# Leased Receiver Monthly Fee Increase



## Golfman (Dec 21, 2007)

I just received my latest monthly bill and noticed that the leased receiver fee seems to have gone from $5 a month to $6 a month.

This is like a 20% increase and seems pretty steep given the current rate of inflation. When I called to verify that this was indeed the correct pricing for this fee I was told that it was needed because of the increased costs of distributing content to the receivers.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me since they don't charge a separate fee to distribute content to my owned receiver.

Does anyone have any ideas as to why the leased receiver fee was increased by 20%?


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Golfman said:


> I just received my latest monthly bill and noticed that the leased receiver fee seems to have gone from $5 a month to $6 a month.
> 
> This is like a 20% increase and seems pretty steep given the current rate of inflation. When I called to verify that this was indeed the correct pricing for this fee I was told that it was needed because of the increased costs of distributing content to the receivers.
> 
> ...


The fee for mirroring your subscription to additional owned or leased receivers after the first receiver has gone up to $6/month. This is the first increase in this fee that I can remember. I believe even when I started with DirecTV in 2000, it was $5/month. So, the fact that it hasn't gone up in at least 10 years, I would say that it is quite in line with inflation.

- Merg


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

ALL receivers, owned or leased, beyond the first receiver on the account pay a monthly programming mirror fee. That fee went up for the first time in over 10 years.

DirecTV's costs go up, and like any business, their increased costs get passed along to the customer.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Golfman said:


> Does anyone have any ideas as to why the leased receiver fee was increased by 20%?


This was announced a few months back.

While programming increases usually show up in the various packages which also went up, I suspect it was a means to improve the bottom line of the Directv financials.


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

Golfman said:


> I just received my latest monthly bill and noticed that the leased receiver fee seems to have gone from $5 a month to $6 a month.
> 
> This is like a 20% increase and seems pretty steep given the current rate of inflation. When I called to verify that this was indeed the correct pricing for this fee I was told that it was needed because of the increased costs of distributing content to the receivers.
> 
> ...


I received an email about the new prices, did you? They do charge a separate fee to distribute content to your owned receiver, it was $5 and now it is $6...a $1 increase. They mirror the programming on your main receiver to all other receivers you have. That's why you only pay this fee if you have more than one receiver. I'd rather pay a $6 mirror fee for my additional receivers than $65 for a separate programming package fee for each receiver.

The price has not changed in 10 years. If you are uncomfortable paying a $1 fee increase for something that has been steady for 10 years, than maybe you sure check your finances and downgrade your service or cancel all together.


----------



## Yoda-DBSguy (Nov 4, 2006)

Rearead TOS changes and basically $6.0 for every receiver except the primary as stated.


----------



## Golfman (Dec 21, 2007)

Yoda-DBSguy said:


> Although it increased from $5 to $6 per additional receiver; The accounts now include the first 2 receivers at no charge, then the additional $6 applies for the third receiver and beyond per the terms of the new TOS.
> 
> So although it is an increase in monetary terms; it may actually be a decrease in payment for those with 2 or less receivers and about the same for those with above those units....


If this is correct then I shouldn't be billed this fee at all since I only have 2 receivers; one leased and one owned.


----------



## Golfman (Dec 21, 2007)

bixler said:


> I received an email about the new prices, did you? They do charge a separate fee to distribute content to your owned receiver, it was $5 and now it is $6...a $1 increase. They mirror the programming on your main receiver to all other receivers you have. That's why you only pay this fee if you have more than one receiver. I'd rather pay a $6 mirror fee for my additional receivers than $65 for a separate programming package fee for each receiver.
> 
> The price has not changed in 10 years. If you are uncomfortable paying a $1 fee increase for something that has been steady for 10 years, than maybe you sure check your finances and downgrade your service or cancel all together.


Thanks for the advice.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Yoda-DBSguy said:


> Although it increased from $5 to $6 per additional receiver; The accounts now include the first 2 receivers at no charge, then the additional $6 applies for the third receiver and beyond per the terms of the new TOS.
> 
> So although it is an increase in monetary terms; it may actually be a decrease in payment for those with 2 or less receivers and about the same for those with above those units....


I think that's wrong. It's $6 for the first 2, and $6 for each after.


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

Yoda-DBSguy said:


> Although it increased from $5 to $6 per additional receiver; The accounts now include the first 2 receivers at no charge, then the additional $6 applies for the third receiver and beyond per the terms of the new TOS.


Link to these new TOS? I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. As Sigma mentioned, it says "Lease for first two receivers: $6/mo.; additional receiver leases: $6/mo. each."

http://www.directv.com/pricechange/...df?CMP=EMC-MQ-CS&ATT=120-LS-EN-110107final&m=


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

Golfman said:


> Thanks for the advice.


No problem. Have a great evening!


----------



## Golfman (Dec 21, 2007)

bixler said:


> No problem. Have a great evening!


Back at ya!


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Yoda-DBSguy said:


> Although it increased from $5 to $6 per additional receiver; The accounts now include the first 2 receivers at no charge, then the additional $6 applies for the third receiver and beyond per the terms of the new TOS.


Incorrect.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Golfman, you are absolutely correct. It is a 20% increase during a time span in which the core CPI has gone up 0.8%. Also, glance at my signature. PayTV's monthly's fees have increased FAR more than inflation and even TV consumption during for an extended period.

Some say that all content has gone up. I respond that far more people listen to more music today than they did one decade ago, yet aggregate music revenue has decreased about 55% during that period.

And, over the last two quarters, for the first time ever, the number of PayTV subscribers has decreased. Many recent grads have decided to forego PayTV in favor of Hulu, OTA and Netflix.

I don't believe that current rate hikes are sustainable even in the short-term. Others disagree.

Only time will tell who is right.

PayTv distributors begin to report this week.


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Golfman, you are absolutely correct. It is a 20% increase during a time span in which the core CPI has gone up 0.8%. Also, glance at my signature. PayTV's monthly's fees have increased FAR more than inflation and even TV consumption during for an extended period.
> 
> Some say that all content has gone up. I respond that far more people listen to more music today than they did one decade ago, yet aggregate music revenue has decreased about 55% during that period.
> 
> ...


That's why I live in America. I have a choice when it comes to paytv, either I can afford it or I can't afford it. Everyone has to make their own decisions on what they can and can't afford. As for me, an additional $3 a month for my 3 additional receivers fits into my budget.

Taxes go up, I can't do too much about that. Paytv rates increase, I can cancel or downgrade if I can't afford it. Really pretty simple and a great reason to live in America, freedom of choice.


----------



## boba (May 23, 2003)

*DISH raised their receiver fees in June or July 2010 so DIRECTV followed suit.*


----------



## Golfman (Dec 21, 2007)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Golfman, you are absolutely correct. It is a 20% increase during a time span in which the core CPI has gone up 0.8%. Also, glance at my signature. PayTV's monthly's fees have increased FAR more than inflation and even TV consumption during for an extended period.
> 
> Some say that all content has gone up. I respond that far more people listen to more music today than they did one decade ago, yet aggregate music revenue has decreased about 55% during that period.
> 
> ...


Gloria, you seem to be one of the few who have grasped the facts. This fee that D* has imposed is very difficult to understand. It seems to me that there may be a one time charge to set up an account with multiple receivers, but I have a very difficult time understanding the recurring costs for maintaining distribution to a single subscribers multiple receivers. Unless the content providers charge D* a per receiver charge and not a subscriber charge for distribution of content I have difficulty understanding what I am paying for with regard to the leased receiver monthly fee.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Golfman said:


> I just received my latest monthly bill and noticed that the leased receiver fee seems to have gone from $5 a month to $6 a month.
> 
> This is like a 20% increase and seems pretty steep given the current rate of inflation. When I called to verify that this was indeed the correct pricing for this fee I was told that it was needed because of the increased costs of distributing content to the receivers.
> 
> ...


you think that bad? comcast wants 8.95 per outlet in some areas and $15.95 or higher per HD DVR


----------



## Golfman (Dec 21, 2007)

bixler said:


> That's why I live in America. I have a choice when it comes to paytv, either I can afford it or I can't afford it. Everyone has to make their own decisions on what they can and can't afford. As for me, an additional $3 a month for my 3 additional receivers fits into my budget.
> 
> Taxes go up, I can't do too much about that. Paytv rates increase, I can cancel or downgrade if I can't afford it. Really pretty simple and a great reason to live in America, freedom of choice.


You're the perfect D* dupe. As long as you pay what they charge you, and "can afford it" you pay.

On the other hand some of us want to know what we're paying for. Is that wrong?

I would venture to say that my net worth would probably allow me to buy and sell you several times over, and I got to this point by understanding how my money was working for me.

In the case of this leased receiver fee I don't understand it or its components and would like to really do that.

If anybody out there can make a cogent, complete case for this fee I'd like to see it.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Golfman said:


> On the other hand some of us want to know what we're paying for.


I'm paying for the ability to use another receiver in another room. I thought that was clear.

I don't go into McDonalds and ask them for a breakdown of all their food costs to determine if I should buy a Big Mac, either.

If I'm hungry and the price is something I'm willing to pay to satisfy that hunger, I pay it. If it's a price I'm not willing to pay to satisfy that hunger, I go somewhere else. It's pretty simple.

I bought a new suit yesterday and I have no idea how much it cost the manufacturer to make, but I liked the suit and thought it was worth it. I guess that makes me a dupe.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

"If anybody out there can make a cogent, complete case for this fee I'd like to see it".

The ticket price didn't go up, they just added a fuel charge.


----------



## Golfman (Dec 21, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> I'm paying for the ability to use another receiver in another room. I thought that was clear.
> 
> I don't go into McDonalds and ask them for a breakdown of all their food costs to determine if I should buy a Big Mac, either.
> 
> ...


Stu, You too are the perfect dupe! Just charge me and I'll pay even if I dont know what I'm paying for! I like it and stuff it to me!

Is there something wrong with trying to understand what I'm being charged for?

I mean I'll pay it and I'm not dissatisfied with the service, but what is the leased receiver fee actually comprised off?

I know all you D* love boys will attack any challange to the great, magnanimous, paternalism of D*, but what is the answer to my question?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Golfman said:


> Stu, You too are the perfect dupe! Just charge me and I'll pay even if I dont know what I'm paying for! I like it and stuff it to me!
> 
> Is there something wrong with trying to understand what I'm being charged for?
> 
> ...


You didn't address any of the other points I made though.

Not many businesses (none, really) give you the breakdown of what things cost. Perhaps you're not familiar with business, so are unaware of this.

It doesn't matter if the cost to D* for you to have another receiver is $3 or $0. Sometimes businesses add costs because they can and they're in the business of making money.

So, to answer your question (again), you're being charged for the privilege of having another receiver on your account. That's what the charge is for, plain and simple. You can keep trying to make it complicated, but it's not.

If you demand the breakdown for everything you buy, you must be living in a grass hut in the woods, living off the land, and drinking your artesian water, because your anal retentiveness would prevent your from purchasing any goods and/or services.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Golfman said:


> Stu, You too are the perfect dupe! Just charge me and I'll pay even if I dont know what I'm paying for! I like it and stuff it to me!
> 
> Is there something wrong with trying to understand what I'm being charged for?
> 
> ...


Golfman,

The Leased Receiver fee is what DIRECTV charges you to use an additional receiver on your account. It's nothing more and nothing less. All it "does" is make it so that that receiver can be legally turned on so that you can use it.


----------



## MattScahum (Oct 27, 2010)

the leased receiver fee(realistically it should just be referred to as an additional receiver fee as that is what it is) is put in place to allow you to have independent digital viewing in an additional room. don't want to pay it? fine then don't. before I had D* I had cable and was paying $8.95/month PER ROOM for my digital receiver. With D* at least I get the 1st room included. Considering that all my receivers allow me to set a personalized programming guide, access my DVR from them(all my receivers are HD) and let me watch whatever channel I want in any room I want is something that was definately worth the $5 a month that it has been for as long as I can remember. And it is STILL worth it to me to pay $6/month for it. 
I can understand wanting to know why you are being charged for something. I really do. But do you honestly expect me to believe that you take this approach with your everyday life to things? Do you quesiton why you pay so much for gas? Do you question the fee that the person that cuts your hair charges you? Do you micromanage the cost of going through the automatic carwash(if you have them in your area as they are huge up in Ohio)? I pay for the conveinence with my service. Gas is a bad example but it does show inflation. Its the way of the world. And as was said already, in America we have the freedom to chose what services we have. If you can afford to pay something AND you have no issue paying it then by all means pay it and enjoy. If you can afford it but have an issue paying it, then find out why you pay it(as we have told you here). If you still have an issue with that, then there are plenty of options out there that will happily take your money....and charge you more per room than D* does. If it makes me a dupe than that is fine with me. D* signs my paychecks but I am free to use whatever service I deem worthy. They were a better deal BEFORE I gained employment with them and they will continue to be that way long after I have left there employment.


----------



## TwoPhases (Jul 20, 2010)

Golfman said:


> I have a very difficult time understanding the recurring costs for maintaining distribution to a single subscribers multiple receivers.


It does not cost D* any more to provide content to multiple receivers. They charge you because they can. It's up to you if you want to pay it.


----------



## adamson (Nov 9, 2007)

Did not everyone receive a new price's mailer? Im sure every account holder received one. I got one...what about you the OP?


----------



## seamonkeys1 (Aug 14, 2010)

I have not seen anything in the mail about this


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

seamonkeys1 said:


> I have not seen anything in the mail about this


DIRECTV has delivered (or attempted to deliver) this message in multiple ways. Primarily via US Mail. Also, it's the same general time each year that DIRECTV has made price adjustments over the last many years. Hopefully they stick to once per year at a minimum.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I believe that the Additional Receiver fee has changed exactly one other time since DIRECTV started business in 1994 (17 years). It went from $4.99/month to $5/month. If you ignore that $.01/month (I can), then the change this month is the first time since DIRECTV started business that this particular fee has changed.

So, while it may be a 20% increase year over year when you look only @ 2010 & 2011, it's a 20.24% increase over the past 17 years or roughly 1% increase every year since DIRECTV started business.

It's all a matter of perspective .. I sure wish gas had only gone up 20% over the last 17 years.

Gas


*Month*
|
*$$/gal (avg)*

June 1994|$1.07
February 2011|$3.19
Since 1994


*Product*
|
*Increase (%)*

Gas |298.13%
DIRECTV additional receiver|20.24%
It's not even close ....


----------



## Max Mike (Oct 18, 2008)

So here is a little perspective... the cost of building and buying these type devices (basically computers/consumer electronics) has dramatically *decreased* in price over the last 10 years. A comparable computer cost 1/3 to 1/2 what it did 10 years ago. You can buy a comparable level laptop for $500 that 10 years ago would have run $1500+. A nice 42-50 inch TV now for less than a nice 32 inch 10 years ago.

So arguing a fee increase is needed due to inflation is on its face absurd. There has been no inflation in computers/consumer electronics but instead there has been a huge amount of deflation.

It is a safe bet it cost DirecTV less to buy receivers today than it did 10 years ago.

This fee increase is unconscionable in this economy.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Look, the cost of everything goes up. It's just a fact. It's still nothing like what I'd be paying if I had cable... last time I checked I'd be paying almost double and I'd still be using their crummy DVR.


----------



## markfp (Mar 9, 2010)

What people seem to forget is that like any company, DirecTV is in the business of making money for its stockholders. In the scheme of things when it comes to big companies, like it or not, customers come second. It's just as simple as that.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Look, *the cost of everything goes up. It's just a fact*. It's still nothing like what I'd be paying if I had cable... last time I checked I'd be paying almost double and I'd still be using their crummy DVR.


Stuart ? Tsk, tsk.
Just a four minutes ago:


Max Mike said:


> So here is a little perspective... *the cost of building and buying these type devices (basically computers/consumer electronics) has dramatically decreased in price over the last 10 years. A comparable computer cost 1/3 to 1/2 what it did 10 years ago. You can buy a comparable level laptop for $500 that 10 years ago would have run $1500+. A nice 42-50 inch TV now for less than a nice 32 inch 10 years ago.*
> 
> So arguing a fee increase is needed due to inflation is on its face absurd. There has been no inflation in computers/consumer electronics but instead there has been a huge amount of deflation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

Look, I don't think this is really a cost increase due to increasing hardware prices. I do think that this is a way for DIRECTV to increase revenue to pay for ever increasing programming costs without having to raise package prices more than they have.

Content is getting expensive and they're finding new ways to pay for it. Raising lease/mirroring fees is one way that doesn't interfere with marketing as much. Advertised package prices can be lower...

It's business folks.


----------



## TwoPhases (Jul 20, 2010)

Go Beavs said:


> Look, I don't think this is really a cost increase due to increasing hardware prices. I do think that this is a way for DIRECTV to increase revenue to pay for ever increasing programming costs without having to raise package prices more than they have.
> 
> Content is getting expensive and they're finding new ways to pay for it. Raising lease/mirroring fees is one way that doesn't interfere with marketing as much. Advertised package prices can be lower...
> 
> It's business folks.


Ding...
Ding...
Ding...


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Ka-ching !


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Go Beavs said:


> Look, I don't think this is really a cost increase due to increasing hardware prices. I do think that this is a way for DIRECTV to increase revenue to pay for ever increasing programming costs without having to raise package prices more than they have.
> 
> Content is getting expensive and they're finding new ways to pay for it. Raising lease/mirroring fees is one way that doesn't interfere with marketing as much. Advertised package prices can be lower...
> 
> It's business folks.


Exactly. Just like caller ID (for landline telephone customers) had margins of 80% when it was first offered over a decade ago. Today, it's priced at least 2x as much as it did then, but its cost is even lower than it was ten years ago.

Upshot? Every quarter, fewer Americans have landline service, migrating to less expensive options.

And I believe that, as was demonstrated in 2Q10 and 3Q10, fewer Americans will get their programming from PayTV, instead migrating to Hulu, OTA and Netflix.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Exactly. Just like *caller ID (for landline telephone customers)* had margins of 80% when it was first offered over a decade ago. Today, it's priced at least 2x as much as it did then, but its cost is even lower than it was ten years ago.
> 
> Upshot? Every quarter, fewer Americans have landline service, migrating to less expensive options.
> 
> And I believe that, as was demonstrated in 2Q10 and 3Q10, fewer Americans will get their programming from PayTV, instead migrating to Hulu, OTA and Netflix.


I'm still puzzled what DTV or a competitior does not proposed a fee for On-Screen CID ? 
Per each TV output !
And per each call.


----------



## adamson (Nov 9, 2007)

Mirroring fees going up are somewhat an issue to me, but remember the small minority does not connect their receivers to telephone lines/internet. So for those that this applies to be glad Directv does not call you like Dish Network does verifying your receivers location. Somehow I feel were making up a loss many have created. Actually I wish Directv did phone accounts verifying location...we would still be paying $5.00. Millions of us and too much work on Directv's part to verify non responders=increase of fees.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Go Beavs said:


> Look, I don't think this is really a cost increase due to increasing hardware prices. I do think that this is a way for DIRECTV to increase revenue to pay for ever increasing programming costs without having to raise package prices more than they have.
> 
> Content is getting expensive and they're finding new ways to pay for it. Raising lease/mirroring fees is one way that doesn't interfere with marketing as much. Advertised package prices can be lower...
> 
> It's business folks.


Here we go again....somebody ruining a perfectly good bickering session by making all sorts of sense...


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Seems to me the second box/mirror fee is a just a copycat of cableco fees and good source of easy money for the companies.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Here we go again....somebody ruining a perfectly good bickering session by making all sorts of sense...


Can you tell that to my wife? :lol:


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Thank God that Directv has raised my rates as now I will soon see New HD Channels such as HLN and The History International Channel in HD!!!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Go Beavs said:


> Can you tell that to my wife? :lol:


Sure.

I bet she won't believe *me* either.


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

Golfman said:


> Stu, You too are the perfect dupe! Just charge me and I'll pay even if I dont know what I'm paying for! I like it and stuff it to me!
> 
> Is there something wrong with trying to understand what I'm being charged for?
> 
> ...


You are paddling upstream in a large canoe with a fork questioning this stuff here. :lol:


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

Golfman said:


> You're the perfect D* dupe. As long as you pay what they charge you, and "can afford it" you pay.
> 
> On the other hand some of us want to know what we're paying for. Is that wrong?
> 
> ...


Wow man, this is television....if you don't like what you are paying for because you can't get the specific breakdown, then don't give them your money. I don't understand why you are making such a huge deal about $1. You've been paying $5 for how long and now they raise it $1 and you want to nit pick it. Don't give me that 20% increase garbage either, it's $1. Damn, someone is even discussing the GDP in this thread. Hello people, this is entertainment.....if you can afford it then pay for it, if you can't move along.

I can't believe there is this much nonsense over a $1 increase for an entertainment package. Some people have way too much time on their hands.

:nono2::nono2::nono2:


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

BKC said:


> You are paddling upstream in a large canoe with a fork questioning this stuff here. :lol:


In the shallow end.


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

Max Mike said:


> It is a safe bet it cost DirecTV less to buy receivers today than it did 10 years ago.
> 
> This fee increase is unconscionable in this economy.


I take it you've already canceled your Direct TV.

If a $1 increase is unconscionable for you then you are living way above your means.

Wow people, you are talking about television....entertainment...a $1 increase and the only increase in 17 years.

Amazing......


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

bixler said:


> I take it you've already canceled your Direct TV.
> 
> If a $1 increase is unconscionable for you then you are living way above your means.
> 
> ...


We go through this every year. Its not just the $1. What if the guy has 10 boxes? I mean the other packages went up as well. Maybe this time he was affected by $10-20 a month. I think for me it was a $8 a month increase. Not real desirable. Try to be a little understanding. Some people are on fixed incomes. More money going out is not good for them. Im not one of them and plan to cut back on nothing again but I too grow tired of the price increases each year. Not tired enough to change providers or anything like that but each person has their breaking point. Just look at how people are getting about Sunday Ticket. I will continue to get it but understand why some dont and or wont. To each their own.


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

joshjr said:


> We go through this every year. Its not just the $1. What if the guy has 10 boxes? I mean the other packages went up as well. Maybe this time he was affected by $10-20 a month. I think for me it was a $8 a month increase. Not real desirable. Try to be a little understanding. Some people are on fixed incomes. More money going out is not good for them. Im not one of them and plan to cut back on nothing again but I too grow tired of the price increases each year. Not tired enough to change providers or anything like that but each person has their breaking point. Just look at how people are getting about Sunday Ticket. I will continue to get it but understand why some dont and or wont. To each their own.


I do understand and I do feel for the people on a fixed income but you are kidding yourself if you think the OP is on a fixed income, especially when he states "I would venture to say that my net worth would probably allow me to buy and sell you several times over, and I got to this point by understanding how my money was working for me."

Not quite sure how he thinks the money he pays to Direct TV for tv service is "working for him" but, as you stated, to each their own.:lol:

I mean come on, this is entertainment and the more this thread continues the more I laugh. Someone that has 10 receivers on their account has no right to moan about a $1 per receiver increase. If you can afford $45 a month in just equipment fees you can afford $54 in equipment fees.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

bixler said:


> Wow man, this is television....if you don't like what you are paying for because you can't get the specific breakdown, then don't give them your money. I don't understand why you are making such a huge deal about $1. You've been paying $5 for how long and now they raise it $1 and you want to nit pick it. Don't give me that 20% increase garbage either, it's $1. Damn, someone is even discussing the GDP in this thread. Hello people, this is entertainment.....if you can afford it then pay for it, if you can't move along.
> 
> I can't believe there is this much nonsense over a $1 increase for an entertainment package. Some people have way too much time on their hands.
> 
> :nono2::nono2::nono2:


I imagine that was the debate during Executive Committee meetings at record labels a decade ago. There were some who argued, "we'll sell a CD for 18 dollars apiece. If they don't like it, they can s**** t********s." Then came Napster, and the younger execs said, "let's lower the price to 6 dollars a CD, and set up a legal way of downloading music." The older execs with more to lose resisted.

I imagine that's the debate at PayTV co's today. The younger execs, aware of the recent college grads who get their content via Netflix, Hulu, ComedyCentral.com and OTA, are pushing for price stagnation if not price cuts. The older execs believe otherwise.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

bixler said:


> I do understand and I do feel for the people on a fixed income but you are kidding yourself if you think the OP is on a fixed income, especially when he states "I would venture to say that my net worth would probably allow me to buy and sell you several times over, and I got to this point by understanding how my money was working for me."
> 
> Not quite sure how he thinks the money he pays to Direct TV for tv service is "working for him" but, as you stated, to each their own.:lol:
> 
> I mean come on, this is entertainment and the more this thread continues the more I laugh. Someone that has 10 receivers on their account has no right to moan about a $1 per receiver increase. If you can afford $45 a month in just equipment fees you can afford $54 in equipment fees.


While I understand your point dont you think people that money is not an issue for have a breaking point as well? Maybe not all but I would have to say that I at least believe that some of them would. For some people it dont matter if money is an issue or not. Its the justifications. In this case the fee went up 20% and while that is a big jump I understand it hasnt went up in like 10 years. Others choose to look at the inflation rate and other things when making their decisions. Im going to keep subbing to what I want and not lower down. I just understand that some dont feel the same way. Others want people like me to reach my breaking point as well as they feel like that is when the prices will lower. That may be true but I think they are gonna have to raise alot more before alot of people will say look I have had enough. I can tell you I dont know anyone else in my area that pays $200 a month for TV and I am not lowering anything but realize that is alot.


----------



## AttiTech (Feb 21, 2011)

Been lurking the site for awhile and thought I would finally stop being lazy and join up here to let everyone in on what's going on. I'm a Customer Service Technician for one of D* Call Centers and have been getting a lot of calls on the billing increases. The Leased Receiver Fees are actually like a monthly payment you would make on a car. Instead of buying the receivers out right we either deeply discount them or give them to you without the "down payment". The lease is is really misnamed and is more of your monthly payment to eventually it being an owned receiver (i.e. giving you the oppurtunity to take the irds away from your home to another location without breaking the FCC guidelines).

The programming providers raised their rates for D* to pay to provide the srvc. To counteract the increases, D* made modest changes to certain items for customers to balance out the increase in prices. If anyone is interested and haven't seen what has all been increased I'll be more than happy to post it in another reply.

-Atticus


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

AttiTech said:


> The programming providers raised their rates for D* to pay to provide the srvc. To counteract the increases, D* made modest changes to certain items for customers to balance out the increase in prices. If anyone is interested and haven't seen what has all been increased I'll be more than happy to post it in another reply.
> 
> -Atticus


Hi Atticus. What you're describing is what the landline carriers are doing, for different reasons. They have seen a continued decrease in subscribers, so they significantly increase the fees on services like call waiting and caller ID, to compensate for the lost revenue. As a result, the landline providers lose even more customers, which precipitates another price hike.

A couple of Private Equity firms thought they could square the circle, so they bought some landlines in Hawaii, hoping to stabilize the business. The landline provider declared bankruptcy withing 2 years after the purchase.

Atticus, I will acknowledge that Directv, due to demographic it attracts, has been somewhat insulated from this dynamic. But you can't look at 2Q10 and 3Q10 aggregate PayTV subcriber numbers, and not concede that price hikes are having an effect on the industry.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

BKC said:


> You are paddling upstream in a large canoe with a fork questioning this stuff here. :lol:


Why? The question was "What's the leased receiver fee comprised of?" The answer is "The ability to activate a second receiver on your account."

If you want to get to the nuts and bolts of it, that too was answered .. "Because they can."

Certainly there is not one single person here (except richierich apparently ) that wants higher rates. But at the same time people are being realistic here. You can look at it like this .. "Dang, they raised the rates this year" or "Wow! I'm glad they didn't raise the rates every year."

Either way, the price isn't going down and is likely to go up. DIRECTV is still a deal when compared to many multichannel service providers.


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

joshjr said:


> While I understand your point dont you think people that money is not an issue for have a breaking point as well? Maybe not all but I would have to say that I at least believe that some of them would. For some people it dont matter if money is an issue or not. Its the justifications. In this case the fee went up 20% and while that is a big jump I understand it hasnt went up in like 10 years. Others choose to look at the inflation rate and other things when making their decisions. Im going to keep subbing to what I want and not lower down. I just understand that some dont feel the same way. Others want people like me to reach my breaking point as well as they feel like that is when the prices will lower. That may be true but I think they are gonna have to raise alot more before alot of people will say look I have had enough. I can tell you I dont know anyone else in my area that pays $200 a month for TV and I am not lowering anything but realize that is alot.


No doubt there is always a breaking point and yes I have one myself but this specific thread is talking about a $1 additional receiver fee increase for a fee that hasn't increased in 17 years. I mean the programming packages go up every year like $2 or $3, but the OP is basically having a fit because the additional receiver fee is increasing $1 and he doesn't know why he's paying for it in the first place. Not to mention he's already been paying $5 for the same fee for however many years he's had the additional receiver(s).

Why do people keep throwing this 20% figure out? Is it because 20% is a significant number? Why can't you just say $1 increase? Does 20% make it seem like it's a more significant increase than $1? I mean does anyone think they would only tack on 25 cents (a 5% increase)? Of course they are going to keep it even on the dollar, more money in their business model.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

AttiTech said:


> Been lurking the site for awhile and thought I would finally stop being lazy and join up here to let everyone in on what's going on. I'm a Customer Service Technician for one of D* Call Centers and have been getting a lot of calls on the billing increases. *The Leased Receiver Fees are actually like a monthly payment you would make on a car. Instead of buying the receivers out right we either deeply discount them or give them to you without the "down payment".* The lease is is really misnamed and is more of your monthly payment to eventually it being an owned receiver (i.e. giving you the oppurtunity to take the irds away from your home to another location without breaking the FCC guidelines).
> 
> The programming providers raised their rates for D* to pay to provide the srvc. To counteract the increases, D* made modest changes to certain items for customers to balance out the increase in prices. If anyone is interested and haven't seen what has all been increased I'll be more than happy to post it in another reply.
> 
> -Atticus


So why is the additional reciever fee (Owned Reciever Fee) the same price? I have to call BS on your explanation.


----------



## AttiTech (Feb 21, 2011)

By no means am I trying to say that the price hike was something we were all excited about or was fair to those people who have more than just 2-3 irds on their accounts. I was just letting in on what exactly was going on and what the costs were actually for in case anyone would like to know. Some people saw no increase or very little ($1-$2), others I've had call in saw $15-$20 increases due to have an excess amount of receivers and the programming whos rates were raised the most.


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> Why? The question was "What's the leased receiver fee comprised of?" The answer is "The ability to activate a second receiver on your account."
> 
> If you want to get to the nuts and bolts of it, that too was answered .. "Because they can."
> 
> ...


B-4......................BINGO


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

bixler said:


> No doubt there is always a breaking point and yes I have one myself but this specific thread is talking about a $1 additional receiver fee increase for a fee that hasn't increased in 17 years. I mean the programming packages go up every year like $2 or $3, but the OP is basically having a fit because the additional receiver fee is increasing $1 and he doesn't know why he's paying for it in the first place. Not to mention he's already been paying $5 for the same fee for however many years he's had the additional receiver(s).
> 
> Why do people keep throwing this 20% figure out? Is it because 20% is a significant number? Why can't you just say $1 increase? Does 20% make it seem like it's a more significant increase than $1? I mean does anyone think they would only tack on 25 cents (a 5% increase)? Of course they are going to keep it even on the dollar, more money in their business model.


Not true. If I remeber right either last year or the year before the DVR fee or one of the other ones increased by 1 cent.


----------



## AttiTech (Feb 21, 2011)

joshjr said:


> So why is the additional reciever fee (Owned Reciever Fee) the same price? I have to call BS on your explanation.


Call BS all you please, good sir. Just letting you know exactly why you are being charged for what you are.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Golfman said:


> Gloria, you seem to be one of the few who have grasped the facts. This fee that D* has imposed is very difficult to understand. It seems to me that there may be a one time charge to set up an account with multiple receivers, but I have a very difficult time understanding the recurring costs for maintaining distribution to a single subscribers multiple receivers. Unless the content providers charge D* a per receiver charge and not a subscriber charge for distribution of content I have difficulty understanding what I am paying for with regard to the leased receiver monthly fee.


A few things

A) Every subscriber was notified of the $1 increase in December and January
B) The $1 increase is the first increase in this fee in 18 years OTHER than a 1 penny increase several years ago (from $4.99 to $5.00)
C) The $1 increase is to cover a number of things like additional software development for the receivers, the cost paid for guide data to those providers, the increased cost to middle ware providers of the boxes, etc, etc.
D) Hardware fees at D* are lower than just about every other MSO out there. This is the tradeoff. Some providers charge a bit more on the programming packages while others charge more on the receivers.
E) The receiver fee structure is still the same. The COMBINATION of the first two receivers is a total of $6 per month. If you have only one receiver, there is no charge. Every receiver after the first two is an additional $6. So if you have 3 receivers, you pay $12 ($6 X 2). If you have 6 receivers, you pay $30 ($6 X5)
F) This is a progressive fee in many ways. The more receivers a customer has, the more it impacts them. This makes sense on a number of levels because the work done to upgrade those receivers (software, guide data, etc, etc) is essentially more for someone with 10 receivers than someone with 1.

I'm not surprised some folks don't like the 20% increase in that fee, but the fact of the matter is that the OVERALL increase for customers this year was about 4.5% on average. When the dollar amount is so small like $5, an increase of $1 will certainly pump up the percentage, but on the whole it is much smaller.

In your specific case, since you have two receivers....this fee will cost you $12 more in total for the year in 2011 related to that fee increase.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

AttiTech said:


> Call BS all you please, good sir. Just letting you know exactly why you are being charged for what you are.


Your rational was for leased recievers for DirecTV to recoup some of their money. What about owned recievers that have already been paid for and DirecTV has already made their money on it? The price for a leased reciever fee and a owned reciever fee are the same making your entire remake pretty much a bunch of BS. Not sure who fed that line of bologna to you but thats pretty much what I take it as. Try again when you have something that makes sense all the way around for the fee.


----------



## AttiTech (Feb 21, 2011)

joshjr said:


> Your rational was for leased recievers for DirecTV to recoup some of their money. What about owned recievers that have already been paid for and DirecTV has already made their money on it? The price for a leased reciever fee and a owned reciever fee are the same making your entire remake pretty much a bunch of BS. Not sure who fed that line of bologna to you but thats pretty much what I take it as. Try again when you have something that makes sense all the way around for the fee.


Again you're calling the BS when I have all the information in front of me and the reasoning hasn't changed since the charges were put into effect. I'm replying to this from work, with all of this information just a click away.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Satelliteracer said:


> C) The $1 increase is to cover a number of things like additional software development for the receivers, *the cost paid for guide data to those providers,* the increased cost to middle ware providers of the boxes, etc, etc.


Hey, if guide data costs have gone up how about getting them to provide accurate data to help justify that increase? I'm really tired if having reruns being recorded because the DVR's think it's a new episode due to garbage guide data


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

AttiTech said:


> Again you're calling the BS when I have all the information in front of me and the reasoning hasn't changed since the charges were put into effect. I'm replying to this from work, with all of this information just a click away.


And your answer only really applies to leased equipment and not owned therefor it does not make sense. I dont care if thats what D* is officially saying either its still wrong. If what you said was true then all the people who owne their equipment would be paying $5 instead of $6 because D* would of already made their money back.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Satelliteracer said:


> I'm not surprised some folks don't like the 20% increase in that fee, but the fact of the matter is that the OVERALL increase for customers this year was about 4.5% on average. When the dollar amount is so small like $5, an increase of $1 will certainly pump up the percentage, but on the whole it is much smaller.


That 4.5% is what this is all about. 4.5% doesn't seem like a significant increase, assuming that's the correct number. But against the backdrop of a 0.8% increase in the Core CPI, it's a HUGE increase.

The management teams at PayTV co's have revenue and cash flow targets each year. If programming costs increase, and if they don't want to increase programming costs for political reasons, then they must increase other fees to make their cash flow number, and that's what they've done.


----------



## AttiTech (Feb 21, 2011)

joshjr said:


> And your answer only really applies to leased equipment and not owned therefor it does not make sense. I dont care if thats what D* is officially saying either its still wrong. If what you said was true then all the people who owne their equipment would be paying $5 instead of $6 because D* would of already made their money back.


Before I stated that the price increases were because the Program Providers increased their rates with D*. Explain to me how increasing a "lease" fee over a mirroring fee makes sense when you increase them both and are able to recover the costs easier that way.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

AttiTech said:


> Before I stated that the price increases were because the Program Providers increased their rates with D*. Explain to me how increasing a "lease" fee over a mirroring fee makes sense when you increase them both and are able to recover the costs easier that way.


Nice try. You actually said that after the fact and thats still crap. Thats why our programming costs went up not the mirror fee's. Keep it coming. I am enjoying the good laugh.


----------



## AttiTech (Feb 21, 2011)

joshjr said:


> Nice try. You actually said that after the fact and thats still crap. Thats why our programming costs went up not the mirror fee's. Keep it coming. I am enjoying the good laugh.


Programming costs, Mirror Fees, Lease fees...all increased. How is this amusing, again?


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

AttiTech said:


> Programming costs, Mirror Fees, Lease fees...all increased. How is this amusing, again?


Your attempt to explain them is what is amusing.


----------



## AttiTech (Feb 21, 2011)

joshjr said:


> Your attempt to explain them is what is amusing.


If you say so, sport.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

JoshJr, I symphathize with your plight, but, as I read AttiTech, she has answered your question.

Programming fees are increasing, but, for marketing reasons, D* doesn't want the programming packages to reflect the entire increase it is paying the content providers. So, D* has decided to increase other fees in order to meet the revenue and cash flow numbers it targets.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> That 4.5% is what this is all about. 4.5% doesn't seem like a significant increase, assuming that's the correct number. But against the backdrop of a 0.8% increase in the Core CPI, it's a HUGE increase.
> 
> The management teams at PayTV co's have revenue and cash flow targets each year. If programming costs increase, and if they don't want to increase programming costs for political reasons, then they must increase other fees to make their cash flow number, and that's what they've done.


Gloria....yes, all companies have targets and goals. What you didn't include, not sure why, is that those programmers have targets and goals, too. As such, they take THEIR rates up each year as well. So, for example, the fine folks in the Northwest who have been trying to raise D*'s retrans rates by more than 600% this year. Or other programmers that raised theirs 75%, 40%, 58%, 33%, etc, etc. Programming costs go up via contractual escalators and companies are going to keep up with their costs to remain profitable. That's what for profit companies do....they take all of their expenses and they need to bring in more revenue than their expenses to stay profitable, invest in R & D, keep people employed, pay taxes, etc, etc.

If programming costs weren't going up the way they are, you would not see the MSO's increasing their rates to keep up. I remember the first few years at D* when there were years the rates did not go up at all. Those were the days when the programming rates were relatively flat. Unfortunately those days are gone and the business has to cover those costs.

And yes, the 4.5% is accurate.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

IAE, the prices we pay are based on a bunch of factors, only one of which is STB costs vs. fees. And I bet it's several ranks down the list of important variables.


----------



## AttiTech (Feb 21, 2011)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> JoshJr, I symphathize with your plight, but, as I read AttiTech, she has answered your question.
> 
> Programming fees are increasing, but, for marketing reasons, D* doesn't want the programming packages to reflect the entire increase it is paying the content providers. So, D* has decided to increase other fees in order to meet the revenue and cash flow numbers it targets.


Good to see someone wasn't finding this amusing. Just a quick side note, I'm of the opposing gender


----------



## AttiTech (Feb 21, 2011)

Satelliteracer said:


> Gloria....yes, all companies have targets and goals. What you didn't include, not sure why, is that those programmers have targets and goals, too. As such, they take THEIR rates up each year as well. So, for example, the fine folks in the Northwest who have been trying to raise D*'s retrans rates by more than 600% this year. Or other programmers that raised theirs 75%, 40%, 58%, 33%, etc, etc. Programming costs go up via contractual escalators and companies are going to keep up with their costs to remain profitable. That's what for profit companies do....they take all of their expenses and they need to bring in more revenue than their expenses to stay profitable, invest in R & D, keep people employed, pay taxes, etc, etc.
> 
> If programming costs weren't going up the way they are, you would not see the MSO's increasing their rates to keep up. I remember the first few years at D* when there were years the rates did not go up at all. Those were the days when the programming rates were relatively flat. Unfortunately those days are gone and the business has to cover those costs.
> 
> And yes, the 4.5% is accurate.


Because of that 600% increase, my job became hell for awhile . Was odd that they just happened to put all this on the table right around the corner from the Superbowl.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

AttiTech said:


> Because of that 600% increase, my job became hell for awhile . Was odd that they just happened to put all this on the table right around the corner from the Superbowl.


It's not over yet, it was only a temporary reprieve.


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

AttiTech said:


> The lease is is really misnamed and is more of your monthly payment to eventually it being an owned receiver


Ok, so what does your CSR script say about the length of time this lease fee must be paid for a receiver to become owned?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

How much do you think it costs to keep sats in the air? While much of the fees for programing are split to be used for programing costs, I think that Directv uses a lot of the leased fees to not only offset things like changing to an all SWM installation scheme (which costs more than non swm) but I think it also has to do with the costs of building and putting sats in the air, and we know that while they have only announced one new sat right now, that because of obligations to broadcast form certain spots before loosing those frequencies, I expect that directv will be building at least 3 more sats in the short term for those new spectrums.. Also, they have more sats flying now than ever before, and will continue to grow their fleet, not keep it at the same size, over the forseeable future. And I am positive that the costs of building sats has not gone down. 

When you compare what cable companies charge for things vs. sat, believe me, directv looks like they don;t know how to keep up with inflation in any way shape or form...


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

Yeah, the cable co here wants $15 per box, dish wants $17. I understand there is infrastructure behind my IRD that the mirror fee pays for. $6 is cheap compared to the others. Even if owned IRDs were free to mirror, I don't doubt the base package would go up to cover that difference.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

matt said:


> Ok, so what does your CSR script say about the length of time this lease fee must be paid for a receiver to become owned?


67 years :lol:


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

matt said:


> Ok, so what does your CSR script say about the length of time this lease fee must be paid for a receiver to become owned?





dsw2112 said:


> 67 years :lol:


:hurah::hurah::hurah:


----------



## AttiTech (Feb 21, 2011)

matt said:


> Ok, so what does your CSR script say about the length of time this lease fee must be paid for a receiver to become owned?


There is no length of time really, it more depends on a couple of different factors. What type of receiver it is (SD, DVR, HD or HD-DVR), How much you paid upfront or at all, and how much the receiver lease fees are currently. Obviously the more you pay upfront the less you have to pay in monthly before it becomes an owned ird. The cost to purchase the receivers outright are:
SD - $149
HD - $399
DVR - $399
HDDVR-$499

So basically just do the math from there taking off how long you've had the ird and how much you paid up front and that's how much you have left until it becomes an owned receiver. Some receivers D* are trying to get rid of the stock and trying not to take them back, D10 and Earlier D11 models.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

matt said:


> Ok, so what does your CSR script say about the length of time this lease fee must be paid for a receiver to become owned?


The same amount of time it takes for you to become owner of a leased apartment. DirecTV is not Rent-A-Center, this is not a lease/purchase plan.


----------



## AttiTech (Feb 21, 2011)

Satelliteracer said:


> It's not over yet, it was only a temporary reprieve.


Yeah the temp DNS FOX that was added on atleast kept eveyone here from getting ran over with calls from "very displeased" customers on Super Bowl Sunday. Hopefully they'll stop being greedy. I mean 600%? Really? Everyone else made what I consider very modest increases but that's just ridiculous.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

AttiTech, the Fox Broadcast contract with Cablevision calls for 55 cents a subscriber, increasing to 1 dollar by year 5 of the contract. That's the new benchmark: 1 dollar a subscriber for ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and Univision. And don't be surprised if Univision, which draws an even younger crowd than Fox, to ask for a 20% premium over what Fox receives.

So, each sub will be paying at least 5 dollars a month for broadcast channels which were once delivered free.

Not a "modest" increase in my book.


----------



## AttiTech (Feb 21, 2011)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> AttiTech, the Fox Broadcast contract with Cablevision calls for 55 cents a subscriber, increasing to 1 dollar by year 5 of the contract. That's the new benchmark: 1 dollar a subscriber for ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and Univision. And don't be surprised if Univision, which draws an even younger crowd than Fox, to ask for a 20% premium over what Fox receives.
> 
> So, each sub will be paying at least 5 dollars a month for broadcast channels which were once delivered free.
> 
> Not a "modest" increase in my book.


 Yeah that's not a good example, but wow. Granted I don't have to worry about paying for my D* service, but if it ever came to me switching jobs, to be honest I would probably get rid of conventional tv all together.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

Max Mike said:


> So here is a little perspective... the cost of building and buying these type devices (basically computers/consumer electronics) has dramatically *decreased* in price over the last 10 years. A comparable computer cost 1/3 to 1/2 what it did 10 years ago. You can buy a comparable level laptop for $500 that 10 years ago would have run $1500+. A nice 42-50 inch TV now for less than a nice 32 inch 10 years ago.


While it might be true that a "comparable" piece of consumer electronics may be less than it was 10 years ago, is it _really_ what you want, or has it become a baseline product that does not provide the features people expect to have today.

I bought my wife a laptop last year for about $400. While it was a current processor class, the WiFi was only g, not n, it did not have Bluetooth support and had a smaller hard drive and less RAM. It may be the equal to a $1500 2001 laptop, but it was a budget version compared to the $1500 laptops available last year.

In the same way, while you can get a 42" HDTV for the same cost as a 32" HDTV even a few years ago (when I bought my 32" Sharp), just what do you get for your $600? It'll be a CCFL LCD, most likely a 720p or at best a 1080p 60Hz resolution/refresh rate and have maybe 2-4 HDMI inputs. IOW, a baseline model. You'd still have to pay three-four times that to get a higher refresh rate, 3D compatibility, 24fps capability, LED and internet/WiFi connectivity.

To bring this back to the cost of DirecTV receivers, it comes down to the question-would you want a receiver that was the functional equivalent of a RCA DRD420RE or would you want a current model that has DirecTV Active and interactive support, can display the Weather Channel "Locals on the 8s" and give you access to features like Game Lounge? Or would you want a HD receiver like a Samsung TS360-while it was the top of the line in HD receivers in its day, it had no HDMI support, couldn't access MPEG-4 or Ka-band signals or support Whole Home DVR Service.

I realize you wee trying to make an "apples to apples" comparison, but it seems that you are comparing 10 year old crab apples to fresh picked Washington State Red Delicious apples. I know what I'd want...


----------



## AttiTech (Feb 21, 2011)

Newshawk said:


> I realize you wee trying to make an "apples to apples" comparison, but it seems that you are comparing 10 year old crab apples to fresh picked Washington State Red Delicious apples. I know what I'd want...


lol


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

AttiTech said:


> The lease is is really misnamed and is more of your monthly payment to eventually it being an owned receiver (i.e. giving you the oppurtunity to take the irds away from your home to another location without breaking the FCC guidelines).


This is patently false ..

First .. Your payments do NOTHING towards purchasing the receiver as owned. It doesn't matter if you spend $1 or $1000 on a lease fee. It isn't going towards "paying off" the receiver. Yes, it is true that DIRECTV may not want some receivers back because they are legacy, but what about the guy that go the last one before DIRECTV stop taking them back? Will he have to pay for two years for it to become owned? I don't think so .. They're never owned unless you take it off of your account and DIRECTV says "Just keep it." That is all about whether DIRECTV want to continue that model or not and nothing to do with what you paid.

Secondly .. taking your IRD to another location has never been a violation of FCC guidelines. Well, perhaps if you are getting locals that aren't legal redistributed to a market, but that's the locals that are illegal. Send the right locals down and that "relocated" receiver isn't even a blip @ the FCC because they don't care. The issue with relocating a receiver is account stacking .. This is a violation DIRECTV's terms of service. The remedy is discontinuation of service and possibly criminal charges.

Apparently the only way to make a IRD "owned" is to remove it from you account, refuse to send the IRD back, pay the non-return fee. Then you should be able to add it back to your account and remove it at will at that point. But your lease payment doesn't buy down the cost of the IRD.


----------



## cashion (Oct 24, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> This is patently false ..


Hold on there, Doug. He's got a script from DIRECTV and he's reading directly from it. :lol:


----------



## AttiTech (Feb 21, 2011)

cashion said:


> Hold on there, Doug. He's got a script from DIRECTV and he's reading directly from it. :lol:


You're actually correct on that xD


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

cashion said:


> Hold on there, Doug. He's got a script from DIRECTV and he's reading directly from it. :lol:





AttiTech said:


> You're actually correct on that xD


Then the script is wrong ... (won't shoot the messenger )


----------



## AttiTech (Feb 21, 2011)

Doug Brott said:


> Then the script is wrong ... (won't shoot the messenger )


haha It very well could be and I'm not saying the people who created what we're using are perfect, it's just what we've been told, shown and taught since day 1.


----------



## Genner (Nov 17, 2010)

Doug Brott said:


> Apparently the only way to make a IRD "owned" is to remove it from you account, refuse to send the IRD back, pay the non-return fee. Then you should be able to add it back to your account and remove it at will at that point. But your lease payment doesn't buy down the cost of the IRD.


This is off-topic from the original thread, but if someone swallows the Non-return fee once, I have to wonder if they'd have to pay it a second time if they deactivated it again later, and D* might request to have the access card back in either case.


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

Genner said:


> This is off-topic from the original thread, but if someone swallows the Non-return fee once, I have to wonder if they'd have to pay it a second time if they deactivated it again later, and D* might request to have the access card back in either case.


It becomes owned after you pay the first non-return fee, you will get to keep if and turn it on and off as you please.


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

:lol: It's like CSR roulette, but online!

Remember folks, if you have concerns about leasing equipment or owning equipment, don't be afraid to call D* and ask how it really works. Make sure you are talking to the access card distribution team when you call, and you can even call twice to that department and ask again to make sure you didn't get a noob who just got hired on in that department didn't know better yet.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

AttiTech said:


> haha It very well could be and I'm not saying the people who created what we're using are perfect, it's just what we've been told, shown and taught since day 1.


I think you just made baby jesus cry.



matt said:


> It becomes owned after you pay the first non-return fee, you will get to keep if and turn it on and off as you please.


You have to talk to the access card department after you re-activate it since they're the ones that have to change it from leased to owned.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

matt said:


> It becomes owned after you pay the first non-return fee, you will get to keep if and turn it on and off as you please.


I had a CSR help me today take a H24-700 off my account and I asked about converting it to owned so I could turn it on and off, I explained I would like to put it in my garage. He told me there is no way to convert without turning it off first and then paying the non return fee. He also did confirm I would own it and be able to turn on and off at will.

I was also told they would refund the non return fee if I wanted to reactivate it as leased.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Scott Kocourek said:


> I was also told they would refund the non return fee if I wanted to reactivate it as leased.


There's a time frame on that option though.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Shades228 said:


> There's a time frame on that option though.


Yes I believe there is but I don't know how long. I would also caution anyone who was going to do any of this to confirm any of this info before attempting it.


----------



## xmetalx (Jun 3, 2009)

Shades228 said:


> I think you just made baby jesus cry.


:lol::lol:


----------



## MattScahum (Oct 27, 2010)

Doug Brott said:


> This is patently false ..
> 
> First .. Your payments do NOTHING towards purchasing the receiver as owned. It doesn't matter if you spend $1 or $1000 on a lease fee. It isn't going towards "paying off" the receiver. Yes, it is true that DIRECTV may not want some receivers back because they are legacy, but what about the guy that go the last one before DIRECTV stop taking them back? Will he have to pay for two years for it to become owned? I don't think so .. They're never owned unless you take it off of your account and DIRECTV says "Just keep it." That is all about whether DIRECTV want to continue that model or not and nothing to do with what you paid.
> 
> ...


I took the liberty of looking this up in my system today at work and am in 100% agreement with Doug. There is no set time limit in which you would of paid enough to count the receiver as owned. If you had an older Samsung HD receiver on the last day of shipping and a brand new standard receiver(we don't see model numbers but I believe D11 is one of them) and then cancelled your services 6 months later, I would almost bet money that D* would request the standard receiver back and just tell you to keep the Samsung HD receiver.
As for that being in the scripting, I can't speak to that as we only have Retention/Movers Connection/New Sales in my building. But I did have a friend check in Retentions systems and she was unable to find anything about that for me pertaining to that scripting. As I said though, I didn't personally check so I can't be 100% certain. I will say though that the scripting isn't always correct. Hell, every time somebody in D*s higher ups farts our RCC's(the fun disclaimers we are required to read on every sale call) change. So for now I will side with Doug on this unless someone can give me a reason as to why, if the leased receiver goes to pay to own, that customers that outright by and pay for their own equipment are required to pay for it. Long and short of it is nobody can, so this point is pretty much moot now.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

I think some people here are confusing the upfront lease fee with the monthly Lease\Mirroring fee.

The monthly Lease\Mirroring fee is in perpetuity. It is not a Lease to Own model where you pay each month until finally one day you own the receiver.


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

Satelliteracer said:


> I think some people here are confusing the upfront lease fee with the monthly Lease\Mirroring fee.
> 
> The monthly Lease\Mirroring fee is in perpetuity. It is not a Lease to Own model where you pay each month until finally one day you own the receiver.


I think the only person confused about this is AttiTech, who claims to work in a DIRECTV call center:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2717937&postcount=54


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

:nono::nono2::nono:


----------



## Mrmiami (Oct 3, 2006)

bixler said:


> That's why I live in America. I have a choice when it comes to paytv, either I can afford it or I can't afford it. Everyone has to make their own decisions on what they can and can't afford. As for me, an additional $3 a month for my 3 additional receivers fits into my budget.
> 
> Taxes go up, I can't do too much about that. Paytv rates increase, I can cancel or downgrade if I can't afford it. Really pretty simple and a great reason to live in America, freedom of choice.





spartanstew said:


> I'm paying for the ability to use another receiver in another room. I thought that was clear.
> 
> I don't go into McDonalds and ask them for a breakdown of all their food costs to determine if I should buy a Big Mac, either.
> 
> ...


So spartanstew, was that "Dupe quote" directed at you or are you one and the same with bixler, it does sound like you've both been cut from the same cloth with all your angry undertones. Why don't the two of you guy's just tone it down a bit around here because your not helping anyone by offering up what "your" willing to do, the man asked a question and he's entitled to an answer not the one line answer of "Incorrect" on the fact of 2 receivers at no additional charge and $6.00 fee for any after two. I going to give you your own advise and simply say "YOUR INCORRECT" as to why, well that's probably because your too busy paying for what people tell you too as opposed to picking up the phone to find out the "Why" do I have to pay this fee.

Bixler, the context of your answers are just simply ANGRY, if your so angry because someone asked a question, move on and don't bother replying it's a waste of time and space anyways, with nothing of value coming from it..except perhaps making yourself feel better. Please don't use the internet to badger people that you wouldn't dare speak to that way out in public, do something constructive with your life then and btw, keep paying the man.

We come here for answers and it doesn't matter how small or insignificant the question seems to you or others, it deserves an answer. God to think of some of the stupid questions I asked on here I'm sure glad I didn't come in contact with you two(or one)..I'd probably never come back here again for any answers. Seriously though, just try to tone it down a bit and make this a more enjoyable place to visit.

BTW, I came in here today about the $1.00 increase too and although it's not alot of money, I wasn't informed about it and wanted to find out if anyone elase had found out the reason for it. It's not about the money but more about people,services and products just seem to be going up and up and some just take without reason...were all bleeding money now and I like to find out why and what reasons their are for an increase.


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)




----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Mrmiami said:


> So spartanstew, was that "Dupe quote" directed at you or are you one and the same with bixler,


So, if we're only allowed to respond to questions directed specifically at us, then why are you responding at all and quoting me? I don't recall directing anything your way.



Mrmiami said:


> it does sound like you've both been cut from the same cloth with all your angry undertones.


I see no angry undertones by me (in this thread), perhaps you're reading too much into things or are a bit too sensitive regarding posts and discussions you aren't involved in (see previous).



Mrmiami said:


> the man asked a question and he's entitled to an answer not the one line answer of "Incorrect" on the fact of 2 receivers at no additional charge and $6.00 fee for any after two.


"The man" didn't ask any question to which I responded "incorrect". I understand this is sometimes difficult, but if you read each response in succession you'll see that there's back and forth that takes place in a thread and every response is not directed at the OP. That response was directed at someone else entirely that gave out false information. I would think that pointing out misinformation would help the OP, no?



Mrmiami said:


> I going to give you your own advise and simply say "YOUR INCORRECT" as to why, well that's probably because your too busy paying for what people tell you too as opposed to picking up the phone to find out the "Why" do I have to pay this fee.


It's very hard to understand what you're trying to say in this sentence, but assuming English isn't your first language, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and an A for effort. Incorrect, as to what? If you would have read the whole thread (remember, I alluded to this earlier too), you would have realized that I don't pay what people tell me to pay, but I also don't pick up the phone and call to find out "why" when the reason is usually obvious and common sense.

I am looking forward to your response when you resurrect this thread in another few weeks though.



Mrmiami said:


> God to think of some of the stupid questions I asked on here


Yes, I just found a bunch of them.



Mrmiami said:


> BTW, I came in here today about the $1.00 increase too and although it's not alot of money, *I wasn't informed about it *and wanted to find out if anyone elase had found out the reason for it. It's not about the money but more about people,services and products just seem to be going up and up and some just take without reason...were all bleeding money now and I like to find out why and what reasons their are for an increase.


You were informed about it.

What reason were you hoping to find? Again, it's mostly common sense. Prices go up. Did you go online searching for answers that last time a gallon of milk went up? Were you able to determine that it was a direct relationship between the cost of cattle feed and trucking? Or did you just know that prices go up? I'm guessing the latter. Sorry to hear about your bleeding issues, but this time next year when prices go up again, just look back to this thread and try and remember that it's an ongoing fact of life.

I think what you interpret as anger is actually logic, but it's a common mistake among those who let their emotions dictate their path.

Good luck on that bleeding problem and we'll talk to you next year around this same time.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

Golfman said:


> You're the perfect D* dupe. As long as you pay what they charge you, and "can afford it" you pay.
> 
> On the other hand some of us want to know what we're paying for. Is that wrong?
> 
> ...


You don't really think anyone here would know that do you? Only the people at Directv who set the prices would know what the money goes for and maybe they don't know either. If you can find somebody who can give you that information then you can let us know what it's for.


----------



## Mrmiami (Oct 3, 2006)

Golfman said:


> If this is correct then I shouldn't be billed this fee at all since I only have 2 receivers; one leased and one owned.


How do you know this isn't the case for this guy or the person that as you state, gave out incorrect information?



spartanstew said:


> So, if we're only allowed to respond to questions directed specifically at us, then why are you responding at all and quoting me? I don't recall directing anything your way.
> 
> *Common sense answer...Because I can*
> 
> ...


*PS: You wont be talking to me again unless your going to try some more of that "Texas intelligence" (I should correct that to read "Your Texas Intelligence") because it wouldn't be fair to the rest of the state and I have some friends from Texas. Have a great day.*


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Guys .. Please play nice .. Thank You!


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

LOL, a guy from New York who can't figure out why prices go up is making fun of someone from Texas? Priceless.


----------



## superman24 (Dec 18, 2006)

Very true about the breaking point. We do have a choice. I've subscribed to D** since 1997. I've finally had to cut my programming in half. Had 7 receivers in the house, now 4. I seen my monthly bill go way too high. I do enjoy D** over any other service provider I've ever had. Had Sunday Ticket for 9 year and decided it was too much. MLB Extra Innings is now also gone in my house. Don't get me wrong, I love the programming of these sports packages, but It's getting a little out of control. Also removed all the premium movie channels. Went to Netflix and spend 1/4 the amount to watch movies. Bottom line is that video entertainment is changing faster than I've ever seen it. I hope D** keeps up on thing like they always have. I would rather stay with them vs. any other option right now.


----------



## glorybe25705 (Jan 29, 2010)

packages went up 2 to 3 dollars ,receiver fees went up 1 dollar ,hbo went up 1 dollar,if they didnt break down prin=ce packages would have went up 5 to 6 dollars .so they split the increase to receivers ,package ,and hbo


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

So we are to believe that the cost to "mirror" has gone from $60 to $72 a year per receiver? Give me a break. This is such a bogus charge that they use solely to pad their coffers in a more marketing friendly way because these fees are never mentioned in any advertisement. If anything over the years this is something that should go down as a halfway decent company would reduce these costs as general cost savings initiatives. People focus on package costs, this is a simple way to stick it to the customer in a way that will probably not push as many customers over the brink and leave.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bixler said:


> Link to these new TOS?


http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/legal/customer_agreement

As is sometimes the case, the TOS hasn't been updated.

Here's the Equipment Lease Addendum:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/legal/equipment_lease_addendum

While updated to the new rate, the language is arguably still confusing. I note that it no longer employs the mysterious phrase "up to" in reference to the fee.


----------



## Golfman (Dec 21, 2007)

sunking said:


> So we are to believe that the cost to "mirror" has gone from $60 to $72 a year per receiver? Give me a break. This is such a bogus charge that they use solely to pad their coffers in a more marketing friendly way because these fees are never mentioned in any advertisement. If anything over the years this is something that should go down as a halfway decent company would reduce these costs as general cost savings initiatives. People focus on package costs, this is a simple way to stick it to the customer in a way that will probably not push as many customers over the brink and leave.


Now this is probably the closest to the truth in regard to this fee. It' s really a fairly hefty "stick" to customers too. Lets say just half of the ~20M subs have 2 receivers. That gives 10M X $72 per year = $720M a year extra in D*s coffers. Hard to believe that it costs D* 10% of that to mirror receivers to subs.


----------



## netraa (Mar 28, 2007)

Golfman said:


> Now this is probably the closest to the truth in regard to this fee. It' s really a fairly hefty "stick" to customers too. Lets say just half of the ~20M subs have 2 receivers. That gives 10M X $72 per year = $720M a year extra in D*s coffers. Hard to believe that it costs D* 10% of that to mirror receivers to subs.


Ok, how about that free install...

you guys don't think that the install is really free for *D do you?

You don't think the dish, the switch, and all the R and D that went into MRV, SWiM, on demand, ect is free do you?

Those 60-120 mil birds they keep putting up, those are free also?

There are 28 million subscribers for Directv, *including Latin America

In Q4 2010 they made a profit of 1.7 billion *a new record by the way, they lost 32 million Q4 in 09

That is a whopping 60 dollars per subscriber, per quarter.

they are not exactly raping and pillaging the village, are they?

source:
http://investor.directv.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=551879


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

netraa said:


> Ok, how about that free install...
> 
> you guys don't think that the install is really free for *D do you?
> 
> ...


Why are you trying to separate the basic costs of them doing business as if it should be line itemed differently. In fact, what you are doing is showing the hypocrisy of these charges because they don't line item every little thing, just this single made up charge.


----------



## Golfman (Dec 21, 2007)

netraa said:


> Ok, how about that free install...
> 
> you guys don't think that the install is really free for *D do you?
> 
> ...


You're off the subject of the monthly leased receiver fee and why in the light of another year of record performance they upped the fee by 20%.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

sunking said:


> So we are to believe that the cost to "mirror" has gone from $60 to $72 a year per receiver? Give me a break. This is such a bogus charge that they use solely to pad their coffers in a more marketing friendly way because these fees are never mentioned in any advertisement. If anything over the years this is something that should go down as a halfway decent company would reduce these costs as general cost savings initiatives. People focus on package costs, this is a simple way to stick it to the customer in a way that will probably not push as many customers over the brink and leave.


Here's a question. Which is more bogus...DirecTV raising the mirroring fee for the first time in years, or say Time Warner that charges $17.90 a month for each DVR after your first one and $7.95 for each regular receiver? So while DirecTV did raise the price, they still are one of the better carriers for having multiple boxes. This is the first increase in that fee that many very long time subscribers can remember.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Golfman said:


> Now this is probably the closest to the truth in regard to this fee. It' s really a fairly hefty "stick" to customers too. Lets say just half of the ~20M subs have 2 receivers. That gives 10M X $72 per year = $720M a year extra in D*s coffers. Hard to believe that it costs D* 10% of that to mirror receivers to subs.


That just about pays for the NFL (NON SEASON) this year ??? :nono2: with a small amount left over.

See it's all in their just like rague :grin:


----------



## yogi (Feb 8, 2006)

People, nothings free. The reason you pay a monthly leased receiver fee is to lease the receiver.
The first receiver has the lease fee built into the package. The additional receivers your paying for the mirroring cost and leasing cost. and it's not free


----------



## Golfman (Dec 21, 2007)

WestDC said:


> That just about pays for the NFL (NON SEASON) this year ??? :nono2: with a small amount left over.
> 
> See it's all in their just like rague :grin:


rague? WTF?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I think it's a type of spaghetti sauce.


----------



## Golfman (Dec 21, 2007)

yogi said:


> People, nothings free. The reason you pay a monthly leased receiver fee is to lease the receiver.
> The first receiver has the lease fee built into the package. The additional receivers your paying for the mirroring cost and leasing cost. and it's not free


Not looking for something for nothing. Paid $5 leased receiver fee for several years but also paid $199 for the receiver, plus $19.99 for shipping a few years ago as a replacement for a failed receiver. What's built into that? Then they wanted to tell me I was locked into a new 2 year contract because my receiver failed.


----------



## Golfman (Dec 21, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> I think it's a type of spaghetti sauce.


That shows what you know!


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

Golfman said:


> Now this is probably the closest to the truth in regard to this fee. It' s really a fairly hefty "stick" to customers too. Lets say just half of the ~20M subs have 2 receivers. That gives 10M X $72 per year = $720M a year extra in D*s coffers. Hard to believe that it costs D* 10% of that to mirror receivers to subs.


Why does everyone seem to forget that Direct TV is in the business of MAKING MONEY? It does not matter what it costs Direct TV to mirror receivers, they are in the business to make money and supply and demand says they can charge $72 a year for this service. Very simple business practice.


----------



## mluntz (Jul 13, 2006)

It's just like anything else in life. You can stay or you can go!


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

bixler said:


> Why does everyone seem to forget that Direct TV is in the business of MAKING MONEY? It does not matter what it costs Direct TV to mirror receivers, they are in the business to make money and supply and demand says they can charge $72 a year for this service. Very simple business practice.


Yup .. Economics 101 .. You charge what the market will bear and DIRECTV wants to make as much money as possible. The cost of the service really is independent (to some degree) of how much it costs DIRECTV to provide it.

Trying to get an explanation of EXACTLY why the fees where changed to what they are now is futile. You will never get the answer. This is something that is decided deep inside DIRECTV. It is a business decision and us non-DIRECTV people are simply not going to be privy to that kind of information .. just like we're not privy to why Chevron charges $4/gal now instead of $3/gal.

However, just like with the gas companies, the cost of their supply has gone up and clearly our cost will go up as well as long as the market will bear it. The market expects it and yup, that's just the way it is. DIRECTV is in the business to make money .. not to directly make you or I (specifically) happy. As long as enough people are happy, DIRECTV meets it's goal of making money. We as individuals simply have to decide if we are happy (or at least not unhappy) with the situation and go from there.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Publicly Traded


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> Yup .. Economics 101 .. You charge what the market will bear and DIRECTV wants to make as much money as possible. The cost of the service really is independent (to some degree) of how much it costs DIRECTV to provide it.
> 
> Trying to get an explanation of EXACTLY why the fees where changed to what they are now is futile. You will never get the answer. This is something that is decided deep inside DIRECTV. It is a business decision and us non-DIRECTV people are simply not going to be privy to that kind of information .. just like we're not privy to why Chevron charges $4/gal now instead of $3/gal.
> 
> However, just like with the gas companies, the cost of their supply has gone up and clearly our cost will go up as well as long as the market will bear it. The market expects it and yup, that's just the way it is. DIRECTV is in the business to make money .. not to directly make you or I (specifically) happy. As long as enough people are happy, DIRECTV meets it's goal of making money. We as individuals simply have to decide if we are happy (or at least not unhappy) with the situation and go from there.


Exactly.


----------



## wxguy (Feb 17, 2008)

bixler said:


> Why does everyone seem to forget that Direct TV is in the business of MAKING MONEY? It does not matter what it costs Direct TV to mirror receivers, they are in the business to make money and supply and demand says they can charge $72 a year for this service. Very simple business practice.


After all, someone has to pay for those ads where ARod is trotting around giving all those people high 5s.


----------

