# E* vs D* HD DVR Fees



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

I posted this in a now closed thread (not closed for this post I'm sure LOL) and I was hoping to get some comments on this in regard to if my numbers were true.

The situation of DVR HD fees are now very real as more people add extra HD sets and want "real" HD and not a downgraded SD coax feed.

I have three HD sets in my home now and I alternate by time between them (Basement, Living Room, Bedroom) for watching TV and while I can understand being charged a rental fee per box I do not understand what a DVR fee pays for and why each separate box gets charged a DVR fee.

Here is my post:



> E*
> 
> $6 for each additional receiver rental fee
> $6 for each DVR
> ...


I do not want this to turn into a E* vs D* fanboy thread with name calling. I am seriously considering leaving Dish because I would like to take advantage of all my HD sets. IMHO the DVR fee is stupid and nothing more than a made up fee they figure they can charge us. Ok I'll deal with this stupid fee but at the very least D* only charges you the fee once no matter how many boxes you have.

Is my math wrong? As I said before people will be adding more HD DVR's and I wonder how long this fee can stand.

I want to stay with Dish. I love my 622 and I'd love some more 622's but not if I feel they are going to cheat me on them by adding both a rental "and" another DVR fee on each. Sure D* has more HD "now" but I feel it will level off in the end so count me as yet another Dish customer for 8+ years who is considering leaving but not because D* has a few more channels of partial HD for the moment.

What D* does offer, however, is a much more reasonable rental price on their equipment. Sure I'll have to pay a few bucks to make the switch (which is why I'm waiting to see if Dish will wake up) but eventually Dish will push me over the edge.

-JB


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't like the DVR fee either. I have one DVR and I pay it because I'm not on the AEP... but I don't like it either. That said, however, it was a known thing when I signed up for the DVR so I knowingly agreed to it.

The DirecTV DVR-household-fee is more palatable if you plan on multiple DVRs since you won't keep adding that fee... but I wonder how much that comes into play?

In my case, I'm not on AEP but I only have 1 DVR. I wonder how many people have multiple DVRs and don't want AEP with Dish? My gut tells me that anyone willing to spring for the multiple DVRs must plan on watching a lot of stuff and the AEP would fit that bill. I could be wrong though.

I'm not familiar with DirecTV enough to say if they have a package that waives all the DVR fees. If so, then we'd be at a wash-situation I think.

Dish does waive all DVR fees (aside from the receiver lease of course and the phone line connection fee) with AEP. So if you're planning on multiple DVRs it only makes sense to go AEP and put that extra money towards programming rather than DVR fees.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The price is irrelevant ... you are going to have a hard enough time GETTING the third HD DVR unless you are willing to buy it. D*'s buy in price also should not be ignored.

The fee will stand as long as the market will bear ... and the market is doing fine. As grouchy as some get over the $5.98 for the second (etc) DVR it gets paid.


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)

James Long said:


> The fee will stand as long as the market will bear ... and the market is doing fine. As grouchy as some get over the $5.98 for the second (etc) DVR it gets paid.


 Exactly. Money talks.


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

James Long said:


> The price is irrelevant ... you are going to have a hard enough time GETTING the third HD DVR unless you are willing to buy it. D*'s buy in price also should not be ignored.
> 
> The fee will stand as long as the market will bear ... and the market is doing fine. As grouchy as some get over the $5.98 for the second (etc) DVR it gets paid.


This just isn't true. Directv has been very flexible in this regard, provided you wait about 6 months betwen orders.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

So you're saying I can get additional DVRs if I'm willing to wait?
I thought this thread was about instant gratification ... what one could get TODAY.
Seems to fit in with what I was saying. "This just isn't true." does not apply.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

You can get as many HR20's as you want as soon as you want at D*, just not at any discounted price but the $299 price.


----------



## lionsrule (Nov 25, 2003)

This thread is SIMPLY COMPARING DVR fees between direct and dish....

And direct has dish beat, HANDS down if you have 2,3 or more DVR's

one fee per account VS one fee per box....hmm, which do you prefer?


(and yes, I HAVE dish)


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)

I'd prefer one fee per account.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Dish's DVR Advantage program gives you one fee for all DVRs.


----------



## SDizzle (Jan 1, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Dish's DVR Advantage program gives you one fee for all DVRs.


And what is a "DVR Advantage Program"? And what is the monthly charge for that? D* did used to waive the DVR fee (Though it is only 1 charge per account), when you had Premier, but now it is not included as of a couple months ago. Those of us that had it before that get to be "grandfathered" in.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DVR Advantage is AT200+DVR Fee+Locals for $49.99 per month ($3.98 less than separate prices - price guaranteed through February 2009). Additional channels can be added if one wants AT250 channels, movie packs or HD.

Unfortunately DVR Advantage only includes the first DVR. Other than that, it is a decent deal.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

THE AEP package only covers the first DVR fee...after that it's $6 a DVR...I also would like one fee per account...but thats where money is


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)

I get the top tier package (250) , HD, locals, HBO, SHO, and Starz and I'm still paying the DVR fee. Should I be? I didn't know Dish would wave the DVR fee.

I pay 57.99 for 250 + locals. I guess I'll be calling to ask why I pay more than everyone else. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

He Save Dave said:


> I get the top tier package (250) , HD, locals, HBO, SHO, and Starz and I'm still paying the DVR fee. Should I be? I didn't know Dish would wave the DVR fee.


If you have Americas everything pack...your DVR fee is waived...for the first dvr only...thats the next one up...and you should check it out i think its not much more than you probably pay now...plus the $6 is knocked off


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

JRB-

as james said ...don't forget to add the up front charge for the D* boxes...although i think they have them waived right now, but not sure if it's for the first box only or not...and i don't know if they will work out something with you...but that was the ONLY thing that kept me from choosing D* when leaving charter...I didn't want to pay $399 up front.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Companies make their bucks by nickel and diming their customers to death, and no one in this field does it better than DISH.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Directv has the dvr plus hd pack that allows you to waive all dvr fees for $69.99. IF you want to have all the hd you need to add the hd bonus pack for $4.99 more. Then you could add premiums if you wanted to or not and get all the hd you wanted without any dvr fees. If you wanted all the dvrs on your account to be hd dvrs then you will pay out the but for the privilige at $299.99 each to LEASE , or is it now 199.99? I can't remember. But either way you can escape the dvr fees , but you can't escape the lease fees. Most people can see paying the dvr fee at $5.98 each a month , rather than $299.99 to lease each dvr. 

But that being said , I agree that the dvr fees per receiver are stupid for DISH to charge. When DISH was selling non dvr fees like the 501,508 and the 721,921 dvrs , DISH added more subs than ever before. They even advertised the fact that they did NOT have a dvr fee when the other guys did . If you remember back then Directv had a 9.99 dvr fee and TIvo had 12.99 a month dvr fee. Even Directv lowered their dvr fees to 4.99 per account to look better in comparison to DISH. DISH added more subs back during that time than Directv . But in the end GREED got the best of Charlie and he saw nothing but $$$ signs. IF DISH would add one dvr fee per account like Directv it would go even further to help add more subs to them. By the same token if Directv would give the first hd dvr receiver lease for free like DISH does , they would rack up all the subs. THey need to think about that seriously. They could rack up a lot of DISH subs and new subs if they reconsidered that one lease fee. Neither provider is perfect in their fees but Directv has reduced their dvr fees to 4.99 and made it per account. WHile DISH has added more and more miscellaneous fees that are petty and just because they can , like:

$5.98 Dvr fee PER RECEIVER
$5.00 NO phone line connected fee
$6.00 for hd extra receiver /$5.00 for sd extra receivers.
$6.00 no hd pack fee
$5.99 locals price if you want sat locals for your area and or ota guide information.* Without locals no guide information for ota digitals. 
$39.99 for external hard drive fee. 

Kind of like Charlie wanted to rack up the fee money to make DISH look more attractive to a potential buyer like ATT maybe? OR maybe he wanted extra money on hand to pay out the TIVO lawsuit , one of many that DISH has been sued over the years? It just seems funny now to remember all the old DISH adds back in the day that used to say that DISH satellite was cheaper than CABLE because of all their cable fees. NOW DISH is the "cable"of satellite industry in regards to fees. I just hope DIrectv doesn't follow CHarlie in regards to the cable fees ,like they did with the lease format.


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)

I just realized the DVR advantage carries 200 channels. I have 250. Thats why mine is more. I still pay the DVR fee though. I just have the one receiver. Is it that they consider the 622 as two receivers because of the 2 tuners?


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

He Save Dave said:


> I just realized the DVR advantage carries 200 channels. I have 250. Thats why mine is more. I still pay the DVR fee though. I just have the one receiver. Is it that they consider the 622 as two receivers because of the 2 tuners?


no thats just the fee for it...unless you upgrade to the AEP...seriously price compare it..you may get more content for a only couple bucks extra...i noticed that and did it.

YEAH i LOVE THE $5 A MONTH FEE for not having a phone line connection...dont need a home line...so i get charged for it...love it...the $39.99 hard drive fee was nice too....$40 to turn on a usb port.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Everything I've ever read on the Dish Web site terms & conditions says that the DVR fee is waived for all receivers if you subscribe to the Everything pack.

DVR Advantage is a new and different animal... but AEP waives the DVR fee for all receivers unless something has changed very recently.


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)

texaswolf said:


> no thats just the fee for it...unless you upgrade to the AEP...seriously price compare it..you may get more content for a only couple bucks extra...i noticed that and did it.
> 
> YEAH i LOVE THE $5 A MONTH FEE for not having a phone line connection...dont need a home line...so i get charged for it...love it...the $39.99 hard drive fee was nice too....$40 to turn on a usb port...yeah...that one came with no Vaseline.


lol I hear ya. Is the ethernet option not a possibility for ya? I think they just enabled that.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

HDMe said:


> Everything I've ever read on the Dish Web site terms & conditions says that the DVR fee is waived for all receivers if you subscribe to the Everything pack.
> 
> DVR Advantage is a new and different animal... but AEP waives the DVR fee for all receivers unless something has changed very recently.


yeah talked to them yesterday...CSR checked with her supervisor...only one dvr is waived...i thought the same thing until i was shutdown


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

He Save Dave said:


> lol I hear ya. Is the ethernet option not a possibility for ya? I think they just enabled that.


that i could do...does that tak the phone line fee out?


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)

Wow I might bump up to the AEP. I'd like NBATVHD especially.


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)

texaswolf said:


> that i could do...does that tak the phone line fee out?


I think so. Its the other option. Either hook it to your phone line or the ethernet port to avoid the fee. That is how I understood it at least.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

He Save Dave said:


> Wow I might bump up to the AEP. I'd like NBATVHD especially.


yeah...give them a call...i'm trying to figure out how to get the SD versions of HD channels of my guide...with out creating another guide


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

texaswolf said:


> the $39.99 hard drive fee was nice too....$40 to turn on a usb port.


The ports were enabled the day you got it. I've been using the USB ports on my 622 free since February of 2006 and many others have too for cameras and PocketDishes.

The one time $40 fee covers the development, deployment and maintenance of a new feature of being able to manage an external hard drive ... not to "turn on a USB port". You you honestly believe that the 622 had the native ability to use an external drive before E* paid to write the software to make that work?

There are some fees that seem more like "because we can" fees than real costs ... the external storage fee is not one of them. A lot went into that feature ... and there is still work being done (to turn it into a true "per account" feature and make it more accessable). It is a lot more than activating a USB.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

texaswolf said:


> that i could do...does that tak the phone line fee out?


Ethernet will do the "phone in" connection and prevent the phone line fee. It may not do PPV (if you order those via remote) and it doesn't do the interactive apps like paying your bill. Still need a phone line for that... but Ethernet will do the call-in and prevent the phone line fee.

Mine has been on internet connection for over a month now and has called-in remotely via Ethernet a couple of times so it seems to be fine.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> The ports were enabled the day you got it. I've been using the USB ports on my 622 free since February of 2006 and many others have too for cameras and PocketDishes.
> 
> The one time $40 fee covers the development, deployment and maintenance of a new feature of being able to manage an external hard drive ... not to "turn on a USB port". You you honestly believe that the 622 had the native ability to use an external drive before E* paid to write the software to make that work?
> 
> There are some fees that seem more like "because we can" fees than real costs ... the external storage fee is not one of them. A lot went into that feature ... and there is still work being done (to turn it into a true "per account" feature and make it more accessable). It is a lot more than activating a USB.


Rumor has it D* doesn't charge for it? Im still ticked about it...I called a csr to get info on it...told me just get the external, plug it in ...call them...they will activate the port...he failed to mention the fee...so i did...got the drive... called...new csr said it was all set....and there will be a $39.99 fee on my next bill....i recommended they put that on the box when someone accesses that option...like you get when buying a ppv....

ok...not really ticked anymore...since i have a drive full of HD movies to watch when i want


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

texaswolf said:


> Rumor has it D* doesn't charge for it?


D* does not have the same feature.

D* allows one to REPLACE the internal hard drive on their receiver (losing all settings such as timers) by connecting an external drive or drive array to the SATA port on the receiver. No additional software development is needed ... all the receiver has to do is recognize that the drive needs formatting.

Every time you change drives on D* the timer list changes. Moving content between drives is not an option. E*'s development includes file transfers in both directions and the ability to use multiple drives on the same machine without shutting down the receiver or losing timers.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> D* does not have the same feature.
> 
> D* allows one to REPLACE the internal hard drive on their receiver (losing all settings such as timers) by connecting an external drive or drive array to the SATA port on the receiver. No additional software development is needed ... all the receiver has to do is recognize that the drive needs formatting.
> 
> Every time you change drives on D* the timer list changes. Moving content between drives is not an option. E*'s development includes file transfers in both directions and the ability to use multiple drives on the same machine without shutting down the receiver or losing timers.


gotcha...i had seen somebody say they had it in another thread...that why i said "rumor has it"...now did you say the 622 could run 2 hd sets? or only 1 hd 1 sd


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If you don't mind watching the same program on both HD sets ... 

TV1 is HD, TV2 is SD. TV1 can also be seen in SD if you desire.
Either TV1 or TV2 can view HD or SD programming (and record it).
Only TV1 can view and record OTA programming (TV2 can watch recordings).

All outputs are active simultaneously. If you want to run HDMI to one set and component to another (viewing the same TV1 program) you can ... or use external equipment to split the feeds to feed multiple sets (in case your house looks like the TV wall at Wal*Mart).

BTW: I tend to be more of a practical person ... how many HDTVs do I *need*, not how many do I want. The same goes for receivers. I could use a second ViP-622 DVR ... even though I'm in a two person home. But have not splurged yet.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

James Long said:


> D* allows one to REPLACE the internal hard drive on their receiver (losing all settings such as timers)


Point of fact: One doesn't "lose" anything. All settings on the internal drive remain intact. Right now, one just needs to set the Series Links and recordings, etc., on the eSATA drive, then when switching between one or the other, they'll all remain present. In the near future, the eSATA drive will serve as a supplement and not just replacement.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> If you don't mind watching the same program on both HD sets ...
> 
> TV1 is HD, TV2 is SD. TV1 can also be seen in SD if you desire.
> Either TV1 or TV2 can view HD or SD programming (and record it).
> Only TV1 can view and record OTA programming (TV2 can watch recordings).


got it...so thats a no for 2 hd sets at the same time with diferent shows


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Lord Vader said:


> Point of fact: One doesn't "lose" anything. All settings on the internal drive remain intact. Right now, one just needs to set the Series Links and recordings, etc., on the eSATA drive, then when switching between one or the other, they'll all remain present. In the near future, the eSATA drive will serve as a supplement and not just replacement.


Pint of fact: If I had all of my links and recordings set up on the internal drive and connected a SATA drive those links and recording lists would no longer function unless I manually set them up again? And if I changed SATA drives to a new one I would have to set up those links and lists again? And if I had a SATA drive connected and modified or deleted a link or list I would have to note the change and make that change again when returning to the internal drive or another SATA?

Sounds like loss to me ...


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

It's only a loss in your DISH-can-never-do-wrong world, JL. You cannot lose what wasn't there to begin with. Having to add something--once--that wasn't there when you started it isn't a loss at all, your semantical bloviating notwithstanding.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

I know switching to D* will cost a ton of money and this is one of the reasons I would prefer to stay with Dish. As I said I love my 622 but I do now have 3 HD sets.

Some of you keep saying that most people only have the one 622/722 with the 2nd SD link and this is fine.

I dispute this. Almost every TV sold now is HD and on the larger sets (esp with LCD and Plasma) the SD looks terrible on most of those sets. 

Yes it's nice to share a HD between two sets but I want to see true HD and even thou I admit that the SD feed looks pretty good for coax it's still not HD.

So multiple 622/722 are the future and that per box DVR sucks!

Now I think I could get 1 HD DVR "near" free from D* and then have to pay $300 for the second. The cost savings of $7 a month ($1 less for second box and $6 less for no DVR on second box) would take a long time to make up for that $300 but it still pisses me off because I know in my heart that "any" DVR fee is just pure made up BS.

What makes it even worse is that I still have an old 501 on two of my SD sets and it sucks that I cannot see the HD that I am paying for on those sets.

In reality I need 3 622's.

I will fully admit that I have become so addicted to the power of the DVR that I find it hard to go with just a standard box. When I watch a show I start it 10 minutes into the show so I can skip the commercials.

Am I some form of mutant having so many sets in the house? I had thought that many of you had some pretty sophisticated setups from what I have read 

So you all only need the one HD DVR? All the rest of your sets are on non-dvr's?

-JB


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)

Lord Vader has spoken. lol


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> So you all only need the one HD DVR? All the rest of your sets are on non-dvr's?
> 
> -JB


I just don't ever watch tv anywhere but my living room. Ever. I just have no need for any more receivers.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

James Long said:


> Pint of fact:


Can I have a "pint" of that too?


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

jrb531 said:


> I know switching to D* will cost a ton of money and this is one of the reasons I would prefer to stay with Dish. As I said I love my 622 but I do now have 3 HD sets.
> 
> Some of you keep saying that most people only have the one 622/722 with the 2nd SD link and this is fine.
> 
> ...


im with you man...you would think that customers using a crap load of their equipment would get a deal...thats how they work their packages...more you get...better deal you get...but instead it's like being punished for using more equipment...I USE THE 622 FOR 2 TVS now...but if there wasn't the stupid fee, i would have another for my other 2 rooms


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

He Save Dave said:


> I just don't ever watch tv anywhere but my living room. Ever. I just have no need for any more receivers.


If my house was only me then I would do the same. I have a new 50" DLP in my basement with one hell of a picture. My wife and two children, however, do not share my viewing tastes and insist on watching what I consider crap 

-JB


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> If my house was only me then I would do the same. I have a new 50" DLP in my basement with one hell of a picture. My wife and two children, however, do not share my viewing tastes and insist on watching what I consider crap
> 
> -JB


lol I hear ya. Yeah its just me and my wife and we watch alot of the same stuff. I guess I lucked out. The only things I reserve that she doesn't like are football and Nascar.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

jrb531 said:


> If my house was only me then I would do the same. I have a new 50" DLP in my basement with one hell of a picture. My wife and two children, however, do not share my viewing tastes and insist on watching what I consider crap
> 
> -JB


OH YEAH....i get the same deal here...which is fine with me...leave me to my DLP


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HobbyTalk said:


> Can I have a "pint" of that too?


I figured he couldn't handle a "quart" of fact. Turns out he couldn't handle the "pint" either. 

Resetting all one's timers is the price of the feature. The way I use the external USB drive (connecting the one I want to use only as needed) it would really mess up my timers. But of course that doesn't matter to Vader.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> I figured he couldn't handle a "quart" of fact. Turns out he couldn't handle the "pint" either.
> 
> Resetting all one's timers is the price of the feature. The way I use the external USB drive (connecting the one I want to use only as needed) it would really mess up my timers. But of course that doesn't matter to Vader.


how big of an external do you run? IM quickly filling a 320 gb...thinking of making a go of a TB.


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)

texaswolf said:


> thinking of making a go of a TB.


Someone on here told me that the 622 doesn't support 1TB drives so be careful. I never got a confirmation on that though.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

He Save Dave said:


> Lord Vader has spoken. lol


*Indeed I have.* And not with bias or parsing of words like some DISH apologists do.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

He Save Dave said:


> Someone on here told me that the 622 doesn't support 1TB drives so be careful. I never got a confirmation on that though.


I know the official statement from Dish is nothing above 750GB supported... but some have posted they are using TB drives without problems. Its just a "Dish will not help you if you have problems" scenario if you use a non-supported drive.

But truth to tell... if you lose movies as a result of some drive problem, it's not like Dish can magickally bring them back or anything... so I'm not sure where the risk is really.


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> *Indeed I have.* And not with bias or parsing of words like some DISH apologists do.


rofl dont choke me out!


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

James Long said:


> Resetting all one's timers is the price of the feature.


Not for me it isn't. I switch back frequently and have not had to "reset all my timers."


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

texaswolf said:


> how big of an external do you run? IM quickly filling a 320 gb...thinking of making a go of a TB.


The one connected (but not powered up as it is not in use) at the moment is 250GB.
At this time 750GB per drive is the limit. (One drive connected at a time.)



Lord Vader said:


> *Indeed I have.* And not with bias or parsing of words like some DISH apologists do.


Talk about DBS please.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

HDMe said:


> I know the official statement from Dish is nothing above 750GB supported... but some have posted they are using TB drives without problems. Its just a "Dish will not help you if you have problems" scenario if you use a non-supported drive.
> 
> But truth to tell... if you lose movies as a result of some drive problem, it's not like Dish can magickally bring them back or anything... so I'm not sure where the risk is really.


I know i seen a youtube video of a dish rep at a conference talking about the feature...he had a box with 4 usb ports on it...said it wasn't available yet but when it is, you could hook up 4 different TB drives to it...so i assumed we could hook up a TB on these with 2 ports....if i lose movies..i'll just reset them to record again later...


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

> The one connected (but not powered up as it is not in use) at the moment is 250GB.
> At this time 750GB per drive is the limit. (One drive connected at a time.)


damn..tech guy told me i could hook up 2 drives at the same time


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

texaswolf said:


> damn..tech guy told me i could hook up 2 drives at the same time


I'm not sure what happens, if it doesn't let you use either or if it only uses the first one attached. But I know multiple drives at the same time isn't supported yet.

Might be something they are working on, especially if they showed a demo or something at a trade show, so maybe something to look forward to. Meanwhile, just unplug and play  You can use the receiver as an intermediary step if you wanted to move from one drive to the other. Slower than a direct transfer drive-to-drive but at least still possible.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Lord Vader said:


> *Indeed I have.* And not with bias or parsing of words like some DISH apologists do.


No.. but with words of a DirecTV appologist... One of the issues talked about here and that have been placed on the Wish list is the ablity to take a USB key and export your settings and import them into a new box. Reason for this request is that if you want to move to a new box or you have an issues you want to minimize the pain. Fully understandable as I see it and I like the idea. Heck.. extend it to upload/download box settings on the net.

If you have to go through the same procedure with external hard drive support I would consider that customer pain even if it was a one time event (Initial install) and I could see where it would created a issue with keeping your timer/timer events synchronized. From my perspective, obviously D* does too since they are planning on making the drive support add-on rather than replacement. However, features frequently have limitations and some of them come with some pain for a number of reasons... It is the nature of the game from my eyes and one person my consider the pain minimal while another would consider it major.

I am not intimate with D* EHD features... So if this is not the case then I apologize for my limited knowledge of D* products. However, if it is the case I think most people would consider it a negative.

As for my initial apologist comment above.... It was said in jest and to prove a point. Most people feel the need to name call.. makes them feel important... Feel that somehow throwing a label on someone makes that persons point less meaningful. Sort of a bullying tactic.... Well personally I feel it takes away from one persons point of view and usually is a sign of a weak argument. Of course you are most welcome to disagree.


----------



## brettbolt (Feb 22, 2006)

Ron Barry said:


> ... Most people feel the need to name call.. makes them feel important... Feel that somehow throwing a label on someone makes that persons point less meaningful. Sort of a bullying tactic.... Well personally I feel it takes away from one persons point of view and usually is a sign of a weak argument. Of course you are most welcome to disagree.


Calling someone an apologist is not bullying. They are the words of a gentleman in a discussion. And it does not take away from his argument when he is pointing out the obvious bias of someone in this forum.

OK, maybe everyone is biased to some extent. But when, day after day, month after month, someone talks so highly about a company that can never do anything wrong, his motives and objectivity become highly suspect.

(Note: There is no 'name calling' or 'bashing' in my post. I am simply expressing my opinion which you are free to disagree with).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Once again (must I say?) talk about DBS!

Name calling does not continue the conversation.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

I'll talk DBS. 

Tho this does seem OT, perhaps I can add a small bit of clarification. DIRECTVs external hard drive does hide many of the settings and all recordings the customer thought they had. It would be rather disconcerting to most customers the first time they hooked up the drive.

Sure they are not lost completely, but most people would not want to go back and forth between drives to recover them. Clearly a stopgap design but it does work. It is very easy to build a system with a 2tb of RAID 5 protected space. Very nice. 

And the last clarification to be made regards LordVader's comment: 'In the near future, the eSATA drive will serve as a supplement and not just replacement." LordVader is correct in that DIRECTV is planning making the changes, but I think "in the near future" is a tiny bit misleading as to the timeframe. I don't think it will be quite that near of a future, but that just might be a difference in how he and I define "near future".

And one option on my part. To me, allowing users to use external hard drives by charging a fee seems rather miserly on the part of Dish. I like many of the features Dish put into the feature, I like the plug and play, the moving of files from one unit to another within an account, etc. But I have problems with charging a fee for something I consider a will become a standard feature of DVRs.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## scout12 (Mar 26, 2007)

texaswolf said:


> yeah talked to them yesterday...CSR checked with her supervisor...only one dvr is waived...i thought the same thing until i was shutdown


Well that either recently changed or the rep was wrong. I have one 622 and two 625's and pay no DVR Fee. I signed up in May. I hate how they penalized me for having no phone line though.

$100 BACK CREDIT 6 OF 10 - ADJUSTMENT -10.00
ADDITIONAL RECEIVER 5.00
ADDL RECEIVER ACCESS FEE 5.00
DIGITAL HOME ADVANTAGE AMERICA'S EVERYTHING PAK WITH 94.99
DISH NETWORK DVR SERVICEFEE 0.00
DISHHD 20.00
HDBONUS CREDIT 6 OF 10 - ADJUSTMENT -10.00
LOCALS 0.00
PROGRAMMING ACCESS FEE 5.00
PROGRAMMING ACCESS FEE 5.00
PROGRAMMING ACCESS FEE 5.00

That's all the charges on my bill.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

scout12 said:


> Well that either recently changed or the rep was wrong. I have one 622 and two 625's and pay no DVR Fee. I signed up in May. I hate how they penalized me for having no phone line though.
> 
> $100 BACK CREDIT 6 OF 10 - ADJUSTMENT -10.00
> ADDITIONAL RECEIVER 5.00
> ...


You pay no DVR fee because you have America's Everythink Package.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

Hound said:


> You pay no DVR fee because you have America's Everythink Package.


yeah...you get 1 dvr fee waived on the AEP...after that it's $6 a pop.


----------



## scout12 (Mar 26, 2007)

texaswolf said:


> yeah...you get 1 dvr fee waived on the AEP...after that it's $6 a pop.


No I have 3 DVRs and do not pay $6 a month on any of them.


----------



## scout12 (Mar 26, 2007)

Hound said:


> You pay no DVR fee because you have America's Everythink Package.


Yes but earlier in the thread someone was saying only the first DVR fee is waived. What I'm saying is I have 3 DVRs and do not pay a DVR fee on any of them.


----------



## bobl (Jan 17, 2004)

All DVR fees are waived with the AEP pack. What's not waived is the additional receiver fee of $6.00/month. The additional receiver fee applies to all HD receivers after the first one on the account. Don't confuse the DVR fee (which is waived with AEP) with the additional receiver fee (which is not waived with AEP).


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> ...while I can understand being charged a rental fee per box I do not understand what a DVR fee pays for and why each separate box gets charged a DVR fee.


DVR has lot more hardware than a simple receiver.

I think they should rationalize the fee and just make that lease fee per box. They can have different fees for different models.

BTW, I stuck with Comcast for a year because they gave 2 free DVRs that I needed - before moving to E* because of internationals + more HD.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

brettbolt said:


> Calling someone an apologist is not bullying. They are the words of a gentleman in a discussion. And it does not take away from his argument when he is pointing out the obvious bias of someone in this forum.
> 
> OK, maybe everyone is biased to some extent. But when, day after day, month after month, someone talks so highly about a company that can never do anything wrong, his motives and objectivity become highly suspect.
> 
> (Note: There is no 'name calling' or 'bashing' in my post. I am simply expressing my opinion which you are free to disagree with).


Well guess we need to disagree Brett on this one....

Just to clarify my position.. I believe it is how it is done and said and it can be used in derogatory and bullying fashion. It would be the same thing as calling someone a whiner because they contently complain about ever issue they have. Just does not make for constructive conversation.

Now back to the Tom's comments. Thanks for the clarification. I see how it works and I still see some pain associated with the design. However, there could be a lot of reasons from nobody would use multiple swap drive configurations to it is the quickest way to get the feature to market.

Support for large RAID configuration is nice for the power users.


----------



## brettbolt (Feb 22, 2006)

Ron Barry said:


> Well guess we need to disagree Brett on this one....


I don't like name calling either, but the word he used hardly seemed like bullying. So we disagree, enough said. But in general I feel that DBSTalk is too picky about what people say and how they say it.



James Long said:


> Once again (must I say?) talk about DBS!
> .


What do you want me to say about DBS?

E* always has the customer's best interest in mind with every decision they make. I am sure that E* would not charge a fee for each DVR unless they felt it was absolutely necessary for their financial survival.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

brettbolt said:


> I don't like name calling either, but the word he used hardly seemed like bullying. So we disagree, enough said. But in general I feel that DBSTalk is too picky about what people say and how they say it.


So I am clear.. I was not talking about the particular comment but more in general in regards to bullying and using name calling as a means to do it. As to being too picky. Well we all have our standards and for the record there was not moderation action taken here.. Just my opinion on that phrase and also on using Whiner on the other side of the fence....


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

texaswolf said:


> yeah...you get 1 dvr fee waived on the AEP...after that it's $6 a pop.


*Quit saying that*. It's completely incorrect.

With AEP the DVR fee is waived for ALL DVRs on the account.

The new DVR Advantage plan reduces the fee for the first DVR, then each additional DVR gets hit with the full fee.

The $6 fee for each extra ViP receiver ($5 for others) applies to ALL receivers, DVR or not, and without regard to subscription level.

If the second receiver is a 211, you pay $6. Add a 622, pay $6 mirror fee and, if you have less than AEP, _also_ pay $5.98 DVR fee for a total of $11.98, and _still_ be subject to the no phone penalty.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> To me, allowing users to use external hard drives by charging a fee seems rather miserly on the part of Dish. I like many of the features Dish put into the feature, I like the plug and play, the moving of files from one unit to another within an account, etc. But I have problems with charging a fee for something I consider a will become a standard feature of DVRs.


I agree that the fee thing, especially $40, is annoying ... but I'd rather have the feature the way it E* implements it than the way D* implements it today. Perhaps E* will reduce the fee or eliminate it in the future if external storage becomes standard (thus annoying everyone who has paid).



brettbolt said:


> But in general I feel that DBSTalk is too picky about what people say and how they say it.


Complaints about our moderation are best sent in PMs. Suffice it to say this site isn't here for people to insult each other ... it is here to discuss DBS (and related topics).

:backtotop


> E* always has the customer's best interest in mind with every decision they make. I am sure that E* would not charge a fee for each DVR unless they felt it was absolutely necessary for their financial survival.


I doubt if the $40 external hard drive and $6 per DVR fees are make or break in the survival of E* ... but people are apparently willing to pay.


----------



## brettbolt (Feb 22, 2006)

James Long said:


> ...
> I doubt if the $40 external hard drive and $6 per DVR fees are make or break in the survival of E* ... but people are apparently willing to pay.


:backtotop
Its possible that E* has to pay patent royalties for each DVR in use (maybe its not just Tivo going after them? Or they're saving the $6 in case they lose to Tivo and/or other DVR patent claims).

However, I'd rather see the $6 go to the content providers -- when you timeshift and skip commercials it is them and their advertisers that are the real losers. Does anyone besides me feel slightly guilty when skipping commercials?

E* also knows that once someone gets a DVR, they are probably hooked for life.

I think they could help reduce their customer's impression that they are being nickel and dimed a lot by just combining it all into a single total. Instead of $6 DVR + $6 lease + $6 HD Enabling, they could just charge $18 a month for leasing an HD DVR. And if you want the HD channels its $14 more (20-6).

Anyway, if I was in charge, thats what I would do. However, I don't think they're reading this.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Some of the nickel-and-dime charges are a result of itemized bills. Back in the day, you'd just get a bill and that's what you paid for service... but enough folks yelled loud enough that they wanted to see itemized bills (and I support this actually)... so now instead of a lump sum we see a breakdown of the charges.

This results in a lot of nickel-and-dime fees... but the alternative is for a company to just charge a lump sum and not break it down... but the public, and eventually our government, spoke and pretty much forced itemizing.

On the one hand we now see how our money gets divided... on the other we still don't get to say much about how it gets spent.

Take a look at your property tax breakdown sometime.. I've looked at mine, and there are all kinds of strange percentages going to odd places... and I wish I could ask my government not to pay for things I'm not using or ask why I'm paying so much for one thing and practically nothing for another... or why some taxes seem to be doubling up with different names for the same end-result.

Anyway, my point really was that we asked for itemized bills, so it isn't surprising to now see a lot of small fees in there.


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

Lord Vader said:


> Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power. Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.


Power is irrelevant. The Force is irrelevant. You will be assimilated.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

brettbolt said:


> Does anyone besides me feel slightly guilty when skipping commercials?


No. I have absolutely no use for the commercials. I don't get influenced by them and they are mostly not targeted towards me.

I buy local newspapers almost exclusively to get ads ... so I do value commercials - but they need to be better targetted. TV ads are very inefficient ....


----------



## brettbolt (Feb 22, 2006)

nataraj said:


> No. I have absolutely no use for the commercials. I don't get influenced by them and they are mostly not targeted towards me.
> 
> I buy local newspapers almost exclusively to get ads ... so I do value commercials - but they need to be better targetted. TV ads are very inefficient ....


I wonder what will happen when DVR usage (and commercial skipping) become so widespread that the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, etc) can no longer find advertisers willing to pay? Something wll have to give. I would love to see them get a piece of the $6 DVR fee.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

brettbolt said:


> I wonder what will happen when DVR usage (and commercial skipping) become so widespread that the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, etc) can no longer find advertisers willing to pay? Something wll have to give. I would love to see them get a piece of the $6 DVR fee.


My guess is that they will have congress pass a law making the skip function aganist the law


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

BobaBird said:


> *Quit saying that*. It's completely incorrect.
> 
> With AEP the DVR fee is waived for ALL DVRs on the account.
> 
> ...


Checked back with E* yet again.....your right... what the other csr (and her sup) were saying is that you get charged a $5.98 dvr for each additional dvr....turns out...like you said...the $5.98 is a reciever fee...not a dvr fee...regardless...add $6/month for each one you get...i got the typical E* response of "sorry they told you that, but it is incorrect" i have heard that SO many times from them when csr's give different rates and info...again top notch customer service.:nono:


----------



## sdicomp (Sep 12, 2006)

HDMe said:


> The DirecTV DVR-household-fee is more palatable if you plan on multiple DVRs since you won't keep adding that fee... but I wonder how much that comes into play?


Started with one.....now have 5!


----------



## brettbolt (Feb 22, 2006)

tomcrown1 said:


> My guess is that they will have congress pass a law making the skip function aganist the law


And if they can't get the anti-skip law passed we might see them use of a portion of the screen used for constant advertising (some already have popups).

Obviously, the networks will always require some source of funding. I'd rather see the DVR fee go to them instead E*, D* or Tivo.


----------



## klegg (Oct 31, 2006)

sdicomp said:


> Started with one.....now have 5!


You watch too much TV...sheesh...get a hobby...


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

THIS was a nice surprise i got when wanting to add a second dvr...this was 5 min ago via E* online suport:

Me: okay so you just ship it and i can set it up?

(03)Mike M: For this there will be a up front payment.

Me: payment for what


Me: oh right, $6/month for the rec. fee.......but what did you mean for an upfront fee?
(03)Mike M: For the DVR you need to make an up front payment of $119.00.

Me: WHAT?....why?

(03)Mike M: For the second DVR receiver.

Me: why...am i paying $119....to have a second DVR?

Me: so...to add additional receivers...you have to pay $119?

(03)Mike M: Yes you are correct.

Me: each receiver?

(03)Mike M: This DVR is a dual tuner receiver.
(03)Mike M: It can handle 2 TV's.

Me: i know...so i only get charged $119 for a dual tuner receiver ...not each receiver i add?

(03)Mike M: Yes there will be a up front payment for each receiver.

Me: is it $119 for each receiver added...or only dual tuners?

(03)Mike M: I am sorry , there will be an up front payment when ever you add a receiver.

Me: $119?

(03)Mike M: It varies from receiver to receiver.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

texaswolf said:


> THIS was a nice surprise i got when wanting to add a second dvr...this was 5 min ago via E* online suport:
> 
> Me: okay so you just ship it and i can set it up?
> 
> ...


This is funny:new_smili


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

soooo...how much did you say D* household dvr deal was?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

texaswolf said:


> soooo...how much did you say D* household dvr deal was?


$199 for the first receiver, $299 for the second per their online ordering (HD DVRs). (As opposed to two free HD DVRs through DishBuilder.)


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

sdicomp said:


> Started with one.....now have 5!


Actually, my question wasn't so much about multiple DVRs but wondering how many people have multiple DVRs but only have a basic package? My gut tells me that people with multiple DVRs probably have higher level programming packages, but I have no proof of that.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

brettbolt said:


> Obviously, the networks will always require some source of funding. I'd rather see the DVR fee go to them instead E*, D* or Tivo.


I'm sure you realize this will never happen. If such a thing came to pass, then the DVR fee would increase to accomodate it. No way it would be absorbed into the current fee... so we should all hope such a thing doesn't come to pass.

Lots of people like to gripe about commercials, but I'm all for them if it keeps my bill lower.

I like my non-commercial TV too, but I pay more for it.. and really am paying more for the uncut/uncensored nature than I am lack of ads. Many Premium channels actually carry advertising now, they just do it in between shows (like in the movie theaters) rather than interrupting the show.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> $199 for the first receiver, $299 for the second per their online ordering (HD DVRs). (As opposed to two free HD DVRs through DishBuilder.)


In what is supposedly a competitive free market - it tells you something when 1 company gives it away for free and the other charges. It tells you with certainty which way people would go if the offer was the same.

No company just gives something away that it doesn't feel it has to. Especially the one that always says it can't provide certain programming so that it can keep prices down. Yeah, right!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

ScoBuck said:


> In what is supposedly a competitive free market - it tells you something when 1 company gives it away for free and the other charges. It tells you with certainty which way people would go if the offer was the same.
> 
> No company just gives something away that it doesn't feel it has to. Especially the one that always says it can't provide certain programming so that it can keep prices down. Yeah, right!


You realize this logic works both ways, right? Some folks like to compare the Dish HD package for $20 that includes the supposedly non-wanted Voom channels... with the DirecTV $10 package (soon to be $15) that has a lot more channels.

Using your same logic... that would imply that more people want the DishHD package since DirecTV is "giving away" more channels for less money.

Personally I don't believe that logic.. but I was just pointing out how if you apply that equally to both the cost of the receivers and the cost of the programming, it seems to backfire on you... otherwise why would DirecTV have to charge less for more channels?


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

HDMe said:


> You realize this logic works both ways, right? Some folks like to compare the Dish HD package for $20 that includes the supposedly non-wanted Voom channels... with the DirecTV $10 package (soon to be $15) that has a lot more channels.
> 
> Using your same logic... that would imply that more people want the DishHD package since DirecTV is "giving away" more channels for less money.
> 
> Personally I don't believe that logic.. but I was just pointing out how if you apply that equally to both the cost of the receivers and the cost of the programming, it seems to backfire on you.


Believe what ever you want. That pricing was from a earlier time - and I also expect that to change. Especially since there won't be any new channels coming from DISH for a while. DISH is in PAUSE mode right now. Just watch!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> In what is supposedly a competitive free market - it tells you something when 1 company gives it away for free and the other charges. It tells you with certainty which way people would go if the offer was the same.
> 
> No company just gives something away that it doesn't feel it has to. Especially the one that always says it can't provide certain programming so that it can keep prices down. Yeah, right!


You are actually defending a $199/$299 price tag for new customers to LEASE a receiver?!?!?!?

Perhaps we should roll back 18 months and see what was said about E*'s introduction of the ViP-622 DVR. The difference is not E* "giving away" equipment that cannot be sold, but E* having a mature product where most development costs are distant memories while D*'s HD DVR is still having the bugs worked out.

D* places their incentives elsewhere ... the "buy NFL-ST and we'll throw in Premium" new customer offer ... D*'s giving away the store as well to gain new customers.



ScoBuck said:


> DISH is in PAUSE mode right now. Just watch!


And D* isn't? The days of 13 new channels are done. Now it is just a matter of fulfilling the rest of their promises.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

> D*'s giving away the store as well to gain new customers.


I wish E* was giving away anything....just silence



> The days of 13 new channels are done. Now it is just a matter of fulfilling the rest of their promises.


I wish E* would have one of those days soon! I understand what your saying and agree to a point...but I wish E*would open up a little too.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I do remember when the new ViP series came out and folks had to pony up $299 whether new or existing customers. Some folks jumped at it, other folks complained, and other folks like myself just waited for the price to come down and some better incentives/rebates to be offered.

I expect DirecTV is in a similar mode with their receivers... higher entry point at first, but prices will come down over time as the newer receivers become more common and more refined.

Sometimes Dish and DirecTV start at different price points... but for the stuff that is the same on both services, the prices really are pretty comparable. It is more difficult to compare prices directly for the services or channels that are unique to one or the other.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

ScoBuck said:


> Believe what ever you want. That pricing was from a earlier time - and I also expect that to change.


You seem to have switched sides.

First you said that Dish giving away receivers that DirecTV was charging for was an indicator that DirecTV was the better offering, hence Dish having to "give away" something to entice customers.

But you don't seem to think the same argument applies to DirecTV charging less than Dish for HD?

How can you be on both sides of the fence at the same time?

Personally, and I already posted before this reply, I see both companies starting at different price points and ending up nearly the same and eventually nearly the same offerings too... even if that take until sometime next year to happen... but I question your claim that if Dish does it then it is a bad sign, but if DirecTV does it then it is not.


----------



## MarkTTU (Sep 27, 2007)

OK, here's what I want to know. When will either D* or E* come up with a single box I can plug into the satellite that has 4-6 sat tuners and 2-4 OTA HD tuners with a single coax output that plugs into the rest of the existing coax in my house? 

All the TVs in the house could be plugged into one box via the existing coax network and share the same DVR and same set of tuners. My idea is for this magic box to output HD TV (720p or 1080i) signals over the coax for 4-6 TV's (each TV on its own channel, much like the 722 does for TV1 and TV2 both over the same coax at the same time). Each TV gets its own UHF remote and each TV can schedule recordings, watch live TV, watch saved programs from the DVR, etc. Essentially a nice simple central TV server. 

Heck make the thing into a 4U rack mount and put a 3TB RAID5 array in it while your at it and it can just sit in the closet next to the rest of my home network gear.

Am I the only one who wants to be able to setup a recording while watching TV in the living room and then a few days later be able to watch it in the bedroom and a day or two after that let my kids watch it on their TV upstairs? Heck it wouldn't be hard to program a "view password" when setting up the recording, or to create a "mom & dad" folder that isn't accessible without the correct password to keep young kids out of things they shouldn't be in anyway...

I hate to say it, but what i want shouldn't be rocket science, but even if it is we are talking about companies that employ rocket scientists.... They could even charge me $500 up front and a $20/month to lease the thing and it wouldn't bug me because I wouldn't have any of the other receivers anymore.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

HDMe said:


> Actually, my question wasn't so much about multiple DVRs but wondering how many people have multiple DVRs but only have a basic package? My gut tells me that people with multiple DVRs probably have higher level programming packages, but I have no proof of that.


Like any generalization (which I do tend to agree with, btw), there are exceptions like my Dad. He has multiple DVRs so he can record a few minutes on one and Mom can record lots on the others. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> Like any generalization (which I do tend to agree with, btw), there are exceptions like my Dad. He has multiple DVRs so he can record a few minutes on one and Mom can record lots on the others.


I'm in an odd configuration myself.. I have AT250 + HD, and I have 2 DVRs. I actually only need 1 DVR... but my other one is my old 501 from before I upgraded to the ViP622. I would have traded the 501 in, but keeping it on my account grandfathers me into the old DHA (or DHP I can never remember) with the really cool free replacements and cheap service calls deal... so until they force me out of that package, It is a better deal for me to keep the 501 on the account than to trade it for a non-DVR, and since it doesn't have the DVR fee I use it for SD stuff sometimes.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

MarkTTU said:


> OK, here's what I want to know. When will either D* or E* come up with a single box I can plug into the satellite that has 4-6 sat tuners and 2-4 OTA HD tuners with a single coax output that plugs into the rest of the existing coax in my house?


What you describe is kind of cool... and probably has a demand for it. If you only wanted an SD solution I can't think of any reason why they couldn't make a box like that right now.

But HD presents a couple of problems... One being the expense of an ATSC encoder to distribute the backfeed is too much for most folks to think of paying, and that keeps the companies from developing. The other, and probably worse long-term snag, is the whole DRM deal where the movie moguls do not like the idea of ATSC signals from your box that by design would have to be unencrypted and thus allow you to make pristine copies for all your friends. Not that this probably won't happen eventually, but they have to try and protect their interests.

I think me might, however, have a shot one day at something like DishComm being able to distribute encrypted programming... and then you could have sort of what you are talking about with a big multi-tuner primary box for the video room... then a bunch of "dumb" terminals for each TV to receive and unencrypt the signals from that box... and if it used something like DishComm you wouldn't have to run any wires around the house.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

HDMe said:


> I'm in an odd configuration myself.. I have AT250 + HD, and I have 2 DVRs. I actually only need 1 DVR... but my other one is my old 501 from before I upgraded to the ViP622. I would have traded the 501 in, but keeping it on my account grandfathers me into the old DHA (or DHP I can never remember) with the really cool free replacements and cheap service calls deal... so until they force me out of that package, It is a better deal for me to keep the 501 on the account than to trade it for a non-DVR, and since it doesn't have the DVR fee I use it for SD stuff sometimes.


yeah I just wanted one more 622 to cover my other 2 rooms...but I'll be damned if I'm gonna give them $119 upfront for it. If I wanted to pay up front cost, i would go to D*...at least then my wallet being raped would get me HD channels I want....one good thing about cable...get all the boxes you want without up front cost...okay...the only good thing about cable...


----------



## MarkTTU (Sep 27, 2007)

HDMe said:


> What you describe is kind of cool... and probably has a demand for it. If you only wanted an SD solution I can't think of any reason why they couldn't make a box like that right now.
> 
> But HD presents a couple of problems... One being the expense of an ATSC encoder to distribute the backfeed is too much for most folks to think of paying, and that keeps the companies from developing. The other, and probably worse long-term snag, is the whole DRM deal where the movie moguls do not like the idea of ATSC signals from your box that by design would have to be unencrypted and thus allow you to make pristine copies for all your friends. Not that this probably won't happen eventually, but they have to try and protect their interests.
> 
> I think me might, however, have a shot one day at something like DishComm being able to distribute encrypted programming... and then you could have sort of what you are talking about with a big multi-tuner primary box for the video room... then a bunch of "dumb" terminals for each TV to receive and unencrypt the signals from that box... and if it used something like DishComm you wouldn't have to run any wires around the house.


I hadn't thought of the DRM aspect, but that's probably because I consider DRM a dead man walking... it will take time, but its fundamentally flawed and will die eventually IMHO...

A single master box that could output an encrypted ATSC feed that could then in turn be decrypted by a dumb box with an HDMI jack (and SD CATV CH3 or CH4 for old TVs) would work fine for me... again it's welcome to use the existing coax, CAT5, whatever... actually even if I need to run new wires/fiber/whatever I don't really care, I just want the single server concept.

I'd also like them to kill the phone line requirement if you have a high speed internet connection they can use to "phone home", but I think we're well on the way to that at this point so really this is a mute point.


----------



## brettbolt (Feb 22, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I'm sure you realize this will never happen. If such a thing came to pass, then the DVR fee would increase to accomodate it. No way it would be absorbed into the current fee... so we should all hope such a thing doesn't come to pass. ...


I agree. They would raise the DVR fee to cover what they had to pass along to the networks. I don't know the current percentage of households with DVR's s now, but I expect it will increase. Eventually, something will have to give. This could reach a critical point in 5 to 10 years.



ScoBuck said:


> In what is supposedly a competitive free market - it tells you something when 1 company gives it away for free and the other charges. It tells you with certainty which way people would go if the offer was the same. ...


There are not a sufficient number of competitors in the satellite TV business. Two is not enough choice for me. I'm very happy that E* was not allowed to buy D* a few years back. And I recall E* saying that consumers would benefit from a merger! Wow, I found that hard to believe. Fortunately so did our government.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

What I am afraid of is that if E* is split and the DVR division is a separate company
and ATT buys the TV broadcast distribution, then the new stand alone DVR
company will get DVR fees from the subs just like TIVO. These fees will have to
be increased periodically to keep earnings up so that the stock price of the new
company continues to climb.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> Actually, my question wasn't so much about multiple DVRs but wondering how many people have multiple DVRs but only have a basic package? My gut tells me that people with multiple DVRs probably have higher level programming packages, but I have no proof of that.


Me.

622 and a 501

I would like three 622's but I will not pay 3 DVR fees.

I'm just fine with Basic and HD. I want to watch "real" HD on my three HD Sets and as I've pointed out before. One HD set in bedroom, one in Basement and one in living room.

My wife and I often watch HD in different rooms and while she originally thought a DVR was a silly waste of money, now she cannot live without it. Add a DVR for me in the basement and one for the kids and bingo.... three DVR's

So I seem to get the impression that I'm some form of mutant wanting three DVR's LOL

-JB


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Like any generalization (which I do tend to agree with, btw), there are exceptions like my Dad. He has multiple DVRs so he can record a few minutes on one and Mom can record lots on the others.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Absolutely Tom. There are lots o' exceptions. I consider myself to be outside the "norm" too. (well, who at dbstalk isn't?)

I have 6 DVRs in the house. In my mind - there's no reason NOT to put a DVR where I would put a standard receiver. The initial acquisition cost is relatively easy to swallow (the most expensive DVR I've added is the HR20, and that cost me $99.), and it doesn't cost me anything extra per month above and beyond what a standard receiver would.

I have the old "Total Choice Plus" package, with HBO added on. That's still a rather "basic" package - it's not even close to the Premier package.

So I guess I'm spoiled - having a DVR everywhere isn't necessarily about being able to record everything under the Sun. It's more about having "cruise control" everywhere. The recording capability (aside from our main TV and the master bedroom TV) is more of a bonus for us than anything else.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I was under the impression that those who signed up for Premier when the DVR fee was included, would continue on that basis until changing packages.

Since the new HD rollout the DVR fee has showed up on my bill in addition to the Premier package. I emailed D* and they made no reference to "grandfathering." 

I probably should call them on the phone, but really dread it. Am I correct in that someone who has had Premier since July 2006 should not be paying an extra DVR fee?


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

paulman182 said:


> I was under the impression that those who signed up for Premier when the DVR fee was included, would continue on that basis until changing packages.


That's my understanding. But having said that - I don't a) have the Premier package; or b) have a DVR fee. I paid the "lifetime" fee back when it was offered and haven't paid a DVR fee since.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

brettbolt said:


> I wonder what will happen when DVR usage (and commercial skipping) become so widespread that the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, etc) can no longer find advertisers willing to pay? Something wll have to give. I would love to see them get a piece of the $6 DVR fee.


Well I think the networks are going to have to get smarter just as the Movie makers and record companies need to. The world is changing so what they need to do is embrace the change and find ways to obtain advertising revenue through other methods.

I am sure we will see more in-show product placement, overlays, and if interactive TV ever becomes what it is suppose to become that will be another avenue for companies to obtain revenues.

Personally I don't think passing DVR fee percentages to the major networks makes a lot of sense. What about all the other channels, the DVR effects them also and therefore if you were to pass out a percentage it should go to all and good luck finding a fair distribution model.

Finally, I personally feel the DVR fee per receiver is not right. Does not pass the smell test and is the one fee that I feel is over the line. I can understand paying an addiition fee for the added value DVRs provide but it should be a per account fee as D* does.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> Well I think the networks are going to have to get smarter just as the Movie makers and record companies need to. The world is changing so what they need to do is embrace the change and find ways to obtain advertising revenue through other methods.
> 
> I am sure we will see more in-show product placement, overlays, and if interactive TV ever becomes what it is suppose to become that will be another avenue for companies to obtain revenues.
> 
> ...


I have read that the advertisers still think there is some benefit to the ads
even though subs fast forward through them. The name recognition is still
there. And with DVR time shifting, more viewers are watching shows than
they used to. I know in my case, there are very few network shows that I
would watch without a DVR.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

jrb531 said:


> Me.
> 
> 622 and a 501
> 
> ...


Yeah I could do with just a low basic package with the HD pack...but since E* (and I'm sure D* too) only offers FX on the top 250....im screwed. It's a basic cable station....but they put it up in the $ pack...which blows.
I Have the AEP now, so i don't get DVR fee's.....but I am not giving E* $119 upfront AND THEN $6/month receiver fee....I think I'm gonna pay my next E* bill in all nickels and dimes.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

texaswolf said:


> Yeah I could do with just a low basic package with the HD pack...but since E* (and I'm sure D* too) only offers FX on the top 250....im screwed. It's a basic cable station....but they put it up in the $ pack...which blows.
> I Have the AEP now, so i don't get DVR fee's.....but I am not giving E* $119 upfront AND THEN $6/month receiver fee....I think I'm gonna pay my next E* bill in all nickels and dimes.


ROTFL!

I think you may be on to something 

Everyone pay Dish in loose change. LOL I'd love to see the headlines for that.

-JB


----------



## brettbolt (Feb 22, 2006)

Ron Barry said:


> Personally I don't think passing DVR fee percentages to the major networks makes a lot of sense. What about all the other channels, the DVR effects them also and therefore if you were to pass out a percentage it should go to all and good luck finding a fair distribution model.


We agree that DVR usage adversely affects channels with commercials. And any fees passed on to them would have to go to all channels with commercials, not just the major local networks. Agreement on a fair distribution model will likely never happen.

It just bothers me that the commercial channels are being hurt by DVR usage and E*, D*, and Tivo are getting richer from it,


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

brettbolt said:


> We agree that DVR usage adversely affects channels with commercials. And any fees passed on to them would have to go to all channels with commercials, not just the major local networks. Agreement on a fair distribution model will likely never happen.
> 
> It just bothers me that the commercial channels are being hurt by DVR usage and E*, D*, and Tivo are getting richer from it,


I agree when it comes to broadcast networks, as advertisements are their sole source of revenue. However, I feel less sympathy for cable networks. We pay through the nose for these channels, and are still subjected to the same amount of ads as broadcast networks. And as my Dish bill keeps going up and up, and ditto for D* and cable, I feel less and less sorry for those channels. The cost of pay-tv is skyrocketing, and has been for a long time. And no, this isn't a result of DVR usage, as this trend started happening long before they became popular. Excuse me if I'm not broken up about the "plight" of pay-tv networks as regards advertising. :nono2:


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Tyralak said:


> I agree when it comes to broadcast networks, as advertisements are their sole source of revenue. However, I feel less sympathy for cable networks. We pay through the nose for these channels, and are still subjected to the same amount of ads as broadcast networks. And as my Dish bill keeps going up and up, and ditto for D* and cable, I feel less and less sorry for those channels. The cost of pay-tv is skyrocketing, and has been for a long time. And no, this isn't a result of DVR usage, as this trend started happening long before they became popular. Excuse me if I'm not broken up about the "plight" of pay-tv networks as regards advertising. :nono2:


I feel the same way!

This all started with us paying for TV in two ways:

Watching stupid commercials or paying for no commercials.

Little by little we have many channels that we pay "and" watch commercials.

While you can say that our bills would be higher if they had no commericials and I would say "bring it on!"

BUT

only if we could have some control over the channels we want be it ala-cart or some form of theme packages so I could cancel sports or kids packages if I do not want either.

DVR's have brought me back to watching more TV. Not only because I could tape them and watch them when I wanted but rather a way to watch a 20 minute program in 20 minutes instead of the 30 minutes with commercials.

Before the DVR I would just wait until the shows were on DVD and rent them.... yes I HATE commericals that much!

So if the Sci-Fi (for example) channels wants an extra dollar or two from me per month to drop commercials then where can I sign up?

Am I the only one who finds it so very wrong (and unfair) for ESPN to be able to outbid free TV for sports only because they can show commercials "and" charge a large premium to everyone even if we do not want their crap?

Maybe Monday Night Football would still be free if ESPN was not able to outbid ABC because ABC can only get revenue via commercials while ESPN can do both.

While I admit that I watch some ESPN I would drop them in a minute if I ever had the choice just to protest their forced high prices on everyone.

ESPN is NOT a basic pay channel and it would be no differtent if they forced everyone to pay $5-6 a month for HBO.

Sorry for the ESPN rant but it really upsets me that everyone with Pay TV is "forced" to pay for a premium channel whether we want it or not.... and STILL watch their stupid commericals!

-JB


----------



## WilliamC (Jun 18, 2006)

James Long said:


> Talk about DBS please.


Just out of curiosity, but was this "I figured he couldn't handle a "quart" of fact. Turns out he couldn't handle the "pint" either." DBS related?

No offense to E* fanboys or D* fanboys but both systems have their faults. Anyone remember when we recieved an update from E* that corrupted our DVR recordings?
Also what about the issue with D* missing some recordings?

Like I said both have flaws and no one should forget that. What works for you may not work for another. Personally I like the idea of being able to setup a 2TB or 3TB system. E* doesn't allow me to do that UNLESS I constantly switch HD's. I'd rather not be switching HD's. It may be fine for some, but I prefer a set it and forget it setup. Then again for most E* maybe a better way as you are allowed to keep using your existing HD and external is a supplement... almost a supplement last time I checked you couldn't record directly to the external HD.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

texaswolf said:


> ...but since E* (and I'm sure D* too) only offers FX on the top 250....


Actually FX is available in the top 200.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

tsmacro said:


> Actually FX is available in the top 200.


my mistake...point being it's a basic cable channel..that we have to pay more for....should come with the lowest package


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

texaswolf said:


> my mistake...point being it's a basic cable channel..that we have to pay more for....should come with the lowest package


So everyone should be forced to pay more for it?

The tiers are nice for that ... the oldest and most expected "cable" channels are in the lower tiers ... channels negotiate heavily to be seen by more viewers. Most new channels (on E*) end up in the "average" tier (AT200) or above in AT250. These tend to be more niche channels that just add a similar feed to something already on.

D* doesn't have a low end package (other than the family pack). They start with an AT200 level package and work up. A few more channels are available in Choice Xtra or one can add premiums or "buy it all" with Premier.

A la carte is the only real answer for getting just one's favorite channels and nothing else. Not quite available.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> So everyone should be forced to pay more for it?
> 
> The tiers are nice for that ... the oldest and most expected "cable" channels are in the lower tiers ... channels negotiate heavily to be seen by more viewers. Most new channels (on E*) end up in the "average" tier (AT200) or above in AT250. These tend to be more niche channels that just add a similar feed to something already on.
> 
> ...


E* has the AT100...where channels like cnn, mtv,usa,tbs,tnt ect. are. Thats because those are typical "basic cable" channels where FX also is....on cable. D* has it on their choice (150) and E* doesn't have it until their 200 package...when i asked why this was, i was told...channels they have to pay more for get put in more expensive packages...understood..but they had to pay more for FX? maybe because it's Fox? Anyway, the real kicker is..if you drop to the AT200...you will also lose some HD channels that are only offered in higher tiers...which pretty much knocks out anybody who wanted basic and HD.

I hate watching SD. If i dont have to i wont...so most of the lower SD channels are a waste of money for me...but since they tag the 2-3 channels i do want with 250 others...im stuck ..so a pick your own line up would be one hell of a promo...like the premiums...you want HBO..$13/month...you want usa $??/month...HD version $??...and i bet would grab a lot of customers...but then they wouldn't make their money.


----------



## MarkTTU (Sep 27, 2007)

texaswolf said:


> Anyway, the real kicker is..if you drop to the AT200...you will also lose some HD channels that are only offered in higher tiers...which pretty much knocks out anybody who wanted basic and HD.


Which is only made more frustrating given that we pay a flat rate of $20 for HD, but that $20 buys us more or less HD depending on what package we're watching... I'm all for al la carte; price the SD channels at $0.50 each and the HD channels at $1.00 each and let me pick the ones I care about.

As for DVR "fees" make that part of the lease fee, if the HD DVR box is going to cost $12 to lease then just say that, don't insult me by saying the box is worth $6 and the DVR part of the box is worth another $6. If the DVR fee is for maintaining the program guide (its not, but if it is) then just charge me that fee once...


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

MarkTTU said:


> Which is only made more frustrating given that we pay a flat rate of $20 for HD, but that $20 buys us more or less HD depending on what package we're watching... I'm all for al la carte; price the SD channels at $0.50 each and the HD channels at $1.00 each and let me pick the ones I care about.
> 
> As for DVR "fees" make that part of the lease fee, if the HD DVR box is going to cost $12 to lease then just say that, don't insult me by saying the box is worth $6 and the DVR part of the box is worth another $6. If the DVR fee is for maintaining the program guide (its not, but if it is) then just charge me that fee once...


QFT!

My way to set up the 622 fee would be:

1. $1 to rent the box (see we're cheaper than D*!)
2. $1 for DVR Fee (see we charge less DVR fee than D*!)
3. $2 color charge (you can customize the color of your box - monthly fee is to maintain your color)
4. $2 wire fee maintaintance fee (if you even break that 25 cent wire we'll send you a new one)
5. $2 remote control rental ($4 if you want two)
6. $2 programming guide fee (if you do not want to know what is on the channels we'll waive this)

So for only $12 you can get a 622 with 2 remotes, an online program guide, wire insurance, customized colors.

$2 to rent and $10 for add in fees

*smiles*

I so wish Dish would stop the nickle and dime crap. If you want to charge $12 to rent each box then do so... or tell us what the fees are for. The above fees may be silly and make up (and total BS LOL) but at least I stated what they paid for LOL

-JB

P.S. The reason Dish does not make it part of the lease fee is so they can whack people who buy their 622. If you own your 622/722 you still have to pay the BS $6 DVR fee. If the lease was $12 then many many people would buy their 622/722 and then Dish would have to come up with another silly fee to nickle and dime us some more.


----------



## MarkTTU (Sep 27, 2007)

jrb531 said:


> P.S. The reason Dish does not make it part of the lease fee is so they can whack people who buy their 622. If you own your 622/722 you still have to pay the BS $6 DVR fee. If the lease was $12 then many many people would buy their 622/722 and then Dish would have to come up with another silly fee to nickle and dime us some more.


Except that my understanding is that even if I own my 722/622 there will be an "additional HD receiver fee" of $6 and another DVR fee of $6. Near as I can figure owning a 722/622 makes no financial sense...


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

MarkTTU said:


> Except that my understanding is that even if I own my 722/622 there will be an "additional HD receiver fee" of $6 and another DVR fee of $6. Near as I can figure owning a 722/622 makes no financial sense...


Why they do not get sued on this is beyond me. I rent for the very same reason. They add a total BS fee if you buy vs rent.

If they do not want you to buy then why even bother to sell the darn things? It there some legal reason why Dish must offer these boxes for sale?

-JB


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

MarkTTU said:


> Except that my understanding is that even if I own my 722/622 there will be an "additional HD receiver fee" of $6 and another DVR fee of $6. Near as I can figure owning a 722/622 makes no financial sense...


and don't forget the $199 up front cost to go from the 622 to the 722...PLUS you monthly fees!:eek2:


----------



## brettbolt (Feb 22, 2006)

Tyralak said:


> I agree when it comes to broadcast networks, as advertisements are their sole source of revenue. However, I feel less sympathy for cable networks. We pay through the nose for these channels, and are still subjected to the same amount of ads as broadcast networks. And as my Dish bill keeps going up and up, and ditto for D* and cable, I feel less and less sorry for those channels. The cost of pay-tv is skyrocketing, and has been for a long time. And no, this isn't a result of DVR usage, as this trend started happening long before they became popular. Excuse me if I'm not broken up about the "plight" of pay-tv networks as regards advertising. :nono2:


What I don't know is the percentage of their revenue that comes from advertisers vs. that from the sat/cable companies.

If they are getting most of their money from the sat/cable companies, then I won't be broken up about their plight either. OTOH, if its around 90% from advertisers then they'll continue to have my sympathy.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

texaswolf said:


> E* has the AT100...where channels like cnn, mtv,usa,tbs,tnt ect. are. Thats because those are typical "basic cable" channels where FX also is....on cable.


On our local cable company, FX is on the Expanded Basic tier. AT200 is E*'s Expanded Basic (one level above the lowest tier).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

texaswolf said:


> E* has the AT100...where channels like cnn, mtv,usa,tbs,tnt ect. are. Thats because those are typical "basic cable" channels where FX also is....on cable. D* has it on their choice (150) and E* doesn't have it until their 200 package...when i asked why this was, i was told...channels they have to pay more for get put in more expensive packages...understood..but they had to pay more for FX?


Most of the channel placements are historical ... the oldest channels are in AT100. By the time FX came around E* was adding channels at what is now the AT200 level. A couple of years ago new channels generally landed at AT250 - keeping the price down for current subs.

The providers pay per viewer ... there are less viewers at the higher levels. If the price is right on a network E* won't mind paying to give that channel to all 13 million subscribers. If the price isn't what E* wants to pay (times 13 million) they will try to place it at a higher level (where they can pay for less subscribers, saving them 4 million times the price per subscriber). Add in the complication that providers don't like being at higher levels, so they may charge more per sub or refuse carriage. When E* says they are "in negotiations" they mean it!



> Anyway, the real kicker is..if you drop to the AT200...you will also lose some HD channels that are only offered in higher tiers...which pretty much knocks out anybody who wanted basic and HD.


D* also has HD channels not available unless one subscribes to Choice Xtra (not the HD Extra Pack, but D*'s 2nd tier). BTW - you lose *ONE* national channel by having AT100 instead of AT200 with HD. Four more are AT250 only, one is AEP only (or sports pack). With D* you lose five HD channels by not subscribing to Choice Xtra. Sounds like both companies are following the same policies.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

HobbyTalk said:


> On our local cable company, FX is on the Expanded Basic tier. AT200 is E*'s Expanded Basic (one level above the lowest tier).


Charter did the same thing...thing is what they changed your "basic" to is nothing but locals...some offer 13 channels, some offer 21...usually beside local channels are pbs types and local high school agenda info or something. So they created the "extended basic" which is where you get your first "cable" channels...they did this so that people who cant get reception in apts with an attena have to go through them to get decent looking locals...easy way to make money by splitting up yhe "basic" package. So when I say "basic" cable (which usually runs around the AT100 price range) ....thats what i mean.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> Most of the channel placements are historical ... the oldest channels are in AT100. By the time FX came around E* was adding channels at what is now the AT200 level. A couple of years ago new channels generally landed at AT250 - keeping the price down for current subs.
> 
> The providers pay per viewer ... there are less viewers at the higher levels. If the price is right on a network E* won't mind paying to give that channel to all 13 million subscribers. If the price isn't what E* wants to pay (times 13 million) they will try to place it at a higher level (where they can pay for less subscribers, saving them 4 million times the price per subscriber). Add in the complication that providers don't like being at higher levels, so they may charge more per sub or refuse carriage. When E* says they are "in negotiations" they mean it!
> 
> D* also has HD channels not available unless one subscribes to Choice Xtra (not the HD Extra Pack, but D*'s 2nd tier). BTW - you lose *ONE* national channel by having AT100 instead of AT200 with HD. Four more are AT250 only, one is AEP only (or sports pack). With D* you lose five HD channels by not subscribing to Choice Xtra. Sounds like both companies are following the same policies.


exactly...now your catching on...If FX was on the AT100...and I dropped to that from the AEP....while still paying $ 20 for HD I would lose 6 HD channels...sucks huh?:nono:

But since it isn't, i could drop to the AT200...and only lose 5 HD? sweet:nono2:

Now if they actually offered those channels that D* is in HD...it would make it a little easier to swallow...but since they don't (and have made not *ONE* word if they will) it blows!pusht!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The point is if you go to D* you will lose the same channels unless you buy into their higher tier. AT200 basically equals Choice. If you want the HD in AT250 you will need Choice Xtra if you went to D*.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> The point is if you go to D* you will lose the same channels unless you buy into their higher tier. AT200 basically equals Choice. If you want the HD in AT250 you will need Choice Xtra if you went to D*.


actually the channels i want are on the choice 150...and in HD for $39.99+9.99 HD
and I would get *6 National HD & 2 Local*channels that E* doesn't even offer

on E* they are on the AT200...*not in HD &-2 Locals* for $42.99+$20 HD


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

texaswolf said:


> actually the channels i want are on the choice 150...and in HD for $39.99+9.99 HD
> and I would get *6 National HD & 2 Local*channels that E* doesn't even offer
> 
> on E* they are on the AT200...*not in HD &-2 Locals* for $42.99+$20 HD


So in other words, the HD channels you want are not offered by E* at any price and this complaint about needing to subscribe to AT200 or AT250 to get those channels is a red herring?


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> So in other words, the HD channels you want are not offered by E* at any price and this complaint about needing to subscribe to AT200 or AT250 to get those channels is a red herring?


Let me slow it down a little....No the channels i want are not offered in HD...by E*

I have to subscribe to those packages ....to just get the SD version.

where...with...D*...you get those channels....on the choice 150.....in HD....for cheaper...plus 2 more locals....in HD....plus 4 more HD nationals...that we don't get here....

......make more sense?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Yep. It is a red herring. It isn't an issue of where E* has placed those channels.


Shouldn't you be an D* sub?


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> Yep. It is a red herring. It isn't an issue of where E* has placed those channels.
> 
> Shouldn't you be an D* sub?


I guess I didn't slow it down enough for you....you couldn't even see where D* *does* offer CW HD......

I probably would be a D* sub if they didn't hold me with a contract...especially after todays press release.

Shouldn't you be in E*'s promotional spin office? or do you just fail to admit to flaws for a hobby?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Where? Certainly not on a national basis in every market where LIL HD is offered.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> Where? Certainly not on a national basis in every market where LIL HD is offered.


Well james...i'm sure we can get a poll going on the D* board to find out what areas of the country have it, for ya....the point is dude....*E* does not even offer it* so whether it's available with D* to some or many...*they offer it*...you can't spin what E* doesn't have


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

:backtotop --- "dude"


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> :backtotop --- "dude"


No prob...where was I...oh yeah...OT:

*STUPID $199 TO GET A 722 PLUS $6/MONTH*...lol


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Perhaps ... I got an existing customer offer to get a 722 for $99 or less from E* today.
E*'s new customer offer is *free* (with 18 month commitment).
D*'s new customer offer is $199 for the first and $299 for additional HD DVRs.

You may not like "$199" but it isn't a price that is being beat if you jump to D*.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> Perhaps ... I got an existing customer offer to get a 722 for $99 or less from E* today.
> E*'s new customer offer is *free* (with 18 month commitment).
> D*'s new customer offer is $199 for the first and $299 for additional HD DVRs.
> 
> You may not like "$199" but it isn't a price that is being beat if you jump to D*.


oh yeah, that i know...I just think its a steep price just to get more hours...you would think existing customers with higher packages would get a discount. I have my external....so it's not a huge deal for me to keep the 622....I just like to put movies on the external and my shows on the 622...so it' would have been nice to have some extra internal room...thats all. :shrug:


----------

