals. Now all my movies come from Redbox. I think any IPTV fee structures will be ala carte. "Free Market" means letting people buy what they want. It has worked for Itunes despite the original naysayers.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Unfortunately you'd probably end up paying 75% as much for just those three channels as you do now. There are a lot of reasons a la carte would be cool and an equal number why it just won't work.


As much as I'd like a la carte, I agree. We'd end up spending more than we are now.

For those of you who think we're spending a lot of money for D*, I've tried all the other providers and D* really gives you more bang for your buck. I pay about $200 a month give or take, and the other providers can't match that price, can't even come close. Cablevision has been taking a real run at me the last couple months and for me to switch and have a comparable set up it would cost me $200 a month just to match the number of tuners on my DVRs, never mind the packages. Dish wanted about $3,000 just to match my DVRs. To match my recording capacity, FIOS would be ridiculously expensive. What else is there?

I've tried the Roku boxes. Not the answer. Yet.

Rich


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Shades228 said:


> If ala carte were to even come into the scenario, which I don't see it doing for atleast 5 years, all they would offer are the packages as offered to the provider. So that means you're still going to get tons of fluff you don't want because viacom will package all their channels together to keep their subscriber counts up to help with revenue. All providers will still give you all the free and public access they are required to carry. Most people wouldn't see much of a change really.


Broadcasters wouldn't stand for an ala carte system because they'd loose billions.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Paul Secic said:


> Broadcasters wouldn't stand for an ala carte system because they'd loose billions.


No they wouldn't they would just make customers purchase the same channels that the providers have to purchase. They wouldn't see channels individually. You could add the "viacom pack" and it would be all of viacoms channels. Disney could package different content and then offer an all disney package. The bottom line is though they will charge more because of this. People will have a perceived notion of savings. The biggest thing it will drive will be more acquisitions to better offer like services in packages from 1 company.


----------



## Terry K (Sep 13, 2006)

My issue is with the QUALITY of the stuff there is out there. I'd dump 90% of the channels I get due to repetition (How many episodes of COPS do I care to see every day?) and the fact that few if any cable channels stay true to what they were. Look at anything Viacom programs...nothing but reality garbage 24 hours a day...

I'd rather have 100 channels of variety than 200 channels of repetition.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Terry K said:


> My issue is with the QUALITY of the stuff there is out there. I'd dump 90% of the channels I get due to repetition (How many episodes of COPS do I care to see every day?) and the fact that few if any cable channels stay true to what they were. Look at anything Viacom programs...nothing but reality garbage 24 hours a day...
> 
> I'd rather have 100 channels of variety than 200 channels of repetition.


This is where the biggest issue will come from. You still will have to have the garbage channels. Say you just want Discovery channel. Discovery communications will sell that for $8 a month for the single channel. However you can get the Discovery Suite for $16. Well your wife wants TLC and that's $8 so you get the Suite and "save" money. Now you have 13 channels instead of the 2. This goes for all providers. They know only a few of their channels demand top pricing but they need ad revenue from the other channels as well. So they give discounts to the DBS/Cable companies for carrying all of them.

The only good thing ala carte would do are for people who don't like specific types of programming like sports or history channels or movies. Then it would benefit them if they could get the programming they want for cheaper than current programming.


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

After many years of Satellite TV and keeping every channel I could receive in the guide, last week I filtered out every shopping, informercial, religious and spanish channel. I can now surf the guide more quickly but there is still a lot of crap I could do without.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

We have not yet "crossed the rubicon."

No idea what that means....it just sounds cool.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dcowboy7 said:


> We have not yet "crossed the rubicon."
> 
> No idea what that means....it just sounds cool.


I think that's what Tony Romo says when the Cowboys enter the Red Zone. 

But in seriousness...the mix of choices going forward (new HD content in 2010) may drive this as well.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

IMO we have crossed the threshold. Right now many people are looking at what they can cut, in the last few months they cut back on shopping, stopped buying Luxury items, then moved on to cutting out going out to eat at fancy resturants and expensive entertainment vacations etc.

We are now going into stage two, where people start to realize that the "Good Old" days are not coming back anytime soon so reality check starts to settle in for the smart people, the people in Denial will keep going till there on the sidewalk looking for a Box to live in but the smart people are now looking at some Luxury items to cut.

$110 a month for TV
$100 For Cell phone service
$50 For Internet

Thats $260+ a month that can be trimmed a bit.

So yes soon there will be a lot of package down grading going on or switches from more expensive providers to cheaper ones.

The good News is that I would bet right after this trend starts the above mentioned providers will all start to recognize the importance of long standing customers and start giving us the kind of deals that Newly signed up people get.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

dreadlk said:


> IMO we have crossed the threshold. Right now many people are looking at what they can cut, in the last few months they cut back on shopping, stopped buying Luxury items, then moved on to cutting out going out to eat at fancy resturants and expensive entertainment vacations etc.
> 
> We are now going into stage two, where people start to realize that the "Good Old" days are not coming back anytime soon so reality check starts to settle in for the smart people, the people in Denial will keep going till there on the sidewalk looking for a Box to live in but the smart people are now looking at some Luxury items to cut.
> 
> ...


Companies will trim new customer offers before they open up new customer offers to existing customers. This is also a company by company thing. Some companies are fine right now and are having no issues increasing sub counts and ARPU.

In terms of DirecTV they already stated that they had higher churn because they tightened up credits. This means they wanted to keep customers who could afford the service at their price.

People consider these luxuries a necessity now. Our mindset won't be changed in a couple of years of hardship. I'm betting the people who had those 3 services while going through a house foreclosure are higher than you think.


----------



## JcT21 (Nov 30, 2004)

carl6 said:


> Yep, I'm another person who doesn't need the sports channels, and would be willing to drop them if I could reduce my monthly bill.
> 
> I realize for many having the sports programming is essential, and a large part of, if not entirely, why they are DirecTV subscribers. That's great, and I'm glad the service is there for you. I just don't want to have to pay for it as part of my recurring cost.


i couldnt agree more. i can certainly do without the sports channels also. i like the idea that one poster had about making it a choice and those of us who dont like sports can choose to not have them in our package for a lower price. or something like that anyway


----------



## zopewolk (Dec 10, 2009)

chhc84 said:


> give us ALL of the channels listed below with no price increase and then we would have value for the high prices we are paying for DirecTV
> 
> - arts
> classic arts showcase
> ...


WOW! That is a huge list of channels we do not get.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

JcT21 said:


> i couldnt agree more. i can certainly do without the sports channels also. i like the idea that one poster had about making it a choice and those of us who dont like sports can choose to not have them in our package for a lower price. or something like that anyway


For most of the time, I don't need any sports channels, and I'm not talking about NFL ST and other subscriptions, but ESPN, RSN's, etc. The problem is, I do like college football (SEC, specifically Auburn and Alabama). Without the "basic" sports channels, I'd miss too much. I don't often watch TBS, TNT, FX, etc. either, but sometimes I find myself tuning in for a specific show. Without that options, I might find myself with nothing to watch, or having to settle for something else. I guess my point is, I don't really see a need _for me_ to have a la carte programming.


----------



## beagle4546 (Dec 10, 2009)

As a long time DTV subscriber (1997) I was sorry to end my service but I just couldn't see the value in paying $75/month. Broadcast OTA and internet tv can easily provide me with my one to two hours of daily viewing. In fact I found a number of nice savings that really involved no serious sacrifices...

Landline phone to Magicjack VOIP => Save $48/Month
Cell phone plan to prepaid phone => Save $46/Month
DirecTV to OTA and internet => Save $75/Month

That's a savings of $169/Month or $2,028/Year. Real money in my book. Low cost alternatives are out there and people will vote with their wallets!


----------



## Ganome_Danome (Dec 10, 2009)

beagle4546 said:


> As a long time DTV subscriber (1997) I was sorry to end my service but I just couldn't see the value in paying $75/month. Broadcast OTA and internet tv can easily provide me with my one to two hours of daily viewing. In fact I found a number of nice savings that really involved no serious sacrifices...
> 
> Landline phone to Magicjack VOIP => Save $48/Month
> Cell phone plan to prepaid phone => Save $46/Month
> ...


I have seriously been contemplating switching to OTA/IPTV for some time now. I have comcast cable internet and could get their basic cable package for 10 bucks more a month and wouldn't even need to hassle with an OTA antenna.

Plus having to pay extra for a STB when I have a computer that could fill that role better than their crappy DVRs can doesn't sit very well with me.

This upcoming year will be very telling with Comcast buying NBC and having a huge stake in Hulu. They claim they are gonna leave Hulu free and block premium content behind their paid IPTV service (forget the name of it now), so I'm waiting to see how that pans out before I make any permanent changes.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> Companies will trim new customer offers before they open up new customer offers to existing customers. This is also a company by company thing. Some companies are fine right now and are having no issues increasing sub counts and ARPU.
> 
> In terms of DirecTV they already stated that they had higher churn because they tightened up credits. This means they wanted to keep customers who could afford the service at their price.
> 
> People consider these luxuries a necessity now. Our mindset won't be changed in a couple of years of hardship. I'm betting the people who had those 3 services while going through a house foreclosure are higher than you think.


I am not sure if you are surrounded by a really wealthy group of people or what, but I know many many people from both work, church etc. that are all cutting back. Some of them have well paying Jobs but they are worried that they may not have them in 6 months so they are saving, cutting back and being overall very cautious, even going so far as to investing there money into Gold. I can tell you that many of them are not entertaining words like Platinum package, they are getting Rid of all excesses.

Now Directv may want to do nothing, but I bet when Charlie starts to make his fantastic deals and D* see's there numbers dropping, the management at D* will start to make some pretty good offers


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

dreadlk said:


> I am not sure if you are surrounded by a really wealthy group of people or what, but I know many many people from both work, church etc. that are all cutting back. Some of them have well paying Jobs but they are worried that they may not have them in 6 months so they are saving, cutting back and being overall very cautious, even going so far as to investing there money into Gold. I can tell you that many of them are not entertaining words like Platinum package, they are getting Rid of all excesses.
> 
> Now Directv may want to do nothing, but I bet when Charlie starts to make his fantastic deals and D* see's there numbers dropping, the management at D* will start to make some pretty good offers


How much more 'fantastic deals' does Charlie need to start making? He's already did a HD only package, he's done Cinemax for a penny a year, he giving a HD DVR and two HD STB's away for free. IMHO he's done a bunch of fantastic deals and still trails DirecTV, maybe he needs to give AEP and HD away for free for a year


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

It will be Interesting what Chalries numbers are like for the Last Quater. I have heard a few people switching over to E* so I got a feeling he's not doing badly right now.


----------



## HerntDawg (Oct 6, 2008)

photostudent said:


> I think there is always a tipping point for the average subscriber as long as alternatives exist. I started out years ago with premium movie channels and lots of PPV rentals. Now all my movies come from Redbox. I think any IPTV fee structures will be ala carte. "Free Market" means letting people buy what they want. It has worked for Itunes despite the original naysayers.


Thankfully i have only one itunes person in my house, everyone else goes elsewhere. While itunes is convenient and "popular" it is not economically wise.


----------



## Darcaine (Aug 31, 2009)

HerntDawg said:


> Thankfully i have only one itunes person in my house, everyone else goes elsewhere. While itunes is convenient and "popular" it is not economically wise.


Depends on if you only care about 1 or 2 two shows or a ton of shows.

If my main source of entertainment was TV then I'd agree, iptv, and especially Itunes, would be a major rip off.

But if you only care about 1 or 2 cable TV shows, then subscribing to DTV is the economically unwise thing to do.

At a dollar an episode, 13 episodes of Mad Men, and Breaking Bad spread out over 3 months = 8 dollars a month for both shows. If those are the only two shows I care about, then it would be an utter waste of money to subscribe to a satellite/cable service. Even at 2 dollars an episode, it's still cheaper. Plus you get the benefit of owning the episodes you pay for, something DTV will never offer. (Note that I don't know if these shows are actually available for sale on Itunes, just using them as an example as they are the shows I'd most likely buy given an al a carte format).

DTV and other services like it are only worth the money if you watch a lot of tv on a lot of different channels. I have maybe 6 or 7 cable shows across 5 channels throughout the year I care about (the rest are free on Network TV), it'll be much cheaper to pay a dollar or two an episode for 6 or 7 shows than it will to subscribe to a monthly service that doesn't offer me any choices in what I want to pay to watch.

2010 is going to be intersting. It'll most likely be the year I dump DTV for IPTV. Something I would have considered unfathomable 3 years ago.

I do agree that Itunes sucks though, and I'd never buy anything from Apple.


----------



## Jashobeam (Jul 10, 2005)

chhc84 said:


> give us ALL of the channels listed below with no price increase and then we would have value for the high prices we are paying for DirecTV


I would add Qubo and TVU to that list. I would also take out the fishing channel. My husband would never leave the TV again, lol. There are 4 inspirational channels I would also like including Cornerstone.

We are cutting back, also. As soon as our contract is up, I'm looking around to see which package can save us major $. I have a pre-paid cell which saves us a lot. We also dropped NetFlix and SkyAngel when SA changed over. My kid is in school now and we don't need the kids channels we get now with DirecTV (we can get Qubo and PBS Kids with an antenna and have more DVDs than I care to admit to).


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

I would cut my channels by 7/8 if they would cut my bill in half. You can't get much more fair than that


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

Ganome_Danome said:


> I have seriously been contemplating switching to OTA/IPTV for some time now. I have comcast cable internet and could get their basic cable package for 10 bucks more a month and wouldn't even need to hassle with an OTA antenna.
> 
> Plus having to pay extra for a STB when I have a computer that could fill that role better than their crappy DVRs can doesn't sit very well with me.
> 
> This upcoming year will be very telling with Comcast buying NBC and having a huge stake in Hulu. They claim they are gonna leave Hulu free and block premium content behind their paid IPTV service (forget the name of it now), so I'm waiting to see how that pans out before I make any permanent changes.


Your PC can be a DVR for *analog* cable, but when your cable company starts to remove more and more of them to digital only it's a different story.


----------



## sammib (Jun 13, 2007)

If we didn't have to pay for a bunch of channels we don't watch then it could be more reasonable. We should have an ala carte option. But that has to be passed by the Congress of the U.S. And that isn't going to happen since they are all corrupt SOBs and will be paid off by the industry to NOT pass such a law.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

dreadlk said:


> I am not sure if you are surrounded by a really wealthy group of people or what, but I know many many people from both work, church etc. that are all cutting back. Some of them have well paying Jobs but they are worried that they may not have them in 6 months so they are saving, cutting back and being overall very cautious, even going so far as to investing there money into Gold. I can tell you that many of them are not entertaining words like Platinum package, they are getting Rid of all excesses.
> 
> Now Directv may want to do nothing, but I bet when Charlie starts to make his fantastic deals and D* see's there numbers dropping, the management at D* will start to make some pretty good offers


Indeed dreadlk!

Sure there are always going to be a FEW who simply refuse to heed the reality of the economic times we live in, a few can afford to ignore things, but most cannot!

The economy is still in big trouble, folks are still being laid off right now. The true UE number is thought to be around 17-22%, and the only reason why the "official" UE number dropped last month is because those folks .2% simply gave up looking for work, thus they are dropped from the gov't stats.

Times are achanging and fast, I would bet that the overwhelming majority of all pay tv subscribers are looking at trimming excess costs where they can and still have basic tv or just a bit more .

Once you're off the new customer promos D* is not a very good value at all, UNLESS you are obsessed with sports.

It also is amazing to see all those channels we don't get that may be fairly standard elsewhere.

Yes, I have bought real gold as well.

As Kudrow stated on his CNBC show several weeks ago. The USD may be toast!


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> Depending on the country Starchoice is from it would be a difference of free market vs government regulated systems.


starchoice is Canada...... I agree government regulated markets are much better at driving costs down than a big corporate price fixing one... Someone has to fix prices, it should be someone who is elected by the consumers....


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> I am not sure if you are surrounded by a really wealthy group of people or what, but I know many many people from both work, church etc.


Well there's part of the problem, if you stop throwing money down black holes like churches you'd have more to spend on D* and more time to watch it....... <<Sarcastic>>> :lol:


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

sammib said:


> If we didn't have to pay for a bunch of channels we don't watch then it could be more reasonable. We should have an ala carte option. But that has to be passed by the Congress of the U.S. And that isn't going to happen since they are all corrupt SOBs and will be paid off by the industry to NOT pass such a law.


Some of us old timers had ala carte on C-band and they charged so much for each channel that by the time you designed your own little package it was about the same cost as if you just bought the regular package with those channels in it.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dodge boy said:


> Well there's part of the problem, if you stop throwing money down black holes like churches you'd have more to spend on D* and more time to watch it....... <<Sarcastic>>> :lol:


Wow!


----------



## Sneezy (Dec 18, 2006)

I am at the threshold. I don't watch a ton of TV so most of the channels are useless. $129/month with taxes ect.

I hate paying for HD's
I hate paying for DVR's (have 2).
I subscrible to the major networks out of NYC since we can't get the locals OTA.
Sports Monthly for the Yankees/Mets

The only, and I stress only reason I have DTV is because Time Warner can't deliver a reliable cable signal to my house. If I had TWC it would be about $70/month. TWC refuses to restring my neighborhood. Funny, my road runner works pretty well.


----------



## Darcaine (Aug 31, 2009)

kevinwmsn said:


> Your PC can be a DVR for *analog* cable, but when your cable company starts to remove more and more of them to digital only it's a different story.


http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_hvr1950.html

TV Standards

* NTSC Analog Cable, Over the Air TV
* ATSC Digital Over the Air HDTV
** Clear QAM Digital Cable TV*

Features

* Watch, pause and record TV on your PC or laptop, in window or full screen
* Watch ATSC HD digital TV, up to 1080i format
* Watch clear QAM digital cable TV up to 1080i format
* NTSC analog cable TV, 125 channel cable-ready tuner
** Record ATSC digital TV or clear QAM digital cable TV in the original digital quality*
* Dolby-TV stereo decoder
* Schedule TV recordings with WinTV-Scheduler software


----------

