# About time to cancel DirecTV



## SunDevil2012 (Mar 17, 2010)

Last year's price increase was annoying. This year's even more sickening because it's not about the dollar amount, it's the fact that it's become routine.

I subscribe to DirecTV SOLELY for the sports. I'm a college student living in Arizona and the only way to get the Patriots, Red Sox, and Celtics is with DirecTV. I only watch the sports channels and locals. And maybe the discovery networks from time to time.

I call up DirecTV today asking them what they can do to keep me after this ridiculous increase. And I get transferred to retention. Since when is retention an affiliate and not an actual DirecTV employee? I'm sickened by the fact that if I want to switch to less it means paying more. I e-mailed the head of DirecTV multiple times in the past discussing offering a reduced main package available to only those with other sports packages (just locals, some of the 200-350 channels, and the the sports channels required for when you want to watch the local feed of your games - for pregame/post), they end up doing that survey. And then now nothing. Nothing at all has come as a result.

What's the point of keeping DirecTV these days? So that you can enjoy it for the football season and then after that you're paying $200-$300 to watch the NBA. The thing that gets me is that every year EVERYTHING goes up but they don't seem to add anything worth the money. For christ sake where the hell are the pre-season and spring training games!?!?

I'm tired of having to do the run around just to keep my bill at a price point that makes sense for what I'm getting out of it. I'm sure there are thousands of others out there that feel the EXACT same way, that they are getting ripped off every year just to watch sports. Yet DirecTV continues to leave us in the dark. They claim they are the leader in sports, and everything else, yet they won't let you drop all the useless crap they stick in as fillers to raise the price. And who else is tired of them calling EVERY month like clockwork to ask you for the HD Extra Pack.

DirecTV is going to lose another $2000 a year from this customer if they don't change their ways.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Here is your short answer. Switch to SELECT. $44.99/mo. Then, when you are between sports seasons, SUSPEND your account and watch OTA for free. When its time for your sports to kick back up, call up and have the account turned back on.

BTW, every provider in our area (DirecTv, Dish, U-Verse) has increased prices. I dont know about Comcast, because they are WAY overpriced for what you get already, so I havent paid any attention to them.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Ironically, it's the sports fan that has precipitated the lion's share of the price increases. ESPN alone charges 4.50 a month, and Regional Fox Sports is over 2.50 per. And if you were able to purchase ESPN a-la-carte, ESPN would charge you over 25 dollars a month for Disney to recover the same 
amount of fee and advertising revenue it does today.

And the price increases aren't going away. Just a few months ago, Fox Broadcasting, no doubt pointing at the 4.50 a month that ESPN receives, was able to extract 55 cents a month for a previously free channel. That 55 cents a month will increase to 1 dollar a month by year 5 of the contract.

And you can bet that ABC, CBS NBC and Univision will demand the same terms that Fox Broadcasting secured when their contracts expire.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Do you sub to MLB-EI, NBA-LP, & NFL-ST?

You can get MLB.tv cheaper on Roku or some BluRay players. NBA-LP has a broadband version. Picture quality won't match Directv HD, though.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

SunDevil2012 said:


> Last year's price increase was annoying. This year's even more sickening because it's not about the dollar amount, it's the fact that it's become routine.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> DirecTV is going to lose another $2000 a year from this customer if they don't change their ways.


Of course it's routine. Every year, the content providers want more money for their programming. Every year, customers want more channels, and more of those channels in HD. Thus, costs for DirecTV go up. When their costs go up, your costs will go up. That's Econ 101.

As others have pointed out, those higher costs affect ALL TV providers. Heck, Verizon is increasing FIOS packages by $30 across the board!

And DirecTV has only limited control of their packaging, because much of the packaging is contractual. In order to get a lower price on one channel, they might have to carry 5 other channels, and those channels have to be in particular tiers. And with fewer large companies owning more and more of the networks, competition is reduced.

McDonalds raises their prices when the price of beef goes up. Your local gas stations raise the price of gas when the price of crude oil goes up. No business that wants to STAY in business is going to simply absorb major cost increases; those get passed along to their customers. Again, Econ 101.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Now that the C's are relevant again, they are on nationally 40-45 times. Had I looked through the schedule prior to the start of the season, I would not have renewed NBALP. Cancelling that would save you a bunch.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

FIOS packages went up $30??? I would like to see an article on that to understand where they came up with that #.

I don't like the yearly increase either, but I get it. DirecTV employees want raises, employees of the providers want raises, etc. I get it. What really burns my ass is the $1.00 increase PER receiver. They don't get you enough already with the upfront costs that most people pay for a receiver, that they have to jack those costs up too?? I think that move alone is going to bring in a LOT of money for them (net profits) as opposed to the $3.00 yearly increase.

Now of course some will tell you, it is the cheapest out of all the providers (the per receiver cost), yada, yada. While that may be true, it is a VERY difficult cost to stomach, ESPECIALLY with the economy being in the shape it is in.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Milkman said:


> FIOS packages went up $30??? I would like to see an article on that to understand where they came up with that #.
> 
> I don't like the yearly increase either, but I get it. DirecTV employees want raises, employees of the providers want raises, etc. I get it. What really burns my ass is the $1.00 increase PER receiver. They don't get you enough already with the upfront costs that most people pay for a receiver, that they have to jack those costs up too?? I think that move alone is going to bring in a LOT of money for them (net profits) as opposed to the $3.00 yearly increase.
> 
> Now of course some will tell you, it is the cheapest out of all the providers (the per receiver cost), yada, yada. While that may be true, it is a VERY difficult cost to stomach, ESPECIALLY with the economy being in the shape it is in.


It's actually Frontier, they took over some Verizon markets. It literally is a case of them wanting out of the business. Those under contract aren't affected. Everyone else chooses either the $30 increase or free DirecTV for a year (or at least free basic service.)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2013843856_frontier05.html


----------



## SunDevil2012 (Mar 17, 2010)

Davenlr said:


> Here is your short answer. Switch to SELECT. $44.99/mo. Then, when you are between sports seasons, SUSPEND your account and watch OTA for free. When its time for your sports to kick back up, call up and have the account turned back on.
> 
> BTW, every provider in our area (DirecTv, Dish, U-Verse) has increased prices. I dont know about Comcast, because they are WAY overpriced for what you get already, so I havent paid any attention to them.


That's actually a good idea. I'm going to switch to Choice Xtra once this current movers connection promotion expires because it's the only way to get NBA tv. I don't ever watch the premium channels because I download every movie or buy them on blu-ray these days. And every show I watch it's either on local tv, or I download it in 720p. During the summer I'm out of town so I suspend service anyways - I go back to the East Coast where my mom has Fios (The best picture and sound by far - no blocking or signs of compression at all on any of HD channels). Whereas you look at ESPN and it's the worst picture quality out of any HD channel I've ever seen and it's only like that on DirecTV - on Fios its a 1080i stream and it's CRYSTAL CLEAR. Why does DirecTV pay $4.50 a month for a highly-compressed 720p stream? It's junk. I hate watching sports on ESPN because everything about ESPN sucks. Especially the commentators. And now everything that's on ESPN is now on Xbox 360 with ESPN 3 with basically the same level of quality. But you can't remove the crap channel and save yourself the money? Something's wrong with that.

I get the fact that prices are going up across the board. But that doesn't mean they can't do something about it. Why can't they at least start broadcasting more channels in 1080i? Or at least raise the bitrate on channels like ESPN? The fact they care so little about the quality of the image on existing channels is what bugs me. It's one thing to add more HD channels for the hell of it, but something else entirely if they do it without addressing long-standing image quality concerns.

They claim they are the best in picture quality in the industry, yet I'm continually surprised by how much better things look when I get back home. Sure it's the whole Fiber vs Satellite argument. And the fact they have only so much bandwidth. But I would ANY DAY pay more if it meant the picture quality was 1080i/p on every channel that's supposed to be HD. And not this compressed 720p junk that looks worse than an up-converted DVD.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

SunDevil2012 said:


> I subscribe to DirecTV SOLELY for the sports. I'm a college student living in Arizona and the only way to get the Patriots, Red Sox, and Celtics is with DirecTV.


The fact that out-of-market Sports packages aren't cheap eludes you until now?


----------



## SunDevil2012 (Mar 17, 2010)

bidger said:


> The fact that out-of-market Sports packages aren't cheap eludes you until now?


I'm not complaining about the cost of the sports packages. It's the cost of the basic packages that you are forced to subscribe to in order to even use the sports packages.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

SunDevil2012 said:


> Whereas you look at ESPN and it's the worst picture quality out of any HD channel I've ever seen and it's only like that on DirecTV - on Fios its a 1080i stream and it's CRYSTAL CLEAR. Why does DirecTV pay $4.50 a month for a highly-compressed 720p stream?


I dont understand how or why FIOS would use 1080i for ESPN, since Ive always been told they do not modify the stream at all. ESPN from their Satellite uplink trucks, is 720p. I have watched several sporting events directly from the ESPN uplink truck on C band, and have seen pristine uplinks, and uplinks that looked like widescreen 480i.


----------



## car421 (Feb 12, 2009)

You are a student in Az and like the NE teams so I assume that is where you are from. You could drop Directv, purchase a slingbox hd and hook it up to a tv at a family members house. Hook your laptop up to the tv and watch all your hometeam sports. I did that this fall so I could watch the Jet games. I won't be renewing my MLB package and I will be able to see all the Met games on my laptop or just run an HDMI from the laptop to the TV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BattleZone said:


> Every year, customers want more channels, and more of those channels in HD.


The question whether the increase is commensurate with the net number of wanted channels they have added.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

SunDevil2012 said:


> Whereas you look at ESPN and it's the worst picture quality out of any HD channel I've ever seen and it's only like that on DirecTV - on Fios its a 1080i stream and it's CRYSTAL CLEAR. Why does DirecTV pay $4.50 a month for a highly-compressed 720p stream?


ESPN is delivered to all providers in the format they themselves chose: 720p. All of their production equipment is 720p. This decision was made about 8 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espn



> ESPNHD, launched on March 30, 2003, is a 720p high-definition simulcast of ESPN. ESPNHD (along with sister networks ESPN2 HD, ESPNU HD, ABC HD, Disney Channel HD, ABC Family HD, and Disney XD HD) uses the 720p HD line standard because the ABC executives proposed a progressive 'p' signal that resolves fluid and high speed motion in sports better, particularly during slow motion replays.


Fox, ABC, ESPN and Disney are all 720p networks. If any provider is delivering them in 1080i, it's because that provider is up-converting the 720p signal.

DirecTV delivers all content in the resolution it was acquired in.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

ABC, FOX, and ESPN are broadcast in 720p everywhere, if FIOS is providing it in 1080, they are upscaling it...your mom's setup may be set to scale everything to 1080...cos thats not the way it comes from those stations...contrary to what you may believe, 720p is HD...


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Not to sidetrack this into a 720p vs 1080i debate, but they are nearly the same resolution. 

720p = 55 megapixels/sec
1080i = 62 megapixels/sec

Not a big enough difference to call one "junk".


----------



## ShapeGSX (Sep 17, 2006)

At some point they (all TV providers) are going to have to go a la carte if they want to keep subscribers from just going without this sort of TV. If the channel providers keep up with the price increases, they are going to price themselves out of a bulk purchase market. It is really getting ridiculous.


----------



## SunDevil2012 (Mar 17, 2010)

hilmar2k said:


> Not to sidetrack this into a 720p vs 1080i debate, but they are nearly the same resolution.
> 
> 720p = 55 megapixels/sec
> 1080i = 62 megapixels/sec
> ...


It's not about the pixel count. It's about the bitrate and compression scheme used. A 720p source with lots of artifacts is not HD in my book. It's like saying a DVD upscaled to 720p is HD simply because it's being displayed in 720p.

You can CLEARLY see the difference on the ESPN channels. Just look at the way the colors band and artifact on the bottom of the screen when displaying the red gradient. That doesn't happen on ANY other provider that I've witnessed. Even on Cox digital cable there is none of the banding and artifacts, and that's saying something.

You can't say something is HD simply because of the resolution and not consider the fact that bitrate matters a hell of a lot more.

The problem with the quality of the picture these days is everyone just expects that's how it's supposed to look. That that is the limitation of today. But that's not the case. DirecTV clearly re-encodes the feed coming in and in the process they drop the bitrate.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

SunDevil2012 said:


> Last year's price increase was annoying. This year's even more sickening because it's not about the dollar amount, *it's the fact that it's become routine.*


Yep, prices go up. On everything. Did you know a Coke used to cost a nickel? And guess, what? You don't really get anything extra today for that same $1.50 Coke.


----------



## myselfalso (Jan 26, 2006)

SunDevil2012 said:


> The problem with the quality of the picture these days is everyone just expects that's how it's supposed to look.


I think if you notice these issues, other people do as well. People care more about the picture they see than you're willing to admit, in this case.

Secondly, about your issue on the price increase, all prices rise. That is routine. It's basic economics. If you're going to bail on D* because of a price increase, then you're best off turning to OTA and whatever you can get from the Internet.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

SunDevil2012 said:


> Whereas you look at ESPN and it's the worst picture quality out of any HD channel I've ever seen and it's only like that on DirecTV - on Fios its a 1080i stream and it's CRYSTAL CLEAR. Why does DirecTV pay $4.50 a month for a highly-compressed 720p stream? It's junk.
> 
> They claim they are the best in picture quality in the industry, yet I'm continually surprised by how much better things look when I get back home. Sure it's the whole Fiber vs Satellite argument. And the fact they have only so much bandwidth. But I would ANY DAY pay more if it meant the picture quality was 1080i/p on every channel that's supposed to be HD. And not this compressed 720p junk that looks worse than an up-converted DVD.


Well that's not true since ESPN only broadcasts in 720p. FIOS, by the way, is having larger price increases this year than DIRECTV as is AT&T Uverse. Each to his own I guess. Unfortunately price increases have become routine because all the content providers raise their prices each year. Doesn't matter where you go (unless you go off air antenna, in which case you won't get ESPN, etc, anyway). With internet Net Neutrality coming soon, that won't be an option to "save money" either.


----------



## wco81 (Feb 23, 2008)

I'm thinking about switching to Comcast for a year on one of their promo deals.

This is after about 10-15 years on D*.

I can afford the price but if I can churn back and forth, why not? Comcast DVRs suck and they charge ridiculous amount for it but if OnDemand can provide the time-shifting maybe it's possible to do without a DVR.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BattleZone said:


> ESPN is delivered to all providers in the format they themselves chose: 720p. All of their production equipment is 720p. This decision was made about 8 years ago.


According to an blog post in HDTV magazine last June, ESPN 3D is beamed up in 1080i. Note that this information may have been specific to the World Cup.

An acquaintance of mine in India says that a lot of their ESPN is 1080i.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

wco81 said:


> I'm thinking about switching to Comcast for a year on one of their promo deals.
> 
> This is after about 10-15 years on D*.
> 
> I can afford the price but if I can churn back and forth, why not? Comcast DVRs suck and they charge ridiculous amount for it but if OnDemand can provide the time-shifting maybe it's possible to do without a DVR.


If you are seriously thinking about switching to Comcast, and their offering is substantial enough for you, and the quality is acceptable, then you might consider buying a Tivo with cablecards for your DVR. If I was to switch to Comcast (not likely), I would have to use a Tivo. Their box would not cut it.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

Go to a lesser package and subscribe to XM with the best of Sirius. You could then listen to all the games on sat radio and watch all 60 of the Yankees - Red Sox games on ESPN. Patriots games are always on National TV so you would probably get to see quite a few of those as well for free.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Raises a bigger point here - in my opinion, TV is rapidly becoming not worth the price. I'm getting closer and closer to going OTA only, the only thing yet stopping me is the Discovery channel and associated similar channels.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

spartanstew said:


> Yep, prices go up. On everything. Did you know a Coke used to cost a nickel? And guess, what? You don't really get anything extra today for that same $1.50 Coke.


Spartanstew, carbonated drinks have actually increased at a clip FAR below that of CPI, from 79 to 09. And I'd be willing to bet that the same would hold if I were to compare the price of 12-ounce Coke can in 1962 vs 2010. Since then, the CPI has increased 7x. Has the price of a 12-ounce Coke can increased as much?

http://www.ediblegeography.com/

The truth is, PayTV is fast pricing itself out of many households.  You know that the industry has problems when a recently minted HBS grad says that he can get all he wants from OTA broadcasts + Netflix + Comedy Central.


----------



## wco81 (Feb 23, 2008)

There's talk that ESPN will be giving the NFL $2 billion a year in the next contract.

That would be about double what it's paying now for the MNF and other rights.

Not sure how the NFL is getting even more for their contracts, with the impending lockout and the poor economy.

IIRC, ABC let MNF go (to sister entity ESPN) because it didn't make economic sense.

In any event, of course any increase in payments to the NFL gets passed along to us.


----------



## skatingrocker17 (Jun 24, 2010)

I only switched to DTV because I THOUGHT I would be saving money but I was wrong and TWCs cable boxes were crappy. Turns out I'm not saving any money and the HD selection isn't nearly as good. The price for DTV just keeps going up and up so when the contracts over I'm gone. Plus they don't offer my local CW in HD or my Cleveland/Detroit locals. Also missing the closest PBS affiliate.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

skatingrocker17 said:


> I only switched to DTV because I THOUGHT I would be saving money but I was wrong and TWCs cable boxes were crappy. Turns out I'm not saving any money and the HD selection isn't nearly as good. The price for DTV just keeps going up and up so when the contracts over I'm gone. Plus they don't offer my local CW in HD or my Cleveland/Detroit locals. Also missing the closest PBS affiliate.


You do realize that TWC raises rates every year, also.


----------



## wco81 (Feb 23, 2008)

Also missing AMC HD, G4 HD, Vs. HD.

Yes they're all raising costs, which is why a very small but growing minority are cutting the cord or considering cutting the cord.

ESPN is said to be considering giving the NFL $2 billion a year for the MNF rights, which is about double what they're currently paying. Of course, those costs get passed onto us.

Only reason I'm entertaining Comcast is that for at least one year, it would be cheaper for a bundle of TV and Internet than what I'm paying for D*.

Add in what I'm paying for Uverse Internet and it's a real one-sided deal.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

wco81 said:


> Also missing AMC HD, G4 HD, Vs. HD.


Slightly off on that for DirecTV. They do carry Versus in HD. And right now they don't carry G4 in SD either.


----------



## wco81 (Feb 23, 2008)

Didn't realize they got Vs back.

Thing is, Comcast is collecting channels so D* may be edged out of more niche channels.


----------



## wilsonc (Aug 22, 2006)

SunDevil2012 said:


> Last year's price increase was annoying. This year's even more sickening because it's not about the dollar amount, it's the fact that it's become routine.
> 
> I subscribe to DirecTV SOLELY for the sports. I'm a college student living in Arizona and the only way to get the Patriots, Red Sox, and Celtics is with DirecTV. I only watch the sports channels and locals. And maybe the discovery networks from time to time.
> 
> ...


DirecTV isn't the only one raising prices every year. You think DirecTV is ripping you off? Wait till you try cable.

-


----------



## BetterThanMost (Sep 24, 2008)

SunDevil2012 said:


> And now everything that's on ESPN is now on Xbox 360 with ESPN 3 with basically the same level of quality.


Not everything that is broadcast on the ESPN Networks is shown on E3. Also, depending on who your ISP is, sometimes you are required to be a TV subscriber in order to get E3.


----------



## MattScahum (Oct 27, 2010)

I guess the big question I have OP is what is your current package setup? How many receivers do you have? I assume you probably have the sports pack but do you have any additional sports packages(MLBXtra Innings/League Pass/NFL St/etc)?

As a sports fan myself, I would probably be at the choice xtra package($63.99) with the sports pack($12.99) and that would cover my needs.
My package would be $100.99/month plus taxes for 4 rooms/HD DVR/whole home service/and the channel lineup I listed here.
The closest equivilant package I could get with Time Warner cable in my area was as follows:
$58.99 for the cable
$9.99 per receiver( I have 4 of them)
$9.99 for Dvr service
That is $108.94 and that doesn't count the $30 in fees and not to mention that I do NOT get my out of market teams(I'm a Pittsburgh Penguins fan and can't get FSN Pittsburgh)...

Are the prices ridiculous for some tv related service? Absolutely. But as another poster mentioned the prices go up because, as consumers, we require more channels in HD and other things. The cost for the studios to broadcast something in HD climbs and they pass the cost along to the providers. They then pass that along to the customer because that is the only way to stay in business. Does it suck? Sure but honestly it could be a whole lot worse. Look at the gasoline prices


----------



## akw4572 (Sep 8, 2005)

Take it from me, I switched to cable back in December, and came back in 3 days. Cable DVR's are a joke. If DTV is too expensive, and all you really want is sports, get yourself an XBOX, and a Roku, and subscribe to ESPN3 on xbox, and MLB on the Roku. That's about as good as it gets without DTV. You're in better shape than in market fans. If I want to watch Reds games, I can NOT do so without my local Fox RSN, so I have to subscribe to a cable provider or DTV. And trust me, DTV blows cable away.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

"SunDevil2012" said:


> And now everything that's on ESPN is now on Xbox 360 with ESPN 3 with basically the same level of quality. But you can't remove the crap channel and save yourself the money? Something's wrong with that.


You are confusing ESPN3.com with ESPNetworks.com. ESPN3 content isn't even in the same league as SD ESPN let alone HD. Also, very few live games are offered. I've never seen an MLB or NFL game there, but you may find NBA or NHL, I've never looked. ESPNetworks.com is offered by very few cable companies and you must subscribe to both cable and Internet from a participating provider. It is the full stream of the ESPN channels delivered to your computer. I've seen only a couple of user reviews of the new service and everything that I have read has been less than glowing.


----------



## wco81 (Feb 23, 2008)

akw4572 said:


> Take it from me, I switched to cable back in December, and came back in 3 days. Cable DVR's are a joke. If DTV is too expensive, and all you really want is sports, get yourself an XBOX, and a Roku, and subscribe to ESPN3 on xbox, and MLB on the Roku. That's about as good as it gets without DTV. You're in better shape than in market fans. If I want to watch Reds games, I can NOT do so without my local Fox RSN, so I have to subscribe to a cable provider or DTV. And trust me, DTV blows cable away.


What about the OnDemand selection, could that provide you access to enough content that you'd otherwise have to record?

Or third-party DVRs like Tivo or Moxi?


----------



## iceturkee (Apr 1, 2007)

sundevil, you can also switch to the family plan at $29.99 a month and keep your sports subscriptions. i did this in the past. both times i downgraded, i was offered a 6 month discount on the sports pak.


----------



## akw4572 (Sep 8, 2005)

wco81 said:


> What about the OnDemand selection, could that provide you access to enough content that you'd otherwise have to record?
> 
> Or third-party DVRs like Tivo or Moxi?


The Tivo's I'm sure are ok, but cost extra money. Only certain networks are on the on demand schedule I had, and not very many of them were offered in HD.


----------



## akw4572 (Sep 8, 2005)

dualsub2006 said:


> You are confusing ESPN3.com with ESPNetworks.com. ESPN3 content isn't even in the same league as SD ESPN let alone HD. Also, very few live games are offered. I've never seen an MLB or NFL game there, but you may find NBA or NHL, I've never looked. ESPNetworks.com is offered by very few cable companies and you must subscribe to both cable and Internet from a participating provider. It is the full stream of the ESPN channels delivered to your computer. I've seen only a couple of user reviews of the new service and everything that I have read has been less than glowing.


NFL hasn't been on, but the NC game from last night was offered live, there are a ton of College Basketball games on live, a ton of soccer games on live, there was a ton of college football on. Basically I've seen everything on there except the NFL. I doubt MLB will be on, but it wouldn't surprise me either. I've been surprised at what has been on ESPN 3, it's turned out to be a good find for sure.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

Everybody would like something for nothing (myself included).

Few if any actually receive it.

Tell me this, what products and/or services DON'T go up in cost every year. 

Costs to corporations go up as well. This would include carriage costs for programming as contracts are renewed that DirecTV must pay as well as the previously mentioned employee wages, even costs as basic as keeping the lights on in El Segundo. DirecTV's costs go up annually just to continue to provide the same services you already receive and yet we do receive incrementally more services every year in both programming and technology. 

2010 as a standalone wasn't a banner year for HD content additions, but if you look at it over the past 4 years, I am absolutely getting $12 worth more than I did at the start of 2007, when my HR20 was delivered. More HD content and new, advanced technologies keep coming.

Naysayers will disagree (at great length, no doubt...have at it) but there is bandwidth remaining on D12 and D14 is already in the works at Loral at no small cost to DirecTV. New HD programming may not be coming as quickly and indiscriminately as some would like, but if more HD were not coming, D14 would not be needed on the planned delivery timeline. It could definitely wait if its' sole purpose were to replace end of life sats in the current fleet. The fact that they are growing their infrastructure is an indication to me that there is more they plan to deliver.


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

HarleyD said:


> *Tell me this, what products and/or services DON'T go up in cost every year. *


Just to name a few.......

1. Cell phone
2. My propane has went down
3. Gas is cheaper now than it was a couple years ago
4. Lumber is cheaper
5. TV's are cheaper
6. You can get a house built with cheaper labor costs
7. Nascar race tickets are much cheaper
8. Computers are cheaper
9. LOTS of services are cheaper because people aren't working
10. Houses are way cheaper lol


----------



## wco81 (Feb 23, 2008)

It seem a lot of the bandwidth is going to PPV channels rather than ones people would want like AMC HD.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

BKC said:


> Just to name a few.......
> 
> 1. Cell phone
> 2. My propane has went down
> ...


Great comment, BKC. I would add another content play, the music industry, where, in the US, adjusted for inflation, revenues are down over 65% from its peak in 2001. And today, people listen to more music than ever before, paying far less than ever before.

As I said before, when u get HBS grads saying that Netflix + Comedy Central.com + OTA suffices, you know the industry has problems.

DTV, being best-of-class, is more insulated from changes than its competitors. But eventually, it will be impacted.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

wco81 said:


> It seem a lot of the bandwidth is going to PPV channels rather than ones people would want like AMC HD.


As has been stated hundreds of times already, many those PPV channels are "placeholders" for the sports channels. When there are a lot of games on all at the same time, many of the PPV channels are taken down temporarily and that bandwidth used for game feeds.

Often on weekend days, you have lots of games in 3 or more sports that everyone wants covered, but you have to have feeds for them to do so. DirecTV just uses that bandwidth for PPV channels when the sports events don't need them, which is most of the time.


----------



## wco81 (Feb 23, 2008)

The other area that could cause D* problems is as more and more content is available through the Internet and people look to faster connections.

Unfortunately, there's no competitor to cable for faster connections. FIOS isn't widely distributed enough in comparison to cable or DSL, which lags in speed.

Also doesn't help that Comcast is collecting some content.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> ...
> 
> As I said before, when u get HBS grads saying that Netflix + Comedy Central.com + OTA suffices, you know the industry has problems.
> ...


Stop using one person's comment to back up an idea. One persons actions do not indicate anything, especially when they say "suffice." OTA would suffice millions if they realllllllllly needed TV. Ramen noodle will suffice people and their hunger...Does that mean the food industry has problems?


----------



## bills976 (Jun 30, 2002)

It isn't just him. I work with a lot of other young people and many of them are netflix only + OTA (or limited cable if they can't get OTA). Even execs at cable companies have flirted with the idea:

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=142752

Yes, this industry does have problems - companies that live in denial will pay for it dearly in 5-10 years. DirecTV, Comcast, etc all know about this and understand they need to control costs or risk losing customers. If there was a real demand for all of this content, you would not be seeing the retransmission fights that you're seeing right now.


----------



## Gooney (Jan 14, 2011)

The difference is that at MacDs, YOU choose to buy the Big Mac sandwich OR the whole more costly packaged meal. The first provider that lets me buy the sandwich, even if it is the programmer itself streaming the channel, like directly from USA, Id pay $5 a month for the few I need in addition to OTA.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

BKC said:


> Just to name a few.......
> 
> 1. Cell phone
> 2. My propane has went down
> ...


Apples to monkeys comparison, however. I don't disagree with your list, but none of those industries are built on casts that rise....content costs. Most of those costs come down because it's cheaper to product components in mass quantities, etc. But the guys creating content...the actors, the unions, the film crews, the editors, etc, etc...the cost to make all that content, let's just say none of them are taking a pay cut and those rates go up year after year after year.

Sports programming, same thing. Avg salaries going up year after year...who pays for those salaries? Television deals. Who pays for those? Advertisers and the people subscribing to sports services.

I'd also argue that gas is more expensive this year than last year.


----------



## cableguy902 (Jan 10, 2011)

One of the reason I am cancelling Directv is price increases. I was locked into a 2 year contract and while locked I had to pay more for the same package I originally subscribed. Does it make any legal sense? Can you buy Toyota Camry for 20K on a 250/month lease for 36 months and then in the middle of the lease they increase it to 300 dollars?

Is there something I am missing? How is it legal to do price increase when people are locked into a contract? It's funny they just sent me an email with price increase info. Helps with my decision


----------



## wco81 (Feb 23, 2008)

It was in the fine print you signed.


----------



## cableguy902 (Jan 10, 2011)

There is fine print saying I have to stay with the company for 2 years regardless of how much the price goes up? Sounds like unfair business practices.


----------



## bakerfall (Aug 23, 2006)

The second I can get local mlb.tv for Cubs games, or some a la carte method of getting Comcast Sports Net, I am immediately going to OTA + web streaming services. I'm even considering dropping down to the cheapest D* plan, plus one box and an Hauppauge HD PVR. By dropping my extra boxes, I can save immediately and perhaps at the end of my contract there will be a better option for me.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

cableguy902 said:


> There is fine print saying I have to stay with the company for 2 years regardless of how much the price goes up? Sounds like unfair business practices.


Pretty typical for the industry, although I don't know how open ended the contract could really be pushed to. By that I mean, if D* suddenly decided that the price increase was going to be $200 per month, and then did not provide a no cost out from the contract, I think there would be legal recourse.

Simply being under a contract that permits "customary" price increases is one thing, but I very much doubt D* can increase prices infinitely and then charge an ETF when consumers reject an onerous price increase.

Where that line would be drawn is an open question.

Taken to the extreme: the new price includes the value of your home or dwelling, if you want out (not submit to the new "price"), pay the ETF.

...clearly there is some restriction on what the price increase can be, we just don't know what it is, before they would lose a court case.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Along with these "cheaper" prices come declines in service level, quality, and options. It's not really cheaper when you consider a bigger picture. (well, I don't know about Nascar tickets, watching cars go in circles for hours is not my thing).



BKC said:


> Just to name a few.......
> 
> 1. Cell phone
> 2. My propane has went down
> ...


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Has anyone ever tried to secure a given price throughout the terms of the contract? Let's say you're an existing subscriber, and decide to re-up for another two years as a result of an equipment upgrade. Can't you tell the CSR that you've been very happy with DTV, that you have explored other options, that you have very limited visibility regarding your financial standing, and you would like an assurance of no price increase for the next two years.

Worst thing they can say is no.


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> Along with these "cheaper" prices come declines in service level, quality, and options. It's not really cheaper when you consider a bigger picture. (well, I don't know about Nascar tickets, watching cars go in circles for hours is not my thing).





BKC said:


> Just to name a few.......
> 
> 1. Cell phone
> 2. My propane has went down
> ...


So you're saying propane, gas, lumber, new TV's won't be as good? :lol: Also a very good argument could be made that the quality of work by service people will go up when they aren't busy because they want the best possible word of mouth out there to get more work.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Has anyone ever tried to secure a given price throughout the terms of the contract? Let's say you're an existing subscriber, and decide to re-up for another two years as a result of an equipment upgrade. Can't you tell the CSR that you've been very happy with DTV, that you have explored other options, that you have very limited visibility regarding your financial standing, and you would like an assurance of no price increase for the next two years.
> 
> *Worst thing they can say is no.*


...which is probably what will happen.


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Has anyone ever tried to secure a given price throughout the terms of the contract? Let's say you're an existing subscriber, and decide to re-up for another two years as a result of an equipment upgrade. Can't you tell the CSR that you've been very happy with DTV, that you have explored other options, that you have very limited visibility regarding your financial standing, and you would like an assurance of no price increase for the next two years.
> 
> Worst thing they can say is no.


Actually, the worst thing they could say is "yes". Since the CSR has no authority to override the written customer agreement, you would think you had an assurance when you really did not.

Remember, even if you are not in a commitment term, you are still bound by the customer agreement. I would assume the CSRs don't have the authority to change change agreement, and I would assume the agreement has wording that indicates that any changes must be in writing.


----------



## wco81 (Feb 23, 2008)

Don't you have to use leverage, say you're canceling because of price increases, going to cable or whatever?

I'd probably be doing that if I can get a good promo deal from Comcast. Then they will probably put me with Retention and they will offer credits or whatever.


----------



## jimmyv2000 (Feb 15, 2007)

I'm exploring my options now,There aren't many for me at all.
My commitment expires at midnite tonite!!!!
I'm on hold with comcrap(whom i have my internet with)to see what kind of deal i can get.
No Fios here in NH and E* Forget it


----------



## wco81 (Feb 23, 2008)

Report back what you get. If you're not getting TV from them, they must be charging you $60 for Internet?

They are offering promotional bundled deals but that may be only for new customers.


----------



## jimmyv2000 (Feb 15, 2007)

wco81 said:


> Report back what you get. If you're not getting TV from them, they must be charging you $60 for Internet?
> 
> They are offering promotional bundled deals but that may be only for new customers.


i have basic brodcast with them also @$12.99 my internet is $44.99
I'm looking to get 1 hddvr and 2 hd boxes from them with digital prefrerred package
and just keep the locals on a tv in a guest room.
But i don't like the pricing comcrap is giving me.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Satelliteracer said:


> Apples to monkeys comparison, however. I don't disagree with your list, but none of those industries are built on casts that rise....content costs. Most of those costs come down because it's cheaper to product components in mass quantities, etc. But the guys creating content...the actors, the unions, the film crews, the editors, etc, etc...the cost to make all that content, let's just say none of them are taking a pay cut and those rates go up year after year after year.
> 
> Sports programming, same thing. Avg salaries going up year after year...who pays for those salaries? Television deals. Who pays for those? Advertisers and the people subscribing to sports services.
> 
> I'd also argue that gas is more expensive this year than last year.


Satelliteracer, I'd say to glance at another content-driven industry, music, where aggegate revenue in the US has decreased over 70% in real terms from 2001 to the present. Everyone in the industry, from performers to execs, have taken pay cuts. Another example of content-generators, financiers. From 1928 to 1960s, bankers took larger pay cuts than any other industry, even compared to blue-collar work.

It has happened, and it can happen again.

Now, let's glance at inflation numbers which were released yesterday. During the last twelve months, the core median CPI is up 0.7%. Wages are stagnant.

The PayTV industry lost subs during 2Q10 and 3Q10, for the first time ever. It's only a matter of time before DTV begins to be impacted as well.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Well, I hate to break it to you OP, but another price increase is coming... in 12 months... and another one in 24 months... and another in 36 months.

Its not *becoming* an annual tradition, its *been* an annual tradition.

DTV has always raised prices in Feb and they'll continue to do so forever and ever until people are not willing to pay anymore. Seems that hasn't happened yet though :nono:. DTVs subscriber numbers continue to grow :nono:.


----------



## chefwong (Jan 26, 2008)

OT, but here's customer service for ya...compared to DTV.

I was speaking with my Fios rep and told her I'm happy with the rate plan I was on, with the promo that was being applied which put me in a pricepoint of where I was happy with....I asked were there any promos I could be applicable for bearing my current credit promo was about to end in February.

The nice rep took awhile, but came back to me with a $20 credit promo valid for 24 months and this would not change my contractual status as well.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Satelliteracer, I'd say to glance at another content-driven industry, music, where aggegate revenue in the US has decreased over 70% in real terms from 2001 to the present. Everyone in the industry, from performers to execs, have taken pay cuts. Another example of content-generators, financiers. From 1928 to 1960s, bankers took larger pay cuts than any other industry, even compared to blue-collar work.
> 
> It has happened, and it can happen again.
> 
> ...


Gloria, I appreciate your comments but still think they are apples to cucumbers comparison.

The music industry is not the same as the television industry in so so so many ways. You could always go to a store to buy CD's, LP's, 8 tracks, whatever. There were a million stores you could do this, not the case for television.

The music industry was also about a $20 billion a year business where television is $160Billion.

Development costs for television and movies is astronomically higher than for music. At the end of the day, when you're making a record in a recording studio there is only so much more you can spend vs a television \ movie production which can get very expensive to a factor of multiple X.

Sports rights....they don't exist in the music industry...they are a primary driver of television costs.

I could go on and on.

No one disputes that wages are stagnant in many areas, but that hasn't stopped sports and television rights to go up every single year regardless of what is going on in the economy. Those costs are passed down to the MSO's and the MSO's will pass them on to customers.

Incidentally, I was at a Cord Cutting seminar last week and they showed where the cord cutting was happening. It was very interesting that a ton of it happened where Digital Transition took place or where very poorly run cable companies dominated. In areas where satellite or strong cable \ strong telco was prevalent, cord cutting was almost non-existent. That bears out in the numbers as well when you see the Telcos, D* and E* area all still having net adds.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

sctnun said:


> I understand the rate increases. Its a broken model. The game between service providers and content providers has no end. These increases during a low inflation, recession period proves this beast can't be tamed.
> 
> That said, I'm truly sick of it. Yes I can afford it, but the value is simply not there anymore.


Oh, I totally agree with you. I started with DTV in Nov 2002, so its 8+ yrs now. When I started my bill was $37.99 for Total Choice+ and locals and Standard Def DVR. Today my bill is $68.99 for Total Choice+, locals and HD DVR + HD package. The *only* thing I have added since I started is HD service which is $10 a month, but free right now for the next 1.5yrs or so. The free HD promotion was not given to everybody, you had to explicitly call and ask for it. So as typical, lets assume most people didn't. So my bill would be $78.99 for a similiar package.

37.99 -> 78.99 in 8yrs... thats a 108% increase. In that same time, my salary has probably gone up maybe 50% to 60%.

I used to order PPV movies and special events (at $3.99 / $39.99 a pop), but as they crawled up to $5.99 / $54.99 a pop, I said "screw this ****" and stopped ordering anything through DTV.

Unfortunately, there isn't any option against these price gougers if you want TV. Cable, Dish and FIOS (if thats even available to you) are all the same price or more.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Unfortunately, there isn't any option against these price gougers if you want TV. Cable, Dish and FIOS (if thats even available to you) are all the same price or more.


The difference, at least here, is with Xfinity, for the same price, and with the exception of the high priced seasonal sports packages, I can get a LOT more channels of interest to me, and the ones that are SD are at least DVD quality and watchable. Extra SD digital hookups for the bedrooms, guest room are free (up to 3). HD is no extra charge, and lots of the channels DirecTv has in the highest priced tier + HD extra pack, are included in the standard HD digital package with Xfinity. Now, I dont know how that pars out across the country. It just came here about a year ago. Up until then, there were about 5 HD channels, and like 80 analog ones. Now its almost all digital except for the lifeline basic package.

I have both services now. In May, when my Directv contract is over, I will have to decide which one to stay with.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

I was kind of curious about Xfinity, so I checked in the Houston area, since we have Time Warner here. The triple play package is $129 + Taxes & fees, for 80 digital channels and 60 HD channels (see below). Although about 10 of the HD channels locals. At least they have NHLN, NFLN and Redzone, which we don't have on Time Warner in the Dallas area. Davenlr, why didn't you wait until the DIRECTV contract was over to add Xfinity?


> Starter XF Triple Play
> 
> EXISTING SUBSCRIBERS: Sign-up for Starter XF Triple Play today!
> 
> ...


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Case in point about sports programmers and the increases they want...not just standard increases but HUGE increases. This despite a weak economy, stagnant wages, etc.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=188959


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

sctnun said:


> I went out and spent $563 on a new Channel Master DVR, cables, and connectors. I will install a new system with over the air and internet capabilities. It will pay for itself in 6 months.


Channel Master is selling (through their online store) the 7000PAL (DISH Network DVRPal twin) for $349.99 bare and refurbished models for $299.

I'm confused by your reference to Internet capabilities as the Ethernet connection is used only for upgrading the firmware.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Satelliteracer said:


> Case in point about sports programmers and the increases they want...not just standard increases but HUGE increases.


Then it is up to DIRECTV to create affordable packages that don't include the ridiculously expensive sports networks.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

sctnun said:


> .... I went out and spent $563 on a new Channel Master DVR, cables, and connectors. I will install a new system with over the air and internet capabilities. It will pay for itself in 6 months.... I'm not playing the stupid game anymore, Wed I make the call to cancel.





sctnun;2686456 said:


> ... (Btw, I got a brand new Channel Master with free delivery from Crutchfield for $279.)


I thought your $563 sounded high as well. So if the DVR was $279, what was the rest of the cost?


----------



## wco81 (Feb 23, 2008)

Anyone check out the Moxi DVR?

Steep but no guide costs like Tivo Premier and it has Cable Card, to give you option.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

wco81 said:


> Anyone check out the Moxi DVR?


The documentation for the Moxi seems to suggest an unbreakable tie to digital (QAM) cable. This is reinforced by the fact that the built-in tuners don't do NTSC.

There a distinct possibility that the Moxi won't do ATSC making it useless for the OP's stated purposes.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

I hadn't heard of Moxi, so this peeked my interest. I checked CNET's review on this DVR and harsh is correct, no OTA recording. It requires a multi-tuner cablecard for recording. 

I'm not thinking about dropping DIRECTV, but am considering adding an OTA DVR. Then possibly suspending service between the NHL and NFL seasons and just going to OTA. I figure w/o a Satellite bill for a few months, it would pay for an OTA device like the CM7000PAL. Just a bit concerned about someone of the cons that some reviewers have posted on it.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

harsh said:


> Then it is up to DIRECTV to create affordable packages that don't include the ridiculously expensive sports networks.


If it were only that easy. Many of these programmers have contractual MFNs that require them to be in broadly distributed packages, thus creating an all or nothing proposition.


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

More packages with options for five ala carte channels would be nice.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

BKC said:


> More packages with options for five ala carte channels would be nice.


Ala carte has been tried many times over the years and has failed. It ends up being more expensive.

Seems to me like sports is usually the most expensive component. Personally, I don't watch sports and wouldn't mind a "sportless" package to save some dough.

I think even people who DO watch sports would rather not pay for golf and fish channels .


----------



## wco81 (Feb 23, 2008)

Consumers are interested in lowering their monthly bills, the others are interested in raising them.

It's a figure that the industry and Wall Street tracks.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

wco81 said:


> Consumers are interested in lowering their monthly bills, the others are interested in raising them.
> 
> It's a figure that the industry and Wall Street tracks.


I'd add in that most consumers don't understand the real cost of programming and think it should be free or very low priced. Consumers want to compare the cost of a computer widget to the cost of programming and those comparisons are just not appropriate. The tv world isn't an assembly line cranking out widgets or cylinders or silicon in mass production scale.

Here's another example, ESPN is about to pay the NFL $2 billion per year for NFL rights. Now, we can argue back and forth whether that's worth it or not.

The fact of the matter is, the MSO's are going to have to pay back ESPN for that $2 billion which means prices are going to go up. ESPN is on pretty much every base package because the terms of their deals require that. Plus it would be suicide for a MSO not to have ESPN heavily distributed, they would lose subscribers. ESPN cannot be received over the air, either, so here we have just another example of many many many where pricing is impacted based on what a content provider does.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Satelliteracer said:


> Here's another example, ESPN is about to pay the NFL $2 billion per year for NFL rights. Now, we can argue back and forth whether that's worth it or not.


That sounds like Sunday Ticket money....

There is zero chance that ESPN can charge enough - even if it is in EVERY package for ALL the providers to make back $2 billion per year for NFL rights. Do you have details on this?

I am considering dropping DirecTV and going on-line, OTA and Netflix - just can't justify the amount I pay to watch 2 or 3 hours of non-OTA TV plus Sunday Ticket....


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I tend to stay out of arguments like these, except to say, do what works for you... but I will say this: I know more and more people who are going pure IPTV. It hasn't gone unnoticed by anyone in the broadcast or multichannel industries.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Satelliteracer said:


> I'd add in that most consumers don't understand the real cost of programming and think it should be free or very low priced. Consumers want to compare the cost of a computer widget to the cost of programming and those comparisons are just not appropriate. The tv world isn't an assembly line cranking out widgets or cylinders or silicon in mass production scale.
> 
> Here's another example, ESPN is about to pay the NFL $2 billion per year for NFL rights. Now, we can argue back and forth whether that's worth it or not.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, the MSO's are going to have to pay back ESPN for that $2 billion which means prices are going to go up. ESPN is on pretty much every base package because the terms of their deals require that. Plus it would be suicide for a MSO not to have ESPN heavily distributed, they would lose subscribers. ESPN cannot be received over the air, either, so here we have just another example of many many many where pricing is impacted based on what a content provider does.


Not true. I'm willing to pay a "fair" price. When I started with DTV in 2002, my bill was for $37.99 for Total Choice+, locals and DVR. Its now $78.99 for Total Choice+, locals, DVR and HD. All I've added is HD and my bill has more then doubled. And when my "free hd" promotion expires, it'll be $88.99.

I don't think $88.99 is a fair price. For what I'm getting, I'd consider $60 to $65 a fair, reasonable price.

I've never been able to wrap my mind around why I need to pay $7/month for a DVR. Other then to line DTVs greedy pockets of course. The guide data is the same as the non DVR boxes (maybe it has a *bit* more info?). Personally, I don't want to pay $7 for the useless info like seeing what OTHER movies Pauly Shore has made, thank you very much. Storage of shows is on a local hard drive, not on DTVs servers or on the cloud.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I tend to stay out of arguments like these, except to say, do what works for you... but I will say this: I know more and more people who are going pure IPTV. It hasn't gone unnoticed by anyone in the broadcast or multichannel industries.


I've certainly cut my PPV and VOD orders to ZERO due to the absurd cost and the stupid "you only get to watch it for 24hrs" crap.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

I don’t think DirecTV is overpriced for everyone…. But for me I’d guess that the cost of watching non-OTA programming for me is something like $10-$12 an hour.

Things are just getting to a point where the costs of the few pay-tv only programs I watch are not worth it.

I believe there is trouble ahead for pay-tv providers as more and more people come to the conclusion that it is just not worth what it costs anymore.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Mike Greer said:


> That sounds like Sunday Ticket money....
> 
> There is zero chance that ESPN can charge enough - even if it is in EVERY package for ALL the providers to make back $2 billion per year for NFL rights. Do you have details on this?
> 
> I am considering dropping DirecTV and going on-line, OTA and Netflix - just can't justify the amount I pay to watch 2 or 3 hours of non-OTA TV plus Sunday Ticket....


Here's a link to a Reuters story. They say it will be close to $2 billion a year, it will apparently be in the $1.8-1.9 billion range. But isn't a large part of ESPNs revenue during football commericals? I don't know what they charge, but I think NBC charges around $300,000+ for Sunday Night Football.

Of course if there is no football next season, ESPN would still have to pay.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70539D20110106


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> (...)I've never been able to wrap my mind around why I need to pay $7/month for a DVR. Other then to line DTVs greedy pockets of course. The guide data is the same as the non DVR boxes (maybe it has a *bit* more info?). Personally, I don't want to pay $7 for the useless info like seeing what OTHER movies Pauly Shore has made, thank you very much. Storage of shows is on a local hard drive, not on DTVs servers or on the cloud.


But if you are like the overwhelming majority, you have a DVR whose cost was heavily subsidized. What other way does DIRECTV have for keeping those costs low for the hardware than a DVR fee? And if I may ask, have you checked out what your local cable company charges for a DVR? Mine will give you a free 10-hour HD DVR if you pay a $29.99 per month fee for DVR service.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> But if you are like the overwhelming majority, you have a DVR whose cost was heavily subsidized. What other way does DIRECTV have for keeping those costs low for the hardware than a DVR fee? And if I may ask, have you checked out what your local cable company charges for a DVR? Mine will give you a free 10-hour HD DVR if you pay a $29.99 per month fee for DVR service.


I believe I paid an upfront $300 fee for my HR20-100. I only have the one box, so I don't pay the $5/month lease fee. If I had 2 HR20-100s though, I'd have paid $600 upfront and $5/month for the second box PLUS $7/month for DVR.

How much does the HR20-100 truly cost DTV? I know the HR10-250 retailed for $1000, but sorry, I don't believe it actually costs DTV $1000 to build a HR20-100.

Does it cost them more then $300? Probably. Maybe $500? So fine, I'd rather pay $500 for the box and have no DVR fee and break even after 2yrs. They only give me that option on the lease fee which I don't have anyways.


----------



## ShapeGSX (Sep 17, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> But if you are like the overwhelming majority, you have a DVR whose cost was heavily subsidized.


I'm not convinced that they are "heavily" subsidized anymore. At $300, I wouldn't be surprised if they are making money on DVRs these days. The cost of electronics has plummeted, and they have had multiple cost-reducing redesigns of the product.

Besides, they have this habit of re-selling returned and refurbished "leased" equipment. So they can collect multi-hundred dollar leases on the same equipment over and over again.

I've had the same $200 (got $100 knocked off) HR20-700 since launch in 2006! That's more than $300 extra in lease fees on one box.



> Mine will give you a free 10-hour HD DVR if you pay a $29.99 per month fee for DVR service.


I have Windows Media Center on a PC I built for recording cable. No fees whatsoever.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> And if I may ask, have you checked out what your local cable company charges for a DVR? Mine will give you a free 10-hour HD DVR if you pay a $29.99 per month fee for DVR service.


Looks like my cable company charges $7.50 per month for a HD DVR + remote. The same price they charge for the regular HD box + remote. HD programming for your package is free, but they do charge $9.99 / month for the DVR service. Its DOWN $2 from $11.95 last year.

OR...

They only charge $1.99 / month for cable card. If I did that, I could pick up a Tivo premiere and not pay them the DVR fee. Although I guess Tivo service is $20/month now. Yikes.

Hmm.. so I guess the DTV DVR box / service is $7.99 for me vs. $16 - $17 on Cox, but the programming looks like its about $10 cheaper, so it looks like it ends up being the same exact price.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

ShapeGSX said:


> I have Windows Media Center on a PC I built for recording cable. No fees whatsoever.


Where do you get your guide data from?

And is it possible to record off the sat with both tuners? I seem to recall a guy I used to know have a Windows Media Center rig and he controlled his DTV box in a very primitive way that was almost a waste of time setting it up.

There was a DTV product in the works to put a DTV tuner in your media center PC, but DTV scrapped it. I suspect because of all the free money they would lose.


----------



## cariera (Oct 27, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Not true. I'm willing to pay a "fair" price.


However your definition of "fair" and the provider's definition of "fair" or "reasonable" differ.

Unless you have implicit knowledge of programming arrangements made with the provider and expenses incurred by the provider, you have no way to truly determine what is "fair".

Your definition of "fair" is unilateral and based on what you think your monthly expense for TV in your home should be.


----------



## ShapeGSX (Sep 17, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Where do you get your guide data from?


You just enter your zip code and cable provider and it gets the guide data. I'm not sure if Microsoft or a 3rd party runs the servers. I record cable using a QAM tuner card. It records unencrypted local channels beautifully. I get these HD digital local channels through the $11 lifeline cable package that I'm forced to get in order to have a cable modem.



> And is it possible to record off the sat with both tuners? I seem to recall a guy I used to know have a Windows Media Center rig and he controlled his DTV box in a very primitive way that was almost a waste of time setting it up.


The way it works, you would need a separate set top box for each stream you want to record. There are new devices that can record HD component analog video. But I agree, the trouble of setting up the IR blaster and the boxes just doesn't make sense these days. Talk about primitive.

But cable card tuning works without all of that crap.



> There was a DTV product in the works to put a DTV tuner in your media center PC, but DTV scrapped it. I suspect because of all the free money they would lose.


Yeah, I was signed up for the beta for that one. It never happened.


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> *Mine will give you a free 10-hour HD DVR if you pay a $29.99 per month fee for DVR service*.


You have a link to those charges? That seems crazy...


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

cariera said:


> However your definition of "fair" and the provider's definition of "fair" or "reasonable" differ.
> 
> Unless you have implicit knowledge of programming arrangements made with the provider and expenses incurred by the provider, you have no way to truly determine what is "fair".
> 
> Your definition of "fair" is unilateral and based on what you think your monthly expense for TV in your home should be.


Actually, I based that on the price that I started at in 2002 and the rate of inflation / rate of salary increase since then .


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

dpeters11 said:


> Here's a link to a Reuters story. They say it will be close to $2 billion a year, it will apparently be in the $1.8-1.9 billion range. But isn't a large part of ESPNs revenue during football commericals? I don't know what they charge, but I think NBC charges around $300,000+ for Sunday Night Football.
> 
> Of course if there is no football next season, ESPN would still have to pay.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70539D20110106


Thanks for the info - I guess I'm too dense to understand the economics. I guess this has nothing to do with Sunday Ticket? Just the few games (compared to how many there are) ESPN already has?

Crazy money - especially when next season is in doubt anyway.... Maybe I can skip paying for Sunday Ticket next year to save a few bucks!

***Update - even better - it looks like this is just for Monday Night football! Wow!


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> Thanks for the info - I guess I'm too dense to understand the economics. I guess this has nothing to do with Sunday Ticket? Just the few games (compared to how many there are) ESPN already has?
> 
> Crazy money - especially when next season is in doubt anyway.... Maybe I can skip paying for Sunday Ticket next year to save a few bucks!
> 
> ***Update - even better - it looks like this is just for Monday Night football! Wow!


A single nationally televised NFL game is *big *money for advertisers...More viewers = more money. Take a look HERE AT THE TOP 100 MOST VIEWED SPORTS CABLE BROADCASTS OF 2010. Of the top 15, 14 are Monday night games. The highest rated cable show ever is now the Auburn vs. Oregon game with *27.3 million viewers*, but it was previously a MNF game between Minnesota & Green Bay with *21.8 million*.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Not true. I'm willing to pay a "fair" price. When I started with DTV in 2002, my bill was for $37.99 for Total Choice+, locals and DVR. Its now $78.99 for Total Choice+, locals, DVR and HD. All I've added is HD and my bill has more then doubled. And when my "free hd" promotion expires, it'll be $88.99.
> 
> I don't think $88.99 is a fair price. For what I'm getting, I'd consider $60 to $65 a fair, reasonable price.
> 
> I've never been able to wrap my mind around why I need to pay $7/month for a DVR. Other then to line DTVs greedy pockets of course. The guide data is the same as the non DVR boxes (maybe it has a *bit* more info?). Personally, I don't want to pay $7 for the useless info like seeing what OTHER movies Pauly Shore has made, thank you very much. Storage of shows is on a local hard drive, not on DTVs servers or on the cloud.


Not trying to be cute here, but some follow-up questions for the group.

Do you think D* is paying the same amount to the programmers providing content in the Total Choice package in 2002 as they are in 2011?

Do you think it costs the programmers more or less to produce in HD? 3D? CGI? Etc.

Are sports rights cheaper today or back in 2002?

Do you think the costs of developing new programming is more or less in 2011 than 2002? Are actors making more or less? Are producers, directors, writers, etc?

In terms of the DVR fees, do you think there are any licensing fees that have to be paid to companies that came up with certain patents for DVRs like TiVo, ReplayTV, etc? When new features are added to DVRs, does that cost money to develop, deploy, etc?

Someone else mentioned the box costs and redeploying them. Yes, it is true that D* and E* and other MSO's put boxes back into the customer world, but each of those boxes also has to be refurbished which isn't cheap.


----------



## oldengineer (May 25, 2008)

Stuart Sweet said:


> But if you are like the overwhelming majority, you have a DVR whose cost was heavily subsidized. What other way does DIRECTV have for keeping those costs low for the hardware than a DVR fee? And if I may ask, have you checked out what your local cable company charges for a DVR? Mine will give you a free 10-hour HD DVR if you pay a $29.99 per month fee for DVR service.


Service Electric, my local cableco, charges $12.95 per month for a Motorola HDDVR with a 100G hard drive and $7.95 per month for an HD receiver. They also raised the cost of my package from $99.95 to $109.95 on Jan 1. A good selection of HD channels, including A&E HD, is included but if you want HDNET, ESPNU and other select HD channels its an extra $19.00 monthly.


----------



## bills976 (Jun 30, 2002)

Satelliteracer said:


> Do you think D* is paying the same amount to the programmers providing content in the Total Choice package in 2002 as they are in 2011?
> 
> Do you think it costs the programmers more or less to produce in HD? 3D? CGI? Etc.
> 
> ...


All of these questions are correctly answered in favor of rate hikes.

However, that mentality is stuck in the 1990s. DirecTV's competition is a lot more fierce than it was ten years ago. TV is being replaced by the internet as the primary platform for entertainment in the home. In addition to that, OTA, which used to be a fuzzy mess, now provides oodles of free, crystal-clear digital content. Netflix offers hundreds of thousands of titles available through the mail, many of which can be accessed on demand. How do HBO and Cinemax compete with that? Why pay to see 30 rock with 8 minutes of commercials when you can see it a day later online, with 3 minutes of commercials, at your leisure?

The only thing that content providers really have a strangle-hold on is sports, but even that is changing with the introduction of ESPN3, NHL GameCenter, and MLB.TV. MLB is even broadcasting via Roku, letting people use their big screens to view this content without needing a media center.

The internet lets people pick and choose what content they want, and yes, it does allow people to illegally access treasure troves of content (MSFT's biggest competitior, for example, is piracy - its existence cannot be denied by the industry). No one at DirecTV should be surprised, then, that many people no longer see the value in a service that forces content on its customers that has seen a steady $40-$50/yr increase for the last ten years.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Satelliteracer said:


> Not trying to be cute here, but some follow-up questions for the group.
> 
> Do you think D* is paying the same amount to the programmers providing content in the Total Choice package in 2002 as they are in 2011?
> 
> ...


I never said rates should still be $37.99, now did I? . I said I thought a fair increase in my mind would be to $60 to $65. Thats a 71% increase. Has your salary gone up 71% since 2002? Didn't think so. How about your gas bill? or your phone or cell bill? How about your electric bill? Or your internet bill? Or your rent? Didn't think so x 10. Now surely all these things haven't gone up 101% (which is how much DTV has gone up)?? Didn't think so.

That was my point, that DTV / Dish / Cable have increased rates at a very non-proportional rate compared to everything else in the universe.

As for your other questions... yeah, actors are making roughly the same now as they did back then. The topest (ok, thats not really a word ) actors back then made $1M to $2M an episode at the peak (usually the last one or two seasons) i.e. Friends, but generally made $500k to $750k an episode on a huge hit show on a network. Thats what they make today. Charlie Sheen is the highest paid actor on TV and I believe his recently signed deal is for $1.8M / episode. Nobody else on TV even makes close to that. I think the Big Bang Theory guys are at around $200k to $300k.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> Has your salary gone up 71% since 2002?


No.



SledgeHammer said:


> How about your gas bill?


About 50%



SledgeHammer said:


> or your phone or cell bill?


Cell phone: 150%



SledgeHammer said:


> How about your electric bill?


40%



SledgeHammer said:


> Or your internet bill?


100%



SledgeHammer said:


> Or your rent?


I had a $1300/month mortgage in 2002. Current mortgage is $2200/month.

Just about everything I buy has gone up significantly since 2002.


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)




----------



## saxon2000 (Oct 25, 2006)

Netflix streaming movies is very cool. I just went from Premiere to the basic package and signed up for Netflix.
Netflix has so far kept my interest and more.
I can always find a movie to watch, whether it be a repeat favorite of mine, or a movie that I have not seen before.
Also, I am more inclined to watch some TV series, such as 24, or Battlestar Gallactica which were previously toxic to me due to the TV ads which I cannot stomach.
The bottom line is a saving of $50+ per month (this is after paying NF $9 per month), once I cover the cost of my Roku HD reciever ($60).
It makes me sad, as I have been a loyal DTV customer for at least 15 years. I also had to stop my Sunday Ticket.
I've never monkeyed around with nefarious mortgage schemes. I'm a conservative 30 fixed guy and work hard. The bottom fell out of my wife's business because of the economy. Sucks.
Anyway, Netfix steaming for $9 per month is a great deal for movie fans. I honestly don't miss HBO, Showtime, Starz et al.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

BKC said:


>


LOL... u got that right. DTV isn't going to lower our bills any time soon. Certainly not because of this thread. The only thing that'll make them lower bills is when they start to lose subs. That isn't going to happen anytime soon since suspiciously all providers are the same price!


----------



## saxon2000 (Oct 25, 2006)

Streaming is the way to go. It is so much easier for me to click on a streaming copy of, say, One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest, than to find mt DVD copy, put it in the player and fast forward through the ads.

I would say that the picture quality with my Roku box and Netflix is not as good in some cases as my DTV HD, but if you want to save money it is the way to go.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

bills976 said:


> All of these questions are correctly answered in favor of rate hikes.
> 
> However, that mentality is stuck in the 1990s. DirecTV's competition is a lot more fierce than it was ten years ago. TV is being replaced by the internet as the primary platform for entertainment in the home. In addition to that, OTA, which used to be a fuzzy mess, now provides oodles of free, crystal-clear digital content. Netflix offers hundreds of thousands of titles available through the mail, many of which can be accessed on demand. How do HBO and Cinemax compete with that? Why pay to see 30 rock with 8 minutes of commercials when you can see it a day later online, with 3 minutes of commercials, at your leisure?
> 
> ...


Based on the over the top seminars I attended last week, here's where I think you're going to see it going.

First, the days of seeing an episode 24 hours after it appears on tv are going the way of the do-do bird. The windows will be very long, months if not up to a year. That was a main line of discussion last week.

The internet is going to change dramatically in the next few years with throttling and rates based on usage.

There also isn't enough pipe to deliver internet into people's homes right now at a broadcast level that comes anywhere close to television. If someone is ok with pixelization, hiccuping and the inability to have multiple devices on at one time, sure it has some advantages. But if you want to watch an ESPN game via internet in one room and the wife something else in the bedroom and junior something else...not happening. That doesn't even begin to touch all the places in this country that don't have broadband capacity to even do single stream stuff at a rate that makes sense.

All those HD television sets out there and a source that can't deliver it to them in a way people are used to is not going to make for very happy folks.

Now, no one is denying that Internet provided video is here and here to say. The idea that it's going to come in and replace everything in a short time period is more than likely a good ways off, at least according to all the experts I heard speaking last week. We shall see.

One thing that I don't think will happen is all of these content providers (ESPN, HBO, TNT, etc, etc) go down the path of killing the Golden Goose that keeps their programming up and running. That is, the huge fees they get from MSOs. The Hulus of the world a drop within a drop for them.

Just my two cents, we'll see how it all shakes out.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> I never said rates should still be $37.99, now did I? . I said I thought a fair increase in my mind would be to $60 to $65. Thats a 71% increase. Has your salary gone up 71% since 2002? Didn't think so. How about your gas bill? or your phone or cell bill? How about your electric bill? Or your internet bill? Or your rent? Didn't think so x 10. Now surely all these things haven't gone up 101% (which is how much DTV has gone up)?? Didn't think so.
> 
> That was my point, that DTV / Dish / Cable have increased rates at a very non-proportional rate compared to everything else in the universe.
> 
> As for your other questions... yeah, actors are making roughly the same now as they did back then. The topest (ok, thats not really a word ) actors back then made $1M to $2M an episode at the peak (usually the last one or two seasons) i.e. Friends, but generally made $500k to $750k an episode on a huge hit show on a network. Thats what they make today. Charlie Sheen is the highest paid actor on TV and I believe his recently signed deal is for $1.8M / episode. Nobody else on TV even makes close to that. I think the Big Bang Theory guys are at around $200k to $300k.


So have the costs of universities, so have a number of industries and it's because of costs.

With all due respect, the costs of production today (actors, HD, 3D, crews, rates cities are charging for permits, etc) are MUCH higher today then they were 8 years ago. I'm not going to get in a squabble, but take it from someone that has to deal with making stuff in that world and it's not even close.

I don't know why you continue to compare this industry to other industries...it's apples to oranges. But, since you asked and using some of your examples.

Yes, electricity rates have gone up considerably the last decade. In Colorado, rates have gone up 63% since 2002. That's very close to the 71% for television. http://www.aessolarenergy.com/colorado_electricity_rates.htm

In California, anywhere between 49% and 74% depending on where you live for electricity rates.

http://c0688662.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/downloads_pdf_White_Paper_Calif_Elec_Prices.pdf

My cell bill, well actually is has gone up that much because now I have more "stuff" on it. Data plans for my wife and I, unlimited text, etc. Our cell bill in 2002 was about $35 a month. Now we pay over $100. That's a 185% increase.

My gas bill...are we talking gasoline or natural gas? Gasoline bill per month has definitely gone up. 2002, price of gasoline about $1.70 per gallon. Today in my neighborhood it's $3.49. http://zfacts.com/p/35.html That's a 105% increase.

Now, there is no doubt a number of things have come down in price but a number of things have not. I guess that's my point. When people are saying, look...the price of the widgets went down or the price to build a computer went down, what really does that have to do with the price of gasoline, or my cell phone service, or my television rates? Nothing. Apples to oranges.

I remember when I was a DIRECTV customer in 2007 when I had to purchase two STANDARD receivers for about $450. No local channels, no HD, limited offerings. Today, I would get those free as a new customer but could also get two HD boxes for free and have a lot better service at my fingertips then I did back then. From that aspect, pricing has come down and the technology got a lot better.

At any rate, I get where you guys are coming from but I just don't believe you are comparing things appropriately. Peace


----------



## saxon2000 (Oct 25, 2006)

My take is that it is all about choice.
As a long-term DTV customer, my main beef is choice.
It is not a new beef, just search the forums for 'a la carte'.
I don't want the speed, food, rainbow, hunting, shopping, animal, baby, cartoon networks for example.
When I pay for pro sports, I don't want to see other teams, just the teams I like.
I only want to pay for the things that I want to watch.
Internet is making this available and it is possible simply because they don't cram all of their programming at you at once, only what you order.
This is a refinement that the satellite and cable industry must make, or they will go the way of the dinosaurs.
I am not an industry insider, so perhaps you can explain where I am going wrong?


----------



## wco81 (Feb 23, 2008)

Oh he's an employee defending the pricing.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

saxon2000 said:


> My take is that it is all about choice.
> As a long-term DTV customer, my main beef is choice.
> It is not a new beef, just search the forums for 'a la carte'.
> I don't want the speed, food, rainbow, hunting, shopping, animal, baby, cartoon networks for example.
> ...


I don't work for the industry, but I can tell you that a la carte has been tried over the years and typically doesn't do well and ends up being more expensive.

The only way you would make "everybody" happy is if you offer every single channel by itself and let people only take what they want.

I don't think DTVs hardware can support 1000 channel tiers .


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

C Band had a fairly good system, it wasnt exactly ala-carte, but if you wanted Sports you could subscribe to sports, movies, superstations, basic cable, all had their mini-packages.

Canada has an interesting system as well.

It will never work in the US, because the providers will not allow a distributor to sell a popular channel without also buying their crap channels. You either have to buy all their channels or none of them. Now the broadcasters are trying to do the same thing...you want our FOX, you pay for our sister CW station too, at the same rate.

I think the genre based package system would work on Directv, but they would have to negotiate with ESPN to allow them to put all the ESPN networks in a sports pak. Right now, Im pretty sure, by seeing ESPNs in even the SELECT package, is the contract must be that DirecTv has to carry them in all their packages. Automatic $10 a month right there.


----------



## saxon2000 (Oct 25, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> I don't work for the industry, but I can tell you that a la carte has been tried over the years and typically doesn't do well and ends up being more expensive.
> 
> The only way you would make "everybody" happy is if you offer every single channel by itself and let people only take what they want.
> 
> I don't think DTVs hardware can support 1000 channel tiers .


Yes. That is what I want, and I am sure many others want.

That's the way it's going. It makes a lot of sense for streaming video over the internet, and so, satellite and cable are going to get muscled out.

As far as infrastructure, if the demand is there, the network will be built. FIOS, of course. No, not nationwide, not in the boonies, but in the cities where 90% of the demand is.

This is nothing new or ground-breaking. My brother lives in Yokohama, Japan and has this now. Super fast FIOS internet, and affordable TV with many, many choices. He is not a wealthy man, it is affordable there.

Why are we wasting our time with stuff like 3D TV when the information network is falling behind other countries?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

saxon2000 said:


> Yes. That is what I want, and I am sure many others want.
> 
> That's the way it's going. It makes a lot of sense for streaming video over the internet, and so, satellite and cable are going to get muscled out.
> 
> ...


FIOS is just as much if not more then DTV. Unfortunately, FIOS is only available in areas that Verizon services. I live in what is considered a "new / high tech" area and I doubt FIOS will ever be available here because Pacific Bell / AT&T owns the area.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> FIOS is just as much if not more then DTV. Unfortunately, FIOS is only available in areas that Verizon services. I live in what is considered a "new / high tech" area and I doubt FIOS will ever be available here because Pacific Bell / AT&T owns the area.


Technically it also is in some Frontier areas, though ones they took over from Verizon. But anyone that is out of contract and actually keeps TV service needs a psych eval unless they really have no other options.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

I've always find it incredibly obnoxious watching old time D* subscribers go on and on about how much they paid for their receiver back in the day.. Perspective, point taken, enough. Majority of people don't do this. Fios just brought a motorola 7232-2 to my house with year of free(feeless meaning) and I didn't have to pay solid signal two hundred per new DVR for the right to lease it. I'm mighty glad that I did not...


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

fireponcoal said:


> I've always found it *incredibly obnoxious* watching old time D* subscribers go on and on about how much they paid for their receiver back in the day.. Perspective, point taken, enough. Majority of people don't do this. Fios just brought a motorola 7232-2 to my house with year of free(feeless meaning) I didn't have to pay solid signal two hundred per new DVR for the right to lease it. I'm mighty glad that I did not...


You want obnoxious?

I paid $700 for my first DirecTV receiver and that was after getting a 10% Hughes employee discount.


----------



## goldwing (Aug 25, 2006)

billsharpe said:


> You want obnoxious?
> 
> I paid $700 for my first DirecTV receiver and that was after getting a 10% Hughes employee discount.


hehehehehe, that statement took me back to december 94 when i paid $795 plus tax for my first system and i had to install and aim the dish in a snow blizzard myself cause dtv didnt do installs back then


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

fireponcoal said:


> I've always found it incredibly obnoxious watching old time D* subscribers go on and on about how much they paid for their receiver back in the day.. Perspective, point taken, enough. Majority of people don't do this. Fios just brought a motorola 7232-2 to my house with year of free(feeless meaning) I didn't have to pay solid signal two hundred per new DVR for the right to lease it. I'm mighty glad that I did not...


Then let me tell you about my first PC with an Intel 286 processer and an 80MB hard drive that cost me over $2000.00.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

Hah, I always feel as though some people are trying to show the rest of us how good we have it.. In one respect I totally agree but in another I personally wouldn't have been paying that much.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

HarleyD said:


> Then let me tell you about my first PC with an Intel 286 processer and an 80MB hard drive that cost me over $2000.00.


Me, too. Mine was a 12 mhz blazing fast beauty with a 5.25" floppy drive and 40 Meg Hard Drive which I was told "you will never need more".

Word Perfect and Lotus 123 loaded and off to college I went. The thing seemed to weigh 200 lbs. LOL.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

fireponcoal said:


> Hah, I always feel as though some people are trying to show the rest of us how good we have it.. In one respect I totally agree but in another I personally wouldn't have been paying that much.


You didn't have to pay that much, but the alternative was doing without altogether.

In that respect, not much has changed. Pay the price...or do without.

And that is a perfectly viable option. Not trying to be derisive about it.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> Me, too. Mine was a 12 mhz blazing fast beauty with a 5.25" floppy drive and 40 Meg Hard Drive which I was told "you will never need more".
> 
> Word Perfect and Lotus 123 loaded and off to college I went. The thing seemed to weigh 200 lbs. LOL.


You still wouldnt if programmers would go back to writing code in machine language instead of bloated higher level languages. I had apps galore on my 10MB hard drive. Heck, the computer only had what, 640K ram, and anything above that required swapping in and out of memory. Desqview running 4 copies of windows 3.0 and a multi-line bulletin board. Now that was fun.


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

billsharpe said:


> You want obnoxious?
> 
> I paid $700 for my first DirecTV receiver and that was after getting a 10% Hughes employee discount.


I paid $2800 for a C-Band set-up but the programming was free.


----------



## noahproblem (Aug 20, 2009)

Satelliteracer said:


> Me, too. Mine was a 12 mhz blazing fast beauty with a 5.25" floppy drive and 40 Meg Hard Drive which I was told "you will never need more".
> 
> Word Perfect and Lotus 123 loaded and off to college I went. The thing seemed to weigh 200 lbs. LOL.


Hah! I only paid $100 for my first computer back in 1983. OK, it was that Timex computer with the "whopping" 2KB (not MB, and, certainly not GB) of RAM and I had to supply my own tape recorder to save programs, but, still...


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

And another...ESPN to shell out $300 Million to the University of Texas for their rights

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Morning-Buzz/2011/01/19/Texas-ESPN.aspx


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> And another...ESPN to shell out $300 Million to the University of Texas for their rights
> 
> http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Morning-Buzz/2011/01/19/Texas-ESPN.aspx


I love UT, but this is nuts. I understand conference deals like SEC/ESPN and the Big 10 network, but for 1 school????


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> I love UT, but this is nuts. I understand conference deals like SEC/ESPN and the Big 10 network, but for 1 school????


Lock up 3-4 large market schools and you're guaranteed to control your increases next contract negotiations.


----------



## saxon2000 (Oct 25, 2006)

Do you think D* is paying the same amount to the programmers providing content in the Total Choice package in 2002 as they are in 2011?

Do you think it costs the programmers more or less to produce in HD? 3D? CGI? Etc.

Are sports rights cheaper today or back in 2002?

Do you think the costs of developing new programming is more or less in 2011 than 2002? Are actors making more or less? Are producers, directors, writers, etc?

In terms of the DVR fees, do you think there are any licensing fees that have to be paid to companies that came up with certain patents for DVRs like TiVo, ReplayTV, etc? When new features are added to DVRs, does that cost money to develop, deploy, etc?

Someone else mentioned the box costs and redeploying them. Yes, it is true that D* and E* and other MSO's put boxes back into the customer world, but each of those boxes also has to be refurbished which isn't cheap.[/quote]

Yes. Costs have indeed gone up, so I can see that D* wants to pass those costs along to me. Trouble is, my salary has not gone up, so what do I do? I cancel Ticket for the first time in more than ten years, then I cancel all of the premium movie channels, HBO, Starz et al. I then seek out better value for my dollar. Streaming channels over the internet.


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

That's a horrible quote job


----------

