# 2011 Pricing



## Bofurley

Any news on 2011 pricing?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

That generally doesn't surface until early February...


----------



## damondlt

March is most likly when we will see our yearly increase.

So Febuary we will hear something


----------



## JoeTheDragon

We may see new channels packs maybe even theme packs.


----------



## mreposter

See the discussion on the investors day event last week. Rates are going up.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

mreposter said:


> See the discussion on the investors day event last week. Rates are going up.


While they actually never said that in those words...its a fair assumption pricing will be higher - no real surprise there.

However, some customers may actually end up with lower bills, in the event DirecTV chooses to repackage their programming in such a way that some folks can satisfy their channel needs with an alternative package. They also eluded to that in the presentation.

We won't know those details either until they are formally announced.


----------



## Boston_bill

I get baseball and football and I need to cut back on the rest of the garbage thats out there. I hope they'll redesign their packages.


----------



## Glen_D

I, too, would expect across-the-board increases on programming packages, just as DirecTV has done every year for about the past eight.

Maybe they could resurrect the now "secret" Select package as an official advertised package again. Their official entry-level price point right now (after expiration of new-customer promotions) is getting pretty steep.


----------



## LarryFlowers

A nice new package containg no sports except those on the National Networks is on my Christmas List. I figure it would cut my subscription by 20-25%. 

Of 'course I have this dream periodically....


----------



## Hutchinshouse

LarryFlowers said:


> A nice new package containg no sports except those on the National Networks is on my Christmas List. I figure it would cut my subscription by 20-25%.
> 
> Of 'course I have this dream periodically....


*+1*
I don't remember the last time I tuned in to ESPN. I doubt your dream will ever become a reality.


----------



## Hoosier205

No, it never will. Networks like ESPN are far too popular and lucrative. The more the merrier.


----------



## Jason Whiddon

No we know that they are adding HDO VOD, which HBO charges xtra for, they gotta get it from somewhere


----------



## hdtvfan0001

elwaylite said:


> No we know that they are adding HBO VOD, which HBO charges xtra for, they gotta get it from somewhere


You mean all that programming isn't delivered for free....wow.....that'll be a revelation to some folks and devastate others. :eek2:


----------



## calgary2800

I wish the Smithsonian Channel was in Choice XTR, Its a channel I pay 4.99 a month for since I can only get it in the HD xtra package. In that package its the only channel I watch.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

calgary2800 said:


> I wish the Smithsonian Channel was in Choice XTR, Its a channel I pay 4.99 a month for since I can only get it in the HD xtra package. In that package its the only channel I watch.


Actually, your situation is a great example of why re-packaging of channels is both a good idea and likely.

The balance between having the "right channels" in a package and having the right price for it is always a challenging - for any TV service provider.

I'm hoping enough of the latest market data is used to provide logical and worthwhile package offerings in 2011. Clearly viewing habits have changed from 2-3 years ago when many of today's "packages" were assembled.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Boston_bill

Personally I dont need all those shopping and religous channles, I would so love to be able to chose my own channels and pay a flat rate for it. How about let me pick my own 50-100 channels and pay accordingly.


----------



## rkr0923

would love to see a HD only package


----------



## Hoosier205

Boston_bill said:


> Personally I dont need all those shopping and religous channles, I would so love to be able to chose my own channels and pay a flat rate for it. How about let me pick my own 50-100 channels and pay accordingly.


It's called a la carte and it has failed. You'd end up with fewer choices, yet it would be more expensive.


----------



## Boston_bill

Hoosier205 said:


> It's called a la carte and it has failed. You'd end up with fewer choices, yet it would be more expensive.


I know what its called thanks.


----------



## calgary2800

rkr0923 said:


> would love to see a HD only package


Dish had it once for something like 34.99 to 40.00 and it failed. It was called HD absoulute.


----------



## SPACEMAKER

Hoosier205 said:


> It's called a la carte and it has failed. You'd end up with fewer choices, yet it would be more expensive.


Why so smug?


----------



## BattleScott

Dibs on the "Schooner Tuna" reference this year!


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Actually, Time Warner is introducing a sans-ESPN package.

-----------------
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ent...ld-please-subscribers-and-annoy-programm.html

Time Warner Cable to offer no-frills package that could please subscribers and annoy programmers
November 18, 2010 | 4:53 pm

Time Warner Cable is unveiling a new package that may be a hit with subscribers, but will likely anger a lot of cable networks that will be left out in the cold.

The new package, called "TV Essentials," will carry about 50 channels and be tested in New York City and parts of Ohio. Time Warner Cable said the package is valued at $49.99 per month, but will be discounted by $10 in New York and $20 in Ohio for the first year. The channels it will carry include feeds from broadcast networks ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and PBS. Time Warner Cable also said it would carry 12 of the top 20 Nielsen-rated cable networks.

.....

Among the channels that made the cut are TBS, FX, Cartoon Network, AMC, CNN and ESPN News. The channels not being offered include ESPN, TNT, Comedy Central, Fox News and MSNBC. ESPN and TNT are two of the more expensive channels on the market. ESPN runs about $4.00, per-subscriber, per-month and TNT costs roughly $1.00. Interestingly, CNBC, the highest rated business news channel is being passed over for rival Bloomberg, which has a much smaller audience, but is also cheaper.

-------------------------


----------



## sigma1914

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Actually, Time Warner is introducing a sans-ESPN package.
> 
> -----------------
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ent...ld-please-subscribers-and-annoy-programm.html
> 
> The new package, called "TV Essentials," will carry about 50 channels and be tested in New York City and parts of Ohio. Time Warner Cable said the package is valued at $49.99 per month, but will be discounted by $10 in New York and $20 in Ohio for the first year. The channels it will carry include feeds from broadcast networks ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and PBS. Time Warner Cable also said it would carry 12 of the top 20 Nielsen-rated cable networks.


$50/month...plus box fees...plus taxes & fees...plus etc. WOW, such a bargain!


----------



## Jason Whiddon

Yepp, not really. As much as I record, and what i pay for two HDDVR's, Ive yet to find a better solution than Directv. Wake me up in 2 years and Ill look again.


----------



## maartena

I think we can safely say that rates will not go down.


----------



## Hoosier205

SPACEMAKER said:


> Why so smug?


What can I say...it's easy to be right when using logic, facts, and history.


----------



## spartanstew

BattleScott said:


> Dibs on the "Schooner Tuna" reference this year!


----------



## mreposter

Hoosier205 said:


> It's called a la carte and it has failed. You'd end up with fewer choices, yet it would be more expensive.


How can something that was never broadly offered be declared a failure?


----------



## Jason Whiddon

Ala carte has been beaten to death so many times it's not funny. The way networks bundle their channels, it's not feasible. I do not know how many experts have to explain this, before people grasp it.


----------



## Hoosier205

mreposter said:


> How can something that was never broadly offered be declared a failure?


C-band


----------



## Boston_bill

mreposter said:


> How can something that was never broadly offered be declared a failure?


I just really hate the "attitude" of some here who think( real or imagined) that they're in the know. Doesnt really set up for a discussion on anything.


----------



## DetIrish

If I just signed a 2 year contract as a new customer would my price be locked in for those 2 years or would I be subject to the rate increase?


----------



## mx6bfast

DetIrish said:


> If I just signed a 2 year contract as a new customer would my price be locked in for those 2 years or would I be subject to the rate increase?


Your price is locked


----------



## RACJ2

DetIrish said:


> If I just signed a 2 year contract as a new customer would my price be locked in for those 2 years or would I be subject to the rate increase?


If you signed under the current deal, your price is locked for one year. If you didn't, then your price will go up with any price increase. My package price went up both of my first 2 years.


----------



## joed32

Hoosier205 said:


> C-band


Absolutely correct. If you subbed to about 10 channels there was always a package that contained those channels and cost less.


----------



## jdh8668

Hoosier205 said:


> No, it never will. Networks like ESPN are far too popular and lucrative. The more the merrier.


And ESPN is one of the big reasons rates go up. They spend big bucks acquiring MLB rights, Monday Night Football, NCAA basketball regular season & college football.


----------



## cariera

calgary2800 said:


> I wish the Smithsonian Channel was in Choice XTR, Its a channel I pay 4.99 a month for since I can only get it in the HD xtra package. In that package its the only channel I watch.


Call in and drop the HD Extra package, wait a few minutes, log onto your Directv account and add it for free for 3 months. In 3 months do this again.

Lather, rinse, repeat.


----------



## TBlazer07

cariera said:


> Call in and drop the HD Extra package, wait a few minutes, log onto your Directv account and add it for free for 3 months. In 3 months do this again.
> 
> Lather, rinse, repeat.


 Uh-Oh, you'd better duck because you're about to hear from all the "holier-then-thou" folks who say that doing that is illegal, immoral, ungodly (can't think of any more adjectives at the moment) and worse yet may even put DirecTV out of business! :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

TBlazer07 said:


> Uh-Oh, you'd better duck because you're about to hear from all the "holier-then-thou" folks who say that doing that is illegal, immoral, ungodly (can't think of any more adjectives at the moment) and worse yet may even put DirecTV out of business! :lol:


...or else DirecTV cutting off your service for playing the game.... :eek2::eek2::eek2:

Not.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

cariera said:


> Call in and drop the HD Extra package, wait a few minutes, log onto your Directv account and add it for free for 3 months. In 3 months do this again.
> 
> Lather, rinse, repeat.


You know, Santa knows when you've been bad or good! Hope you like coal. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Hutchinshouse said:


> You know, Santa knows when you've been bad or good! Hope you like coal. :lol:


!rolling


----------



## TBlazer07

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...or else DirecTV cutting off your service for playing the game.... :eek2::eek2::eek2:
> 
> Not.


And a great way to get out of ones 2yr contract!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

TBlazer07 said:


> And a great way to get out of ones 2yr contract!


Wonder how many ready the fine print that executing this more than once required mandatory lifetime subscription membership...


----------



## BattleScott

calgary2800 said:


> I wish the Smithsonian Channel was in Choice XTR, Its a channel I pay 4.99 a month for since I can only get it in the HD xtra package. In that package its the only channel I watch.


If you have a good internet connection, you might want to check out the Smithsonian Channel's web-site. They offer a TON of their programming on-line. The quality is excellent, not as good as the HD channel, but very good. If you have the ability to stream to your TV, it might be good enough to drop the xtra-pack.


----------



## xmetalx

Heads up. 2011 Pricing will be about a $3 increase for expired packages, $2 for current packages (except Premier), HBO going up by $1 and Addl/Leased Recvr fees goes up by $1. 

Spanish packages are going up by about $1.50 except Optimo Mas Plus DVR, which is decreased by $2


----------



## Jason Whiddon

Had to pay for HBO VOD somehow.


----------



## dpeters11

That extra receiver fee is going to hurt some people, that's what, a $14 increase for Tom?

So in my case, my fees go down $10 for the free HD, then go up $4. I've seen worse increases for sure.


----------



## raott

xmetalx said:


> Heads up. 2011 Pricing will be about a $3 increase for expired packages, $2 for current packages (except Premier), HBO going up by $1 and Addl/Leased Recvr fees goes up by $1.
> 
> Spanish packages are going up by about $1.50 except Optimo Mas Plus DVR, which is decreased by $2


So does this make the expired packages essentially the same price as the current packages (ie Total Choice Plus)?


----------



## xmetalx

raott said:


> So does this make the expired packages essentially the same price as the current packages (ie Total Choice Plus)?


Not quite..

For example, Total Choice Plus goes from 61.49 > 64.49 while Choice Xtra goes from 63.99 to 65.99.. so there will stil be about a $1.50 difference between expired and current packages


----------



## JoeTheDragon

why does the Addl/Leased fee need to go up? 

Also what about RVU will that be fee free?


----------



## Jason Whiddon

JoeTheDragon said:


> why does the Addl/Leased fee need to go up?
> 
> Also what about RVU will that be fee free?


Pay all the increasing carriage agreements. Also prob because Dish is other providers are charging more per rcvr.


----------



## RAD

elwaylite said:


> Also prob because Dish is other providers are charging more per rcvr.


I'm going to be looking forward to their response as to why they're going to increase those fees, especially for owned receivers (besides the honest answer which is because we can).


----------



## Jason Whiddon

I think because we can is the real reason


----------



## JoeTheDragon

xmetalx said:


> Not quite..
> 
> For example, Total Choice Plus goes from 61.49 > 64.49 while Choice Xtra goes from 63.99 to 65.99.. so there will stil be about a $1.50 difference between expired and current packages


still better then comcast digital preferred at $72 to $78 + $7.95 sport pack to get Speed, Fox Movie Channel, Hallmark Movie Channel, Centric and other stuff in Choice Extra. + $7.95 per outlet or $16 per HD DRV. Also comast wants $18 /m for HBO.

EDIT MAYBE 2010 prices NO Idea on 2011 prices.
Also comcarp makes you pay $18 for movie channel and does not give you it free SHOWTIME.

On D* for $5 more then Choice Xtra you can get encore and movie channel.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

RAD said:


> I'm going to be looking forward to their response as to why they're going to increase those fees, especially for owned receivers (besides the honest answer which is because we can).


Some channels bill per outlet?


----------



## JoeTheDragon

RAD said:


> I'm going to be looking forward to their response as to why they're going to increase those fees, especially for owned receivers (besides the honest answer which is because we can).


owned / rented box fee has been the same price for a very long time.


----------



## coolman302003

Glen_D said:


> Maybe they could resurrect the now "secret" Select package as an official advertised package again. Their official entry-level price point right now (after expiration of new-customer promotions) is getting pretty steep.


Hasn't it already been resurrected???

















Or is it only available for new customers?


----------



## xmetalx

There's 2 "Select" packages.

One is the "Select Classic" for 39.99, and is only available upon request or if you ask to lower your bill they might offer it. The other is a regular base package called "Select" for 44.99 that has about 7 channels more, incl History, Lifetime, Hallmark, Food, ABC Family, GMC, History International..


----------



## RAD

JoeTheDragon said:


> owned / rented box fee has been the same price for a very long time.


Yes, I know, just wondering what reasons they'll come up with to justify the increase.


----------



## Glen_D

coolman302003 said:


> Hasn't it already been resurrected???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or is it only available for new customers?


Looks like some dealers in some areas are now showing Select as a "new" package, even with a discount for 1 year for new customers. The mailers and newspaper inserts I'm getting from various local DirecTV dealers don't show anything less than "Choice", though. I can't find any reference to "Select" on DirecTV's website, either.


----------



## Davenlr

Was that part of the Attorneys General settlement? DirecTv was advertising a package price, but not the package and people were signing up for the $29.95 package and getting put into the higher priced choice package?

Its been available from Retention all along (if you knew about it). Only reason I dont go with that over choice is I would miss out on ESPNU. Once college football is over, I might reconsider switching to it, if it wouldnt cancel my "free HD", which I think requires maintaining a minimum package, but Im not sure.


----------



## Glen_D

Davenlr said:


> Was that part of the Attorneys General settlement? DirecTv was advertising a package price, but not the package and people were signing up for the $29.95 package and getting put into the higher priced choice package?


The flyers I'm getting all advertise the Choice package as the cheapest available package, at $29.95/mo. for the first year. In the fine print, it says regular price $58.99/mo.

The posting above shows Select at $29.99/mo. for the first year, with a regular price of $44.99/mo. So customers will still be paying a higher monthly rate once the promotion expires, just not as much as they would if they subscribed to Choice.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

xmetalx said:


> Heads up. 2011 Pricing will be about a $3 increase for expired packages, $2 for current packages (except Premier), HBO going up by $1 and Addl/Leased Recvr fees goes up by $1.
> 
> Spanish packages are going up by about $1.50 except Optimo Mas Plus DVR, which is decreased by $2


Source?



elwaylite said:


> I think because we can is the real reason


Yes, probably to cover rising carriage fee costs. Lets hope it gets us some more HD channels.


----------



## sigma1914

TheRatPatrol said:


> Source?
> 
> ...


He works for DIRECTV.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Pricing notifications will start going out next week


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Satelliteracer said:


> Pricing notifications will start going out next week


Will that include notifications of new HD channel additions as well?


----------



## RAD

Satelliteracer said:


> Pricing notifications will start going out next week


That seems earlier then normal, can you tell us the effective date?


----------



## harsh

calgary2800 said:


> Dish had it once for something like 34.99 to 40.00 and it failed. It was called HD absoulute.


In the interest of accuracy:

HD Absolute was replaced by three "100% HD" packages from DISH Network.

http://www.dishnetwork.com/packages/dishAmerica/default.aspx

It is important to note that the claim about the packages being "100% HD" is an outright lie -- 42 out of the 67 channels listed in the DISH America package are SD.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Satelliteracer said:


> Pricing notifications will start going out next week


Wonder if that will include some "repackaging"...


----------



## Doug Brott

TheRatPatrol said:


> Source?


From my understanding, the numbers are accurate ..


----------



## gpg

Is Premier going up more or less than the $2 for other current packages?


----------



## Satelliteracer

"RAD" said:


> That seems earlier then normal, can you tell us the effective date?


Timing is only 1 day different than last year.


----------



## Satelliteracer

"gpg" said:


> Is Premier going up more or less than the $2 for other current packages?


No


----------



## gpg

Satelliteracer said:


> No


Thanks, I guess I misunderstood what xmetalx meant when he $2 for current packages (except Premier).


----------



## Davenlr

Must be nice to raise the price every year. Last pay raise I got was 4 years ago. Already dropped back to Choice, returned a DVR. Looks like this year Ill have to drop MLBEI and return a receiver to stay under my budget limit. 

Hope all those channels that are playing hardball for higher prices enjoy the sucking sound as people quit being able to afford to watch their commercials.


----------



## sigma1914

Davenlr said:


> Must be nice to raise the price every year. Last pay raise I got was 4 years ago. Already dropped back to Choice, returned a DVR. Looks like this year Ill have to drop MLBEI and return a receiver to stay under my budget limit.
> 
> Hope all those channels that are playing hardball for higher prices enjoy the sucking sound as people quit being able to afford to watch their commercials.


By my math, it'll be $3/month extra or $36/year for you. $36 over a year is very easy to save for. Dropping EI will save you an extra $200ish.


----------



## Glen_D

Davenlr said:


> Must be nice to raise the price every year. Last pay raise I got was 4 years ago. Already dropped back to Choice, returned a DVR. Looks like this year Ill have to drop MLBEI and return a receiver to stay under my budget limit.
> 
> Hope all those channels that are playing hardball for higher prices enjoy the sucking sound as people quit being able to afford to watch their commercials.





sigma1914 said:


> By my math, it'll be $3/month extra or $36/year for you. $36 over a year is very easy to save for. Dropping EI will save you an extra $200ish.


The problem with these annual $3/month (or so) price hikes is that they hit the lower-end subscribers hardest. For one, it works out to a higher percentage for the Choice package subscriber paying $59/month, than it does for someone paying $150/month for a higher package + premium services. Furthermore, the higher-end subsciber can trim services, or drop to a lower package, and can more than compensate for the rate increase.

About the only option for the Choice subscriber with only one receiver and no premiums who wants to avoid another annual rate hike is to drop down to Select (which probably few subscribers know exists), or cancel service altogether.


----------



## cjrleimer

Davenlr said:


> Must be nice to raise the price every year. Last pay raise I got was 4 years ago. Already dropped back to Choice, returned a DVR. Looks like this year Ill have to drop MLBEI and return a receiver to stay under my budget limit.
> 
> Hope all those channels that are playing hardball for higher prices enjoy the sucking sound as people quit being able to afford to watch their commercials.


Have you thought of going to MLB.TV instead I know they are a hellva lot cheaper and you get both feeds from every team every time plus archives of the FOX and ESPN games.


----------



## Davenlr

sigma1914 said:


> By my math, it'll be $3/month extra or $36/year for you. $36 over a year is very easy to save for. Dropping EI will save you an extra $200ish.


Well, actually, its (package 2x12=24) + (receivers 5*1*12=60 = $84 for the year. So, yes, dropping MLBEI would put me within the budget, however, it was what I watched 90% of the time this summer and fall. So basically I have to give up the programming I watch 90% of the time to keep crap I watch 10% of the time... Im calculating the costs of Select + MLBEI to see if that will be workable.


----------



## Davenlr

cjrleimer said:


> Have you thought of going to MLB.TV instead I know they are a hellva lot cheaper and you get both feeds from every team every time plus archives of the FOX and ESPN games.


Yea, I think I saw that option on my PLAYON server, but am worried Comcast will throttle my connection if I start watching lots of Internet TV. Its already dropped from 28mps to 15mps in the last two months since I started using Netflix.


----------



## dcowboy7

I remember when a candy bar was a nickel.*

*No i really dont.


----------



## Davenlr

dcowboy7 said:


> I remember when a candy bar was a nickel.*
> 
> *No i really dont.


I remember paying 25 cents for a gallon of gas tho... and going to the candy shop (do those still exist?) to pick out hard candy from glass bowls. Fill a bag for 50 cents.


----------



## cjrleimer

Davenlr said:


> Yea, I think I saw that option on my PLAYON server, but am worried Comcast will throttle my connection if I start watching lots of Internet TV. Its already dropped from 28mps to 15mps in the last two months since I started using Netflix.


Oh geez that sucks, but as someone who has subscribed to MLB.TV for the past 5 years 6th in 2011 it is a hellva product and it is better then EI because of the multiple devices you can watch it on and the fact that you get every teams feed every night regardless you cant get that with D. Anyhow PM me if you decide to subscribe to it.


----------



## sigma1914

cjrleimer said:


> Oh geez that sucks, but as someone who has subscribed to MLB.TV for the past 5 years 6th in 2011 it is a hellva product and *it is better then EI* because of the multiple devices you can watch it on and the fact that you get every teams feed every night regardless you cant get that with D. Anyhow PM me if you decide to subscribe to it.


I disagree, it's not better...The PQ really isn't as good as DirecTV's feeds. I tried watching the Yankees during a free trial, and YES' PQ blew away streaming/compressed net version.


----------



## bobnielsen

dcowboy7 said:


> I remember when a candy bar was a nickel.*
> 
> *No i really dont.


I definitely do. Also the Pepsi jingle "much more for a nickel, too".


----------



## Doug Brott

In addition to the pricing changes, I wouldn't be shocked to see more issues with contract negotiations. It really could be an interesting year as we work through the landscape of change. I can only hope that we, as consumers, can continue to feel like our head is above water as this wave comes through.


----------



## RACJ2

RACJ2 said:


> The $3 is probably a precursor to what the price increase will be for that package. My Choice Xtra + HD DVR package went from $72.99 in 2008, to $75.99 in 2009 to the current rate of $79.99 in March of each year. So if the 2011 price only goes up $3, I suppose I should feel grateful.





xmetalx said:


> Heads up. 2011 Pricing will be about a $3 increase for expired packages, $2 for current packages (except Premier), HBO going up by $1 and Addl/Leased Recvr fees goes up by $1.
> 
> Spanish packages are going up by about $1.50 except Optimo Mas Plus DVR, which is decreased by $2


Guess I was right on this one, but based on past history it wasn't difficult to predict.

Since in my post I said I should feel grateful, I'll try to be an optimist on the price increase. I refused to add WHDVR unsupported, because I had to switch to a new package and it was a $1 higher + pay $3 for it (it was the principal, since I had it for free during beta). Now with the price increase, I can switch to the new package n/c. And then add WHDVR for only $3!

(So with 2 DVR's I'm going to be paying $7 more a month, instead of $4 after the price increase. Hmmm)


----------



## Davenlr

Doug Brott said:


> In addition to the pricing changes, I wouldn't be shocked to see more issues with contract negotiations. It really could be an interesting year as we work through the landscape of change. I can only hope that we, as consumers, can continue to feel like our head is above water as this wave comes through.


Yea, and I am in no way laying all this on DirecTv, if it came off sounding like that. I place almost all the blame on the big multichannel owners who think their commercial ridden content it worth 10x what it is, and all the locals that somehow think that DirecTv is making a lot of money carrying their newscasts, because in 90% of the cases, thats the only content the locals contribute to the channel that we couldnt get with a single national instance of ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and CW. I felt sorry for them having to bear the brunt of the cost of the governments mandatory ATSC switchover, but thats the extent of it. Now they are really just gouging.

DirecTv is not a totally innocent victim either. They pass on opportunities to make money (selling guaranteed HR24's for example) which could be used to subsidize the cost of the channels. Dish is doing this with their latest DVR, even tacking on a $200 fee to the lease if you want that box. DirecTv should do the same.

I applaud DirecTv for keeping the lower priced packages robust enough to include a lot of the popular channels, keeping their call centers in the US, and making a profit for their shareholders in this economy.

That said, Im afraid if they dont offer a "One Team" version of ST and MLBEI for a reduced cost, and fail to add popular HD channels at a time when LOTS of people are upgrading to HD, they are going start losing market share to lower priced competitors, as those of us who are not independently wealthy are forced to inferior competitors.


----------



## Tom Robertson

dpeters11 said:


> That extra receiver fee is going to hurt some people, that's what, a $14 increase for Tom?
> 
> So in my case, my fees go down $10 for the free HD, then go up $4. I've seen worse increases for sure.


Assuming those price changes are real, yeah it will not be small for my house. I've cut back on receivers now that Whole Home is stable (and very cool), but ya still gotta have at least one HD receiver in every room... 

(Plus a few extra during NFL season.)  

Merry Christmas everyone!
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

By the way, channel programmers just don't get it. If the bill to the customers can only go up 3-5% each year, how can channels ask for 100-500% more each year?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Davenlr

There is probably some law against it, but DirecTv and Dish and U-verse should get together and simultaneously drop any channel that is demanding a rate increase. I would wager the channel would sign a "same as last year" contract facing the loss of 50% of their customers.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Davenlr said:


> There is probably some law against it, but DirecTv and Dish and U-verse should get together and simultaneously drop any channel that is demanding a rate increase. I would wager the channel would sign a "same as last year" contract facing the loss of 50% of their customers.


Don't know if there is a problem or not. Perhaps they could form a purchasing consortium. (Which was how cable was looking into buying NFL ST a few contracts ago, or so I've heard.)

One problem is that contracts don't expire at the same time for the carriers. So it's harder for all to put pressure at the same time.

Merry Christmas!
Tom


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Davenlr said:


> That said, Im afraid if they dont offer a "One Team" version of ST and MLBEI for a reduced cost, and fail to add popular HD channels at a time when LOTS of people are upgrading to HD, they are going start losing market share to lower priced competitors, as those of us who are not independently wealthy are forced to inferior competitors.


I don't think the NFL, NBA , MLB, and NHL will let them have one Team versions.


----------



## Davenlr

JoeTheDragon said:


> I don't think the NFL, NBA , MLB, and NHL will let them have one Team versions.


Probably not, but at least for MLB, I dont see where that would be an issue, since they currently allow you to view one or two close teams on your RSN. Would it not benefit them to let you switch to the RSN your team plays on, for an extra amount of money?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Tom Robertson said:


> By the way, channel programmers just don't get it. If the bill to the customers can only go up 3-5% each year, how can channels ask for 100-500% more each year?
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Thank you Tom.

This is the very point a number of us have been making on this topic for months, but a few folks seem to refuse to "get it". They don't seem to understand where the actual issue lies.

Rather than to point their fingers at the carriers...they should come to grips with the fact that the content providers/channel programmers are the ones driving the insanity in channel price escalation.

Perhaps these same posters should be re-directing their energies toward writing letters, e-mails, and the like to the very same channels people wish they had, and asking them to stop asking ridiculous amounts of money for their carriage agreements. It might just be of more value than repeatedly complaining in posts about certain channels not being offered.

DirecTV, Dish, or others cannot dictate carriage costs...they can just limit how much of a cap they'll pay to carry a channel without breaking the bank and passing on those massive increases to customers.

It makes one wonder...if folks got those 10 - 25 or more HD channels they seek, but their monthly fees went up $50 - $100... would it still be so urgent to add them? I suspect not, if that's the price we all would have to pay.

Up to now...DirecTV and others have not given in to the channel price extortion.

Channel programmers - stop the carriage agreement price gouging now.


----------



## grizbear

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Thank you Tom.
> 
> This is the very point a number of us have been making on this topic for months, but a few folks seem to refuse to "get it". They don't seem to understand where the actual issue lies.
> 
> Rather than to point their fingers at the carriers...they should come to grips with the fact that the content providers/channel programmers are the ones driving the insanity in channel price escalation.
> 
> Perhaps these same posters should be re-directing their energies toward writing letters, e-mails, and the like to the very same channels people wish they had, and asking them to stop asking ridiculous amounts of money for their carriage agreements. It might just be of more value than repeatedly complaining in posts about certain channels not being offered.
> 
> DirecTV, Dish, or others cannot dictate carriage costs...they can just limit how much of a cap they'll pay to carry a channel without breaking the bank and passing on those massive increases to customers.
> 
> It makes one wonder...if folks got those 10 - 25 or more HD channels they seek, but their monthly fees went up $50 - $100... would it still be so urgent to add them? I suspect not, if that's the price we all would have to pay.
> 
> Up to now...DirecTV and others have not given in to the channel price extortion.
> 
> Channel programmers - stop the carriage agreement price gouging now.


Granted, what you see below is from 2009 and I believe may have been posted before, but it can give some idea of the carriage costs, at least then. Even with and including HD increases, It might be a stretch for 10-25 channels to cost an extra $50 -100. (unless they are all ESPN) Add it up; There is still a large portion of your Directv bill that is for something other than carriage cost.


----------



## DogLover

grizbear said:


> Granted, what you see below is from 2009 and I believe may have been posted before, but it can give some idea of the carriage costs, at least then. Even with and including HD increases, It might be a stretch for 10-25 channels to cost an extra $50 -100. (unless they are all ESPN) Add it up; There is still a large portion of your Directv bill that is for something other than carriage cost.


It looked like 162 channels on the list, with 20 cents as an average cost per channel. That's 32.40 in carriage cost alone. Then you add in Satellite costs, equipment to receive the signals from the carriers, equipment to beam the signals to the satellites, personnel costs, and probably a whole lot that I'm not thinking of at the moment. Sounds like there isn't a lot of wiggle room to pay carriers extra and still make a profit that your shareholder want.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

DogLover said:


> It looked like 162 channels on the list, with 20 cents as an average cost per channel. That's 32.40 in carriage cost alone. Then you add in Satellite costs, equipment to receive the signals from the carriers, equipment to beam the signals to the satellites, personnel costs, and probably a whole lot that I'm not thinking of at the moment. Sounds like there isn't a lot of wiggle room to pay carriers extra and still make a profit that your shareholder want.


The reality is that some channels are 10 times that "average cost" for just one channel. When you look at a group like the ESPN HD channels...20 cents is just a tiny fraction of what that package alone costs to rebroadcast on DirecTV.

Simply multiplying a channel count does not give anything near a representation of the true carriage costs of the total HD channel inventory.

Then add in the hundreds and hundreds of LIL's.


----------



## Doug Brott

DogLover said:


> It looked like 162 channels on the list, with 20 cents as an average cost per channel. That's 32.40 in carriage cost alone. Then you add in Satellite costs, equipment to receive the signals from the carriers, equipment to beam the signals to the satellites, personnel costs, and probably a whole lot that I'm not thinking of at the moment. Sounds like there isn't a lot of wiggle room to pay carriers extra and still make a profit that your shareholder want.


try tossing in that 100%-500% increase that Tom mentioned ..


----------



## DogLover

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The reality is that some channels are 10 times that "average cost" for just one channel. When you look at a group like the ESPN HD channels...20 cents is just a tiny fraction of what that package alone costs to rebroadcast on DirecTV.
> 
> Simply multiplying a channel count does not give anything near a representation of the true carriage costs of the total HD channel inventory.
> 
> Then add in the hundreds and hundreds of LIL's.


Well, I didn't do the calculation, it is on the document. I "assumed" that they calculated the true average, which would take into account both ESPN and those channels only charge 1 cent per subscriber. If they truly calculated the average, you should be able to multiply it by the channel count. (But, like I said, I didn't calculate it. Perhaps they really are using the median cost and calling it an average.)

You are right about the locals not being included. However, for each subscriber they would only pay for their locals, and maybe some DNS channels. So that would be a number closer to 10-15 for each subscriber.

Some will say at first glance that this isn't close to what we pay. However, I still say that this is a huge part of their expenses. For this single category to be 1/3 or more of the package costs makes it by far the most important thing to contain.

If each of these channels asks for 1 cent more per subscriber, we have used up 1.62 of the 2.00 increase expected for this year. That's just these national channels. 

It doesn't include locals. And we know that the locals are trying to negotiate more money.
It doesn't include those channels asking for more than 1 cent increase - such as Discovery wanting 21 cents for the OWN, rather than the 7 cents they were charging for Discovery health
And it doesn't include higher charges for any of the SD channels to provide HD or new HD channels - such as the recently added SonyHD and the anticipated new HBO HD channels
When you look at all those items, I surprised the price increases aren't higher.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

DogLover said:


> When you look at all those items, I surprised the price increases aren't higher.


Alot of truth to that part, and your added comments do correctly portray the fact that they "normalize" the fees charged by the various content providers/broadcast sources.

Some channels are higher, and others much lower, often based on ratings - but also based on what they try to get from a competitive standpoint.That even comes into play with the HD LIL's. The rates the Hearst group of local stations is negotiating, for example, is not the same as some independent or other groups.

In the simplest terms, the cost of retransmission of content is the sum of the parts, divided by the subscriber base.

I agree that rates being held in check with nominal annual increases is getting extremely difficult to maintain.

For that reason, I suspect the channels will have to be repackaged somehow over the next year to reflect their costs based on *corresponding* fees, so that viewership and revenue match up more accurately. I forecast that this *might*...again...*might*...result in some folks seeing additional increases later on, and perhaps others having the option to change packages that fit their viewing habits and preferences better.


----------



## paragon

Based on this new pricing, does that mean there will no longer be the $1/month savings for keeping the old PLUS HD DVR package as opposed to unbundling to CHOICE XTRA + HD + DVR? While that would suck, at least I would be able to work with my account online again.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

paragon said:


> Based on this new pricing, does that mean there will no longer be the $1/month savings for keeping the old PLUS HD DVR package as opposed to unbundling to CHOICE XTRA + HD + DVR? While that would suck, at least I would be able to work with my account online again.


Good think I took the NFL ST + premier offer.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Davenlr said:


> Must be nice to raise the price every year. Last pay raise I got was 4 years ago. Already dropped back to Choice, returned a DVR. Looks like this year Ill have to drop MLBEI and return a receiver to stay under my budget limit.
> 
> Hope all those channels that are playing hardball for higher prices enjoy the sucking sound as people quit being able to afford to watch their commercials.


Unfortunately all the programming costs go up every year because they are tied to escalator clauses. Basically they go up with each new calendar year and thus the MSO's have to cover their costs each calendar year.


----------



## Satelliteracer

DogLover said:


> It looked like 162 channels on the list, with 20 cents as an average cost per channel. That's 32.40 in carriage cost alone. Then you add in Satellite costs, equipment to receive the signals from the carriers, equipment to beam the signals to the satellites, personnel costs, and probably a whole lot that I'm not thinking of at the moment. Sounds like there isn't a lot of wiggle room to pay carriers extra and still make a profit that your shareholder want.


And that doesn't factor in local channels, the retrans deals, which are the ones going through the roof now.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Satelliteracer said:


> And that doesn't factor in local channels, the retrans deals, which are the ones going through the roof now.


Thats crazy.


----------



## Jason Whiddon

I just wonder whats the breaking point, or is there one. 10 years now will we be paying $140/month for a normal package, vs $80 now?


----------



## MysteryMan

elwaylite said:


> I just wonder whats the breaking point, or is there one. 10 years now will we be paying $140/month for a normal package, vs $80 now?


That $140.00 will probably be what the NFL will be demanding per game for Sunday Ticket ten years from now!


----------



## Jason Whiddon

Yeah, ST will be $1000.


----------



## Glen_D

elwaylite said:


> I just wonder whats the breaking point, or is there one. 10 years now will we be paying $140/month for a normal package, vs $80 now?


If that current $80/month package price increases at an annual rate of 5-3/4%, then yes, you will be paying $140/month, if you haven't reached the breaking point. So it's not out of the question.


----------



## Richierich

I hope the Prices don't go up too much.


----------



## RAD

Here's the link to the official increase page, http://www.directv.com/pricechange/...df?CMP=EMC-MQ-CS&ATT=120-LS-EN-101226final&m=

OK, what's the "Total Choice Mobile" package that's listed???

MOD EDIT: Added PDF as attachment to post.


----------



## Richierich

RAD said:


> Here's the link to the official increase page, http://www.directv.com/pricechange/...df?CMP=EMC-MQ-CS&ATT=120-LS-EN-101226final&m=
> 
> OK, what's the "Total Choice Mobile" package that's listed???


My Price is TOTAL CHOICE® PLUS ...$64.49/mo. What was it before the Increase?

Also, the Mirroring Fee has increased from $5 to $6/month, is that correct?


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Why does it say
***Lease for first two receivers: $6/mo.; additional receiver leases: $6/mo. each.?

Are they planing to make 2 boxes fall under the main lease fee?

If so they lots of people price may go down a bit. And They can 1up cable and say we give out 2 boxes as part of base rate.


----------



## dpeters11

RAD said:


> Here's the link to the official increase page, http://www.directv.com/pricechange/...df?CMP=EMC-MQ-CS&ATT=120-LS-EN-101226final&m=
> 
> OK, what's the "Total Choice Mobile" package that's listed???


DirecTV for your car with a system like this
http://www.kvh.com/Leisure/Auto-Systems/Television/All-Television-Systems/TracVision-A7.aspx


----------



## RAD

JoeTheDragon said:


> Why does it say
> ***Lease for first two receivers: $6/mo.; additional receiver leases: $6/mo. each.?
> 
> Are they planing to make 2 boxes fall under the main lease fee?
> 
> If so they lots of people price may go down a bit. And They can 1up cable and say we give out 2 boxes as part of base rate.


I know when I first read it I was confused. But rereading it IMHO its the same as now, 1st box is included in the base package price, the second has the lease fee which will be $6.00 with the new pricing.


----------



## RAD

dpeters11 said:


> DirecTV for your car with a system like this
> http://www.kvh.com/Leisure/Auto-Systems/Television/All-Television-Systems/TracVision-A7.aspx


So why a different package just because your mobile?


----------



## dishrich

RAD said:


> OK, what's the "Total Choice Mobile" package that's listed???


It's the same thing as *TC+*, (yes, if you go down this list, you WILL see TC+ channels that are NOT on the TC "residential" lineup) but does NOT include any locals (or DNS) nor any RSN's. It's was created about when KVH came out with their TracVision A7 mobile antenna.

http://www.kvh.com/pop_tcm_alpha.aspx


----------



## JoeTheDragon

RAD said:


> So why a different package just because your mobile?


DNS?

But you can just mirror a box and use it on a system like that and only get locals in your sport beam.


----------



## Davenlr

> ***Lease for first two receivers: $6/mo.; additional receiver leases: $6/mo. each.


So does this mean the first receiver/DVR will no longer be free?
Or does it mean the first is free, the second is $6?
Or does it mean the first is $3 and the second is $3

Only reason I ask is because of the language, and the change in the language. Why not just say "Lease for first receiver: Free; additional receiver leases: $6 ??


----------



## 996911

Just got the email from D* stating they are raising the packages, the lease fee for each receiver, and HBO. Great timing D*.


----------



## litzdog911

It's become an annual "tradition". Of course, it's not just DirecTV.


----------



## 996911

Gotta love tradition


----------



## dishrich

JoeTheDragon said:


> DNS?
> 
> But you can just mirror a box and use it on a system like that and only get locals in your sport beam.


Yea, but what about people that want networks OUTSIDE their spot? 

D* is VERY rigid about giving out DNS for RV service. They will NOT put it on your residential account that already has local channels, so if you want BOTH DNS for your RV & still keep your locals, they create a separate account for your RV. (& yes, you pay FULL price on BOTH accounts, or you have to suspend one or the other...)

http://www.directv.com/DNS/DNS Mobile Revised Letter.pdf

It's spelled out VERY clearly on the 1st page of this doc...


----------



## Davenlr

cjrleimer said:


> Have you thought of going to MLB.TV instead I know they are a hellva lot cheaper and you get both feeds from every team every time plus archives of the FOX and ESPN games.


*Thank you for the suggestion to check into this*. I just discovered that they have a dedicated app for my PS3, so I will be subscribing to this, and dropping MLBEI, and use my PS3 hooked HDMI to my TV to watch baseball in 2011. That will save me enough money to cover the extra $10 to upgrade from Choice to Extra, and the extra receiver fees... and Ill still be under my monthly budget.


----------



## MysteryMan

996911 said:


> Just got the email from D* stating they are raising the packages, the lease fee for each receiver, and HBO. Great timing D*.


I noticed Premier subs are unscathed.


----------



## MattScahum

on the positive side, at least they let you know almost 2 months in advance. It could of come in suprise form. That would be worse.


----------



## uteotw

This gets more painful every year.

My pay's frozen, health insurance is way up, gas is way up, kids getting near college age--and D* just keeps going up in almost every way (programming, lease fees, whatever) every single year without fail. Guess I need to try get one of those top-secret "Select" packages (still on TC+) or something. Just too much...
:nono2:


----------



## cjrleimer

Davenlr said:


> *Thank you for the suggestion to check into this*. I just discovered that they have a dedicated app for my PS3, so I will be subscribing to this, and dropping MLBEI, and use my PS3 hooked HDMI to my TV to watch baseball in 2011. That will save me enough money to cover the extra $10 to upgrade from Choice to Extra, and the extra receiver fees... and Ill still be under my monthly budget.


Anything to help a fellow Direct TV Subscriber and forum mate out a little, right now they are running the holiday package for 99.95. I think sometime in the new year theyll have 2011 prices out.


----------



## cjrleimer

uteotw said:


> This gets more painful every year.
> 
> My pay's frozen, health insurance is way up, gas is way up, kids getting near college age--and D* just keeps going up in almost every way (programming, lease fees, whatever) every single year without fail. Guess I need to try get one of those top-secret "Select" packages (still on TC+) or something. Just too much...
> :nono2:


Welcome to good ole inflation.


----------



## tsduke

This is the largest one time increase I've had from any provider I've ever been with. My bill will go up $5 and I will looking for yet another piece to cut from my services. It's not about affordability for me, it's about justifying dollars spent just to watch tv. That and I'm a little disgusted with the audio dropouts they keep FAILING to fix.


----------



## Glen_D

xmetalx said:


> There's 2 "Select" packages.
> 
> One is the "Select Classic" for 39.99, and is only available upon request or if you ask to lower your bill they might offer it. The other is a regular base package called "Select" for 44.99 that has about 7 channels more, incl History, Lifetime, Hallmark, Food, ABC Family, GMC, History International..





RAD said:


> Here's the link to the official increase page, http://www.directv.com/pricechange/...df?CMP=EMC-MQ-CS&ATT=120-LS-EN-101226final&m=


I'm confused. A previous post showed a new-customer promotion for "Select", at 29.99/mo. promo, $44.99/mo. regular. but the above link for the new pricing stucture shows the $39.99/mo. "Preferred Choice" as the base package, and the $44.99/mo. "Select Choice" as a legacy package "no longer available for sale". No mention in the link, or at DirecTV's website, of any package simply called "Select". As I mentioned in a previous post, mailers and flyers I'm getting (just got another one in today's newspaper) all show "Choice", currently $58.99/mo. after expiration of promotions as the cheapest package.

Also, the link mentions most packages are priced $3 less per month where locals are not offered. Does anyone know if DirecTV still allows customers where locals are offered to opt out for a $3/mo. savings?


----------



## LoweBoy

Typical.

Wonder what the Total Choice Mobile is?


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Already being discussed here.


----------



## Richierich

My Total Choice Plus Package went up $3 and I am paying an Extra $5 for my Extra DVRs.


----------



## Richierich

996911 said:


> Just got the email from D* stating they are raising the packages, the lease fee for each receiver, and HBO. Great timing D*.


Thank God they are Raising My Rates as I was wondering how I was going to get rid of all of the Extra Money I have left lying around the house!!! :lol:


----------



## 996911

!rolling


----------



## Richierich

996911 said:


> !rolling


Glad You Enjoyed My Sense Of Humor!!! :lol:


----------



## Lord Vader

I notice the additional receiver fee goes from $5 to $6. Crap. This means I'm paying an extra $11 per month if I read that right (first TWO receivers, not one, are "free").

They didn't jack up the PPV costs, did they?


----------



## Richierich

Lord Vader said:


> I notice the additional receiver fee goes from $5 to $6. Crap. This means I'm paying an extra $11 per month if I read that right (first TWO receivers, not one, are "free").
> 
> They didn't jack up the PPV costs, did they?


Yes, that is Right as I am Paying an Extra $5 per month for my 7 DVRs.

I don't know about PPV as I use Netflix and VUDU and I just really Love the PQ and AQ with VUDU!!!

May The Force Be With You!!! :hurah:


----------



## 996911

richierich said:


> Glad You Enjoyed My Sense Of Humor!!! :lol:


Sure did. Wife asked me what was so funny since she heard me across the house!


----------



## seern

That's how I read that *** comment.


----------



## dpeters11

Lord Vader said:


> I notice the additional receiver fee goes from $5 to $6. Crap. This means I'm paying an extra $11 per month if I read that right (first TWO receivers, not one, are "free").
> 
> They didn't jack up the PPV costs, did they?


I read it as first two receivers have a total fee of $6, anything over is $6 each. So it's the first one that is still free.


----------



## 996911

I read it as "up to 2" is $6 so whether you have 1 or 2 it is $6, thus eliminating the single receiver house with the first being included (or semantic calling it free). Now the 1 box home gets raised $6 right off the bat.

I'm assuming that most homes have 2 or more boxes so you can interpret that as the first box is free, the second (and each add'l) is $6 per.


----------



## Richierich

996911 said:


> Sure did. Wife asked me what was so funny since she heard me across the house!


Hey, just trying to make y'all have a Merry Christmas Holiday Season!!! :lol:


----------



## dpeters11

Davenlr said:


> So does this mean the first receiver/DVR will no longer be free?
> Or does it mean the first is free, the second is $6?
> Or does it mean the first is $3 and the second is $3
> 
> Only reason I ask is because of the language, and the change in the language. Why not just say "Lease for first receiver: Free; additional receiver leases: $6 ??


I was thinking the second option, but I do see a case for the first one. That would not be good if a one receiver account goes up $6. You have to have a receiver to get service, and it would mean fairly substantial increase for basic users. It would be a big increase for those with a lot of receivers, but honestly, that's not as big a deal. DirecTV is still cheaper than a lot of the competition with a lot of boxes.


----------



## jdspencer

When our DMA got locals last month, I signed up. But, I noticed that the cost for the locals was $6/month. My account still indicated Choice Extra without locals for $60.99. I just thought that $6 was a new charge. But, this DirecTV notice indicates that the prices will be $3 less if you don't have locals.


Code:


12/01  	12/31  	CHOICE XTRA - no locals Monthly  60.99	 
12/01  	12/31  	Your Local Channels Monthly       6.00

So. with the increase to $65.99 for CHOICE EXTRA w/locals I'll actually be paying $1 less.
But, the increase to $6 for the additional/leased receiver will wipe that out.

Am I misreading this?

I guess I'll wait for the Feb statement.


----------



## Richierich

Davenlr said:


> So does this mean the first receiver/DVR will no longer be free?
> Or does it mean the first is free, the second is $6?
> Or does it mean the first is $3 and the second is $3
> 
> Only reason I ask is because of the language, and the change in the language. Why not just say "Lease for first receiver: Free; additional receiver leases: $6 ??


I'll have to Consult with my Lawyer about the Language contained in this Pricing Agreement as it is not Clear!!!


----------



## The Merg

While the wording of the footnote is strange, I would still think that if you only have one receiver that you will not have to pay the lease/mirroring fee (no need to pay a mirroring fee if you only have 1 receiver). If you have two receivers, it will be $6 and then it is $6 for every receiver after that.

- Merg


----------



## David Ortiz

Davenlr said:


> So does this mean the first receiver/DVR will no longer be free?
> Or does it mean the first is free, the second is $6?
> Or does it mean the first is $3 and the second is $3
> 
> Only reason I ask is because of the language, and the change in the language. Why not just say "Lease for first receiver: Free; additional receiver leases: $6 ??


1 receiver = $6
2 receivers = $6

1st is free if you have 2. So most will get a 2nd box. It might as well be a DVR. And it might as well include HD and WH.


----------



## Richierich

The Merg said:


> While the wording of the footnote is strange, I would still think that if you only have one receiver that you will not have to pay the lease/mirroring fee (no need to pay a mirroring fee if you only have 1 receiver). If you have two receivers, it will be $6 and then it is $6 for every receiver after that.
> 
> - Merg


It sounds like the First One is Free and the Second One is $6 along with each additional Receiver.


----------



## seern

Richierich, I just looked at VuDu and for me its not worth 5.99 rental for 1020p movies when I can get the Blu Ray with my netflix subscription at about $2 and watch as much and hold for as long as I want. I do not mind waiting the extra 30 days for it.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

David Ortiz said:


> 1 receiver = $6
> 2 receivers = $6
> 
> 1st is free if you have 2. So most will get a 2nd box. It might as well be a DVR. And it might as well include HD and WH.


But will the line Main box fee - $6 still be there?


----------



## Richierich

seern said:


> Richierich, I just looked at VuDu and for me its not worth 5.99 rental for 1020i movies when I can get the Blu Ray with my netflix subscription at about $2 and watch as much and hold for as long as I want. I do not mind waiting the extra 30 days for it.


Yes, Sharon it is a little cheaper and I do use Netflix also but I do have VUDU and I like Options and Money is not a problem for me so with VUDU I can get 1080P and that is the Best PQ and it looks Great on my Samsung LED TV and the Audio is DD 5.1 and it really sounds Great so I use it along with Netflix but sometimes when you are Netstreaming you can have a reduction in Bitrate and the PQ and AQ are not as Good as with Bluray or VUDU!!!


----------



## Doug Brott

I'm pretty sure the first STB lease/mirror fee is included in the base package price. Each additional will now be $6/month instead of $5/month.


----------



## jdspencer

See my post here.
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2666492#post2666492

It looks like my price will go down by $1.
Only because it seems I've been paying too much since our locals became available 11/23.


----------



## harsh

Satelliteracer said:


> Unfortunately all the programming costs go up every year because they are tied to escalator clauses.


What index are they tying these increases to?

The CPI has gone up about 1.1% this year. The big increases seem to have been in food and energy (mostly petroleum); things I wouldn't normally associate with television programming.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pd

The PPI for finished goods has gone up about 3.5% this year.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ppi.pdf


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> What index are they tying these increases to?


I think everyone generally agrees that these increases are from content providers asking for more money. DIRECTV's lawyers and the providers lawyers sit in a room (or in separate rooms as we've seen with the long delay in the HBO negotiations) and beat it out until both sides can agree. Part of that negotiation would mean an increase per-year apparently for these providers.

So to answer your specific question .. It's not tied to any index and there is no evidence to even suggest that it is or should be.


----------



## tealcomp

I for one am sick and tired of D* going up every year; and it's become so common place, people just pay it. I believe I will be starting a new tradition (after being with D* since 1994); it's called continue building my video collection at home and dumping their service entirely. I rarely watch the service, I hate my DVR, it's slower than a 10 year old computer and there frankly just is not that much to watch; certainly nothing worth paying $90/mth for. It's starting to be like Comcast all over again. We can raise rates, so we are going to.


----------



## Richierich

I'm tired of my Utility Rates going up, my Gasoline Prices going up, the cost of Groceries going up, etc. but you better get used to it and by the way I just heard from a very knowledgeable person who says Gas will be back up to $100/barrel so get used to $4 plus/gallon for Gas.

It is just the way it is so either live in a tent in the boonies and ride a horse (hay has gone up too) or make a lot of money at your livelihood. :lol:

Aint' Gonna Get No Better!!!


----------



## peters4n6

During these types of discussions, as a non-business type, I always wonder how much consideration is given to a price decrease to garner more market share from competitors.


----------



## tealcomp

Yes, don't think it takes much of a crystal ball for someone to know the price of fuel will continue to rise; however, D* is not fuel and is hardly a "necessary" item to have. And maybe they need to start dropping channels that are demanding these ridiculous rates. But I am choosing to vote with my pocket book, and I can assure you that if enough customers took a stand on pricing, companies like D* would reduce their rates; but alas most people are sheep.


----------



## RAD

I get tired of my home/car/health insurance, medical care, airfare (and all their surcharges), college costs, groceries etc going up every year.

I get tired of paying ever increasing movie ticket and snack prices and also having to sit through a bunch of commercials before a movie starts. 

I also get tired of when the product price doesn't go up the manufacture reduces the size of the product, 16oz bags of Lays chips are now under 12oz for the same price. 

I also get tired of TV shows that keep selling more commercial time and cutting back on the actual amount of program. Also cutting back on the number of episodes in a season and the number of times where they take a month or so off a couple times a year. 

OK, do I like prices going up all the time, nope, but it's a fact of life. Someone's got to pay for all those increases content providers as asking DirecTV to pay. Guess it's us that's paying for all those salaries that Hollywood TV stars like Charlie Sheen or movie stars like Brad Pitt and all those other folks in those multi million dollar Hollywood mansions. Or all those sports players that make tens of millions of dollars, some are rookies that haven't even played a game yet and will make more money in one year then I'll make in a lifetime. 

OK, that's my rant.


----------



## seern

Richierich, it is not money, I just can wait the extra time for the actual Blu ray to arrive in the mail, so, for me, why pay an extra $3 for the instant gratification when I can only watch them on weekends.


----------



## Richierich

seern said:


> Richierich, it is not money, I just can wait the extra time for the actual Blu ray to arrive in the mail, so, for me, why pay an extra $3 for the instant gratification when I can only watch them on weekends.


Yes, I am the same way. On some movies I can wait 28 days and on the others I just watch it via VUDU if my wife and I decide that tonight we want to watch something that we don't have on a Netflix DVD or can get via a Netflix Netstreamed Instant Download but I do like the Picture Quality of the VUDU 1080P but that will only be on certain Select Movies we want to watch it Premium Quality.


----------



## FrozenAsset

Someone help me please.

I have 

Choice XTRA @ 63.99 changing to 65.99 +2
Two DVRs and 1 Rec @ 15.00 (5.00 ea) changing to 12.00 (1st and 2nd @6.00, 3rd @6.00) -3
HBO and Showtime @ 26.00 changing to 27.00 +1

So I'm breaking out even?


----------



## Richierich

Looks like it!!! 

However, I think the 2 DVRs and receiver used to cost you $10 and now it is $12 so you are losing $2 there. So I think it is a New Minus $5 but I could be wrong.

I was Wrong Once Before in the Summer of '69!!! :lol:


----------



## Doug Brott

tealcomp said:


> ... And maybe they need to start dropping channels that are demanding these ridiculous rates. ...


Unfortunately, I suspect we'll be seeing this in the coming year as well ...


----------



## Herdfan

MysteryMan said:


> I noticed Premier subs are unscathed.


Except for an additional $1 per additional receiver. That is a $6 mo increase for me.


----------



## mikeny

Herdfan said:


> Except for an additional $1 per additional receiver. That is a $6 mo increase for me.


Wow. I figure that it's an additional $6 for me also as TC+ went from $61.49 to $64.49 for $3 and my 3 "additional" receivers went up $1 each for another $3.


----------



## HDTVFreak07

Leased receiver fee increase??? Per box??? That's asking for way more than just a package increase. They should just leave the leased fee alone and increase just the programming package.

And no, not saying I'm leaving. I'm stuck with the major BS. No way do I ever want to go back to Time Warner cable. No way, no how. I suppose I'll just find a way to let go one of the receiver and try to make two TV's work off one receiver. It wouldn't even matter if one will have to watch the same thing as the other. I'll just make sure no one watches off a certain receiver.


----------



## Richierich

I have Total Choice Plus so that is an additional $3 then I have 7 DVRs so that is one Free and an Extra Dollar for the next 6 so that is $6 plus $3 so I guess I will be paying an Extra $9/month.


----------



## damondlt

Got the email too.
Well, thats another $5 per month for me, Guess I'll drop something else.


----------



## mikeny

HDTVFreak07 said:


> Leased receiver fee increase??? Per box??? That's asking for way more than just a package increase. They should just leave the leased fee alone and increase just the programming package.


It's aggravating but honestly I can't remember the last time they touched the lease fee/mirroring fee. It's been at $5 for a long time.


----------



## Richierich

mikeny said:


> It's aggravating but honestly I can't remember the last time they touched the lease fee/mirroring fee. It's been at $4.99 for a long time.


Yeah, that's No Big Deal for me either but I just hope they take that money and keep The Golf Channel.


----------



## jimmyv2000

damondlt said:


> Got the email too.
> Well, thats another $5 per month for me, Guess I'll drop something else.


same here, plus i may lose 2 locals come 1/1/11
(see my new sig Below)
Great way to treat a long long time customer


----------



## HDTVFreak07

mikeny said:


> It's aggravating but honestly I can't remember the last time they touched the lease fee/mirroring fee. It's been at $5 for a long time.


For each and every year in the past decade, there's been a fee increase. $1 to $3 per year but this year it's more than DOUBLE!!!!!!! I'm not happy about it.


----------



## NR4P

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Rather than to point their fingers at the carriers...they should come to grips with the fact that the content providers/channel programmers are the ones driving the insanity in channel price escalation.
> 
> Perhaps these same posters should be re-directing their energies toward writing letters, e-mails, and the like to the very same channels people wish they had, and asking them to stop asking ridiculous amounts of money for their carriage agreements. It might just be of more value than repeatedly complaining in posts about certain channels not being offered.
> 
> Channel programmers - stop the carriage agreement price gouging now.


Exactly what I have done with my local providers. Within the next week, I may lose FOX (Raycom Media) and ABC (Hearst). I wrote both companies on the parent website my thoughts (calm, fact based and polite) that they should consider sat and cable companies as providing extensions of their free OTA service and not milking them. Without them they lose subs and will have lower advertising revenues.

We can all complain to each other on dbstalk or also take 5 minutes on their websites and let the local providers know. They are behind alot of this. (Although the $6 receiver fee seems to be purely Directv).

Netflix changed the economics of video rentals as I watched two Blockbuster stores close up last week. Greed by all content providers opens the door to alternatives such as Google TV, Vudu, etc.


----------



## ffemtreed

well i was wrong, I was expecting the DVR fee to go through the roof or they start charging different "lease" fees depending on the type of receiver and also charging a mirror fee in addition to the lease fee on for each receiver. 

I am glad there is still some perks available for having the premier package. I was losing faith in that. I still think the HD extra, DVR and MRV fee's should be included with premier.


----------



## mikeny

HDTVFreak07 said:


> For each and every year in the past decade, there's been a fee increase. $1 to $3 per year but this year it's more than DOUBLE!!!!!!! I'm not happy about it.


I hear you and I am going to have a harder time disregarding all the FiOS start up promos especially when my contract is up.


----------



## Tom Robertson

We all know prices for most things will go up--until a game changer occurs. 

There was a buggy whip maker in the original Dow Jones index... Until the game changed and no one needed buggy whips. 

My general hope is to generally increase my income faster than my expenses. Most years I manage, some years I don't. 

Because of the years I don't, I understand the problems experienced by thems who are on totally or nearly fixed income. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer other than to find creative ways to supplement income or save money. The choices can be very difficult. Good luck to you.

Hopefully the New Year will be fantastic for must of us!

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## ffemtreed

I can't wait to see the record 4th quarter profits headlines released to the investors!


----------



## Richierich

NR4P said:


> Netflix changed the economics of video rentals as I watched two Blockbuster stores close up last week. Greed by all content providers opens the door to alternatives such as Google TV, Vudu, etc.


That is why I went with Netflix because Blockbuster kept charging me Late Fees for Movies I had dropped in their box or charged me for scratches when we never have scratched a DVD (we have no children so the blame can't be placed there) so I used to make them Scan the DVDs in right before me but if they were busy they wouldn't do that so I went to Netflix the year they started and haven't looked back since.

I also have VUDU on my LG BD590 DVD Player with a 250 Gig hard drive so I can Download ahead of time and then watch movies in 1080P and Guaranteed DD 5.1 so Goodbye to those Greedy Businesses like BB who thought they didn't need me or others and showed us the door and Netflix embraced us and we embraced them and now BB is closing up more and more outlets.

AMAZING how the Marketplace Works!!!


----------



## peters4n6

So for a Premier sub, one essentially will have a price increase of $1 per receiver above 1, no?


----------



## KAL

richierich said:


> Thank God they are Raising My Rates as I was wondering how I was going to get rid of all of the Extra Money I have left lying around the house!!! :lol:


:lol:


----------



## KAL

MysteryMan said:


> I noticed Premier subs are unscathed.


As a Premier sub, I am glad if this is true.


----------



## RACJ2

HDTVFreak07 said:



> Leased receiver fee increase??? Per box??? That's asking for way more than just a package increase. They should just leave the leased fee alone and increase just the programming package.
> 
> And no, not saying I'm leaving. I'm stuck with the major BS. No way do I ever want to go back to Time Warner cable. No way, no how. I suppose I'll just find a way to let go one of the receiver and try to make two TV's work off one receiver. It wouldn't even matter if one will have to watch the same thing as the other. I'll just make sure no one watches off a certain receiver.


Raising the leased receiver fee is a way to increase the cost proportionately based on a households potential usage. It works out better for those of us that only have a couple receivers. So I prefer they did that, rather then raise my package by $5 or more.

Like you said, you might be able to get by with less receivers. Some households don't necessarily need one receiver per TV and I fall into that category. There are only 2 of us, so we rarely need to have more then 2 channels on at one time. So I have 2 TV's running off each of my DVR's. Not only did I avoid an additional $2 increase by not having the extra 2 DVR's, I've been saving an additional $10 for 2 years or $240. And if I want to watch a third program, like 2 NFL games, I record it and watch it using Directv2PC on my laptop.


----------



## cjrleimer

Doug Brott said:


> Unfortunately, I suspect we'll be seeing this in the coming year as well ...


I agree with you there everyone is following the lead of Charlie Ergen if its too expensive or too low rated then cut it.


----------



## WebTraveler

Does anyone have a good, comprehensive list of each channel included in each package from Preferred Choice, Select, all the way up?

These increases just out of whack. Programmers keep asking for more, more, more. Each year I get billed for more and my wife carps to me about why we have all these expensive packs. I told her after college football was over....any day now, I was going to look at the lower tier packages like Select Choice and others. I just cannot do it anymore. What do we really watch anyway?


----------



## pfp

It sure looks to me like the first two receivers are $6 and not $12. I find this a bit hard to believe as so far they have always charged for the second receiver. If correct this change should negate this particular fee increase for a large percentage of subs.


----------



## WebTraveler

pfp said:


> It sure looks to me like the first two receivers are $6 and not $12. I find this a bit hard to believe as so far they have always charged for the second receiver. If correct this change should negate this particular fee increase for a large percentage of subs.


I read it as the 1st two receivers total is $6, and then each additional one is $6.

So if I have 3 receivers, I pay $12.

I don't see it as saying the 1st two receivers is $6 each, I see it as saying total.

A creative way of changing things up. So if you have 1 TV you pay $6. If you have 2 TVs you pay $6.


----------



## shoelessjoe

Tom Robertson said:


> We all know prices for most things will go up--until a game changer occurs.
> 
> There was a buggy whip maker in the original Dow Jones index... Until the game changed and no one needed buggy whips.
> 
> My general hope is to generally increase my income faster than my expenses. Most years I manage, some years I don't.
> 
> Because of the years I don't, I understand the problems experienced by thems who are on totally or nearly fixed income. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer other than to find creative ways to supplement income or save money. The choices can be very difficult. Good luck to you.
> 
> Hopefully the New Year will be fantastic for must of us!
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


To say that people should find creative ways to supplement income to watch their pay TV is too much. A lot of people are working too much as it is. Imagine how much more money could be saved by giving up the $90+/month TV fees.

I understand that Directv has to compensate for the continuing increases in costs and I don't fault them for this. But how much more should the consumer absorb?

TV should never be a reason to exist. There is life without it. I am beginning to see the value of turning the TV off altogether.


----------



## Tom Robertson

More and more, HD is making a difference in my house. I'm now seriously considering packages based only on what HD they have--because I'm watching so little SD.

Strange as it might seem, it possibly will make sense for us to drop from Premier (which I've had for 8? years) down to Preferred choice and add in all the premiums.

Hmm...


----------



## WebTraveler

Tom Robertson said:


> More and more, HD is making a difference in my house. I'm now seriously considering packages based only on what HD they have--because I'm watching so little SD.
> 
> Strange as it might seem, it possibly will make sense for us to drop from Premier (which I've had for 8? years) down to Preferred choice and add in all the premiums.
> 
> Hmm...


absolutely. The more and more I look at it, the channels I watch more or less are in the preferred choice. Except maybe ESPNU, MSNBC, and FX. Oh, the kids watch Boomerang. I can probably live without my channels, the kids will need to live without theirs, I guess. If broadcasters continue to want this kind of change then screw them all. I like college football, but I can upgrade for four months for FSN and ESPU. I don't remember watching too many baseball games last year. I'd watch the Blazers, except Directv doesn't carry CSN Northwest, so that's irrelevant.


----------



## Tom Robertson

shoelessjoe said:


> To say that people should find creative ways to supplement income to watch their pay TV is too much. A lot of people are working too much as it is. Imagine how much more money could be saved by giving up the $90+/month TV fees.
> 
> I understand that Directv has to compensate for the continuing increases in costs and I don't fault them for this. But how much more should the consumer absorb?
> 
> TV should never be a reason to exist. There is life without it. I am beginning to see the value of turning the TV off altogether.


It all boils down to choices. I'm not saying people "should" supplement their income; I'm saying they might.

Or creatively save money. Many people are saving on their entertainment costs (including TV), others save in other areas to keep the entertainment they enjoy.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott

shoelessjoe said:


> I understand that Directv has to compensate for the continuing increases in costs and I don't fault them for this. But how much more should the consumer absorb?
> 
> TV should never be a reason to exist. There is life without it. I am beginning to see the value of turning the TV off altogether.


I think there are a variety of factors that play into this. I also agree that the price is starting to hit a breaking point for a lot of people. I'm not sure exactly what all of the packaging promotions may be, but I do believe DIRECTV is looking into different packaging options to keep customers. I don't know if we'll see anything this year or if DIRECTV will simply be looking into or not, but I do believe that they realize customers are more sensitive to this issue now than ever before.


----------



## MysteryMan

KAL said:


> As a Premier sub, I am glad if this is true.


+1......but I feel for the others.


----------



## Jason Whiddon

Doug Brott said:


> Unfortunately, I suspect we'll be seeing this in the coming year as well ...


This is why Im setup with a TiVo HD XL to get locals OTA and Amazon TV episode downloads. Channel drops should not affect me too much.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

RACJ2 said:


> Raising the leased receiver fee is a way to increase the cost proportionately based on a households potential usage.


And maybe help pay for some more HD channels. :sure:


----------



## matt

I just got a TV that has Netflix streaming. IMHO.... it sucks. Looks like I'll be shelling out a little more dough this year to keep the good stuff.


----------



## Davenlr

WebTraveler said:


> Does anyone have a good, comprehensive list of each channel included in each package from Preferred Choice, Select, all the way up?


Preferred Choice: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/packages/international


----------



## KoRn

We have the Plus HD DVR package. Is it more expensive keeping that even though it is legacy then moving onto another package that is the same? We are also getting a $10 HD Access credit for 2 years.


----------



## dishrich

Davenlr said:


> Preferred Choice: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/packages/international


You can ONLY get that pkg IF you are also taking at least 1 international channel - & Spanish tiers does NOT count as international.  
BTW, the cheapest international ch is now $15...


----------



## je4755

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It makes one wonder...if folks got those 10 - 25 or more HD channels they seek, but their monthly fees went up $50 - $100... would it still be so urgent to add them? I suspect not, if that's the price we all would have to pay.


I already am paying more than the cited amount to Comcast (although it translates into lower prices for internet and phone service) to obtain local HD channels not available from DirecTV and several basic HD networks also not provided by DirecTV. Even so, our Comcast HD lineup is much weaker than other DMAs (not including, for example, History International HD or BBCA HD). So, yes, I readily would pay DirecTV $50-$100 to obtain "25 or more HD channels _ seek" and HD LIL; I'd actually reduce my outlays for TV programming in the process._


----------



## Jtaylor1

shoelessjoe said:


> TV should never be a reason to exist. There is life without it. I am beginning to see the value of turning the TV off altogether.


There is. It's called reading, the Great Outdoors, and more family time at the dinner table.

Increases is going to make me switch to Charter, buying a rooftop antenna for the HD screen, or Free-to-air.


----------



## sigma1914

matt1124 said:


> I just got a TV that has Netflix streaming. IMHO.... it sucks. Looks like I'll be shelling out a little more dough this year to keep the good stuff.


What don't you like?


----------



## Davenlr

matt1124 said:


> I just got a TV that has Netflix streaming. IMHO.... it sucks. Looks like I'll be shelling out a little more dough this year to keep the good stuff.


If you think it sucks, your TV has a crappy implementation, or your internet connection is throttling you. On my PS3, even the SD movies looks DVD quality or better. Unless of course, you are referring to the content available


----------



## sigma1914

Davenlr said:


> If you think it sucks, your TV has a crappy implementation, or your internet connection is throttling you. On my PS3, even the SD movies looks DVD quality or better. Unless of course, you are referring to the content available


I watched _Blood Done Sign My Name_ tonight streamed via Oppo BDP-93...It was *excellent *PQ and even OAR.


----------



## joshjr

jdspencer said:


> When our DMA got locals last month, I signed up. But, I noticed that the cost for the locals was $6/month. My account still indicated Choice Extra without locals for $60.99. I just thought that $6 was a new charge. But, this DirecTV notice indicates that the prices will be $3 less if you don't have locals.
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 12/01  	12/31  	CHOICE XTRA - no locals Monthly  60.99
> 12/01  	12/31  	Your Local Channels Monthly       6.00
> 
> So. with the increase to $65.99 for CHOICE EXTRA w/locals I'll actually be paying $1 less.
> But, the increase to $6 for the additional/leased receiver will wipe that out.
> 
> Am I misreading this?
> 
> I guess I'll wait for the Feb statement.


What you are seeing is a inflated price for locals. They left you with your old package and added the locals seperately. If you were to add them in your base package it would only be $3 unless you have a grandfathered package. Even if you are on a grandfathered package and went with a newer package with locals I bet it would only be $4 or $5 more and not $6.


----------



## joshjr

mikeny said:


> It's aggravating but honestly I can't remember the last time they touched the lease fee/mirroring fee. It's been at $5 for a long time.


Last year it was the DVR fee. This year I dont see the DVR fee going up so thats good and no mention of HD going up lol since they were pushing the free HD guess that wouldnt of been good.


----------



## joshjr

HDTVFreak07 said:


> For each and every year in the past decade, there's been a fee increase. $1 to $3 per year but this year it's more than DOUBLE!!!!!!! I'm not happy about it.


Well think about it. The best way for them to make more money is not actually in the base packages but actually by raising the per reciever fee. Thats where the real money is. I bet there are a ton of accounts with more then 3 receivers.


----------



## nickff

matt1124 said:


> I just got a TV that has Netflix streaming. IMHO.... it sucks. Looks like I'll be shelling out a little more dough this year to keep the good stuff.


I have been using Netfilx on my Xbox 360 since its inception and find the PQ and AQ quite good.

Maybe you are referring to programming???


----------



## joshjr

pfp said:


> It sure looks to me like the first two receivers are $6 and not $12. I find this a bit hard to believe as so far they have always charged for the second receiver. If correct this change should negate this particular fee increase for a large percentage of subs.


Think about it for a second. Its just another way to see 1st one is free and the 2nd one just went up another $1 just like the rest. A better way put putting it would of been first one free and each additional is $6 each.


----------



## joshjr

Here is how it looks like it will break down for me:

Plus HD DVR $82.99 +$3
6 Recievers +$5


Wow I just noticed that keeping Plus HD DVR is no longer cheaper then the current package. The new package has Choice Xtra at $65.99 a month plus $10 for HD and $7 for DVR making it equal $82.99 same as the Plus HD DVR package. So much for being a little ahead of the game keeping a grandfathered package. It was $1 cheaper at least and I was hoping it would go to more like $3 this time by having a older package.


----------



## Davenlr

joshjr said:


> Here is how it looks like it will break down for me:
> 
> Plus HD DVR $82.99 +$3
> 6 Recievers +$5
> 
> Wow I just noticed that keeping Plus HD DVR is no longer cheaper then the current package.


Especially since with the current package, and autobillpay, you can get it $10 cheaper with the Free HD.


----------



## joshjr

Davenlr said:


> Especially since with the current package, and autobillpay, you can get it $10 cheaper with the Free HD.


Im pretty sure you can do that with a grandfathered package and autopay. That being said I have never paid my bill late ever but I like paying it when I am ready and not have to worry about autopay.


----------



## Davenlr

joshjr said:


> Im pretty sure you can do that with a grandfathered package and autopay. That being said I have never paid my bill late ever but I like paying it when I am ready and not have to worry about autopay.


Yea, but you were talking about HDDVR package. Since the HD fee is built into the package, I wasnt sure you could get Free HD.


----------



## Supramom2000

So my PlusDVR package is going up $3, my 4 extra DVR's are going to cost me $4 more and HBO went up another $1. Nice - I get laid off and my bill goes up $8 per month. Hopefully I can talk my husband into going to the lower package.


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> I think everyone generally agrees that these increases are from content providers asking for more money.


Satelliteracer clearly stated that the increases were tied to escalator clauses. This is means that the price increases were previously negotiated and are the result of some mathematical formula that the provider and DIRECTV agreed upon. There should be no surprises unless one side or the other wasn't paying attention.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> Satelliteracer clearly stated that the increases were tied to escalator clauses. This is means that the price increases were previously negotiated and are the result of some mathematical formula that the provider and DIRECTV agreed upon. There should be no surprises unless one side or the other wasn't paying attention.


No one suggested there were surprises. You asked what index it was tied to. I said "none." what's your point?


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> No one suggested there were surprises. You asked what index it was tied to. I said "none." what's your point?


Escalator clauses, by definition, are tied to some index. Whether it is the CPI, inflation or pork bellies, something substantially outside the control of both parties determines the new pricing.


----------



## Tom Robertson

harsh said:


> Escalator clauses, by definition, are tied to some index. Whether it is the CPI, inflation or pork bellies, something substantially outside the control of both parties determines the new pricing.


!rolling

By whose definition? 

Escalators can be tied to many things including a simple "you will pay us this much more next year no matter what..." (And I suspect that is one of the more common versions.)

I'm pretty sure CPI, COLA, and pork bellies are not likely to be used as an index. Channels won't use anything that might stagnate or go down...

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## joshjr

Davenlr said:


> Yea, but you were talking about HDDVR package. Since the HD fee is built into the package, I wasnt sure you could get Free HD.


Sure you can. They just refund the $10 HD fee. Last year when I ordered ST one of the things I got was free HD for a year. My bill showed the $10 refund each month.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> Escalator clauses, by definition, are tied to some index. Whether it is the CPI, inflation or pork bellies, something substantially outside the control of both parties determines the new pricing.


Seriously!? Escalator in this context simply means higher and higher. Common sense tells us that.


----------



## matt

sigma1914 said:


> What don't you like?





Davenlr said:


> If you think it sucks, your TV has a crappy implementation, or your internet connection is throttling you. On my PS3, even the SD movies looks DVD quality or better. Unless of course, you are referring to the content available





sigma1914 said:


> I watched _Blood Done Sign My Name_ tonight streamed via Oppo BDP-93...It was *excellent *PQ and even OAR.





nickff said:


> I have been using Netfilx on my Xbox 360 since its inception and find the PQ and AQ quite good.
> 
> Maybe you are referring to programming???


The TV is a Panasonic TC-P42G25 and I have 12 Meg internet. I don't think there is a lot available, although it could be the menu system my TV has, it is laid out in genres that just don't do it for me, maybe I should browse online for it to be better? Several things I have wanted to watch are not in HD... might as well use the blu-ray player on my old Sony CRT and save the hours on my plasma. The stuff I have watched has had several noticeable jitters and weird motion like it was just barely streaming fast enough, and that could be my ISP.

I guess "sucks" was a harsh word to use, maybe I should just say it wasn't as great as I had hoped, and nowhere near great enough that I would consider "cutting the cord" and having only it and whatever I can pull out of thin air.


----------



## Satelliteracer

richierich said:


> My Price is TOTAL CHOICE® PLUS ...$64.49/mo. What was it before the Increase?
> 
> Also, the Mirroring Fee has increased from $5 to $6/month, is that correct?


Your current price is $61.49...TC Plus and TC both went up $3 as did some older grandfathered packages.

Yes, the mirroring fee went up by $1. This is really the first increase in 17 years for DIRECTV in that area sans several years ago when the price went from $4.99 to $5.00 (went up $0.01).


----------



## Satelliteracer

996911 said:


> Just got the email from D* stating they are raising the packages, the lease fee for each receiver, and HBO. Great timing D*.


Time Warner announced theirs three weeks ago. AT&T Uverse last week. Comcast approximately 4 weeks ago. The timing of all MSO's is tied in to their programming costs and all of those start with their new higher rates next week that they have to pay all the content providers.


----------



## Satelliteracer

RAD said:


> I know when I first read it I was confused. But rereading it IMHO its the same as now, 1st box is included in the base package price, the second has the lease fee which will be $6.00 with the new pricing.


Correct.


----------



## Satelliteracer

For clarity

First receiver is still included with your base package pricing.

Second and each additional receiver will be $6.00 starting February 10th but today it is $5.00.

So if you have two receivers, starting Feb 10th your receiver fees will go up $1.00 per month. If you have 4 receivers, they will go up $3.00 per month. If you have 8 receivers, they will go up $7.00 per month.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Satelliteracer

MysteryMan said:


> +1......but I feel for the others.


Premier went up $5 last year and $5 the year prior. I don't recall what the increase was the year before that, but it was at least $3. So that means in the last three years Premier has gone up at least $13.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Tom Robertson said:


> !rolling
> 
> By whose definition?
> 
> Escalators can be tied to many things including a simple "you will pay us this much more next year no matter what..." (And I suspect that is one of the more common versions.)
> 
> I'm pretty sure CPI, COLA, and pork bellies are not likely to be used as an index. Channels won't use anything that might stagnate or go down...
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Yup. Very common. In 2010 you pay X. In 2011 you pay X + a 5% increase. In 2012, you pay 2011 fee plus another 5% increase. So on and so forth.

That's a common tactic


----------



## matt

I am glad that they don't charge more for HD DVRs like someone else we love does. I think the $17/month they charge is just ridiculous.


----------



## raott

Satelliteracer said:


> Yup. Very common. In 2010 you pay X. In 2011 you pay X + a 5% increase. In 2012, you pay 2011 fee plus another 5% increase. So on and so forth.
> 
> That's a common tactic


So are you telling us that D* was in such a weak bargaining position that it agreed to price increases regardless of what the economy was actually doing?


----------



## coolman302003

WebTraveler said:


> Does anyone have a good, comprehensive list of each channel included in each package from Preferred Choice, Select, all the way up?


"Select" ($44.99 mo.) - http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/compare/printablePackageChannels.jsp?packageId=1150002



Glen_D said:


> I'm confused. A previous post showed a new-customer promotion for "Select", at 29.99/mo. promo, $44.99/mo. regular. but the above link for the new pricing stucture shows the $39.99/mo. "Preferred Choice" as the base package, and the $44.99/mo. "Select Choice" as a legacy package "no longer available for sale". No mention in the link, or at DirecTV's website, of any package simply called "Select". As I mentioned in a previous post, mailers and flyers I'm getting (just got another one in today's newspaper) all show "Choice", currently $58.99/mo. after expiration of promotions as the cheapest package.


I should have clarified when I first posted this before this package is NOT available in all zip codes to order online, but if you go to DIRECTV.com (Click Get Directv, you can't have the cookies saved from a sign in previously or it won't work, put in zip code 37201 not mine but it works and you will see Select)


----------



## MysteryMan

Satelliteracer said:


> Time Warner announced theirs three weeks ago. AT&T Uverse last week. Comcast approximately 4 weeks ago. The timing of all MSO's is tied in to their programming costs and all of those start with their new higher rates next week that they have to pay all the content providers.


What this amounts to is greed. The "content providers" collect millions in revnue fees from adviertisers so they can air their commercials. They then turn on cable and satellite and demand higher rates. Naturally cable and satellite have no choice but to pass on the cost to their customers. It's a vicious cycle caused by the "content providers" greed.


----------



## mystic7

On top of a possible price increase, we may lose our local CBS station in Charlotte. Oh, happy day.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Satelliteracer said:


> Your current price is $61.49...TC Plus and TC both went up $3 as did some older grandfathered packages.
> 
> Yes, the mirroring fee went up by $1. This is really the first increase in 17 years for DIRECTV in that area sans several years ago when the price went from $4.99 to $5.00 (went up $0.01).





Satelliteracer said:


> Time Warner announced theirs three weeks ago. AT&T Uverse last week. Comcast approximately 4 weeks ago. The timing of all MSO's is tied in to their programming costs and all of those start with their new higher rates next week that they have to pay all the content providers.


So with all these price increases, are we going to see some more HD channels soon?


----------



## drkashner

mystic7 said:


> On top of a possible price increase, we may lose our local CBS station in Charlotte. Oh, happy day.


Same here, my local NBC stations has a banner that says they will not longer be carried by Directv 'if' negotations aren't worked out by Jan. 1. I get another NBC station from Baltimore OTA that is not in my DMA, so it won't hurt as much, but I will miss my local news. The Baltimore station is also running the banner too. The Lancaster, PA and Baltimore stations are run by Hearst.


----------



## Herdfan

mikeny said:


> It's aggravating but honestly I can't remember the last time they touched the lease fee/mirroring fee. It's been at $5 for a long time.


I don't think they ever have. I remember it being $5 when I got a second receiver back in 95 or 96.

But until recently they had to keep it down somewhat because they had to compete with cable their ability to provide service on tV without a box. Now that so many cableco's are doing away with their analog tiers and requiring all TV's have a box, I guess D* feels a little more confortable raising the fee.


----------



## Herdfan

peters4n6 said:


> During these types of discussions, as a non-business type, I always wonder how much consideration is given to a price decrease to garner more market share from competitors.


Definitely. I'm sure there is a dedicated department that does not thing but pricing matrix calculations. The problem now for D*is that they have so many customers, if they droppped each package $1/mo, that is $17M/mo off the bottom line. They would have to bring in another 170,000, $100/mo customers just to keep revenue the same. But those new customers bring new expenses such as programming fees, installation costs, etc.

It sound great in theory, but given the size D* is now, the numbers just don't work like they did when D* had 6M customers and were adding 1M+ per year.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

raott said:


> So are you telling us that D* was in such a weak bargaining position that it agreed to price increases regardless of what the economy was actually doing?




What is with it with some folks...??

Perhaps they should just drop 50-100 channels so that the whining ends on pricing.

Oh wait........then they'll be whining about not enough channels.


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> Seriously!? Escalator in this context simply means higher and higher. Common sense tells us that.


My point is that there shouldn't be any surprises no matter what drives the escalator clause.

Even the year changing is an index. As I don't know what the index is, I asked.


----------



## The Merg

matt1124 said:


> The TV is a Panasonic TC-P42G25 and I have 12 Meg internet. I don't think there is a lot available, although it could be the menu system my TV has, it is laid out in genres that just don't do it for me, maybe I should browse online for it to be better? Several things I have wanted to watch are not in HD... might as well use the blu-ray player on my old Sony CRT and save the hours on my plasma. The stuff I have watched has had several noticeable jitters and weird motion like it was just barely streaming fast enough, and that could be my ISP.
> 
> I guess "sucks" was a harsh word to use, maybe I should just say it wasn't as great as I had hoped, and nowhere near great enough that I would consider "cutting the cord" and having only it and whatever I can pull out of thin air.


I have the TC-P50G25 and think that Netflix looks great on it (especially compared to when I was running it on my Wii). The one thing that the TV hasn't implemented is a search capability, but I usually just keep a pretty good large Instant Queue and haven't had an issue. My wife just watched a whole bunch of The Office and I thought it looked great. I haven't selected anything yet that is listed as being HD. Only once did it stop and say it was rebuffering, but I haven't noticed any lag or jitters and we have a 16MB Internet package.

- Merg


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> My point is that there shouldn't be any surprises no matter what drives the escalator clause.
> 
> Even the year changing is an index. *As I don't know what the index is*, I asked.


Consumer Price Index
Cost of Living Index
Producer Price Index

These are common ones, just to name a few, and have been around for *many* years.


----------



## Glen_D

coolman302003 said:


> "Select" ($44.99 mo.) - http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/compare/printablePackageChannels.jsp?packageId=1150002
> 
> I should have clarified when I first posted this before this package is NOT available in all zip codes to order online, but if you go to DIRECTV.com (Click Get Directv, you can't have the cookies saved from a sign in previously or it won't work, put in zip code 37201 not mine but it works and you will see Select)


You are correct! When I enter the ZIP Code above, it shows Select as the base-level package, but when I enter my ZIP Code, Choice is the base package.

I guess this would be an example of the following disclaimer shown in fine print on the flyers I get: "In certain markets, programming/pricing may vary".


----------



## BattleScott

MysteryMan said:


> What this amounts to is greed. *The "content providers" collect millions in revnue fees from adviertisers so they can air their commercials*. They then turn on cable and satellite and demand higher rates. Naturally cable and satellite have no choice but to pass on the cost to their customers. *It's a vicious cycle caused by the "content providers" greed*.


The "content providers" also pay a great deal of money to produce or purchase the rights to the programming they air. In order to do that, they have to generate revenue as well. Advertising is only a portion of the revenue they collect, a great deal also comes for the carriage agreements. As their costs of operating increase and, in today's economic climate, their advertising revenues stagnate or decline, they are left with no choice but to demand more for carriage rights.

Why is it acceptable that DirecTV and other providers raise their prices in order to protect profitability, but when the content providers do the same thing it's a "vicious cycle of greed"?


----------



## cypherx

I'm ok with a small price increase every year if it goes towards improvements. Now if year to year goes by and the software and channel lineup stays the same... that's an issue.

If we get an HD GUI this year and more national HD channels, I'm ok with a small increase. It has to be funded somehow, right? We already know that they mentioned an HD GUI and also that Copilot app. Hopefully they add new HD on top of that and it will be a good year.


----------



## tsduke

matt1124 said:


> The TV is a Panasonic TC-P42G25 and I have 12 Meg internet. I don't think there is a lot available, although it could be the menu system my TV has, it is laid out in genres that just don't do it for me, maybe I should browse online for it to be better? Several things I have wanted to watch are not in HD... might as well use the blu-ray player on my old Sony CRT and save the hours on my plasma. The stuff I have watched has had several noticeable jitters and weird motion like it was just barely streaming fast enough, and that could be my ISP.
> 
> I guess "sucks" was a harsh word to use, maybe I should just say it wasn't as great as I had hoped, and nowhere near great enough that I would consider "cutting the cord" and having only it and whatever I can pull out of thin air.


Netflix looks so-so using my Sony DVD player to stream it. I've had internet issues lately so I'm guessing I'm not getting HD due to bandwidth issues.

My real problem with it is the video stutters. Very annoying. Netflix streaming isn't a viable replacement option until my internet is fixed and I have a different streaming device.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

tsduke said:


> Netflix looks so-so using my Sony DVD player to stream it. I've had internet issues lately so I'm guessing I'm not getting HD due to bandwidth issues.
> 
> My real problem with it is the video stutters. Very annoying. Netflix streaming isn't a viable replacement option until my internet is fixed and I have a different streaming device.


Wrong thread?


----------



## BattleScott

raott said:


> So are you telling us that D* was in such a weak bargaining position that it agreed to price increases regardless of what the economy was actually doing?


Sometimes the net result of that agreement can mean LESS money than signing a contract with fixed annual rate. A structured increase also allows DirecTV (or any other provider) to keep revenues and costs more consistent by aligning their cost increases with the corresponding future subscriber revenue increases.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

cypherx said:


> I'm ok with a small price increase every year if it goes towards improvements.


No one likes price increases that I know of...but small ones seem to be a practice now everywhere for years, right or wrong.


BattleScott said:


> The "content providers" also pay a great deal of money to produce or purchase the rights to the programming they air. In order to do that, they have to generate revenue as well. Advertising is only a portion of the revenue they collect, a great deal also comes for the carriage agreements. As their costs of operating increase and, in today's economic climate, their advertising revenues stagnate or decline, they are left with no choice but to demand more for carriage rights.
> 
> *Why is it acceptable that DirecTV and other providers raise their prices in order to protect profitability, but when the content providers do the same thing it's a "vicious cycle of greed"*?


Not quite a full or accurate picture on this topic.

If DirecTV raises prices say...3%...to maintain revenue, but the content providers raise their 50%-100%-150% during that same timeframe....that would be comparing apples and refrigerators on your last statement...which happens to be the case.

Unless folks want to continue wearing blinders...

Disappointment, frustration, and anger needs to be directed at the content providers (including local stations and conglomerate local station groups) which drive these price points - the Disney/ESPN/Turner/Fox's and other channel groups are doing the same. Talk about greed...

*They* are the ones seeking double or triple digit rate increases these days. Send *them* and e-mail, write a letter, make a call. It has more of a chance to be heard and influence the right people than repeated frustration posts here.


----------



## tsduke

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Wrong thread?


No more the wrong thread than all the others talking about Netflix as a replacement to Directv services to keep cost down. I quoted from this thread.


----------



## Peapod

cypherx said:


> If we get an HD GUI this year and more national HD channels, I'm ok with a small increase. It has to be funded somehow, right?


It can't be funded by the money that we are already paying? It's not like they raise prices according to cost of living, they continue to ask more and more real dollars. I'm glad I'll only pay $2/month more this year, but I'm paying roughly 20% more than I did 5 years ago for essentially the same service, which is way more than my salary has increased in the same time period.

They're making it more attractive to try to find alternate methods of watching tv.


----------



## nevea2be

Paying $6 a month for two HD DVRs is still a heck of a lot cheaper then paying the $15 a piece with Comcast.

I notice they don't say anything about the HD price.


----------



## BattleScott

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Consumer Price Index
> Cost of Living Index
> Producer Price Index
> 
> These are common ones, just to name a few, and have been around for *many* years.


Unless they have somehow tied TV service specifically to the "Gasoline Index", I don't think they're using any of these...


----------



## hdtvfan0001

BattleScott said:


> Unless they have somehow tied TV service specifically to the "Gasoline Index", I don't think they're using any of these...


CPI is a common one...they are routinely used is many industries.


----------



## davemayo

hdtvfan0001 said:


> What is with it with some folks...??
> 
> Perhaps they should just drop 50-100 channels so that the whining ends on pricing.
> 
> Oh wait........then they'll be whining about not enough channels.


So true. "Directv should just roll over in every carriage negotiation so I get my channels, but then shouldn't raise rates to cover the fees charged by the content providers." Give me a break.

Reading this price increase thread is becoming an annual comedy tradition.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

richierich said:


> *My Price is TOTAL CHOICE® PLUS ...$64.49/mo. *What was it before the Increase?
> 
> Also, the *Mirroring Fee has increased from $5 to $6/month*, is that correct?


That should be showing up as a line item on your monthly bill.
Yes, with the first unit not charged.


----------



## BattleScott

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Not quite a full or accurate picture on this topic.
> 
> If DirecTV raises prices say...3%...to maintain revenue, but the content providers raise their 50%-100%-150% during that same timeframe....that would be comparing apples and refrigerators on your last statement...which happens to be the case.


I could not make any determination without seeing the financial data behind those rates (if they are accurate). What are their programming cost increases? What are their acquisition cost increases? What are their revenue losses due to declining advertising? Etc.

So for simplicity, I will just say that a company looking to offest their increased costs with increased revenue is good business. DIRECTV INCLUDED.

However, the only real "blinders" I see in use in this thread are those seeking to somehow shield DirecTV from any responsibility in this increase. If the 2011 financials come out and the CFO says "_Even with our substantial increase in costs, we were able keep our customers prices the same and hit our BREAK EVEN goal for the year_", then I'll remove them as the primary source of my increased bill...


----------



## hdtvfan0001

BattleScott said:


> However, the only real "blinders" I see in use in this thread are those seeking to somehow shield DirecTV from any responsibility in this increase. If the 2011 financials come out and the CFO says "_Even with our substantial increase in costs, *we were able keep our customers prices the same* and hit our BREAK EVEN goal for the year_", then I'll remove them as the primary source of my increased bill...


That's a totally unrealistic expectation, given the numerous factors that go into pricing. The cost of the carriage agreements is the major contributor...so ignoring that fact and disregarding it is indeed wearing blinders.


----------



## BattleScott

hdtvfan0001 said:


> CPI is a common one...they are routinely used is many industries.


Yes, I know, but the CPI is basically hovering between 0-1% for 12 months, the only index close to the % increase this year would be gas at ~7%.

I think a forecast of escalating direct costs are the primary driver here, not any index values. This price increase would be here if the CPI was -2...


----------



## BattleScott

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That's a totally unrealistic expectation, given the numerous factors that go into pricing. The cost of the carriage agreements is the major contributor...so ignoring that fact and disregarding it is indeed wearing blinders.


I know it is, it's also unrealistic to expect the same of any other business facing escalating costs (hence the winky at the end).


----------



## hdtvfan0001

BattleScott said:


> I know it is, it's also unrealistic to expect the same of any other business facing escalating costs (hence the winky at the end).


Winky back at ya then.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> My point is that there shouldn't be any surprises no matter what drives the escalator clause.
> 
> Even the year changing is an index. As I don't know what the index is, I asked.


Oh, in that case, don't expect an answer. Again. Escalator here just means that it's higher and higher and yeah, there is almost certainly some sort of formula. However, there's no way anyone at DIRECTV will reveal that to us.

Additionally, I doubt there is much surprise for DIRECTV. In fact, they may have had this price change on their books for 2 or 3 years. Doesn't mean that we the customer know about. Additionally, if DIRECTV told us these prices 2 or 3 years back (which seems to be what you are implying), what good would it do? All of the other providers would just say .. Look, DIRECTV is raising their prices to XYZ in 2011 .. while touting their 2008 pricing as an enticement.

Besides, does this price change really affect your bottom line?


----------



## MysteryMan

BattleScott said:


> The "content providers" also pay a great deal of money to produce or purchase the rights to the programming they air. In order to do that, they have to generate revenue as well. Advertising is only a portion of the revenue they collect, a great deal also comes for the carriage agreements. As their costs of operating increase and, in today's economic climate, their advertising revenues stagnate or decline, they are left with no choice but to demand more for carriage rights.
> 
> Why is it acceptable that DirecTV and other providers raise their prices in order to protect profitability, but when the content providers do the same thing it's a "vicious cycle of greed"?


Ever watch a first run episode of Law & Order while it was running on NBC? The opening credits were broadcast without change. Watch the same episode on TNT and even a blind man can see the opening credits have been time compressed. Reason being to allow more time for commercials. As I posted alsewhere when cable first came out there were no commercials. The reason being subscribers were "paying" for both the service and the cost of the service. Greed changed that. It's a pity cable and satellite can't afford to mirror their services with packages that come with or without commercials and allow the customer to "choose". Those of us who can afford to do so would choose the the packages without commercials.


----------



## RunnerFL

tealcomp said:


> I for one am sick and tired of D* going up every year;


Everything goes up every year, not just DirecTV. It's called cost of living increase.

The only way to keep everything from going up every year is to stop living.


----------



## Doug Brott

BattleScott said:


> Yes, I know, but the CPI is basically hovering between 0-1% for 12 months, the only index close to the % increase this year would be gas at ~7%.
> 
> I think a forecast of escalating direct costs are the primary driver here, not any index values. This price increase would be here if the CPI was -2...


With contracts usually running multiple years, I suspect contracts percentages are based more on financial goals of the various parties than anything on the macroeconomic landscape. This is why we may see one provider asking for a 500% increase in the redistribution fee even though DIRECTV is only adding 3-4% to the customer.


----------



## Greg Bimson

BattleScott said:


> So for simplicity, I will just say that a company looking to offest their increased costs with increased revenue is good business. DIRECTV INCLUDED.


I wasn't going to bother posting until I read this...

It is a very good point. We live in a world of soundbites and headlines. So when companies report their earnings the soundbites and headlines show that John Q Public (the shareholders) wants to hear:

1) If the company beat their projected revenue numbers
2) If the company beat their projected earnings per share numbers (which is revenues minus expenses [profit], totally divided by the amount of outstanding shares)

So the most important issue in the financials is that the revenue numbers consistenly beat forecasts. Working this in reverse:

1) most of the programmers are publicly traded companies. It's been known for years that most channels are trying to milk out a 5 to 9 percent increase in revenues, year over year.

2) most of the distributors are also publicly traded companies, also trying to milk out a 5 to 9 percent increase in revenues, year over year.

So be prepared to pay 5 to 9 percent more yearly until the distributors start losing customers. Complaining about it does nothing when one continues to pay.


----------



## Mike Greer

DirecTV is in the business to make money. And they should make money. They (and the content providers) are getting to the point they are going to end up with less $$$ becasue customers won't pay. As my bill gets closer to $200 a month I'm starting to look for other ways to get my TV fix...

Just replaced my old OTA antenna in the hopes that someday soon I'll be able to get the networks OTA and then the other few channels we actually watch steamed over the Internet... Without the having to pay the incredible overhead for satellite capacity to carry so much crap...

The monthly costs keep going up - then add in that my new $600 HR24s are still screwed up since the October 'upgrades', stir in my 2 HR22s that have sucked since the day they were installed and I'm ready for something else....


----------



## Mark Holtz

Great. Since I'm in a middle of a two-year contract with DirecTV, cancellation is not an option.


----------



## THX

For me this is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

People are taking pay cuts or their pay is frozen. For me I'll be scaling back programming.

I wonder what Directv will do once more and more people start scaling back to the point where it is affecting their revenue?


----------



## Maleman

If someone could quickly confirm on my increase:

PlusHD DVR 79.99 ---->> 82.99

1 DVR 5.00----->> ?

Thanks

I guess i should call to get the 2yr HD credit of $10


----------



## carl6

Mark Holtz said:


> Great. Since I'm in a middle of a two-year contract with DirecTV, cancellation is not an option.


Of course it is an option. You will simply pay an early termination fee of $20 a month for each remaining month. That is certainly less than paying your full monthly cost.


----------



## phat_b

Greg Bimson said:


> ...So be prepared to pay 5 to 9 percent more yearly until the distributors start losing customers. Complaining about it does nothing when one continues to pay.


Sadly this is where I'm at (voting with my wallet). I was prepared for the base rate increase, but the increase to the mirroring / lease fee has pushed me over the edge. I admire their business model, but can no longer afford to support it. Pay cuts at the end of 2008 haven't come back, while my cost of living continues to increase. $100+/mo for television is no longer justifiable.


----------



## Bob Coxner

RunnerFL said:


> Everything goes up every year, not just DirecTV. It's called cost of living increase.
> 
> The only way to keep everything from going up every year is to stop living.


Has the price of your house gone up in the past two years?


----------



## carl6

THX said:


> I wonder what Directv will do once more and more people start scaling back to the point where it is affecting their revenue?


If that were to happen, they would have two choices. Reduce their prices to hopefully draw people back (which likely would not happen), or increase their prices to offset the lost revenue.

I, for one, have typically made changes to my service each of the past several years to try and maintain my total cost about the same. I'm retired, and my income has not increased, but my costs continue to increase (not just for DirecTV). I really like having DirecTV, but it is one of the fully discretionary categories of my budget. It looks like it is time to drop a receiver (or two) from my account.


----------



## shoelessjoe

Tom Robertson said:


> It all boils down to choices. I'm not saying people "should" supplement their income; I'm saying they might.
> 
> Or creatively save money. Many people are saving on their entertainment costs (including TV), others save in other areas to keep the entertainment they enjoy.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I should have worded that differently. I was not intending to direct that to you personally. I was saying it in generic terms. It's just that people have tighter disposable income these days, and something has to give. We need things like food and fuel, but TV is not really a need, just an expensive want.

I personally would like to see basic packages introduced for a really cheap price and for us to have the chance to add a few extras if we wanted (ala carte perhaps). I remember doing this for years in the C-band days. IMO, what hurt C-band is that you had to keep switching satellites between channels, not to mention the huge dish and receivers, etc. I liked the pricing scheme back then.

Also, I looked at how Canada's satellite providers allow for more choice options (see ShawDirect's TV packages for example); maybe DTV could benefit by giving more choices.


----------



## Todd H

Mike Greer said:


> DirecTV is in the business to make money. And they should make money. They (and the content providers) are getting to the point they are going to end up with less $$$ becasue customers won't pay. As my bill gets closer to $200 a month I'm starting to look for other ways to get my TV fix...
> 
> Just replaced my old OTA antenna in the hopes that someday soon I'll be able to get the networks OTA and then the other few channels we actually watch steamed over the Internet... Without the having to pay the incredible overhead for satellite capacity to carry so much crap...
> 
> The monthly costs keep going up - then add in that my new $600 HR24s are still screwed up since the October 'upgrades', stir in my 2 HR22s that have sucked since the day they were installed and I'm ready for something else....


Same here. I could probably do it now, as I watch a good bit of OTA/Netflix/Streaming programming. The only obstacle right now is the wife, who has to have her Lifetime/E! fix.


----------



## shoelessjoe

Doug Brott said:


> I think there are a variety of factors that play into this. I also agree that the price is starting to hit a breaking point for a lot of people. I'm not sure exactly what all of the packaging promotions may be, but I do believe DIRECTV is looking into different packaging options to keep customers. I don't know if we'll see anything this year or if DIRECTV will simply be looking into or not, but I do believe that they realize customers are more sensitive to this issue now than ever before.


I recently dropped my verizon cell phone because between my wife and I we were only using 200 minutes a month with a few texts. They also have no reasonable lower tier for some of us that use less. For us, paying around $100/month was way overboard, so she now has a $20 account with another provider and I have a pay as you go account. We now average around $30-35 a month.

I've been with Directv for a long time; but I may soon be looking at alternatives too. We now only have two receivers, one being an HD-DVR, so there isn't much more we can do to lower the costs.

Also, at the same time, my business is barely keeping afloat for the past three years (unlike previous years when if flourished). So things are tight in our family and TV may be next in line to go. If prices keep going up, we will have no choice, but to cut it off.


----------



## txfeinbergs

Bob Coxner said:


> Has the price of your house gone up in the past two years?


Apparently what I get paid for doing my job hasn't gone up either.


----------



## dirtyblueshirt

Looks like it's still the best option to keep my Plus HD DVR legacy package. Adding HD and DVR separately is still much more expensive than keeping what I have... As far as I can tell, there's no difference between Plus HD DVR and Choice Ultimate (programming wise).


----------



## williammck

MysteryMan said:


> I noticed Premier subs are unscathed.


Yes they are. :hurah:


----------



## MysteryMan

billybob64 said:


> Yes they are. :hurah:


I'm one too. Try not to gloat.


----------



## spartanstew

harsh said:


> Satelliteracer clearly stated that the increases were tied to escalator clauses. This is means that the price increases were previously negotiated and are the result of some mathematical formula that the provider and DIRECTV agreed upon. *There should be no surprises* unless one side or the other wasn't paying attention.


And since costs go up every year and D* raises prices every year, there should be no surprise to ANYONE that the prices are going up again this year.

I don't understand why these types of threads even exist every year. It's always the same thing.

Here's a tip: In 2012 the prices are going to go up too. Plan for it now or switch.


----------



## RunnerFL

Bob Coxner said:


> Has the price of your house gone up in the past two years?


My rent? Yes.

Everything goes up... Electricity, Water, Rent, Gas, Phone, etc...

It's called "life".


----------



## RunnerFL

spartanstew said:


> And since costs go up every year and D* raises prices every year, there should be no surprise to ANYONE that the prices are going up again this year.
> 
> I don't understand why these types of threads even exist every year. It's always the same thing.
> 
> Here's a tip: In 2012 the prices are going to go up too. Plan for it now or switch.


Yup, but you know darn well people will say it was a surprise and complain anyways.


----------



## joshjr

dirtyblueshirt said:


> Looks like it's still the best option to keep my Plus HD DVR legacy package. Adding HD and DVR separately is still much more expensive than keeping what I have... As far as I can tell, there's no difference between Plus HD DVR and Choice Ultimate (programming wise).


Then you are looking at it completely wrong. Choice Ultimate has the Encore channels and a few others that Plus HD DVR does not. Choice Ultimate is more expensive if you have HD and DVR on there unless you get some kind of a discount like free HD. Choice Xtra with HD and DVR added after the prince increase will be the same price as Plus HD DVR. Might want to check on those prices again.


----------



## joshjr

dirtyblueshirt said:


> Looks like it's still the best option to keep my Plus HD DVR legacy package. Adding HD and DVR separately is still much more expensive than keeping what I have... As far as I can tell, there's no difference between Plus HD DVR and Choice Ultimate (programming wise).


I now see what you did. You took the new pricing for Plus HD DVR and compared it to the current pricing for Choice Ultimate. That package (Choice Ultimate) is going up $5 before adding HD or DVR to it.


----------



## dcowboy7

Bob Coxner said:


> Has the price of your house gone up in the past two years?


Yes....did some fix ups & add on so it is worth more now.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

If a $5 increase in rates is causing anyone to have to bail on their service...that's of course their own personal business.

But then, they likely have bigger issues on their hands if that's the case.


----------



## TBlazer07

hdtvfan0001 said:


> If a $5 increase in rates is causing anyone to have to bail on their service...that's of course their own personal business.
> 
> But then, they likely have bigger issues on their hands if that's the case.


 You say that every year with every yearly increase and, IMO, it's really a very patronizing response. It's not just the $5 (in my case $8) it's the $20+ over the last few years. It also simply reaches a point of "enough is enough already" and how much is TV worth and doesn't always have to do with what one can or cannot afford.


----------



## joshjr

hdtvfan0001 said:


> If a $5 increase in rates is causing anyone to have to bail on their service...that's of course their own personal business.
> 
> But then, they likely have bigger issues on their hands if that's the case.


You know I said the same thing last year and even though I am not going anywhere this year either its getting out of hand a little. I mean last year I think it was $5 for me and this year its $8. Thats $13 over the last 2 years and I gained nothing for my $13. My biggest complaint this year is the Plus HD DVR being the same price as if I had the current package. I just called and was told the differences are 2 music stations and one Spanish station. Dont make me laugh. At least last year I was saving $1 having a Legacy package. Whats the upside to keeping it now? Legacy packages should be at least $1-3 cheaper or they are not really worth dealing with are they? Her reply was well it depends how you want to see the charges broke down on the bill lol. I want mine the way that makes it the cheapest lol. Oh wait they are the same okay.

I understand why people are having issues paying the increases each year. I have not had a raise at work in over 3 years. I expect to this year though. If it was not for ST I probably would leave D* and I really really hate even saying that. I already spend a ton of money with them month end and out. My average bill over the last 12 months comes to $142.51. That a pretty large bill for tv each month.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

TBlazer07 said:


> You say that every year with every yearly increase and, IMO, it's really a very patronizing response. It's not just the $5 (in my case $8) it's the $20+ over the last few years. It also simply reaches a point of "enough is enough already" and how much is TV worth and doesn't always have to do with what one can or cannot afford.


???? 

Some day I'm going to have perfect recall from a year ago.

Patronizing? It's nothing of the sort - its the real world. In fact...it's the very same thing you said in your last sentence...just different words.

These are tough time for plenty of folks.


----------



## sigma1914

joshjr said:


> You know I said the same thing last year and even though I am not going anywhere this year either its getting out of hand a little. I mean last year I think it was $5 for me and this year its $8. Thats $13 over the last 2 years and I gained nothing for my $13. ...


Nothing over 2 year? You don't watch any of these HD channels?


> 213 MLB Network (added January 1st)
> 249 Comedy Central (added January 21st)
> 329 BET (added June 26th)
> 
> Sports Channels
> 640 Mid-Atlantic Sports Network (24/7 added April 1st)
> 662 SportsTime Ohio (24/7 added April 1st)
> 681 Altitude (24/7 added October 2nd)
> 
> 208 ESPN U (added May 19th)
> 252 Lifetime (added June 23rd)
> 277 Travel Channel (added May 19th)
> 312 Hallmark Channel (added June 23rd)
> 356 MSNBC (added May 19th)
> 402 Univision HD (East) (added April 28th)
> Choice Xtra w/HD
> 307 WGN (added May 19th)
> Choice Ultimate w/HD
> 535 Encore (East) (added June 23rd)
> 
> Sports Channels
> 619 Fox Soccer Channel (added August 11th)
> 621 Fox Soccer Channel Plus (Part Time Channel)
> 620 GolTV (added August 4th)
> 654 FSN Florida (added June 23rd)
> 696 CSN Bay Area (added June 23rd)
> 698 CSN California (added June 23rd)
> 
> Premium Channels
> 502 HBO 2 (East) (added June 23rd)
> 509 HBO Zone (added June 23rd)
> 550 Showtime Beyond (added June 23rd)
> 551 Showtime Next (added June 23rd)
> 552 Showtime Women (added June 23rd)
> 530 Starz! In Black (added June 23rd)
> 531 Starz! Cinema (added June 23rd)
> 556 The Movie Channel Xtra HD (East) (added June 23rd)
> 
> HD Extras
> 560 Hallmark Movie Channel (added May 19th)
> 563 Sony Movie Channel HD (added October 18th)


----------



## Hutchinshouse

hdtvfan0001 said:


> If a $5 increase in rates is causing anyone to have to bail on their service...that's of course their own personal business.
> 
> But then, they likely have bigger issues on their hands if that's the case.


So if we have the extra money to spend we should just bend over every year? 

Just as an FYI, you can have fat bank and still "bail". Perhaps if people are having financial troubles, we shouldn't kick them while they're down.

If people "bail", good for them for doing what they feel is right.

The rate increase will not change anything for me. But I applaud people for doing what they feel is right.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Hutchinshouse said:


> So if we have the extra money to spend we should just bend over every year?
> 
> Just as an FYI, you can have fat bank and still "bail". Perhaps if people are having financial troubles, we shouldn't kick them while they're down.
> 
> If people "bail", good for them for doing what they feel is right.
> 
> The rate increase will not change anything for me. But I applaud people for doing what they feel is right.


You missed the whole point. If $5 puts people "over the edge" financially...then they have more serious problems financially than Pay TV service.

No one said they liked it, welcomed it, or agreed it was good to pay more. But then again, we all have choices as to what we want to pay for and what we don't.

Nor was anyone criticizing people for making their choices...


----------



## dcowboy7

hdtvfan0001 said:


> If a $5 increase in rates is causing anyone to have to bail on their service...that's of course their own personal business.
> 
> But then, they likely have bigger issues on their hands if that's the case.


Its really the year over year element.

But yea reminds me of the seinfeld bit where he talks about how a detergent says they get lots of blood stains out of clothes....maybe if you have blood on your clothes detergent isnt your biggest worry.


----------



## joshjr

sigma1914 said:


> Nothing over 2 year? You don't watch any of these HD channels?


With the exception of maybe the Starz channels the answer is no I do not watch those.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

dcowboy7 said:


> Its really the year over year element.
> 
> But yea reminds me of the seinfeld bit where he talks about how a detergent says they get lots of blood stains out of clothes....maybe if you have blood on your clothes detergent isnt your biggest worry.


Amen brother.

You got that right sir.


----------



## joshjr

hdtvfan0001 said:


> *You missed the whole point. If $5 puts people "over the edge" financially...then they have more serious problems financially than Pay TV service.*No one said they liked it, welcomed it, or agreed it was good to pay more. But then again, we all have choices as to what we want to pay for and what we don't.
> 
> No one is ciriticizing people for making their choices...


Thats a pretty narrow view to take. My grandmother is in a nursing home and has a set amount allowed for TV. So your saying if this $5 is more then her allotment she has bigger problems? Its clear that you dont have these issues but at least be a little more compassionate about others and their situations. The way you say it makes it sound like a bad thing. I will pay the increase and move on but understand that people have a breaking point.


----------



## spartanstew

5 years from now, everyone's bill will be $30 - $40 higher than it is now.

If you're not going to be able to afford that, consider making plans to get out now instead of posting every year that it's too much.

That's what it is, and what it's going to be. Start planning. Either a savings plan or an exit strategy.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

joshjr said:


> Thats a pretty narrow view to take.


Only if TV makes the top 8-10 list of priorities, ahead of food, clothing, shelter, health, transportation, heating/cooling, other utilities, paying taxes, and the like.


spartanstew said:


> 5 years from now, everyone's bill will be $30 - $40 higher than it is now.
> 
> If you're not going to be able to afford that, consider making plans to get out now instead of posting every year that it's too much.
> 
> That's what it is, and what it's going to be. Start planning. Either a savings plan or an exit strategy.


Bingo.


----------



## sigma1914

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You missed the whole point. If $5 puts people "over the edge" financially...then they have more serious problems financially than Pay TV service.
> 
> No one said they liked it, welcomed it, or agreed it was good to pay more. But then again, we all have choices as to what we want to pay for and what we don't.
> 
> Nor was anyone criticizing people for making their choices...


Agreed. Think of all the non essential items people buy every day/week that cost $5.

*How to Save Five Dollars a Day*


----------



## raott

spartanstew said:


> 5 years from now, everyone's bill will be $30 - $40 higher than it is now.
> 
> If you're not going to be able to afford that, consider making plans to get out now instead of posting every year that it's too much.
> 
> That's what it is, and what it's going to be. Start planning. Either a savings plan or an exit strategy.


If the threads bother you, skip them.


----------



## dcowboy7

sigma1914 said:


> Agreed. Think of all the non essential items people buy every day/week that cost $5.
> 
> *How to Save Five Dollars a Day*


I dont spend $$ on any of those 5 things so no help there.

Lottery thing isnt fair for that list though -- i know sum1 that won $1,000 a week for life.


----------



## joshjr

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Only if TV makes the top 8-10 list of priorities, ahead of food, clothing, shelter, health, transportation, heating/cooling, other utilities, paying taxes, and the like.
> 
> Bingo.


I agree with that but even if TV is #8-10 and that $5 puts you over and makes TV more inportant then cutting tv in some way is the right way to go right? I guess the bigger problem you refer to would be same amount of money coming in but more going out lol. That could be considered a bigger problem I guess. I guess my response was really more torwards people on fixed income and that aint me. Im pretty sure you didnt mean for your repsonses to sound like you didnt care. Guess I shouldnt take it that way.


----------



## TBlazer07

Hutchinshouse said:


> So if we have the extra money to spend we should just bend over every year?
> 
> Just as an FYI, you can have fat bank and still "bail". Perhaps if people are having financial troubles, we shouldn't kick them while they're down.
> 
> If people "bail", good for them for doing what they feel is right.
> 
> The rate increase will not change anything for me. But I applaud people for doing what they feel is right.


HDTVFAN00001GUY said he put me in his "ignore list" for my previous message but what you wrote in your message is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make in my message a couple before yours. He probably won't read this and maybe he'll even ignore you too. He must have a LONG ignore list if he ignores everyone who replies with something he doesn't like to read. But I guess when you are an "All Star" you're special. :lol:


----------



## jimmyv2000

spartanstew said:


> 5 years from now, everyone's bill will be $30 - $40 higher than it is now.
> 
> If you're not going to be able to afford that, consider making plans to get out now instead of posting every year that it's too much.
> 
> That's what it is, and what it's going to be. Start planning. Either a savings plan or an exit strategy.


If Thats the case i better go start *PANHANDLING NOW!*
All These Price increases are killing me now gas,heating oil,cell bill just went up 2 months ago.
I havent gotten a raise in nearly 3 years at work


----------



## sigma1914

joshjr said:


> I agree with that but even if TV is #8-10 and that $5 puts you over and makes TV more inportant then cutting tv in some way is the right way to go right? I guess the bigger problem you refer to would be same amount of money coming in but more going out lol. That could be considered a bigger problem I guess. I guess my response was really more torwards people on fixed income and that aint me. Im pretty sure you didnt mean for your repsonses to sound like you didnt care. Guess I shouldnt take it that way.


Being on a fixed income can be tough for folks like your grandma, and I speak from first hand knowledge. In college while on SSI, I learned what scraping by was really like...having a loaf of bread and bologna pack last a week, eating Ramen, etc. Had cable not been "free" (included in rent), it would have been cut.


----------



## phat_b

I may be out of line with the general consensus, but what bites me is the $1/mo increase for the mirroring / lease fee. I was fully prepared to see the $3 base rate increase but this is where I have to draw the line. I may be way off base, but to me this appears to be above and beyond an increase to cover operating costs.


----------



## TBlazer07

sigma1914 said:


> Nothing over 2 year? You don't watch any of these HD channels?
> 
> <LIST OF NEW HD CHANNELS DELETED>


Me, no. Others, I'm sure do. Wait ... yes, I do, MSNBC, but it was fine in SD. I don't watch no stinkin' sports except on the locals. If my rates are going up for Sports, feh!


----------



## shoelessjoe

hdtvfan0001 said:


> If a $5 increase in rates is causing anyone to have to bail on their service...that's of course their own personal business.
> 
> But then, they likely have bigger issues on their hands if that's the case.


Many people do indeed have bigger issues. Unemployment hovers at 10 % and consumer expenditures keep increasing. That is the point. There comes a time when a line is drawn to what is important and what isn't.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

shoelessjoe said:


> Many people do indeed have bigger issues. Unemployment hovers at 10 % and consumer expenditures keep increasing. That is the point. There comes a time when a line is drawn to what is important and what isn't.


You are absolutely correct.


TBlazer07 said:


> He must have a LONG ignore list if he ignores everyone who replies with something he doesn't like to read.


Nope - only folks who have nothing to say, constant argumentative for the sake of arguing, or no value for assistance to anyone.

A distinguished list it is.. !rolling


----------



## shoelessjoe

sigma1914 said:


> Agreed. Think of all the non essential items people buy every day/week that cost $5.
> 
> *How to Save Five Dollars a Day*


I don't pay for any of those things listed in the article now and TV is also a non-essential item.


----------



## TBlazer07

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You are absolutely correct.
> 
> Nope - only folks who have nothing to say, constant argumentative for the sake of arguing, or no value for assistance to anyone.
> 
> A distinguished list it is.. !rolling


Wow .... I didn't know I was in that elite group. I should get a special title like yours .... Maybe "No Stars" in that fancy font. :lol:


----------



## BattleScott

spartanstew said:


> 5 years from now, everyone's bill will be $30 - $40 higher than it is now.
> 
> If you're not going to be able to afford that, consider making plans to get out now instead of posting every year that it's too much.
> 
> That's what it is, and what it's going to be. Start planning. Either a savings plan or an exit strategy.


Or, if people complain loud enough and long enough, they may only be $20-$30 higher.


----------



## Barry in Conyers

No new basic HD, threats to cut channels and higher prices; what's not to like?


----------



## Dave

Stated over at www.multichannel.com DirectV will have a 4% price hike along with a few other things.


----------



## Doug Brott

phat_b said:


> I may be out of line with the general consensus, but what bites me is the $1/mo increase for the mirroring / lease fee. I was fully prepared to see the $3 base rate increase but this is where I have to draw the line. I may be way off base, but to me this appears to be above and beyond an increase to cover operating costs.


Other than a $.01 (yes, one-cent) increase a few years back, the mirror/lease fee has been the exact same for 17 years. I can't say that I'm particularly fond of it either, but that's a really long time. I think we all could have predicted that this would get changed at some point especially considering that DISH charges upwards of $17 per month for some of it's DVRs.


----------



## Doug Brott

Dave said:


> Stated over at www.multichannel.com DirectV will have a 4% price hike along with a few other things.


 we had it here first  :grin:


----------



## sigma1914

dcowboy7 said:


> I dont spend $$ on any of those 5 things so no help there.
> 
> Lottery thing isnt fair for that list though -- i know sum1 that won $1,000 a week for life.


There were others on page 2.


shoelessjoe said:


> I don't pay for any of those things listed in the article now and TV is also a non-essential item.


The list was just a simple example of a few things many do spend money on. I'm sure if we spent a week following your spending, then we'd find things to pinch $5 off of.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

TBlazer07 said:


> Wow .... I didn't know I was in that elite group. I should get a special title like yours .... Maybe "No Stars" in that fancy font. :lol:


WOO HOO....party time. 


BattleScott said:


> Or, if people complain loud enough and long enough, they may only be $20-$30 higher.


Could be some value to it for sure (as was stated earlier)....they're just complaining at the wrong place...whereby no one here can do anything about it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Barry in Conyers said:


> No new basic HD, threats to cut channels and higher prices; what's not to like?


Lost? The Dish threads are on the other side of the house. !rolling


----------



## shoelessjoe

sigma1914 said:


> The list was just a simple example of a few things many do spend money on. I'm sure if we spent a week following your spending, then we'd find things to pinch $5 off of.


Actually I have been doing an inventory of my daily expenditures for the past three years. My wife and I eat mostly at home (we save eating out for trips and "special" days), I pack my lunch when going to work, I don't get coffee at Star Bucks ( I actually roast my own), I drive a fairly efficient car, etc. So in my case, there probably can be some trimming somewhere, but we are pretty frugal.

I'm not trying to be smug here, but TV (cable/satellite) is just getting too expensive. This Christmas, we all played board games for 4 days and it was a lot better than sitting in front of the tube.

*Disclaimer:* We did watch "It's a Wonderful Life" on TV. It has been a tradition in our family for years.


----------



## peters4n6

Just curious, and even though I'm a D* subscriber since 99, I don't know the answer to this question...

Has there been _any_ year in the last decade where there wasn't a yearly price increase? And if so, were forum members popping champagne corks, sending kudos to D*?


----------



## Richierich

Well, I just heard 2 different Analysts in the Business Market Predict that a Barrel Of Oil will cost over $100 by Q2 of 2011 so if that is true you had better buy a Smart Car or a bicycle or a motorcycle or Roller Skates as that will definitely eat into your Budget and if $5 worries you and bothers your Budget then you will be Screwed if that Prediction comes True!!!


----------



## phat_b

Doug Brott said:


> Other than a $.01 (yes, one-cent) increase a few years back, the mirror/lease fee has been the exact same for 17 years. I can't say that I'm particularly fond of it either, but that's a really long time. I think we all could have predicted that this would get changed at some point especially considering that DISH charges upwards of $17 per month for some of it's DVRs.


The fact that it's been static for that long serves to reinforce the notion that it's outside the realm of "passing costs on to our customers". Correct me if I'm wrong, but they get dinged by the networks on a per-subscriber basis, not per-box. If they've been sitting on this for 17 years they could've waited a few more for the economy to get back on it's feet.

This is by no means my only issue of discontent with D*. When it comes to discretionary spending, I simply refuse to take what's offered at the price dictated to me, and like it. I've been tetering on the edge with them ever since I had their gawdawful DVR shoved down my throat in 2009. Unless they have something really worthwhile to offer me through retention (like free HD forever) I see this as nudge I needed to shift to more cloud based services.


----------



## BattleScott

hdtvfan0001 said:


> WOO HOO....party time.
> 
> Could be some value to it for sure (as was stated earlier)....they're just complaining at the wrong place...whereby no one here can do anything about it.


Why is this the "wrong place"? We have been assured in the past that DirecTV monitors this site among others. With several members directly employed by DirecTV, I would consider this a pretty viable place to vent.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Greg Bimson said:


> So be prepared to pay 5 to 9 percent more yearly until the distributors start losing customers. Complaining about it does nothing when one continues to pay.


Greg, we may have reached that inflection point. Over the last two quarters, the number of PayTV subscribers has decreased, for the first time ever.

Also, not only are lower-income and even some middle-income households disconnecting, but even single college grads without good jobs have decided to forego cable. About a month ago, the NYT quoted a recent HBS grad who said that Netflix, Hulu, ComedyCentral.com and Amazon downloads more than suffice.

DirecTv may be best of breed, and therefore more insulated from the churn. But eventually it will also be negatively impacted.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Should have read...."single college grads with good jobs". My bad.


----------



## James Long

Doug Brott said:


> Other than a $.01 (yes, one-cent) increase a few years back, the mirror/lease fee has been the exact same for 17 years. I can't say that I'm particularly fond of it either, but that's a really long time. I think we all could have predicted that this would get changed at some point especially considering that DISH charges upwards of $17 per month for some of it's DVRs.


Minor correction: There is only one DVR model that is "upwards" of $17 ... and with the most expensive receiver on each account included in the base price one would have to have two of that most expensive receiver in order to pay upward of $17 for a receiver fee. The $14 receivers and $17 DVRs are intended for two rooms ($7 per room) - and there are cheaper single room $7 receivers and $10 DVRs available.

I'm surprised that DirecTV has not raised their mirror/lease fees before. It is one of the areas where their costs rise (especially on a lease) because of the placement of multiple receivers. $5 is too low, especially for a high end multi-tuner HD DVR.

DirecTV's grandfathering of pricing during the contract period softens any programming package price increase. Their current offer (expiring in 4 days) is the best I've seen in a while with $29 off the first year and $14 off the second year and no package price increase. With a deal like that DirecTV needs to find money somewhere ... and the mirror/lease fee is a good place to go. Perhaps they will do the same in 2012 and have a $7 per receiver fee.


----------



## spartanstew

BattleScott said:


> Or, if people complain loud enough and long enough, they may only be $20-$30 higher.


Nope, won't happen.



BattleScott said:


> Why is this the "wrong place"? We have been assured in the past that DirecTV monitors this site among others.


They monitor certain threads. Usually, not whining threads. Generally the same people whine every year and do nothing about it.

Complaining (loudly or not) will not do a thing. If you want them to rethink things there needs to be a significant drop in subscribers. Go. That's how they'll listen.

But most people don't, because logic prevails, but they still keep whining loudly.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.


----------



## Richierich

BattleScott said:


> Why is this the "wrong place"? We have been assured in the past that DirecTV monitors this site among others. With several members directly employed by DirecTV, I would consider this a pretty viable place to vent.


I don't think Senior Managers in the Marketing Dept. hang out here too often and they are the ones who make the Marketing Decisions to Increase Rates and Add HD Channels, etc.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

Barry in Conyers said:


> No new basic HD, threats to cut channels and higher prices; what's not to like?


!rolling touché

(Put on *blue* sunglasses, the deal will look much better)

Hey, at least we have 187 showings of "Step Up 3" this week on PPV.


----------



## BattleScott

spartanstew said:


> They monitor certain threads. Usually, not whining threads.


Please elaborate, what threads do they monitor? and how do you know this? Are you involved with their market research process?


----------



## thelucky1

"Barry in Conyers" said:


> No new basic HD, threats to cut channels and higher prices; what's not to like?


Wow everything that was on MY wish list! Lol!


----------



## sigma1914

Barry in Conyers said:


> No new basic HD, threats to cut channels and higher prices; what's not to like?





Hutchinshouse said:


> !rolling touché
> 
> (Put on *blue* sunglasses, the deal will look much better)
> 
> Hey, at least we have 187 showings of "Step Up 3" this week on PPV.





thelucky1 said:


> Wow everything that was on MY wish list! Lol!


Basic HD was added this year:

208 ESPN U (added May 19th)
252 Lifetime (added June 23rd)
277 Travel Channel (added May 19th)
312 Hallmark Channel (added June 23rd)
356 MSNBC (added May 19th)


----------



## Richierich

BattleScott said:


> Please elaborate, what threads do they monitor? and how do you know this? Are you involved with their market research process?


It is Pretty Much Common Knowledge around this Forum that the Engineers Monitor certain Threads for certain Information but they do not Monitor the other common threads where you have pages and pages of whining and crying and chastising Directv as they have better use of their time.


----------



## bills976

This might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. After football season I may look into suspending service and going OTA + netflix only for a few months. Outside of OTA, hockey, and football I watch USA and GSN, and that's about it. I can't justify spending $70/mo on that.


----------



## dcowboy7

Barry in Conyers said:


> No new basic HD; what's not to like?





sigma1914 said:


> Basic HD was added this year:
> 
> 208 ESPN U (added May 19th)
> 252 Lifetime (added June 23rd)
> 277 Travel Channel (added May 19th)
> 312 Hallmark Channel (added June 23rd)
> 356 MSNBC (added May 19th)


Maybe his nick should be "barry in wrongsville".


----------



## Richierich

dcowboy7 said:


> Maybe his nick should be "barry in wrongsville".


Yes, he actually lives here in Atlanta or the suburbs but some people are Never Happy!!!

I can't believe how much HD I have but when I first got my HR10-250 on April 12th, 2004 there were only about 2 or 3 HD Channels to watch so I am now very Happy to see so many channels.

Yes, there are a couple channels that I would like to see in HD but they will be there in time in the meantime I hardly have time to watch all of my Directv Recorded Shows plus watch VUDU and Netflix DVDs, etc,


----------



## hdtvfan0001

BattleScott said:


> Why is this the "wrong place"? We have been assured in the past that DirecTV monitors this site among others. With several members directly employed by DirecTV, *I would consider this a pretty viable place to vent*.





richierich said:


> It is Pretty Much Common Knowledge around this Forum that the Engineers Monitor certain Threads for certain Information but *they do not Monitor the other common threads *where you have pages and pages of whining and crying and chastising Directv as they have better use of their time.





Barry in Conyers said:


> *No new basic HD*, threats to cut channels and higher prices; what's not to like?





Hutchinshouse said:


> *touché*





sigma1914 said:


> Basic *HD was added *this year:
> 
> 208 ESPN U (added May 19th)
> 252 Lifetime (added June 23rd)
> 277 Travel Channel (added May 19th)
> 312 Hallmark Channel (added June 23rd)
> 356 MSNBC (added May 19th)





dcowboy7 said:


> Maybe his nick should be "barry in wrongsville".


It looks like the *City of Wrongsville *is growing. !rolling


----------



## mva5580

I have a question and I'm sure it's been answered in the 14 pages, so I apologize for a duplicate question.

Is this grounds for being able to get out of my contract early? I've been looking for an "out" for a little while now and if this would be it, that would be great. And if not, is this site really the best place to go to find out if anything in your agreement changes so you can have the ability to cancel w/o having to pay the fee? Thank you....


----------



## hdtvfan0001

mva5580 said:


> I have a question and I'm sure it's been answered in the 14 pages, so I apologize for a duplicate question.
> 
> Is this grounds for being able to get out of my contract early? I've been looking for an "out" for a little while now and if this would be it, that would be great. And if not, is this site really the best place to go to find out if anything in your agreement changes so you can have the ability to cancel w/o having to pay the fee? Thank you....


You can make changes to the content and levels of service...but early termination is early termination.


----------



## RobertE

mva5580 said:


> I have a question and I'm sure it's been answered in the 14 pages, so I apologize for a duplicate question.
> 
> Is this grounds for being able to get out of my contract early? I've been looking for an "out" for a little while now and if this would be it, that would be great. And if not, is this site really the best place to go to find out if anything in your agreement changes so you can have the ability to cancel w/o having to pay the fee? Thank you....


Nope. Sorry.


----------



## shoelessjoe

RobertE said:


> Nope. Sorry.


So if DTV increased the the price of the package or dropped channels from it, there is nothing that can be done?

I am not on contract. Just curious.


----------



## skatingrocker17

Anyone this this?

DirecTV To Raise Rates 4% In 2011
In addition to increases in various service fees


----------



## sigma1914

skatingrocker17 said:


> Anyone this this?
> 
> DirecTV To Raise Rates 4% In 2011
> In addition to increases in various service fees


Uhhh...that's what this whole topic is about.


----------



## sigma1914

shoelessjoe said:


> So if DTV increased the the price of the package or dropped channels from it, there is nothing that can be done?
> 
> I am not on contract. Just curious.


No.


----------



## shoelessjoe

sigma1914 said:


> No.


I was actually looking for a more detailed answer than "no".


----------



## thelucky1

"sigma1914" said:


> Basic HD was added this year:
> 
> 208 ESPN U (added May 19th)
> 252 Lifetime (added June 23rd)
> 277 Travel Channel (added May 19th)
> 312 Hallmark Channel (added June 23rd)
> 356 MSNBC (added May 19th)


Wow I will really try to contain my excitement! . 5 in 365 days...impressive! Roflmao!


----------



## James Long

shoelessjoe said:


> I was actually looking for a more detailed answer than "no".


No Sir?

You're out of contract ... cancel any time. For those who are still in contract they either need to wait until the end of the contract or pay the early termination fee. The answer is simple.


----------



## sigma1914

shoelessjoe said:


> I was actually looking for a more detailed answer than "no".


:lol: Well, their TOS pretty much says they reserve the right to change programing.

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/legal/customer_agreement
Section 1 (d.)


> (d) Our Programming Changes. Many factors affect the availability, cost and quality of programming and may influence the decision to raise prices and the amount of any increase. These include, among others, programming and other costs, consumer demand, market and shareholder expectations, and changing business conditions. *Accordingly, we must reserve the unrestricted right to change, rearrange, add or delete our programming packages, the selections in those packages, our prices, and any other Service we offer, at any time.* We will endeavor to notify you of any change that is within our reasonable control and its effective date. In most cases this notice will be about one month in advance. You always have the right to cancel your Service, in whole or in part, if you do not accept the change (see Section 5). If you cancel your Service, a deactivation fee (described in Sections 2 & 5(b)) or other charges may apply. Credits, if any, to your account will be posted as described in Section 5. If you do not cancel, your continued receipt of our Service will constitute acceptance.


----------



## Richierich

sigma1914 said:


> Basic HD was added this year:
> 
> 208 ESPN U (added May 19th)
> 252 Lifetime (added June 23rd)
> 277 Travel Channel (added May 19th)
> 312 Hallmark Channel (added June 23rd)
> 356 MSNBC (added May 19th)


Yes, and these were Important Channel Additions and Thank God for The Travel Channel in HD being added and hopefully with the Price Increase we will see more HD Channels added in 2011.


----------



## sigma1914

thelucky1 said:


> Wow I will really try to contain my excitement! . 5 in 365 days...impressive! Roflmao!


He said no basic national, which was wrong...5 > 0.

Premiums and sports were added, too, with 23 HD non PPV additions.


----------



## shoelessjoe

James Long said:


> No Sir?
> 
> You're out of contract ... cancel any time. For those who are still in contract they either need to wait until the end of the contract or pay the early termination fee. The answer is simple.


So if DTV increases the minimum package by say $15/month and dropped 25 channels, the contracted subscriber is obligated to pay more for less service than they signed up for? I'm just not seeing the fairness in that. What other business could get away with that? Wouldn't DTV be breaking the contract, thus opening the door for lawsuits, etc...?:soapbox:


----------



## sigma1914

shoelessjoe said:


> So if DTV increases the minimum package by say $15/month and dropped 25 channels, the contracted subscriber is obligated to pay more for less service than they signed up for? I'm just not seeing the fairness in that. What other business could get away with that? Wouldn't DTV be breaking the contract, thus opening the door?:soapbox:


That's an extreme and highly unlikely scenario. No company would do such a thing.


----------



## shoelessjoe

sigma1914 said:


> :lol: Well, their TOS pretty much says they reserve the right to change programing.
> 
> http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/legal/customer_agreement
> Section 1 (d.)


They do have a right to change programming and increase pricing. That is not my contention. Why is a person obligated to paying a higher price and/or accept dropped channels?


----------



## sigma1914

shoelessjoe said:


> They do have a right to change programming and increase pricing. That is not my contention. Why is a person obligated to continue paying a higher price and/or accept dropped channels?


Because they agreed to the TOS. If they want to pay more for equipment and programming, then they can avoid the contract. Also, they aren't obligated...pay the ETF if under contract.


----------



## shoelessjoe

sigma1914 said:


> That's an extreme and highly unlikely scenario. No company would do such a thing.


I'll admit it is an extreme example. But $3 or $15 shouldn't matter. Nor should the number of channels. The fact is, a person pays for a certain package when they sign up. The company has a right to change that package, but why shouldn't the consumer be able to decline the new terms?:rant:


----------



## James Long

shoelessjoe said:


> The company has a right to change that package, but why shouldn't the consumer be able to decline the new terms?


As quoted above ... the consumer has the right to decline the new terms. Just pay the ETF that came with the commitment and walk.

You're out of contract ... so feel free to leave any time. No penalty other than the hassle of finding a better deal.


----------



## shoelessjoe

James Long said:


> As quoted above ... the consumer has the right to decline the new terms. Just pay the ETF that came with the commitment and walk.
> 
> *You're out of contract ... so feel free to leave any time*.


Calm down. I'm just asking questions. I seemed to have hit a nerve with you and it is not my intention. I just wanted more clarification on the TOS. The wording is vague IMO.



> (d) Our Programming Changes. Many factors affect the availability, cost and quality of programming and may influence the decision to raise prices and the amount of any increase. These include, among others, programming and other costs, consumer demand, market and shareholder expectations, and changing business conditions. Accordingly, we must reserve the unrestricted right to change, rearrange, add or delete our programming packages, the selections in those packages, our prices, and any other Service we offer, at any time. We will endeavor to notify you of any change that is within our reasonable control and its effective date. In most cases this notice will be about one month in advance. You always have the right to cancel your Service, in whole or in part, if you do not accept the change (see Section 5). If you cancel your Service, a deactivation fee (described in Sections 2 & 5(b)) or other charges may apply. Credits, if any, to your account will be posted as described in Section 5. *If you do not cancel, your continued receipt of our Service will constitute acceptance.*


So, if I don't cancel, I accept the new agreement. If I do though, I may be penalized. Got it.


----------



## James Long

shoelessjoe said:


> I'm just asking questions. I seemed to have hit a nerve with you and it is not my intention. I just wanted more clarification on the TOS. The wording is vague IMO.


It isn't vague to the people who are providing reading comprehension assistance to you.


----------



## Lord Vader

richierich said:


> Well, I just heard 2 different Analysts in the Business Market Predict that a Barrel Of Oil will cost over $100 by Q2 of 2011 so if that is true you had better buy a Smart Car or a bicycle or a motorcycle or Roller Skates as that will definitely eat into your Budget and if $5 worries you and bothers your Budget then you will be Screwed if that Prediction comes True!!!


The hard thing to stomach is that there is no *reason *for oil to be priced as high as it is.

Stupid speculators and hedge fund idiots!


----------



## shoelessjoe

James Long said:


> It isn't vague to the people who are providing reading comprehension assistance to you.


Thanks for answering. :lol:

At this point, I don't think I'm leaving DTV, even though you told me several times to do so. :grin: They have been good with me overall throughout the years and I don't have any legitimate alternatives for TV. However, if I have anything more added to my bottom line, things could change.

Have a great holiday.


----------



## Satelliteracer

raott said:


> So are you telling us that D* was in such a weak bargaining position that it agreed to price increases regardless of what the economy was actually doing?


That works both ways....some years the economy is booming or that particular channel is killing it and the MSO is paying under market value by negotiating a long term deal.

The fact of the matter is that deals that are multiple years in length almost all have % escalators. This is true in almost every business I've been in (television, sports, college athletics, etc) in which deals of this nature are done (contracts with athletes, contracts with stadiums and buildings, contracts with programmers, etc, etc).


----------



## Satelliteracer

BattleScott said:


> Sometimes the net result of that agreement can mean LESS money than signing a contract with fixed annual rate. A structured increase also allows DirecTV (or any other provider) to keep revenues and costs more consistent by aligning their cost increases with the corresponding future subscriber revenue increases.


Absolutely correct.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Problem is, the escalators are pushing contents costs well above the rate of inflation. The deal Fox Broadcasting just inked with Cablevision calls for a 13% annual increase for the next five years, from 55 cents a sub this year to 1 dollar by contract's end. So that's the benchmark today. In five years, D* will be paying CBS, NBC, Fox, ABC and Univision five dollars a month for programming. And a couple of those networks will argue that their content is worth far more than Fox's.


----------



## James Long

shoelessjoe said:


> At this point, I don't think I'm leaving DTV, even though you told me several times to do so.


You may want to read again. First, check the definition of several ... then note that my statements said that you were free to leave or you could cancel any time. We were also talking about the consumer's right to cancel anytime (with penalty if still under contract).

There was no encouragement for _you_ to leave - leaving was simply presented as an option.


----------



## HarryD

richierich said:


> I'm tired of my Utility Rates going up, my Gasoline Prices going up, the cost of Groceries going up, etc. but you better get used to it and by the way I just heard from a very knowledgeable person who says Gas will be back up to $100/barrel so get used to $4 plus/gallon for Gas....


and why??? Because OPEC has decided to cut back production... just like that...


----------



## shoelessjoe

shoelessjoe said:


> Thanks for answering. :lol:
> *
> At this point, I don't think I'm leaving DTV, even though you told me several times to do so. :grin: *
> Have a great holiday.





James Long said:


> You may want to read again. First, check the definition of several ... then note that my statements said that you were free to leave or you could cancel any time. We were also talking about the consumer's right to cancel anytime (with penalty if still under contract).
> *
> There was no encouragement for you to leave - leaving was simply presented as an option.*


You may have to read again as well. Why do you think I put the grin after my sentence? :shrug:

I've gone more than I ever intended with this subject. :beatdeadhorse:
Take care.:icon_peac


----------



## Hutchinshouse

sigma1914 said:


> Basic HD was added this year:
> 
> 208 ESPN U (added May 19th)
> 252 Lifetime (added June 23rd)
> 277 Travel Channel (added May 19th)
> 312 Hallmark Channel (added June 23rd)
> 356 MSNBC (added May 19th)


Come on, we all know what "Barry in Conyers" was saying.

Nice try though.


----------



## sigma1914

Hutchinshouse said:


> Come on, we all know what "Barry in Conyers" was saying.
> 
> Nice try though.


Oh, we do? Was he saying no basic HD channels were added? Or was he saying no basic HD channels *he cares about* were added?

We're all adults here & should type what we mean.


----------



## thelucky1

"Gloria_Chavez" said:


> Problem is, the escalators are pushing contents costs well above the rate of inflation. The deal Fox Broadcasting just inked with Cablevision calls for a 13% annual increase for the next five years, from 55 cents a sub this year to 1 dollar by contract's end. So that's the benchmark today. In five years, D* will be paying CBS, NBC, Fox, ABC and Univision five dollars a month for programming. And a couple of those networks will argue that their content is worth far more than Fox's.


Yep content provider rates are getting out of control. Does it mean we need more government control? I hope not!


----------



## MarkN

James Long said:


> As quoted above ... the consumer has the right to decline the new terms. Just pay the ETF that came with the commitment and walk.
> 
> You're out of contract ... so feel free to leave any time. No penalty other than the hassle of finding a better deal.


Well then I guess enough said. You can close this thread. Geez


----------



## Hutchinshouse

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It looks like the *City of Wrongsville *is growing. !rolling


That was almost funny.

Comprehension is key. Please comprehend a post before you toss out a flat joke.

Lastly, 5 HD channels? !rolling Enough said!


----------



## James Long

MarkN said:


> Well then I guess enough said. You can close this thread. Geez


Nahh ... the thread still has value for the 60+ odd people still in it (and others who happen to be not on line at the moment).


----------



## Davenlr

Does downgrading to SELECT negate the two year Free HD promotion?


----------



## WebTraveler

sigma1914 said:


> That's an extreme and highly unlikely scenario. No company would do such a thing.


For those attorneys out there, there is a legitimate argument about whether a substantial change breaks the agreement, regardless of what the Directv terms of service state. State law and common law principles have higher weight than the written terms of service, etc. What substantial means, of course, is open to interpretation as well.

Then there is the practical side of fighting something like this - in court or otherwise, given the nature of legal fees.

Finally, if the matter does go to court, its very likely Directv would have to produce the signed agreement whereby the customer consented to the terms. The practical side is that the court may very well agree without an agreement on an initial 2-year deal - but if Directv stated that the agreement was extended by this and that over the years, they'd have to produce that agreement where there clearly was a meeting of the minds.


----------



## Barry in Conyers

sigma1914 said:


> Basic HD was added this year:
> 
> 208 ESPN U (added May 19th)
> 252 Lifetime (added June 23rd)
> 277 Travel Channel (added May 19th)
> 312 Hallmark Channel (added June 23rd)
> 356 MSNBC (added May 19th)


I did not say no basic HD was added this year; I said no *new* HD. Six months ago is not new.


----------



## WebTraveler

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Problem is, the escalators are pushing contents costs well above the rate of inflation. The deal Fox Broadcasting just inked with Cablevision calls for a 13% annual increase for the next five years, from 55 cents a sub this year to 1 dollar by contract's end. So that's the benchmark today. In five years, D* will be paying CBS, NBC, Fox, ABC and Univision five dollars a month for programming. And a couple of those networks will argue that their content is worth far more than Fox's.


Everyone in America feels that they are underpaid and overcharged. The practical side is that many of these networks will cease to exist in time. The strong ones will survive - and charge for it. The weak ones will fail because everyone has to get rid of channels that no one watches to keep programming costs down.

So in the end, the viewer, gets less choice. It's the American way, really.

By the way, as soon as Brian Roberts and his Comcast clan gets a hold of NBC and all it's channels, our rates are going to be out of sight. You watch and see. Roberts is probably already counting his money to be made. It's over for us folks.

Comcast pays enough contributions to keep ala carte off the table by Congress and costs will continue to spiral out of control.


----------



## BattleScott

Satelliteracer said:


> Absolutely correct.


Wow, thanks for the comfirmation but apparently you were not made aware that DirecTV employees who frequent this site are not to waste their valuable time in these "whinefest" threads. You better get out of here before you get hit by the bus to "Wrongville"!!! :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Barry in Conyers

richierich said:


> ... some people are Never Happy!!!


Are you happy about increased prices, threats to cut channels and no *NEW* (not 6+ months ago) basic HD?


----------



## sigma1914

Barry in Conyers said:


> I did not say no basic HD was added this year; I said no *new* HD. Six months ago is not new.


You didn't specify what's new. What's new to me means something different to you. When's the new cutoff? Your general recap is in a thread about _yearly _price increases...Over the last year, new HD has been added.


----------



## James Long

sigma1914 said:


> You didn't specify what's new. What's new to me means something different to you. When's the new cutoff? Your general recap is in a thread about _yearly _price increases...Over the last year, new HD has been added.


So with this price increase, DirecTV subscribers should expect five more basic channels in the new year? 

Sounds like a topic for another series of threads. One where each quarter passes with thousands of posts and a few channel additions. (IIRC this quarter saw one addition? Sony Movie Channel? and four PPV.)

Price increases are normal ... and this one is nominal. A couple bucks on the lower end packages ... $1 on HBO and the "killer" $1 on lease fees (a whopping 20% increase! for those who like hyperbole). Not bad at all.


----------



## Barry in Conyers

sigma1914 said:


> You didn't specify what's new. What's new to me means something different to you. When's the new cutoff? Your general recap is in a thread about _yearly _price increases...Over the last year, new HD has been added.[/QUOTE
> 
> Did somebody spike the kool-aid?
> 
> Again, there is no *NEW* basic HD and has not been for over 6 months.


----------



## sigma1914

James Long said:


> So with this price increase, DirecTV subscribers should expect five more basic channels in the new year?


I'd be surprised if it's more than 5...I have little faith.


> Sounds like a topic for another series of threads. One where each quarter passes with thousands of posts and a few channel additions. (IIRC this quarter saw one addition? Sony Movie Channel? and four PPV.)


Expect more of it. :lol:


> Price increases are normal ... and this one is nominal. A couple bucks on the lower end packages ... $1 on HBO and the "killer" $1 on lease fees (a whopping 20% increase! for those who like hyperbole). Not bad at all.


Agreed...They're pretty much guaranteed.


----------



## Doug Brott

Barry in Conyers said:


> Again, there is no *NEW* basic HD and has not been for over 6 months.


Well, since we're talking about an annual price increase, it's not unreasonable to expect "new" really to mean anything since the last price increase.


----------



## spartanstew

Barry in Conyers said:


> Again, there is no *NEW* basic HD and has not been for over 6 months.


Would you have been happier if this price increase would have gone into effect 6 months ago?


----------



## dirtyblueshirt

joshjr said:


> Then you are looking at it completely wrong. Choice Ultimate has the Encore channels and a few others that Plus HD DVR does not. Choice Ultimate is more expensive if you have HD and DVR on there unless you get some kind of a discount like free HD. Choice Xtra with HD and DVR added after the prince increase will be the same price as Plus HD DVR. Might want to check on those prices again.


Actually, with TC+HD-DVR, I do get the extra channels such as Encore, Sundance, TMC, and the few extra SonicTap channels. This does put me squarely in line with the current Choice Ultimate package. I save $6 now, will drop to a $5 savings next year. Otherwise, there's no benefit for me to switch to the current structure.


----------



## bobcamp1

James Long said:


> As quoted above ... the consumer has the right to decline the new terms. Just pay the ETF that came with the commitment and walk.


They don't have to pay an ETF if they cancel due to significant price increases or service reductions, or if D* changes the language in any agreement in any way. Of course, D* will try like crazy to charge them the ETF anyway, but legally D* doesn't have a leg to stand on.

For me, it's an 8% increase. That isn't small and borders on significant.


----------



## Barry in Conyers

spartanstew said:


> Would you have been happier if this price increase would have gone into effect 6 months ago?


No. Would you?


----------



## RobertE

spartanstew said:


> Would you have been happier if this price increase would have gone into effect 6 months ago?


Would that have been the _Old_ price increase and this the _New_ one? Or would that have been the _New_ one then and this a _Newer_ one now?  :lol:


----------



## RobertE

harsh said:


> My point is that there shouldn't be any surprises no matter what drives the escalator clause.
> 
> Even the year changing is an index. As I don't know what the index is, I asked.


Personally, I think it's the Turtles vs Trolls Index (TvTI) or the Turtle Likeability Index (TLI). Maybe even an average of the two.


----------



## phat_b

WebTraveler said:


> Everyone in America feels that they are underpaid and overcharged. The practical side is that many of these networks will cease to exist in time. The strong ones will survive - and charge for it. The weak ones will fail because everyone has to get rid of channels that no one watches to keep programming costs down.
> 
> So in the end, the viewer, gets less choice. It's the American way, really.


Do you promise? I would love to see this come to pass, but last I checked Americans will still pay for crap. If you don't believe me tune to channel 202. It's called apathy.



WebTraveler said:


> By the way, as soon as Brian Roberts and his Comcast clan gets a hold of NBC and all it's channels, our rates are going to be out of sight. You watch and see. Roberts is probably already counting his money to be made. It's over for us folks.


He'll have kittens if he finds out that I watch the late sunday football game in 1080p, I pay nothing for the privilege (OTA), and rarely watch any commercials.



WebTraveler said:


> Comcast pays enough contributions to keep ala carte off the table by Congress and costs will continue to spiral out of control.


As long as we retain our right to exercise free will, I disagree fervently with the statement that "it's over" or that prices will spiral out of control. We don't _need_ 150 high definition channels. We don't _need_ to spend $60 a month for the latest iPhone in order to be productive or informed. Life _can_ go on without these things. It is the basis around which a free market society was built. Everyone seems to forget that "none of the above" is still one of their choices. We just seem to have lost the will to consider that choice, much less elicit it.


----------



## JosephB

Well, they finally pushed me over the edge. Just cancelled Starz, HD Extra, and dropped from Choice Extra to Choice. The nickel and dime game has caught up to them. If it weren't for the $7 DVR fee (for which they provide no extra service that actually costs them) and the $3 whole home fee (again, what is their cost here?) and then an increase in the lease fee after I already paid $199/$99/$99 for each of the receivers and then $99 to have the whole home installed, if it weren't for all of that BS, I might actually be on Premier long term and make them more money overall. Between all the various sources on the internet, the only thing I really depend on DirecTV for is news and sports, and if Charter ever picks up the ESPNnetworks.com-style deal like Time Warner, I might be gone.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

JosephB said:


> Well, they finally pushed me over the edge. Just cancelled Starz, HD Extra, and dropped from Choice Extra to Choice. The nickel and dime game has caught up to them. If it weren't for the $7 DVR fee (for which they provide no extra service that actually costs them) and the $3 whole home fee (again, what is their cost here?) and then an increase in the lease fee after I already paid $199/$99/$99 for each of the receivers and then $99 to have the whole home installed, if it weren't for all of that BS, I might actually be on Premier long term and make them more money overall. Between all the various sources on the internet, the only thing I really depend on DirecTV for is news and sports, and if Charter ever picks up the ESPNnetworks.com-style deal like Time Warner, I might be gone.


Charter, Time Warner and other cable systems have much higher outlet / mirroring fees and high DRV fees at $15-$20 /m per Box.

I want the Canada system theme packs and Being able to buy the box with no mirroring fees.


----------



## Davenlr

Most of my expense is in the mirroring fees, so I just installed SageTV V7, which will let me watch my H24 in any room in the house (wirelessly via computer, or with a dedicated media extender I dont have to pay a fee for every month). I just turned off one DVR, and will be turning off a receiver as soon as my second media extender gets here. That will leave me with me two DVRs and one receiver which is really a DVR with Sage. After I see how that works out, I may just get rid of the older DVR, and just have two boxes. I am already at Choice, and the only channel I am missing that I would watch is SpeedHD, and nothing on it right now for me (no live Nascar races).

Dropping MLBEI, and will subscribe via MLB.TV for 1/2 the price, or just not subscribe at all, depending on how they answer my email regarding blackouts.

Im with JosephB...time to trim the fat.


----------



## Tom Robertson

shoelessjoe said:


> I'll admit it is an extreme example. But $3 or $15 shouldn't matter. Nor should the number of channels. The fact is, a person pays for a certain package when they sign up. The company has a right to change that package, but why shouldn't the consumer be able to decline the new terms?:rant:


I suspect that if a group of changes and price increases were extremely egregious, people would be able to terminate, likely via contesting in court. And at the same time, DIRECTV would likely be in a world of hurt by making such large changes. (Or all the MSO's would be.)

The big problem with almost any scenario is that sometimes channels up and die. DIRECTV can't be tied to any agreement that lets customers out when that happens.

And DIRECTV does add channels from time to time. So reasonable cost increases are understandable.

What are the customers options. Up to a point they can dial back their service. That is a vote via the wallet. Or a rebalancing of personal priorities (or both.) 

By the way, I hope your business has a fantastic, wonderful year. And an even better one after that. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Davenlr said:


> Dropping MLBEI, and will subscribe via MLB.TV for 1/2 the price, or just not subscribe at all, depending on how they answer my email regarding blackouts.
> 
> Im with JosephB...time to trim the fat.


Dave, last year, in March, MLB offered mlb.tv for 20 dollars, for a very limited time. You may want to look out for a similar promotion....

http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/31762


----------



## spartanstew

Barry in Conyers said:


> No. Would you?


ZOOM


----------



## Doug Brott

JosephB said:


> If it weren't for the $7 DVR fee (for which they provide no extra service that actually costs them)


well technically it allows DIRECTV to charge more money to the higher end customer while keeping the prices low for the lower end customer. They could of course put this fee in the package pricing and make everyone pay, but I think DIRECTV would rather those with value added features pay the higher price.



> and the $3 whole home fee (again, what is their cost here?) and then an increase in the lease fee after I already paid $199/$99/$99 for each of the receivers and then $99 to have the whole home installed,


Yup, you paid $199 for something that costs DIRECTV somewhere between $300 and $400 (2 receivers are probably close to cost - just guessing) and the whole home install? That could cost DIRECTV anywhere from $100 to $500 depending on what they actually did for you .. You got it for $99. Clearly the $3 fee is to try and recoup some of those costs over time. Additionally, other providers charge that fee as well .. They just bundle it into the price of the receiver making everyone pay the fee rather than just those that actually use it.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Time Warner...I happen to be a customer of theirs for internet service and received my new pricing guide in the mail today. 

HD, DVR, or HD-DVR Receiver is $8.85 for the FIRST receiver.

Each additional one is an extra $9.99 each

Then there is a DVR, HD-DVR Service Fee (per DVR) of $11.00

My favorite...$0.14 per month for the remote control

Now, my point in this is not to disparage TWC. I am a customer and have been for quite some time. They provide a service for which I pay them for that service. If the service is not the value for which I am paying, I can look to other options. My point, actually, was just to give a brief example of what else is out there. 

I've always been of the opinion that there are multiple options for folks. DIRECTV may be the best option for some, but not others. DISH for some, but not others. FIOS, Uverse, cable, etc...it really depends what you're looking for, what the service is, what options you have, etc. Pricing will be different for each MSO based on how their equipment fees work, their programming deals, etc. So it's important to do what is best for you and your expectations of the service you expect to receive. 

I'm bias, of course. I've been a customer for almost 14 years and felt it was the best service for what I watch (sports). That won't be the case for everyone.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Problem is, the escalators are pushing contents costs well above the rate of inflation. The deal Fox Broadcasting just inked with Cablevision calls for a 13% annual increase for the next five years, from 55 cents a sub this year to 1 dollar by contract's end. So that's the benchmark today. In five years, D* will be paying CBS, NBC, Fox, ABC and Univision five dollars a month for programming. And a couple of those networks will argue that their content is worth far more than Fox's.


Hard to argue that point Gloria, but it's also true that many of these entities are actually losing money as well. Fox Network actually lost money last year (News Corp did not, but I believe Fox did).

Then the question comes down to who is going to get the blame at these networks? The actors of the shows and their salaries? The production costs, union costs, etc? Sports fees? Etc, etc? What gets cut? Family Guy? NFL Football? American Idol (imagine how much it costs to do each show now vs when it started just for the celebrity salaries alone).

So I don't disagree with your general statement, but it's a complicated answer (IMO) to pinpoint where, how, when and why.


----------



## marker101

I knew it was coming, but now it's official, and it's worse than I was anticipating. Having cable and DirecTV just isn't going to be economical anymore. I must go back to the drawing board.

Yes, the nickels and dimes for programming add up every year, but it's when DirecTV also nickels and dimes that adds to it. The additional dollar mirror fee is a prime example of DirecTV wanting their increase too.


----------



## matt

My cable internet actually went *down* a few cents!

Satracer that 14 cent remote charge is hilarious!


----------



## joshjr

matt1124 said:


> My cable internet actually went *down* a few cents!
> 
> *Satracer that 14 cent remote charge is hilarious*!


Should we ask how much the up front lease fee is for a remote lol?


----------



## JosephB

cjrleimer said:


> Welcome to good ole inflation.


Economy-wide inflation is nowhere near the rate of the increases DirecTV is pushing.



Doug Brott said:


> well technically it allows DIRECTV to charge more money to the higher end customer while keeping the prices low for the lower end customer. They could of course put this fee in the package pricing and make everyone pay, but I think DIRECTV would rather those with value added features pay the higher price.


But does it cost them anywhere near $7 a month per sub? I doubt it. I won't throw a number out there but I'm sure after the lease fees, the up front fee, and the DVR fee, DirecTV is making a killing off the DVR. And I'm not against them making a profit, but just as they're free to charge whatever they want, I'm free to complain and not be happy with those fees.



Doug Brott said:


> Yup, you paid $199 for something that costs DIRECTV somewhere between $300 and $400 (2 receivers are probably close to cost - just guessing) and the whole home install? That could cost DIRECTV anywhere from $100 to $500 depending on what they actually did for you .. You got it for $99. Clearly the $3 fee is to try and recoup some of those costs over time. Additionally, other providers charge that fee as well .. They just bundle it into the price of the receiver making everyone pay the fee rather than just those that actually use it.


What bothers me about the lease fee is that it changed a good year and a half after I got the receivers. The cost of the receivers in my house didn't go up for them--they paid for them three years ago. And if a DVR cost them say $500, then even if I cancel my service at the end of my two year agreement, then they will only have $181 remaining to pay for the box. If they refurb the box (at a very very generous cost of $100) then the next customer who gets the box will pay for it ($199 + 2 years of $5 lease fees = $319). If I had gotten new receivers with new features that weren't a pile of junk like the HR23 I have now, then I'd be ok with the fee. And if the lease fee is simply about recouping costs, then why doesn't it expire? They shouldn't try to make money on these kinds of fees. Charge me what it costs and make your profit on the package. I'd much rather buy a higher package, but since they want to make all their money on the add-ons, I have to drop to a lower package.



JoeTheDragon said:


> Charter, Time Warner and other cable systems have much higher outlet / mirroring fees and high DRV fees at $15-$20 /m per Box.
> 
> I want the Canada system theme packs and Being able to buy the box with no mirroring fees.


My point was that if Charter picked up the ESPN networks online, I wouldn't need a video package at all (or at least, just a basic one with no receivers)


----------



## Boston_bill

JosephB said:


> Well, they finally pushed me over the edge. Just cancelled Starz, HD Extra, and dropped from Choice Extra to Choice. The nickel and dime game has caught up to them. If it weren't for the $7 DVR fee (for which they provide no extra service that actually costs them) and the $3 whole home fee (again, what is their cost here?) and then an increase in the lease fee after I already paid $199/$99/$99 for each of the receivers and then $99 to have the whole home installed, if it weren't for all of that BS, I might actually be on Premier long term and make them more money overall. Between all the various sources on the internet, the only thing I really depend on DirecTV for is news and sports, and if Charter ever picks up the ESPNnetworks.com-style deal like Time Warner, I might be gone.


Im my own worst enemy when it comes to this. As much as I would like the Premiere pack I just cant afford it. Never mind there just isnt enough free time for me to watch everything thats available.
Ill probably get MLBEI in the spring. Im guessing Im done with Sunday Ticket after this season. Im done fighting with them for every little break they give you.
I really do love DirecTV but I just can afford paying for stuff I hardly watch.


----------



## tkrandall

sigma1914 said:


> :lol: Well, their TOS pretty much says they reserve the right to change programing.
> 
> http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/legal/customer_agreement
> Section 1 (d.)


Section 5 says, in part, _b) Your Cancellation. You may cancel Service by notifying us. You may be charged a deactivation fee as described in Section 2 and issued a credit as described below. Your notice is effective on the day we receive it. You will still be responsible for payment of all outstanding balances accrued through that effective date. In addition to any deactivation or change of service fees provided in Section 2, if you cancel Service or change your Service package, you may be subject to an early cancellation fee if you entered into a programming commitment with DIRECTV *in connection with the Equipment Lease Addendum*, and have failed to maintain the required programming package for the required period of time.
_

I wonder if DirecTV sees it this way: per the TOS you may indeed have a right to cancel due to their imposing price increases, but the Equipment Lease Addendum, which is where the programming commitment (and prorated early termination fee) based on you having received equipment is housed, is construed as to stand as separate and enforceable on it's own in a legal/contractual sense.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Hutchinshouse said:


> That was almost funny.
> 
> Comprehension is key. Please comprehend a post before you toss out a flat joke.
> 
> Lastly, 5 HD channels? !rolling Enough said!


Enough said by you on this subject - works for us. !rolling

Perhaps participation with what you preach might be a prudent practice. 

There was a specific post/reference to NO new HD channels, whereas there have been some (referenced in the subsequent post. Comprehend that?

Speed reading only works if folks take the Evelyn Wood course first.  :lol:


----------



## Todd H

Just changed my package to Choice from Choice Extra and canceled the HD Extra Pack. Looking at the channels I lost the wife and I never really watched them much anyway.


----------



## thomas_d92

I just change from choice ultimate to choice extra and canceled hd extra then later in the day added hd extra for free on the web site.


----------



## Lee L

MysteryMan said:


> I noticed Premier subs are unscathed.


So, has it been determined for sure that Premier is not going up any? If so, it will be nice that they finally give some extra value to the customer for having the whole package. I just have to wonder if they ommitted it or something.  The lease fee going up sucks though. Having 7 receivers it will be a real bump in cost at the same time DirecTV is talking out the other side of their mouth about trying to contain costs by not doing more HD and cutting existing networks. Not the kind of thing that will go over well in this household.

Of course, since DirecTV decided to no longer compete on service and instead take a page out of cable's book and lock us all in every time the wind blows, we won't be going anywhere soon. I would be perfectly willing to pay more if it included all the TV we wanted to watch, but don't pee in my shoe and tell me its raining.

I will really have to look line by line to see if we can get rid of some of the movie channels and go with streaming.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Satelliteracer said:


> Time Warner...I happen to be a customer of theirs for internet service and received my new pricing guide in the mail today.
> 
> HD, DVR, or HD-DVR Receiver is $8.85 for the FIRST receiver.
> 
> Each additional one is an extra $9.99 each
> 
> Then there is a DVR, HD-DVR Service Fee (per DVR) of $11.00
> 
> My favorite...$0.14 per month for the remote control
> 
> Now, my point in this is not to disparage TWC. I am a customer and have been for quite some time. They provide a service for which I pay them for that service. If the service is not the value for which I am paying, I can look to other options. My point, actually, was just to give a brief example of what else is out there.
> 
> *I've always been of the opinion that there are multiple options for folks. DIRECTV may be the best option for some, but not others*. DISH for some, but not others. FIOS, Uverse, cable, etc...it really depends what you're looking for, what the service is, what options you have, etc. Pricing will be different for each MSO based on how their equipment fees work, their programming deals, etc. *So it's important to do what is best for you and your expectations of the service you expect to receive*.
> 
> *I'm bias, of course. I've been a customer for almost 14 years and felt it was the best service for what I watch (sports). That won't be the case for everyone*.


Wow. Since you haven't posted for a while in the HD anticipation thread, and with the announcement of D* possibly dropping channels, are you saying that if we're not happy that we should just move on to a different provider? Is that what D* really wants?

Am I reading this right? Or am I over analyzing your post?


----------



## RACJ2

sigma1914 said:


> Basic HD was added this year:
> 
> 208 ESPN U (added May 19th)
> 252 Lifetime (added June 23rd)
> 277 Travel Channel (added May 19th)
> 312 Hallmark Channel (added June 23rd)
> 356 MSNBC (added May 19th)


Reading the discussion about new HD channels in the past year, made me wonder about my local Time Warner Cable. When I left them in late 2008, they only had 43 HD channels (not counting locals or VOD). When I checked today to my surprise they now have 70. That's a 39% increase in HD channels in 2 years. Granted, they were really lagging behind, but they are catching up. Too bad they are missing key channels I desire, even in SD, NFLN and NHLN.

For their digital package with 2 DVR's, the cost is $83.95, which is comparable to my Xtra HD DVR package costing $84.99. This does not include the premiums or HD Extra channels in that 70 channel count. This is a bit messy, but these are the HD channels my local TWC now carries:


> 725 TV One HD 726 Galavision 727 The Outdoor Channel HD 728 Investigation Discovery HD 729 G4 HD 730 HSN HD 731 WE HD 735 CMT HD 736 Cartoon Network On HD 737 Nick HD 738 Weather Channel HD 739 HLN HD 740 CNN HD 741 Fox News HD 742 FOX Business HD 743 TruTV HD 744 tbs HD 745 History HD 746 Comedy Central HD 747 MTV HD 748 Palladia HD 749 BET HD 750 VH1 HD 751 Lifetime Movie Network HD 752 Food Network HD 753 HGTV HD 754 A&E HD 755 HD Theater 756 Discovery HD 757 Animal Planet HD 758 TLC HD 759 Travel Channel HD 760 Planet Green HD 761 Science Channel HD 762 SyFy HD 763 Bravo HD 765 CNBC HD 766 MSNBC HD 767 Spike HD 768 FX HD 769 USA HD 770 TNT HD 771 National Geographic HD 772 Nat Geo Wild HD 773 AMC HD 774 Hallmark Movie Channel HD 775 Disney Channel HD 776 Disney XD High Definition 777 Hallmark Channel HD 778 ABC Family Channel HD 779 TCM HD 780 ESPN HD 781 MLB Network HD 782 NBA TV HD 783 ESPNews HD 784 ESPNU HD 785 ESPN2 HD 786 Versus HD 787 Fox Sports SW HD 788 Speed HD 789 Golf HD 790 CBS College Sports HD 791 Fox Soccer Channel HD 792 FOX Soccer Plus HD * † 793 GOL TV HD 794 Big Ten HD 795 Tennis Channel HD 797 MGM HD 798 ESPN Goal Line HD 805 NBC Universal HD 806 Smithsonian Channel HD 807 MavTV 810 iNDemand HD 815 HBO HD 816 HBO 2 HD E 817 HBO Comedy Hd 818 HBO Latino HD 819 HBO Family HD 820 HBO Signature HD E * † 821 HBO Zone HD 825 Cinemax HD 826 ActionMax HD 830 Showtime HD 831 Showtime 2 HD 832 Showtime Showcase HD 835 Starz HD 839 Starz Edge HD 840 Starz Kids & Family HD E * † 848 The Movie Channel HD * †


----------



## spartanstew

TheRatPatrol said:


> are you saying that if we're not happy that we should just move on to a different provider?


That seems like common sense to me.


----------



## RAD

RACJ2 said:


> Reading the discussion about new HD channels in the past year, made me wonder about my local Time Warner Cable. When I left them in late 2008, they only had 43 HD channels (not counting locals or VOD). When I checked today to my surprise they now have 70. That's a 39% increase in HD channels in 2 years. Granted, they were really lagging behind, but they are catching up. Too bad they are missing key channels I desire, even in SD, NFLN and NHLN.
> 
> For their digital package with 2 DVR's, the cost is $83.95, which is comparable to my Xtra HD DVR package costing $84.99. This does not include the premiums or HD Extra channels in that 70 channel count. This is a bit messy, but these are the HD channels my local TWC now carries:


I did the same thing for our TWC system. They do have a number of 'mainstream' HD channels that DirecTV's missing, but as you noted they don't have some that are important like NFLN. What would really kill me is on the STB rental fees ( I have 7 HD DVR's), not even close when compared to DirecTV's fees.


----------



## RAD

RACJ2 said:


> So an increase of $1/receiver doesn't sound so bad after all, does it.


I'll sort of buy into that for leased receivers, don't like it for owned receivers, what costs went up on their end to justify that increase?


----------



## bobcamp1

tkrandall said:


> Section 5 says, in part, _b) Your Cancellation. You may cancel Service by notifying us. You may be charged a deactivation fee as described in Section 2 and issued a credit as described below. Your notice is effective on the day we receive it. You will still be responsible for payment of all outstanding balances accrued through that effective date. In addition to any deactivation or change of service fees provided in Section 2, if you cancel Service or change your Service package, you may be subject to an early cancellation fee if you entered into a programming commitment with DIRECTV *in connection with the Equipment Lease Addendum*, and have failed to maintain the required programming package for the required period of time.
> _
> 
> I wonder if DirecTV sees it this way: per the TOS you may indeed have a right to cancel due to their imposing price increases, but the Equipment Lease Addendum, which is where the programming commitment (and prorated early termination fee) based on you having received equipment is housed, is construed as to stand as separate and enforceable on it's own in a legal/contractual sense.


D* is trying to do exactly that, which is why there are two separate agreements, but it's shaky ground legally. Why would a customer want to continue to lease the boxes once the service is canceled? For decoration purposes? Also, will D* allow the customer to continue to rent the boxes in this situation, even if service was canceled, or would they force the customer to return them anyway? If they force the return of the boxes, then D* is the one dissolving the equipment lease agreement and there is no ETF.

Finally, one agreement even refers to the other -- so D* has to admit that they are not independent agreements. They are two parts of one agreement.

On the other side, a court would probably allow D* to charge the ETF as long as the changes were minor in nature. One could argue that a 10% rate hike two years in a row is not minor, but I don't think they would win.


----------



## peters4n6

Can we give some kudos to D* for an improved online guide? FWIW the website is very user friendly; I don't know how much of it happened in the last year, but I like to rationalize to myself that this improvement is wrapped up in the price increase as well.


----------



## RACJ2

RAD said:


> I did the same thing for our TWC system. They do have a number of 'mainstream' HD channels that DirecTV's missing, but as you noted they don't have some that are important like NFLN. What would really kill me is on the STB rental fees ( I have 7 HD DVR's), not even close when compared to DirecTV's fees.


So an increase of $1/receiver doesn't sound so bad after all, does it.

I actually have 2 TV's running off both of my HDDVR's. If I had 4 HDDVR's it wouldn't be close, since they are $16.98/HDDVR with TWC.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

RACJ2 said:


> Reading the discussion about new HD channels in the past year, made me wonder about my local Time Warner Cable. When I left them in late 2008, they only had 43 HD channels (not counting locals or VOD). When I checked today to my surprise they now have 70. That's a 39% increase in HD channels in 2 years. Granted, they were really lagging behind, but they are catching up. Too bad they are missing key channels I desire, even in SD, NFLN and NHLN.
> 
> For their digital package with 2 DVR's, the cost is $83.95, which is comparable to my Xtra HD DVR package costing $84.99. This does not include the premiums or HD Extra channels in that 70 channel count. This is a bit messy, but these are the HD channels my local TWC now carries:


I fixed your post. My eyes hurt trying to read those channels. I've bold the ones D* does not currently get in HD.


> 725 *TV One HD*
> 726 Galavision
> 727 *The Outdoor Channel HD*
> 728 *Investigation Discovery HD*
> 729 *G4 HD*
> 730 *HSN HD*
> 731 *WE HD*
> 735 CMT HD
> 736 Cartoon Network On HD
> 737 Nick HD
> 738 Weather Channel HD
> 739 *HLN HD*
> 740 CNN HD
> 741 Fox News HD
> 742 FOX Business HD
> 743 *TruTV HD*
> 744 tbs HD
> 745 History HD
> 746 Comedy Central HD
> 747 MTV HD
> 748 Palladia HD
> 749 BET HD
> 750 VH1 HD
> 751 *Lifetime Movie Network HD*
> 752 Food Network HD
> 753 HGTV HD
> 754 A&E HD
> 755 HD Theater
> 756 Discovery HD
> 757 Animal Planet HD
> 758 TLC HD
> 759 Travel Channel HD
> 760 Planet Green HD
> 761 Science Channel HD
> 762 SyFy HD
> 763 Bravo HD
> 765 CNBC HD
> 766 MSNBC HD
> 767 Spike HD
> 768 FX HD
> 769 USA HD
> 770 TNT HD
> 771 National Geographic HD
> 772 *Nat Geo Wild HD*
> 773 *AMC HD*
> 774 Hallmark Movie Channel HD
> 775 Disney Channel HD
> 776 Disney XD High Definition
> 777 Hallmark Channel HD
> 778 ABC Family Channel HD
> 779 *TCM HD*
> 780 ESPN HD
> 781 MLB Network HD
> 782 NBA TV HD
> 783 ESPNews HD
> 784 ESPNU HD
> 785 ESPN2 HD
> 786 Versus HD
> 787 Fox Sports SW HD
> 788 Speed HD
> 789 Golf HD
> 790 CBS College Sports HD
> 791 Fox Soccer Channel HD
> 792 FOX Soccer Plus HD * †
> 793 GOL TV HD
> 794 Big Ten HD
> 795 Tennis Channel HD
> 797 MGM HD
> 798 *ESPN Goal Line HD*
> 805 NBC Universal HD
> 806 Smithsonian Channel HD
> 807 *MavTV HD*
> 810 iNDemand HD
> 815 HBO HD
> 816 HBO 2 HD E
> 817 HBO Comedy HD
> 818 HBO Latino HD
> 819 HBO Family HD
> 820 HBO Signature HD E * †
> 821 HBO Zone HD
> 825 Cinemax HD
> 826 ActionMax HD
> 830 Showtime HD
> 831 Showtime 2 HD
> 832 Showtime Showcase HD
> 835 Starz HD
> 839 Starz Edge HD
> 840 Starz Kids & Family HD E * †
> 848 The Movie Channel HD * †


----------



## sigma1914

RACJ2 said:


> Reading the discussion about new HD channels in the past year, made me wonder about my local Time Warner Cable. When I left them in late 2008, they only had 43 HD channels (not counting locals or VOD). When I checked today to my surprise they now have 70. That's a 39% increase in HD channels in 2 years. Granted, they were really lagging behind, but they are catching up. Too bad they are missing key channels I desire, even in SD, NFLN and NHLN.
> 
> For their digital package with 2 DVR's, the cost is $83.95, which is comparable to my Xtra HD DVR package costing $84.99. This does not include the premiums or HD Extra channels in that 70 channel count. This is a bit messy, but these are the HD channels my local TWC now carries:


I tried them (I'm in DFW, too) for 2-3 months & wasn't happy with PQ *at all, * and many basic HD (DIY, Cooking to name a few) require an extra package (All Access) that's $17 extra. The DVR Service was $9.99 + $6.99 for a dual tuner DVR. My $88.99 Surn'n'View advertised bundle cost me $154.23/month in the end. :nono2:


----------



## RACJ2

TheRatPatrol said:


> I fixed your post. My eyes hurt trying to read those channels. I've bold the ones D* does not currently get in HD.


Thanks, that's interesting. Although, I didn't really even look at the channels that they offer. Knowing that the number of NHLCI HD channels is so much better on DIRECTV and TWC doesn't have NFLST, NFLN or NHLN, it didn't matter what they do have.


----------



## RACJ2

sigma1914 said:


> I tried them (I'm in DFW, too) for 2-3 months & wasn't happy with PQ *at all, * and many basic HD (DIY, Cooking to name a few) require an extra package (All Access) that's $17 extra. The DVR Service was $9.99 + $6.99 for a dual tuner DVR. My $88.99 Surn'n'View advertised bundle cost me $154.23/month in the end. :nono2:


Wow, $154 is quite a bit more then $89, was it the # of DVR's? When I priced out the digital package it said you get 200 channels, 40 of which were music. They didn't have options for any digital extra tiers. So I was assuming you would get most of the HD channels that weren't premiums for that price.

I'm not considering a switch. Although with the number of HD channels they now have, it did make me think about suspending DIRECTV between hockey and football season. Then using TW Cable to save money, but I found out it really wouldn't.


----------



## Doug Brott

JosephB said:


> if the lease fee is simply about recouping costs, then why doesn't it expire? They shouldn't try to make money on these kinds of fees. Charge me what it costs and make your profit on the package. I'd much rather buy a higher package, but since they want to make all their money on the add-ons, I have to drop to a lower package.


In a simple world where it's just DIRECTV and You .. yeah, the lease fee should ultimately expire. The problem is that it's not just you .. It's you and 19 million other people. This is the methodology DIRECTV chose for pricing and it's gone from $5/month to $6/month for the mirror fee on the additional boxes (remember, the first one is free).

Comparative numbers noted in this thread earlier:

DISH pricing from James Long (not sure if this is 2010 or 2011 pricing):
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2667361#post2667361

Duo DVRs - $17/month
Duo Receivers - $14/month
Solo DVRs - $10/month
Solo Receivers - $7/month

In my house, I have all DVRs and if you assume a comparative number of $10/DVR then I'd be paying $3 * 10 per month in equipment fees with DISH. $30/month with DISH for what I pay $18/month with DIRECTV.

Time Warner Pricing from Satelliteracer (2011 pricing):
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2667706#post2667706

HD, DVR or HD-DVR $8.85/month for first, $9.99 for each additional
plus $11/box per month DVR fee.

So, again with my 4 DVRs .. That would be $8.85 + $11 + 3 * ($9.99 + $11). That's $82.82 in equipment fees alone with Time Warner 
Again .. still $18/month with DIRECTV.

DIRECTV charges a nominal rate compared to other providers. It goes toward collectively supporting ALL DVRs and receivers .. bad ones, marginal ones, lost ones, stolen ones, etc. etc. etc. etc. It's about all of them, not just the ones between you and DIRECTV.

If it were just between you and DIRECTV and there were no other considerations, then it wouldn't be $199 + $5-6/month .. It'd be more about $500 + 20% (or more) or about $600 for each receiver/DVR in your house. I don't think any one of us wants to pony up that kind of cash for a set top box. So, we're left with the $199 and monthly fee.


----------



## BattleScott

Satelliteracer said:


> Time Warner...I happen to be a customer of theirs for internet service and received my new pricing guide in the mail today.
> 
> HD, DVR, or HD-DVR Receiver is $8.85 for the FIRST receiver.
> 
> Each additional one is an extra $9.99 each
> 
> Then there is a DVR, HD-DVR Service Fee (per DVR) of $11.00
> 
> My favorite...$0.14 per month for the remote control
> 
> Now, my point in this is not to disparage TWC. I am a customer and have been for quite some time. They provide a service for which I pay them for that service. If the service is not the value for which I am paying, I can look to other options. My point, actually, was just to give a brief example of what else is out there.
> 
> I've always been of the opinion that there are multiple options for folks. DIRECTV may be the best option for some, but not others. DISH for some, but not others. FIOS, Uverse, cable, etc...it really depends what you're looking for, what the service is, what options you have, etc. Pricing will be different for each MSO based on how their equipment fees work, their programming deals, etc. So it's important to do what is best for you and your expectations of the service you expect to receive.
> 
> I'm bias, of course. I've been a customer for almost 14 years and felt it was the best service for what I watch (sports). That won't be the case for everyone.





TheRatPatrol said:


> Wow. Since you haven't posted for a while in the HD anticipation thread, and with the announcement of D* possibly dropping channels, are you saying that if we're not happy that we should just move on to a different provider? Is that what D* really wants?
> 
> Am I reading this right? Or am I over analyzing your post?


His signature line clearly states: 
_*All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV *_

Furthermore, he is *not* to be considered a DirecTV employee in a thread such as this. His position at DirecTV and any possible interaction with others there are to only be considered relevant in other "non-whiny" threads. Now please move along, this space is reserved for residents of Wrongville...


----------



## sigma1914

RACJ2 said:


> Wow, $154 is quite a bit more then $89, was it the # of DVR's? When I priced out the digital package it said you get 200 channels, 40 of which were music. They didn't have options for any digital extra tiers. So I was assuming you would get most of the HD channels that weren't premiums for that price.
> 
> I'm not considering a switch. Although with the number of HD channels they now have, it did make me think about suspending DIRECTV between hockey and football season. Then using TW Cable to save money, but I found out it really wouldn't.


The price was TV *& *Net with 1 DVR. Not bad, but for a total switch we'd need a 2nd DVR. Our house could do it if we had to cut back.

My current Directv bill is $62.97...total with discounts ($30 off for 1yr).
TWC Internet + locals in $82.64.

Total now $145.61...better than TWC Bundle of $154, for now.


----------



## Tom Robertson

JosephB said:


> Economy-wide inflation is nowhere near the rate of the increases DirecTV is pushing.
> 
> But does it cost them anywhere near $7 a month per sub? I doubt it. I won't throw a number out there but I'm sure after the lease fees, the up front fee, and the DVR fee, DirecTV is making a killing off the DVR. And I'm not against them making a profit, but just as they're free to charge whatever they want, I'm free to complain and not be happy with those fees.
> 
> What bothers me about the lease fee is that it changed a good year and a half after I got the receivers. The cost of the receivers in my house didn't go up for them--they paid for them three years ago. And if a DVR cost them say $500, then even if I cancel my service at the end of my two year agreement, then they will only have $181 remaining to pay for the box. If they refurb the box (at a very very generous cost of $100) then the next customer who gets the box will pay for it ($199 + 2 years of $5 lease fees = $319). If I had gotten new receivers with new features that weren't a pile of junk like the HR23 I have now, then I'd be ok with the fee. And if the lease fee is simply about recouping costs, then why doesn't it expire? They shouldn't try to make money on these kinds of fees. Charge me what it costs and make your profit on the package. I'd much rather buy a higher package, but since they want to make all their money on the add-ons, I have to drop to a lower package.
> 
> My point was that if Charter picked up the ESPN networks online, I wouldn't need a video package at all (or at least, just a basic one with no receivers)


Remember the circular logic--CPI is based upon things like TV costs, so comparing that to TV costs gets interesting.

Anyway, it seems the biggest variable in the CPI lately has been energy. And as a large weight in my budget, a small swing changes cash flow a bunch.

As for DVR fees, there are costs. Some direct: fees to TiVo. (Which might be per box even tho we're charged the DVR fee per house.) And support costs for DVR service.

Other costs are averaged out: Software development. Advanced APG data. (Yes, I did mean advanced advanced program guide data.)  Marketing. Etc.

As for the lease fees themselves, my first 3 DVRs were free upgrades. When HR20-700s cost DIRECTV $450 each. At $5/month (for #2 and #3), they still aren't breaking even on the hardware cost: $10*120*4years isn't going to pay for $1,350 of receivers. (And that didn't include shipping, dish, installation costs.)

Ok, while I am a common example of free swaps, lets say the average upgrade was paid for with some upfront fees. And now the DVRs direct cost is greatly reduced. Still $5/month takes some time to cover the costs.

Then again, the packages I want are still a lot less than Titanium. 

It's all about very carefully managing income streams (if we think of each fee as a separate stream in this discussion) against competition's model. I had as many as 13/14 receivers on my account at my peak. Yeah, that was a big bill.  Now that Whole Home is working well, I don't need to have two receivers in primary rooms (nor backup DVRs whilst I test configurations.) So I've cut back. 

May the New Year bring everyone ways and means to pay for our habits and entertainments. And, of course, TOYS! 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

Not too long ago, I could not have my setup with Comcast. They simply would not let customers have more than 3 or 4 DVRs. 

Now, with their lease fees, I would be paying at least $100/month more--for DVRs that can't hold 25 hours of HD. YUCK!

I'm free to leave DIRECTV anytime. But why would I want to?  

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## harsh

RAD said:


> What would really kill me is on the STB rental fees ( I have 7 HD DVR's), not even close when compared to DirecTV's fees.


For many, access to cable style VOD diminishes demand for DVRs.


----------



## harsh

sigma1914 said:


> TWC Internet + locals in $82.64.


OOF! 

That's some mighty spendy Internet.


----------



## The Merg

bobcamp1 said:


> D* is trying to do exactly that, which is why there are two separate agreements, but it's shaky ground legally. Why would a customer want to continue to lease the boxes once the service is canceled? For decoration purposes? Also, will D* allow the customer to continue to rent the boxes in this situation, even if service was canceled, or would they force the customer to return them anyway? If they force the return of the boxes, then D* is the one dissolving the equipment lease agreement and there is no ETF.
> 
> Finally, one agreement even refers to the other -- so D* has to admit that they are not independent agreements. They are two parts of one agreement.
> 
> On the other side, a court would probably allow D* to charge the ETF as long as the changes were minor in nature. One could argue that a 10% rate hike two years in a row is not minor, but I don't think they would win.


They are not two different agreements. The main reason being it is in two parts is that it is possible to have service with DirecTV and not have any leased equipment. It is called the Equipment Lease Addendum and is an addition to the Terms of Service Agreement if you have leased equipment.

- Merg


----------



## pfp

bills976 said:


> This might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. After football season I may look into suspending service and going OTA + netflix only for a few months. Outside of OTA, hockey, and football I watch USA and GSN, and that's about it. I can't justify spending $70/mo on that.


This is my basic problem too - most of what I watch is OTA. I could fairly easily do without the the other channels I regularly watch (USA, SYFY, TNT, COM) as well as those I occasionally watch (Disc, NatGeo).

I already have the HTPC and antenna. With the HDHomerun nearly half price on newegg I'm really tempted to go this route and just dump DirecTV right now. My biggest issue is NHL CI - So far this is the primary reason I'm staying with DirecTV. Once I can get this handled (meaning watch /record on TV with a normal UI and not on a PC) then it will be time to jump ship.


----------



## RACJ2

Doug Brott said:


> In a simple world where it's just DIRECTV and You .. yeah, the lease fee should ultimately expire. The problem is that it's not just you .. It's you and 19 million other people. This is the methodology DIRECTV chose for pricing and it's gone from $5/month to $6/month for the mirror fee on the additional boxes (remember, the first one is free).
> 
> Comparative numbers noted in this thread earlier:
> 
> DISH pricing from James Long (not sure if this is 2010 or 2011 pricing):
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2667361#post2667361
> 
> Duo DVRs - $17/month
> Duo Receivers - $14/month
> Solo DVRs - $10/month
> Solo Receivers - $7/month
> 
> In my house, I have all DVRs and if you assume a comparative number of $10/DVR then I'd be paying $3 * 10 per month in equipment fees with DISH. $30/month with DISH for what I pay $18/month with DIRECTV.
> 
> Time Warner Pricing from Satelliteracer (2011 pricing):
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2667706#post2667706
> 
> HD, DVR or HD-DVR $8.85/month for first, $9.99 for each additional
> plus $11/box per month DVR fee.
> 
> So, again with my 4 DVRs .. That would be $8.85 + $11 + 3 * ($9.99 + $11). That's $82.82 in equipment fees alone with Time Warner
> Again .. still $18/month with DIRECTV.
> 
> DIRECTV charges a nominal rate compared to other providers. It goes toward collectively supporting ALL DVRs and receivers .. bad ones, marginal ones, lost ones, stolen ones, etc. etc. etc. etc. It's about all of them, not just the ones between you and DIRECTV.
> 
> If it were just between you and DIRECTV and there were no other considerations, then it wouldn't be $199 + $5-6/month .. It'd be more about $500 + 20% (or more) or about $600 for each receiver/DVR in your house. I don't think any one of us wants to pony up that kind of cash for a set top box. So, we're left with the $199 and monthly fee.


You actually brought up another good point. The mirroring fee will go up to $6, but that doesn't take into consideration the upfront cost. If you spread the regular $199 upfront cost for an HDDVR over the 2 year commitment, its another $8/mo. So in your first 2 years DVR's are costing about $14/mo when you add in the additional $8.


----------



## TBlazer07

thomas_d92 said:


> and canceled hd extra then later in the day added hd extra for free on the web site.


 Uh-Oh, you're about to be slimed for that! Better duck!


----------



## Satelliteracer

Lee L said:


> So, has it been determined for sure that Premier is not going up any? If so, it will be nice that they finally give some extra value to the customer for having the whole package. I just have to wonder if they ommitted it or something.  The lease fee going up sucks though. Having 7 receivers it will be a real bump in cost at the same time DirecTV is talking out the other side of their mouth about trying to contain costs by not doing more HD and cutting existing networks. Not the kind of thing that will go over well in this household.
> 
> Of course, since DirecTV decided to no longer compete on service and instead take a page out of cable's book and lock us all in every time the wind blows, we won't be going anywhere soon. I would be perfectly willing to pay more if it included all the TV we wanted to watch, but don't pee in my shoe and tell me its raining.
> 
> I will really have to look line by line to see if we can get rid of some of the movie channels and go with streaming.


Correct, Premier is NOT going up


----------



## nickff

It has been awhile since I looked at DirecTV's packages. I currently have Plus HD DVR, which apparently is going up to $83 per month.

I looked at their current packages and it seems that the Choice Ultimate will be $71 plus $7 for DVR service... $78 total. 

The Choice Ultimate appears to have more channels (notably the Encore channels) than the Plus HD DVR.

It seems prudent to switch (I am not currently under contract). 

Am I missing something?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Curtis0620

nickff said:


> It has been awhile since I looked at DirecTV's packages. I currently have Plus HD DVR, which apparently is going up to $83 per month.
> 
> I looked at their current packages and it seems that the Choice Ultimate will be $71 plus $7 for DVR service... $78 total.
> 
> The Choice Ultimate appears to have more channels (notably the Encore channels) than the Plus HD DVR.
> 
> It seems prudent to switch (I am not currently under contract).
> 
> Am I missing something?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


+$10 HD Access


----------



## nickff

Curtis0620 said:


> +$10 HD Access


I am enrolled in AutoPay. I thought that negated the HD access charge?


----------



## raott

The Merg said:


> They are not two different agreements. The main reason being it is in two parts is that it is possible to have service with DirecTV and not have any leased equipment. It is called the Equipment Lease Addendum and is an addition to the Terms of Service Agreement if you have leased equipment.
> 
> - Merg


Agreed, which puts them on more shaky ground regarding price increases and the potential for customers to be able to cancel the whole agreement each time prices are raised..


----------



## Satelliteracer

TheRatPatrol said:


> Wow. Since you haven't posted for a while in the HD anticipation thread, and with the announcement of D* possibly dropping channels, are you saying that if we're not happy that we should just move on to a different provider? Is that what D* really wants?
> 
> Am I reading this right? Or am I over analyzing your post?


Sorry if it came across that way, certainly not what I meant.

My point in comparing the MSO's is that each has taken a slightly different approach to this and there are many options out there. Not all channels are going to be carried on every MSO. There will be differences for any number of reasons. More HD will come to D* in 2011, but as D* and other MSO's have also stated, it has to make sense financially. The price increases happening now are to cover current programming costs. Adding more HD, more RSNs, more channels adds to those costs so a delicate balance has to be met. Adding some may mean removing others.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Doug Brott said:


> In a simple world where it's just DIRECTV and You .. yeah, the lease fee should ultimately expire. The problem is that it's not just you .. It's you and 19 million other people. This is the methodology DIRECTV chose for pricing and it's gone from $5/month to $6/month for the mirror fee on the additional boxes (remember, the first one is free).


I would add that things are a lot more complex now then they were back in the day. As noted, this is the first real price increase for the receivers in 17 years, sans a 1 penny increase a few years ago.

Software downloads, development of new guide experiences, Whole Home, networked receivers, etc, etc....a lot more work and cost goes into these things than years past. Now, someone might argue that there is a Whole Home DVR fee of $3 to recoup those costs...problem is that the development and deployment of that software goes to all those Whole Home capable DVRs, not just the ones that sign up for the service. Just an example.

I read earlier in this thread from someone that the $7 DVR fee and the $3 Whole Home fee are not tied to any costs. That simply isn't the case.


----------



## Lord Vader

Personally, SR, I'd forego many of those toys for some more HD channels!


----------



## The Merg

raott said:


> Agreed, which puts them on more shaky ground regarding price increases and the potential for customers to be able to cancel the whole agreement each time prices are raised..


Not sure how it makes it even more shaky ground. If you don't have leased equipment you are only under the Terms of Service Agreement. If you happen to have leased equipment, you also need to be sure that you follow the ELA as well. The ELA is where any mention of the commitment is listed as part of your agreement.

- Merg


----------



## bills976

You know, I wonder if "a la carte" will come sooner than we think in the form of networks directly selling their content to consumers. The reason we've needed the middlemen (DirecTV, Comcast, etc) is because they provide needed infrastructure to deliver a provider's content.

With the internet becoming a primary content delivery platform, their role becomes less and less important. ISPs basically take on this role, and some are less than happy about that (institution of caps). We're already starting to see it with things like MLB.TV, NHL CI online, etc. ESPN3 is another example though that's a sign of bad things brewing with them charging ISPs for their content rather than end users directly.


----------



## RunnerFL

Satelliteracer said:


> Correct, Premier is NOT going up


This is good news for us that have it, especially since we get the shaft basically when it comes to "gifts" from DirecTV. They gave me 3 months worth of Showtime for free a year or so ago. Ummm, I already get Showtime as part of my package, thanks for nothing.


----------



## BattleScott

nickff said:


> I am enrolled in AutoPay. I thought that negated the HD access charge?


Not automagically. Having autopay "entitles" you to the credit, you have to call and get them to authorize it before you will "get" the credit.


----------



## Paul Secic

jimmyv2000 said:


> If Thats the case i better go start *PANHANDLING NOW!*
> All These Price increases are killing me now gas,heating oil,cell bill just went up 2 months ago.
> I havent gotten a raise in nearly 3 years at work


PANHANDLING is ileagal!


----------



## Doug Brott

Lord Vader said:


> Personally, SR, I'd forego many of those toys for some more HD channels!


Dollars to donuts .. Whole Home DVR Service is a feature most would choose over new HD.


----------



## James Long

Doug Brott said:


> Dollars to donuts .. Whole Home DVR Service is a feature most would choose over new HD.


Poll?

Personally I believe the grass is always greener. Those with the HD they want start looking for the features they don't have. Those with the features they like start looking for the content they don't have. It seems that people are always looking for MORE ... whatever that more actually is. At a lower or no additional cost, of course.


----------



## Lord Vader

Doug Brott said:


> Dollars to donuts .. Whole Home DVR Service is a feature most would choose over new HD.


Personally, I'd choose Whole Home DVR/MRV; however, I was referring to, in general, preferring more HD over *some *bells and whistles. Not every little techno feature is that important.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Doug Brott said:


> Dollars to donuts .. Whole Home DVR Service is a feature most would choose over new HD.


I can think of about 20 people who would immediately agree with that statement...then again...everyone has their own tastes.


----------



## dishrich

dirtyblueshirt said:


> Actually, with TC+HD-DVR, I do get the extra channels such as *Encore, Sundance, TMC, *and the few extra SonicTap channels.


Then you are somehow getting some sort of "special deal" then - I can all but GUARANTEE you no other TC+ subs (including myself) have EVER received those channels as part of our packages. I know at least close to 2 dozen clients w/it, & NONE of them have ever received these channels, either.

When you look on your bill what EXACTLY is your base pkg called - is it maybe some sort of "one-off" pkg that doesn't exist anymore? Do you have any other a la carte prog options?

The only exception would be - if you sub to at least 1 of ANY premium movie pkg, Sundance was included - but that applied to ALL basic pkgs as well. It had nothing to do with having TC+ or not.
 :eek2:

(maybe some other TC+ subs can chime in on this one...)


----------



## joshjr

Doug Brott said:


> Dollars to donuts .. Whole Home DVR Service is a feature most would choose over new HD.


Most but not all. I have 6 DVR's on the account. I could care less to pay an additional $3 to be able to watch one program in another room. I'll just DVR it in what ever room I want. Thanks but no thanks.


----------



## Richierich

Doug Brott said:


> Dollars to donuts .. Whole Home DVR Service is a feature most would choose over new HD.


I Totally Agree With This Statement as I have wanted WHDVR Service for 4 or 5 years since I first heard about the possibility and my wife and I love it because we can Pause a Show and Unpause it Upstairs and finish watching it in bed.

Also, to be able to have all of the Recordings from all of the other DVRs in my house on a UPL in each room on each DVR is AWESOME!!!

I've got plenty of HD but this Feature really is Functional and Useful beyond belief.


----------



## RACJ2

joshjr said:


> Most but not all. I have 6 DVR's on the account. I could care less to pay an additional $3 to be able to watch one program in another room. I'll just DVR it in what ever room I want. Thanks but no thanks.





richierich said:


> I Totally Agree With This Statement as I have wanted WHDVR Service for 4 or 5 years since I first heard about the possibility and my wife and I love it because we can Pause a Show and Unpause it Upstairs and finish watching it in bed.
> 
> Also, to be able to have all of the Recordings from all of the other DVRs in my house on a UPL in each room on each DVR is AWESOME!!!
> 
> I've got plenty of HD but this Feature really is Functional and Useful beyond belief.


I kind of fall in the middle. There might be a couple HD channels that I would prefer to get over WHDS. For the most part I have the HD channels I want, but still would prefer they were all HD.

Currently I'm living with recording all programs on both DVR's. That gives me access to all programming on 4 TV's. So when I want to move from the living room to the bedroom, I have to note what minute of the recording I'm on. Then skip/tick FF to that minute in the bedroom. A little bit of a pain, compared to when I had unsupported MRV.

Since old packages are going to cost the same as the new, come Feb, I might actually add unsupported WHDS. I can switch packages at n/c and then add it. It will save me a bit of time for my $3/mo.


----------



## BattleScott

Doug Brott said:


> Dollars to donuts .. Whole Home DVR Service is a feature most would choose over new HD.


WHDVR is nice feature but not worth $36 a year to me. I'd much rather have more HD


----------



## Richierich

BattleScott said:


> WHDVR is nice feature but not worth $36 a year to me. I'd much rather have more HD


That's funny because a Frugal Friend of mine always orders a coke or ice tea when he eats breakfast or lunch and doing that 5 times a week is 10 X $2 or $20 X 4 weeks so he could save $80/month by drinking water which is better for you than a Coke or Ice Tea and you are not giving up that much but he has to have his drink at Breakfast or Lunch or Dinner and I didn't even count how much he spends on Adult Beverages at Dinner Time or stopping at Long Horn for a couple of beers on the way home from work.

It adds up!!!

You can Afford what you Want To Have (within reason).


----------



## TBlazer07

Doug Brott said:


> Dollars to donuts .. Whole Home DVR Service is a feature most would choose over new HD.


 You got my dollars on that, definitely no donuts. That $3 was the only fee I didn't ever complain about. In fact, I think it's a bargain and I'm not even a MOD or an "All Star" so I don't get paid for saying that!

***Important announcement follows:***

<!ATTN ALL ALL-STARS & MODS! the above comment was a JOKE, please don't get all bent out of shape!  >

***End of Announcement***


----------



## BattleScott

richierich said:


> That's funny because a Frugal Friend of mine always orders a coke or ice tea when he eats breakfast or lunch and doing that 5 times a week is 10 X $2 or $20 X 4 weeks so he could save $80/month by drinking water which is better for you than a Coke or Ice Tea and you are not giving up that much but he has to have his drink at Breakfast or Lunch or Dinner and I didn't even count how much he spends on Adult Beverages at Dinner Time or stopping at Long Horn for a couple of beers on the way home from work.
> 
> It adds up!!!
> 
> You can Afford what you Want To Have (within reason).


I Didn't Say I Couldn't Afford It, Just that it's not Worth It to Me. I'm Certainly Not Going to Give Up any Beer to Get It.


----------



## fluffybear

richierich said:


> That's funny because a Frugal Friend of mine always orders a coke or ice tea when he eats breakfast or lunch and doing that 5 times a week is 10 X $2 or $20 X 4 weeks so he could save $80/month by *drinking water which is better for you than a Coke or Ice Tea *


Especially if he drinks that Georgia Sweet Tea. That's nothing but a 5 pound sack of sugar, water and a little food coloring (it might be tea but you would never know over the sugar taste)


----------



## Richierich

TBlazer07 said:


> You got my dollars on that, definitely no donuts. That $3 was the only fee I didn't ever complain about. In fact, I think it's a bargain and I'm not even a MOD or an "All Star" so I don't get paid for saying that!
> 
> ***Important announcement follows:***
> 
> <!ATTN ALL ALL-STARS & MODS! the above comment was a JOKE, please don't get all bent out of shape!  >
> 
> ***End of Announcement***


Blazer, Are You Getting A Sense Of Humor In Your Golden Years??? :lol:


----------



## Richierich

BattleScott said:


> I Didn't Say I Couldn't Afford It, Just that it's not Worth It to Me. I'm Certainly Not Going to Give Up any Beer to Get It.


That's what I mean. You can afford beer because you want it over paying $3 for WHDVR and that is your Right and Privilege since you earn the money you can spend it the way you want to.


----------



## James Long

And then there is cognitive dissonance ... I have this available to me, I don't have that available to me. As much as I want that I'll comfort myself by saying having this makes up for not having that. Does having WHDVR add any HD to one's subscription? No. Does a service one has to pay $36 a year for compensate for not having desired HD that would be free? Maybe. If the grapes are sour.


----------



## Richierich

fluffybear said:


> Especially if he drinks that Georgia Sweet Tea. That's nothing but a 5 pound sack of sugar, water and a little food coloring (it might be tea but you would never know over the sugar taste)


Or buying Starbucks Coffee when you could settle for something less expensive. It's all about Priorities and what's Important for you.


----------



## Richierich

James Long said:


> And then there is cognitive dissonance ... I have this available to me, I don't have that available to me. As much as I want that I'll comfort myself by saying having this makes up for not having that.


Can you Please Translate that into terms that Joe Sixpack can Understand??? :lol:


----------



## Davenlr

My boss had me laughing this morning. She opened up her AT*T bill, and what did she find? A notice that all their packages for U-verse (which she has, despite my trying to steer her to DirecTv) are going up $2, except the cheapest package, which is going up $3.

Looks like a $2-3/mo increase is going to be the standard this year.


----------



## TBlazer07

richierich said:


> Blazer, Are You Getting A Sense Of Humor In Your Golden Years??? :lol:


 I've had one all my life except no one seems to understand it.


----------



## BattleScott

richierich said:


> That's what I mean. You can afford beer because you want it over paying $3 for WHDVR and that is your Right and Privilege since you earn the money you can spend it the way you want to.


No, I can afford both, it's not a matter of chosing one over the other. I have no interest in paying for WHDVR because it's not a feature I would use enough to warrant spending any money on it.


----------



## Richierich

BattleScott said:


> No, I can afford both, it's not a matter of chosing one over the other. I have no interest in paying for WHDVR because it's not a feature I would use enough to warrant spending any money on it.


I Understand that too because I have an awful lot of HD Channels but I have waited along time for WHDVR Service and $3 is a No Brainer but as far as HD Channels the only one I care about is HLN and that is because my wife watches it and I occasionally see it but I prefer Fox News because I prefer Blondes!!! :lol:


----------



## James Long

richierich said:


> Can you Please Translate that into terms that Joe Sixpack can Understand??? :lol:


The fox wants the grapes ... but the fox cannot get the grapes so he decides that the grapes are not worth having.

Or, in Joe's case. Joe loves Budweiser ... but his favorite local bar with NFL Sunday Ticket and TV screens above the urinals doesn't serve Budweiser. He would like the bar to serve Budweiser but they refuse ... so he settles for a Blue Moon. And Joe tells his friends that he likes the bar and being able to relieve himself and not miss a play makes up for having to drink Blue Moon instead of Budweiser.


----------



## Richierich

James Long said:


> The fox wants the grapes ... but the fox cannot get the grapes so he decides that the grapes are not worth having.
> 
> Or, in Joe's case. Joe loves Budweiser ... but the bar with the best TV sports package doesn't serve Budweiser. He would like the bar to serve Budweiser but they refuse ... so he settles for a Blue Moon. And Joe tells his friends that he likes the bar and the TV sports makes up for having to drink Blue Moon instead of Budweiser.


Never Heard That One Before But You Learn Something Everyday If You Care To!!!


----------



## Lord Vader

richierich said:


> Or buying Starbucks Coffee when you could settle for something less expensive. It's all about Priorities and what's Important for you.


I am proud to say that I have never, EVER purchased a coffee or any other drink from Starbucks. I did walk into the place once or twice to get a gift card for one of my Starbucks-loving friends, but I never ordered a coffee from them.

Do they even *sell *coffee? You know, the plain ole regular coffee? Every drink on their menu is a 12-worded, elitist-sounding bunch of gibberish that sounds nothing like good, old-fashioned "coffee." Seriously, just what the hell is a triple mocha, whipped, iced, Peruvian jungle, mixed latte with a twist anyway?!? :scratchin

I get a headache when I go into that place! Just give me a Dunkin' Donuts coffee any day!

But I digress.

:backtotop


----------



## Richierich

Actually, I saw a Review of Coffee not too long ago and Dunkin Donuts finished Number 1!!!

It is just a Status Thing where the Perception is that if you Pay More For Something It Must Be Better!!!

However, the Blind Taste Test Proved Otherwise!!! 

And Yes It Is Designed For The Elitist!!!


----------



## Lord Vader

Anyone who pays 4 or 5 frickin' dollars for a coffee ought to be shot!

Dunkin' Donuts has been running a special all month: 4 lbs. of their coffee--any varieties--for $19.99. That's basically $5/lb.--a steal. Regular price applies if one buys any quantity less than 4 one-lb. bags.

Nobody beats Dunkin'!!!


----------



## Richierich

Lord Vader said:


> Anyone who pays 4 or 5 frickin' dollars for a coffee ought to be shot!


Hey, they make their Money so they can Spend it or Waste it however they want. I'm wasting my $3/month for WHDVR and some people think I am Nuts but I just Love my WHDVR Service so to each his own!!! :lol:


----------



## steinmeg

Satelliteracer said:


> Sorry if it came across that way, certainly not what I meant.
> 
> My point in comparing the MSO's is that each has taken a slightly different approach to this and there are many options out there. Not all channels are going to be carried on every MSO. There will be differences for any number of reasons. More HD will come to D* in 2011, but as D* and other MSO's have also stated, it has to make sense financially. The price increases happening now are to cover current programming costs. Adding more HD, more RSNs, more channels adds to those costs so a delicate balance has to be met. Adding some may mean removing others.


Saw CNN-Headline News in HD( on a DISH system on a Samsun g LCD...It looked awesome. Any chance of getting CNN Headline News in the future? I sure hope so


----------



## jdspencer

You can read all about what's anticipated here.
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=184205


----------



## Lord Vader

richierich said:


> Hey, they make their Money so they can Spend it or Waste it however they want. I'm wasting my $3/month for WHDVR and some people think I am Nuts but I just Love my WHDVR Service so to each his own!!! :lol:


That's different because it's a product worth the $3/month. No regular size coffee is worth $4 or $5!


----------



## Richierich

steinmeg said:


> Saw CNN-Headline News in HD(on a DISH system on a Samsung LCD...It looked Awesome. Any chance of getting CNN Headline News in the future? I sure hope so


I sure hope so!!!


----------



## Richierich

Lord Vader said:


> That's different because it's a product worth the $3/month. No regular size coffee is worth $4 or $5!


I don't drink Coffee so I Laugh everytime I drive by a Starbucks or see 25 people in line at a Starbucks in an Airport and I just Thank God that I don't have that habit!!!

And it is a Habit!!!


----------



## Barcthespark

richierich said:


> I don't drink Coffee so I Laugh everytime I drive by a Starbucks or see 25 people in line at a Starbucks in an Airport and I just Thank God that I don't have that habit!!!
> 
> And it is a Habit!!!


And yet as bad as that seems, it does get worse. :eek2:

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2010/11/26/the-50-cup-of-cat-poop-coffee/


----------



## RACJ2

Lord Vader said:


> Anyone who pays 4 or 5 frickin' dollars for a coffee ought to be shot!
> 
> Dunkin' Donuts has been running a special all month: 4 lbs. of their coffee--any varieties--for $19.99. That's basically $5/lb.--a steal. Regular price applies if one buys any quantity less than 4 one-lb. bags.
> 
> Nobody beats Dunkin'!!!


Sorry, but thats a matter of taste. The one coffee I will not buy is Dunkin Donuts, because I just don't like the taste. I prefer Starbucks and yes you can still get a plain old cup of coffee for about $2. I'm not into the mocha choca' late' fancy shmancy stuff.

And I don't go to Starbucks often, I buy the 2.5lb bag at Costco for about $15. Which is higher then $5/lb at $6, but worth the extra $1/lb for me. As I said, matter of taste. No different then me paying for NFL ST and others saying its a waste of money.


----------



## Lord Vader

RACJ2 said:


> Sorry, but thats a matter of taste. The one coffee I will not buy is Dunkin Donuts, because I just don't like the taste. I prefer Starbucks and yes you can still get a plain old cup of coffee for about $2. I'm not into the mocha choca' late' fancy shmancy stuff.
> 
> And I don't go to Starbucks often, I buy the 2.5lb bag at Costco for about $15. Which is higher then $5/lb at $6, but worth the extra $1/lb for me. As I said, matter of taste. No different then me paying for NFL ST and others saying its a waste of money.


It's not a matter of taste; it's simple common sense v. stupidity. No regular size cup of coffee is worth $5. Period.

It is as I say it is.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

When did DirecTV start selling coffee. :ewww: 



:backtotop

Mike


----------



## Christopher Gould

Just some info on the extra reciever fee. back in the day of my nrtc we use to only pay $1.99. that didnt last forever but it was a good deal.


----------



## TonySCV

I finally bit the bullet and switched from my long-standing Total Choice Plus with locals Package to the HD extra pack. The $1.49 a month I'd be saving to continue to use the TC+ package just wasn't worth it considering how often I add and remove services and the hassle of having to phone in to do every single change. $1.49 to do it all online is worth it to me. 

I held off for the longest time because I have lifetime DVR service from the DirecTivo GXCEBOT days, and for a while DirecTV had DVR service bundled in to the packages. Now that it's separate again I can only pay for the channels and continue to get my DVR service for "free". The $199 I spent for it 7 years ago means I'm down to paying $2.34 a month for DVR service - and it keeps dropping. There's no way I'm giving that up. 

- T


----------



## bobcamp1

The Merg said:


> Not sure how it makes it even more shaky ground. If you don't have leased equipment you are only under the Terms of Service Agreement. If you happen to have leased equipment, you also need to be sure that you follow the ELA as well. The ELA is where any mention of the commitment is listed as part of your agreement.
> 
> - Merg


"If you happened to have leased equipment..." How many people own every single piece of D* equipment in their setup when D* does everything in its power to discourage that? I know some long-time customers in this forum do, but I'm willing to bet that the ELA applies to over 99% of D* subscribers. (Unless the customer was never informed or signed it, which happened so much that D* had to agree to a class-action settlement.)

Plus, just because something is in the TOS or ELA doesn't mean that state and federal laws are ignored. "Bait and switch" is fraud -- you can't put a clause into the TOS that allows it and expect it to hold up in court. That's why the ground is shaky for people under the ETF. They must pay D* more money than they expected regardless of whether they keep or cancel service.


----------



## gomezma1

Why doesn't D make a duo receiver like Dish has so you don't have to pay for an extra receiver? I'm thinking of jumping ship whem my subscription is met. At least I'll save $60 that D would get from me for an extra receiver. Make that $72 starting in February.


----------



## RAD

gomezma1 said:


> Why doesn't D make a duo receiver like Dish has so you don't have to pay for an extra receiver?


While that might save on the up front costs IIRC Dish the monthly charge for a duo Dish receiver is double that of the single receiver so no savings on the monthly charge. Plus that 2nd output is SD only and when running in duo mode. I also believe that you loose the ability to record one channel while watching a live channel on TV1 since that 2nd TV takes over the second tuner. For my usage not worth the limitations that come with the duo STB's.


----------



## gomezma1

I should of referred to SD programming only. I don't have HD TV. Not really interested in buying one at the time.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Lord Vader said:


> I am proud to say that I have never, EVER purchased a coffee or any other drink from Starbucks.


Neither have I but I have to support my wife's Starbucks habit.


----------



## Satelliteracer

gomezma1 said:


> Why doesn't D make a duo receiver like Dish has so you don't have to pay for an extra receiver? I'm thinking of jumping ship whem my subscription is met. At least I'll save $60 that D would get from me for an extra receiver. Make that $72 starting in February.


DIRECTV actually did a test a number of years ago and those that were in the test group were not so enthusiastic. The second receiver was not in stereo, not in HD, etc, etc. Customers said they wanted an independent receiver that had all the bells and whistles and not a stripped down version that had a number of limitations.

So if you do switch, make sure you know what you're getting into and the expectations of that shared room experience.


----------



## Doug Brott

gomezma1 said:


> Why doesn't D make a duo receiver like Dish has so you don't have to pay for an extra receiver? I'm thinking of jumping ship whem my subscription is met. At least I'll save $60 that D would get from me for an extra receiver. Make that $72 starting in February.


If you have 2 receivers, this may benefit you simply because even with DISH the first receiver is "free." But yes, the second TV is definitely SD although in your case that doesn't seem to matter.

If you have an additional DVR, it will cost more with DISH than it does with DIRECTV.

You have to keep in mind that pricing is a strategy. Something with DISH are cheaper and some things are more expensive. It very well could be that DISH is cheaper for you, but don't make the assumption that it is without looking into specifically what it is you are looking for. DISH could be more expensive.


----------



## Doug Brott

Satelliteracer said:


> DIRECTV actually did a test a number of years ago and those that were in the test group were not so enthusiastic. The second receiver was not in stereo, not in HD, etc, etc. Customers said they wanted an independent receiver that had all the bells and whistles and not a stripped down version that had a number of limitations.
> 
> So if you do switch, make sure you know what you're getting into and the expectations of that shared room experience.


I'll also reiterate (again) that DIRECTV now has multi-room viewing (Whole Home DVR Service) that brings the full experience to whichever room you want. You never really have to make the decision of going with a lesser quality location or not.


----------



## tkrandall

Are there any good figures for what the individual network/provider "per sub" fees total up to? It would be interesting to know approximately how much per month of my bill is in fact $$ going to the content providers as fees they assess to DirecTV in order to be carried.


----------



## phrelin

This is as close as we can get to what on-average prices were being paid to the channels by signal providers in 2009:


----------



## sigma1914

tkrandall said:


> Are there any good figures for what the individual network/provider "per sub" fees total up to? It would be interesting to know approximately how much per month of my bill is in fact $$ going to the content providers as fees they assess to DirecTV in order to be carried.


----------



## dualsub2006

"Lord Vader" said:


> It's not a matter of taste; it's simple common sense v. stupidity. No regular size cup of coffee is worth $5. Period.
> 
> It is as I say it is.


Starbucks doesn't charge $5 a cup for coffee. I go in and get two venti coffees all the time and get back change from my fiver. Regular sizes are even less.


----------



## dualsub2006

"gomezma1" said:


> I should of referred to SD programming only. I don't have HD TV. Not really interested in buying one at the time.


I felt the same way until I got my first HD TV a year or so ago. In the SD days I had 2 sets in my house. Then came an HD Sony. I've never looked back. I'm up to 5 in my house and am looking at number 6 right now. I went crazy buying TVs when I saw the price and picture quality of the more recent Vizio models.

Money was always what held me back but Vizio prices, Vizio quality and the fact that D* converted me to 2 HD DVRs for $100 pushed me over the edge. I am slowly wiring my house so that I can put in HD receivers all over. Once you go HD you will never go back.


----------



## Richierich

dualsub2006 said:


> I felt the same way until I got my first HD TV a year or so ago. In the SD days I had 2 sets in my house. Then came an HD Sony. I've never looked back. I'm up to 5 in my house and am looking at number 6 right now.
> 
> Once you go HD you will never go back.


Very True.


----------



## gomezma1

But you know seems like every programming addition means more $$$$. I already pay for DVR service and then another $10 for HD. It seems they have us by the cojones. That's plain and simple.


----------



## RACJ2

Satelliteracer said:


> Neither have I but I have to support my wife's Starbucks habit.


Your wife has good taste!


----------



## tigerwillow1

If we can't have full ala-carte, at least give the option to have the packages with or without the $ports channels.


----------



## James Long

Doug Brott said:


> If you have 2 receivers, this may benefit you simply because even with DISH the first receiver is "free."


Actually, new customers can get up to three HD receivers free with DISH ... no upfront cost. DISH does not charge an upfront for the first DVR. Additional DVRs are $99 up front, additional non-DVRs are free. (The 922 DVR is the exception ... $199 up front.)

It isn't a good comparison for those who believe "everyone wants a DVR" ... and one HD DVR plus two HD receivers with DirecTV ($198) can share recordings for $3 more per month where one HD DVR plus two HD receivers with DISH (free) cannot (although the receivers can have a external HD added and gain DVR capability). Yep ... lots of variables in the equation. 

Perhaps the $99+ up front charge is why DirecTV doesn't charge more for a monthly lease. $99 plus $5 per month for two years is $51 more than $7 per month for two years on a receiver. $199 plus $5 per month for two years is $79 more than $10 per month on a DVR. The extra $1 per month will affect the comparison even more.


----------



## NoggenFogger

gomezma1 said:


> But you know seems like every programming addition means more $$$$. I already pay for DVR service and then another $10 for HD. It seems they have us by the cojones. That's plain and simple.


You shouldn't be paying for HD channels.

I saw on their website that new subscribers can get free HD channels. I called them and asked why a subscriber of over 10 years cannot get this same benefit, and the CSR immediately set up my account to credit me $10/mo for the HD subscription.

As a side note, I did already have my account setup to automatically charge my Amex every month. That could very well have had something to do with it, but the website offer said it was for "New subscribers only".

I never accept that something is for "New Subscribers". If you call, they will usually do what it takes to retain you as a valued customer.


----------



## RunnerFL

NoggenFogger said:


> You shouldn't be paying for HD channels.
> 
> I saw on their website that new subscribers can get free HD channels. I called them and asked why a subscriber of over 10 years cannot get this same benefit, and the CSR immediately set up my account to credit me $10/mo for the HD subscription.
> 
> As a side note, I did already have my account setup to automatically charge my Amex every month. That could very well have had something to do with it, but the website offer said it was for "New subscribers only".
> 
> I never accept that something is for "New Subscribers". If you call, they will usually do what it takes to retain you as a valued customer.


You got it because you were already setup for Auto Pay since Auto Pay is required.


----------



## Richierich

RunnerFL said:


> You got it because you were already setup for Auto Pay since Auto Pay is required.


But does he get it for 24 months or Forever as long as he is a Directv Customer.


----------



## Doug Brott

richierich said:


> But does he get it for 24 months or Forever as long as he is a Directv Customer.


Since the promotion is "for 24 months" to existing customers .. I think the answer is gonna be obvious.


----------



## James Long

Doug Brott said:


> Since the promotion is "for 24 months" to existing customers .. I think the answer is gonna be obvious.


Also note that the new customer offer has changed a couple of times ... for example, the current offer is not for Choice customers (just Choice Xtra and above). Can current subs (out of contract) currently get Free HD with just Choice?


----------



## Richierich

Doug Brott said:


> Since the promotion is "for 24 months" to existing customers .. I think the answer is gonna be obvious.


But is it for All Existing Customers for 24 Months regardless of what Package they have?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Doug Brott said:


> Since the promotion is "for 24 months" to existing customers .. *I think the answer is gonna be obvious*.


To some of us it is.... 


richierich said:


> But is it for All Existing Customers for 24 Months regardless of what Package they have?


Apparently not all of us... :lol:

Let's just say that should not be a concern (if you got the 24 month promotion credit).


----------



## tkrandall

sigma1914 said:


>


Wow. Those channels total up to like $35-40/month based on my quick scan.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

tkrandall said:


> Wow. Those channels total up to like $35-40/month based on my quick scan.


Maybe in late 2008 for 2009 rates (as listed on the top)....


----------



## Alan Gordon

richierich said:


> But does he get it for 24 months or Forever as long as he is a Directv Customer.





Doug Brott said:


> Since the promotion is "for 24 months" to existing customers .. I think the answer is gonna be obvious.


Not that you can believe everything you hear from a CSR, but whenever I signed up for "Free HD," I was told that DirecTV was working on something to make HD free permanently, but that if it wasn't done, I could call back once my 24 months was up, and get it again.

It obviously needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but until 2012, I'm going to be optimistic! 

~Alan


----------



## tkrandall

I guess it's sort of like programming costs are to DirecTV/Dish/cable as fuel costs are to airlines - it's someone else that's the ones that really get rich off the operating business model.


----------



## Davenlr

tkrandall said:


> Wow. Those channels total up to like $35-40/month based on my quick scan.


My total, if available ala carte, would be $12.07, so even at a 100% increase, if they offered those channels ala carte, my bill would still only be 24.14 for the programming plus the Directv operational costs, and lease fees would put me at ~$50 a month vs the $80+ I am paying now. And thats marking everything up 100% from that list and then doubling it for DirecTv profit.


----------



## Alan Gordon

tkrandall said:


> Wow. Those channels total up to like $35-40/month based on my quick scan.





hdtvfan0001 said:


> Maybe in late 2008 for 2009 rates (as listed on the top)....


...even if those were still the right figures, there are other expenses that need to be added before one takes everything into account. Plus, they still want to make a profit as well... 

~Alan


----------



## tkrandall

Davenlr said:


> My total, if available ala carte, would be $12.07, so even at a 100% increase, if they offered those channels ala carte, my bill would still only be 24.14 for the programming plus the Directv operational costs, and lease fees would put me at ~$50 a month vs the $80+ I am paying now. And thats marking everything up 100% from that list and then doubling it for DirecTv profit.


Except in an ala carte environment, the per sub rates of the individual channels would have to be higher because the rates now are no doubt set to bring in a certain amount of total revenue to each programming provider. For example, ESPN would need to charge more per remaining subscribing sub on account of all the people who would not even subscribe to it at all, but under today's model are paying part of the way. This is true for every channel.

That said, I am a fan of, reasonably priced, ala carte, and to let the channels that cannot command enough market share (subscribers) to pay their way go by the wayside.


----------



## Doug Brott

Reasonably priced ala carte isn't possible.


----------



## joshjr

Davenlr said:


> *My total, if available ala carte, would be $12.07, so even at a 100% increase, if they offered those channels ala carte, my bill would still only be 24.14 for the programming plus the Directv operational costs*, and lease fees would put me at ~$50 a month vs the $80+ I am paying now. And thats marking everything up 100% from that list and then doubling it for DirecTv profit.


My thoughts are you could expect more like 400-500% increase.


----------



## Barcthespark

Doug Brott said:


> Reasonably priced ala carte isn't possible.


Why not?


----------



## James Long

Barcthespark said:


> Why not?


The sellers set the rules.

The cheap channels at a penny per sub want 18 million subscribers from DirecTV - regardless of how many want their channel. 18 million pennies per month is not a lot but it is better than being paid a penny for each subscriber that wants their programming.

The same logic goes for the channels charging 20c or $1 per sub ... the price is low because so many people who would not pay via a la carte help pay for the channels. And it even goes for the $4 channels ... ESPN would want even more per sub if they were not guaranteed 18 million subscribers.

Then we can look at bundling ... most of the channels are owned or controlled by major providers. They get carriage for their lesser channels by allowing carriage of their more popular channels. So one wouldn't be buying a la carte per channel, one would likely have to buy a dozen channels from each provider.

The sellers set the rules. When those who produce and market channels to DirecTV decide that it is in their best interest to cut their subscriber count and go a la carte they will do so ... and not a day before. It isn't in their best interest. They make more money selling their channels to people who don't want them than they would by selling to people who would pay for their channel specifically ... even at a higher rate.


----------



## Satelliteracer

tkrandall said:


> Wow. Those channels total up to like $35-40/month based on my quick scan.


And retrans (locals) aren't included in there, nor are Premiums or specialty channels, sports (like NFL ST), etc. Programming costs dominate the cost structure, no question about it. Hardware costs, R&D, etc, are significant as well. Then you get into all the customer service agents, the technicians, the business side....well, you get the idea.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Davenlr said:


> My total, if available ala carte, would be $12.07, so even at a 100% increase, if they offered those channels ala carte, my bill would still only be 24.14 for the programming plus the Directv operational costs, and lease fees would put me at ~$50 a month vs the $80+ I am paying now. And thats marking everything up 100% from that list and then doubling it for DirecTv profit.


Problem is, if they were a la carte, the cost would be monumentally higher for you because of the economics in play that artificially keep down the price points of many of those channels.


----------



## codespy

It was nice to see us old time "premier" folks don't get nailed this year with a $5 or even a $3 increase.....Thanks DirecTV.

But then the increase mirror fee by a buck for someone like me with 11 IRD's on my account (which is $10.51 increase per month) is a buzzkiller.

Total mirroring fees (including tax) per year for all but one receivers on my account:

2010 pricing: $631.20

2011 pricing: $757.20

Difference of: $126.00 price increase this year for me.

Had they increased premier package by $5 instead of mirror fee.....only $63.12 extra per year.

I guess I am dropping IRD's to offset the increase, and buy some more RF modulators! Bummer.

(I realize I'm not the norm with many IRD's, but it's still adds up!)


----------



## Barcthespark

James Long said:


> The sellers set the rules.
> 
> The cheap channels at a penny per sub want 18 million subscribers from DirecTV - regardless of how many want their channel. 18 million pennies per month is not a lot but it is better than being paid a penny for each subscriber that wants their programming.
> 
> The same logic goes for the channels charging 20c or $1 per sub ... the price is low because so many people who would not pay via a la carte help pay for the channels. And it even goes for the $4 channels ... ESPN would want even more per sub if they were not guaranteed 18 million subscribers.
> 
> Then we can look at bundling ... most of the channels are owned or controlled by major providers. They get carriage for their lesser channels by allowing carriage of their more popular channels. So one wouldn't be buying a la carte per channel, one would likely have to buy a dozen channels from each provider.
> 
> The sellers set the rules. When those who produce and market channels to DirecTV decide that it is in their best interest to cut their subscriber count and go a la carte they will do so ... and not a day before. It isn't in their best interest. They make more money selling their channels to people who don't want them than they would by selling to people who would pay for their channel specifically ... even at a higher rate.


What you say is true. But maybe we have too many channels right now (especially with so many of them losing their unique identities by mirroring programming). I would be willing to pay more per channel for only the channels I want. I currently pay $90 per month to D*. My receiver says I get 699 channels. Yet I have only 58 on my Favorites list and I could probably drop at least 10 without ever missing them.


----------



## DogLover

codespy said:


> It was nice to see us old time "premier" folks don't get nailed this year with a $5 or even a $3 increase.....Thanks DirecTV.
> 
> But then the increase mirror fee by a buck for someone like me with 11 IRD's on my account (which is $10.51 increase per month) is a buzzkiller.
> 
> Total mirroring fees (including tax) per year for all but one receivers on my account:
> 
> 2010 pricing: $631.20
> 
> 2011 pricing: $757.20
> 
> Difference of: $126.00 price increase this year for me.
> 
> Had they increased premier package by $5 instead of mirror fee.....only $63.12 extra per year.
> 
> I guess I am dropping IRD's to offset the increase, and buy some more RF modulators! Bummer.
> 
> (I realize I'm not the norm with many IRD's, but it's still adds up!)


If they had increase the premier package, you would have to pay that fee, or drop to a lower level package.

With the increase in the mirror fee, you can cut IRDs and reduce or eliminate the increase, while still getting the same channels. Or, you could still drop your programming package down and save money while keeping the same number or IRDs.

It seems like with the rate increase you are more in control of how you want to reduce your monthly costs. More choices could be looked at as a good thing. (Not as good as no price increase, of course.)


----------



## DogLover

Barcthespark said:


> What you say is true. But maybe we have too many channels right now (especially with so many of them losing their unique identities by mirroring programming). I would be willing to pay more per channel for only the channels I want. *I currently pay $90 per month to D*. My receiver says I get 699 channels*. *Yet I have only 58 on my Favorites list and I could probably drop at least 10 without ever missing them*.


But, would you pay $150 for those 48 to 58 channels?


----------



## smiddy

Whoa, I've been out a couple of days and look at this...


----------



## BKC

Doug Brott said:


> Reasonably priced ala carte isn't possible.


Nonsense


----------



## MysteryMan

BKC said:


> Nonsense


Read post #528.


----------



## ATARI

I'll be OK with the $5 more a month (programming+receivers) I will be paying next year, if I would get more HD in the channels we watch. Which for our house is E! and BBCA. Whatever happened with all those shiny new HD channels we were supposed to get with D12?


----------



## bobcamp1

James Long said:


> The sellers set the rules.
> 
> The cheap channels at a penny per sub want 18 million subscribers from DirecTV - regardless of how many want their channel. 18 million pennies per month is not a lot but it is better than being paid a penny for each subscriber that wants their programming.
> 
> The same logic goes for the channels charging 20c or $1 per sub ... the price is low because so many people who would not pay via a la carte help pay for the channels. And it even goes for the $4 channels ... ESPN would want even more per sub if they were not guaranteed 18 million subscribers.
> 
> Then we can look at bundling ... most of the channels are owned or controlled by major providers. They get carriage for their lesser channels by allowing carriage of their more popular channels. So one wouldn't be buying a la carte per channel, one would likely have to buy a dozen channels from each provider.
> 
> The sellers set the rules. When those who produce and market channels to DirecTV decide that it is in their best interest to cut their subscriber count and go a la carte they will do so ... and not a day before. It isn't in their best interest. They make more money selling their channels to people who don't want them than they would by selling to people who would pay for their channel specifically ... even at a higher rate.


Bingo! I'd need the Disney, Time Warner, Viacom, Discovery/BBC America, News Corp., and NBC/Universal packages. Oh wait, that's all the channels I already get anyway! Except now they'd be five times the price!

One thing that table doesn't show is the shopping channels. Does anyone know how much D* gets paid to broadcast all of those channels?

If all those channels cost D* $40/ month, and D* gets credit for the shopping channels, why I am being charged $62/month?


----------



## Lee L

"bobcamp1" said:


> Bingo! I'd need the Disney, Time Warner, Viacom, Discovery/BBC America, News Corp., and NBC/Universal packages. Oh wait, that's all the channels I already get anyway! Except now they'd be five times the price!
> 
> One thing that table doesn't show is the shopping channels. Does anyone know how much D* gets paid to broadcast all of those channels?
> 
> If all those channels cost D* $40/ month, and D* gets credit for the shopping channels, why I am being charged $62/month?


Because satellites cost a few hundred million each?


----------



## Groundhog45

Several years ago I found a grid listing of all of the channels in each package for an easy comparison. I can't seem to locate anything like that on the new, improved DirecTV website. Does anyone have a link to that table? It may be time for a change.


----------



## pfp

Doug Brott said:


> Reasonably priced ala carte isn't possible.


Supporting evidence????


----------



## Doug Brott

pfp said:


> Supporting evidence????


http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2669324#post2669324

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2669349#post2669349

Additionally .. each of these providers make X amount of dollars per month. In an ala carte setup, these providers would still want to make X amount of dollars per month .. With fewer subscribers, the per-subscriber cost would have to be higher. We can debate on what "reasonable" means in my short comment, but if ESPN goes from 18-million subscribers to say 6-million subscribers .. that's 1/3 the number of subscribers. To get to the same dollars per month, ESPN would have to charge 3 times as much as they do now.

If we assume the $4/month from the chart is still accurate, JUST to get ESPN, it would be $12/month. And since it's a "group of channels" because of the way DIRECTV sells it, we can also assume that that $12 covers all of the ESPN channels.

This same process would cover ALL channels, not just ESPN .. Also, many channels would not enjoy the ONLY 1/3 subscribers. Some would be only getting about 10% of what they had raising the costs by 10x. Some of those $0.30/month channels would now need to cost $3/month to reach the same levels.

Over time, the lesser channels would get squeezed out and the larger channels would seek even MORE of your $$$. The provider themselves sell channels in bundles, so you'd have to buy a group of channels regardless (ESPN bundle, CNN bundle, etc.). DIRECTV doesn't have control of that.

Since everyone wants to maximize their money, you're always going to be paying at the top end of what you consider "value." Once you exceed what you consider to be value, you either reduce your services (less receivers, lower package, etc.) or you drop the service completely. While ala carte looks good on paper, it would ONLY work if you personally had ala carte available to you while everyone else was susceptible to the bundled pricing. If everyone were granted access to ala carte, prices would soar and service levels would decrease. Neither of which DIRECTV (or the providers for that matter) want. I doubt the customers want this either.


----------



## uteotw

All of this is frustrating, but after 20 minutes on the phone I will say the call was worth it and my bill will now be $4 _less_ (at least for 24 months) than it has been, without dropping anything. After 9 years it's nice they're willing to work with you~


----------



## Hoosier205




----------



## sigma1914

pfp said:


> Supporting evidence????


There's been serious studies done...this isn't something new.

People who want a la carte use that chart to show how cheap channels should cost us. They'll say, "See...BBCA should only cost us $0.12." They fail to realize that a la carte wouldn't make a lot of stations any money. At $0.12/sub, Directv pays about $2.1 million & overall BBCA gets about $8.2 million from all providers. BBCA highest rated show ever had 1.7 million viewers & that's over all providers. So, if only 1.7 million will watch BBCA's highest show, then it's safe to assume 2 million will add it al a carte...and that's being generous. At $0.12/sub for 2 million people, that earns BBCA a whopping $240,000 from all providers combined. Bye-bye BBCA! For BBCA to earn the $8.2 million they get now, the price for little ol' BBCA would be about $4.10 per month. Now, imagine how much actual popular stations would cost...


----------



## joed32

pfp said:


> Supporting evidence????


It's been done before on C-Band. If you bought 10 or 12 channels the price was the same as a package of channels including the ones you were getting Ala Carte. They just priced it that way so you would buy the packages.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Ok, lets consider how ala carte might work:

You'd start with the fee to your carrier for basic service--ie nothing but an account. Lets say $10-$20 a month. 

Then add in the first channel. You know that there will be no channels that are a penny a month. That doesn't even pay for the billing and record keeping for individualized billing. My guess--nothing will be less than $1/month. But maybe someone will put together a really cheap channel for $.50 a month. 

Even at that, very few channels are individually worth 50 cents each month. 

So channels would lump together so they can get their value up enough to warrant covering the costs of the accounting. Thus starts bundling...

Eventually the bundles are the only way to go and ala carte has died yet again.

The math just doesn't work. Unless you like paying $1 per channel--minimum.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

Now, I suppose C-Band had one problem--I hated to deal with multiple vendors to find the channels I wanted. 

DIRECTV would be, most likely, my only broker. (Unless Congress decided that there needed to be competition for pricing on the DIRECTV service... then I'm back to dealing with multiple companies to find the packages I want. Driving costs up with the extra accounting and billing duplication....)

Even as DIRECTV is my only broker--they would have to significantly increase their computers to track every account's individual channel selections. Track the billing, send the monies to the channels, etc.

Economy of scale. You don't buy a car one part at a time. The screws that cost less than a penny in a car become much more expensive ala carte....

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## pfp

Doug Brott said:


> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2669324#post2669324
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2669349#post2669349
> 
> Additionally .. each of these providers make X amount of dollars per month. In an ala carte setup, these providers would still want to make X amount of dollars per month .. With fewer subscribers, the per-subscriber cost would have to be higher. We can debate on what "reasonable" means in my short comment, but if ESPN goes from 18-million subscribers to say 6-million subscribers .. that's 1/3 the number of subscribers. To get to the same dollars per month, ESPN would have to charge 3 times as much as they do now.
> 
> If we assume the $4/month from the chart is still accurate, JUST to get ESPN, it would be $12/month. And since it's a "group of channels" because of the way DIRECTV sells it, we can also assume that that $12 covers all of the ESPN channels.
> 
> This same process would cover ALL channels, not just ESPN .. Also, many channels would not enjoy the ONLY 1/3 subscribers. Some would be only getting about 10% of what they had raising the costs by 10x. Some of those $0.30/month channels would now need to cost $3/month to reach the same levels.
> 
> Over time, the lesser channels would get squeezed out and the larger channels would seek even MORE of your $$$. The provider themselves sell channels in bundles, so you'd have to buy a group of channels regardless (ESPN bundle, CNN bundle, etc.). DIRECTV doesn't have control of that.
> 
> Since everyone wants to maximize their money, you're always going to be paying at the top end of what you consider "value." Once you exceed what you consider to be value, you either reduce your services (less receivers, lower package, etc.) or you drop the service completely. While ala carte looks good on paper, it would ONLY work if you personally had ala carte available to you while everyone else was susceptible to the bundled pricing. If everyone were granted access to ala carte, prices would soar and service levels would decrease. Neither of which DIRECTV (or the providers for that matter) want. I doubt the customers want this either.


2, 20, 200 peoples opinion doesn't make it true.

I don't dispute that it may be true myself - I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other. I just get a bit tied of people immediately dismissing the idea as preposterous and entirely unworkable and then berating people who suggest it. Many times these same people fully support other ala carte options we are given such as the DVR fee, HD fee, MRV fee, HD plus channels.

I have no doubt that in an ala carte world prices for individual channels (or channel blocks such as Discovery, ESPN, etc) would skyrocket. So perhaps a block of all ESPN channels would cost $12/mo. So what? How would this be different from HBO, SHO, etc that we already have as individual choices. Those that want the service and find value in the price will buy it and everyone else wont need to subsidize a channel they don't care about. Having to actually earn their customers instead of being guaranteed money from the cable/sat co's should also make the channel's more responsive to the consumer and what they want.

Of course there are channels that would not be able to survive but really, how many channels do we need showing reruns of Friends, Law and Order, whatever. Quite frankly there are way to many channels right now with mostly garbage or overly recycled programming. These channels on the fringe will either make themselves more appealing or they will consolidate. Again - so what?


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Tom Robertson said:


> Now, I suppose C-Band had one problem--I hated to deal with multiple vendors to find the channels I wanted.
> 
> DIRECTV would be, most likely, my only broker. (Unless Congress decided that there needed to be competition for pricing on the DIRECTV service... then I'm back to dealing with multiple companies to find the packages I want. Driving costs up with the extra accounting and billing duplication....)
> 
> Even as DIRECTV is my only broker--they would have to significantly increase their computers to track every account's individual channel selections. Track the billing, send the monies to the channels, etc.
> 
> Economy of scale. You don't buy a car one part at a time. The screws that cost less than a penny in a car become much more expensive ala carte....
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


At least with C-Band you had access to all available channels. The problem with cable and satellite is that you're stuck with what they give you, or don't give you. I still say we need a system which has all available channels accessible, then let the customer decide what they want to watch.


----------



## sheureka

Anyone know what Select Classic will cost? TIA - sheureka


----------



## Doug Brott

I never said a la carte isn't possible .. I said "*Reasonably priced* a la carte isn't possible."

We'd be left with higher prices and fewer choices.

As for doing a scientific study to prove it .. Uh, no thanks. It's crystal clear to me what the result would be. If you're not convinced, then so be it.



pfp said:


> 2, 20, 200 peoples opinion doesn't make it true.
> 
> I don't dispute that it may be true myself - I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other. I just get a bit tied of people immediately dismissing the idea as preposterous and entirely unworkable and then berating people who suggest it. Many times these same people fully support other ala carte options we are given such as the DVR fee, HD fee, MRV fee, HD plus channels.
> 
> I have no doubt that in an ala carte world prices for individual channels (or channel blocks such as Discovery, ESPN, etc) would skyrocket. So perhaps a block of all ESPN channels would cost $12/mo. So what? How would this be different from HBO, SHO, etc that we already have as individual choices. Those that want the service and find value in the price will buy it and everyone else wont need to subsidize a channel they don't care about. Having to actually earn their customers instead of being guaranteed money from the cable/sat co's should also make the channel's more responsive to the consumer and what they want.
> 
> Of course there are channels that would not be able to survive but really, how many channels do we need showing reruns of Friends, Law and Order, whatever. Quite frankly there are way to many channels right now with mostly garbage or overly recycled programming. These channels on the fringe will either make themselves more appealing or they will consolidate. Again - so what?


----------



## James Long

pfp said:


> I don't dispute that it may be true myself - I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other. I just get a bit tied of people immediately dismissing the idea as preposterous and entirely unworkable and then berating people who suggest it. Many times these same people fully support other ala carte options we are given such as the DVR fee, HD fee, MRV fee, HD plus channels.


Perhaps it was an abrupt way of putting it, paid back by your abrupt rebuke ... the thread is supposed to be about DirecTV's 2011 pricing and there is no hint of DirecTV going a la carte so a quick dismissal of the idea seems somewhat appropriate. Have you seen the dozens of other threads on the issue of a la carte? I'd expect the consensus would remain the same ... "Reasonably priced ala carte isn't possible."

A la carte features, whether or not to have a DVR, HD, MRV or a few extra channels are within the control of DirecTV. No program provider is refusing to allow DirecTV to carry their programming if it isn't bundled with MRV. Premium packages have existed since the beginning of packages ... HBO and Showtime liked being a lot of money extra instead of reaching more people at a lower price. It is the way they agreed to have their channels placed.



TheRatPatrol said:


> At least with C-Band you had access to all available channels. The problem with cable and satellite is that you're stuck with what they give you, or don't give you. I still say we need a system which has all available channels accessible, then let the customer decide what they want to watch.


There isn't enough bandwidth to make all channels available. Some channels would still be left out.

C Band was unique as the feeds were put up to feed cable systems and direct sales to individuals was more of an afterthought or piracy reduction than the intent of the signals being transmitted. The uplink costs were paid for by the bulk subscription of cable companies serving hundreds of thousands customers. With channels spread out across the sky not everyone had access to all channels ... so charging for what a person could get on the satellites they could see made sense. DBS is more like cable ... concentrating signals from a hundred sources in to one location. And being like cable, the pricing structure grew to be like cable.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Since I'm convinced ala carte won't fly, what might happen?

The whole goal is to find packaging that sells (and makes money). 

At the same time, I think people don't want nickel and diming.

So, I'm guessing we'll see more packages or perhaps better described as package types.

Right now, there is pretty much a progression of packages from low priced to high priced. 

Maybe we'll see parallel progressions of packages:
A Sports concentration
A family concentration
Movies
News

That seems like a lot of package groups, so likely there will be just a few that actually survive. 

And the big question is what will it take for the channels accept these changes? 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## James Long

Tom Robertson said:


> Maybe we'll see parallel progressions of packages:
> A Sports concentration
> A family concentration
> Movies
> News


Sounds Canadian to me. 

And that has been one of the stalwarts of those pushing a la carte ... Canada does it! But they don't. There is still a base _plus_ the theme packs ... and unless your interests are in only one theme pack one still gets a sizable bill.



> And the big question is what will it take for the channels accept these changes?


$$$$$$$$$$$$$
(or government interference)


----------



## SledgeHammer

Question... I've been with DTV since 2002 and have the Total Choice Plus legacy + locals + HD courtesy pack + HD + HD DVR. Right now I'm paying $68.49 a month because I did the "free HD for 2 yrs" thing a few months ago or whenever they did that promotion. If I recall, that promotion locked me into a 2yr contract. Does that mean my pricing will not go up this year? Looks like my "Total Choice Plus is $61.49 of that if I understand DirecTVs retarded bill layout.


----------



## DogLover

SledgeHammer said:


> Question... I've been with DTV since 2002 and have the Total Choice Plus legacy + locals + HD courtesy pack + HD + HD DVR. Right now I'm paying $68.49 a month because I did the "free HD for 2 yrs" thing a few months ago or whenever they did that promotion. If I recall, that promotion locked me into a 2yr contract. Does that mean my pricing will not go up this year? Looks like my "Total Choice Plus is $61.49 of that if I understand DirecTVs retarded bill layout.


The promotion did not lock you into a 2 year commitment. (Commitments are based on adding new leased equipment to your account.) Even if you did have a commitment, the terms of service allow them to change the price, so that would not nullify the commitment.


----------



## SledgeHammer

DogLover said:


> The promotion did not lock you into a 2 year commitment. (Commitments are based on adding new leased equipment to your account.) Even if you did have a commitment, the terms of service allow them to change the price, so that would not nullify the commitment.


That sucks... I didn't get a 5% salary increase this year . I guess thats why all 50 states have sued DirecTV (and won -- well, DTV settled... same thang).


----------



## joshjr

SledgeHammer said:


> Question... I've been with DTV since 2002 and have the Total Choice Plus legacy + locals + HD courtesy pack + HD + HD DVR. Right now I'm paying $68.49 a month because I did the "free HD for 2 yrs" thing a few months ago or whenever they did that promotion. If I recall, that promotion locked me into a 2yr contract. Does that mean my pricing will not go up this year? Looks like my "Total Choice Plus is $61.49 of that if I understand DirecTVs retarded bill layout.


Its not a contract. If you remove the autopay today then you will no longer get the $10 discount. Just a promo really.


----------



## Doug Brott

SledgeHammer said:


> That sucks... I didn't get a 5% salary increase this year . I guess thats why all 50 states have sued DirecTV (and won -- well, DTV settled... same thang).


The lawsuit had nothing to do with DIRECTV's ability to raise prices. If you look back at your service agreement, DIRECTV has the right to change pricing at any time .. Generally speaking, they do it once every year.


----------



## Dave

So just with the 4% rate hike in Feb. we are looking at the following cost for the packages.

Choice Now=$ 58.99 - Feb. 2011=$61.34
Choice Extra Now= $63.99 - Feb. 2011= $66.51
Choice Ultimate Now= $ 68.98 - Feb. 2011= $ 71.74
Premier Package Now= $ 114.99 - Feb. 2011= $ 119.59

This is just the basic rate increase. DTV will be increasing more charges for some different items which we do not know what they are just yet.


----------



## goober22

Dave said:


> So just with the 4% rate hike in Feb. we are looking at the following cost for the packages.
> 
> Choice Now=$ 58.99 - Feb. 2011=$61.34
> Choice Extra Now= $63.99 - Feb. 2011= $66.51
> Choice Ultimate Now= $ 68.98 - Feb. 2011= $ 71.74
> Premier Package Now= $ 114.99 - Feb. 2011= $ 119.59
> 
> This is just the basic rate increase. DTV will be increasing more charges for some different items which we do not know what they are just yet.


See this link:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2669543#post2669543

Your prices are off and Premier is not going up.

It was 4% AVERAGE not across the board. The biggest hit is for us folks that have multiple receivers. I have 7 and Platinum but I'll go up $6 just for the lease fees even wit no Platinum increase.


----------



## James Long

Dave said:


> So just with the 4% rate hike in Feb. we are looking at the following cost for the packages.


It isn't a 4% across the board increase ...








(If image is missing see PDF links earlier in the thread.)

Premier is not changing price, although the receiver lease fee is going up $1 per receiver ($6 instead of $5 on receivers where the fee applies).


----------



## Satelliteracer

sigma1914 said:


> There's been serious studies done...this isn't something new.
> 
> People who want a la carte use that chart to show how cheap channels should cost us. They'll say, "See...BBCA should only cost us $0.12." They fail to realize that a la carte wouldn't make a lot of stations any money. At $0.12/sub, Directv pays about $2.1 million & overall BBCA gets about $8.2 million from all providers. BBCA highest rated show ever had 1.7 million viewers & that's over all providers. So, if only 1.7 million will watch BBCA's highest show, then it's safe to assume 2 million will add it al a carte...and that's being generous. At $0.12/sub for 2 million people, that earns BBCA a whopping $240,000 from all providers combined. Bye-bye BBCA! For BBCA to earn the $8.2 million they get now, the price for little ol' BBCA would be about $4.10 per month. Now, imagine how much actual popular stations would cost...


Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Give that man a cigar.


----------



## pappy97

James Long said:


> It isn't a 4% across the board increase ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (If image is missing see PDF links earlier in the thread.)
> 
> Premier is not changing price, although the receiver lease fee is going up $1 per receiver ($6 instead of $5 on receivers where the fee applies).


Question on this:

fine print says: 
"****Lease for first two receivers: $6/mo, addt'l receivers: $6/mo*."

I have three receivers on my PLUS HD DVR account. I get charged $15/mo (5 x 3), but get a $5 credit for my primary receiver.

If I am reading this correctly, for my three receivers will I now get charged $12/mo, and get a $6 credit for my first two receivers? It says lease for first TWO receivers is 6 a month, and any add'tl is $6/mo. It is written that $6/mo pays for 2 receivers, and any add'tl is $6 more each.

Is that correct? In terms of these monthly leases, can I expect to save $4/mo when the new pricing hits? Thanks.


----------



## James Long

pappy97 said:


> Is that correct? In terms of these monthly leases, can I expect to save $4/mo when the new pricing hits? Thanks.


I wouldn't expect to save ... I'd expect that $5 credit you get on the first receiver would simply go away and you'd pay $12 for the three instead of $10 for the additional two.


----------



## pappy97

James Long said:


> I wouldn't expect to save ... I'd expect that $5 credit you get on the first receiver would simply go away and you'd pay $12 for the three instead of $10 for the additional two.


The thing is, I just don't remember the basis of that credit. I signed up in Nov 09 with PLUS HD DVR (with one free HD-DVR), I assume that credit was that you don't pay a lease on your first receiver, i.e. when I got my receiver, and they said I get a free HD-DVR and they meant just that: no upfront AND no lease fee for the one primary receiver. Hence the $5/credit for the lease on my first receiver. My understanding of this is correct, right?

Now they are changing their pricing scheme for leases and that's fine. But I should still be entitled to a credit for the lease of my free HD-DVR, correct? And since now the first two receivers is $6/mo, I should be charged $6 for the first two, $6 for the third, and then get a $6/mo a credit.

If each receiver's lease fee was $6/mo, then fine I'd agree that I'd pay a net of $12/mo (18-6). But since they are now making it such that $6/mo covers your first two and then $6/mo each after the first two, I should be getting a savings because my understanding is that I don't have to pay a lease fee for my primary HD-DVR since it was free, assuming my understanding above is correct.

Forget people with such types of credits, just assume we are talking about people with no credits and say 2 receivers. Right now they pay $10/mo for 2 receivers, under the new pricing they'll pay $6. They'll save $4. I assume everyone with 2 or more receivers will save $4 because of that fine print change.

Where's the flaw in my logic? Thanks.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Nothing has changed, they just worded it differently. The first receiver is still free, the 2nd is $6.00, 3rd $6.00, etc. So 3 receivers is now $12.00 instead of $10.00, so your bill will be going up by $2.00 a month.


----------



## Doug Brott

I think the flaw is in the wording from DIRECTV. Bottom line .. First receiver is still free with base package. $6/month for each additional receiver.


----------



## James Long

pappy97 said:


> Where's the flaw in my logic? Thanks.


You're dealing with a for profit company? At best they promised you one HDDVR without fee ... not two ... and this is just another way of repackaging giving you one free. At worse this is a way of charging people with only one receiver the $6 fee.

The middle ground is the way I'm interpreting it ($6 for the first two is the same the first one is free and the second is $6). It will simply be presented on your bill differently (although it raised the question of what single receiver customers will see ... $6 for two and a $6 credit?).


----------



## pappy97

TheRatPatrol said:


> Nothing has changed, they just worded it differently. The first receiver is still free, the 2nd is $6.00, 3rd $6.00, etc. So 3 receivers is now $12.00 instead of $10.00, so your bill will be going up by $2.00 a month.


If they wanted it to simply be $6/receiver, they would have said that. But they said first two is $6, addtl is $6 each.

So first two receivers is $6 combined, third is $6. $12 total, but one receiver is free, so $6/mo.

UNLESS you are saying that somehow they are now saying the first isn't free, BUT the problem there is that it is not spelled out in that new pricing. That new pricing does not say "sorry, no more free first receiver for you, we are building it into first two receivers for $6."

It ONLY says first two is $6, each addtl $6. Does not mention the REMOVAL of the first receiver free credit.

If they are making this change and people are losing a credit (even if it is built in into something else), they should be more clear about it (because I'm sorry, saying the first two is $6/mo is NOT the same thing as saying the first one is free, let's not kid ourselves here). I bet many customers receiving that primary receiver credit and then don't see that anymore are going to sh*$ a brick and this new pricing certainly does not explain it at all.


----------



## pappy97

James Long said:


> You're dealing with a for profit company? At best they promised you one HDDVR without fee ... *not two* ... and this is just another way of repackaging giving you one free.


Fine. First two is $6/mo, third is $6/mo. Give me the $6/mo credit for the third, hence only one receiver. I'm fine with that. 

Under the new pricing, the way it is doled out, assuming my credit for receiver #1 is gone, I'm getting nothing for free. With current pricing, I get one receiver free. There's a problem there. Sorry but first receiver free, $5/mo addtl is NOT the same in terms of pricing scheme as first two for $6/mo, $6/mo addtl. At the very least, if I am not going to get a $6/mo credit with the new pricing, I should get a $3/mo credit (Since first two is $6/mo, that means each of the first two is $3/mo).


----------



## sigma1914

pappy97 said:


> Fine. First two is $6/mo, third is $6/mo. Give me the $6/mo credit for the third, hence only one receiver. I'm fine with that.
> 
> Under the new pricing, the way it is doled out, assuming my credit for receiver #1 is gone, I'm getting nothing for free. With current pricing, I get one receiver free. There's a problem there.


 The first is still free.


----------



## jdspencer

Update: I emailed DirecTV explaining the billing situation. They corrected it and credited my $3.70 for the monthly overcharge. This is good, but I won't really see what they did until the next billing cycle. Yes, the web site shows what they did, but the way DirecTV makes they changes is somewhat confusing. They remove and then add items that really don't need to be with partial amounts. Not the easiest to decipher.


----------



## pappy97

sigma1914 said:


> The first is still free.


 right back to you. I explained myself clearly in several posts.

What do you mean the first is still free? That's not what the new pricing says. It says *first two is $6, $6 for each addt'l*.

It does *NOT* say,* first is free, each addtl is $6 month*.

I am shocked that nobody can see the difference there in the bolded statements.


----------



## RAD

pappy97 said:


> right back to you. I explained myself clearly in several posts.
> 
> What do you mean the first is still free? That's not what the new pricing says. It says *first two is $6, $6 for each addt'l*.
> 
> It does *NOT* say,* first is free, each addtl is $6 month*.
> 
> I am shocked that nobody can see the difference there in the bolded statements.


Check this post http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2666938&postcount=230, Satelliteracer clearified the pricing.


----------



## pappy97

RAD said:


> Check this post http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2666938&postcount=230, Satelliteracer clearified the pricing.


Here is the post you referenced from satracer. *Problem is, it conflicts with the fine print on the new pricing. They have lawyers review this stuff. If they wanted to say first is free, addtl are $6/each, they could have. But they chose to say first two is $6, $6/each one after that. First two = $6 is NOT the same thing saying as saying first one is free, second is $6.*:



> For clarity
> 
> First receiver is still included with your base package pricing.
> 
> Second and each additional receiver will be $6.00 starting February 10th but today it is $5.00.
> 
> So if you have two receivers, starting Feb 10th your receiver fees will go up $1.00 per month. If you have 4 receivers, they will go up $3.00 per month. If you have 8 receivers, they will go up $7.00 per month.
> 
> Hope that helps.


----------



## sigma1914

pappy97 said:


> Here is the post you referenced from satracer. *Problem is, it conflicts with the fine print on the new pricing*:


I think you're making this to be more complicated that what it is.


----------



## RAD

pappy97 said:


> Here is the post you referenced from satracer. *Problem is, it conflicts with the fine print on the new pricing. They have lawyers review this stuff. If they wanted to say first is free, addtl are $6/each, they could have. But they chose to say first two is $6, $6/each one after that. That is different than saying the first is free.*:


Then if you don't believe Satelliteracer then e-mail DirecTV and get the answer directly from them and stop asking others here, which have less information then him.


----------



## pappy97

sigma1914 said:


> I think you're making this to be more complicated that what it is.


What do you not understand about the following statement:

"First two = $6 is NOT the same thing as first one free, second is $6."

How can you not see that those are two different things???


----------



## pappy97

RAD said:


> Then if you don't believe Satelliteracer then e-mail DirecTV and get the answer directly from them and stop asking others here, which have less information then him.


Of course I trust satracer, but some support for the obvious wording issue would be nice from my fellow DirecTV customers. Of course I'm taking this to DirecTV (just saw all of this today), probably corporate/legal because I'm gonna be pissed when I don't see a $6 (or $3 credit) starting with my feb bill even though the pricing says first two = $6, $6 for each addtl, and I'm supposed to have one free, hence a $6 or $3 credit, depending on your interpretation.


----------



## sigma1914

pappy97 said:


> What do you not understand about the following statement:
> 
> "First two = $6 is NOT the same thing as first one free, second is $6."
> 
> How can you not see that those are two different things???


The first two are $5, now. It's the same thing, except it'll be $6...THAT'S IT!


----------



## Doug Brott

pappy97 said:


> Here is the post you referenced from satracer. *Problem is, it conflicts with the fine print on the new pricing. They have lawyers review this stuff. If they wanted to say first is free, addtl are $6/each, they could have. But they chose to say first two is $6, $6/each one after that. First two = $6 is NOT the same thing saying as saying first one is free, second is $6.*:


You are correct, and if you only have one receiver then perhaps you'll have to pay $6 extra now. If you have two .. you'll still have to pay that $6.

Me .. I'm going to go with what SatRacer said and what I believe to be true. 1st Receiver is included in the base system pricing (a.k.a. "free") .. I'm not going to worry about how the bill reflects that. It may start free or it may be $6 charge with a $6 kickback (net $0 .. or as I like to say "free").


----------



## Doug Brott

pappy97 said:


> Of course I trust satracer, but some support for the obvious wording issue would be nice from my fellow DirecTV customers.


 .. my post here didn't support your concern over the wording issue?


----------



## pappy97

sigma1914 said:


> The first two are $5, now. It's the same thing, except it'll be $6...THAT'S IT!


First two are not $5 now. Each one is $5, and I get a $5 credit for the first.

Now the pricing says in fine print "First two is $6." That means there is no free receiver (*saying two of something has a cost implies each has a cost*), but since my first receiver is supposed to be free, I should be getting a credit. Half of the "First two = $6" seems reasonable because if first two are $6, then each one of the first two amounts to $3.

On my feb bill, I should see:

First two receivers = $6.00
Third receiver = $6.00

First primary receiver credit = -$3.00

Now since satracer is saying that's not going to happen, I am going to have to go to corporate/legal for DirecTV on this.


----------



## sigma1914

pappy97 said:


> Of course I trust satracer, but some support for the obvious wording issue would be nice from my fellow DirecTV customers. Of course I'm taking this to DirecTV (just saw all of this today), probably corporate/legal because I'm gonna be pissed when I don't see a $6 (or $3 credit) starting with my feb bill even though the pricing says first two = $6, $6 for each addtl, and I'm supposed to have one free, hence a $6 or $3 credit, depending on your interpretation.


You didn't get a special deal before; everyone got that credit. You have no legal leg to stand on. You just won't see the line item.


----------



## pappy97

Doug Brott said:


> .. my post here didn't support your concern over the wording issue?


Yes you did provide support, sorry. Obviously there is issue with the wording and a comment from satracer doesn't fix it because the wording says what the wording says, and it needs to be resolved. Thanks.


----------



## BKC

Every year when ala carte is brought up it's always the same people throwing water on the flames as fast as they can and they all have a title..... :lol:


----------



## pappy97

sigma1914 said:


> You didn't get a special deal before; everyone got that credit. *You have no legal leg to stand on*. You just won't see the line item.


You sure about that?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40841730/ns/business-consumerman/

It's not like DirecTV hasn't had issues in the past about confusion over pricing with customers.

Okay, everyone got that credit. Further supports my point. That means EVERYONE was getting a free receiver #1, now EVERYONE will have to pay $6 for the first two receivers, which means EVERYONE is now paying a fee for receiver #1. Everyone should be raising hell (w/ corporate/legal) given the wording of the new pricing of the leasing.


----------



## sigma1914

pappy97 said:


> You sure about that?
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40841730/ns/business-consumerman/
> 
> It's not like DirecTV hasn't had issues in the past about confusion over pricing with customers.





pappy97 said:


> First two are not $5 now. Each one is $5, and I get a $5 credit for the first.
> 
> ...


:nono2: You don't get it. Your $5 credit is one *everyone *gets, not a special deal. Each receiver after 1 is $5.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> :nono2: You don't get it. Your $5 credit is one *everyone *gets, not a special deal. Each receiver after 1 is $5.


It really seems quite simple. Satracer explained in quite straightforward too.

Not sure what the confusion is about on that.


----------



## pappy97

sigma1914 said:


> :nono2: You don't get it. Your $5 credit is one *everyone *gets, not a special deal. Each receiver after 1 is $5.


I do get it now:

*Everyone gets one for free currently. Everyone gets something for nothing. Starting in february you won't get one for free, you'll get two for a (low?) cost. But nobody will get something for nothing starting in feb. 2011.*

I think that's an accurate summary of the problem here. Even if you say that we don't have a right anywhere to a free receiver, people are going to raise hell when previously they were getting something for free, and now they are not.


----------



## Doug Brott

pappy97 said:


> Okay, everyone got that credit. Further supports my point. That means EVERYONE was getting a free receiver #1, now EVERYONE will have to pay $6 for the first two receivers, which means EVERYONE is now paying a fee for receiver #1. Everyone should be raising hell (w/ corporate/legal) given the wording of the new pricing of the leasing.


I actually don't understand what is so hard about this.

Today ..

Receiver #1 - $5
Receiver #2 - $5
Additional Receiver - $5
Credit for base package - $5

After price change

Receiver #1 - $6
Receiver #2 - $6
Additional Receiver- $6
Credit for base package - $6

If you have 3 receivers today you pay base package + extras + $10 lease fee (total)

If you have 3 receivers after price change you pay base package + extras + $12 lease fee (total)

Your lease fees will increase by a net of $2/month if you have 3 total receivers. Your base package may also change prices depending on what package you have.


----------



## Doug Brott

pappy97 said:


> I think that's an accurate summary of the problem here. Even if you say that we don't have a right anywhere to a free receiver, people are going to raise hell when previously they were getting something for free, and now they are not.


Huh? 1st one is still free. Plain and simple. No hell to raise (over that at least).


----------



## pappy97

Doug Brott said:


> I actually don't understand what is so hard about this.
> 
> Today ..
> 
> Receiver #1 - $5
> Receiver #2 - $5
> Additional Receiver - $5
> Credit for base package - $5
> 
> *After price change
> 
> Receiver #1 - $6
> Receiver #2 - $6
> Additional Receiver- $6
> Credit for base package - $6*
> If you have 3 receivers today you pay base package + extras + $10 lease fee (total)
> 
> If you have 3 receivers after price change you pay base package + extras + $12 lease fee (total)
> 
> Your lease fees will increase by a net of $2/month if you have 3 total receivers. Your base package may also change prices depending on what package you have.


What's so hard about this is that what you list for after price change is inaccurate, i.e. it is not what the pricing says in that PDF. Regardless of what satracer says, it's not what the PDF says.

The pricing in that PDF says the first two is $6, each addtl is $6. See the PDF, fine print, right next to the three asterisks.

So:

After price change, according to PDF:

Receivers #1 and #2 - $6
Additional Receiver- $6
Credit for base package - $6??? (or maybe $3???) (or $0?? But that can't be, since we are all supposed to get a free receiver, right? Unless now our free receiver is gone and is somehow replaced with a reduced cost receiver)

That's the issue.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

My head is spinning...make it stop... :lol:


----------



## joed32

Price for first two now is $5, in Feb. first two will be $6 it ain't Calculus.


----------



## Richierich

Doug Brott said:


> I actually don't understand what is so hard about this.
> 
> Today ..
> 
> Receiver #1 - $5
> Receiver #2 - $5
> Additional Receiver - $5
> Credit for base package - $5
> 
> After price change
> 
> Receiver #1 - $6
> Receiver #2 - $6
> Additional Receiver- $6
> Credit for base package - $6
> 
> If you have 3 receivers today you pay base package + extras + $10 lease fee (total)
> 
> If you have 3 receivers after price change you pay base package + extras + $12 lease fee (total)
> 
> Your lease fees will increase by a net of $2/month if you have 3 total receivers. Your base package may also change prices depending on what package you have.


Very Clear to me and I am not a Rocket Scientist but by the way just Pay The Bill and Enjoy or go somewhere else.


----------



## pappy97

joed32 said:


> Price for first two now is $5, in Feb. first two will be $6 it ain't Calculus.


Now it's first one is free, each addtl is $5. Fine print in PDF says for the new pricing, first two is $6, each addtl is $6.

There's a difference between saying first one is free, each addtl has a cost AND saying first two have a cost, and each addtl has a cost as well. If I pay money for two items and I'm told the cost is for both combined, that means I'm paying for each one. I'm not getting anything free.

Like you said, it ain't Calculus. Maybe basic reading comprehension, I dunno.


----------



## Doug Brott

OK .. forget last year .. Let's read what it says:

Lease for first two receivers: $6/month
Additional receiver leases: $6/month each

Implicit in that (meaning it's not specifically stated)
Lease for JUST ONE receiver: $0/month

Is that clear? SatRacer essentially clarified it earlier in the thread by stating explicitly that which is implicit in the PDF.


----------



## tkrandall

sigma1914 said:


> :nono2: You don't get it. Your $5 credit is one *everyone *gets, not a special deal.


I read that and said to myself what are you guys talking about getting a credit for the 1st receiver? In all my time since starting DirecTV in 2003, I had never been charged an itemized monthly fee for my primary receiver. It was always included in the rate and I only got charged for additional receiver(s), number 2 and 3. Until last month I had 2 owned DirecTIVOs and one leased HR20. So my 3 DVR bill was rate plan+dvr fee+additional receiver fee+leased receiver fee. NO credit for receiver #1 as I was not charged seperately for it in the first place.

I just replaced the two DirecTIVOs with 2 HR24s in late Nov, so I now have 3 leased boxes. Sure enough, on my December I get lease charged for all 3, and then get the one credit. I figure it is just an easier way for them to account for each leased box to do it that way.

All that said, I am not sure I follow pappy97's concern. Yes, I see the different wording, but it should all come out about the same (except perhaps for a single receiver account. That we will see in time.) 
Example, for 3 receivers: 
Current: 5+5+5-5=10 in fees. (except, apparently, accounts with the primary receiver being an owned box, in which case it is no_charge+5+5=10) 
New: 6 (for two) + 6 = 12 in fees.


----------



## RobertE

:icon_dumm


----------



## James Long

pappy97 said:


> On my feb bill, I should see:
> First two receivers = $6.00
> Third receiver = $6.00
> First primary receiver credit = -$3.00
> 
> Now since satracer is saying that's not going to happen, I am going to have to go to corporate/legal for DirecTV on this.


Have fun talking to corporate/legal. Make sure you have a copy of the contract stating where the current $5 credit you receive is for the life of your account. Got that promise?

It appears that all DirecTV is doing is changing the way the first receiver "free" appears on your bill. If you'd rather pay $6 for each receiver including the first I'm sure that could be arranged.


----------



## Groundhog45

Either way, you pay $2.00 more per month. How you get there shouldn't be such a cause for concern or upset. I do agree it could have been worded better or more clearly.


----------



## RACJ2

James Long said:


> It isn't a 4% across the board increase ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (If image is missing see PDF links earlier in the thread.)
> 
> Premier is not changing price, although the receiver lease fee is going up $1 per receiver ($6 instead of $5 on receivers where the fee applies).


That's true, its not a 4% across the board increase, mirroring is going up 20%.


----------



## RunnerFL

pappy97 said:


> First two are not $5 now.


Yes they are!

If you have 2 receivers how much do you pay in lease/mirroring fees? Yup, that's right $5!


----------



## RunnerFL

pappy97 said:


> What's so hard about this is that what you list for after price change is inaccurate, i.e. it is not what the pricing says in that PDF. Regardless of what satracer says, it's not what the PDF says.


So what is it you're looking for here? It's already been clarified for you and you've already been told the PDF is worded wrong. What more do you want?


----------



## Hoosier205

I see that someone is on a personal crusade going nowhere. Good times!


----------



## Satelliteracer

For clarity, again, the receiver fee is going up $1 but the first receiver fee is INCLUDED as part of your base package fee. 

I know the wording is a little odd but these types of notifications get filtered through legal folks, accounting, etc, etc, and that is the wording that was chosen.

At the end of the day, the net effect has not changed. The first receiver is the same as it's always been. The second and each additional receiver is $1 more.

The wording states that the first two receivers are $6 and each additional receiver is $6. That's the same as what I've stated above.


----------



## joshjr

pappy97 said:


> Fine. First two is $6/mo, third is $6/mo. Give me the $6/mo credit for the third, hence only one receiver. I'm fine with that.
> 
> Under the new pricing, the way it is doled out, assuming my credit for receiver #1 is gone, I'm getting nothing for free. With current pricing, I get one receiver free. There's a problem there. Sorry but first receiver free, $5/mo addtl is NOT the same in terms of pricing scheme as first two for $6/mo, $6/mo addtl. At the very least, if I am not going to get a $6/mo credit with the new pricing, I should get a $3/mo credit (Since first two is $6/mo, that means each of the first two is $3/mo).


If the bill looked like this before:

Leased Reciever $5
Leased Reciever $5
Primary Leased Reciever $5
Credit For Primary Leased Reciever -$5

But now shows the following then no one is getting screwed.

Leased Reciever $6
Leased and Primary Reciever $6

There is not much different. Wether they show a credit or just bill 2 recievers in one line item its the same. Previously showed as $10 new way if showed like I just outlined it would be $12 but no credit line item. I didnt read anywhere they were charging for the first reciever. So I dont take it that a credit is being taken away from me.


----------



## joshjr

pappy97 said:


> What do you not understand about the following statement:
> 
> "First two = $6 is NOT the same thing as first one free, second is $6."
> 
> How can you not see that those are two different things???


Well if your logic plays here then the only other logical thing to conclude would be that the first is $3 now and the 2nd is $3 now and additional is $6 each. It does not say that either so why would you think that? The first has to be free or $3 in my opinion. Which do you believe?


----------



## JoeTheDragon

joshjr said:


> Well if your logic plays here then the only other logical thing to conclude would be that the first is $3 now and the 2nd is $3 now and additional is $6 each. It does not say that either so why would you think that? The first has to be free or $3 in my opinion. Which do you believe?


It may come down to what a jury thinks. But D* will like change it be for it gets that far.


----------



## Richierich

joshjr said:


> If the bill looked like this before:
> 
> Leased Reciever $5
> Leased Reciever $5
> Primary Leased Reciever $5
> Credit For Primary Leased Reciever -$5
> 
> But now shows the following then no one is getting screwed.
> 
> Leased Reciever $6
> Leased and Primary Reciever $6
> 
> There is not much different. Wether they show a credit or just bill 2 recievers in one line item its the same. Previously showed as $10 new way if showed like I just outlined it would be $12 but no credit line item. I didnt read anywhere they were charging for the first reciever. So I dont take it that a credit is being taken away from me.


EXACTLY!!! I don't understand what the Fuss is all about unless some people just like to Argue!!!


----------



## tigerwillow1

25 pages of posts and nobody can figure out for sure what the official price announcement says about monthly receiver pricing. I hereby nominate DirectTV for the "plain English" award. Here's something that would make sense: Two receivers now included in the base subscription rate (i.e. 1st 2 receivers are $6/month total, offset by a bill credit). This would negate the advantage of Dish's dual-output receivers which gives Dish a big price advantage for 2 receiver installations. Since adding a 2nd TV recently I've been thinking of bolting to Dish over this very issue.


----------



## James Long

tigerwillow1 said:


> 25 pages of posts and nobody can figure out for sure what the official price announcement says about monthly receiver pricing.


I believe most have it figured out ... although a better wording would be nice.



> I hereby nominate DirectTV for the "plain English" award. Here's something that would make sense: Two receivers now included in the base subscription rate (i.e. 1st 2 receivers are $6/month total, offset by a bill credit). This would negate the advantage of Dish's dual-output receivers which gives Dish a big price advantage for 2 receiver installations. Since adding a 2nd TV recently I've been thinking of bolting to Dish over this very issue.


That is what pappy97 wanted ... and pretty much everyone else has agreed won't happen. DirecTV isn't going to give up income. They'll just beat DISH in marketing.


----------



## Doug Brott

tigerwillow1 said:


> 25 pages of posts and nobody can figure out for sure what the official price announcement says about monthly receiver pricing. I hereby nominate DirectTV for the "plain English" award. Here's something that would make sense: Two receivers now included in the base subscription rate (i.e. 1st 2 receivers are $6/month total, offset by a bill credit). This would negate the advantage of Dish's dual-output receivers which gives Dish a big price advantage for 2 receiver installations. Since adding a 2nd TV recently I've been thinking of bolting to Dish over this very issue.


Time to go to dish then. First two are $6. $0 for first, $6 for second. It's no different than today other than each receiver after the first will be $1 more than it is now. And that's "for sure."


----------



## ccr1958

i will get flamed for this but i care less.....
2 things i hope i live long enough to see....
the [*Redacted*] greedy company i work for goes broke.....
and DirecTv which i have had since 1994 goes belly up too...
sorry to seem bleak...but those are my hopes...


----------



## MysteryMan

ccr1958 said:


> i will get flamed for this but i care less.....
> 2 things i hope i live long enough to see....
> the [*Redacted*] greedy company i work for goes broke.....
> and DirecTv which i have had since 1994 goes belly up too...
> sorry to seem bleak...but those are my hopes...


Rather then wish for DirecTV to go "belly up" perhaps it would be better if they "wise up". The economy doesn't need to get worse.


----------



## Hoosier205

ccr1958 said:


> i will get flamed for this but i care less.....
> 2 things i hope i live long enough to see....
> the [*Redacted*] greedy company i work for goes broke.....
> and DirecTv which i have had since 1994 goes belly up too...
> sorry to seem bleak...but those are my hopes...


So...you are hoping that everyone who works for the company you are with and DirecTV ends up unemployed? Wow. That's just wonderful.


----------



## wingrider01

tigerwillow1 said:


> 25 pages of posts and nobody can figure out for sure what the official price announcement says about monthly receiver pricing. I hereby nominate DirectTV for the "plain English" award. Here's something that would make sense: Two receivers now included in the base subscription rate (i.e. 1st 2 receivers are $6/month total, offset by a bill credit). This would negate the advantage of Dish's dual-output receivers which gives Dish a big price advantage for 2 receiver installations. Since adding a 2nd TV recently I've been thinking of bolting to Dish over this very issue.


found it simple...

January's cost for a single reciever = 0
Febuary's cost for a single reciever = 0

Asked my 16 yr old what she thought it meant, she stated the same thing.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

wingrider01 said:


> found it simple...
> 
> January's cost for a single reciever = 0
> Febuary's cost for a single reciever = 0
> 
> *Asked my 16 yr old what she thought it meant, she stated the same thing*.


Not surprised. Much to do about nothing.

This same basic annual price change stuff (give or take a buck) has taken place for many years now...yet some try to turn it into Rocket Science. It's not.


----------



## cariera

ccr1958 said:


> i will get flamed for this but i care less.....
> 2 things i hope i live long enough to see....
> the [*Redacted*] greedy company i work for goes broke.....
> and DirecTv which i have had since 1994 goes belly up too...
> sorry to seem bleak...but those are my hopes...


Well, why don't you start Directv down the road to ruin and call today to cancel your subscription.

It's pretty sad that the hopes you have involve the ruin of two companies and the subsequent misfortune of hundreds of thousands of people.

I hope to live long enough to see:

World Peace, the Cubs win the World Series, and this country get out of debt.:lol:


----------



## gomezma1

World peace, I doubt it. Cubs winning the WS, no fans in first two rows a left field line seats. Then maybe. Country out of debt, never. That will only happen if we stop paying taxes so they don't have money to spend on BS.


----------



## Doug Brott

Let's try to keep this thread about DIRECTV pricing .. World Peace can be discussed in the off topic forum.


----------



## ThomasM

I have a stupid question...

Does ANYONE who has been beating the "one or two receivers pricing" question to death actually HAVE only one receiver?? 

I got DirecTV in 2000 with a single LNB dish and one Hughes Receiver. Only six months later I determined that one receiver was unacceptable and went out and bought ANOTHER dish (with a dual LNB) and another receiver!!!

I suppose there probably are subscribers who live in a one-room home with one receiver and one TV set who may be upset about a $6 fee for their one receiver (if, in fact, they really will get socked with a $6 increase). So to them I say GET A SECOND RECEIVER-IT'S FREE!!


----------



## BKC

ThomasM said:


> I have a stupid question...
> 
> Does ANYONE who has been beating the "one or two receivers pricing" question to death actually HAVE only one receiver??
> 
> I got DirecTV in 2000 with a single LNB dish and one Hughes Receiver. Only six months later I determined that one receiver was unacceptable and went out and bought ANOTHER dish (with a dual LNB) and another receiver!!!
> 
> I suppose there probably are subscribers who live in a one-room home with one receiver and one TV set who may be upset about a $6 fee for their one receiver (if, in fact, they really will get socked with a $6 increase). So to them I say GET A SECOND RECEIVER-IT'S FREE!!


I'm not beating the one or two receiver pricing but I have only one receiver. Call me crazy but I don't spend the entire day and night in front of the TV either. :lol:


----------



## James Long

ThomasM said:


> Does ANYONE who has been beating the "one or two receivers pricing" question to death actually HAVE only one receiver??


I could drop down to one without any problems.



> I suppose there probably are subscribers who live in a one-room home with one receiver and one TV set who may be upset about a $6 fee for their one receiver (if, in fact, they really will get socked with a $6 increase). So to them I say GET A SECOND RECEIVER-IT'S FREE!!


Other than the $99 upgrade price ... sort of free.

First receiver free. First two receivers $6. Additional receivers $6. Seems simple.


----------



## bobcamp1

joshjr said:


> If the bill looked like this before:
> 
> Leased Reciever $5
> Leased Reciever $5
> Primary Leased Reciever $5
> Credit For Primary Leased Reciever -$5
> 
> But now shows the following then no one is getting screwed.
> 
> Leased Reciever $6
> Leased and Primary Reciever $6
> 
> There is not much different.


Well, there is one difference. Currently, I still pay sales tax on my first free receiver. I pay sales tax BEFORE all the credits are counted. So my first receiver isn't technically free. It's 4% of $5, or 20 cents a month. This would increase to 24 cents a month.

D* can circumvent this problem for people with two receivers by charging them $6 for a two-receiver bundle. No credit is needed, and I save 24 cents in taxes. People with just one receiver are still screwed, because D* still has to do the charge/credit thing, though it is only 20 cents (now 24 cents at $6).

D* also charges something for the first receiver to enforce the fact that it's leased, and not a gift.

Satelliteracer is wrong, too. The free receiver cannot be part of the base package, because some states (like mine) only charge sales tax on the equipment and not the service. So in these states, D* is required by law to keep the charges for the service and the equipment separate. They cannot be combined on the bill. In _practice_, D* can give out a credit for the first receiver, _effectively _making it part of the service, as long as somebody still pays taxes on it.

Finally, D* is required to announce price increases. They don't have to announce removal of credits. So if they wanted to effectively start charging $6 if you just had one receiver, they can do it without warning. So that is why pappy97 is worried. I don't think D* will do that in the near future, but they could.

And happy new year!


----------



## pappy97

richierich said:


> EXACTLY!!! I don't understand what the Fuss is all about unless some people just like to Argue!!!


No, I don't like to argue. Point is, the wording is extremely problematic. Right now first one is free, each addtl is $5. Now the wording says "first two is $6, each additional is $6."

I get that people have "explained" this, but let me use an analogy to explain where I am coming from as to the wording in the PDF:

Assume a paper salesman sells me paper each month. For that paper, he also leases Pens so I can write stuff on the paper I buy. He says I'll get one pen a month totally free, but if I want more, I'll pay $5/month for each one after the first.

I want 3 pens a month. So I get one pen free and I pay $5 a month for Pen #2 and $5 a month for Pen #3.

Everything is great until he says there is new pricing on the pens. He tells me it's not a bad deal. He says "New deal. First two pens are $6/month, each one after that is $6." I look him at quizzically and say, "Well wait a second. Before I was getting one free and paying for two. Now I am paying for all three!" He says, "but it's only $2/mo more than previously. That's the net effect." I say, "Screw net effect. Point is, I was previously getting one free and paying for two, and now I am paying for all three. Your terms as written don't have a free one anymore." Forget everything else. Doesn't anyone understand that analogy (in which I used the wording from the PDF)? _Doesn't anyone understand that when you say first two are $6, that the wording right there means you aren't getting one for free? The wording says nothing about the first being free, it's not anywhere in the new pricing PDF._


----------



## Davenlr

Ill bet the change in wording has something to do with the fact they have been charging taxes on that "free receiver", then issuing a credit. So in fact, they have always been charging for the free receiver, taxing it, then issuing a credit. Im sure this new wording is to make some tax attorney or State Attorney General happy.


----------



## Groundhog45

Pappy, if you're paying $12/month with the new price schedule, what difference does it make if the wording is cloudy. I can see it both ways but the bottom line is still the same. Basically, who cares?


----------



## wingrider01

ThomasM said:


> I have a stupid question...
> 
> Does ANYONE who has been beating the "one or two receivers pricing" question to death actually HAVE only one receiver??
> 
> I got DirecTV in 2000 with a single LNB dish and one Hughes Receiver. Only six months later I determined that one receiver was unacceptable and went out and bought ANOTHER dish (with a dual LNB) and another receiver!!!
> 
> I suppose there probably are subscribers who live in a one-room home with one receiver and one TV set who may be upset about a $6 fee for their one receiver (if, in fact, they really will get socked with a $6 increase). So to them I say GET A SECOND RECEIVER-IT'S FREE!!


My inlaws do, single H24 - that is all they need or want


----------



## DogLover

pappy97 said:


> ... Doesn't anyone understand that analogy (in which I used the wording from the PDF)? _Doesn't anyone understand that when you say first two are $6, that the wording right there means you aren't getting one for free? The wording says nothing about the first being free, it's not anywhere in the new pricing PDF._


I think most of us understand your analogy. Speaking for myself, I just don't care whether I am getting the first one free anymore. Prices change. That is true with all things. I really only care about the bottom line. If I am okay with that, they can break out the prices however they please.

How they break out the prices is only a concern to me when I want to change what I pay. Then that break out tells me what equipment or service I would have to give up to save some money. Or it tells me how much extra I would have to pay for new service or equipment. Once I've made a change, I no longer care how the prices are broken out.

What I don't really understand is why do you care? If you want to consider the first box no longer free, what does it matter?


----------



## RunnerFL

pappy97 said:


> I get that people have "explained" this, but let me use an analogy to explain where I am coming from as to the wording in the PDF:


Not only has it been explained to you but most of us have also stated that it is worded poorly yet you continue to go on and on about it... Again I ask, what more do you want??


----------



## spartanstew

pappy97 said:


> _Doesn't anyone understand that when you say first two are $6, that the wording right there means you aren't getting one for free? The wording says nothing about the first being free, it's not anywhere in the new pricing PDF._


Yes, but SO WHAT?

Your second one had a price reduction of $2 ( $5 - $6/2 ).

Why don't you just celebrate that and be done with it?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

pappy97 said:


> <snip>
> 
> _Doesn't anyone understand that when you say first two are $6, that the wording right there means you aren't getting one for free? The wording says nothing about the first being free, it's not anywhere in the new pricing PDF._


Of course we understand it. It's very clear, and we are smart enough to comprehend what we read. 

However, we were informed that it is worded incorrectly. We were also informed that it will be the same pricing structure we currently have. The first receiver will be free and the second one will be $6/mo and each subsequent receiver will each be $6/mo.

So, based on the information currently available to us from reliable posters, we know the wording is incorrect as is applies to the first receiver. Everyone understands what we read in the pdf file and we now know what it was really supposed to say. End of story. 

Mike


----------



## BattleScott

Mike Bertelson said:


> So, based on the information currently available to us *from reliable posters, we know the wording is incorrect * as is applies to the first receiver. Everyone understands what we read in the pdf file and we now know what it was really supposed to say. End of story.
> 
> Mike


I find this conclusion suspect at best as it is "common knowledge" here that any poster with reliable or "official" information would not be viewing or posting in a valueless, whining thread such as this... Wrongville: Population+1


----------



## harsh

Mike Bertelson said:


> We were also informed that it will be the same pricing structure we currently have.


Is this how the post $13.25 million court settlement DIRECTV is going to handle confusion and ignorance going forward?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

BattleScott said:


> I find this conclusion suspect at best as it is "common knowledge" here that any poster with reliable or "official" information would not be viewing or posting in a valueless, whining thread such as this... Wrongville: Population+1


Well then you must not be paying attention because I would consider SatelliteRacer and Doug as reliable sources...maybe that's just me though. 

Just in case you've missed this...here ya go



Satelliteracer said:


> For clarity, again, the receiver fee is going up $1 but the first receiver fee is INCLUDED as part of your base package fee.
> 
> I know the wording is a little odd but these types of notifications get filtered through legal folks, accounting, etc, etc, and that is the wording that was chosen.
> 
> At the end of the day, the net effect has not changed. The first receiver is the same as it's always been. The second and each additional receiver is $1 more.
> 
> The wording states that the first two receivers are $6 and each additional receiver is $6. That's the same as what I've stated above.


Mike


----------



## BattleScott

Mike Bertelson said:


> Well then you must not be paying attention because I would consider SatelliteRacer and Doug as reliable sources...maybe that's just me though.
> 
> Just in case you've missed this...here ya go
> 
> Mike


Hmm, interesting. It seems as though there is a border dispute happening between Wrongville and Rightville...


----------



## mx6bfast

Mike Bertelson said:


> Of course we understand it. It's very clear, and we are smart enough to comprehend what we read.
> 
> However, we were informed that it is worded incorrectly. We were also informed that it will be the same pricing structure we currently have. The first receiver will be free and the second one will be $6/mo and each subsequent receiver will each be $6/mo.
> 
> So, based on the information currently available to us from reliable posters, we know the wording is incorrect as is applies to the first receiver. Everyone understands what we read in the pdf file and we now know what it was really supposed to say. End of story.
> 
> Mike


Everyone as in everyone on this board, or every D* sub?

Ok so will there be taxes on the "free" receiver?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

mx6bfast said:


> Everyone as in everyone on this board, or every D* sub?
> 
> Ok so will there be taxes on the "free" receiver?


I have no idea how taxes work in your state. :shrug:

Here in CT the taxes on my current bill run ≈$15.50/mo. How that'll be affected by the new pricing structure...I don't have a clue. :grin:

However, if there isn't a fee directly attched to the first receiver I don't see how they could tax $0/mo. What ever tax rate you're currently charged on your package will likely be the same rate on the new pricing.

As for "everyone", I'm not sure what you're asking but in my original post I was meant everyone involved in this disucssion can read and comprehend....unless that's not what you were talking about. :scratchin

Mike


----------



## HoTat2

ThomasM said:


> ... *I got DirecTV in 2000 with a single LNB dish and one Hughes Receiver. * Only six months later I determined that one receiver was unacceptable and went out and bought ANOTHER dish (with a dual LNB) and another receiver!!!
> ...


I'm surprised to hear the early single output 101 LNB was still in production by 2000 and really thought it disappeared shortly after its first market appearance around '94. :lol:


----------



## RunnerFL

BattleScott said:


> I find this conclusion suspect at best as it is "common knowledge" here that any poster with reliable or "official" information would not be viewing or posting in a valueless, whining thread such as this... Wrongville: Population+1


SatelliteRacer gave us official information.


----------



## Doug Brott

pappy97 said:


> No, I don't like to argue. Point is, the wording is extremely problematic. Right now first one is free, each addtl is $5. Now the wording says "first two is $6, each additional is $6."


pappy97, you can word parse this all you want. It doesn't really matter because beginning with your February bill, your first receiver will be free (perhaps you have to pay tax as bobcamp1 noted). A second receiver and each additional receiver will be $6.


----------



## Doug Brott

Davenlr said:


> Ill bet the change in wording has something to do with the fact they have been charging taxes on that "free receiver", then issuing a credit. So in fact, they have always been charging for the free receiver, taxing it, then issuing a credit. Im sure this new wording is to make some tax attorney or State Attorney General happy.


Something like this is going on. I refuse to believe that DIRECTV really wants to confuse people on this.


----------



## Richierich

Doug Brott said:


> Something like this is going on. I refuse to believe that DIRECTV really wants to confuse people on this.


I can't believe This Thread is Still Going On and On Ad Nauseum!!! When do you Get It!!!


----------



## Doug Brott

pappy97 said:


> Doesn't anyone understand that when you say first two are $6, that the wording right there means you aren't getting one for free? The wording says nothing about the first being free, it's not anywhere in the new pricing PDF.


Actually .. you are making an assumption by saying that "the wording [...] means you aren't getting one for free."

There's is not enough information in the wording to know if the first two are:

$0 + $6, $2 + $4, $6 + $0 or some other combination.

I'm telling you .. it's $0 + $6 .. This is not an assumption .. This is a given. It is something that is known. So based on the additional information (remember, there's not enough information in the wording of the PDF) .. We now KNOW that the first one is free. There are no assumptions involved here based on the additional information that we have and the cloudy nature of the wording in the PDF gains clarity.


----------



## Doug Brott

richierich said:


> I can't believe This Thread is Still Going On and On Ad Nauseum!!! When do you Get It!!!


This will be debated until people actually see it on there bills in 30-45 days.


----------



## Richierich

Doug Brott said:


> This will be debated until people actually see it on there bills in 30-45 days.


Simply Amazing!!!

I have 7 DVRs so 7 Minus 1 = 6 X $6 = $36. BINGO. I just figured out that my 7 DVRs will cost me a Total of $36 and the Net Increase = $6 and I Ain't No Rocket Scientist like LameLefty!!! :lol:


----------



## tigerwillow1

> No, I don't like to argue. Point is, the wording is extremely problematic. Right now first one is free, each addtl is $5. Now the wording says "first two is $6, each additional is $6."


Just to make things more interesting, there are currently 2 versions of the lease agreement on the DirecTV web site. One says:

"$5 month/receiver lease fee. Waived for first receiver"

And the other says:

"Lease for first two receivers $5/mo; additional receiver leases $5/mo. each."

I'm beginning to agree that the only change in leasing is that additional receivers go up by $1/month in the new rate schedule, and the wording is some indecipherable gobbledegook for some legal or tax reason.


----------



## James Long

tigerwillow1 said:


> Just to make things more interesting, there are currently 2 versions of the lease agreement on the DirecTV web site. One says:
> 
> "$5 month/receiver lease fee. Waived for first receiver"
> 
> And the other says:
> 
> "Lease for first two receivers $5/mo; additional receiver leases $5/mo. each."


I think you have the answer!
*The Price Change notice lists only prices that are changing.*

The "$5 month/receiver lease fee." is changing - to "Lease and/or mirroring receiver fee*** ...... $6.00/mo. per receiver"

The "Lease for first two receivers $5/mo; additional receiver leases $5/mo. each." is changing - to "***Lease for first two receivers: $6/mo.; additional receiver leases: $6/mo. each."

Those customers who are seeing a $5 month receiver lease fee will see a $6 month receiver lease fee. Those customers who are seeing a $5 month for two lease fee will see a $6 for two lease fee.

Makes perfect sense to me. 

The "Waived for first receiver" is not shown on the new price card, but it doesn't need to be. That policy isn't changing (and only changes need to be listed on the price change notice) and although "Programming, pricing, terms and conditions subject to change at any time." is shown on the price change notice, "first receiver no longer free" is NOT stated.


----------



## BattleScott

Mike Bertelson said:


> Well then you must not be paying attention because I would consider SatelliteRacer and Doug as reliable sources...maybe that's just me though.
> 
> Just in case you've missed this...here ya go
> 
> Mike





RunnerFL said:


> SatelliteRacer gave us official information.


 = sarcasm.

In the first half of the thread it was declared that it was useless pixel-waste to post personal opinions and reactions to the pending price increase here as no one from DirecTV would monitor these types of "whiny non-sense threads". SatelliteRacer's continuing presence in this thread tends to indicate that perhaps that notion is without merit...


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Doug Brott said:


> This will be debated until people actually see it on there bills in 30-45 days.


...and likely a few people will even after that... :lol:


----------



## ThomasM

OK, now that the "is the first receiver included in the base package price" has been :beatdeadhorse: here's a new topic to argue about:

I have PLUS DVR which is really Choice Xtra with the DVR fee included. Up until the price increase, it was advantageous to keep this (grandfathered) package because it was $1 per month cheaper than Choice Xtra and the DVR fee if paid separately. Now, I see the two are equal in price.

Why are they keeping PLUS DVR as a "grandfathered" package? Is there any advantage (more channels?) to switching to the current package and the DVR fee as an extra line item since the price will be the same?

I think it's a sneaky way to eliminate loyal customers from saving a buck or two by keeping a grandfathered package and I'm not amused.


----------



## vesto94

James Long said:


> I think you have the answer!
> *The Price Change notice lists only prices that are changing.*
> 
> The "$5 month/receiver lease fee." is changing - to "Lease and/or mirroring receiver fee*** ...... $6.00/mo. per receiver"
> 
> The "Lease for first two receivers $5/mo; additional receiver leases $5/mo. each." is changing - to "***Lease for first two receivers: $6/mo.; additional receiver leases: $6/mo. each."
> 
> Those customers who are seeing a $5 month receiver lease fee will see a $6 month receiver lease fee. Those customers who are seeing a $5 month for two lease fee will see a $6 for two lease fee.
> 
> Makes perfect sense to me.
> 
> The "Waived for first receiver" is not shown on the new price card, but it doesn't need to be. That policy isn't changing (and only changes need to be listed on the price change notice) and although "Programming, pricing, terms and conditions subject to change at any time." is shown on the price change notice, "first receiver no longer free" is NOT stated.


not true, just like an attorney i spoke with and what another satellite site said as well, the new wording is a precursor to them charghing 6.00 lease fee for 1 reciever customers

DIRECTV, stop jamming the stupidly high and unjustified bonuses you apy to the execs and the stupid sizzle cell phone tech you are working on to customers who do not use that utter garbage, charge them not us.

If people want the sizzle, have them pay higher cost for it, not the person who just uses the basic stuff


----------



## tigerwillow1

> the new wording is a precursor to them charghing 6.00 lease fee for 1 reciever customers


If that's the plan, that would pretty much offset "free HD for everybody with no price increase".


----------



## spartanstew

BattleScott said:


> = sarcasm.
> 
> In the first half of the thread it was declared that it was useless pixel-waste to post personal opinions and reactions to the pending price increase here as no one from DirecTV would monitor these types of "whiny non-sense threads". SatelliteRacer's continuing presence in this thread tends to indicate that perhaps that notion is without merit...


There's a big difference between 1) one member of the forum, that happens to work for Directv, partaking in the discussion and clarifying information AND 2) policy makers at Directv monitoring the thread for "whining" about price increases and having that impact any current or future price practices.


----------



## harsh

Here's the latest from the Equipment Lease Addendum:


DIRECTV Equipment Lease Addendum said:


> MONTHLY LEASE FEE.
> 
> For a new DIRECTV customer, you will be charged a monthly lease fee in the amount of $5 per 2nd and each additional receiver leased by you in your household. For a current customer, you will be charged a monthly fee in the amount of $5 for each receiver leased by you in your household, unless you replace all of your owned-equipment with leased equipment, in which case, the monthly lease fee will be waived for the 1st receiver. Applicable taxes will apply. LEASE FEE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME.


The part about the lease fee being charged for all leased receivers UNLESS all owned receivers on the account are surrendered seems new to me. This may be a rude awakening to those who favor and/or promote ownership of receivers. Do they waive the mirroring fee on the first owned receiver? I notice the Customer Agreement says that a fee of "up to" $5 may be charged for each owned receiver.

I really don't understand how they can get away without putting an effectivity date on the ELA.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Here's the latest from the Equipment Lease Addendum:The part about the lease fee being charged for all leased receivers UNLESS all owned receivers on the account are surrendered seems new to me.
> This may be a rude awakening to those who favor and/or promote ownership of receivers. Do they waive the mirroring fee on the first owned receiver? I notice the Customer Agreement says that a fee of "up to" $5 may be charged for each owned receiver.


As long as the "first" receiver is owned what is the difference?

Think about this example: a customer owns one DirecTV receiver and leases three. They pay a lease fee on all leased receivers (3). They don't pay a lease fee on owned receivers (owned receivers are not leased). They don't pay a mirror fee on the first receiver either (it isn't a mirror). The customer drops the owned receiver off of their account and now has three receivers all leased. They pay the lease fee on two receivers - one receiver remains free. The same price as if they would have returned one of the leased receivers.

Owned or lease, the charges are the same.


----------



## roselady

i dropped one receiver from my acct so i will have 1 hd dvr and the other 2 is standard.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

harsh said:


> Here's the latest from the Equipment Lease Addendum:
> 
> 
> DIRECTV Equipment Lease Addendum said:
> 
> 
> 
> MONTHLY LEASE FEE.
> 
> For a new DIRECTV customer, you will be charged a monthly lease fee in the amount of $5 per 2nd and each additional receiver leased by you in your household. For a current customer, you will be charged a monthly fee in the amount of $5 for each receiver leased by you in your household, unless you replace all of your owned-equipment with leased equipment, in which case, the monthly lease fee will be waived for the 1st receiver. Applicable taxes will apply. LEASE FEE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME.
> 
> 
> 
> The part about the lease fee being charged for all leased receivers UNLESS all owned receivers on the account are surrendered seems new to me. This may be a rude awakening to those who favor and/or promote ownership of receivers. Do they waive the mirroring fee on the first owned receiver? I notice the Customer Agreement says that a fee of "up to" $5 may be charged for each owned receiver.
> 
> I really don't understand how they can get away without putting an effectivity date on the ELA.
Click to expand...

That's nearly identical to this quote taken from a copy of a lease addendum I downloaded from DirecTV in Jun '08.



> *MONTHLY LEASE FEE*.
> For a new DIRECTV customer, you will be charged a monthly lease fee in the amount of $4.99 per 2nd and each additional receiver leased by you in your household. For a current customer, you will be charged a monthly fee in the amount of $4.99 for each receiver leased by you in your household, unless you replace all of your owned-equipment with leased equipment, in which case, the monthly lease fee will be waived for the 1st receiver. Applicable taxes will apply. *LEASE FEE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME*.


This is how it's always been.

Mike


----------



## BattleScott

spartanstew said:


> There's a big difference between 1) one member of the forum, that happens to work for Directv, partaking in the discussion and clarifying information AND 2) policy makers at Directv monitoring the thread for "whining" about price increases and having that impact any current or future price practices.


I would agree if the poster didn't have this in the sig line:
*DIRECTV employee and part time "liaison" for this forum*

If he's asked by someone at DirecTV, who just might be involved in pricing decisions, "Hey Satracer, what are the chat boards saying about the price increase?"

What would you rather he say?

1) "Many are saying it's getting to point now where they have to start cutting back programming or options in order continue to justify the monthly cost..."

or

2) "Not much talk about it, must not be any issues with it..."

Additionally, posting is one thing, you never know who else might just be "lurking" to gather research information.


----------



## Richierich

Nice Post BattleScott and Very Good Points.


----------



## bobcamp1

James Long said:


> As long as the "first" receiver is owned what is the difference?
> 
> Think about this example: a customer owns one DirecTV receiver and leases three. They pay a lease fee on all leased receivers (3). They don't pay a lease fee on owned receivers (owned receivers are not leased). They don't pay a mirror fee on the first receiver either (it isn't a mirror). The customer drops the owned receiver off of their account and now has three receivers all leased. They pay the lease fee on two receivers - one receiver remains free. The same price as if they would have returned one of the leased receivers.
> 
> Owned or lease, the charges are the same.


It is coincidence that the mirror and lease fees happen to be identical. D* can change that at any time.

D* is just letting you know that you won't get the first leased receiver for free (except for taxes) if you have an owned receiver on your account. You only get the credit (which can disappear at any time) if all your receivers are leased. This prevents people from claiming both credits at the same time. After all, my first owned receiver should have its mirroring fee waived, AND I should get a credit for my first leased receiver as well. This clause is the only thing preventing that.


----------



## bobcamp1

Doug Brott said:


> Actually .. you are making an assumption by saying that "the wording [...] means you aren't getting one for free."
> 
> There's is not enough information in the wording to know if the first two are:
> 
> $0 + $6, $2 + $4, $6 + $0 or some other combination.
> 
> I'm telling you .. it's $0 + $6 .. This is not an assumption .. This is a given. It is something that is known. So based on the additional information (remember, there's not enough information in the wording of the PDF) .. We now KNOW that the first one is free. There are no assumptions involved here based on the additional information that we have and the cloudy nature of the wording in the PDF gains clarity.


The problem is that anytime anyone "whines" in this forum, the D* fanboys trot out the TOS, ELA, and the PDF of the pricing structure to backup their argument that the "whiner" is screwed. If the PDF of the pricing structure is "cloudy", how are customers supposed to know what they are agreeing to?

Plus, the $0 + $6 is an assumption. The pricing statement does not state what you pay for just one receiver. D* _policy_, which can change at any moment, currently gives a credit for one-receiver customers. You are assuming that policy will absolutely never change. I don't think ANYONE can make that statement.


----------



## James Long

BattleScott said:


> I would agree if the poster didn't have this in the sig line:
> *DIRECTV employee and part time "liaison" for this forum*


How about reading the rest of the story?

"All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV"

Most of the time he's here as a "fan" of satellite service like the rest of us. Although some are more fanatical than others ... we're just people with an interest in DBS. In no way officially monitoring the thread for DirecTV.

Believe otherwise if you wish ... but it really isn't the question for this thread. So let's see more on pricing and less conspiracy theories.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

BattleScott said:


> I would agree if the poster didn't have this in the sig line:
> *DIRECTV employee and part time "liaison" for this forum*
> 
> If he's asked by someone at DirecTV, who just might be involved in pricing decisions, "Hey Satracer, what are the chat boards saying about the price increase?"
> 
> What would you rather he say?
> 
> 1) "Many are saying it's getting to point now where they have to start cutting back programming or options in order continue to justify the monthly cost..."
> 
> or
> 
> 2) "Not much talk about it, must not be any issues with it..."
> 
> Additionally, posting is one thing, you never know who else might just be "lurking" to gather research information.


What exactly is your point about SatelliteRacer because I just don't get it?

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson

bobcamp1 said:


> The problem is that anytime anyone "whines" in this forum, the D* fanboys trot out the TOS, ELA, and the PDF of the pricing structure to backup their argument that the "whiner" is screwed. If the PDF of the pricing structure is "cloudy", how are customers supposed to know what they are agreeing to?
> 
> Plus, the $0 + $6 is an assumption. The pricing statement does not state what you pay for just one receiver. D* _policy_, which can change at any moment, currently gives a credit for one-receiver customers. You are assuming that policy will absolutely never change. I don't think ANYONE can make that statement.


At least when we "fanboys trot out the TOS, ELA", etc. we have some basis for our opinions and are not just pulling them out of thin air.

Mike


----------



## James Long

bobcamp1 said:


> It is coincidence that the mirror and lease fees happen to be identical. D* can change that at any time.


It is pretty much an industry standard ... either lease or mirror. Is anyone charging both on the same box any more?



> D* is just letting you know that you won't get the first leased receiver for free (except for taxes) if you have an owned receiver on your account. You only get the credit (which can disappear at any time) if all your receivers are leased. This prevents people from claiming both credits at the same time. After all, my first owned receiver should have its mirroring fee waived, AND I should get a credit for my first leased receiver as well. This clause is the only thing preventing that.


1) The same policy already applied ... so the only change announced is $6 instead of $5.
2) People sure do like their credits. In my opinion people should be paying a lease fee on ALL receivers. Every leased receiver costs DirecTV money. They are also losing money on leased receivers by not charging the mirror fee.

I'm glad that DirecTV doesn't charge both lease and mirror fees on the same box. Those sort of ideas spread ... like raising the lease/mirror fee in the first place. One company does it and the others see it as permission.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

James Long said:


> It is pretty much an industry standard ... either lease or mirror. Is anyone charging both on the same box any more?
> 
> 1) The same policy already applied ... so the only change announced is $6 instead of $5.
> 2) People sure do like their credits. In my opinion people should be paying a lease fee on ALL receivers. Every leased receiver costs DirecTV money. They are also losing money on leased receivers by not charging the mirror fee.
> 
> I'm glad that DirecTV doesn't charge both lease and mirror fees on the same box. Those sort of ideas spread ... like raising the lease/mirror fee in the first place. One company does it and the others see it as permission.


I've always wondered why the first receiver is "free". Maybe it's a leg up on the competition or it makes the lease fee pill easier to swallow. Who Knows. :grin:

Mike


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Mike Bertelson said:


> I've always wondered why the first receiver is "free". Maybe it's a leg up on the competition or it makes the lease fee pill easier to swallow. Who Knows. :grin:
> 
> Mike


the competition makes outlet one free but if you want a DRV it's like $10-$16 /m more but that also has the HD fee build in. others also have HD box at $7-$10 /m pre outlet / box + some have a $7-$10 HD flat fee.


----------



## BKC

If you think the lease fee for the first receiver is free and isn't figured in the package price, you bought the sales pitch........


----------



## BattleScott

James Long said:


> How about reading the rest of the story?
> 
> "All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV"
> 
> Most of the time he's here as a "fan" of satellite service like the rest of us. Although some are more fanatical than others ... we're just people with an interest in DBS. In no way officially monitoring the thread for DirecTV.
> 
> Believe otherwise if you wish ... but it really isn't the question for this thread. So let's see more on pricing and less conspiracy theories.


Since some forum members are whining and insulting other forum members (seemingly unnoticed by moderators since you started with the "conspiracy theory" garbage) for posting complaints and concerns about the price increases in a thread devoted to the price increases, I think it's a very good question for the thread, actually it IS pretty much THE question for the thread.

"Officially" or not, if SatelliteRacer or any other member or guest has the ability to relay any information gathered from this thread to any interested parties at DirecTV then it's worth expressing an opinion here.


----------



## BattleScott

Mike Bertelson said:


> What exactly is your point about SatelliteRacer because I just don't get it?
> 
> Mike


See posts#652 and #662.


----------



## Doug Brott

bobcamp1 said:


> Plus, the $0 + $6 is an assumption.


You can choose to believe it when I say $0 + $6 is a given or not. The proof will come in February.


----------



## harsh

Mike Bertelson said:


> That's nearly identical to this quote taken from a copy of a lease addendum I downloaded from DirecTV in Jun '08.


Then it shouldn't be too difficult to answer my question about what "up to $5" means for owned equipment.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> Then it shouldn't be too difficult to answer my question about what "up to $5" means for owned equipment.


Nope .. pretty easy to answer .. "up to $5" means anywhere from $0 to $5. As of today the first receiver is free whether it's "owned" or "leased."


----------



## ckg1999

I have been with DirecTV since 2001 and have seen my bill double. Time to cut costs...

How does the price increase affect our ability to cancel without an ETF? I tried searching through the forum, but couldn't find it spelled out.

Thanks all!


----------



## pfp

ckg1999 said:


> I have been with DirecTV since 2001 and have seen my bill double. Time to cut costs...
> 
> How does the price increase affect our ability to cancel without an ETF? I tried searching through the forum, but couldn't find it spelled out.
> 
> Thanks all!


The contract we all agreed to when we got DirecTV states they (DirecTV) can raise the price as much as they want / remove as many channels as they want and we are left with zero recourse whatsoever.


----------



## ckg1999

pfp said:


> The contract we all agreed to when we got DirecTV states they (DirecTV) can raise the price as much as they want / remove as many channels as they want and we are left with zero recourse whatsoever.


Well, that just sucks. Guess I need to call and find out how much it's gonna cost and weigh the benefits...

Hate throwing money away.


----------



## Doug Brott

ckg1999 said:


> Well, that just sucks. Guess I need to call and find out how much it's gonna cost and weigh the benefits...
> 
> Hate throwing money away.


You may be able to move to a lesser package or decrease the number of receivers you use. Additionally, if you have High Definition and you are still paying the $10/month for HD service, you may be able to reduce that to $0/month for 2 years with autopay.


----------



## Beerstalker

pfp said:


> The contract we all agreed to when we got DirecTV states they (DirecTV) can raise the price as much as they want / remove as many channels as they want and we are left with zero recourse whatsoever.


I've never understood how the satellite companies get away with this. With Cell phone companies you sign a contract and they can't change your price, minutes, or any of that unless you decide to change your service level, or get a new phone that requires a different package.

I believe that the satellite companies should have to either keep the package price the same for the account as long as the customer keeps that package and is under contract, or allow people to exit the contract early whenever there are channel subtractions or price increases.

Theoretically DirecTV could drop all but the public access, shoping, and religious channels tomorrow, and we would all be stuck paying for their service for up to 2 years while they cut their costs to almost nothing.


----------



## James Long

Beerstalker said:


> I believe that the satellite companies should have to either keep the package price the same for the account as long as the customer keeps that package and is under contract, or allow people to exit the contract early whenever there are channel subtractions or price increases.


In order to do that the packages would have to remain static ... no new channels, including no new HD upgrades of existing channels. DirecTV would also have to negotiate carriage contracts that never increased in price.

How many people would agree to a "keep your price" contract that would never see new channels? Most customers want more channels than they agreed to for a lower price than they agreed to. "Keep your price" with no new channels is probably the best one could hope for ... and it would still be difficult to offer in a system where channel providers raise their rates every year.

DirecTV is doing well with new customer promotions ... the fall promotion and the current one DO lock in the price for one year and a 2nd year price that is only $15 more. DirecTV's first year prices have typically been locked in where other providers are not. The existence of so many grandfathered packages is not typical. Most providers don't allow people to keep discontinued core packages for as long as DirecTV has. So DirecTV is doing well.


----------



## ckg1999

Doug Brott said:


> You may be able to move to a lesser package or decrease the number of receivers you use. Additionally, if you have High Definition and you are still paying the $10/month for HD service, you may be able to reduce that to $0/month for 2 years with autopay.


I already use Autopay, but was unaware I could shave $10 off each month for that! Don't get me wrong, I love D*, but for the same price I can get the Fios Tripleplay...

I will call them up tomorrow to see what they can do.


----------



## Davenlr

xmetalx said:


> There's 2 "Select" packages.
> 
> One is the "Select Classic" for 39.99, and is only available upon request or if you ask to lower your bill they might offer it. The other is a regular base package called "Select" for 44.99 that has about 7 channels more, incl History, Lifetime, Hallmark, Food, ABC Family, GMC, History International..


I just called in, and switched from Choice to Select (the $44.99 one). I asked the CSR to confirm it will be going to $46.99 in February, and he typed some stuff into his computer, and said, "Nope, its staying at $44.99". So, that may or may not be true, but in any case, I finally have my bill down to where I want it, and only lost ESPNU, which wont be an issue now that College Football season is over.

If the DISH price increase posted in their forum, then Dish120 and DirecTv Select are par, and the equipment fees for DirecTv are much lower, so maybe DirecTv can start capturing some of us monetarily challenged folks from the other providers.

This is really a good package for News Junkies (has all the majors), with good Sports and General Family stuff.


----------



## harsh

ckg1999 said:


> How does the price increase affect our ability to cancel without an ETF?


If you're under a commitment, you pay an ETF and if you're not, you don't.

Pricing changes have no impact on commitments (unless you can't afford the minimum package). It is possible that the minimum qualifying package (DIRECTV PREFERRED CHOICE?) price may go up to $32.99. It is also possible that it will remain at $29.99.

The only question is what packages meet the minimum requirements to satisfy the commitment. DIRECTV is not particularly forthcoming about it, but if you ask enough of them nicely, you can find a CSR that is willing to tell you.


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> You may be able to move to a lesser package or decrease the number of receivers you use. Additionally, if you have High Definition and you are still paying the $10/month for HD service, you may be able to reduce that to $0/month for 2 years with autopay.


The fine print (something DIRECTV doesn't always adhere to) says that Free HD requires Choice Extra, Mas Ultra or higher so the Free HD wouldn't be in addition to a significant package reduction.

Of course the fine print also says that Free HD is not available to existing customers... :nono:


----------



## thelucky1

The Denver Post reports today

Dish Raising Monthly Prices by $3-5

Dish said that prices on premium programming and equipment will not change. *After the February hike, the satcaster also said that it will freeze prices on its core programming packages until January 2013.*

Really no surprise here, except I do like the price freeze. Wish Directv would do the same.


----------



## sigma1914

thelucky1 said:


> The Denver Post reports today
> 
> Dish Raising Monthly Prices by $3-5
> 
> Dish said that prices on premium programming and equipment will not change. *After the February hike, the satcaster also said that it will freeze prices on its core programming packages until January 2013.*
> 
> Really no surprise here, except I do like the price freeze. * Wish Directv would do the same.*


That doesn't mean other fees are frozen...That's kind of worrying. Their DVR fees and lease fees could easily raise.


----------



## MysteryMan

sigma1914 said:


> That doesn't mean other fees are frozen...That's kind of worrying. Their DVR fees and lease fees could easily raise.


Because of the economy I would expect them to at some point.


----------



## Doug Brott

The DISH pricing discussion thread is here:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=188387


----------



## Mike Bertelson

harsh said:


> Then it shouldn't be too difficult to answer my question about what "up to $5" means for owned equipment.


Since it's identical to the wording in several previous copies of the Customer Agreement I have I would suspect it means exactly what it has always meant. The following is from the Customer Agreement effective April 24, 2009...


> (3) Up to $5.00 Additional TV Authorization Fee in connection with obtaining Service on each additional TV connected to Receiving Equipment you own, provided you meet the qualifications specified in Section 1(f) and the Receiving Equipment is located at your residence. Customers with leased Receiving Equipment do not pay this fee, but pay the Lease Fee specified in the Equipment Lease Addendum.


Based on how it's currently applied, I pay $5/mo for each additional "owned" receiver. This leads me to believe that "Up to $5.00" means $5.00.

Again, it's the same as it always was so while it seems new to you...you are mistaken. :grin:

Mike


----------



## 311Man

I have been a long time customer of D* and over the years have called to cancel due to pricing, programming etc and they have provided incentives to stay. Now it is important to note that if such call is made this is no guarantee you will be offered any discounts or such.

I haven't received any notice regarding price increase (but I am sure it is on the way). If lease fees go up I already have plans to reduce the number of receivers from 4 to 2 and also give up Starz package. The bottom line is I stay with D* for the HD sports content that no other provider can provide. I can't stop D* from raising prices but I have a choice to reduce programming costs. 

In this case I will save over $25/mo. and D* gets less revenue from me. If more people would do it then maybe D* would realize rate increases could hurt the bottom line. The problem is not enough people do it and D* just makes more money.


----------



## spartanstew

311Man said:


> In this case I will save over $25/mo. and D* gets less revenue from me. If more people would do it then maybe D* would realize rate increases could hurt the bottom line. The problem is not enough people do it and D* just makes more money.


When you drop packages and equipment it also reduces their costs, so while you're saving $25/month, it's not costing D* $25 to their bottom line.

A rate increase will not hurt their bottom line no matter how many people scale back (unless they lose every customer, of course).

It's just a matter of margins.


----------



## BattleScott

spartanstew said:


> When you drop packages and equipment it also reduces their costs, so while you're saving $25/month, it's not costing D* $25 to their bottom line.
> 
> A rate increase will not hurt their bottom line no matter how many people scale back (unless they lose every customer, of course).
> 
> It's just a matter of margins.


So, if I understand you correctly, all ~20M subscribers could scale back by $25.00 per month (that would be ~$1.5B per Qtr or nearly 25% of revenue) and this would not pose any economic problem for DirecTV because somehow their costs are also decreasing proportionally?


----------



## BattleScott

311Man said:


> In this case I will save over $25/mo. and D* gets less revenue from me. If more people would do it then maybe D* would realize rate increases could hurt the bottom line. The problem is not enough people do it and D* just makes more money.


I would take that as a sign that most subscribers are not yet at the point where they feel a real need to cut back. It's good business to know where that point is and to stay as close as you can without going over.


----------



## dualsub2006

"BattleScott" said:


> So, if I understand you correctly, all ~20M subscribers could scale back by $25.00 per month (that would be ~$1.5B per Qtr or nearly 25% of revenue) and this would not pose any economic problem for DirecTV because somehow their costs are also decreasing proportionally?


Well, nowhere near 100% of subscribers will scale back their package or their equipment. The actuaries in D* accounting have calculated (likely quite accurately) how many subscribers will scale back. The increased prices have been priced to offset this.

Nobody in the executive offices of any public company will even fart without both the accountants and the legal staff signing off on the toot after carefully weighing the potential harm to the bottom line from that stinker.


----------



## spartanstew

BattleScott said:


> So, if I understand you correctly, all ~20M subscribers could scale back by $25.00 per month (that would be ~$1.5B per Qtr or nearly 25% of revenue) and this would not pose any economic problem for DirecTV because somehow their costs are also decreasing proportionally?


Well, obviously, if 100% of subscribers cut their bill by 25% their net profit would drop, but they'd lay off many CSR's, techs, programmers, etc, which would cut their costs further and they'd still be able to maintain a pretty good net profit.

Would it be less than now (cash)? Sure, but the Net Margin % would probably be higher than it is now (due to the price increase).

I'm sure they'd still have enough to cover fixed costs.


----------



## YtseJammer1977

THX said:


> For me this is the straw that breaks the camel's back.
> 
> People are taking pay cuts or their pay is frozen. For me I'll be scaling back programming.
> 
> I wonder what Directv will do once more and more people start scaling back to the point where it is affecting their revenue?


It won't. This happens every year. People complain about the price increase. But they don't want to lose any precious channels. The bottom line is that you agreed to this. It's in the contract. What do you expect them to do, operate at a loss so you can afford one more cup of Starbucks every month? If you don't like it, go back to your antenna. It's that simple.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Beerstalker said:


> I've never understood how the satellite companies get away with this. With Cell phone companies you sign a contract and they can't change your price, minutes, or any of that unless you decide to change your service level, or get a new phone that requires a different package.
> 
> I believe that the satellite companies should have to either keep the package price the same for the account as long as the customer keeps that package and is under contract, or allow people to exit the contract early whenever there are channel subtractions or price increases.
> 
> Theoretically DirecTV could drop all but the public access, shoping, and religious channels tomorrow, and we would all be stuck paying for their service for up to 2 years while they cut their costs to almost nothing.


Pretty simple. The cell phone companies are selling you "air" to talk over. The cable and satellite companies are selling you content that vary in costs all the time based on what those content companies decide they are going to charge when contracts come up.

That's the difference and a HUGE one at that.


----------



## Satelliteracer

thelucky1 said:


> The Denver Post reports today
> 
> Dish Raising Monthly Prices by $3-5
> 
> Dish said that prices on premium programming and equipment will not change. *After the February hike, the satcaster also said that it will freeze prices on its core programming packages until January 2013.*
> 
> Really no surprise here, except I do like the price freeze. Wish Directv would do the same.


PROGRAMMING FEES will be frozen. You can take it to the bank that there will be other fee increases. They have escalator programming contracts just like every other MSO, they're just using a wordsmithing tool on this because they're going to have to increase their prices in future years as well, or lose a ton of channels in order to compensate for the difference.


----------



## James Long

Satelliteracer said:


> PROGRAMMING FEES will be frozen. You can take it to the bank that there will be other fee increases. They have escalator programming contracts just like every other MSO, they're just using a wordsmithing tool on this because they're going to have to increase their prices in future years as well, or lose a ton of channels in order to compensate for the difference.


DISH is raising their rates enough in February to cover both years. The big fee increase was last year ... I doubt there will be another next year. The fees are already at a point beyond the understanding of most customers (although without the $99 upfront cost they are actually competitive).


----------



## BattleScott

spartanstew said:


> Well, obviously, if 100% of subscribers cut their bill by 25% their net profit would drop, but they'd lay off many CSR's, techs, programmers, etc, which would cut their costs further and they'd still be able to maintain a pretty good net profit.
> 
> Would it be less than now (cash)? Sure, but the Net Margin % would probably be higher than it is now (due to the price increase).
> 
> I'm sure they'd still have enough to cover fixed costs.


Well, obviously that's an extreme example, but the point is that just because a subscriber reduces their expenditure by $25 does not automatically allow DirecTV to reduce their costs proportionally. If 20 Million subcribers only "reduce" their service, then DirecTV can't just "lay off" people to make up the difference. They still need to keep enough resources to service those 20 million.


----------



## cypherx

Could be worse. Frontier is raising rates as much as 46%
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Frontier-FiOS-TV-Customers-See-Huge-Rate-Hike-112098

The grass isn't always greener on the other side!


----------



## James Long

BattleScott said:


> So, if I understand you correctly, all ~20M subscribers could scale back by $25.00 per month (that would be ~$1.5B per Qtr or nearly 25% of revenue) and this would not pose any economic problem for DirecTV because somehow their costs are also decreasing proportionally?


DirecTV doesn't have 20 million subscribers. They don't have 18.93 million subscribers either ... that number is a calculation that includes "commercial equivalent viewing units" where they take commercial subscription revenue and divide it by some figure to create a number. BTW: Assuming that 18.93 million was a correct subscriber count, $25 * 18.93 is $473.25 million ... not $1.5B. (About 9.4% of revenues.)

But does the average customer have the $25 to cut? Sticking with the bad numbers we have, the average revenue per subscriber is $88.98 ... if $25 of that could be cut that would leave the customer at $63.98. Roughly Choice Xtra and no receivers (before the price change). Based on that I'd say the average customer doesn't have $25 they could cut ...

As far as the "savings to DirecTV" ... the most expensive part of having customers with multiple receivers is the leasing. With DirecTV's upfront cost someone dropping a $5 receiver because they don't want to pay $6 just puts the owned equipment back in the pool to serve another customer (with the ability to charge a $99 upfront cost for the same receiver when it is installed in the next customers home). They save the cost of getting the next customer's receiver. Otherwise, there is no real savings to DirecTV when one drops a receiver.


----------



## BattleScott

James Long said:


> DirecTV doesn't have 20 million subscribers. They don't have 18.93 million subscribers either ... that number is a calculation that includes "commercial equivalent viewing units" where they take commercial subscription revenue and divide it by some figure to create a number. BTW: Assuming that 18.93 million was a correct subscriber count, $25 * 18.93 is $473.25 million ... not $1.5B. (About 9.4% of revenues.)


~ means approximately.

There are 3 months in each quarter, so the quarterly revenue impact would still be ~1.5B (1.42B if you prefer your figures). Q3-2010 revenue was ~6B so that is ~25%



James Long said:


> But does the average customer have the $25 to cut? Sticking with the bad numbers we have, the average revenue per subscriber is $88.98 ... if $25 of that could be cut that would leave the customer at $63.98. Roughly Choice Xtra and no receivers (before the price change). Based on that I'd say the average customer doesn't have $25 they could cut ...


So what if it's $20.00, or 19.95, $10.00 or whatever? it's still cutting services and reducing the RPS accordingly.



James Long said:


> As far as the "savings to DirecTV" ... the most expensive part of having customers with multiple receivers is the leasing. With DirecTV's upfront cost someone dropping a $5 receiver because they don't want to pay $6 just puts the owned equipment back in the pool to serve another customer (with the ability to charge a $99 upfront cost for the same receiver when it is installed in the next customers home). They save the cost of getting the next customer's receiver. Otherwise, there is no real savings to DirecTV when one drops a receiver.


There is a small cost to get the receiver back, to inventory it and re-ship it to the new customer. In most cases the "new customer" is given the hardware at "no upfront cost" as well as substantial programming discounts.

I stand by my assertion that, regardless of scale, existing customers dropping receivers and or services is not a positive or even nuetral event for DirecTV.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

BattleScott said:


> ~ means approximately.
> 
> There are 3 months in each quarter, so the quarterly revenue impact would still be ~1.5B (1.42B if you prefer your figures). Q3-2010 revenue was ~6B so that is ~25%
> 
> So what if it's $20.00, or 19.95, $10.00 or whatever? it's still cutting services and reducing the RPS accordingly.
> 
> There is a small cost to get the receiver back, to inventory it and re-ship it to the new customer. In most cases the "new customer" is given the hardware at "no upfront cost" as well as substantial programming discounts.
> 
> I stand by my assertion that, regardless of scale, existing customers dropping receivers and or services is not a positive or even nuetral event for DirecTV.


Actually, in the context in which you use ~, ≈ is more correct.

However, it's all academic because it'll never happen. I'll be willing to bet that 95%+ of subscribers will just go with the price increase. The majority of those who do lower will probably only do so to keep the bill about the same as it is now...or ≈the same bill. 

Mike


----------



## James Long

BattleScott said:


> ~ means approximately.


Rounding up!


> There are 3 months in each quarter, so the quarterly revenue impact would still be ~1.5B (1.42B if you prefer your figures). Q3-2010 revenue was ~6B so that is ~25%


I was wondering how you could be so far off ... 3 months per quarter. I missed that thought.


> So what if it's $20.00, or 19.95, $10.00 or whatever? it's still cutting services and reducing the RPS accordingly.


One cannot trim the fat unless there is a place to trim.


> There is a small cost to get the receiver back, to inventory it and re-ship it to the new customer. In most cases the "new customer" is given the hardware at "no upfront cost" as well as substantial programming discounts.


Not according to DirecTV's website ... and the other losses (subscriber acquisition costs) of adding a customer are not the issue. DirecTV gets to save a little money by placing a used receiver that they were only making $5 per month on instead of buying a new one.

It is the only savings associated with a receiver being dropped. Otherwise, DirecTV just loses the $5 per month (soon to be $6) revenue with no savings to offset the loss.


> I stand by my assertion that, regardless of scale, existing customers dropping receivers and or services is not a positive or even nuetral event for DirecTV.


With that I was agreeing - it is a loss. Re leasing the receiver gives them the chance to make up some of the loss of the lease fee ... services would be a different issue. If people drop programming (such as premium packages) DirecTV doesn't have to pay the programmers their cut ... so dropping $25 in programming doesn't mean DirecTV loses $25 in profit.

Revenue is overrated ... it is profit that really matters.


----------



## BAHitman

I knew they would figure a way to get the $10 for free HD back from me... I have 10 boxes so they are getting $9 more from me... At least they didn't increase Premier.


----------



## Shades228

I thought they would follow Dish more and go higher for HD/HD DVR boxes and then reduce the one time charge per box to get people to upgrade more. As I say about any price increase while I don't like them a price increase should never be able to stress your monthly finances, exception are retired people on fixed income, and if it does you're probably over spending to begin with. For people on fixed income it just comes down to practicality. Sure TV is nice it's definately not a necessity. With the family package, and netflix I think most people could adapt enough if they can no longer afford higher packages. They may be behind on the series of some shows for a season but after that they would be ok.


----------



## dpeters11

cypherx said:


> Could be worse. Frontier is raising rates as much as 46%
> http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Frontier-FiOS-TV-Customers-See-Huge-Rate-Hike-112098
> 
> The grass isn't always greener on the other side!


That's an extreme example. That's an example of a company that quite literally wants to get out of the TV business.


----------



## BattleScott

James Long said:


> Not according to DirecTV's website


Where on Directv's website does it discus how much it costs them to get their equipment back and re-ship it?  I know they probably get good rates from the carriers, but I doubt its free.



James Long said:


> With that I was agreeing - it is a loss. Re leasing the receiver gives them the chance to make up some of the loss of the lease fee ... services would be a different issue. If people drop programming (such as premium packages) DirecTV doesn't have to pay the programmers their cut ... so dropping $25 in programming doesn't mean DirecTV loses $25 in profit.


No it certainly doesn't, but they do lose their profit, so it's not a simple wash.

The below post was the one I was questioning which seems to be implying that somehow it is just a wash.



spartanstew said:


> When you drop packages and equipment it also reduces their costs, so while you're saving $25/month, it's not costing D* $25 to their bottom line.
> 
> *A rate increase will not hurt their bottom line no matter how many people scale back (unless they lose every customer, of course).*
> 
> It's just a matter of margins.





James Long said:


> Revenue is overrated ... it is profit that really matters.


You can't have one without the other.


----------



## BattleScott

Mike Bertelson said:


> Actually, in the context in which you use ~, ≈ is more correct.


Both are acceptable symbologies and the ~ is easier to produce.



Mike Bertelson said:


> However, it's all academic because it'll never happen. I'll be willing to bet that 95%+ of subscribers will just go with the price increase. The majority of those who do lower will probably only do so to keep the bill about the same as it is now...or ≈the same bill.
> Mike


I agree completely in reality, but as with most discussions here, reality is usually checked at the door. 
The discussion was obviously a hypothetical one, but that does not negate the value of it.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

BattleScott said:


> Both are acceptable symbologies and the ~ is easier to produce.
> 
> I agree completely in reality, but as with most discussions here, reality is usually checked at the door.
> The discussion was obviously a hypothetical one, but that does not negate the value of it.


Actually in mathematics the ~ is the symbol for 'varies as' or 'is similar to', while ≈ (ascii symbol, Alt+247 on your keyboard) is the symbol for 'approximately equal to'. 

Of course the discussion is theoretical exercise but to discuss the income lost due to every subscriber reducing their bill by $25 is beyond theoretical. It's actually so improbable as to be impossible and has little meaning. Although, it is an interesting though experiment but then you would have figure out how much of the $25 is offset by the price increases. 

There certainly will be a percentage that might reduce their programming/hardware costs as a result of the price increase. There will be some who will reduce it to be bear minimum and even those that will pay the ETF and beat feet to "greener pastures". However, I would bet my annual salary that DirecTV's revenues will go up this year. :grin:

Not to mention adding new customers to the mix.

Mike


----------



## James Long

BattleScott said:


> Where on Directv's website does it discus how much it costs them to get their equipment back and re-ship it?


I was referring to the end of the part quoted: "_In most cases the "new customer" is given the hardware at "no upfront cost" as well as substantial programming discounts._"

It is certainly cheaper for a return label shipping and minimal refurb than to buy a new unit. The more people who return usable receivers, the less receivers DirecTV needs to buy. But that really isn't the point.

The point is that DirecTV doesn't save $5 when someone returns a receiver and stops paying them $5.



> James Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revenue is overrated ... it is profit that really matters.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have one without the other.
Click to expand...

Yet you can have higher profit on lower revenue if the margin is right. Seeing revenue grow does not mean profits are growing. Seeing revenue fall does not mean profits are falling.


----------



## TBoneit

Mike Bertelson said:


> Actually, in the context in which you use ~, ≈ is more correct.
> 
> However, it's all academic because it'll never happen. I'll be willing to bet that 95%+ of subscribers will just go with the price increase. The majority of those who do lower will probably only do so to keep the bill about the same as it is now...or ≈the same bill.
> 
> Mike


If that were me wanting to reduce costs and if I were paying for premium channels or sports packs, I'm not by the way, then I'd drop something to bring the price back to where I want it.

Back in the pre-satellite days when we had cross country cable or TKR cable and the prices went up, I started by dropping a premium each price increase and when they were done I started dropping level of service.

Then I got DirecTV and a little later added DishNetwork with Superstations, Then came the fiasco where DirecTV bought USSB and you couldn't get through on the phone-lines. Followed by DirecTVs next fiasco when they added locals when they didn't have enough bandwidth to do so. I got really torqued off when that happened and the picture went to pot. I recall watching a HBO movie and during a night scene the shine of cars brake lights became red blocks.

Bottom line I've always found reducing what I'm paying for viable option. Now that I have the 101Mb internet service Streaming video is feasible.


----------



## 311Man

spartanstew said:


> When you drop packages and equipment it also reduces their costs, so while you're saving $25/month, it's not costing D* $25 to their bottom line.
> 
> A rate increase will not hurt their bottom line no matter how many people scale back (unless they lose every customer, of course).
> 
> It's just a matter of margins.


Explain to me how dropping packages reduces D* costs? When people drop programming it is less revenue. Period. In my case they get one of two receivers back (the other I own). Less revenue for lease fees.

The issue is the majority of people choose not to reduce there bill like I have. If more people did it then it would absolutely affect their bottom line. There margin remains because the majority choose to pay it. I saved others just choose to pay.


----------



## Golfman

elwaylite said:


> No we know that they are adding HDO VOD, which HBO charges xtra for, they gotta get it from somewhere


I thought this was great till I checked it out at 1501. There is no HD VOD. Everything so far is SD. If that's all they are gonna offer it isn't worth any additional charges.


----------



## RunnerFL

Golfman said:


> I thought this was great till I checked it out at 1501. There is no HD VOD. Everything so far is SD. If that's all they are gonna offer it isn't worth any additional charges.


http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2649158&postcount=174


----------



## SParker

Ugh so my bill is going up $6 a month... great. Oh well.


----------



## DCSholtis

I got the email this morning from D* as well. Confused though as it doesn't mention the Premier plan. Is that package price staying the same??


----------



## sdirv

Got this e-mail this morning:

http://www.directv.com/pricechange/...df?CMP=EMC-MQ-CS&ATT=120-LS-EN-110107final&m=

Looks like there will be no change in (my) base pricing for the Premier Package, although there are new packages and prices for some others.

The monthly lease fee for receivers is going up $1 each, so my own bill will go up by $3 a month.


----------



## RAD

sdirv said:


> Got this e-mail this morning:
> 
> http://www.directv.com/pricechange/...df?CMP=EMC-MQ-CS&ATT=120-LS-EN-110107final&m=
> 
> Looks like there will be no change in (my) base pricing for the Premier Package, although there are new packages and prices for some others.
> 
> The monthly lease fee for receivers is going up $1 each, so my own bill will go up by $3 a month.


Satelliteracer has confirmed that there will not be any price increase for Premier this year.


----------



## Satelliteracer

James Long said:


> DISH is raising their rates enough in February to cover both years. The big fee increase was last year ... I doubt there will be another next year. The fees are already at a point beyond the understanding of most customers (although without the $99 upfront cost they are actually competitive).


A fun side wager on that?


----------



## stoutman

I saw the CW charge on the rate sheet. I have never paid for CW from Washington. Am I grandfathered or will I see a charge soon? 

BTW..My local CW is a subchannel and they would love to be carried. They have yankees games


----------



## James Long

Satelliteracer said:


> A fun side wager on that?


You're going to bet on my opinion? I'm pretty sure I know my opinion better than you.


----------



## Satelliteracer

James Long said:


> You're going to bet on my opinion? I'm pretty sure I know my opinion better than you.


LOL. No, I was saying a fun wager on whether they increase other fees. I believe (my opinion) that they will do so next year. They are, to your point, obviously taking a larger increase this year but unless they plan on doing something like dropping some key content next year, I believe they will have to increase fees somewhere else. Just my opinion.


----------



## James Long

Satelliteracer said:


> LOL. No, I was saying a fun wager on whether they increase other fees. I believe (my opinion) that they will do so next year.


I believe they will be fine. The price between February 2003 and today (not including the coming bump) has gone up $10 on AT120, $15 on AT200 and AT250, and $20 on AEP ... spread over seven years. $5 more should be enough to last them two years. (BTW - those 2003 prices were for AT 50/100CD/150 and AEP - name changes reflecting the addition of channels to the packages. We're not expecting channel additions other than HD.)

Last year's fee increases should have been enough to last a while as well ... going from $5 per SD receiver to $7 per output and still charging $3 more for a DVR than a non-DVR (despite making the $6 DVR fee per account like DirecTV's). They already charge a fee to return equipment after canceling ... what is left? A "CSR support fee"? 

As long as the channel providers don't go through the roof I don't see an issue with keeping prices and fees the same for two years ... although in February 2013 the excuse for a higher increase will be that prices have not increased in two years. :grin:


----------



## Paul E Fox II

The mirroring fee is a joke and now up it goes..again.

Prices going up...again.

This is gonna just about do it for us. Once we're clear of our current agreement, I'm lobbying for dropping. 

There just isn't that much on that I can't get elsewhere, cheaper with a little patience.


----------



## dpeters11

Paul E Fox II said:


> The mirroring fee is a joke and now up it goes..again.
> 
> Prices going up...again.
> 
> This is gonna just about do it for us. Once we're clear of our current agreement, I'm lobbying for dropping.
> 
> There just isn't that much on that I can't get elsewhere, cheaper with a little patience.


I believe the mirroring fee has stayed the same for many years. But they're doing things like RVU that would not require receivers on each TV. Now of course we don't have pricing, but eventually customers may have fewer leasing/mirroring fees, but as many or more TVs.

I don't know of any provider that doesn't charge for boxes, some much more than DirecTV. Heck, I when I cancelled Time Warner, they were raising my monthly remote fee among others.


----------



## joshjr

"dpeters11" said:


> I believe the mirroring fee has stayed the same for many years. But they're doing things like RVU that would not require receivers on each TV. Now of course we don't have pricing, but eventually customers may have fewer leasing/mirroring fees, but as many or more TVs.
> 
> I don't know of any provider that doesn't charge for boxes, some much more than DirecTV. Heck, I when I cancelled Time Warner, they were raising my monthly remote fee among others.


Just checked here today for a elderly lady to up her Cable and get the new OWN network would cost her $11 a month just for the box and $4 for the additional package that channel is in. Thats just wrong. I package is called the digital value pack lol. $15 a month for 1 box and 1 channel being wanted. Good lord. I think they would make alot more money if the first box was free. She would pay $4 for that channel. All i can say is screw you CableOne. Im not gonna let you rip off this sweet old lady.


----------



## SWORDFISH

dpeters11 said:


> I believe the mirroring fee has stayed the same for many years. But they're doing things like RVU that would not require receivers on each TV. Now of course we don't have pricing, *but eventually customers may have fewer leasing/mirroring fees*, but as many or more TVs..............


However, the leasing/mirroring fees will probably replaced by a new RVU fee.

SF


----------



## tomski35

joed32 said:


> Price for first two now is $5, in Feb. first two will be $6 it ain't Calculus.


Post of the year!

This is very simple.


----------



## Doug Brott

tomski35 said:


> Post of the year!
> 
> This is very simple.


Just under the wire, too.


----------



## Billzebub

I know this isn't what anyone wants to hear, but the price increase caused me to increase my package. With Total Choice plus going up and HBO going up by $1, I switched to premire. I already had HBO, Showtime and Starz and I wanted the college basketball in the sports pack. It just made sense to me.

On the other hand, I have Comcast in Harrisburg. I was getting Cinemax for 410 per month and HBO and Showtime for $7.95 each. The promotions is expiring and the price was going to $21.95 per month for each one of them. I did there what a lot of people are saying they'r edoing here. I canceled all three and bought a Blueray player that has streaming netflix. 

I like it a lot, but if I didn't have the premium channels at home I don't think I'd like to wait for netflix to have the series I want (HBO and Showtime).


----------



## tomcat11

I 've been a long time fan and loyal customer to DTV. When I got my first set-up (owned) SAT-B2 receiver it was awesome. I set up all my owned equipment and in 06 I got into HD and again set up my own equipment. At that time we got HD net, and some other HD only channels. It was great. Then they cut those channels and put them into a separate package and wanted to charge you for them. I've got TC+, HD acess, Sports pack, my two receivers one being the original B2 (which is still going strong). The biggest problem now is the programing has become just terrible and getting worse all the time with all the shopping, religous, foreign, infomercials, etc. who the hell watches that crap anyway, and then there's the channels that just play the same show all day or all night, then there's the repeats over and over on and on, that's just brilliant. There's no decent movies on anymore just the same three they played 6 months ago. 

Dear, D please fire the retard bean counters in charge of programing, oh I know you'd have to buy more programing and that would cut into your profits.

I know D is probably still better that than thier competitors but man I'm up to $89.48 a month and now it's creeping up again. WHAT A JOKE! 

Mirror fee? Ya more Benjamins

Sorry D I'm going to cut something here, What I'm getting is just not worth the $93 a month.

Fact is we all look like huge pile of suckers with Benjamin heads to all the providers, TV really sucks, I don't need the red diaper doper baby channel, Gene Simmons family freaks or the politically slanted sound bite news repeats. Gee I wonder if I can get the Dopra Winfrey network in HD? Cant wait for her 24 hr crapathon. Oh wait , gotta go, I'm missing Dr. Phil in the prime time Slot!

rrrrrrrr'ant over!


----------



## spartanstew

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but D* is not in charge of the programming for individual channels. Additionally, you can remove them from the guide if you wish. One of my DVR's only has 20 channels in the guide.


----------



## tomcat11

spartanstew said:


> I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but D* is not in charge of the programming for individual channels. Additionally, you can remove them from the guide if you wish. One of my DVR's only has 20 channels in the guide.


Ya I know, they negociate the contracts with the providers they pay. They could do a lot better for their high paying customers.

and ya I know how to work the guide. I figured that out right after I aligned my HD Dish to pick up seven geostationary satelites. Besides I don't like closing my eyes and opening my wallet.

If they had all channels ala cart my bill would be like $12.


----------



## spartanstew

tomcat11 said:


> Ya I know, they negociate the contracts with the providers they pay. They could do a lot better for their high paying customers.


I'm not sure you're familiar with the way the negotiations work (regardless of how many geostationary sate*ll*ites you pick up). They should nego*t*iate different channels for different customers based on how much they pay??



tomcat11 said:


> If they had all channels ala cart my bill would be like $12.


You'd only have 3 channels? Might as well just go OTA and save the $12 too.


----------



## tomcat11

spartanstew said:


> I'm not sure you're familiar with the way the negotiations work (regardless of how many geostationary sate*ll*ites you pick up). They should nego*t*iate different channels for different customers based on how much they pay??
> 
> You'd only have 3 channels? Might as well just go OTA and save the $12 too.


Let's try to be clear.

Point #1 if I can set-up my own dish I can figure out how to work the remote.

Point #2 They can and should negotiate better contracts for better and/or more programing which would cost them more leaving them less profits.

Point #3 I find, in my personal opinion, that out of the many channels that I pay for, I actually watch only a small percentage. I would much rather pay a dollar a channel (hence ala cart). Just think, your bill would only be $20.:grin:


----------



## spartanstew

tomcat11 said:


> Point #2 They can and should negotiate better contracts for better and/or more programing which would cost them more leaving them less profits.


So, if they negotiate better contracts they'll have less profits? Seems to me, that if that were the case, they should negotiate worse contracts (and increase profits).



tomcat11 said:


> Point #3 I find, in my personal opinion, that out of the many channels that I pay for, I actually watch only a small percentage. I would much rather pay a dollar a channel (hence ala cart). Just think, your bill would only be $20.:grin:


It would be a lot more than $1 per channel. Closer to $3-$5 (on average), I would imagine. Which is why your $12 total would yield 2-3 channels.


----------



## tomcat11

spartanstew said:


> So, if they negotiate better contracts they'll have less profits? Seems to me, that if that were the case, they should negotiate worse contracts (and increase profits).
> 
> Hey you got it!
> 
> It would be a lot more than $1 per channel. Closer to $3-$5 (on average), I would imagine. Which is why your $12 total would yield 2-3 channels.


You can't just take what you are paying now and divide it by the number of channels you receive and assume that what you are paying per channel is a good value. Even if it was $3 a channel and you use my 12 channel example the bill would be $36 correct? $5 a channel would be $60 correct? This would mean that I would be paying for and only for what I watch which is better than paying $93 for those same channels.. The theme here is paying for what you want and not paying for what you do not.

But hey I'm signing off now nice chatting with you.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

tomcat11 said:


> I 've been a long time fan and loyal customer to DTV. When I got my first set-up (owned) SAT-B2 receiver it was awesome. I set up all my owned equipment and in 06 I got into HD and again set up my own equipment. At that time we got HD net, and some other HD only channels. It was great. Then they cut those channels and put them into a separate package and wanted to charge you for them. I've got TC+, HD acess, Sports pack, my two receivers one being the original B2 (which is still going strong). The biggest problem now is the programing has become just terrible and getting worse all the time with all the shopping, religous, foreign, infomercials, etc. who the hell watches that crap anyway, and then there's the channels that just play the same show all day or all night, then there's the repeats over and over on and on, that's just brilliant. There's no decent movies on anymore just the same three they played 6 months ago.


 I've been a DirecTV customer since '02 and I have all the same channesl I had then plus what's been added since. Are you saying the programming on the channels you've always gotten is going downhill or are you saying what you've always watched is fine but the new channels are dragging the rest down?



> Dear, D please fire the retard bean counters in charge of programing, oh I know you'd have to buy more programing and that would cut into your profits.


They're a business and they're in it to make a profit. So, what do you think is a reasonable profit margin?



> I know D is probably still better that than thier competitors but man I'm up to $89.48 a month and now it's creeping up again. WHAT A JOKE!
> 
> Mirror fee? Ya more Benjamins


The mirror/lease fee is still far less than what the other providers charge per additional box. AAMOF, all the services providers in my area would be charging two to three times more than that for each receiver so, personally, I think it's a great deal...but hey, maybe that's just me. :grin:



> Sorry D I'm going to cut something here, What I'm getting is just not worth the $93 a month.
> 
> Fact is we all look like huge pile of suckers with Benjamin heads to all the providers, TV really sucks, I don't need the red diaper doper baby channel, Gene Simmons family freaks or the politically slanted sound bite news repeats. Gee I wonder if I can get the Dopra Winfrey network in HD? Cant wait for her 24 hr crapathon. Oh wait , gotta go, I'm missing Dr. Phil in the prime time Slot!
> 
> rrrrrrrr'ant over!


We all have to do what's best for wants and budgets. I've compared what I have with DirecTV to all my local providers and, for now at least, they would all cost me more (and some won't even match the amount of hardware and they're still more).

BTW, all that stuff you don't like is really popular. It's on TV because that's what people want to see so that's where the money is. We may not like it. There's plenty on TV that I don't like including some of what you listed. I just don't watch it. 

Mike


----------



## BKC

tomcat11 said:


> You can't just take what you are paying now and divide it by the number of channels you receive and assume that what you are paying per channel is a good value. Even if it was $3 a channel and you use my 12 channel example the bill would be $36 correct? $5 a channel would be $60 correct? This would mean that I would be paying for and only for what I watch which is better than paying $93 for those same channels.. The theme here is paying for what you want and not paying for what you do not.
> 
> But hey I'm signing off now nice chatting with you.


Good post but you'll get shot down by by all of those that know what's best for you. lol


----------



## PSXBatou

It is what it is. In order to be in compliance with my 2 year agreement and get all my discounts I have to be Choice Ultimate or above, no complaints, its what I signed up for when I agreed to the 2 year term. 

I pay $90 a month, $92 after the increase, but with the amount of channels I get and the equipment we have its still a hell of a lot cheaper than what we were paying with Comcast. I like having 2 HD DVR's and seeing 1 $7 fee, not 2 $17 fees. Or when an additional box is $5 as compared to Comcasts $12.95 per outlet. When I left Comcast my cable only bill was nearly $135 and I had nowhere near the programming I have now, nor did I even have boxes in all the rooms like I do now. 

I was happy to leave Comcast, the HD on DirecTV is far superior and I get more for my money.

I just wish my company gave raises like these companies give price increases :lol:


----------



## tomcat11

BKC said:


> Good post but you'll get shot down by by all of those that know what's best for you. lol


Thanks,

This is off topic but they will certainly try and there arguments will never pass the common sense test. Just coming to mental state of mind where you think and try to promote what you think is best for everyone is in itself narrow minded and dangerous. Obviously only I know what is best for me and only you know what is best for you.


----------



## Doug Brott

I think everyone has had their say on what "they" think .. Let's get back to talking about the pricing and not each other. Thanks.


----------



## Doug Brott

tomcat11 said:


> Ya I know, they negociate the contracts with the providers they pay. They could do a lot better for their high paying customers.


As sad as it sounds .. I really don't think sub-$100 per month is considered a "high paying customer" any more.



> If they had all channels ala cart my bill would be like $12.


Yes .. If no one else were allowed to have a la carte .. this would be true.

If it were even allowed (Disney, NBC, etc. require some degree of bundling not even in DIRECTV's control), each provider would raise prices. Just looking back in this thread at the earlier a la carte discussion:



sigma1914 said:


> There's been serious studies done...this isn't something new.
> 
> People who want a la carte use that chart to show how cheap channels should cost us. They'll say, "See...BBCA should only cost us $0.12." They fail to realize that a la carte wouldn't make a lot of stations any money. At $0.12/sub, Directv pays about $2.1 million & overall BBCA gets about $8.2 million from all providers. BBCA highest rated show ever had 1.7 million viewers & that's over all providers. So, if only 1.7 million will watch BBCA's highest show, then it's safe to assume 2 million will add it al a carte...and that's being generous. At $0.12/sub for 2 million people, that earns BBCA a whopping $240,000 from all providers combined. Bye-bye BBCA! For BBCA to earn the $8.2 million they get now, the price for little ol' BBCA would be about $4.10 per month. Now, imagine how much actual popular stations would cost...


So BBCA .. instead of $0.12/month would cost $4.10/month .. That's over a 34x increase in cost. Or (the more likely option), BBCA simply vanishes from the landscape.

Bundling really gives the best bang for the buck for everyone even though prices still stink.


----------



## tomcat11

Mike Bertelson said:


> I've been a DirecTV customer since '02 and I have all the same channesl I had then plus what's been added since. Are you saying the programming on the channels you've always gotten is going downhill or are you saying what you've always watched is fine but the new channels are dragging the rest down?[
> 
> *It is not the channel itself (i.e. A&E, History Channel, etc.). It's the programing. I've been a customer since '94 and the things I mentioned in my earlier posts like for example putting repeats of Dog the Bounty Hunter on a given channel hour after hour limits that particular channel in such a way that if you don't feel like watching the Dog you have basically lost that channel and the variety of programing that could be showed. I like the Dog but I just don't want the Dog only channel. There are other channels that do the same thing. There is alot more programing that exists, programing I used to enjoy. If I had to wait an hour for something better to watch no problem.*
> 
> They're a business and they're in it to make a profit. So, what do you think is a reasonable profit margin?
> 
> *I have no problem with a business making a profit. I cannot say what D's profit margin is but I can tell you for sure that the product they provide has been greatly dimished over time and we are all paying more for it. It is the best choice of evils given what our options are, but that does not make it a good product or value. It just makes it best choice.*
> 
> The mirror/lease fee is still far less than what the other providers charge per additional box. AAMOF, all the services providers in my area would be charging two to three times more than that for each receiver so, personally, I think it's a great deal...but hey, maybe that's just me. :grin:
> 
> *Just because it is cheaper than the other providers does not make it "a great deal" it is a bogus charge with no merit especially when you consider they charge us for it every month.*
> 
> We all have to do what's best for wants and budgets. I've compared what I have with DirecTV to all my local providers and, for now at least, they would all cost me more (and some won't even match the amount of hardware and they're still more).
> 
> BTW, all that stuff you don't like is really popular. It's on TV because that's what people want to see so that's where the money is. We may not like it. There's plenty on TV that I don't like including some of what you listed. I just don't watch it.
> 
> Mike


*It's good that you do your home work. The point here is that all they have to do is be slightly better than the rest and all is well. It's not. I really don't think TV programing is based on what people actuall want to see but it is the money that dictates what is on.*

"There's plenty on TV that I don't like including some of what you listed. I just don't watch it". *The problem with this is again, you are paying for something you are not using which for me seems to be increasing along with the cost.*


----------



## tomcat11

Doug Brott said:


> I think everyone has had their say on what "they" think .. Let's get back to talking about the pricing and not each other. Thanks.


This whole board is about expressing what "they" think, including pricing. And now you are telling us what you think.


----------



## tomcat11

Doug Brott said:


> As sad as it sounds .. I really don't think sub-$100 per month is considered a "high paying customer" any more.
> 
> Yes .. If no one else were allowed to have a la carte .. this would be true.
> 
> If it were even allowed (Disney, NBC, etc. require some degree of bundling not even in DIRECTV's control), each provider would raise prices. Just looking back in this thread at the earlier a la carte discussion:
> 
> *It is not allowed because it would create a competetive market for programing. If they raised thier prices at least the consumers would have a choice. D has a lot of control in what they negotiate.*
> 
> So BBCA .. instead of $0.12/month would cost $4.10/month .. That's over a 34x increase in cost. Or (the more likely option), BBCA simply vanishes from the landscape. *If people did'nt want to pay for it because they don't watch it, or think it is worth the price, then yes, it would vanish as it should.*
> 
> Bundling really gives the best bang for the buck for everyone even though prices still stink.


Bundling gives you no choice. This is why I left TCI cable in 1994. At the time D had better programing and a lower cost. Way more reliable too.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

tomcat11 said:


> The mirror/lease fee is still far less than what the other providers charge per additional box. AAMOF, all the services providers in my area would be charging two to three times more than that for each receiver so, personally, I think it's a great deal...but hey, maybe that's just me. :grin:
> 
> *Just because it is cheaper than the other providers does not make it "a great deal" it is a bogus charge with no merit especially when you consider they charge us for it every month.*


Actually I think it does make it a great deal. I can't base my purchases on a theoretical channel pricing. I can only compare it what's available and the alternatives will cost me much more. Simply the best deal in the real world...for now anyway.



> *It's good that you do your home work. The point here is that all they have to do is be slightly better than the rest and all is well. It's not. I really don't think TV programing is based on what people actuall want to see but it is the money that dictates what is on.*


That doesn't make any sense to me. I'm no expert but, IIUC, the advertising dollars go to the most popular programming and the most popular programming is the programming people are actually watching. From this point of view it's the number of eyeballs on the program that determines how much the advertising is worth and how much broadcasters can charge for their channels. That would indicate, to me at least, the number of people watching _is_ what determines what's on TV.

I really don't care how slightly better any service provider is doing than any other. The only thing that matters to me is getting the best value that fits my needs. Price is a big part of that but not the only part.


> "There's plenty on TV that I don't like including some of what you listed. I just don't watch it". *The problem with this is again, you are paying for something you are not using which for me seems to be increasing along with the cost.*


That's true but there's no way around it. Name a national service provider where you can pick your channels ala-carte. IMHO, there aren't any because they can't make any money at it. They can't make the pricing structure work in a way that people will use it and still be able to make money. If they could you'd see at least some service providers out there doing it.

Of course this is all conjecture on my part but we will always see bundling and tiers. That means there will be a lot there we don't want to watch, and as with everything else, prices will go up. It's the way everything works and I don't see it changing.

Mike


----------



## Tom Robertson

tomcat11 said:


> This whole board is about expressing what "they" think, including pricing. And now you are telling us what you think.


<Moderator Hat on>
Remember not to question moderation acts in public. If you feel a moderator has overstepped his/her bounds, take it to PM.

Doug was proper in steering the thread in one post, an act of moderation, then putting his personal 2 pennies in separate post. After all, we are both members and moderators.

<Moderator hat off>

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

Now _my_ personal thoughts. 

Ala carte had its time, had its try, and failed in the c-band. To my knowledge, it has never been tried at the cable company level. My theory is that once you get more than a few hundred customers, ala carte misses out on the economy of scale you get from bundles. Hence it almost worked for c-band for awhile. Then cable companies could offer cheaper bundles than c-band and c-band grew to the point they could also get bundles--reducing the overall cost for most customers.

Then the bundles faded away.

When I first got c-band, I was frustrated how expensive ala carte was. And how difficult it was to arrange packages that I wanted. I had to look at dozens of providers, figure out many different pricing schemes, and ultimately find groups of what I wanted. What a pain in the checkbook.

And no channel will be less than a dollar a month (in my opinion)--unless grouped with a bundled. The billing alone will keep prices inflated.

So bundles are here to stay. Until some other entirely different model comes up.

Remember--the whole video entertainment industry is counting on an average of $50 per household per month. There is no way that is going to suddenly drop without losing a lot of content.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Davenlr

I agree Tom, the problem with bundles is there are not enough choices. What would be nice, is if you could pick the package that best suits your need, but have the OPTION to add one or two ala carte channels to that package.

In my case, all but two channels I watch are included in the Select package for $44.95.
To get those other two channels, I would have to jump to Choice Extra + HD Extra. for $65.99 + $5.99 = $71.98 for a difference of $27.03. 

So rather than do that, I subscribed to Xfinity for $29.95, and got not only my two missing channels, but several other HD channels not even offered by DirecTv (most are listed in the HD anticipation thread). Also, I now receive several SD channels not offered by Directv as well, and those SD channels are clear. 

Now, when the promotional $29.95 price goes away after a year, and the two services will be roughly the same price, which one do I keep? The one with more channels I watch, which right now, would be Xfinity.

My only point here, is that while I love DirecTv, if they dont have what I want, or they do but it is so fuzzy as its unwatchable, they are going to lose a customer a year from now. And putting one or two popular channels in the most expensive package, then putting a couple more in a yet more expensive add-on package, while the competition includes ALL those channels, and then about 15 more in their regular package, is going to cause people to rethink the competition in the future.

They are sitting pretty right now, since it hasnt been two years since their big HD festivus, and most people are under contract. I see a lot of defections coming once those contracts near completion. Time will tell.

And its not just DirecTv.... My boss is switching off U-verse to Xfinity for the same reason. I know two people that have dumped Dish... and yes, there is one that dumped Xfinity for Dish for their promo. He was going to get DirecTv, but couldnt because he doesnt have a credit card, and apparently DirecTv wouldnt sign him up without one. Dish did.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Tom Robertson said:


> Ala carte had its time, had its try, and failed in the c-band.


Is that because C-band was expensive and didn't have the penetration, ease of installation and multi room use that cable did back then?


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Davenlr said:


> I agree Tom, the problem with bundles is there are not enough choices. What would be nice, is if you could pick the package that best suits your need, but have the OPTION to add one or two ala carte channels to that package..


For cable once analog is dead then ala carte can pick up.

But in Canada they have theme packs and pick and play.

Why can't we have the bundles in a theme packs like systems?

Directv for hotels offers a ala carte like system and ESPN is a For $4.25 per room you'll get the following channels:

ESPN HD
ESPN2 HD
ESPNews HD
ESPN Classic
ESPN Deportes
ESPNU HD

Family Favorites
For $0.55 per room you'll get the following channels:

ABC Family HD
AMC
Animal Planet HD
Discovery Channel HD
Discovery Health
FitTV
HDNet HD (only in HD)
HD Theater (only in HD)
Investigation Discovery
Military Channel
Planet Green HD
The Hub
TLC HD

The Fundamentals
For $1.80 per room you'll get the following channels:

The 101 Network HD
Bloomberg Television
Cartoon Network (East) HD
Cartoon Network (West)
CNN HD
C-SPAN2
Discovery Channel HD
Fox News Channel HD
FX HD HDNet HD (only in HD)
HD Theater HD (only in HD)
Headline News
National Geographic Channel HD
Speed HD
TBS HD
TLC HD
TNT HD
USA Network HD
The Weather Channel HD

Great Entertainment
For $0.55 per room you'll get the following channels:

Comedy Central HD
Lifetime HD
MTV HD
MTV2
Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite (East) HD
Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite (West)
VH1 HD

Facts & Fantasy

For $0.27 per room you'll get the following channels in every room:

E! Entertainment Television
Syfy HD
truTV

Business Networks

For $0.55 per room you'll get the following channels in every room:

Bloomberg Television
CNBC HD
Fox News Channel HD
MSNBC HD

Adventure Package

For $0.55 per room you'll get the following channels in every room:

DIY Network
Cooking Channel
National Geographic Channel HD
The Outdoor Channel

Music Extra

For $0.38 per room you'll get the following channels in every room:

CMT HD
Fuse
GAC
Spike TV HD

and they have A La Carte Channels as well.

A&E HD, History HD and Discovery Health Channel $0.35
BabyFirstTV $0.20
BBC America and Current TV $0.20
Big Ten Network HD $0.25
BET HD and GSN $0.15
Bravo HD, IFC and WE: Women's Entertainment $0.35
C-SPAN and C-SPAN2 $0.08
CBS College Sports HD $0.15
Disney Channel (East) HD, Disney Channel (West) and Disney XD HD $0.75
ESPN HD $5.15
ESPN HD & ESPN2 HD $4.40
ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD & ESPNEWS HD $4.30
Fox Movie Channel $1.00
Fox News Channel HD $0.50
Fox Soccer Channel HD $0.20
Fox Soccer Plus HD (Games only) $0.20
FUEL TV HD $0.20
FX HD $0.30
GolTV HD $0.20
The Golf Channel HD $0.25
HGTV HD, Food Network HD and Travel Channel HD $0.15
LOGO $0.15
MLB Network HD $0.40
NBA TV HD $0.35
NFL Network HD $0.30
Nicktoons, Nick Jr, TeenNick and PBS Kids Sprout $0.30
Speed HD $0.25
Sports South HD (only available in certain areas of U.S., zip code confirmation required) $0.99
Sundance Channel® $0.35
Tennis Channel HD $0.25
TNT HD $0.50
Turner Classic Movies (TCM) $0.30
TVG The Interactive Horseracing Network $0.15
TV Land, Lifetime Movie Network, The Hallmark Channel HD $0.25
Versus HD $0.35
WGN America $0.14
SonicTap Music Channels (includes up to 84 channels) $0.18

RSN's

Altitude Sports and Entertainment HD $0.99
Comcast SportsNet Chicago HD $0.99
Comcast SportsNet California HD $0.99
SportsNet New York HD $0.99
Sports Time Ohio HD $0.99
In-Market Regional Sports Networks $0.99
YES Network HD: In Market - NY, NYDMA $1.75
YES Network HD: Out of Market - Available to viewers in NY, CT, and portions of NJ and PA $1.50

they also have IN-ROOM CHOICE on it's own. + you can add to it.


----------



## tomcat11

Mike Bertelson said:


> That doesn't make any sense to me. I'm no expert but, IIUC, the advertising dollars go to the most popular programming and the most popular programming is the programming people are actually watching. From this point of view it's the number of eyeballs on the program that determines how much the advertising is worth and how much broadcasters can charge for their channels. That would indicate, to me at least, the number of people watching _is_ what determines what's on TV.
> 
> *Using the old standard business model I would agree, I think there are other sources of revenue and channels are being out right purchased. Just my theory. How else do explain the religion channels. They don't have commercials other than the message they are trying to covey.*
> 
> That's true but there's no way around it. Name a national service provider where you can pick your channels ala-carte.* I wish I could.*
> 
> IMHO, there aren't any because they can't make any money at it. They can't make the pricing structure work in a way that people will use it and still be able to make money. If they could you'd see at least some service providers out there doing it. *Exactly ,it's not that they cannot make money it's that they can make a lot more with bundling.*
> 
> Of course this is all conjecture on my part but we will always see bundling and tiers. That means there will be a lot there we don't want to watch, and as with everything else, prices will go up. It's the way everything works and I don't see it changing.
> 
> *Again, just because that's the way it works does not make it right. Most people just accept what's feed to them and nothing changes.*
> 
> Mike


The horse is offically dead


----------



## tomcat11

Tom Robertson said:


> Now _my_ personal thoughts.
> 
> Remember--the whole video entertainment industry is counting on an average of $50 per household per month. There is no way that is going to suddenly drop without losing a lot of content.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Well isn't that nice for them. I say judging from the prices we are already way over the average.

If I had to pick which party to defend it would be the consumer not the industry.


----------



## BKC

Tom Robertson said:


> Now _my_ personal thoughts.
> 
> *Ala carte had its time, had its try, and failed in the c-band*. To my knowledge, it has never been tried at the cable company level. My theory is that once you get more than a few hundred customers, ala carte misses out on the economy of scale you get from bundles. Hence it almost worked for c-band for awhile. Then cable companies could offer cheaper bundles than c-band and c-band grew to the point they could also get bundles--reducing the overall cost for most customers.
> 
> Then the bundles faded away.
> 
> *When I first got c-band, I was frustrated how expensive ala carte was*. And how difficult it was to arrange packages that I wanted. I had to look at dozens of providers, figure out many different pricing schemes, and ultimately find groups of what I wanted. What a pain in the checkbook.
> 
> And no channel will be less than a dollar a month (in my opinion)--unless grouped with a bundled. The billing alone will keep prices inflated.
> 
> *So bundles are here to stay. * Until some other entirely different model comes up.
> 
> Remember--the whole video entertainment industry is counting on an average of $50 per household per month. There is no way that is going to suddenly drop without losing a lot of content.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Bold 1. C-band is gone because of the size of the dish, not al a carte.

Bold 2. When I first got C-Band it was free and after they started charging I think my bill was a couple hundred bux if I paid by the year. Not expensive at all.

Bold 3. You mean bundles are here to stay in your opinion right?

DTV is not interested in keeping our bills down, if fact they have a great interest in driving them as high as they can. All you have to do is look at the packages and see how they stick one fairly popular channel in the next bundle up. :lol:


----------



## Doug Brott

JoeTheDragon said:


> For cable once analog is dead then ala carte can pick up.
> 
> But in Canada they have theme packs and pick and play.
> 
> Why can't we have the bundles in a theme packs like systems?
> 
> Directv for hotels offers a ala carte like system and ESPN is a For $4.25 per room you'll get the following channels:
> 
> [pricing delete]


If prices stayed the same in an a la carte system, then yes. They would be cheaper. Making the assumption that the pricing will stay the same is the fallacy. ESPN gets that $4/sub now with 20 million subs. If 50% are sports fans, for ESPN to get the same amount of money from DIRECTV (or any other provider), they would have to charge $8/sub. It is clear that the prices will NOT stay the same, so assuming that they will is wrong out of the gate.

Will there be some people that are better off? Yeah, possibly, but most people will have fewer choices for the same (or higher) cost with a la carte.

The best a la carte option available today is to go OTA for networks (free) and Netflix/Hulu for filler. Sports fanatics have ESPN3.com and other sources that are options. As more and more people migrate to these services you'll find the same pricing strategies develop. Now is the time to get that for free while the economies of scale still work for the providers.


----------



## tomcat11

JoeTheDragon said:


> For cable once analog is dead then ala carte can pick up.
> 
> But in Canada they have theme packs and pick and play.
> 
> Why can't we have the bundles in a theme packs like systems?
> 
> Directv for hotels offers a ala carte like system and ESPN is a For $4.25 per room you'll get the following channels:
> 
> ESPN HD
> ESPN2 HD
> ESPNews HD
> ESPN Classic
> ESPN Deportes
> ESPNU HD
> 
> Family Favorites
> For $0.55 per room you'll get the following channels:
> 
> ABC Family HD
> AMC
> Animal Planet HD
> Discovery Channel HD
> Discovery Health
> FitTV
> HDNet HD (only in HD)
> HD Theater (only in HD)
> Investigation Discovery
> Military Channel
> Planet Green HD
> The Hub
> TLC HD
> 
> The Fundamentals
> For $1.80 per room you'll get the following channels:
> 
> The 101 Network HD
> Bloomberg Television
> Cartoon Network (East) HD
> Cartoon Network (West)
> CNN HD
> C-SPAN2
> Discovery Channel HD
> Fox News Channel HD
> FX HD HDNet HD (only in HD)
> HD Theater HD (only in HD)
> Headline News
> National Geographic Channel HD
> Speed HD
> TBS HD
> TLC HD
> TNT HD
> USA Network HD
> The Weather Channel HD
> 
> Great Entertainment
> For $0.55 per room you'll get the following channels:
> 
> Comedy Central HD
> Lifetime HD
> MTV HD
> MTV2
> Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite (East) HD
> Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite (West)
> VH1 HD
> 
> Facts & Fantasy
> 
> For $0.27 per room you'll get the following channels in every room:
> 
> E! Entertainment Television
> Syfy HD
> truTV
> 
> Business Networks
> 
> For $0.55 per room you'll get the following channels in every room:
> 
> Bloomberg Television
> CNBC HD
> Fox News Channel HD
> MSNBC HD
> 
> Adventure Package
> 
> For $0.55 per room you'll get the following channels in every room:
> 
> DIY Network
> Cooking Channel
> National Geographic Channel HD
> The Outdoor Channel
> 
> Music Extra
> 
> For $0.38 per room you'll get the following channels in every room:
> 
> CMT HD
> Fuse
> GAC
> Spike TV HD
> 
> and they have A La Carte Channels as well.
> 
> A&E HD, History HD and Discovery Health Channel $0.35
> BabyFirstTV $0.20
> BBC America and Current TV $0.20
> Big Ten Network HD $0.25
> BET HD and GSN $0.15
> Bravo HD, IFC and WE: Women's Entertainment $0.35
> C-SPAN and C-SPAN2 $0.08
> CBS College Sports HD $0.15
> Disney Channel (East) HD, Disney Channel (West) and Disney XD HD $0.75
> ESPN HD $5.15
> ESPN HD & ESPN2 HD $4.40
> ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD & ESPNEWS HD $4.30
> Fox Movie Channel $1.00
> Fox News Channel HD $0.50
> Fox Soccer Channel HD $0.20
> Fox Soccer Plus HD (Games only) $0.20
> FUEL TV HD $0.20
> FX HD $0.30
> GolTV HD $0.20
> The Golf Channel HD $0.25
> HGTV HD, Food Network HD and Travel Channel HD $0.15
> LOGO $0.15
> MLB Network HD $0.40
> NBA TV HD $0.35
> NFL Network HD $0.30
> Nicktoons, Nick Jr, TeenNick and PBS Kids Sprout $0.30
> Speed HD $0.25
> Sports South HD (only available in certain areas of U.S., zip code confirmation required) $0.99
> Sundance Channel® $0.35
> Tennis Channel HD $0.25
> TNT HD $0.50
> Turner Classic Movies (TCM) $0.30
> TVG The Interactive Horseracing Network $0.15
> TV Land, Lifetime Movie Network, The Hallmark Channel HD $0.25
> Versus HD $0.35
> WGN America $0.14
> SonicTap Music Channels (includes up to 84 channels) $0.18
> 
> RSN's
> 
> Altitude Sports and Entertainment HD $0.99
> Comcast SportsNet Chicago HD $0.99
> Comcast SportsNet California HD $0.99
> SportsNet New York HD $0.99
> Sports Time Ohio HD $0.99
> In-Market Regional Sports Networks $0.99
> YES Network HD: In Market - NY, NYDMA $1.75
> YES Network HD: Out of Market - Available to viewers in NY, CT, and portions of NJ and PA $1.50
> 
> they also have IN-ROOM CHOICE on it's own. + you can add to it.


And there you have it folks. :yesman:

Pay for what you want to view and cut out the crap, what a concept! Oh I know not enough profits for them right. My money looks better in my bank.

JoeTheDragon, YOU ROCK MAN!:icon_hroc


----------



## Doug Brott

tomcat11 said:


> And there you have it folks. :yesman:
> 
> Pay for what you want to view and cut the crap, what a concept!:
> 
> JoeTheDragon, YOU ROCK MAN!:icon_hroc


You're right .. all of the providers (ESPN, CNN, NBC, BBC, etc. etc.) are going to gleefully let their business work on fractions of what they are currently getting. This will lead to great success  (much sarcasm in post)


----------



## Davenlr

TheRatPatrol said:


> Is that because C-band was expensive and didn't have the penetration, ease of installation and multi room use that cable did back then?


No DVRs, took up to a minute to move the dish when changing from one channel to another, lots of maintainance, pretty much limited to one receiver, and if more than one, the other would have to watch a channel on the same satellite the main one was pointed at.

I still use mine, but not for pay content.


----------



## Billzebub

JoeTheDragon said:


> For cable once analog is dead then ala carte can pick up.
> 
> But in Canada they have theme packs and pick and play.
> 
> Why can't we have the bundles in a theme packs like systems?
> 
> Directv for hotels offers a ala carte like system and ESPN is a For $4.25 per room you'll get the following channels:
> 
> ESPN HD
> ESPN2 HD
> ESPNews HD
> ESPN Classic
> ESPN Deportes
> ESPNU HD
> 
> Family Favorites
> For $0.55 per room you'll get the following channels:
> 
> ABC Family HD
> AMC
> Animal Planet HD
> Discovery Channel HD
> Discovery Health
> FitTV
> HDNet HD (only in HD)
> HD Theater (only in HD)
> Investigation Discovery
> Military Channel
> Planet Green HD
> The Hub
> TLC HD
> 
> The Fundamentals
> For $1.80 per room you'll get the following channels:
> 
> The 101 Network HD
> Bloomberg Television
> Cartoon Network (East) HD
> Cartoon Network (West)
> CNN HD
> C-SPAN2
> Discovery Channel HD
> Fox News Channel HD
> FX HD HDNet HD (only in HD)
> HD Theater HD (only in HD)
> Headline News
> National Geographic Channel HD
> Speed HD
> TBS HD
> TLC HD
> TNT HD
> USA Network HD
> The Weather Channel HD
> 
> Great Entertainment
> For $0.55 per room you'll get the following channels:
> 
> Comedy Central HD
> Lifetime HD
> MTV HD
> MTV2
> Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite (East) HD
> Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite (West)
> VH1 HD
> 
> Facts & Fantasy
> 
> For $0.27 per room you'll get the following channels in every room:
> 
> E! Entertainment Television
> Syfy HD
> truTV
> 
> Business Networks
> 
> For $0.55 per room you'll get the following channels in every room:
> 
> Bloomberg Television
> CNBC HD
> Fox News Channel HD
> MSNBC HD
> 
> Adventure Package
> 
> For $0.55 per room you'll get the following channels in every room:
> 
> DIY Network
> Cooking Channel
> National Geographic Channel HD
> The Outdoor Channel
> 
> Music Extra
> 
> For $0.38 per room you'll get the following channels in every room:
> 
> CMT HD
> Fuse
> GAC
> Spike TV HD
> 
> and they have A La Carte Channels as well.
> 
> A&E HD, History HD and Discovery Health Channel $0.35
> BabyFirstTV $0.20
> BBC America and Current TV $0.20
> Big Ten Network HD $0.25
> BET HD and GSN $0.15
> Bravo HD, IFC and WE: Women's Entertainment $0.35
> C-SPAN and C-SPAN2 $0.08
> CBS College Sports HD $0.15
> Disney Channel (East) HD, Disney Channel (West) and Disney XD HD $0.75
> ESPN HD $5.15
> ESPN HD & ESPN2 HD $4.40
> ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD & ESPNEWS HD $4.30
> Fox Movie Channel $1.00
> Fox News Channel HD $0.50
> Fox Soccer Channel HD $0.20
> Fox Soccer Plus HD (Games only) $0.20
> FUEL TV HD $0.20
> FX HD $0.30
> GolTV HD $0.20
> The Golf Channel HD $0.25
> HGTV HD, Food Network HD and Travel Channel HD $0.15
> LOGO $0.15
> MLB Network HD $0.40
> NBA TV HD $0.35
> NFL Network HD $0.30
> Nicktoons, Nick Jr, TeenNick and PBS Kids Sprout $0.30
> Speed HD $0.25
> Sports South HD (only available in certain areas of U.S., zip code confirmation required) $0.99
> Sundance Channel® $0.35
> Tennis Channel HD $0.25
> TNT HD $0.50
> Turner Classic Movies (TCM) $0.30
> TVG The Interactive Horseracing Network $0.15
> TV Land, Lifetime Movie Network, The Hallmark Channel HD $0.25
> Versus HD $0.35
> WGN America $0.14
> SonicTap Music Channels (includes up to 84 channels) $0.18
> 
> RSN's
> 
> Altitude Sports and Entertainment HD $0.99
> Comcast SportsNet Chicago HD $0.99
> Comcast SportsNet California HD $0.99
> SportsNet New York HD $0.99
> Sports Time Ohio HD $0.99
> In-Market Regional Sports Networks $0.99
> YES Network HD: In Market - NY, NYDMA $1.75
> YES Network HD: Out of Market - Available to viewers in NY, CT, and portions of NJ and PA $1.50
> 
> they also have IN-ROOM CHOICE on it's own. + you can add to it.


So, is the answer to buy an hotel? You don't believe those are the prices you would see for a home, do you?


----------



## Davenlr

Billzebub said:


> So, is the answer to buy an hotel? You don't believe those are the prices you would see for a home, do you?


I hope not. I would assume those prices are daily prices, not monthly. Add em all up, and multiply by 30


----------



## tomcat11

Doug Brott said:


> If prices stayed the same in an a la carte system, then yes. They would be cheaper. Making the assumption that the pricing will stay the same is the fallacy. ESPN gets that $4/sub now with 20 million subs. If 50% are sports fans, for ESPN to get the same amount of money from DIRECTV (or any other provider), they would have to charge $8/sub. It is clear that the prices will NOT stay the same, so assuming that they will is wrong out of the gate.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Ya they would change alright, they would go down, and so what if Espn can't get the same amount of money. :backtotop


----------



## sigma1914

Billzebub said:


> So, is the answer to buy an hotel? You don't believe those are the prices you would see for a home, do you?


Exactly...those hotel rates are because hotels have hundreds of rooms & require expensive distribution systems.


----------



## tomcat11

Doug Brott said:


> You're right .. all of the providers (ESPN, CNN, NBC, BBC, etc. etc.) are going to gleefully let their business work on fractions of what they are currently getting. This will lead to great success  (much sarcasm in post)


STOP DEFENDING THE PARTIES THAT ARE RIPPING US OFF.

"Some people you just can't reach"-Cool Hand Luke.

:backtotop


----------



## sigma1914

tomcat11 said:


> STOP DEFENDING THE PARTIES THAT ARE RIPPING US OFF.
> 
> "Some people you just can't reach"-Cool Hand Luke.
> 
> :backtotop


It's common business sense, not defending them.


----------



## tomcat11

I'm done with this thread!


----------



## BKC

Doug Brott said:


> If prices stayed the same in an a la carte system, then yes. They would be cheaper. Making the assumption that the pricing will stay the same is the fallacy. *ESPN gets that $4/sub now with 20 million subs. If 50% are sports fans, for ESPN to get the same amount of money from DIRECTV (or any other provider), they would have to charge $8/sub. It is clear that the prices will NOT stay the same, so assuming that they will is wrong out of the gate.*
> 
> Will there be some people that are better off? Yeah, possibly, but most people will have fewer choices for the same (or higher) cost with a la carte.
> 
> *The best a la carte option available today is to go OTA for networks (free) and Netflix/Hulu for filler. Sports fanatics have ESPN3.com and other sources that are options. As more and more people migrate to these services you'll find the same pricing strategies develop. Now is the time to get that for free while the economies of scale still work for the providers*.


Bold 1. Good grief man maybe they would just have to learn how to get along on less. If they doubled their rate they would probably cut their subs in half again. What then, charge 16 bux? 

Bold 2. You are assuming people can get networks OTA and high speed internet. That's the problem with a lot of you people, you assume way too much.


----------



## BKC

tomcat11 said:


> I'm done with this thread!










Don't give up now, we are this close-----><------ to making them understand!

Seriously you can't win with people that spend hundreds a month to watch TV They know everything. :lol:


----------



## Doug Brott

tomcat11 said:


> STOP DEFENDING THE PARTIES THAT ARE RIPPING US OFF.
> 
> "Some people you just can't reach"-Cool Hand Luke.
> 
> :backtotop


I'm not defending them .. TV is expensive. If they don't make money .. they don't make TV. They are certainly providing content to us because they like us or feel sorry for us. They want to make money like everyone else.


----------



## Doug Brott

BKC said:


> Bold 1. Good grief man maybe they would just have to learn how to get along on less. If they doubled their rate they would probably cut their subs in half again. What then, charge 16 bux?


Or .. they would stop operation .. whichever made the most business sense. But yeah, if we (all of us) stop paying, then they will have to learn to get along with less. I think we are closer to that point than we've ever been, but we still haven't reached the tipping point. Collectively .. We will all pay the higher rates. We (again all of us) like TV too much.



> Bold 2. You are assuming people can get networks OTA and high speed internet. That's the problem with a lot of you people, you assume way too much.


I can't get OTA myself .. Why would I assume everyone can.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

I guess I look at things a bit differently.

*I'm* empowered to determine what channel packages I want.

*I'm* in charge of any optional service selections.

*I'm* the only one who can determine what DVR's or Receivers are used in my home.

Kinda puts *me* in charge of things, and provides me the option to determine just how much I'm willing to pay for the services that I feel are worth it. Lower prices are always good, but then...the providers (all of them) set those prices.

Nobody's *holding me *hostage on *any* of those fronts. If the price exceeds the value here...*I* can always change my services accordingly.


----------



## Doug Brott

tomcat11 said:


> :backtotop


BTW, "2011 Pricing" is the topic ..


----------



## James Long

BKC said:


> Bold 1. C-band is gone because of the size of the dish, not al a carte.


C-band isn't dead! It remains a good example of the death of a la carte. See http://www.programming-center.net/ and their price list (PDF).

The most important thing to note on that price sheet are the channels that are not there. Programmers who have decided NOT to sell their channels direct to subscriber. Programmers maintain the right to distribute the channels on their own terms.

The second most important thing to note is the relationship between channel count and price. More channels = less price per channel. Individual channels cost more than large packages (per channel).

The other common example of a la carte is Canada ... and that also fails since one pays for a base package before being allowed to add theme packages. The only working part of C-Band and Canadian a la carte is the ability to go in different directions after buying the core (instead of needing to buy lower levels to get the few channels at the top level). But C-Band fails by not having all channels available and Canada fails by separating channels into packages where one may have to buy more than one theme to get their pick of channels. Getting "everything" remains expensive.



tomcat11 said:


> STOP DEFENDING THE PARTIES THAT ARE RIPPING US OFF.


They're not ripping us off. They're charging us a market rate for a service.

You want a rip off? Buy gas at the closest station to the Orlando International Airport. $4.99 for regular, more for mid-grade and premium. One mile away a more respectable $3.09 (with further stations selling for $2.99-$3.19). That is a rip off.

While everyone desires lower prices, the market prices of television service isn't that bad.


----------



## fireponcoal

"sigma1914" said:


> It's common business sense, not defending them.


Oh, he doesn't defend them so he can get a special look at things like nomad at CES? I see.

Ya know, record companies have used a failing business model for years even though they are very aware it is failing(honestly though, they still earn mighty large profits so is it really failing or do they just want us to think that?). Perhaps this will happen to companies like D* if they continue many of their current practices? customers are creating their own a la carte through various means. Bittorrent is the apparent option and locations like atdhe and what it links us to will get better and better. There are currently small private bittorrent sites for every micro genera of whatever under the sun and more appear everyday.. Either the providers give the people what they desire or we will take it without their permission.... Their choice really. I'm pretty sure they'll continue to make the wrong choices because profits will make their greedy eyes widewidewide. Being a pirate is more fun anyway.

Sick of hearing about the failings of c-band when most of us know that it was nothing but a niche hobbyist fetish to begin with.


----------



## BKC

James Long said:


> C-band isn't dead! It remains a good example of the death of a la carte. See http://www.programming-center.net/ and their price list (PDF).
> 
> The most important thing to note on that price sheet are the channels that are not there. Programmers who have decided NOT to sell their channels direct to subscriber. Programmers maintain the right to distribute the channels on their own terms.
> 
> The second most important thing to note is the relationship between channel count and price. More channels = less price per channel. Individual channels cost more than large packages (per channel).
> 
> The other common example of a la carte is Canada ... and that also fails since one pays for a base package before being allowed to add theme packages. The only working part of C-Band and Canadian a la carte is the ability to go in different directions after buying the core (instead of needing to buy lower levels to get the few channels at the top level). But C-Band fails by not having all channels available and Canada fails by separating channels into packages where one may have to buy more than one theme to get their pick of channels. Getting "everything" remains expensive.
> 
> They're not ripping us off. They're charging us a market rate for a service.
> 
> You want a rip off? Buy gas at the closest station to the Orlando International Airport. $4.99 for regular, more for mid-grade and premium. One mile away a more respectable $3.09 (with further stations selling for $2.99-$3.19). That is a rip off.
> 
> While everyone desires lower prices, the market prices of television service isn't that bad.


I don't have sigs turned on so I thought I would look at yours. I don't keep up on everything but isn't that all Dishnetwork stuff in your profile? You are commenting on DTV's pricing? Also I have found over the years there is no way in he!! you can talk common sense with an engineer 

I'll give it a shot anyway. C-Band came out was was a big hit for us people that could only get one channel and at the time everything was free. then they charged a very small amount for channels you wanted to buy plus there was still a lot of free stuff out there.

Then came the small dish but wait, it was smaller but more expensive programing some jumped because it wasn't that much more. The next step people that could get cable started putting the small dish up in the cities.

Humm now the small dish was reaching people they never thought they would so it was "lets try to get more of them, they are loaded with money and spend most of their time inside watching TV so we can charge the hell out of those people. But how about the people that don't watch that much TV or had C-Band dishes because they couldn't get anything else? Ah screw those people let them eat cake. They can either buy what we cooked up for the high rollers or watch OTA, I doubt we will lose many anyway because now most people have had problems with C-Band receivers or the dishes and have moved to us."

So most have moved to the small dish Co's and now they can get programming to the cities where the C-Band couldn't because of the size of the dish. C-Band has died, it just may not have fallen over yet. Why? Because of the small dish. Good or bad is up for debate but one thing that isn't is the price for programming is too high for normal people making a normal wage. People knocking down 1 or 2 hundred K a year shouldn't even enter into these discussions. :lol:

I may have rambled on a bit here but I think you get where I'm going...


----------



## Billzebub

fireponcoal said:


> Oh, he doesn't defend them so he can get a special look at things like nomad at CES? I see.
> 
> Ya know, record companies have used a failing business model for years even though they are very aware it is failing(honestly though, they still earn mighty large profits so is it really failing or do they just want us to think that?). Perhaps this will happen to companies like D* if they continue many of their current practices? customers are creating their own a la carte through various means. Bittorrent is the apparent option and locations like atdhe and what it links us to will get better and better. There are currently small private bittorrent sites for every micro genera of whatever under the sun and more appear everyday.. Either the providers give the people what they desire or we will take it without their permission.... Their choice really. I'm pretty sure they'll continue to make the wrong choices because profits will make their greedy eyes widewidewide. Being a pirate is more fun anyway.
> 
> Sick of hearing about the failings of c-band when most of us know that it was nothing but a niche hobbyist fetish to begin with.


If I understand your post correctly, you're saying give me what I want or I'll steal it. Is that what you mean?


----------



## James Long

BKC said:


> I don't have sigs turned on so I thought I would look at yours. I don't keep up on everything but isn't that all Dishnetwork stuff in your profile? You are commenting on DTV's pricing? Also I have found over the years there is no way in he!! you can talk common sense with an engineer


I didn't have my sig turned on in the post you quoted ... I normally don't use it as it offends some people. So now we're done with the personal digs, smiley added, lets get down to what matters.

Your history of C Band is fairly accurate. Starting with taking subscription cable feeds that were never intended for direct consumer use and moving to a system where access could be controlled and providers could charge for their channels regardless of where they were intercepted by the viewer. But the issue here isn't the alleged "death" of C Band ... it is the "death" of a la carte. C Band packages outlived the a la carte offering of channels via the big dish.

A la carte only works for providers who didn't mind picking up a few bucks from a few subscribers -and it is being done via DirecTV and DISH today (for a few providers willing to sell their channels that way). But for most providers a la carte doesn't work. They want their channels to reach the most number of people possible, letting people opt out of paying for their channels is not good. So when they approach DirecTV with a price they want that price paid for as many of the 18 million subscribers as possible.

And that's the bottom line. As long as the providers refuse to sell their channels outside of the tier system there will be no a la carte.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Guys, I did not say C-Band failed.

I said that Ala Carte failed. It was tested on C-band, lived until more than a few customers tried C-band, and then Ala Carte failed. Ala carte was too expensive. The bundles, when they came out, weren't bad at all.

Many years later, C-band is still alive--though barely. Because of C-bands limitations. Not because ala carte. 

The record industry was forced into whole new models of business. The whole pricing scheme changed--sorta. You still can buy singles or buy albums. 

So video entertainment will still get your $50-100 each month. Perhaps in other ways, but they will still get that much from the average customer. 

I wouldn't mind some attempt at base plus packages. That might be how bills can be reduced for some. Yet based on James Long's description of the Canada experience, I wouldn't count on it really saving many people much at all...

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> As sad as it sounds .. I really don't think sub-$100 per month is considered a "high paying customer" any more.


On average, a DIRECTV subscriber pays nearly $90/month (Q3 2010 ARPU was $88.98).


----------



## Satelliteracer

tomcat11 said:


> Doug Brott said:
> 
> 
> 
> If prices stayed the same in an a la carte system, then yes. They would be cheaper. Making the assumption that the pricing will stay the same is the fallacy. ESPN gets that $4/sub now with 20 million subs. If 50% are sports fans, for ESPN to get the same amount of money from DIRECTV (or any other provider), they would have to charge $8/sub. It is clear that the prices will NOT stay the same, so assuming that they will is wrong out of the gate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya they would change alright, they would go down, and so what if Espn can't get the same amount of money. :backtotop
> 
> 
> 
> And if they can't get the same money do you think ESPN would be able to carry all the sports that are carried on there now? Do you think they could afford HD trucks at all these events? Etc, etc?
> 
> Think about what drives costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Satelliteracer

Doug Brott said:


> I'm not defending them .. TV is expensive. If they don't make money .. they don't make TV. They are certainly providing content to us because they like us or feel sorry for us. They want to make money like everyone else.


Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

I sometimes wonder if people understand how much it costs to produce television 24/7 in today's age? The simple answer is, A LOT more than it did 5 years ago, ten years ago, etc. This is not an assembly line making widgets where the more widgets you make, the cheaper they are.

Why people continue to compare industries that are not even in the same ballpark baffles me.


----------



## joed32

When the NFL left C-Band so did I.


----------



## BKC

I would be perfectly happy with a base package and the option to add five ala carte channels and I doubt I would even take five, more like one or two. I bet there are lots of people that don't spend 15 hours a day in front of the tube would be happy with that choice too.


----------



## harsh

Satelliteracer said:


> I sometimes wonder if people understand how much it costs to produce television 24/7 in today's age?


More than ESPN want to spend given the number of movies and Texas Hold'em tournaments they show. Note that a lot of the non-sports content is produced by someone else.


> The simple answer is, A LOT more than it did 5 years ago, ten years ago, etc. This is not an assembly line making widgets where the more widgets you make, the cheaper they are.


My local cable access facility is getting an HD truck with twice the cameras and much more sophisticated gear for about 50% more than they paid 11 years ago. The camera cables alone are less than half the price.

In my mind, the big cost of production is staffing and that has gone up.


----------



## Satelliteracer

harsh said:


> More than ESPN want to spend given the number of movies and Texas Hold'em tournaments they show. Note that a lot of the non-sports content is produced by someone else.My local cable access facility is getting an HD truck with twice the cameras and much more sophisticated gear for about 50% more than they paid 11 years ago. The camera cables alone are less than half the price.
> 
> In my mind, the big cost of production is staffing and that has gone up.


That, and licensing fees. The NFL is now getting $2 billion out of ESPN PER YEAR as just an example.

My point with the HD cameras was simply to state that as the industry moves forward with technology, there is a price to pay to transition and that is a heavy price.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Satelliteracer said:


> That, and licensing fees. The NFL is now getting $2 billion out of ESPN PER YEAR as just an example.
> 
> My point with the HD cameras was simply to state that as the industry moves forward with technology, there is a price to pay to transition and that is a heavy price.


So, pricing goes much deeper than just the cost per channel. The implications go much further than just the broadcaster.

Mike


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Mike Bertelson said:


> So, pricing goes much deeper than just the cost per channel. The implications go much further than just the broadcaster.
> 
> Mike


Indeed...and that is nothing new to the issue either.

Some folks get that and some don't.

As for the 2011 prices...the small increase won't result in any service changes on this end here.


----------



## RACJ2

Only 10 more days until I get to pay the new 2011 pricing! The excitement is building! :nono2:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RACJ2 said:


> Only 10 more days until I get to pay the new 2011 pricing! The excitement is building! :nono2:


:lol::lol::lol:

Love the Avatar by the way...maybe we'll be on that one in 2011 or 2012...


----------



## Satelliteracer

RACJ2 said:


> Only 10 more days until I get to pay the new 2011 pricing! The excitement is building! :nono2:


You actually don't pay it until your bill cycle date. You have a 1 in 30 chance that you would see the new pricing on the 10th of February. Some customers won't see it until March 9th.


----------



## RACJ2

hdtvfan0001 said:


> :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> Love the Avatar by the way...maybe we'll be on that one in 2011 or 2012...


You will enjoy it, I'll be back on it again this September. Its quite a ship.



Satelliteracer said:


> You actually don't pay it until your bill cycle date. You have a 1 in 30 chance that you would see the new pricing on the 10th of February. Some customers won't see it until March 9th.


I can wait until March, I'm a patient person.


----------



## harsh

Satelliteracer said:


> That, and licensing fees. The NFL is now getting $2 billion out of ESPN PER YEAR as just an example.


The current contract is for $8.8 billion over eight years so the NFL must be very pleased if ESPN is giving them $2 billion.


> My point with the HD cameras was simply to state that as the industry moves forward with technology, there is a price to pay to transition and that is a heavy price.


Equipment wears out and there's little point in repairing old equipment. It could be largely a game of write-offs for all we know. Good cameras are much cheaper now than they were years ago. Switching and CG equipment is arguably cheaper too now that everything is in the digital domain.

A broadcast station in my market figures they've saved thousands in tape, battery and editing costs by transitioning to ENG equipment that uses solid state recording media. What used to take a truck now works with a camera operator, talent and a notebook computer. The truck has become little more than a life support system for the uplink microwave.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RACJ2 said:


> You will enjoy it, I'll be back on it again this September. Its quite a ship.


I was on its slightly smaller brother in 2009. 


> I can wait until March, I'm a patient person.


When it comes to spending money....I've very patient too. :lol:

Now that we know the 2011 pricing, any concerns here went away.


----------



## Tom Robertson

harsh said:


> The current contract is for $8.8 billion over eight years so the NFL must be very pleased if ESPN is giving them $2 billion...


Old news.

from: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5995093


> ESPN and the NFL have a deal through 2013. The new deal, when signed, would be for nine or 10 additional seasons at $1.8 billion or $1.9 billion per year, Sports Business Daily reported.
> 
> The deal would include "Monday Night Football," but not a Super Bowl, the Daily reported, adding that it could include a wild-card playoff game. Previously, the NFL has resisted putting playoff games on cable television.


Big, big bucks! (and no SuperBowl.)


----------



## ShawnL25

Satelliteracer said:


> You actually don't pay it until your bill cycle date. You have a 1 in 30 chance that you would see the new pricing on the 10th of February. Some customers won't see it until March 9th.


Are additional HD channels coming with the price increase?


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Tom Robertson said:


> Old news.
> 
> from: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5995093
> 
> Big, big bucks! (and no SuperBowl.)


there is way to much in superbowl ad's for it to go to pay tv.


----------



## bidger

JoeTheDragon said:


> there is way to much in superbowl ad's for it to go to pay tv.


You've never seen ads on standard cable channels?


----------



## spartanstew

Satelliteracer said:


> Some customers won't see it until March 9th.


WooHoo, that's me.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

bidger said:


> You've never seen ads on standard cable channels?


But cable ad cost alot less and some of them are local headend based and pay tv has less viewers.


----------



## harsh

Tom Robertson said:


> Old news.


Nonetheless, it is the _current_ contract. The future (and as yet, unsigned) contract that you refer to doesn't go into effect until the current contract ends (February 2014?).

Are you suggesting that it is necessary to start ramping up carrier pricing now in "anticipation" of the costs they may incur in the 2014 season?


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Are you suggesting that it is necessary to start ramping up carrier pricing now in "anticipation" of the costs they may incur in the 2014 season?


Prices certainly won't go down. Something is always increasing in cost.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Prices certainly won't go down.


Is this one of those "nowhere to go but up" scenarios?

Regulation is often what results from runaway pricing.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Is this one of those "nowhere to go but up" scenarios?
> 
> Regulation is often what results from runaway pricing.


Regulation leads to paying people to monitor compliance with regulation. All they do is show that their costs increased and the price increase is within market norms. No real solution.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Regulation leads to paying people to monitor compliance with regulation. All they do is show that their costs increased and the price increase is within market norms. No real solution.


In any event, as we end up with fewer providers owning all the content and dabbling at all levels, it becomes a greater likelihood.


----------



## Doug Brott

BKC said:


> I may have rambled on a bit here but I think you get where I'm going...


Yup .. I get where you're going .. Prices go up every year.


----------



## bobcamp1

The problem with JoeTheDragon's packaging (not actually his packaging, just didn't want to repeat his post again) is that I STILL have to buy an entire package just for one channel. I would end up buying the majority of the packages, and would have to buy several a la carte channels as well.

And there's no way that pricing would be the same for hotels vs. a home. How many different people are in each room each year, and how many rooms does a hotel have?


----------



## Doug Brott

BKC said:


> I would be perfectly happy with a base package and the option to add five ala carte channels and I doubt I would even take five, more like one or two. I bet there are lots of people that don't spend 15 hours a day in front of the tube would be happy with that choice too.


I could see some merit to this .. BUT .. I have to wonder what the actual "base package" would be. At a minimum, it's still a bundle, yes? perhaps Select Choice with a "Fave-Five?" Would it be more cost effective than just getting choice?

I can see where you are going with this and maybe they could find a way to get the lowest tier possible @ somewhere between $29.99 & $39.99, but where are you at the end of the day? Will you be able to get the channels you care about? Would Locals be included or part of your Fave-Five? Will you think the pricing is still too expensive because the choices become so limited?

I think that DIRECTV should actually advertise the lowest package (Select Choice). Today, you have to ask for that package to get it. I think there may even be a "Family Choice" package that is slightly different than Select Choice. Again something you'd have to ask for as it's not advertised. Perhaps having these lowest tier packages on the web site would be an improvement.

Keep in mind you need Choice or higher for a lot of the deals people have been taking advantage of like Free HD.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

bobcamp1 said:


> The problem with JoeTheDragon's packaging (not actually his packaging, just didn't want to repeat his post again) is that I STILL have to buy an entire package just for one channel. I would end up buying the majority of the packages, and would have to buy several a la carte channels as well.
> 
> And there's no way that pricing would be the same for hotels vs. a home. How many different people are in each room each year, and how many rooms does a hotel have?


Well that setup is a little like theme packs and with some you can buy a channel or 2 with out taking the full pack.


----------



## wingrider01

Davenlr said:


> I hope not. I would assume those prices are daily prices, not monthly. Add em all up, and multiply by 30


not sure on that, but there are also minimum requirements for number of rooms before you can qualify. Their business pricing and package availability is way more regulated then home accounts, especially in the primeum channel lineups like showtime, hbo, etc

there is a lot that is left out of the blurb there that you only see when you request a quote


----------



## Davenlr

Doug Brott said:


> I could see some merit to this .. BUT .. I have to wonder what the actual "base package" would be. At a minimum, it's still a bundle, yes? perhaps Select Choice with a "Fave-Five?" Would it be more cost effective than just getting choice?


$44.95 + $10 HD (which you cant get free) = $54.95 about $1 less than Choice with Free HD. It is the package I currently have. Tried to have the HD shut off, and they refused because I had "HD equipment". They finally ended up giving me a $10 per month credit through my contract expiration in June.


----------



## RACJ2

Satelliteracer said:


> You actually don't pay it until your bill cycle date. You have a 1 in 30 chance that you would see the new pricing on the 10th of February. Some customers won't see it until March 9th.


I'm glad to report that you were correct. I am one of the 29 in 30 that did not see the price hike in my Feb statement!


----------



## Satelliteracer

RACJ2 said:


> I'm glad to report that you were correct. I am one of the 29 in 30 that did not see the price hike in my Feb statement!


Whew...I got something right.  Seriously, though, I'm glad it worked the way it's supposed to.


----------



## spartanstew

I guess you'll have to watch that thread and not the pricing thread to find out.


----------



## Que

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

Is DVR service still at $7.00?

[Edit] Pull out some old bills and added DVR/Additional Receiver fees.


----------



## Crystal Pepsi Ball

Que said:


> 1998 Total choice PLATINUM 47.99
> 1999 Total Choice $29.99
> 2000 Total Choice $31.99
> 2003 Total Choice $33.99
> 2004 Total Choice $36.99
> 2005 Total Choice $41.99
> 2006 Total Choice $44.99
> 2007 Total Choice $47.99
> 2008 Total Choice $50.99 $5.99 DVR Service $4.99 Additional Receiver
> 2009 Total Choice $53.99 $6.00 DVR Service $5.00 Additional Receiver
> 2010 Total Choice $57.49 $7.00 DVR Service $5.00 Additional Receiver
> 2011 Total Choice $60.49 $7.00(?) DVR Service $6.00 Additional Receiver
> 
> Is DVR service still at $7.00?


DVR Service is going to still be $7.00


----------

