# Dish Price Change Coming?



## Guardian (Oct 30, 2009)

Rumor alert... SatelliteGuys Founder Scott Greczkowski reports on a rumor of upcoming Dish Network price changes which are slated to take effect on February 1st.
http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-network-forum/197184-dish-pricing-update.html


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

As every year.


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

If these new charges are as high as being predicted Dish will definetly lose customers. If it is going to be $ 17 lease fee for (1) only SD/HD DVR 501, 508, 510, 622,722, etc.
I for one will drag my 301 out of the closet and downgrade to that receiver only and go down to the very basic or family package for the remainder of any and all contracts I have. Then when contracts run out cancel Dish and maybe go back to DirectV or find a Cable provider. Depending on cost. It is only TV. If worst comes to worst I can always buy a Roku box and have a netflix account for movies. Then just view locals off my OTA.


----------



## boba (May 23, 2003)

I've got a Sony series 1 TiVo dosen't require a TiVo subscription to manually record programs. It already replaced a 625 saving $5.98 per month and combined with a 811 I can also record OTA digitals.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

phrelin said:


> As every year.


It's like Groundhog's Day. And once one provider does a rate hike, they all fall into line.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Guardian said:


> Rumor alert... SatelliteGuys Founder Scott Greczkowski reports on a rumor of upcoming Dish Network price changes which are slated to take effect on February 1st.





phrelin said:


> As every year.


I guess I should have made myself clear. Every year we have reports on rumors. And almost every year we have an increase. The two aren't necessarily similar.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Guardian said:


> Rumor alert... SatelliteGuys Founder Scott Greczkowski reports on a rumor of upcoming Dish Network price changes which are slated to take effect on February 1st.


Price hikes are like clockwork... Everything goes up, gas, water ETC. Get used to it.


----------



## koji68 (Jun 21, 2004)

Dave said:


> Then when contracts run out cancel Dish and maybe go back to DirectV or find a Cable provider.


Right, because cable never raises prices.

But I agree. It's only TV. If it gets too expensive we'll all drag the OTAs out and cancel. I think I'm going to keep the service for a while though.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

Right now we are at or near 0% inflation; it is hard to justify an increase of what amounts over 40%. If the story is right, a DuoDVR would cost $17 a month, a single tuner DVR will cost $14 a month and a single tuner, non-DVR receiver would cost $7.. At present, I am paying a lease fee of $7 for a VIP 622, $10 for the DVR (the $10 is part of the DISH 250 Gold plan) and I own a VIP 211 (no charge fro lease). So, at best I will not see an increase, or I will see a $7 increase or upwards to a $14 increase) But, somewhere hiding in the charges on my bill is a fee for the second receiver, though it is not clear what the charge is; hence, my increase could amount to as much as $14.

Also, DISH will charge the same price for the protection plan; to be renamed the Service Plan. But, they will charge a $25 cancellation fee. In addition, instead of shipping a replacement receiver, you will be required to have a technician come to your house to replace the receiver and be charged $15., Which means, one has to sit around all day and wait for a technician that may show up between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. A major inconvenience if one works during the day.

With customer service declining rapidly, DISH is becoming more like the cable companies people abandoned years ago to get away from being nickled and dimed to death, and the cable company's spotty and inept customer service (TCI comes to mid here). If these fees goes into affect, then nothing separates DISH from Comcast, other than I can get Superstaions and the Big 10 Network in Colorado.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

koji68 said:


> Right, because cable never raises prices.
> 
> But I agree. It's only TV. If it gets too expensive we'll all drag the OTAs out and cancel. I think I'm going to keep the service for a while though.


My OTA would just be snow and not because of the weather.


----------



## redsalmon (Oct 16, 2006)

I suggest everyone read the whole discussion at the other site. There are lots of different situations and it isn't apparently as bad as it sounds.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

redsalmon said:


> I suggest everyone read the whole discussion at the other site. There are lots of different situations and it isn't apparently as bad as it sounds.


Then please suggest to remove a ban for those who will read it.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Then please suggest to remove a ban for those who will read it.


What ban? is there some rule here that you can't belong to satguys as well as this place? If so, then please let me know, because the choice would be an easy one!


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Been silently banned without explanation; 
not sure why, I can only imagine ... my last posts there (how to surf SG without that pesky ads ) deleted without any PM or warning or notice or 'infraction'. Just pufff - ban !

Anyway, redsalmon - could you please post here a digest of that discussion ?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Anyway, redsalmon - could you please post here a digest of that discussion ?


It would be against our rules to post full threads/posts from any site that we do not have permission to do so... A link to the actual thread being referenced and a brief summary is permissible, but we wouldn't want anyone plagiarizing posts from any site.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Let me clarify by myself - I didn't ask to _"to post full threads/posts from any site"_, I didn't ask "_plagiarizing posts from any site_".

That's why I used specifically a word "digest". Nes't pas?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Dave said:


> If it is going to be $ 17 lease fee for (1) only SD/HD DVR 501, 508, 510, 622,722, etc.


Well, I've owned my 508 for several years, so......


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Good grief. I'm sure we'll all know soon enough what the new rates are. We can adjust accordingly and if they do something really stupid, it's Dish's loss.

A lease jump from $7 to $17 is bait and switch, almost. Combining the current $7 lease and $10 DVR fee into a single fee isn't. But the likelihood of the rumors screwing around with what's going to be written down is likely. I'll be more interested to see how Darryl and his other brother Darryl will screw it all up on the web site.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

Althought it has nothing to do with Dish, just price increases...I lost my Grandfathered DVR status with Premier when I dropped the Game Lounge. I got a 6 month credit with the promise someone would call me to straighten it out. Never did get the call. It will make it alot easier for me to drop a few channels should this year's directv increase be too much to bear. I'm over $150/month with all of my boxes, even those numbers could decline if I re-do the wiring here and there...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Let me clarify by myself - I didn't ask to _"to post full threads/posts from any site"_, I didn't ask "_plagiarizing posts from any site_".
> 
> That's why I used specifically a word "digest". Nes't pas?


Understood... I just wanted to head off any plagiarism before it happens. We have had many times in the past where someone will post entire messages from other sites when asked for more information.

I just wanted it to be clear that summaries were ok, but entire quotes were not.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

nmetro said:


> Right now we are at or near 0% inflation; it is hard to justify an increase of what amounts over 40%. If the story is right, a DuoDVR would cost $17 a month, a single tuner DVR will cost $14 a month and a single tuner, non-DVR receiver would cost $7.. At present, I am paying a lease fee of $7 for a VIP 622, $10 for the DVR (the $10 is part of the DISH 250 Gold plan) and I own a VIP 211 (no charge fro lease). So, at best I will not see an increase, or I will see a $7 increase or upwards to a $14 increase) But, somewhere hiding in the charges on my bill is a fee for the second receiver, though it is not clear what the charge is; hence, my increase could amount to as much as $14.
> 
> Also, DISH will charge the same price for the protection plan; to be renamed the Service Plan. But, they will charge a $25 cancellation fee. In addition, instead of shipping a replacement receiver, you will be required to have a technician come to your house to replace the receiver and be charged $15., Which means, one has to sit around all day and wait for a technician that may show up between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. A major inconvenience if one works during the day.
> 
> With customer service declining rapidly, DISH is becoming more like the cable companies people abandoned years ago to get away from being nickled and dimed to death, and the cable company's spotty and inept customer service (TCI comes to mid here). If these fees goes into affect, then nothing separates DISH from Comcast, other than I can get Superstaions and the Big 10 Network in Colorado.


The issue is the long term programming costs. Deals with programmers at Dish, D*, cable, etc are done long term and have annual increases built into them, some at very high levels.

In order for these companies to keep their margins, they have to raise the prices each year to stay in step with the increases they pay out every year.

So even though the last two years have been poor economic years, the contracts they have still require X% increase to pay to the ESPNs, HBOs, ABCs, AMCs of the world....bad economy or not.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Satelliteracer said:


> So even though the last two years have been poor economic years, the contracts they have still require X% increase to pay to the ESPNs, HBOs, ABCs, AMCs of the world....bad economy or not.


 This is so true. Dish, Direct, and cable companies have to cover their cost increases. It is an unfortunate position to be in when the product creator raises the costs in a bad economy to make up for profit losses, like the networks do, and people want to kill the messenger.

Right now Dish is avoiding costs associated with HD by simply not carrying all HD channels in every DMA. Congress and the FCC have set a deadline when they have to start carrying them all. Charlie is not going to cover those costs for us as the locals increase their carriage fees. He is laying people off in Pennsylvania in order to make customer service more efficient. That'll keep your Dish bill down.

Thing is, sometime around February 1 I'll find out what I'm going to be paying and react accordingly. Starz has been quite iffy for awhile now....


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

phrelin said:


> Charlie is not going to cover those costs for us as the locals increase their carriage fees. He is laying people off in Pennsylvania in order to make customer service more efficient.


The sad thing is that Chuckie could cover that payroll out of his personal salary and not even notice the difference.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

Satelliteracer said:


> So even though the last two years have been poor economic years, the contracts they have still require X% increase to pay to the ESPNs, HBOs, ABCs, AMCs of the world....bad economy or not.


Truth be told, we have been living in a bubble economy since the mid '90's. The stock market corrected itself in 2000 and the housing market is still in a correction. There are other parts of our economy that are still a bubble that needs to pop. Two of those areas are sports and entertainment. How much longer can this economy afford to have the ESPNs fork out so much for "exclusive" sports packages to enable the sports franchises to dole out so many multi-million dollar contracts. The same holds true for Hollywood. The exhorbitant contracts need to come to an end and, somehow, the ability to make $20 million/year to pitch in 30 games must come to an end.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

On the pricing front... Virtually every February Dish has a price increase... then DirecTV does the same by March or April. Cable companies raise their rates sometime every year as well.

In most cases, the panic starts with a rumor in December... and people freak out for a couple of months... then come Feb 1st, most people are ok... Dish adds more subscribers and then all is "well" until the next December freak-out.


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

If I read it right, folks with AEP and multiple Duo HDPVRs will take the hardest hit.


----------



## MarcusInMD (Jan 7, 2005)

Well, we will probably leave dish then. TV is not that important to me anymore. I am glad I did not add additional receivers.


----------



## CABill (Mar 20, 2005)

nmetro said:


> If the story is right, a DuoDVR would cost $17 a month, a single tuner DVR will cost $14 a month and a single tuner, non-DVR receiver would cost $7.. At present, I am paying a lease fee of $7 for a VIP 622, $10 for the DVR (the $10 is part of the DISH 250 Gold plan) and I own a VIP 211 (no charge fro lease). So, at best I will not see an increase, or I will see a $7 increase or upwards to a $14 increase) But, somewhere hiding in the charges on my bill is a fee for the second receiver, though it is not clear what the charge is; hence, my increase could amount to as much as $14.


I find your post #9 to be a very good digest / summary of the other thread. Besides not having to see all the ads and people argue about demographics, it covers what was said and not what people interpret it to mean.

But my read (I have no knowledge about actual pricing / rules) is that the $14 is for any Duo (AFTER the 1st one) receiver (222 or 322) - not a single tuner DVR. A Solo is $7 after the 1st one and both outputs of a Duo are charged the $7. It said that there would be a single $6 DVR fee for the account and no per receiver DVR fee. But then a Duo DVR is $17 and a Duo is $14 so that certainly looks like an extra $3 to me for 2nd, 3rd, ... Duo DVRs but no extra DVR fee for a 510 after the 1st $6 account fee.

It does leave out a significant item though - that the basic programming packages will return to ATxxx naming and will have NO price increases. AEP's advantage of eliminating the DVR fee on all receivers will hurt some users if it is gone.

For your specific 622/211 combo, one of the two ViP receivers is included with AT programming and the other will have a $7/month fee now. If you were to deactivate the 211, the 622 lease fee should disappear but when/if you add the 211 back, it would have a $7 fee as well (owned or leased is the same cost). The $7 lease fee IS the 2nd receiver fee - that's where it is hiding. The $10 DVR fee you list is most likely DVR Advantage and includes $5 locals and $5 DVR so you really only pay $12 extra for receiver fees. You didn't mention DVR fee so maybe you are AEP and your cost will increase $6 for that alone. If you aren't AEP, it is just another $1 from the current $5 (or maybe 2 cents from the current $5.98).

My *GUESS* is your 622 would be considered the primary receiver for billing purposes and NOT have a $17 fee, but would invoke the $6 DVR fee. The 211 would be charged the Solo $7 fee so you'd pay $13 instead of your current $12. With no programming fee increase, I'd see you doing better with the change than most people, or probably better than you'd done in previous years. If you do have AEP, you'd be going up another $5 though.

We really won't KNOW until the 1st bill is generated after 1-Feb.


----------



## redsalmon (Oct 16, 2006)

Ok, here's the link to the complete discussion at the other site. Draw your own conclusions as to the result. Lots of speculation, good summaries by mike-dco5.

http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-network-forum/197184-dish-pricing-update.html


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

redsalmon said:


> Ok, here's the link to the complete discussion at the other site. Draw your own conclusions as to the result. Lots of speculation, good summaries by mike-dco5.
> 
> http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-network-forum/197184-dish-pricing-update.html


I didn't/don't see anything there to fret about.

It wouldn't surprise me if Dish upped the ante on MPEG2-only equipment as there is much pressure to recover that bandwidth in the long term. But we'll see.


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

phrelin said:


> I didn't/don't see anything there to fret about.


As long as you don't have AEP with multiple DVRs.

Four Duo DVRs = $20 increase

Six Duo DVRs = $30 increase


----------



## CABill (Mar 20, 2005)

The price increase for 4 or 6 Duo DVRs isn't clear cut. It certainly isn't the $102 Scott posted as his INCREASE for 6 Duo DVRs.

People with SD Duo DVRs fare worse than HD DVRs because the latter were already $7 each for most people (but some EA users were only charged $5 because they were SD only and 625s won't work EA). 

MikeD-C05 repeated says AEP users will see a credit for a DVR fee, but that certainly doesn't match anything I see from anything else posted. I think someone at DISH tried to explain Scott's $102 INCREASE wouldn't be that much - they were already paying $5.98 for the other 5 DVRs and $7 each for ViP receiver fees. All clarification posts still say the AEP user will pay a $6 DVR fee, but nobody pays that for additional DVRs.

Someone with 4 625s and AEP now may only be paying $5 / receiver for units 2-4. Whether SD/HD, the 1st Duo DVR will add the $6 DVR fee and 2-4 will be charged at $17 each. That $42 increase would be adequate reason to fret. Those same 4 Duo DVRs might presently be paying $5.98 for each of the 4 and $7 receiver fee for 2-4. For such a person, the INCREASE is about $12. Could be another $3 if they are only paying $5/month DVR fee now. 

There just isn't an easy way to say what an increase will be for N receivers. Not to mention the increase is nowhere near official yet. But I'd agree with peano that AEP users with multiple DVRs (particularly Duo DVRs) will suffer more than others.


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

The way I read it, Scott's bill goes up $30 for six Duos (post 1). Which matches the information given so far. I didn't see the $102.

As for MikeD-C05's posts - he is totally ignoring how AEP subs get screwed. Probably because he doesn't sub to that package.


----------



## CABill (Mar 20, 2005)

Scott's 1st post in the thread says:

You can read what I wrote at Rumor Alert: New Dish Pricing? - The Satellite Dish | Blog on Multichannel News



http://www.multichannel.com/blog/The_Satellite_Dish/29450-Rumor_Alert_New_Dish_Pricing_.php said:


> The costs will be the same no matter if its a SD (MPEG2) or HD (MPEG4) receiver. Again I hope this is wrong and is not a charge per receiver. If it is my bill will go up $102 a month as I have a total of 6 Duo DVR's on my account.


I don't think MikeD-C05 is ignoring anything as much as having a different interpretation of DISH reps saying the $102 figure should be reduced by five $5.98 DVR fees "that no longer will have to be paid". The original Multichannel item makes no reference to AEP, that that article MIGHT be what is getting confirmed or clarified - dunno. I'm not privy to anything to know except even confirmed post from DISH reps here that the 1st 622 wouldn't be charged a Lease fee were totally incorrect so until the bills are really generated, we can't be SURE. I'm an AT100 (soon to be AT120) with only a 722 and a 508 active and won't be hurt by anything except the 508 going from $5 to $7. Not quite enough to switch to DirecTV after over a decade with DISH.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

SayWhat? said:


> The sad thing is that Chuckie could cover that payroll out of his personal salary and not even notice the difference.


Nomination for the most inane post of the year.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH has had good years and bad years ... price increases have occurred pretty much every year (anyone remember a year with no increases at all?).

DISH has done well keeping prices reasonable ... I'm not sure about the timing ... a month before DirecTV makes it look like DirecTV follows DISH's increases. Better than DISH following DirecTV. DISH takes the heat by going first but still ends up slightly cheaper than DirecTV. I wish they would just announce these things instead of leaking them.


----------



## Glen_D (Oct 21, 2006)

James Long said:


> DISH has had good years and bad years ... price increases have occurred pretty much every year (anyone remember a year with no increases at all?).


Yes, but it was probably about 7-8 years ago. Some packages may have skipped a year without an increase, but generally, most packages started seeing annual first quarter increases around 2003, I think.

Same thing goes for DirecTV. My TC package (grandfathered) has had an annual increase every year since 2003.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> ...anyone remember a year with no increases at all?


I first signed with Dish when I moved into my new house around March of 2002. It was either 2003 or 2004, my bill actually went down $2!

Only happened that once... but somehow I was getting a bundle of things that they discounted that year.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH has had the two year "price guarantees" ... but for other subscribers prices went up. Probably the last year with no changes was 1999.

Until it is confirmed it looks like I'll see a $4 increase (having two SD receivers charged $7 instead of $5). Otherwise no change. It makes me wonder what good those additional receivers are doing for me.


----------



## midwave (Jun 20, 2004)

Paul Secic said:


> Price hikes are like clockwork... Everything goes up, gas, water ETC. Get used to it.


My gas bill was cut 50% by shopping around, and my electric was lowered 35% by shopping around...only my water has increased....I'll probably just pay my early termination fee and leave Dish if their rate increase is more than 2 dollars anyways!:nono2:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

midwave said:


> ...and my electric was lowered 35% by shopping around...


You can shop around for electric?

Not an option here. Here you have two choices: On, Off


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Depending on your location and which power company serves your location, you might have a choice of rate plans. I've switched to one that is saving me $50 / month over the standard one.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Jim5506 said:


> Nomination for the most inane post of the year.


Seconded. All in favor say "I"


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

SayWhat? said:


> The sad thing is that Chuckie could cover that payroll out of his personal salary and not even notice the difference.


OT:

Actually, Charlie is toward the lowest in compensation of Media industry CEO's. He still does just fine, but he is certainly not ripping off the shareholders in his compensation and is one of the more "efficient" in the performance vs. pay ratings of the 175 Public Company CEO's that were rated.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/12/best-boss-09_Charles-W-Ergen_FXHG.html
CEO Compensation: #482 Charles W Ergen
Total Compensation: Charlie Ergen $0.97 mil Media Industry Average: $11.07 mil

I suspect that the call center that is being closed probably has a payroll significantly larger than $970,000 and that he probably would "notice the difference".


----------



## cjrleimer (Nov 17, 2004)

Its a yearly tradition for everybody to raise rates and again this year it occurs now it doesnt affect me like previous years since I have AT 250 without DVR but I have had to deal with it and trust me it is a pain but its one of those things.


----------



## l8er (Jun 18, 2004)

I was a long time Dish Network sub and left to get some high def channels that Dish Network was not carrying at the time. The DIRECTV bill was also lower than the Dish Network bill, for a while. The DIRECTV bill soon had annual increases which put it above where my Dish Network bill had been.

Now I've been back with Dish Network for a few months, and have enjoyed a fairly low bill for ~ 6 months due to promos. As the promos are just now running out it's still lower than DIRECTV.

I'm guessing with the price increases coming in February, I'll probably end up back at about the same monthly level I was at with DIRECTV.

All providers raise rates - if you think one won't you just haven't waited long enough.


----------



## Todd Nicholson (Jan 7, 2007)

l8er said:


> I'm guessing with the price increases coming in February, I'll probably end up back at about the same monthly level I was at with DIRECTV.


Until D* raises their rates again in March


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DirecTV usually has some nice offers for "new" subscribers ... and also has the habit of respecting sign up prices for the first year (although there is no guarantee from me ... check their terms for any guarantee they offer). Even if DISH does not raise receiver fees one might get a good introductory year (followed by a full price + 2011 increase year).

DISH's plans will be official in a couple of weeks ... and DirecTV will announce theirs within the next month. Plenty of time to make whatever decision is best for you, once full information is available.


----------



## dahenny (Apr 16, 2007)

A few days ago, I spoke to a regional trainer for Dish. He said that retailers were really up in arms over the new pricing scheme, mainly because of confusion. He also said that there is a little bit of misinformation on the SG thread. He said that the increase is really not that bad. I gave him my particulars to see how I will be affected by the change, and he told me that he would get back to me after his Christmas break, because my situation is not typical, with an owned 722 on the HD Absolute package. 
If permission is given, I'll post in a few days my results.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

redsalmon said:


> I suggest everyone read the whole discussion at the other site. There are lots of different situations and it isn't apparently as bad as it sounds.


If Dish charges $17 for receivers, they won't have customers in this economy.


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

Actually they probably will not lose that many subscribers if any at all. The main reason being is the very high cost for a DVR from the cable companies. Just about any cable company out there is charging a minimum of $ 15 to $ 20 per month per DVR box. Also is it really changing the cost or just the way that Dish is going to bill you. Instead of the HD fee, are they just combining the (2) together, DVR fee and HD fee to show as one charge of $ 17 per month as a DVR fee. This is where the cable companies have had a slight edge by saying the HD feed is free from some of the providers. We just will have to wait and see which way it goes. As I said if this is a $ 10 increase in the DVR fee making it $ 17 by itself for either a HDDVR or SDDVR then I will look at downgrading to my old 301 in the closet and sending my HDDVR back to Dish. We will just have to wait and see what the New Year brings. Could this also be a way for Dish to settle with TiVo? Do we really know what secret deals have been made in the lawsuit against Dish?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Paul Secic said:


> If Dish charges $17 for receivers, they won't have customers in this economy.


The first receiver is "free" ... included with the price of the programming package.

With current pricing the second receiver is $7 for HD (leased or owned) + $5.98 DVR fee + $5 "additional outlet" penalty if you don't connect a dual tuner receiver to a phone/internet connection. That's $17.98 ... today. $17 is a price reduction.

What I'd like to see confirmed/refuted (but would prefer to see confirmed) is the part of the rumors where there is a $5.00 discount for connecting a phone line. If the $17 is reduced to $12 via a discount for connecting the phone line this is not an increase at all for most subscribers. But if a $5 penalty is applied on top of the $17 then this is a real increase on additional receivers. I'm hoping that it really is a net $12 charge.

For the non-DVR two tuner receivers $14 would become $9 ... a $2 increase over the current $7 for a HD receiver. The single tuner $7 is no increase for HD receivers but will be an increase for SD subscribers. SD subscribers will see the brunt of the increase (if the rumors are understood correctly).

The "one DVR fee per account" is good in theory, but with $17 added for a second DVR DISH is getting the extra $6 per receiver anyways. AEP customers who had a single DVR fee included in their package will see the big hit here.

This really hits the "above average" customer more than anyone else. The average DISH customer spends $69.51. AEP is $102.98 w/locals and no extra receivers. The average shows that most customers are not subscribed to AEP with several receivers. After the initial panic subsides it won't be a big deal for most customers and I'd bet that the average customer bill won't be much higher than it is today.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

That's why that thread is really a bad rumor thread... It is (thread self-admits) based on information from different people that have contradicted each other... so it is just stirring up people to freak out about something that may or may not be bad.

As James says, one way to interpret this is a "bunching" of the fees they already charge you into one single fee... that arguably might be $0.98 cheaper for some folks! IF they keep all the current credits for phone/broadband connection AND they drop the per-DVR DVR fee... then a lot of people might actually see their bills stay the same or go down even.

Of course the worst case scenario is a HUGE increase for everyone, particularly people with multiple DVRs... but it is all very murky, and not verifiable at all at this point... so I prefer not to freak out about it unless and until the bad actually happens in Feb.


----------



## CABill (Mar 20, 2005)

James Long said:


> The "one DVR fee per account" is good in theory, but with $17 added for a second DVR DISH is getting the extra $6 per receiver anyways.


The single fee would appear to only be in NAME, not in money. A Duo receiver is $14 but a Duo DVR is $17 after the 1st receiver. How is that in fact anything other than a $3/month DVR fee? Yea, it is only a DVR fee for people with Duo DVRs. At least to me, is is just a different (hidden) class of DVR fee.

I've not seen anything that would in any way confirm the $5 phone/Internet connection credit that people quote as if it were stated somewhere. It won't be long until something official is released, but my money is on it still not being cleared up or simplified once it is released.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I don't think Dish would use Scott for leak that information if they are going to increase for just $1 or $3. 
Perhaps this time it would be bigger raise and they want give adaptation period for concerned crowd.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I don't believe that DISH Network marketing is using any site as a foil for "pre-acceptance" of an upcoming change. I believe that some employees like to play "I've got a secret" and leak stuff to boost their own reputation online ... and it is a dangerous game to play. We don't want anyone to lose their job over a few weeks preview of something that will be announced soon enough.

Wouldn't it be sad if the different fee increase rumors were released internally to see who could keep a secret? That is one reason why I, as a person not speaking as a moderator, would rather not encourage leaks by boosting the ego of those who cannot keep their company's secrets. Times are tough and internet use is monitored. Be safe.

That being said, there is a rumor going around and I suppose we might as well chime in on what we have heard. My analysis is above in this thread. I look forward to reading more thoughts on the potential price change subject.


----------



## puckwithahalo (Sep 3, 2007)

James Long said:


> I don't believe that DISH Network marketing is using any site as a foil for "pre-acceptance" of an upcoming change. I believe that some employees like to play "I've got a secret" and leak stuff to boost their own reputation online ... and it is a dangerous game to play. We don't want anyone to lose their job over a few weeks preview of something that will be announced soon enough.
> 
> Wouldn't it be sad if the different fee increase rumors were released internally to see who could keep a secret? That is one reason why I, as a person not speaking as a moderator, would rather not encourage leaks by boosting the ego of those who cannot keep their company's secrets. Times are tough and internet use is monitored. Be safe.
> 
> That being said, there is a rumor going around and I suppose we might as well chime in on what we have heard. My analysis is above in this thread. I look forward to reading more thoughts on the potential price change subject.


There's a reason I haven't chimed in on this topic yet.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> The first receiver is "free" ... included with the price of the programming package.
> 
> With current pricing the second receiver is $7 for HD (leased or owned) + $5.98 DVR fee + $5 "additional outlet" penalty if you don't connect a dual tuner receiver to a phone/internet connection. That's $17.98 ... today. $17 is a price reduction.
> 
> ...


The Dish Residential Customer Agreement is on line. The section on Fees is as follows:








The "TV2 Receiver Connection Fee" is what it is now, not a penalty but an add-on that is waived if connected to a phone line.

Scott's The Sky is NOT Falling blog on Multichannel News to me makes it pretty clear that things are unclear.

As I've said before, Ernestine moved from "The Phone Company" to Dish a decade ago as Supervisor and Trainer of CSRs and as Scott found out, the CSRs trained in Feb 1 2010 fees don't seem to understand the changes very well.

In fact, many of us here know that 10 months into the current fees, there are still CSRs who don't understand them.

Yeah, I suppose if I had 6 ViP722's, I'd be edgy. But for most of us, anxiety over this would be a foolish waste of time and energy.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

The pasted fee chart shows the TV2 connection fee applies if the dual-tuner receiver* "is not connected to a phone line." An assessment for failure to take action is a penalty, even if compliance is acknowledged as a $5 credit against an artificially high $17.

* This doesn't specify just Duo receivers, but I assume the dual-tuner Solo 612 is still exempt because it doesn't have a TV2 output.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

BobaBird said:


> The pasted fee chart shows the TV2 connection fee applies if the dual-tuner receiver* "is not connected to a phone line." An assessment for failure to take action is a penalty, even if compliance is acknowledged as a $5 credit against an artificially high $17.


I actually disagree with this way of looking at it. After all it's an industry standard to charge a fee for each additional tv you have hooked up. With Dish's dual output receivers they give you a way to opt out of having to pay an additional tv hook up fee and I don't think there's any other provider that offers that opportunity. So I have a hard time thinking how that could be considered any kind of "penalty".


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tsmacro said:


> I actually disagree with this way of looking at it. After all it's an industry standard to charge a fee for each additional tv you have hooked up. With Dish's dual output receivers they give you a way to opt out of having to pay an additional tv hook up fee and I don't think there's any other provider that offers that opportunity. So I have a hard time thinking how that could be considered any kind of "penalty".


If there was a fee regardless of phone line/internet connection it could be considered a reduction over leasing/buying a second receiver and paying the $5/$7 additional receiver fee. $5 for TV2 on a HD Duo would be cheaper than $7. If there was no fee regardless of phone line/internet connection that is a deeper discount on the TV2 output.

But the fee isn't tied to whether or not one has a TV2 output ... it is tied to compliance with connecting the receiver to a phone line/internet. It seems fair to consider that a penalty - even if it is presented as a charge that is refunded.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

James Long said:


> But the fee isn't tied to whether or not one has a TV2 output ... it is tied to compliance with connecting the receiver to a phone line/internet. It seems fair to consider that a penalty - even if it is presented as a charge that is refunded.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, since Dish is the only company i'm aware of that even offers a way to have a second tv hooked up with no additional charge I still have a hard time seeing this as anything but an opportunity to save some money on your monthly bill. If you don't happen to take advantage of that opportunity because you chose not to have a phone line or high speed internet connected to your receiver then I don't see how you have much to gripe about.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The reason I use the Larry, Darryl and Darryl or Ernestine analogies is that I'm never sure about many of these fee explanations along with a number of other explanations over the years. I don't know who writes the policy, but by the time Larry puts out PR explanations, Darryl and Darryl put explanations up on the web site, and Ernestine's trained CSRs try to discuss them with customers, you realize nobody really knows what they mean except perhaps "legal."

And I have seen on Charlie Chat's and Tech Forum's such policy questions addressed with fumbling answers. So it doesn't surprise me that the troops struggle with them.

And we have a disagreement here - is it a penalty for failing to comply or an opportunity to save while serving a second TV? The correct answer is "yes" which is a classic Ernestine-type answer.


----------



## cjrleimer (Nov 17, 2004)

This has to be the most confusing price change ever, I hope by mid January we get a clue of what is going on here.


----------



## CABill (Mar 20, 2005)

phrelin said:


> And we have a disagreement here - is it a penalty for failing to comply or an opportunity to save while serving a second TV? The correct answer is "yes" which is a classic Ernestine-type answer.


Why does it matter if it WAS a penalty or reward when there willl no longer be a charge for TV2 for the 1st reveiver and all TV2s after the first will pay the same $7/month as TV1 (more if a Duo DVR)? DISH got a lot of people to commit to 2 years thinking the 2nd Duo receiver would have $X cost which may now double (for some people, and not for others).


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

CABill said:


> ...which may now double....


Or not.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

cjrleimer said:


> This has to be the most confusing price change ever, I hope by mid January we get a clue of what is going on here.


We should all really take a step back here and remember that Dish hasn't announced this price increase. Someone is claiming that someone at Dish told him about it... then claiming someone else at Dish told him something different... and yet again, another Dish person telling him something different from that.

It all boils down to the fact that we really know nothing.

HIGHLY likely that Dish will increase prices since they do it practically every Feb... but I really wouldn't get up in arms or worry about rumors circulating in December from apparently conflicting sources.

The rumor mill hasn't been that reliable lately about "things coming in the future" like channels or new receivers anyway... and when the panicking dies, the rumor mill just spins something new and asks you to forget the unreliable other rumors as if they never happened.

Unless and until someone who knows something posts, I'm content to wait for the Dish announcement in Feb.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Unless and until someone who knows something posts, I'm content to wait for the Dish announcement in Feb.


In the past, the price changes have taken effect in February, but the announcements come in early January. Chances are that the announcement will be coming in the next 2 weeks, based on previous history.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Kheldar said:


> In the past, the price changes have taken effect in February, but the announcements come in early January. Chances are that the announcement will be coming in the next 2 weeks, based on previous history.


Still - no sense in panicing (or whatever else) about it until it is announced.

Life goes on - live more , worry less....


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

scooper said:


> Still - no sense in panicing (or whatever else) about it until it is announced.
> 
> Life goes on - live more , worry less....


My thoughts exactly. I always go with the adage that 80% of the things you anticipate happening don't, 10% you can't do anything about, and 10% you can with enough information. We don't have enough information, but we will in a few weeks.


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

From Scott at SatelliteGuys:


"All accounts with a DVR (not 501/508, those are PVRs) will have a $6 DVR fee, even if just one DVR. So doesn't matter how your account is structured, you have a 510 or higher and you will pay a separate $6 fee. The one exception will be 922 accounts which will be a $10 DVR fee.

The primary receiver will be based on the following hierarchy
1. 922 (slingloaded hd duo dvr) $17
2. 622 (hd duo dvr, to include 622, 622HZ, 722, 722k) $17
3. 522 (duo dvr, to include 625) $14
4. 222 (duo rec, to include 222k, 322) $14
5. 612 (hd solo dvr) $10
6. 512 (solo dvr, not yet released) $10
7. 211 (solo rec, to include 301, 311, 3900, etc) $7
8. 501 (PVRs, to include 508) $7

The receiver that is highest in the list will be the primary receiver. The more feature-rich receivers will have the highest fee."


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Scott cannot be accounted for the info, he is just parroting what someone from Dish leaked out. It could be half baked, some draft data perhaps. Dish has habits to change own statement on many occasions.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The thing is, if Scott turns out to be right the fee structure falls into the 10% of things that you can't do anything about. All you can do is live with it, or change your configuration or signal carrier to DirecTV or cable. So enjoy the holidays and think about it when we find out from a Dish Network announcement.


----------



## dahenny (Apr 16, 2007)

Kheldar said:


> In the past, the price changes have taken effect in February, but the announcements come in early January. Chances are that the announcement will be coming in the next 2 weeks, based on previous history.


+1
I was told that there are at least 2 states (OH/WI) with a law that require a 30 day notice of price increase from the satellite providers. With that scenario, news will possibly break during the first week of January.


----------



## MarcusInMD (Jan 7, 2005)

peano said:


> From Scott at SatelliteGuys:
> 
> "All accounts with a DVR (not 501/508, those are PVRs) will have a $6 DVR fee, even if just one DVR. So doesn't matter how your account is structured, you have a 510 or higher and you will pay a separate $6 fee. The one exception will be 922 accounts which will be a $10 DVR fee.
> 
> ...


This is highway robbery. $17 for the receiver and than addtional charges on top of it because it's a DVR?

If this is the case we are definitely leaving dish. Like I said earlier, I am at the point where I can do without TV...Once my local area cable comapny goes all digital I will buy an HD tivo and subscribe to an HD package with them. In the mean time I will "subscribe" to free TV and also take advantage of hulu.


----------



## puckwithahalo (Sep 3, 2007)

MarcusInMD said:


> This is highway robbery. $17 for the receiver and than addtional charges on top of it because it's a DVR?
> 
> If this is the case we are definitely leaving dish. Like I said earlier, I am at the point where I can do without TV...Once my local area cable comapny goes all digital I will buy an HD tivo and subscribe to an HD package with them. In the mean time I will "subscribe" to free TV and also take advantage of hulu.


Considering a duo HD DVR is $17.98 right now all charges totaled, $12.98 with phone line connected, $17.00 is a drop for some, and a few dollars increase for others.

Just to give an example following the new system that has been outlined so far...

Say someone has two VIP 722's.

Right now he pays $5.98 DVR fee for the first, $5.00 tv2 connection fee for the first, $5.98 DVR fee for the second, $7.00 lease fee or additional outlet fee for the second, and $5.00 tv2 connection fee for the second receiver. So, all told, equipment fees are $28.96. If both receivers are connected to phone lines or internet connections, subtract the two tv2 connections fees, $18.96.

With the same setup, and new fees, no charge for the first receiver, $17.00 for the second, and $6.00 account DVR fee. Total $23.00

So, worst case scenario $4.02 increase, best case, $5.96 decrease. Just thought I'd give an example.

I'm not confirming anything, just saying that's a reasonable example of how it could work.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

MarcusInMD said:


> This is highway robbery. $17 for the receiver and than addtional charges on top of it because it's a DVR?


The first receiver is included in the programming package price ...
So an account with only a 622->922 won't be charged the $17 for that receiver.
One gets charged those fees for the second and extra receivers.

The "one per account" DVR fee applies. $6 for any DVR above the 508 or $10 for the 922 as an account level DVR fee (if Scott isn't being misinformed).


puckwithahalo said:


> Right now he pays $5.98 DVR fee for the first, $5.00 tv2 connection fee for the first, $5.98 DVR fee for the second, $7.00 lease fee or additional outlet fee for the second, and $5.00 tv2 connection fee for the second receiver. So, all told, equipment fees are $28.96. If both receivers are connected to phone lines or internet connections, subtract the two tv2 connections fees, $18.96.
> 
> With the same setup, and new fees, no charge for the first receiver, $17.00 for the second, and $6.00 account DVR fee. Total $23.00


Except for the $5 tv2 connection rebates ... which I hope still apply. $18.00 instead of $18.96. It should be fun to see this all settled out.


----------



## puckwithahalo (Sep 3, 2007)

James Long said:


> Except for the $5 tv2 connection rebates ... which I hope still apply. $18.00 instead of $18.96. It should be fun to see this all settled out.


You mean for keeping the phone lines connected? Or did you mean something else?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

puckwithahalo said:


> You mean for keeping the phone lines connected? Or did you mean something else?


Correct.

Some have stated that the $17 fee is basically the $5.98 DVR fee + $7 additional receiver/lease fee + $5 TV2 (additional outlet) fee. With the TV2 fee credited for having a phone line/internet connection they (and I) hope that there will be a $5 credit for those connecting a Duo to the phone line/internet.

Or DISH will be adding that $5 fee on top of the $17 if people don't connect the phone line/internet.

We can hope that it is the lower total ...
While $17 replacing $17.98 isn't a price increase, $14 replacing $12 (on Duo non-DVRs) and $7 replacing $5 (on SD receivers) is.


----------



## puckwithahalo (Sep 3, 2007)

James Long said:


> Correct.
> 
> Some have stated that the $17 fee is basically the $5.98 DVR fee + $7 additional receiver/lease fee + $5 TV2 (additional outlet) fee. With the TV2 fee credited for having a phone line/internet connection they (and I) hope that there will be a $5 credit for those connecting a Duo to the phone line/internet.
> 
> ...


Ah...I see what you were saying. I'm not comfortable going into the specifics of how that will work at this point, but can say that there will be some positive effects of having them connected prior to the change.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

James Long said:


> The first receiver is included in the programming package price ...
> So an account with only a 622->922 won't be charged the $17 for that receiver.
> One gets charged those fees for the second and extra receivers.
> 
> ...


I've got a VIP 722 which controls my HD 720 TV. My roommate has an non HD receiver hooked to a 19" HDTV. So I don't know what will happen. We'll find out..........


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Give him second TV output and RF remote, then split the bill .


----------



## puckwithahalo (Sep 3, 2007)

Paul Secic said:


> I've got a VIP 722 which controls my HD 720 TV. My roommate has an non HD receiver hooked to a 19" HDTV. So I don't know what will happen. We'll find out..........


If his his a 301, 311, or 381, your bill will probably show

$6.00 account DVR fee, $7.00 receiver fee for his receiver. Total $13.00.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

For Reference:
D* Announces New Rates Starting 2/9/2010


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

That's where Dish PR should learn - give real info in public, instead of use someone to stir local attention.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

That presumes we know Dish is "giving out information" to "stir discussion"... Does anyone actually have any proof that these "rumors" came from any reliable/authorized personnel at Dish?

I also see lots of relying on what CSRs have told people in response to asking about the upcoming increases... and yet those same folks wouldn't normally trust anything a CSR tells them. For instance, the same CSR who might be "verifying" these price increases, might also tell you that you can't attach an external hard drive to a 211... so I'm not sure there is a reliable source as yet to warrant any of the panicking that some folks have done.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Give him second TV output and RF remote, then split the bill .


She does pay half of the bill. Don't know why she doesn't want HD.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Reading between the lines, speculation and fear mongering, it sounds like I won't seeing any increase with a single 508.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> Reading between the lines, speculation and fear mongering, it sounds like I won't seeing any increase with a single 508.


No one with a single receiver will see an increase, even if it is a 722.
It is the multi-receiver people who will see an adjustment.


----------



## earthterminal (Dec 18, 2009)

Meh, I don't mind prices going up, I can understand. I know with the increased royalty collection from shvura act this year, somthing was going to change.


----------



## mhowie (Sep 30, 2006)

James Long said:


> The "one DVR fee per account" is good in theory, but with $17 added for a second DVR DISH is getting the extra $6 per receiver anyways. AEP customers who had a single DVR fee included in their package will see the big hit here.
> 
> This really hits the "above average" customer more than anyone else. The average DISH customer spends $69.51. AEP is $102.98 w/locals and no extra receivers. The average shows that most customers are not subscribed to AEP with several receivers. After the initial panic subsides it won't be a big deal for most customers and I'd bet that the average customer bill won't be much higher than it is today.


I think you are spot on regarding the AEP customers taking this one in the pants. I am (currently, anyway) in that group and have two 722s. Today I pay $7 total in hardware fees (that is the $7 "leased receiver fee" on my second 722). If I understand the proposed new pricing scheme, they will soon charge $23 for the same boxes ($17 for the second 722 and a universal $6 DVR fee). A $16 monthly increase (although that might be tempered by a couple of dollars based on some speculation about locals being baked into programming packages) represents a double digit percentage hit from one day to the next without any increase in customer value.


----------



## CABill (Mar 20, 2005)

mhowie said:


> A $16 monthly increase (although that might be tempered by a couple of dollars based on some speculation about locals being baked into programming packages) represents a double digit percentage hit from one day to the next without any increase in customer value.


$5 locals being "required where available" with ATxxx doesn't save money, except possibly for those that pay annually and have to pay $5.99 / month now for locals with annual ATxxx.

Unusual wording on "one day to the next". Would it matter if the price change was spread out a little? Like if your 2nd 722 got a $5 credit for six months for having them both connected to a phone line prior to the increase? Your added receiver fees still jump from $7 to $18, and then to $23 in six months. That would drop it into single digit percentage increase for an AEP sub initially. AEP itself might actually decline in price by $3. I'd think you'd be far better off to drop AEP and sub to just the premiums that you need / watch. I've no idea what the premium pricing might change to, but your $16 increase could be just $11 for the 1st 6 months and you could about break even or decline by dropping a premium or two.

What bothers me the most is the claim of a single $6 DVR fee for the account, yet every Duo DVR after the 1st has another $3 fee that its non-DVR Duo doesn't pay. Even a 510 is $3/month more than a 508. To me, that is still a $3 DVR fee per receiver plus a $3/account if there is any receiver that has a DVR fee now.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Dish need collect more money for keep going that legal fight over using TiVo patent and perhaps raise cash for future TiVo fee.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Dish need collect more money for keep going that legal fight over using TiVo patent and perhaps raise cash for future TiVo fee.


or not


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

They're already shell out $200 as a bond ...


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

P Smith said:


> They're already shell out $200 as a bond ...


$200 is nothing (tho I am sure it is probably a bit more than that). Plus they put away the $$ back what, 5 years ago or however long ago the first virdict came down, so it is just sitting there collecting interest.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Actually, they did envision of that and start collecting "DVR" fee back to 2001.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

_Please, lets not turn this into another Tivo thread._


----------



## rbgator95 (May 31, 2007)

James Long said:


> No one with a single receiver will see an increase, even if it is a 722.
> It is the multi-receiver people who will see an adjustment.


I presently have a 622 with internet connection as my only active receiver. If I reactivate the old 508 (technically doable since I'm on Western Arc and it has the purple smartcard) would the price increase be limited to $7 per month (for second SD receiver)?


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

rbgator95 said:


> I presently have a 622 with internet connection as my only active receiver. If I reactivate the old 508 (technically doable since I'm on Western Arc and it has the purple smartcard) would the price increase be limited to $7 per month (for second SD receiver)?


Evidently.


----------

