# Do you wonder why DIRECTV raises our prices every year?



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

It seems odd to me that DIRECTV keeps raising prices every year. I guess it's to cover those rising costs of renewing contracts with the different networks. Isn't that the argument? I'm just wondering if there might be a different reason. It's interesting to note that their stock rose 90% in the past 2 years (see 1st attachment). And DIRECTV had a record year in 2010 and 2011 is starting off quite well. That's actually good for us, because we don't have to worry about the stability of our provider. 

I noticed that the executives' compensation reflects the companies good fortunes from last year as well. Lets take CEO Michael White as an example (see 2nd attachment). With stock options and incentives that he was granted last year, he didn't quite hit the $33 million mark, but $32,932,618 is awfully close. Anyone have $67,382 laying around that they can send him? Unfortunately for the rest of the exec's, they only hit 7 digit incomes.

So where did all the money from price hikes actually go? Was it all the new HD programming in 2010 that everyone has discussed in another thread? The rising cost of renewing programming contracts? What do you think?


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Rule #1 in capitalism: sell your product/service for the highest price that people will pay.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

RACJ2 said:


> It seems odd to me that DIRECTV keeps raising prices every year.


Really? I remember taking business and economics in my junior year of high school and that cleared a lot of things up for me. Once you get there, report back and let us know if you're still confused. I'm sure we can help you with basic business principles and the fact that prices on most things increase every year. If they didn't, Coke would still be a nickel.


----------



## kcaudiofx (Dec 27, 2009)

I could be wrong in other areas of the U.S. But When D* raised their prices, it was the smallest increase in the KC Area.. Most CEO's deserve a huge sum in my opinion, they worked very hard to get where they are at now and I am sure its not an easy job.. Either way, price increases happen in every line of business...


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

spartanstew said:


> Really? I remember taking business and economics in my junior year of high school and that cleared a lot of things up for me. Once you get there, report back and let us know if you're still confused. I'm sure we can help you with basic business principles and the fact that prices on most things increase every year. If they didn't, Coke would still be a nickel.


It was suppose to raise the question, do they really need to raise prices when things are so good? Since you seem to be happy to pay higher prices every year, I guess your answer is yes. I have other bills that don't increase every year, such as my electric rate, natural gas rate and AT&T phone/DSL just to name a few. Glad you were able to memorize basic economics class, good for you.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

RACJ2 said:


> So where did all the money from price hikes actually go? Was it all the new HD programming in 2010 that everyone has discussed in another thread? The rising cost of renewing programming contracts? What do you think?


I guess you dont think there employees(not counting the CEO) deserve a raise every year?


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Christopher Gould said:


> I guess you dont think there employees(not counting the CEO) deserve a raise every year?


I don't recall saying that and actually think the employees do deserve a raise. So I guess you think that's where the bulk of our price hike went? And do I think the CEO should get $33M, not real sure I can agree with that one.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"RACJ2" said:


> I don't recall saying that and actually think the employees do deserve a raise. So I guess you think that's where the bulk of our price hike went? And do I think the CEO should get $33M, not real sure I can agree with that one.


Well. He did have a highly rated episode of Undercover Boss.


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

"RACJ2" said:


> It was suppose to raise the question, do they really need to raise prices when things are so good? Since you seem to be happy to pay higher prices every year, I guess your answer is yes. I have other bills that don't increase every year, such as my electric rate, natural gas rate and AT&T phone/DSL just to name a few. Glad you were able to memorize basic economics class, good for you.


Electric and natural gas are regulated utilities. In most parts of the US, they have to get approval for rate increases from a government entity. They do not follow a true free market economic model. Phone/DSL is partially regulated well.

Free market economics are very different than regulated price industries. Our price increase doesn't have to "go" anywhere.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

DogLover said:


> Electric and natural gas are regulated utilities. In most parts of the US, they have to get approval for rate increases from a government entity. They do not follow a true free market economic model. Phone/DSL is partially regulated well.
> 
> Free market economics are very different than regulated price industries. Our price increase doesn't have to "go" anywhere.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


May be that's true where you live, but in Texas we have a free market on electricity and can pick our provider. My rate actually went down from last year, when I renewed with the same company. And you're right, it doesn't have to go anywhere, but it does. So I guess I should have asked, where did our price hike dollars end up? You already know where I think it went. Just curious what others think.



tonyd79 said:


> Well. He did have a highly rated episode of Undercover Boss.


Yes he did and I enjoyed watching it.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

RACJ2 said:


> It was suppose to raise the question, do they really need to raise prices when things are so good?


Again, it's called business.

They have investors that are in this to make money - not break even. If there's profits, they want more profits.

If they can raise prices and maintain churn levels, they'll do it. It's SIMPLE business (high school, remember?).

And every CEO (and executive) of companies as large as D* make similar amounts as what you posted. That's business too.

Am I happy that prices go up? Not really. Do I understand the reasons behind it? Absolutely. I advise every business that I consult with to raise prices on a yearly basis.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

spartanstew said:


> Again, it's called business.
> 
> They have investors that are in this to make money - not break even. If there's profits, they want more profits.
> 
> ...


Well what do you know, you actually do have reasoning and an opinion. Not just making some comment that I would have made back in high school.

My original post stated some facts and asked some questions. It was intended to get people thinking and commenting. I don't enjoy reading what HD channels everyone wants and that's the most popular thread. I rarely even look at it. We all know they won't add "free" HD channels and create more expense, if churn rates are low and profits are growing.

Maybe our rates are going up because they are wasting money paying consultants that tell them to raise prices. Which is something everyone already learned in their Jr High business and economics class.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

RACJ2 said:


> Which is something everyone already learned in their Jr High business and economics class.


Apparently, not everyone.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

spartanstew said:


> Apparently, not everyone.


I feel bad, because you're right, I didn't learn that in Jr high. I went to a private school and learned it in grammar school. Thanks for reminding me, it was quite a while ago.

Now does anyone else have any thoughts on my original post?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

RACJ2 said:


> Now does anyone else have any thoughts on my original post?


Plain and simple... The cost of living goes up every year, it's a fact of life.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

RACJ2 said:


> I feel bad, because you're right, I didn't learn that in Jr high. I went to a private school and learned it in grammar school. Thanks for reminding me, it was quite a while ago.
> 
> Now does anyone else have any thoughts on my original post?


Your overall assesment is too simplistic. Whatever you learned at your private school, the difference between profit and profit margin obviously wasn't part of it.

As for you point about Mike White's salary; his base salary is $1.5 million a year with up to 200 percent bonus based on meeting performance goals. Another $25 million is a three-year grant...half of that in stock options, and half as performance restricted stock units plus the usual executive benefits.

At PepsiCo International, his base salary was just under $3 million, and his total package was just under $30 million.

Are you starting to get it?


----------



## sweep49 (Jul 15, 2008)

Because they can.


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

"RACJ2" said:


> May be that's true where you live, but in Texas we have a free market on electricity and can pick our provider. My rate actually went down from last year, when I renewed with the same company. And you're right, it doesn't have to go anywhere, but it does. So I guess I should have asked, where did our price hike dollars end up? You already know where I think it went. Just curious what others think.


So, even though most costs for most businesses have gone up in the last year, your electricity rates have gone down? I think that proves our point that expenses and prices are not directly related in a free market economy. Apparently, in your market, the best way for them to increase profit was to lower prices.

When you say that the price hike dollars go somewhere, you seem to imply that they are somehow allocated or determined by their increase in expenses. It doesn't really work that way. Now in this economy, they aren't raising prices just to increase profit. They have had expense increases. If they don't increase revenue, then profit will go down. (As in your electric example above, sometimes decreasing prices can increase revenue.)

However, if you are really just wondering which of their expenses increased, that's a different question. I imagine that employee expenses have increased greatly, and that the CEO's raise is a smaller part of that than we imagine. Most companies that I've heard about have a had a large increase in their medical coverage costs. They have either had to pass these along to the employees, absorb the costs, or a combination of both. A large company like DirecTV has probably absorbed at least some of that increase. Then there is pay raises, and other benefit increases. Additionally, if they lease any of their office space, that has probably increased as well.

Obviously, the cost of content has increased, but what about the cost of their computer systems (either internal systems or customer systems such as the web site or VOD servers)? Have those costs increased? By how much? What about their equipment and facilities for receiving the signals from the content providers? Have any of those costs gone up?

Lots of expenses to think about.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

RACJ2 said:


> It was suppose to raise the question, do they really need to raise prices when things are so good? Since you seem to be happy to pay higher prices every year, I guess your answer is yes. I have other bills that don't increase every year, such as my electric rate, natural gas rate and AT&T phone/DSL just to name a few. Glad you were able to memorize basic economics class, good for you.


When things are good is exactly when you raise prices. Think about it, when do you hear companies talking about price reductions? When sales and profits are down, of course.

And to your second point, my Comcast internet bill has gone up by a higher percentage than my DIRECTV bill has in the last 3 or 4 years.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

RACJ2 said:


> I feel bad, because you're right, I didn't learn that in Jr high. I went to a private school and learned it in grammar school. Thanks for reminding me, it was quite a while ago.
> 
> Now does anyone else have any thoughts on my original post?


Actually rates don't go up every year, there have been several years where rates did not increase. But you probably already knew that and decided to start this antagonistic thread anyway...

Most of your initial thoughts have been asked and answered.


----------



## mws192 (Jun 17, 2010)

RACJ2 said:


> Do you wonder why DIRECTV raises our prices every year?


No.

Aside from the fact that they are in business to make money for their shareholders, DirecTV has to make a profit in order to be able to reinvest into their products and services. We all want more channels, faster (cheaper) boxes, a new GUI; but we can't expect all that and prices to stay the same.

It's also understood that many of the carriage agreements have escalator clauses in them. If DirecTV had to pay a CBS station 50 cents per sub in 2010, but was contractually obligated to start paying 75 cents in 2011 and $1.00 per sub by 2014; they are likely to pass that increase onto subscribers. (While I admit I those figures may not be accurate, they would seem to be within the realm of reason:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aNjATjMSlIHQ )


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Sorry I hit a nerve with several of you, but if nothing else I enjoyed seeing how people reacted to the post. Maybe some of you are in the management ranks of DIRECTV, so you find the post antagonistic. I don't feel I there were any signs of hostility or acting in opposition. Just stated some facts from the 2011 Proxy and showed how their stock has fared. Then asked what you thought about it and found that maybe some of you didn't like me posting this info for all to see.

I based my comment about price hikes on historical information. Maybe the prices didn't go up every year, but on average they were awfully high. I've only had DIRECTV 2+ years and it went up both years on average about 7% from $77.99 to $88.99. And the first rate hike was 5 months after I signed up. May father-in-law had their service for many years. His package price went from $24.99 in 2002 to $35.99 in 2008 before he passed away. That's an average of nearly 6%/yr. The average inflation rate over the last 2 years was 1.3% and from 2002 to 2008 was 2.8%. (I would imagine that the average DIRECTV employees salary hasn't increased 44% over that same period). 

I realize they will continue to raise rates as much as the market will bear. Although they may push to hard and eventually hit a tipping point. Especially if people find new ways of getting their programming. I'm happy with their service, the best HD sports programming around. The HD coverage with NHL CI and exclusivity with NFL ST are what keep me around. Just wish they would give the larger then necessary rate hikes a break.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> Actually rates don't go up every year, there have been several years where rates did not increase. But you probably already knew that and decided to start this antagonistic thread anyway...
> 
> Most of your initial thoughts have been asked and answered.


I haven't seen a no-increase-in-rate year in a long time. In the early 00's maybe, but not recently. I can't remember a time in the past 5 or 6 years where the rates haven't gone up for something.

Why does D* raise prices? It's mainly to keep up with their competition. They have to make sure their prices aren't too low, as that will create problems for them.

So why does the competition keep raising their prices? Partly because the price of buying the content is going up. And that's simply because people will pay for it. They haven't hit the magical "too expensive" point yet.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

RACJ2 said:


> May be that's true where you live, but in Texas we have a free market on electricity and can pick our provider. My rate actually went down from last year, when I renewed with the same company.


You don't have a free market in electricity providers. It's regulated by the Public Utility Commission. If they can't find anybody to offer a significant price difference, they will shut the program down. They could choose to not regulate it, but they are keeping a close watch and could change their mind at any time.

Plus, you still pay the main company to connect you to the grid (that's definitely regulated). Finally, if there aren't at least 6 different providers, it's not a free market but an oligopoly. And even though there may be 7 providers in the STATE, are there 6 providers at your house? Because the cable companies have agreed to not compete with each other, so even though there are several cable companies customers magically only have one choice.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

bobcamp1 said:


> You don't have a free market in electricity providers. It's regulated by the Public Utility Commission. If they can't find anybody to offer a significant price difference, they will shut the program down. They could choose to not regulate it, but they are keeping a close watch and could change their mind at any time.
> 
> Plus, you still pay the main company to connect you to the grid (that's definitely regulated). Finally, if there aren't at least 6 different providers, it's not a free market but an oligopoly. And even though there may be 7 providers in the STATE, are there 6 providers at your house? Because the cable companies have agreed to not compete with each other, so even though there are several cable companies customers magically only have one choice.


You're right, its not a true free market, but we do have a choice, unlike most states. We have over 40 providers to choose from in our area. Just use this link and zip code 75205 and you can use the drop down to see all providers. In any case, my rate when down a bit by renewing, rather then up.

Maybe you answered my question about rates, since DIRECTV is an oligopoly. Not enough competition yet, to drive the prices down. Lets see what the future holds.


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

"RACJ2" said:


> Sorry I hit a nerve with several of you, but if nothing else I enjoyed seeing how people reacted to the post. Maybe some of you are in the management ranks of DIRECTV, so you find the post antagonistic. I don't feel I there were any signs of hostility or acting in opposition. Just stated some facts from the 2011 Proxy and showed how their stock has fared. Then asked what you thought about it and found that maybe some of you didn't like me posting this info for all to see.
> 
> I based my comment about price hikes on historical information. Maybe the prices didn't go up every year, but on average they were awfully high. I've only had DIRECTV 2+ years and it went up both years on average about 7% from $77.99 to $88.99. And the first rate hike was 5 months after I signed up. May father-in-law had their service for many years. His package price went from $24.99 in 2002 to $35.99 in 2008 before he passed away. That's an average of nearly 6%/yr. The average inflation rate over the last 2 years was 1.3% and from 2002 to 2008 was 2.8%. (I would imagine that the average DIRECTV employees salary hasn't increased 44% over that same period).
> 
> I realize they will continue to raise rates as much as the market will bear. Although they may push to hard and eventually hit a tipping point. Especially if people find new ways of getting their programming. I'm happy with their service, the best HD sports programming around. The HD coverage with NHL CI and exclusivity with NFL ST are what keep me around. Just wish they would give the larger then necessary rate hikes a break.


Your use of the term "larger than necessary" confuses me. How do you define "necessary"?

1. Rate of inflation? if you define it that way, you'd hate to own a business whose expenses rose faster than the rate of inflation.
2. What some arbitrary entity thinks is "fair"? Larger than I want? I think the problems with those definitions are obvious.
3. Just large enough to cover increased expenses? What happens to increased shareholder profit?
4. Since you could argue that the goal of a capitalist business is to maximize profit, the "necessary" rate increase would be to set the price to maximize revenue. That would be the price just below where enough customer leave to offset the revenue increase of the remaining customers. (Of course, you could factor in the long term bad will if you increase the rate too much. That would mean a smaller increase, than that which would produce a maximum revenue today.) Either way, it would seem that if DirecTV has a net Increase of customers, that the increase is smaller than "necessary".

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

DogLover said:


> Your use of the term "larger than necessary" confuses me. How do you define "necessary"?
> 
> 4. Since you could argue that the goal of a capitalist business is to maximize profit, the "necessary" rate increase would be to set the price to maximize revenue. That would be the price just below where enough customer leave to offset the revenue increase of the remaining customers. (Of course, you could factor in the long term bad will if you increase the rate too much. That would mean a smaller increase, than that which would produce a maximum revenue today.) Either way, it would seem that if DirecTV has a net Increase of customers, that the increase is smaller than "necessary".
> 
> Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


Good points. If folks think of the difference between maximizing short term profits vs. long term ones, it may help. If a provider doubled its rates overnight, the profits it shows for that fiscal quarter would be huge. However, people would be leaving in droves but would take some time as millions can't switch overnight. Not too long thereafter, such provider will have created so much ill will that it's unlikely to survive medium term.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

Nope.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Plain and simple... The cost of living goes up every year, it's a fact of life.


Not always. The consumer price index went down 0.4% in 2009 and only increased 1.6% in 2010.

I'd be happier if DirecTV's increase in price matched the above percentages in those two years.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

billsharpe said:


> Not always. The consumer price index went down 0.4% in 2009 and only increased 1.6% in 2010.
> 
> I'd be happier if DirecTV's increase in price matched the above percentages in those two years.


Finally! Someone who I agree with and isn't afraid to post an opposing view. I applaud you.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

RACJ2 said:


> You're right, its not a true free market, but we do have a choice, unlike most states. We have over 40 providers to choose from in our area. Just use this link and zip code 75205 and you can use the drop down to see all providers. In any case, my rate when down a bit by renewing, rather then up.
> 
> Maybe you answered my question about rates, since DIRECTV is an oligopoly. Not enough competition yet, to drive the prices down. Lets see what the future holds.


I see mass confusion on that page. None of the prices listed on that page were the actual price. I got suspicious when I saw the wide range of prices, including 0.0 cents per kWh. (Sign me up for that!) How did you choose which one to sign up for? I'm not sure I like all that choice.

In an oligopoly, your price is totally dependent on what others are charging. Charge too much, people will switch. Charge too little, people swarm to you, and the quality of your service tanks; plus you simply don't make as much money.

D* did freeze their prices for a while, because they wanted the swarm. Now they have been raising the price substantially over the past few years. I expect it to continue.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

RACJ2 said:


> Finally! Someone who I agree with and isn't afraid to post an opposing view. I applaud you.


It was not an "opposing view." He just said he would be happier. I realize the rates will go up but I would be happier if it got cheaper every year. Heck, I would be happiest if they gave it to me for free. But that is not realistic nor would the service last long.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

bobcamp1 said:


> I see mass confusion on that page. None of the prices listed on that page were the actual price. *I got suspicious when I saw the wide range of prices, including 0.0 cents per kWh. (Sign me up for that!)* How did you choose which one to sign up for? I'm not sure I like all that choice.
> 
> In an oligopoly, your price is totally dependent on what others are charging. Charge too much, people will switch. Charge too little, people swarm to you, and the quality of your service tanks; plus you simply don't make as much money.
> 
> D* did freeze their prices for a while, because they wanted the swarm. Now they have been raising the price substantially over the past few years. I expect it to continue.


Not sure what you meant by "None of the prices listed on that page were the actual price." They are in fact the actual rates I could sign up for today. The "0.00" rate is an actual plan, you get it for 1 month and then go month to month at the prevailing rate. Maybe you should have took the time to read it. I don't know what part of Planet earth you live on, but if its good old Texas, you can sign up for it.



> *First Choice 1 Bill Free Flex Residential Service - Oncor Service Area Effective 4/1/2011*​
> Special Terms: Introductory offer for FREE first bill. Pricing per kWh included listed above. Special terms, conditions, and eligibility requirements apply. Total amount free may vary based on number of days in the billing cycle.


I hope your oligopoly theory is right, because as I mentioned, DIRECTV might hit that tipping point.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

tonyd79 said:


> It was not an "opposing view." He just said he would be happier. I realize the rates will go up but I would be happier if it got cheaper every year. Heck, I would be happiest if they gave it to me for free. But that is not realistic nor would the service last long.


Once again, I agree with you. What would make you happiest, would make me happiest. I meant he was the first one that didn't agree with what most everyone else did. That 7% price hikes during a period that had an average inflation of 1.3% was fare.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"RACJ2" said:


> Once again, I agree with you. What would make you happiest, would make me happiest. I meant he was the first one that didn't agree with what most everyone else did. That 7% price hikes during a period that had an average inflation of 1.3% was fare.


Using a standard inflation rate is not a good measure. Little tracks to it. My gas prices have flown up while the value of my condo has gone down. That is unfair.


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

sweep49 said:


> Because they can.


And we keep sending them money.

1998 Total choice PLATINUM 47.99
1999 Total Choice $29.99
2000 Total Choice $31.99 ($2.00+)
2003 Total Choice $33.99 $4.99 DVR service $4.99 Additional Receiver ($2.00+)
2004 Total Choice $36.99 ($3.00+)
2005 Total Choice $41.99 ($5.00+)
2006 Total Choice $44.99 $5.99 DVR Service ($4.00+)
2007 Total Choice $47.99 ($3.00+)
2008 Total Choice $50.99 ($3.00+)
2009 Total Choice $53.99 $6.00 DVR Service $5.00 Additional Receiver ($3.02+)
2010 Total Choice $57.49 $7.00 DVR Service ($4.50+)
2011 Total Choice $60.49 $7.00 DVR Service $6.00x2 Additional Receiver ($7.00+)

2003 vs 2011 = $34.52+


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Que" said:


> And we keep sending them money.


And there is re answer to why they keep raising the rates. We pay it.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"tonyd79" said:


> And there is re answer to why they keep raising the rates. We pay it.


Though they didn't have to do the offer for free HD. A good promotion for new customers sure, but most current customers would have continued to pay it. Though, I do wonder how many still do, since we have to ask for it and it wasn't automatic.

But most of us probably would cut back our package before dropping HD or DVR access.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

RACJ2 said:


> (I would imagine that the average DIRECTV employees salary hasn't increased 44% over that same period).
> QUOTE]
> 
> actually since they have bought out many of their HSP's and now have thousands of vans to gas up every day, maintenance, insurance, supplies for jobs to be installed, etc.... so maybe not salary of employees but they do have alot more expenses to cover than when they were just paying some contractor x amount of dollars to install the job.


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

tonyd79 said:


> And there is re answer to why they keep raising the rates. We pay it.


Bingo...this should've been the 2nd post and the thread could've been locked. Direct TV is in the business of making a profit. They will charge as much as they can as long as people are willing to pay for it. They do not care what the inflation rate is, was, or will be. They are in the business of making the most profit they can....simple as that.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Que said:


> And we keep sending them money.
> 
> 1998 Total choice PLATINUM 47.99
> 1999 Total Choice $29.99
> ...


Dude, what kind of math is that?

2003= 33.99 + 4.99 (DVR) + 4.99 (receiver) + 4.99 (receiver) = $48.96
2011= 60.49 + 7.00 + 6.00 + 6.00 = $79.49

79.49 - 48.96 = $30.53.

How the heck did you get $34.52?


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

RACJ2 said:


> It seems odd to me that DIRECTV keeps raising prices every year. I guess it's to cover those rising costs of renewing contracts with the different networks. Isn't that the argument? I'm just wondering if there might be a different reason. It's interesting to note that their stock rose 90% in the past 2 years (see 1st attachment). And DIRECTV had a record year in 2010 and 2011 is starting off quite well. That's actually good for us, because we don't have to worry about the stability of our provider.
> 
> I noticed that the executives' compensation reflects the companies good fortunes from last year as well. Lets take CEO Michael White as an example (see 2nd attachment). With stock options and incentives that he was granted last year, he didn't quite hit the $33 million mark, but $32,932,618 is awfully close. Anyone have $67,382 laying around that they can send him? Unfortunately for the rest of the exec's, they only hit 7 digit incomes.
> 
> So where did all the money from price hikes actually go? Was it all the new HD programming in 2010 that everyone has discussed in another thread? The rising cost of renewing programming contracts? What do you think?


I have several questions. Since DISH, Time Warner Cable, Comcast, Cox, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, etc, etc also raised their prices is that due to Mike White's salary? How about those that raised them higher than DTV, which was about 75% of the television providers? What about all the years prior to Mike White as President and CEO? :lol:

Since he took over, they've added a ton of new subscribers, their stock is near $50 today which has doubled since he took over.

Now let's do the math. Let's see, $33million total compensation but that's with stock options, incentives, etc, but his salary is only $1.45M. So, on average, every DTV subscriber is paying less than 1 cent per month to cover his salary. To be exact, $0.006 per month on an annualized basis.

Since he is responsible mostly for driving share holder value, I have a tough time dinging him for the stock options value as any incremental value is largely driven by the results he leads his company to.

However, if you want to use the whole shootin match, then each subscriber at DIRECTV is contributing 14 cents per month to his salary. on an annualized basis.

Meanwhile, Fox just forced Time Warner to cought up approximately a 400% increase in programming costs. They are going to do the same thing to DTV. ESPN, HBO, MTV, Hallmark, and everyone else raised their rates on DTV (and everyone else this year) sure as the sun came up this morning. They will do the same thing next year, sure as the sun will come up tomorrow.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

RACJ2 said:


> It seems odd to me that DIRECTV keeps raising prices every year. I guess it's to cover those rising costs of renewing contracts with the different networks. Isn't that the argument? I'm just wondering if there might be a different reason. It's interesting to note that their stock rose 90% in the past 2 years (see 1st attachment). And DIRECTV had a record year in 2010 and 2011 is starting off quite well. That's actually good for us, because we don't have to worry about the stability of our provider.
> 
> I noticed that the executives' compensation reflects the companies good fortunes from last year as well. Lets take CEO Michael White as an example (see 2nd attachment). With stock options and incentives that he was granted last year, he didn't quite hit the $33 million mark, but $32,932,618 is awfully close. Anyone have $67,382 laying around that they can send him? Unfortunately for the rest of the exec's, they only hit 7 digit incomes.
> 
> So where did all the money from price hikes actually go? Was it all the new HD programming in 2010 that everyone has discussed in another thread? The rising cost of renewing programming contracts? What do you think?





ChicagoBlue said:


> I have several questions. Since DISH, Time Warner Cable, Comcast, Cox, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, etc, etc also raised their prices is that due to Mike White's salary? How about those that raised them higher than DTV, which was about 75% of the television providers? What about all the years prior to Mike White as President and CEO? :lol:
> 
> Since he took over, they've added a ton of new subscribers, their stock is near $50 today which has doubled since he took over.
> 
> ...


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

Que said:


> And we keep sending them money.
> 
> 1998 Total choice PLATINUM 47.99
> 1999 Total Choice $29.99
> ...


Where are you getting your prices.

As an example, 2003 Total Choice was $38.99 according to this

http://www.ameridish.net/total_choice.htm

Additional receivers HAVE ALWAYS been $4.99 or $5.00 until this past February.


----------



## rkr0923 (Sep 14, 2006)

I don't have a problem with increased bill if its for a good reason......however paying a guy millions upon millions of dollars a year is not a good reason. Thats holds true for any company. All the bonus payments in the millions of dollars should be against the law somehow.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

rkr0923 said:


> I don't have a problem with increased bill if its for a good reason......however paying a guy millions upon millions of dollars a year is not a good reason. Thats holds true for any company. All the bonus payments in the millions of dollars should be against the law somehow.


The government should limit how much money people make? Seriously? :lol:


----------



## mluntz (Jul 13, 2006)

All i know is my Premiere subscription did not go up this year.First time in a long time. But my DVR fees went up. It's always something every year!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Channel costs go up every year. I am sure some have that in their contracts, so it isn't simply new contracts that raise costs.

They sign new contracts that increase costs.

They build new sats....

Every provider raises rates every year, most more than directv.

Other costs, like salaries, all providers have those costs as well that change yearly..

As for record profits, many times you have to also understand that directv has more customers paying for their service, so their profits are going to go up by volume alone, not necessarily rate increases.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

RACJ2 said:


> It seems odd to me that DIRECTV keeps raising prices every year. I guess it's to cover those rising costs of renewing contracts with the different networks. Isn't that the argument? I'm just wondering if there might be a different reason. It's interesting to note that their stock rose 90% in the past 2 years (see 1st attachment). And DIRECTV had a record year in 2010 and 2011 is starting off quite well. That's actually good for us, because we don't have to worry about the stability of our provider.
> 
> I noticed that the executives' compensation reflects the companies good fortunes from last year as well. Lets take CEO Michael White as an example (see 2nd attachment). With stock options and incentives that he was granted last year, he didn't quite hit the $33 million mark, but $32,932,618 is awfully close. Anyone have $67,382 laying around that they can send him? Unfortunately for the rest of the exec's, they only hit 7 digit incomes.
> 
> So where did all the money from price hikes actually go? Was it all the new HD programming in 2010 that everyone has discussed in another thread? The rising cost of renewing programming contracts? What do you think?


I've been thinking about this thread for a couple of days now. I've had cable/satellite for thirty years and I remember there always being some sort of price increase each year. There's always been a price increase or some shuffling of tiers where I needed to pay more to get what I previously had. Nothing new in my experience anyway. :shrug:

I guess my answer is No. I don't wonder why DirecTV raises their prices every year. :grin:

Mike


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

rkr0923 said:


> I don't have a problem with increased bill if its for a good reason......however paying a guy millions upon millions of dollars a year is not a good reason. Thats holds true for any company. All the bonus payments in the millions of dollars should be against the law somehow.


Anymore bright ideas?


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

In answer to the thread title *'Do you wonder why DIRECTV raises our prices every year?' * The answer is no.

DirecTV is a pretty well run business with over 19 million customers. It is more successful than it's main satellite competitor and most of the cable channels. If you go to the Forums of any of the Satellite and cable providers, you will find the same complaints about pricing and the provider not offering every single channel in HD.

Human nature.


----------



## HDTVFreak07 (Sep 12, 2007)

Not just DirecTV, all cable companies do that too.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

tonyd79 said:


> Using a standard inflation rate is not a good measure. Little tracks to it. My gas prices have flown up while the value of my condo has gone down. That is unfair.


What do you mean little tracks to it? It is based on a market basket for a household and includes both the increase in fuel and the equivalent rental value for a homeowner.


----------



## rkr0923 (Sep 14, 2006)

They pretty much regulate everything else, just saying. At least the companies who received a bailout should not be able to pay a huge bonus for taking my/our money.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"raott" said:


> What do you mean little tracks to it? It is based on a market basket for a household and includes both the increase in fuel and the equivalent rental value for a homeowner.


And because it is so many pieces of data, you see the average not individual items. Few individual items track to it.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

ChicagoBlue said:


> I have several questions. Since DISH, Time Warner Cable, Comcast, Cox, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, etc, etc also raised their prices is that due to Mike White's salary? How about those that raised them higher than DTV, which was about 75% of the television providers? What about all the years prior to Mike White as President and CEO? :lol:
> 
> Since he took over, they've added a ton of new subscribers, their stock is near $50 today which has doubled since he took over.
> 
> ...


In my original post, I posed some facts and questions, but never stated that the reason for the increase was due to his salary. Actually reducing it down to $.14/subscriber doesn't sound that bad, so I guess your opinion is that it's not contributing to the price increase.

I agree that programming costs are going up, but lets say DIRECTV does agree to a 400% increase to carry Fox programming. Using your logic and dividing the additional expense by the total number of subscribers, its probably less then a $.10/subscriber increase (speculation on my part, since I don't have the numbers).

When I look at the comparison of expenses for 2009 vs 2010, I only see a 4.4% increase in total operating costs and expenses for US operations. In comparison, the operating profit is up 36.5% (See attachment from 2010 Annual Report). Now I realize that until the final 2011 Annual Report is out, we won't know how much the 2010 vs 2011 expenses will have gone up. Would you like to take my bet that the change in the 2011 expenses will be a lower % then the average of 7% price hike I paid?



carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


>


carlsbad_bolt_fan, I can only speculate what you meant by this post, but again, I never said the increase was do to the executives salary, did I? And the least you could do is find something that hasn't already been used in a prior post. Kind of old now.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Because they can,I can see once a year but every time i change the channel the price goes up.

The way i feel i just hope they price themselves out of business. Sorry stockholders,employes,installers and Directv lovers but thats how i feel.


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

"RACJ2" said:


> In my original post, I posed some facts and questions, but never stated that the reason for the increase was due to his salary. Actually reducing it down to $.14/subscriber doesn't sound that bad, so I guess your opinion is that it's not contributing to the price increase.
> 
> I agree that programming costs are going up, but lets say DIRECTV does agree to a 400% increase to carry Fox programming. Using your logic and dividing the additional expense by the total number of subscribers, its probably less then a $.10/subscriber increase (speculation on my part, since I don't have the numbers).
> 
> ...


I wonder if his numbers included just the USA customers, or the Latin Amermica customers? If they didn't include those customers, the share of his salary that we are paying gets even smaller.

I would imagine that even though your bill went up 7%, that that is not the average. I don't know what the average is, but since the fee whentnup on the boxes, then people's increase will vary because of that. Also, the premier package didn't have an increase in package price. Additionally, there are other sources of revenue that may or may not have had similar percentage of increase. for example, MDU fees have different prices, as do commercial accounts. Then there are the sports subscriptions and other premium channels, and of course the much maligned PPV. So, they may have much less or much more than a 7% increase in prices this year when you consider all prices.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## kenpac89 (Jan 3, 2006)

The rates went up because I negotiated a lower rate on the NFL and MLB packages this year. Sorry about that.


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

ChicagoBlue said:


> Where are you getting your prices.
> 
> As an example, 2003 Total Choice was $38.99 according to this
> 
> ...


I keep all my bills, all the way back to 1998. 2003 Total Choice was $33.99.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

rkr0923 said:


> At least the companies who received a bailout should not be able to pay a huge bonus for taking my/our money.


DirecTV has never received any sort of government bailout.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

DogLover said:


> I wonder if his numbers included just the USA customers, or the Latin Amermica customers? If they didn't include those customers, the share of his salary that we are paying gets even smaller.
> 
> I would imagine that even though your bill went up 7%, that that is not the average. I don't know what the average is, but since the fee whentnup on the boxes, then people's increase will vary because of that. Also, the premier package didn't have an increase in package price. Additionally, there are other sources of revenue that may or may not have had similar percentage of increase. for example, MDU fees have different prices, as do commercial accounts. Then there are the sports subscriptions and other premium channels, and of course the much maligned PPV. So, they may have much less or much more than a 7% increase in prices this year when you consider all prices.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


The average increase in 2011 was about 4.5%. Folks that got 7% or around there typically had a LOT of receivers on their account for it to go up that high, probably also had HBO (which went up $1) and depending on his/her base package that could also push it up when adding everything else up.

But the average was 4.5%...some folks actually saw very small increases (take a Premier customer with 2 receivers....his bill went up $1 total as an example)


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Que said:


> I keep all my bills, all the way back to 1998. 2003 Total Choice was $33.99.


I don't know about Total Choice, but the additional receivers were $4.99 back then. Unless you are an old Primestar customer....if that's the case, then your pricing has always been a bit different than everyone else as part of that acquisition.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> DirecTV has never received any sort of government bailout.


Correct....yet we are charged taxes in some states despite the fact we have no monopolies, don't dig up the streets or easements, etc. Go figure.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Satelliteracer said:


> Correct....yet we are charged taxes in some states despite the fact we have no monopolies, don't dig up the streets or easements, etc. Go figure.


Yeah, that costs me about $15/mo.

Mike


----------



## lflorack (Dec 16, 2006)

billsharpe said:


> Not always. The consumer price index went down 0.4% in 2009 and only increased 1.6% in 2010.
> 
> I'd be happier if DirecTV's increase in price matched the above percentages in those two years.


I would be too but in a capitalistic economy such as ours, if a company can maximize profit for its shareholders without creating significantly adverse affects to it's customers (i.e., driving too many of them away) , they are duty-bound to do so. That's what they're in business to do. Make a profit. Breaking even -- i.e., only keeping up with inflation -- is only the right choice if there is no other choice.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Satelliteracer said:


> The average increase in 2011 was about 4.5%. Folks that got 7% or around there typically had a LOT of receivers on their account for it to go up that high, probably also had HBO (which went up $1) and depending on his/her base package that could also push it up when adding everything else up.
> 
> But the average was 4.5%...some folks actually saw very small increases (take a Premier customer with 2 receivers....his bill went up $1 total as an example)


After further review, my 7% was an average over the 26 mo's that I had service, not 24. So I apologize for it being a bit exaggerated. Although, my price went up 3 times over that period, because I signed up not too long before the first price increase. To be honest, I thought my price would remain the same for the first year when I signed up. I wasn't told that, I just assumed it wouldn't go up until my annual anniversary.

So if I divide the 14% increase I experienced over a 3 year period (since it was 3 annual price increases), it would be at that 4.5% you mentioned. Unfortunately for me, it bad timing on signing up and the price increase of 14% was over 26 mo's, so it was an average of 6.5% for me. So for the average subscriber, it is actually closer to the 4.4% expense increase in the 2010 annual report.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

Satelliteracer said:


> Correct....yet we are charged taxes in some states despite the fact we have no monopolies, don't dig up the streets or easements, etc. Go figure.


DBS customers are charged sales tax because they AREN'T signed up for cable. Cable users pay sales tax. If too many people switch to DBS, that's lost revenue for the state.

As far as DBS saving money for the state, why wouldn't the state want to have its cake and eat it too?


----------



## lflorack (Dec 16, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> DBS customers are charged sales tax because they AREN'T signed up for cable. Cable users pay sales tax. If too many people switch to DBS, that's lost revenue for the state.
> 
> As far as DBS saving money for the state, why wouldn't the state want to have its cake and eat it too?


The state certainly would want to have its cake and eat it too) but such a tax would be more reasonable if there were actually some infrastructure costs associated with the tax on Satellite use. In other words, cable companies (and therefore their customers) have to pay taxes -- in part -- because cable companies cause infrastructure costs for the municipality and state to go up. There isn't any such associated infrastructure costs associated with Satelite.

I know the state and county, etc can raise taxes just because they can but there's no basis in this case other than that.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> DBS customers are charged sales tax because they AREN'T signed up for cable.


In Michigan, we're only charged tax on the lease fees. There are no other taxes.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

"bobcamp1" said:


> DBS customers are charged sales tax because they AREN'T signed up for cable. Cable users pay sales tax. If too many people switch to DBS, that's lost revenue for the state.
> 
> As far as DBS saving money for the state, why wouldn't the state want to have its cake and eat it too?


I have no doubt gov't will have it's cake and eat it, too. They thrive in that area. The issue is more that cable pays a franchise tax which in part covers all the infrastructure that goes with the cable plant required for distribution. They also have z monopoly for their troubles. Satellite doesn't enjoy the monopoly and now has to pay some taxes despite not causing the state or local gov't any expenditures.

Should they start taxing people who use an off air antenna?


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

People really need to get away from the cost of living or inflation measurements. Most of the rifts Ming deals are long term in nature and yearly escalator costs built in automatically. So what happens with inflation is irrelevant, as the cost D* pays for programming is going to go up next year and the year after and the year after and it's usually not tied to inflation.


----------



## obo77 (May 16, 2011)

People, People, People.... Go back and study economics BEFORE that big not very legal banking entity took over the USA in the 20th century, before all this shifty economics and they shell games that they hatched.

1st off profits are what is made AFTER the money allocated for reivestment is taking from the income NOT after, todays shifty ecomics had ot backwars


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

hilmar2k said:


> Rule #1 in capitalism: sell your product/service for the highest price that people will pay.


Bingo. If people are still staying as customer, even though the prices are higher, and your favorite HD channels are still not added.... then why change the tactics? Let's raise the prices again in 2012 and add NO channels, and see what the customer losses are going to be. Chances are, that lots of people will complain, but not a lot of people will actually change over. Especially not NFL fans.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

obo77 said:


> 1st off profits are what is made AFTER the money allocated for reivestment is taking from the income NOT after, todays shifty ecomics had ot backwars


On top of that, since the economy is so uncertain..... a $500 million profit figure might look like it is way too much and too fat.....but if a war breaks out or some other major economy-affecting event happens that causes the economy to really drastically tank, you as a company can take 2 years of 250 million dollar losses before you have to get credit.

DirecTV is a business. A business that might need to spend 800 million dollars in 2013 to launch another satellite. And they are just making sure they save up for that.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

"obo77" said:


> People, People, People.... Go back and study economics BEFORE that big not very legal banking entity took over the USA in the 20th century, before all this shifty economics and they shell games that they hatched.
> 
> 1st off profits are what is made AFTER the money allocated for reivestment is taking from the income NOT after, todays shifty ecomics had ot backwars


No. There is no necessary link between capital investment and retained earnings. Long term, yes.

Via jpm's iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

maartena said:


> Bingo. If people are still staying as customer, even though the prices are higher, and your favorite HD channels are still not added.... then why change the tactics? Let's raise the prices again in 2012 and add NO channels, and see what the customer losses are going to be. *Chances are, that lots of people will complain, but not a lot of people will actually change over. Especially not NFL fans. *


I agree with your last statement. I'm an NFL and NHL fan and no other US provide has better HD coverage for these sports. That's what I subscribe for.

Although this year, I've decide to suspend service between NHL and NFL seasons. My way of more then recouping the price hikes and eating into the profit they make from me. I can survive during that period with OTA, free analog cable and content available over the internet.


----------



## davel (May 1, 2007)

Rule #2 of directv economics:
After my two year agreement, I can tell them to take a hike and sign up under my wifes name to get the new customer discount and sell the old dish on ebay. They can pay for the tech to come out and I can sit and watch their profit margin dive then watch all the lemmings on this site say how "this is wrong and I should just pay my bill and this is not allowed" These are also the same lemmings that preach not to upgrade a leased DVR because while no one has ever been punished for it, it is a mortal sin. 

I wish more people on this site would have an open mind instead of coming off like fan boy directv employees.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

So much for integrity...


----------



## yogi (Feb 8, 2006)

I just want make sure I got this right.
You want DirecTV to give you free equipment,better receivers,more programming, and more features, But pay the same year after year. Because you think they make to much money. 
If I think you have to much money at the end of the year. Can DirecTV charge you more.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> So much for integrity...


If DirecTV doesn't like it, they can change their policies. If a customer is willing to go through this hassle every two years, more power to them.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> If DirecTV doesn't like it, they can change their policies. If a customer is willing to go through this hassle every two years, more power to them.


It says something about a person's character. As I said...so much for integrity.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> It says something about a person's character. As I said...so much for integrity.


Yes, how dare they take advantage of a deal from your beloved DirecTV that allows them to pay less for their service. They should be calling DirecTV and asking if there is any way they can pay *more* for service! I know I personally try and pay _every_ service provider I'm subscribed to as much as I possibly can.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

RACJ2 said:


> I agree with your last statement. I'm an NFL and NHL fan and no other US provide has better HD coverage for these sports. That's what I subscribe for.
> 
> Although this year, I've decide to suspend service between NHL and NFL seasons. My way of more then recouping the price hikes and eating into the profit they make from me. I can survive during that period with OTA, free analog cable and content available over the internet.


Just suspended my account, so the savings have begun! :joy::joy::goodjob:.

Actually, the first 3 mo's will cover my investment for an OTA DVR that I'll be using while w/o DIRECTV service. If/when the NFL season begins, I'll reactivate my account. Anything longer then 3 mo's, is money in my pocket. And when I do reactivate, I'll have the OTA DVR to record programs, during the thunderstorms that cause me to lose signal. I'll definitely miss some things, but I guess its my way of feeling like I've beaten the last 3 price hikes.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> If DirecTV doesn't like it, they can change their policies. If a customer is willing to go through this hassle every two years, more power to them.


That's how I see it. It's a pain, but if it's worth it - go ahead. I do it for discounts...I'll call and just ask for them. They're there for the picking sometimes.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Yes, how dare they take advantage of a deal from your beloved DirecTV that allows them to pay less for their service. They should be calling DirecTV and asking if there is any way they can pay *more* for service! I know I personally try and pay _every_ service provider I'm subscribed to as much as I possibly can.


A deal? This isn't a deal. Rotating the account from one person to the next is something else entirely. It's a scheme.


----------



## Sim-X (Sep 24, 2009)

Look how much extra $ Mike can put in his pocket from giving everyone crappy refurb boxes and still charging the same price as a new box. What doesn't go up in price now a days.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> A deal? This isn't a deal.


It absolutely is. It's a new customer deal.


Hoosier205 said:


> Rotating the account from one person to the next is something else entirely. It's a scheme.


You're not rotating the account. You're closing an account and opening a new one. Which means replacing all of the receivers as well. DirecTV doesn't care, so neither should you. This multi-billion dollar company does not need your protection.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> It absolutely is. It's a new customer deal.
> 
> You're not rotating the account. You're closing an account and opening a new one. Which means replacing all of the receivers as well. DirecTV doesn't care, so neither should you. This multi-billion dollar company does not need your protection.


Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## gomezma1 (Mar 28, 2006)

I only watch maybe ten channels and the rest I don't. I wish they had a la carte to get the channels I want. They should give you a discount for every channel you did not watch for the whole month. This way the CEO gtes his 33M and the customer gets a little in return.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

gomezma1 said:


> They should give you a discount for every channel you did not watch for the whole month.


I like that approach, but I doubt very much that DirecTV will go along...


----------



## davel (May 1, 2007)

Aslo agree on the re-lease fee. I wonder how many times the crappy HR-20's have been leased and re-leased. Way to try to secure new customers by giving them a slow crappy HR-20 that was made in 2006 and only about 50 hours of recording time. 320 gb drives are $30.00 now.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

davel said:


> Aslo agree on the re-lease fee. I wonder how many times the crappy HR-20's have been leased and re-leased. Way to try to secure new customers by giving them a slow crappy HR-20 that was made in 2006 and only about 50 hours of recording time. 320 gb drives are $30.00 now.


My HR20 just chugs along. Just fine. I managed my recordings just fine, and now with an additional recorder, it's really a breeze. It's not as fast as the HR 24, but what is?

Why are you still with DirecTV if everything is so miserable for you, aslo??


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"davel" said:


> Aslo agree on the re-lease fee. I wonder how many times the crappy HR-20's have been leased and re-leased. Way to try to secure new customers by giving them a slow crappy HR-20 that was made in 2006 and only about 50 hours of recording time. 320 gb drives are $30.00 now.


And around here, TWC hands out boxes with 20 hours HD time. My original HR20 from around 2006 is doing fine as well.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"gomezma1" said:


> I only watch maybe ten channels and the rest I don't. I wish they had a la carte to get the channels I want. They should give you a discount for every channel you did not watch for the whole month. This way the CEO gtes his 33M and the customer gets a little in return.


A la carte will not work...and hasn't in the past.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

I recently saw the OBSCENE compensation that the D* CEO receives (in the WSJ) and considering the current price of my service nearly 70$ for Choice Xtra...(you know the story 200+ channels and hardly anything worth watching on. Really only a handful of quality cable channels on any main sat service really. The rest are absolute crap.)

I have decided to for the time being suspend my service and look to just using my basic internet for watching videos and OTA . At least with the internet and sources like youtube you get to watch things that are of specific interest to you and there are plenty of things worth watching on youtube a lot of it very educational and informative.

I've been w/o sat service for a month now and I haven't missed it at ALL. As a matter of fact I have not watched anything on TV (OTA or sat) at all.

The bottom line is that most pay tv services today are WAAAAAY over priced and not worth the money. I think you are going to see more and more subscribers of sat and cable leaving, especially considering the economy. 

I figure the service (D* Xtra ) I had was worth about 30$ /month (and that is what the regular everyday price should be ...no contract nonsense!

I'll likely no longer be a D* customer in the next few months because D* simply is not a good value.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dubber deux said:


> I figure the service (D* Xtra ) I had was worth about 30$ /month (and that is what the regular everyday price should be ...no contract nonsense!


The service is worth what people will pay for it. No more, no less. Your sense of value doesn't align with everyone else's. However, at least you suspended your service, instead of idly complaining. That's the only way you can make your voice heard.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

Jeremy:

Indeed.

When the CSR asked WHY I was suspending service I made specific reference to the high cost of the service, and the poor value. I also stated that I was looking into other alternatives to D* for my media entertainment. Indicated that I would likely cancel service as well. On the other hand I give credit where it is due. I mentioned that the reliability of the provider service is excellent.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

dubber deux said:


> I recently saw the OBSCENE compensation that the D* CEO receives (in the WSJ).


I'm just curious how you define obscene. He oversees the largest television provider on the planet, drives a ton of value for that company, helps to keep thousands of people employed, etc, etc.

I'm just curious when people make these comments what obscene is and how it's defined. Is Tom Brady's salary obscene? He isn't running a company with thousands of employees around the world, he doesn't have to make really tough decisions that affect people's livelihood, etc, etc. How about Dirk Nowitzki? Or Lady Gaga? Or Jennifer Anniston? Or the CEO of CBS? Or let's ask it the other way, recently there was an article out here that Newport Beach, CA Lifeguards are making about $120K per year...lifeguards. Let me repeat that again...lifeguards. With their pensions, they will make roughly $3 million if they live to age 80.

Again, just curious. There are examples all over the country of someone making X and another person making Y with plenty of opinions that go along with whether those salaries are justified or not. Personally, I think running the world's largest television provider is likely going to earn one a healthy salary because that's what the market rate is. If Time Warner Cable's CEO is making $26M then I would expect the D* CEO, head of a bigger tv company, to make more...and he does.

Do you like Discovery Networks like Animal Planet, Discovery Network...you better stop watching. Their CEO makes even more than Mike White, the DIRECTV CEO. Do you like CBS? Better stop watching, the CBS CEO makes more than the DIRECTV CEO AND the Discovery CEO. How about the Viacom channels....yup...their CEO makes more than the DIRECTV CEO + the DISCOVERY CEO COMBINED!! Guess who is number one? Liberty CEO....Liberty of Starz, QVC, USA Network, etc fame. He makes almost triple what the DIRECTV CEO makes.

Again, just curious.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> I'm just curious


I've learned that when people start talking about how corporate executives make "obscene" amounts of money, it's best to leave them alone. The argument always centers around how much the people at the bottom are making, while ignoring the vast disparity in responsibilities.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Was going to comment on the use of the word "obscene" in re exec. comp. but SR said it way better than I could have. 
So, thanks!


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

Satelliteracer said:


> I'm just curious how you define obscene. He oversees the largest television provider on the planet, drives a ton of value for that company, helps to keep thousands of people employed, etc, etc.
> 
> I'm just curious when people make these comments what obscene is and how it's defined. Is Tom Brady's salary obscene? He isn't running a company with thousands of employees around the world, he doesn't have to make really tough decisions that affect people's livelihood, etc, etc. How about Dirk Nowitzki? Or Lady Gaga? Or Jennifer Anniston? Or the CEO of CBS? Or let's ask it the other way, recently there was an article out here that Newport Beach, CA Lifeguards are making about $120K per year...lifeguards. Let me repeat that again...lifeguards. With their pensions, they will make roughly $3 million if they live to age 80.
> 
> ...


And you've only touched upon those CEO's in the entertaiment/provider industry. Wait until dubber realizes just how much the CEO of the bank/credit union that holds his mortgage makes. Or the CEO of the oil company he gets his gas from. How much "value" does he get from those two?


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I've learned that when people start talking about how corporate executives make "obscene" amounts of money, it's best to leave them alone. The argument always centers around how much the people at the bottom are making, while ignoring the vast disparity in responsibilities.


You're probably right. I just like to understand people's rationale on this stuff. The market drives these things, no different than they drive salaries for ball players or actors. These people are in limited supply and therefore will be financially rewarded. I'm not going to stop drinking Pepsi because their CEO made $14.7M last year. I suppose some people might. To each their own, I'm just curious what makes certain people act the way they do. Not judging, just curious.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> The market drives these things, no different than they drive salaries for ball players or actors.


The market drives salaries for almost every job. Whether you're making $14,000 per year or $14,000,000 per year, the market has determined that's what your job is worth.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

RACJ2 said:


> It seems odd to me that DIRECTV keeps raising prices every year.


My theory is that DirecTV raises our prices because they want more of our money.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110318-706510.html

Mike White made 32.9 million in his FIRST YEAR as CEO at D*!!!!!!

Don't get me wrong there is a huge problem in the US with the ratio of exec to average rank and file employee at most all companies today not just the entertainment industry.

Honestly does ANY ONE person deserve to make 250-1000 times the pay of the average employee at his or her company?.

Many of the daily duties in the CEOs office are carried out by underlings anyhow and often the top brass hats simply "sign off" on many items.

This type of wretched excess doesn't exist in most other countries either. Actually this wasn't even an issue in the USA until the past fifteen years or so.

* NO the market does NOT determine that pay for CEOs in the USA, it is the BoD in most cases that are part of the good ole boy network that grease each others palms. *

The most devastating aspect of this problem is that it DOES destroy employee morale, and in turn this DOES affect the bottom line although I doubt you'll ever hear any of these elite types ever admit it. After all they are sucking plenty of funds that could be used to attract more talent and provide more incentives to productive employees.

But for the customer this wretched excess results in YOU paying huge price increases for the benefit of having an over compensated top exec who likely does little critical decision making in the end.\

When I do engage banks I never actually allow them to profit because I pay my cc in full every month AND when I purchase a big ticket item it is paid for in full! Remember the banking system in the US prints its own money!

I let others who are foolish enough to pay interest payments suffer the curse of the banking system, I do not.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dubber deux said:


> Honestly does ANY ONE person deserve to make 250-1000 times the pay of the average employee at his or her company?.





Jeremy W said:


> The argument always centers around how much the people at the bottom are making, while ignoring the vast disparity in responsibilities.


I called this argument five posts ago. :nono:


dubber deux said:


> Many of the daily duties in the CEOs office are carried out by underlings anyhow and often the top brass hats simply "sign off" on many items.


What do you *actually* know about the daily duties of a CEO?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

dubber deux said:


> http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110318-706510.html
> 
> Mike White made 32.9 million in his FIRST YEAR as CEO at D*!!!!!!
> 
> ...


So, with your philosophy if you were given a opportunity to make 250-1000 times the average pay of the people you work with you would pass up on it. Right, got it.  There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who work hard and those who work smart. The majority choose to work hard and are very envious and jealous of the ones who chose to work smart. If someone is smart enough to earn a multi million dollar income my hats off to them.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> very envious and jealous


I tried to avoid using those words, but yes. That's all it really boils down to. Envy and jealousy.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

Satelliteracer said:


> You're probably right. I just like to understand people's rationale on this stuff. The market drives these things, no different than they drive salaries for ball players or actors. These people are in limited supply and therefore will be financially rewarded. I'm not going to *START* drinking Pepsi because their CEO made $14.7M last year. I suppose some people might. To each their own, I'm just curious what makes certain people act the way they do. Not judging, just curious.


There, I fixed it for ya. Pepsi's gross :lol:

Dubby Dux.. I guess we'll miss ya


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I don't know what Mike White made at PepsiCo, but generally, I think if you're looking for a CEO, and you want to attract one with experience and proven results, you're not likely to get one to come over if they have to take a large pay cut to do it.

Besides, isn't a large part of some of these salaries actually a whole compensation package that requires actual results? If DirecTV weren't doing well, adding customers etc he wouldn't get as much. And, how much of this is in stock and options? You can't just cash out all your stock to get the money.

As for our rates going up, we know it's not all because DirecTV wants more money. Viacom wants more money, Discovery wants more money. Part of that, and part of Directv's own piece of the increase is that they
Ir own costs go up. If DirecTV just wanted more money, they wouldn't have let us drop the HD access charge. That saved us $10 a month. I think for me, with the price increase and adding MRV, those were essentially cancelled out for the year because of dropping that charge.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

I have to assume that dubber deux must live entirely off the grid and not do business with any businesses since they all have very well compensated high level execs...I understand his dislike for the cost of things in the US, but the rational is completely whacked. Its actually been this way since the late 50's early 60's, just the numbers have gotten larger with the time value of money.


----------



## rainydave (May 28, 2006)

Dang...gotta resign today. The CEO of the company I work for made over $9m in total compensation last year. This is OUTRAGEOUS!!


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

dubber deux said:


> http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110318-706510.html
> 
> Mike White made 32.9 million in his FIRST YEAR as CEO at D*!!!!!!
> 
> ...


So you RENT your house/apartment/condo then, right?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I don't know about that...it's possible that the head of some big property management companies that do condos or apartment complexes pull in some big money as well.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

I sure am amused and pleased to see the peanut gallery come to the aid of grossly over compensated multi-millionaire executives, because when this happens you can be certain that one is "over the target", thus touching on the ACTUAL REALITY of the situation.

I'm very curious as to why so many of you posting here are so protective of such brass hats, it almost seems like you have some vested interest in coming to their defense.
But no, I'm sure you are just interested in being reasonable. Right?

Also it appears that, correctly, those replying have avoided the issue of the influence of the BoD in determining the compensation of a CEO or other top execs, rarely in the US today does it happen that actual performance is the determining factor, all you have to do is google the subject and it is glaringly obvious that in the world of todays CEOs at major companies( in the USA at least) performance and past performance has not had the influence it should on compensation, instead a gaggle of his "friends" on the board will determine this.

There are legions of CEOs in the USA today over the past 25 years or so that consistently fail to perform on the job and yet they are still paid outrageous sums and often times move on to the next position at similar pay only to fail again.

I'm not claiming that the above is ALWAYS the case, but it is many times .

@carlsbad:


> So you RENT your house/apartment/condo then, right?


No. I it own outright. Purchased in cash, in full.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

dubber deux said:


> IAlso it appears that, correctly, those replying have avoided the issue of the influence of the BoD in determining the compensation of a CEO or other top execs, rarely in the US today does it happen that actual performance is the determining factor, all you have to do is google the subject and it is glaringly obvious that in the world of todays CEOs at major companies( in the USA at least) performance and past performance has not had the influence it should on compensation, instead a gaggle of his "friends" on the board will determine this.
> 
> There are legions of CEOs in the USA today over the past 25 years or so that consistently fail to perform on the job and yet they are still paid outrageous sums and often times move on to the next position at similar pay only to fail again.
> 
> ...


Agreeded, the boards are all inbred now, each compensation commitee voting to raise compensation so when it's time for their compensation to be reviewed they can point to what they just approved and say see what so and so is making. Some of these folks do deserve a good salary but way too many, IMHO, are just way out of line compared to what their employees make.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

dubber deux said:


> I sure am amused and pleased to see the peanut gallery come to the aid of grossly over compensated multi-millionaire executives, because when this happens you can be certain that one is "over the target", thus touching on the ACTUAL REALITY of the situation.
> 
> I'm very curious as to why so many of you posting here are so protective of such brass hats, it almost seems like you have some vested interest in coming to their defense.
> But no, I'm sure you are just interested in being reasonable. Right?
> ...


And there are legions of actors and professional ball players who fail to perform yet are payed outrageous sums for their services. It's called capitalism. This is America, the land of opportunity. If the chance to become a CEO and make mega bucks arose not even you would pass on the opportunity.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

MysteryMan said:


> And there are legions of actors and professional ball players who fail to perform yet are payed outrageous sums for their services. It's called capitalism. This is America, the land of opportunity. If the chance to become a CEO and make mega bucks arose not even you would pass on the opportunity.


I'm not trying to insult you but you probably don't know your US history well.

America was not founded on "capitalism". Actually the origins were based on freedom to worship God without interference from the "state" and the element of "free enterprise" was also an element but much less so of course. But free enterprise is NOT the same thing as "capitalism" of course.

Also I don't recall the Pilgrims or the Founding Fathers mentioning anything specifically about "the land of opportunity" although that isn't a bad thing what I mention in my posts is more a case of greedy elements "on the make"
(opportunism) than of "opportunity" .

I'm NEVER against folks making good money if they actually EARN it. Unfortunately many of the top executives in US business today have not earned what they have instead gaining it through connections, and that is NOT the same thing as dilligence and hard work.

Mystery...I would be a mystery to you because I can promise you that if someone offered me compensation that I did not earn I WOULD NOT ACCEPT IT. NO LIE!:flag:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

As a comparative point .. Mike White's salary is essentially $2/year ($0.17/month) extra for every customer. This assumes actual cash is paid. The truth is that most of that ~$40/mil is in stock so even my $2/yr isn't really legit (it's less than that in cash terms).

So really, I sure wish I could be paid like Mike White. I'm both envious and jealous. Do I think his salary is hurting DIRECTV or causing my prices to be higher. No, I don't. Do I think Mike White is doing a great job? Yeah, I do. I have a lot of DIRECTV contacts and each and every one of them enjoys working for DIRECTV and strives to provide the best customer service possible. Even you yourself stated that "the reliability of the provider service is excellent."

Costs are getting crazy .. I'm in agreement with that, but the CEO of DIRECTV is not the problem here.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

dubber deux said:


> I'm not trying to insult you but you probably don't know your US history well.
> 
> America was not founded on "capitalism". Actually the origins were based on freedom to worship God without interference from the "state" and the element of "free enterprise" was also an element but much less so of course. But free enterprise is NOT the same thing as "capitalism" of course.
> 
> ...


Ahem.

The Pilgrims came to America in the late 15th Century, but were British Subjects. These are the people who came to the Americas primairly for religious freedom. Eventually, there were more British colonies all along what is now the east coast of the US, and there were Spanish and French colonies as well, with the populations more-or-less subject to their parent country.

The United States wasn't formed until late in the 18th Century, almost 300 years later, and the primary instigating reason for the revolution against the then-legal government was ECONOMIC and POLITICAL, *not* religious. The USA was formed by our Founding Fathers, who were very strongly proponents of Free Enterprise.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

And couldn't stand for a distant government taxing their asses- or donkeys- or dry goods or tobacco, food or liquor....


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Please, let's try to keep religious discussion off of DBSTalk .. This is not the place for it (and against forum rules).

Thank You


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> Please, let's try to keep religious discussion off of DBSTalk .. This is not the place for it (and against forum rules).
> 
> Thank You


Fine it wasn't my intention to bring religion into the discussion ...but nobody will argue that US Common law (and current law) is based on that book I mentioned. It is a fact.

Just to reiterate the Founding Fathers were for Free Enterprise, which is nothing like Capitalism.

Doug...I didn't specifically mean to make it a faith arguement but it is hard to delete the element of the history and beginnings of common law. I don't think you would argue that.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

dubber deux said:


> Remember the banking system in the US prints its own money!


Learn something new every day. I didn't know the US Mint was part of the US banking system.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

You have heard of the "fed"..... the stuff you call cash is actually a private federal reserve note. Google it. The fed is a private bank it is not part of the US gov't and there is no gold or silver backing that note. 

Sorry for the OT...but since someone asked.

Sig: You are just annoyed that I don't accept REVISED history. :lol:


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

dubber deux said:


> ...
> 
> Sig: You are just annoyed that I don't accept REVISED history. :lol:


Hardly.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I think we've strayed far enough in this topic to call it cooked ..


----------

