# Directv going HD only as of July 24th (?)



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I heard a report from Directv's revolution conference that Directv would start doing only HD installs for new customers beginning this summer. Now we know the date - according to the "other place" this is due to begin as of July 24th.

This is only for new customers. They'll get only HD equipment, and the HD fee is going away! That means the Advanced Receiver Fee will go from $25 to $15. However they'll start charging customers $6 for the first receiver, which was previously waived. So $4 less overall (I'm sure they'll make that up somewhere)

Existing customers will keep the same pricing they have, this is for new customers only.

I have a feeling the HD fee will be replaced by a "4K fee" soon enough when they start providing that


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Well if they stop putting new SD stuff in, that means SD boxes are no longer being made. So sooner or later the remaining refurbish SD equipment will be non-repairable.

My guess, within a year or two, the SD customers will get a notice that SD satellite transmission will cease within a year after they get the notice.

Of course, there will be SD customers who will ignore all notices and scream bloody murder when their boxes become useless.

BTW, my aunt would have been one of those complainers, as color was out for over twenty years before she HAD to get a new television which I help her to pick out. She also had a working rotary phone up to her death in '07.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> I heard a report from Directv's revolution conference that Directv would start doing only HD installs for new customers beginning this summer. Now we know the date - according to the "other place" this is due to begin as of July 24th.
> 
> This is only for new customers. They'll get only HD equipment, and the HD fee is going away! That means the Advanced Receiver Fee will go from $25 to $15. However they'll start charging customers $6 for the first receiver, which was previously waived. So $4 less overall (I'm sure they'll make that up somewhere)
> 
> ...


Yep don't see us getting a $4 discount, they will just raise it somewhere else and most likely go even higher.

That a bunch of crap if they are going to start charging for the first receiver. That's worse than cable.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

damondlt said:


> Yep don't see us getting a $4 discount, they will just raise it somewhere else and most likely go even higher.
> That a bunch of crap if they are going to start charging for the first receiver. That's worse than cable.


They are completing the evolution of the "mirroring fee" into an "outlet fee." I remember the old days when satellite not only provided better quality than cable, it was also cheaper. In a straight apples to apples comparison (using equivalent programming packages and vendor provided hardware) of the 4 options available in my area, the least expensive is Cablevision, followed by Dish Network (a non-factor since they don't carry most of the local sports coverage), followed by FiOS and then, the most expensive, DirecTV.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> I heard a report from Directv's revolution conference that Directv would start doing only HD installs for new customers beginning this summer. Now we know the date - according to the "other place" this is due to begin as of July 24th.
> 
> This is only for new customers. They'll get only HD equipment, and the HD fee is going away! That means the Advanced Receiver Fee will go from $25 to $15. However they'll start charging customers $6 for the first receiver, which was previously waived. So $4 less overall (I'm sure they'll make that up somewhere)
> 
> ...


what about people on the old fee system with DRV, MRV, and HD all as there own line?

I see it as

new $15+6= $21 maybe non DRV setups at just $6?
older $10+10+3=$23
old $25


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I can think of a few members here that would be quite upset if they had to go with HD equipment.

So you're saying that even in an install with a mixture of HD and SD TV's, it would still be all HD equipment? At one point it was thought that they would still install SD equipment, just couldn't be only SD.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Good, it's about time. I don't like forcing people to change, but missing out on HD is not a good thing, I think. Yeah, it will aggravate a lot of people, but in the long term, I think they'll realize what they've been missing.

Rich


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Drucifer said:


> Well if they stop putting new SD stuff in, that means SD boxes are no longer being made. So sooner or later the remaining refurbish SD equipment will be non-repairable.
> 
> My guess, within a year or two, the SD customers will get a notice that SD satellite transmission will cease within a year after they get the notice.
> 
> ...


I think going all HD is cool but what about solving the problem with HD being more sensitive to bad weather than SD?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> So you're saying that even in an install with a mixture of HD and SD TV's, it would still be all HD equipment? At one point it was thought that they would still install SD equipment, just couldn't be only SD.


it has been awhile since DirecTV® stopped doing mix installs for new customers. It haas either all HD or all SD


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

CraigerM said:


> I think going all HD is cool but what about solving the problem with HD being more sensitive to bad weather than SD?


It's not really something you can "solve" as it's physics related to the difference between Ka and Ku bands. Proper peaking of the dish helps, but there will still be a threshold where Ka band reception is lost first. Maybe after they migrate all the existing subscribers to HD only they can put the most popular channels on the Ku band to lessen the impact.


----------



## knoxbh (May 1, 2002)

I agree with the weather problem, particularly here in Florida. We had a really belly washer here yesterday and the Directv HD was out for over an hour (It really did pour - left over from Arthur). We had to resort to SD and even that ended being out for a short time. No question - HD is great in Arizona!!


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Well, for those insisting on SD you can always hook up a composite rig to take it to the 1975 TV!


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

KyL416 said:


> It's not really something you can "solve" as it's physics related to the difference between Ka and Ku bands. Proper peaking of the dish helps, but there will still be a threshold where Ka band reception is lost first. Maybe after they migrate all the existing subscribers to HD only they can put the most popular channels on the Ku band to lessen the impact.


Would it be easier just to switch all the HD channels to KU or would that be expensive to do? Also what about the SD channels that don't have an HD counterpart?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

There is not enough "room" to put all HD channels in the 101 Ku sat.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

CraigerM said:


> Would it be easier just to switch all the HD channels to KU or would that be expensive to do? Also what about the SD channels that don't have an HD counterpart?


Unless they want to lose about half of their channel capacity the Ka band will still be in use. They can only do so much with the bandwidth currently used by the SD channels on 101 while 119 will have to remain dedicated to foreign language packages because the slimline 3 can't get that slot and line of site issues prevents the installation of a slimline 5 in parts of the country if the tree line is too high. (Especially in the Northeast)

Channels that either don't have an HD counterpart or are only carried will likely be converted to MPEG4 SD like some of the P/I channels like Baby First and God TV already are.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

slice1900 said:


> However they'll start charging customers $6 for the first receiver


And this answers the question of "why charge for it and then take it off" It was just a matter of time.......


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

I wonder if there would be enough room on the current 101 spot beams to move the local HD channels from 99/103 back to there? At least that would help with rain fade on the locals which might be more important during a bad storm.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

RAD said:


> I wonder if there would be enough room on the current 101 spot beams to move the local HD channels from 99/103 back to there? At least that would help with rain fade on the locals which might be more important during a bad storm.


Nope...the HD and SD market coverage is not that different, but the HD locals require about twice the bandwidth. Maybe they could move the 4 network affiliates, but I seem to remember some FCC rule about all locals requiring the same equipment, so I think they would have to complete upgrades of all customers to dishes that see 99 and 103 before they could do that.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Diana C said:


> They are completing the evolution of the "mirroring fee" into an "outlet fee." I remember the old days when satellite not only provided better quality than cable, it was also cheaper. In a straight apples to apples comparison (using equivalent programming packages and vendor provided hardware) of the 4 options available in my area, the least expensive is Cablevision, followed by Dish Network (a non-factor since they don't carry most of the local sports coverage), followed by FiOS and then, the most expensive, DirecTV.


Yep, in my area, It's Dish, also non factor , cable , and Directv as most expensive.

August starts Tivo services and support from our local Blue Ridge. 
And at $19.99 per month, that 6 tuners vs $21 for the Genie.

Lots of things to re-evaluate. Come next month.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

KyL416 said:


> Unless they want to lose about half of their channel capacity the Ka band will still be in use. They can only do so much with the bandwidth currently used by the SD channels on 101 while 119 will have to remain dedicated to foreign language packages because the slimline 3 can't get that slot and line of site issues prevents the installation of a slimline 5 in parts of the country if the tree line is too high. (Especially in the Northeast)
> 
> Channels that either don't have an HD counterpart or are only carried will likely be converted to MPEG4 SD like some of the P/I channels like Baby First and God TV already are.


I did some math recently in another thread, and figure around 60% of the current HD channel load from the 44 CONUS transponders on 99 & 103 could be carried on the 26 CONUS transponders on 101 if they made the switch. The Ku transponders have only 2/3 the bandwidth, but switching to 8PSK will bump up their capacity quite a bit to the point where a 24 MHz MPEG4 HD Ku transponder would be roughly equal in channel capacity to a 36 MHz MPEG4 HD Ka transponder.

That would easily cover all but the more lightly watched HD channels. I don't think it would make a huge difference, but it would help some.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

JoeTheDragon said:


> what about people on the old fee system with DRV, MRV, and HD all as there own line?
> 
> I see it as
> 
> ...


I was wondering about that also. We are on the old pricing system also. I wonder if the new $15 Advanced Receiver Fee will include the MRV fee or will it be extra?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Mrv is built into all pricing now it's no longer offered separately. 

I think this change will coincide with dtv pushing out new billing terms to make bills easier to understand. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

Rich said:


> Good, it's about time.
> 
> Rich


Agree 100%


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Jason Whiddon said:


> Agree 100%


I cannot imagine why people who can afford HD TVs don't have an HD feed. But I have to admit I did have a couple of HD TVs for a year or three and didn't have an HD feed. I know I do dumb things, but as soon as I identify something I'm doing as "dumb" I quickly rectify that. As soon as I put an HR on one of my poorly researched Sony HD TVs (they were both CRTs and even tho both were huge they were built for SD and had small HD screens) I knew I had made a mistake and that mistake, added to the fact that the TVs and HRs didn't get along at all while using the very necessary HDMI cables, caused me to switch to Panny plasmas. That turned out quite well. I never seem to take the easy path. :nono2:

Rich


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Some, like ThomasM I believe just didn't want to pay the monthly fee. 

Sent from my Z10 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

I expected a few years ago to see the HD fee to be rolled into the basic package fees. At least DirecTv is finally pushing the issue.

Sent from my XT1032 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> I cannot imagine why people who can afford HD TVs don't have an HD feed.


A few years ago I'd agree. But where are the SD TVs in stores today? It seems that one has to go out of their way to find one. People buying smaller sets (those who "can't afford" larger HDTVs) get less benefit from having a HDTV signal. The biggest benefit of having a HD signal on a smaller HTDV is if their TV provider has over compressed their SD feeds. One should not need to pay for HD to restore quality to SD level viewing.

If getting a HDTV was a choice I'd wonder why more were not buying the content to match their set. But people are getting HDTV displays by default. HDTVs are affordable ... additional monthly fees for HD content may not be.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> A few years ago I'd agree. But where are the SD TVs in stores today? It seems that one has to go out of their way to find one. People buying smaller sets (those who "can't afford" larger HDTVs) get less benefit from having a HDTV signal. The biggest benefit of having a HD signal on a smaller HTDV is if their TV provider has over compressed their SD feeds. One should not need to pay for HD to restore quality to SD level viewing.
> 
> If getting a HDTV was a choice I'd wonder why more were not buying the content to match their set. But people are getting HDTV displays by default. HDTVs are affordable ... additional monthly fees for HD content may not be.


The people who have only SD TVs have them because the TVs they have had for 10-30 years still work, and they don't like to or can't afford to spend money to replace something that still works. Those old CRTs last forever.

Directv has made the subscription cost moot by dropping the HD fee for new customers, but new customers who have only SD TVs and wouldn't get any benefit from their HD equipment will end up paying $6/month more than they would today, making Directv less attractive compared to the competition for those customers looking for a bargain basement deal. Though I doubt any provider is making all that much money off the people with the bottom end package. The extra $6 might push more of them to cut the cord if don't have a subsidized cable "basic service" deal available to them.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> The people who have only SD TVs have them because the TVs they have had for 10-30 years still work, and they don't like to or can't afford to spend money to replace something that still works. Those old CRTs last forever.
> 
> Directv has made the subscription cost moot by dropping the HD fee for new customers, but new customers who have only SD TVs and wouldn't get any benefit from their HD equipment will end up paying $6/month more than they would today, making Directv less attractive compared to the competition for those customers looking for a bargain basement deal. Though I doubt any provider is making all that much money off the people with the bottom end package. The extra $6 might push more of them to cut the cord if don't have a subsidized cable "basic service" deal available to them.


No other TV provider has the first lease/mirror fee for free. I think what would be cool we be to included the MRV in with the $15 Advanced Receiver Fee. Could that make up for getting rid of the first mirroring fee for free?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> No other TV provider has the first lease/mirror fee for free. I think what would be cool we be to included the MRV in with the $15 Advanced Receiver Fee. Could that make up for getting rid of the first mirroring fee for free?


They'll never get rid of that mirroring fee.

Rich


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

slice1900 said:


> The people who have only SD TVs have them because the TVs they have had for 10-30 years still work, and they don't like to or can't afford to spend money to replace something that still works. Those old CRTs last forever.
> 
> Directv has made the subscription cost moot by dropping the HD fee for new customers, but new customers who have only SD TVs and wouldn't get any benefit from their HD equipment will end up paying $6/month more than they would today, making Directv less attractive compared to the competition for those customers looking for a bargain basement deal. Though I doubt any provider is making all that much money off the people with the bottom end package. The extra $6 might push more of them to cut the cord if don't have a subsidized cable "basic service" deal available to them.


The quality of channels on MPEG 4, which is actually what's happening although I can see why people say HD only, will benefit SD customers as the channel quality is much better even if it's on a SD TV. In general most people who haven't adopted to HD at this point are not going to look for other technology to save them money. They may look at other providers and for some that might be a possibility.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> No other TV provider has the first lease/mirror fee for free. I think what would be cool we be to included the MRV in with the $15 Advanced Receiver Fee. Could that make up for getting rid of the first mirroring fee for free?


The advanced receiver fee has always included MRV, whether it is the $25 fee today or the $15 fee that will be charged to new customers after the 24th.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> No other TV provider has the first lease/mirror fee for free.


Both satellite providers currently offer the first receiver free.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

Can you imagine a SD customer changing to HD and have to pay $10 and if that person gets a DVR another $10, plus $6 if adding another box, It might not seem much to anybody here, But it quickly adds up plus programming, So is no surprise that there's a lot of SD boxes out there, I have a SD receiver but that's just for back up.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

acostapimps said:


> Can you imagine a SD customer changing to HD and have to pay $10 and* if that person gets a DVR another $10,* plus $6 if adding another box, It might not seem much to anybody here, But it quickly adds up plus programming, So is no surprise that there's a lot of SD boxes out there, I have a SD receiver but that's just for back up.


I would "guess" that a person getting an HD DVR is because they are already using an SD DVR so that $10 would not be an add.
Also, it is very easy to get the $10 removed from your bill just by asking. And, for those that would be forced to change, I would "assume" that DTV would offer them a very good deal similar to a new customer if they force them to switch.

For DTV I would think that not having to broadcast every channel in 2 formats would be a big savings.

AT & T came to my house last week to inform me that I now have Fiber Optics service to my house. The package they offered me was for all channels in 720p. It was another $10 a month if I wanted 1080i service. He said that they do not do 480i anymore.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

jimmie57 said:


> I would "guess" that a person getting an HD DVR is because they are already using an SD DVR so that $10 would not be an add.
> Also, it is very easy to get the $10 removed from your bill just by asking. And, for those that would be forced to change, I would "assume" that DTV would offer them a very good deal similar to a new customer if they force them to switch.
> 
> For DTV I would think that not having to broadcast every channel in 2 formats would be a big savings.
> ...


If they have a DVR, but not everybody have DVR's, so that would be $20 added easily with HD, I know they might waived the HD fee or DVR or both, Also only a few know about retention offers and a break in the bill, As much as I like only HD installs or channels, Not everybody will agree with Directv's decision. Especially in areas more susceptible to rain fades with no OTA options.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

acostapimps said:


> If they have a DVR, but not everybody have DVR's, so that would be $20 added easily with HD, I know they might waived the HD fee or DVR or both, Also only a few know about retention offers and a break in the bill, As much as I like only HD installs or channels, Not everybody will agree with Directv's decision. Especially in areas more susceptible to rain fades with no OTA options.


They'll get used to it. The Great American Herd is very malleable. They'll squawk at first, but they'll come around.

Rich


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

acostapimps said:


> If they have a DVR, but not everybody have DVR's, so that would be $20 added easily with HD, I know they might waived the HD fee or DVR or both, Also only a few know about retention offers and a break in the bill, As much as I like only HD installs or channels, Not everybody will agree with Directv's decision. Especially in areas more susceptible to rain fades with no OTA options.


If they don't have a DVR now they probably will not get one when they change over. After all, we are only discussing the change from SD to HD of $10. If they choose to go with a DVR then that is a choice they are making and not being forced to do so.

You don't have to threaten to quit and go somewhere else or ask for the retention department.
I call and ask them how can they help with my bill. They look in their current offers and tell me what they can do. There has been only one time that I got less than $20 of credits on my current programming.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HD only installs is a new customer policy. We are talking about customers who have nothing ... at least nothing from DirecTV. They don't have DirecTV SD DVRs, or DirecTV service at all (unless they are gaming the system to become "new" subscribers).

Existing customers with SD receivers are not being forced to HD.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

James Long said:


> HD only installs is a new customer policy. We are talking about customers who have nothing ... at least nothing from DirecTV. They don't have DirecTV SD DVRs, or DirecTV service at all (unless they are gaming the system to become "new" subscribers).
> 
> Existing customers with SD receivers are not being forced to HD.


In the last 2 days I have talked to the billing department and a tech support person. Both of them said they "encourage" existing customers to not replace a defective SD receiver with another one and let DTV put in an HD receiver. Neither of them indicated they had any knowledge of this July 24th date and what if anything was going to change then.


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

This is part of the phased plan to migrate everything to MPEG 4. There have been many steps before this, that we have seen, and there will be many after it. This is just the first one that removed an option of mpeg 2 equipment. As this is for new customer's only at this point they won't know the difference unless they had DIRECTV in the past. This has been something we've talked about for years on here and now we're starting to see movement on. This has no impact on existing customer's and it's not removing any options that currently exist for existing customer's.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Rich said:


> *They'll get used to it.* The Great American Herd is very malleable. They'll squawk at first, but they'll come around.
> 
> Rich


Not when you're retired and trying (Note trying) to live off a fixed income.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Drucifer said:


> Not when you're retired and trying (Note trying) to live off a fixed income.


Basically this change increases the cost to new customers who have only SD TVs by $6/month, since they'd now have to pay for that first receiver. That will make Directv slightly more expensive for these customers compared to the competition. Where I live the "basic cable" is lot cheaper than the cheapest Directv or Dish setup anyway ($13.95/month, no set top box needed for a cable ready TV) but for people who live outside areas served by cable it will come down to Dish vs Directv. I don't how how that compares, but Dish can either take more of these low end customers, or they can raise their entry price in a similar manner and more of those customers will cut the cord.

The price of television has been increasing a lot faster than inflation for many years now, this is just a symptom of that - and cord cutting is one of the results.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Only some cable systems still have analog at least some others have clear QAM. But some like comcast you need a box or cable card to get anything.


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

If people can afford to pay for Directv then they can certainly afford to buy a new HDTV.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mkdtv21 said:


> If people can afford to pay for Directv then they can certainly afford to buy a new HDTV.


Perhaps not both. But DirecTV is not requiring new customers to have a HDTV, they are requiring them to use DirecTV HD equipment and pay the lease fee on the first receiver. Actually having a HDTV is optional.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

When Directv is slicing on $10 HD they're making up for it on the $6 fee first receiver, That's not good practice when that customer sees, The 1 DVR or 1 HD only while still being charged for WH, then sees the lease fee for 1 box, While other TV providers have it waived, I could see it now Dish will say, Come with us we don't charge you monthly fees for the first box, plus we don't charge you for HD for 2 years, And we have SEC Network, because i'm pretty sure that $10 will return after 12 months.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Is one way of looking at it is you are only paying $1 for MRV than with the old pricing plan and DTV deciding to add $6 for the first mirroring fee you are saving $4 a month? Would if people on the old pricing plan would say this is a good deal? It sounds good to me. We are still on the $10 HD and $10 DVR fee plan. What happens if someone wanted to add MRV? Would they still have to pay $5 for MRV or could they ask for the new pricing?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> Only some cable systems still have analog at least some others have clear QAM. But some like comcast you need a box or cable card to get anything.


True, but I think cable companies are required to make free/cheap DTAs (the tiny little boxes the size of a pack of cards) available for those on the basic plan. Or if not free at least very low cost. My cable company offered two free DTAs to all customers regardless of what tier they were on several years ago. They didn't charge anything for their use either, but the beginning of this year they started charging $1.99/month if you're using it. Not sure if that $1.99 charge will include the people on the basic tier when they drop analog channels (I think late this year or early next) I suspect not, but I'm not sure.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

For new customers it seems pretty easy now. Its $6 for each outlet, or TV connected, and then $15 a month if you want any DVRs. No mor Whole Home Service fee, just DVR fee went to 15 and includes the Whole Home Service feel, since you will never see that separated out again.

That makes it $4 cheaper than what the cost is today. And nothing stops them from randomly giving peope, $10 a month discounts for a year or two as they do now anyway. I just don't see the issue. If fact I see it as a positive. 

My biggest complaint is that they won't just move everyone to this fee structure and be done with it. Even me on the old plan, as I pay $23 and if I got switched I'd pay $21. Not programing itself, but hardware, I think they should just move everyone to it and be done. 

Then also realize when offering upgrades to Hi Definition peoples monthly charges will not change as long as they don't change from a DVR to a DVR system. That would be huge in getting people to upgrade to Hi Definition, if the only cost was one time upfront costs,which half the time they do for free anyway.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

There is no way I believe we will see a $4 decrease. Sorry but don't believe it.
This is unconfirmed information for one, two your paying for it somewhere else.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

A little birdie told me this 

· We take our first step in this transition on July 24, when DirecTV will begin exclusively offering HD equipment to any new residential customers. These new customer may only receive SD programming but will receive HD equipment.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Well of course we have already seen it with their yearly price increases and channels moving to higher packages! 

So what peds, then they will charge $4 a month for Hi Definition if those people want to get Hi Definition? I have a hard time buying they want to charge people 16 instead of 10 going forward for Hi Definition. That's too big a jump.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

We might have to wait a bit to see how things shake out. The installers don't do the billing, and the billing department doesn't do the installs, so we'll have to see how it all fits together.

I could see that $4 decrease for new customers only because Directv gives away so much stuff to new customers anyway, they can easily make that up by giving them a bit less - and because the Genie will be cheaper to make now than it was when they first started doing free Genie promos.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

peds48 said:


> A little birdie told me this
> 
> · We take our first step in this transition on July 24, when DirecTV will begin exclusively offering HD equipment to any new residential customers. These new customer may only receive SD programming but will receive HD equipment.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This is logical and what I expected. It sounds like the same thing they do in MPEG4 locals markets, you get an HD receiver or DVR but if you dont subscribe to HD programming it is locked to 480i output. Whatever billing is doing for packages and fees is independent of what is installed


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

Rich said:


> I cannot imagine why people who can afford HD TVs don't have an HD feed. But I have to admit I did have a couple of HD TVs for a year or three and didn't have an HD feed. I know I do dumb things, but as soon as I identify something I'm doing as "dumb" I quickly rectify that. As soon as I put an HR on one of my poorly researched Sony HD TVs (they were both CRTs and even tho both were huge they were built for SD and had small HD screens) I knew I had made a mistake and that mistake, added to the fact that the TVs and HRs didn't get along at all while using the very necessary HDMI cables, caused me to switch to Panny plasmas. That turned out quite well. I never seem to take the easy path. :nono2:
> 
> Rich


On my part, insufficient line of sight.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> I could see that $4 decrease for new customers ...


More of a $6 increase (no discount for first receiver). Think of people who want SD and have to pay more, not people who think they are getting a deal on HD. Listen to the birdie:


peds48 said:


> These new customer may only receive SD programming but will receive HD equipment.


We will know more in 17 days ... or less if the advertising is seen early. For those who have posted in the past that they believe there should be a penalty for SD subscribers ... I believe that penalty is near. With new customer offers the additional fee for HD could still be $10 more than SD - the cost is buried in the promos. (Buried in plain sight ... but "I don't have to pay that for a year or two years" takes the edge off.)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> More of a $6 increase (no discount for first receiver). Think of people who want SD and have to pay more, not people who think they are getting a deal on HD. Listen to the birdie:
> 
> We will know more in 17 days ... or less if the advertising is seen early. For those who have posted in the past that they believe there should be a penalty for SD subscribers ... I believe that penalty is near. With new customer offers the additional fee for HD could still be $10 more than SD - the cost is buried in the promos. (Buried in plain sight ... but "I don't have to pay that for a year or two years" takes the edge off.)


It is an SD penalty compared to previous(current) pricing, but it also means cost parity between SD and HD which will make it irrelevant to lock outputs to 480i as longrider suggests.

If it is true that the Advanced Receiver fee for new customers goes from $25 to $15, it is hard to see how there could still be a HD fee, unless you're trying to claim that Directv is going to break out the HD fee as separate for them and undo what they did when they created the combined ARF.

Providers can always hide price increases a year or two down the line, by raising package prices or withholding discounts that customers may have become accustomed to. This is something any of them can do, it is by no means unique to Directv. The only place where you don't have to worry about this is for internet service, where offers for guaranteed pricing for five years or for life are common. Of course that's not a particularly good deal, because pricing for internet service has been dropping over time


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> More of a $6 increase (no discount for first receiver). Think of people who want SD and have to pay more, not people who think they are getting a deal on HD. Listen to the birdie:
> 
> We will know more in 17 days ...


There is more where that came from, but I can't spill all the beans at once.....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> If it is true that the Advanced Receiver fee for new customers goes from $25 to $15, it is hard to see how there could still be a HD fee, unless you're trying to claim that Directv is going to break out the HD fee as separate for them and undo what they did when they created the combined ARF.


I do not expect to see DirecTV reduce their fees for current subscribers. I am not willing to predict tens of millions of dollars in fee reductions. Sure, it seems one can get a deal if one calls in and threatens to cancel ... but those deals are limited to the noisy minority (for lack of a better term) and can come with strings such as extending contracts. But DirecTV giving a $10 across the board cut to anyone currently paying for HD? Money given away for nothing in return?

Allowing new customers to get HD for $4 less than current customers is just going to annoy current customers. The "fair" thing to do would be to charge new customers for HD. I predict two Advanced Receiver Fees ... a $15 one for SD (new customers only) and the current $25 for HD. For the time being I expect DirecTV will simply not authorize HD channels for SD customers - instead of locking receivers to 480i. If customers want the higher bandwidth of HD feeds let them pay for HD service.

Back to current customers: If the Advanced Receiver fee is reduced to $15 across the board (new and old customers) how would DirecTV handle customers currently receiving the $10 credit? Cancel the credit and spend a lot of time on the phone explaining why the credit disappeared from the bill? People who notice and complain that "my credit is missing" without noticing the offset in the fee the credit was being applied against? People that even after it is explained to them are still upset at the change? It is much cleaner to leave existing customers alone and let them pay the fees and receive the credits on their current bills. The $25 Advanced Receiver fee lives on ... new customers get a different $15 fee.

The bottom line is that this program is to help DirecTV (not their customers) get away from SD equipment: Step 1 - stop installing SD equipment. Giving permanent discounts to new HD customers or giving discounts to existing customers with HD is not the goal - getting rid of SD equipment on new installs is the goal.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Agree


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

I feel like there will be a lot of people that complain about the way the HD Guide looks on an SD TV .

I had a post on here about a friend of mine and her troubles reading the HD Guide on an SD TV.
She was going to have them come back and take her system out she and her husband were so unhappy.
Luckily, her TV set died and she got a new 55" Samsung and got the HD service.

If they put an SD Guide in the software that should make a huge difference .


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

James Long said:


> I do not expect to see DirecTV reduce their fees for current subscribers. I am not willing to predict tens of millions of dollars in fee reductions. Sure, it seems one can get a deal if one calls in and threatens to cancel ... but those deals are limited to the noisy minority (for lack of a better term) and can come with strings such as extending contracts. But DirecTV giving a $10 across the board cut to anyone currently paying for HD? Money given away for nothing in return?
> 
> Allowing new customers to get HD for $4 less than current customers is just going to annoy current customers. The "fair" thing to do would be to charge new customers for HD. I predict two Advanced Receiver Fees ... a $15 one for SD (new customers only) and the current $25 for HD. For the time being I expect DirecTV will simply not authorize HD channels for SD customers - instead of locking receivers to 480i. If customers want the higher bandwidth of HD feeds let them pay for HD service.
> 
> ...


Which is what I have contended for years they should be doing. I was told back then that I was wrong. Now everyone seems to be agreeing with me.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

If you think the billing Practice is going to go down -Just wait till the AT&T purchase complete's -Then the D* customer becomes a real "CASH COW" this is just to get everyone ready for the added value treatment that AT&T will impose.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> I do not expect to see DirecTV reduce their fees for current subscribers. I am not willing to predict tens of millions of dollars in fee reductions. Sure, it seems one can get a deal if one calls in and threatens to cancel ... but those deals are limited to the noisy minority (for lack of a better term) and can come with strings such as extending contracts. But DirecTV giving a $10 across the board cut to anyone currently paying for HD? Money given away for nothing in return?
> 
> Allowing new customers to get HD for $4 less than current customers is just going to annoy current customers. The "fair" thing to do would be to charge new customers for HD. I predict two Advanced Receiver Fees ... a $15 one for SD (new customers only) and the current $25 for HD. For the time being I expect DirecTV will simply not authorize HD channels for SD customers - instead of locking receivers to 480i. If customers want the higher bandwidth of HD feeds let them pay for HD service.
> 
> ...


The information from the other forum was that this was for new customers only. Nothing will change for existing customers, they'll be billed the same way they are today.

Why would existing customers be any more bent out of shape about new subscribers getting $4/month less than they are about all the other stuff that new customers get, from Directv and even moreso from cable TV providers? It is pretty well established that new customers get the best deals. For a lot of existing customers it is only a $2 difference because they're paying $23 via separate fees instead of the $25 ARF. It isn't that hard for existing customers to call in and whine/threaten their way to some sort of discount that would easily exceed a $2-$4 difference.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

studechip said:


> Which is what I have contended for years they should be doing. I was told back then that I was wrong. Now everyone seems to be agreeing with me.


They are doing it on their own schedule, based on their own readings of what customers want, hardware cost, etc.

Given that even in the previous quarter a third of new customer installs were SD only, the ideas of people here who have had HD TVs/receivers for many years and can't understand why anyone would want to subscribe to SD only don't apply to what Directv decides to do.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

WestDC said:


> If you think the billing Practice is going to go down -Just wait till the AT&T purchase complete's -Then the D* customer becomes a real "CASH COW" this is just to get everyone ready for the added value treatment that AT&T will impose.


Sadly, I agree. I initially said I saw nothing good coming out of the merger and I haven't changed my mind.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich, I hope you aren't surprised. Most of these mergers are not at all about the customer benefits.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Rich, I hope you aren't surprised. Most of these mergers are not at all about the customer benefits.


Not surprised at all, what would surprise me is if the service got better. And the costs remained the same. My wife and I have been thru several mergers and nothing good really happened on our side.

I was long gone from Union Carbide when Dow bought them out, but I've talked to a lot of the people that stayed and they were...I guess horrified would be the best word. Dow actually expected them to work! They're all gone now.

Rich


----------



## WB4CS (Dec 12, 2013)

jimmie57 said:


> I feel like there will be a lot of people that complain about the way the HD Guide looks on an SD TV .
> 
> I had a post on here about a friend of mine and her troubles reading the HD Guide on an SD TV.
> She was going to have them come back and take her system out she and her husband were so unhappy.
> ...


I have a 36" SD TV in the guest bedroom at home connected to a Genie Mini receiver. It outputs at 480i (or 480p can't remember) and I have it set to view only the SD channels. I don't use that TV very often, but I don't remember ever having an issue with the guide. It's a little small, but I'm also used to seeing it on my 51" TV in the living room, so everything looks a little smaller on the SD TV in the guest room. What troubles was she having with the guide?


----------



## WB4CS (Dec 12, 2013)

Side note, I'm surprised that our friend on the forum that is anti-HD hasn't commented on this thread. I'm really interested to hear his opinion on this move from DirecTV.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

WB4CS said:


> Side note, I'm surprised that our friend on the forum that is anti-HD hasn't commented on this thread. I'm really interested to hear his opinion on this move from DirecTV.


Say What? :rolling:

Rich


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Yeah where is the dude?

Anyway I think this is great. Wish they started it sooner, but at least they are starting it.


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

Oofda.

What a headache looming (someday) for my SeniorTV head I maintain.

Might suggest to management they start saving their nickels for a whole new head instead of an eventual refit of the cabinets with all HD receivers and modulators.

BTW, do we have compact, affordable ATSC or QAM HD modulators yet ?? Management won't pony up $80,000 for HD modulators, even if the inmates (term of endearment) take staff members hostage and slit their throats till the TV is turned back on.

:eek2:


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

gov said:


> Oofda.
> 
> What a headache looming (someday) for my SeniorTV head I maintain.
> 
> ...


I would definitely not worry about for a few years at least. While SD receivers are being stopped for new installs it will be couple years at least before they start converting entire markets (let churn do its job here). Even then it will be years more before they turn off the SD broadcasts


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

gov said:


> BTW, do we have compact, affordable ATSC or QAM HD modulators yet ?? Management won't pony up $80,000 for HD modulators, even if the inmates (term of endearment) take staff members hostage and slit their throats till the TV is turned back on.


OK, I am flat out whooshed...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> OK, I am flat out whooshed...


Me too, too much for my poor mind to wrap itself around.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

gov said:


> Oofda.
> 
> What a headache looming (someday) for my SeniorTV head I maintain.
> 
> ...


Why is this an issue? What stops you from using the composite output on HD receivers and continue with the same system?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Why is this an issue? What stops you from using the composite output on HD receivers and continue with the same system?


Ooh, more whooshies.

Rich


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

gov said:


> ...BTW, do we have compact, affordable ATSC or QAM HD modulators yet ?? Management won't pony up $80,000 for HD modulators, even if the inmates (term of endearment) take staff members hostage and slit their throats till the TV is turned back on...


Here are a few in the $700 to $1000 range...lowest prices I've seen:

http://www.aliexpress.com/popular/atsc-modulator.html


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

If I am tasked with rebuilding the darn thing, I'm a only be gonna doing it ONCE!

Crikey, people everywhere think I lead a life of idle luxury sipping Long Island Ice Teas during the long weeks between TV jobs!!


:coffee


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

gov said:


> Oofda.
> 
> What a headache looming (someday) for my SeniorTV head I maintain.
> 
> ...


Have you talked to DirecTV about the hotel system they have now? They are distributing HD to hotel rooms. No idea how much it costs, though.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C said:


> Here are a few in the $700 to $1000 range...lowest prices I've seen:
> 
> http://www.aliexpress.com/popular/atsc-modulator.html


But that's per channel. Want 50 channels? Then its $35-$50K.

There's no reason these should still cost so much. I'm really surprised there aren't cheap Chinese QAM modulators that skirt the IP issues costing a hundred bucks or so. Not that gov could use those for his work, but that would bring their cost low enough to be usable in the home.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> But that's per channel. Want 50 channels? Then its $35-$50K.
> 
> There's no reason these should still cost so much. I'm really surprised there aren't cheap Chinese QAM modulators that skirt the IP issues costing a hundred bucks or so. Not that gov could use those for his work, but that would bring their cost low enough to be usable in the home.


also you may have to upgrade the cabling / splitter / taps as well. Also need to have QAM tv's and get rid of all of the old analog stuff or get QAM to analog boxes for the older tv's


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> also you may have to upgrade the cabling / splitter / taps as well. Also need to have QAM tv's and get rid of all of the old analog stuff or get QAM to analog boxes for the older tv's


Frequencies would be the same as the analog system (assuming it replaces it and you don't try to run both in parallel for a time) so you shouldn't need to upgrade any of that stuff. Analog requires a higher SNR for a "perfect" picture than QAM256, so assuming the picture is good now you should be fine. If it is a bit snowy, then you'd need to do whatever was necessary to address that.

If the residents own their own TVs then you're right, you'd need some sort of QAM to analog solution for those who don't upgrade to HD.


----------



## DR2420 (Jun 12, 2012)

I was just speaking to a lady from the retention department and she said the $10 HD fee will be coming off the bill on the next billing cycle, as a current customer. Does that mean we will be charged for the first receiver because of this?


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

I thought that was for new customers only. Existing customers will continue to be billed the old way.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

My AT-9 dish was upgraded to a Slimline today. The tech said he had a few 19 in. dishes left on his truck but no more were coming into the warehouse and when those were gone, all new customers would get Slimlines.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Time will tell, but i wouldn't be surprised if at some point they convert us all to that.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

If it does then that's 4 bucks savings on every subs new or current. At some point that HD fee have to go away.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

acostapimps said:


> If it does then that's 4 bucks savings on every subs new or current. At some point that HD fee have to go away.


It won't go away, it will just be hidden in something else. DIRECTV would never give up that revenue stream.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RAD said:


> It won't go away, it will just be hidden in something else. DIRECTV would never give up that revenue stream.


Truth!

Rich


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I just hope DTV has a plan about dealing with HD being more susceptible to rain fade.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

CraigerM said:


> I just hope DTV has a plan about dealing with HD being more susceptible to rain fade.


That would take a whole different technology and I doubt that is going to happen. Heck, they brag about how little bit of time the system is down from rain fade. And actually if you calculate the down time vs 24hrs per day , 365 days per year, it is actually a very small amount. I think my cable internet is out more than the DTV is.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

CraigerM said:


> I just hope DTV has a plan about dealing with HD being more susceptible to rain fade.


Can't fight with the laws of physics....unless you want a BUD on your roof


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> . And actually if you calculate the down time vs 24hrs per day , 365 days per year, it is actually a very small amount. I think my cable internet is out more than the DTV is.


Correct, even if you rTV went out for 24 hours in an entire year, that will be less then 1% which is what DirecTV® advertises, 99% reliability


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Wasn't their a post in here about KU being better at rain fade?


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> Wasn't their a post in here about KU being better at rain fade?


KU is less susceptible to rain fade and the most logical thing to do once all SD broadcasts are turned off would be to move the most popular HD channels to KU transponders and the larger market locals to KU spotbeams. However the turnoff of SD broadcasts is still years away, the current step of only installing KA capable equipment is just the first step in the process


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Cable may not have rain fade but DBS doesn't have car ran into the poll and break the cable line (or neighbor dug a hole in his yard and cut my cable feed).


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Cable is better than it used to be, but many more factors can cause an outage verses satellite.
We had one outage this year for 30 minutes, and NONE last year.
But hurricane Sandy, 1 week.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

RAD said:


> Cable may not have rain fade but DBS doesn't have car ran into the poll and break the cable line (or neighbor dug a hole in his yard and cut my cable feed).


With DTV one way of looking at it is you would know when it could go out and when it would come back on. With Cable it could go out for hours and you would have to wait for it to come back on. Or if like you said if the line gets cut. You wouldn't have to worry about the DTV line being cut, unless its poll mounted. The only thing I don't like if say I was watching one of my favorite shows during a critical moment when a downpour happens. I still like how DTV's HD's quality is the best.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> With DTV one way of looking at it is you would know when it could go out and when it would come back on. With Cable it could go out for hours and you would have to wait for it to come back on. Or if like you said if the line gets cut. You wouldn't have to worry about the DTV line being cut, unless its poll mounted. The only thing I don't like if say I was watching one of my favorite shows during a critical moment when a downpour happens. I still like how DTV's HD's quality is the best.


But, at least many times, unless it's network, things reair and DirecTV warns you if you start playing back a recording that signal was lost while recording it. That helps.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

Rich said:


> Good, it's about time. I don't like forcing people to change, but missing out on HD is not a good thing, I think.


Im sorry but HD is just a gimmick to make more $$$$ I HAVE ZERO INTEREST IN IT ..

Standard Def is fine by me like it always has been


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

We were wondering where you were! 

The thing is, overall, you're in a bit of a minority on this one (probably more so on other items). Now, something like 3D, that's a gimmick.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Dude111 said:


> Im sorry but HD is just a gimmick to make more $$$$ . I HAVE ZERO INTEREST IN IT ..
> 
> Standard Def is fine by me like it always has been!


Standard Def sucks.
There is not only a clear difference, but also way more channels available that don't exist with SD packages.

But I do think it's a premium, when it really shouldn't be.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Bit of a minority! I love understatement.... But 1960 was a very good year.....


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Bit of a minority! I love understatement.... But 1960 was a very good year.....


Compared to his view on VHS, yes. Now, if I were an audiophile I might agree on LP vs MP3 or CD etc.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Dude111 said:


> Im sorry but HD is just a gimmick to make more $$$$ . I HAVE ZERO INTEREST IN IT ..
> 
> Standard Def is fine by me like it always has been!


It may be a way to make more money, but is FAR away from a gimmick.

GIMMICK - 

n. A device employed to cheat, deceive, or trick, especially a mechanism for the secret and dishonest control of gambling apparatus.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

peds48 said:


> It may be a way to make more money, but is FAR away from a gimmick.
> 
> GIMMICK -
> 
> n. A device employed to cheat, deceive, or trick, especially a mechanism for the secret and dishonest control of gambling apparatus.


Agree, 100%, HD is no gimmick, just as automobiles aren't a gimmick over horse and carriage..... (But there are more definitions of "gimmick". )


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I think of "gimmick" as having a feature for the sake of having a special feature to separate yourself from the competition (or as a me too) without much or any real function. Some of the Samsung features on their smartphones are like this, for most users like eye scrolling. Electric shocks in theaters showing "The Tingler" fall in this category.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> Agree, 100%, HD is no gimmick, just as automobiles aren't a gimmick over horse and carriage..... *(But there are more definitions of "gimmick". )*


Right on! But they all boil down to be the same thing. Basically a "gimmick" is a form of "trickery" to make believe something is better. HD is by far does not fall in that category


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

I have NO SD channels in my favorites since I switched to HD service in 2009.
HD is Awesome !
SD is Dying a slow death.
One day we will all laugh about it like we did when the color TVs came out and we had been watching the black and white ones.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

jimmie57 said:


> I have NO SD channels in my favorites since I switched to HD service in 2009.
> HD is Awesome !
> SD is Dying a slow death.
> One day we will all laugh about it like we did when the color TVs came out and we had been watching the black and white ones.


The key word is SLOW, very slow, as in years.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

joed32 said:


> The key word is SLOW, very slow, as in years.


With the death of production of the SD TV I would say it is like the Monkey that got his tail caught in a Meat Grinder said,
"It won't be long now".


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Right on! But they all boil down to be the same thing. Basically a "gimmick" is a form of "trickery" to make believe something is better. HD is by far does not fall in that category


If the picture quality exceeds the display capability of the customer (including all of the physical viewing limitations mentioned in the UHD thread for screen size and viewing distance) then HD could, on an individual level, be considered a trick to make more money. There are people who don't get any benefit out of HD. At least any benefit beyond what they should be getting with a best quality SD signal.

HD is better than SD ... just like a Lamborghini or Porsche is better than a VW Golf. But when the car salesman says you absolutely NEED a Lamborghini or Porsche when a Golf will work fine that salesman will resort to trickery. The same sort of trickery that TV carriers use to make people pay more for a higher quality signal regardless of the customers personal needs.

On a different level there is the question of whether or not DirecTV needs to charge for HD. The cost of delivering HD vs SD are lost in bookkeeping. Sure, the fancy new satellites and switching equipment all cost money but that cost is the same whether DirecTV has one HD customer per market or a million. They have spent that money. DirecTV could argue that the receivers and dishes cost more and charge (as the have) a "technology fee" related to HD. But when SD customers are given the same equipment as HD customers are the technology costs not the same?

DirecTV does not want to lose the fee they have been charging for HD. They don't want to lose $10 per HD customer ... so they need to find a way to keep that income. And I'm sure that they will.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I know the merger is a long ways off but I wonder what the equipment prices will be after its complete? Will they match the UVerse side, DTV's or something in between?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Dude111 said:


> Im sorry but HD is just a gimmick to make more $$$$ . I HAVE ZERO INTEREST IN IT ..
> 
> Standard Def is fine by me like it always has been!


All I can say is, remember how annoyed you were that Directv made you replace your old MPG receiver a few months back? In a few years (it is not known when at this point) they'll be forcing you to _replace that replacement receiver_ with a HD receiver, and replace your dish with a HD dish.

If you don't like it when that happens, maybe you should check with your local cable company to see if they still offer SD.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

jimmie57 said:


> With the death of production of the SD TV I would say it is like the Monkey that got his tail caught in a Meat Grinder said,
> "It won't be long now".


And how many have HD TVs but not HD service? Last I looked, it wasn't an insignificant number.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

jimmie57 said:


> With the death of production of the SD TV I would say it is like the Monkey that got his tail caught in a Meat Grinder said,
> "It won't be long now".


Not our circus....not our monkey.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Cars are just a gimmick, I will keep my horse and buggy thank you.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> If the picture quality exceeds the display capability of the customer (including all of the physical viewing limitations mentioned in the UHD thread for screen size and viewing distance) *then HD could, on an individual level, be considered a trick to make more money.* There are people who don't get any benefit out of HD. At least any benefit beyond what they should be getting with a best quality SD signal.


No, because such customers are not required, as of right now, to get HD gear. So they pay less. No trickery there.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

PCampbell said:


> Cars are just a gimmick, I will keep my horse and buggy thank you.


I knew someone that had a similar thought on indoor plumbing.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Can't fight with the laws of physics....unless you want a BUD on your roof


...and even then you are going to get two periods of "sun fade" each year for a few days as the sun is positioned directly behind the satellite and overwhelms it with it's own "radio noise".

These outages last a few minutes, but will happen over a few days or so, twice per year.

With a C band dish, I could follow the outages from one bird to another. With amateur radio antennas/frequencies, you could peak the noise on a receiver by rocking the antenna back and forth (assuming you had az/el mount). We use this noise to evaluate our antenna system, low noise preamps and coaxial cable loss. If you can't hear and peak "sun noise", then there is something wrong with your setup (as a ham radio op).


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

CraigerM said:


> With DTV one way of looking at it is you would know when it could go out and when it would come back on. With Cable it could go out for hours and you would have to wait for it to come back on. Or if like you said if the line gets cut. You wouldn't have to worry about the DTV line being cut, unless its poll mounted. The only thing I don't like if say I was watching one of my favorite shows during a critical moment when a downpour happens. I still like how DTV's HD's quality is the best.


This is the place where I wish DirecTV had their 'start from the beginning' feature. As it would be a very nice tool for rain fade.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> No, because such customers are not required, as of right now, to get HD gear. So they pay less. No trickery there.


The trick is to get people to pay $10 per month more with little to no benefit. In four days it appears that new SD customers will be paying $6 more to get equipment that they do not want. Can I repeat my comment in four days so you can eat that "as of right now" comment?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> The trick is to get people to pay $10 per month more with little to no benefit. In four days it appears that new SD customers will be paying $6 more to get equipment that they do not want. Can I repeat my comment in four days so you can eat that "as of right now" comment?


Well, if can can have the pleasure to see you eating your comment now, you can have your pleasure in four days :rotfl:


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

James Long said:


> The trick is to get people to pay $10 per month more with little to no benefit. In four days it appears that new SD customers will be paying $6 more to get equipment that they do not want. Can I repeat my comment in four days so you can eat that "as of right now" comment?


That's a rather large assumption as here are now what "SD" customer's will get that they didn't before:


MPEG 4 channels with much better picture quality
On Demand*
Whole Home*
Easier upgrade paths
A better experience overall with significantly reduced errors possible

So given all of those things there statistically has to be a group of people who would choose to save $6 over all of that but it's going to be significantly smaller than even the currently small % of SD installs.

With all of that said new customer's also won't know the difference unless they're a customer coming back.

* If they choose to have a DVR


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Joe Tylman said:


> That's a rather large assumption as here are now what "SD" customer's will get that they didn't before:


The benefit is diminished if they don't want it AND they have to pay extra for something they don't want.

BTW: Unless DirecTV opens up the HD channels to SD customers they won't get immediate benefit from MPEG4 except for a few PI channels.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

James Long said:


> The benefit is diminished if they don't want it AND they have to pay extra for something they don't want.
> 
> BTW: Unless DirecTV opens up the HD channels to SD customers they won't get immediate benefit from MPEG4 except for a few PI channels.


This is a silly argument. The obvious long game is that eventually there will not be a distinction between HD and SD, just like in the OTA world there's only ATSC/HD/Digital, analog is gone.

Yes, SD customers are "paying for something they don't use" by being forced to take HD equipment and/or HD programming, but that's the price of living in a society that is advancing technologically. People were forced to buy new TVs or get digital tuners for OTA. People were forced to buy new cell phones when phone companies shut down the old analog cell system.

And yes, SD customers will get benefit from MPEG4 in that DirecTV's capacity will increase when they are able to shut down MPEG2 feeds. It may not be immediate but the benefit is there. It's strange that a moderator of these forums wouldn't be able to see the benefit in eliminating the duplication of over half of DirecTV's lineup.


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

James Long said:


> The benefit is diminished if they don't want it AND they have to pay extra for something they don't want.
> 
> BTW: Unless DirecTV opens up the HD channels to SD customers they won't get immediate benefit from MPEG4 except for a few PI channels.


You keep saying SD and I'm trying to figure out why. Perhaps my use of it in quotes was not clear enough as I was only referring to the segment of customer's you chose to speak about. Also they're not going to pay more for something than they don't want because they're going to be paying the price of what it takes to get TV through DIRECTV and if they place the order than they clearly want DIRECTV.



JosephB said:


> This is a silly argument. The obvious long game is that eventually there will not be a distinction between HD and SD, just like in the OTA world there's only ATSC/HD/Digital, analog is gone.
> 
> Yes, SD customers are "paying for something they don't use" by being forced to take HD equipment and/or HD programming, but that's the price of living in a society that is advancing technologically. People were forced to buy new TVs or get digital tuners for OTA. People were forced to buy new cell phones when phone companies shut down the old analog cell system.
> 
> And yes, SD customers will get benefit from MPEG4 in that DirecTV's capacity will increase when they are able to shut down MPEG2 feeds. It may not be immediate but the benefit is there. It's strange that a moderator of these forums wouldn't be able to see the benefit in eliminating the duplication of over half of DirecTV's lineup.


He's a DISH sub and so mainly a DISH moderator. With that said I would hate it if the mods didn't express their opinion of what they wanted to talk about. He's just stuck on 2 letters that really don't have any relevance to this thread.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JosephB said:


> And yes, SD customers will get benefit from MPEG4 in that DirecTV's capacity will increase when they are able to shut down MPEG2 feeds. It may not be immediate but the benefit is there. It's strange that a moderator of these forums wouldn't be able to see the benefit in eliminating the duplication of over half of DirecTV's lineup.


I am a site moderator ... which is irrelevant to what I wrote so please do not allow that tag to cloud your understanding or distract you. My words are mine, based on subscribing to DBS for over a decade and following the industry for decades before that (yes, I have a BUD). And I certainly understand the benefit of getting rid of MPEG2 ... but I also know that getting rid of MPEG2 does not guarantee the SD versions of the channels go away. But that choice is far enough away for DirecTV that whatever predictions one would make today for "what happens to SD when DirecTV is all MPEG4" will be forgotten by the time DirecTV can make that decision.

I agree with you that eventually there will be a benefit ... but that benefit will not be seen Thursday. What will be seen Thursday (if reports are correct) is an effective $6 monthly increase for new customers being charged by a company that made $18.29 per month per subscriber in profit in 2013. ($17.23 in 2012, $15.51 in 2011, $14.26 in 2010.)



Joe Tylman said:


> Also they're not going to pay more for something than they don't want because they're going to be paying the price of what it takes to get TV through DIRECTV and if they place the order than they clearly want DIRECTV.


Semantics. But yes, the price of DirecTV is apparently going up for new subscribers. They will be charged for a Porsche when they just want (and only need) a Golf. Those who do not understand the SD marketplace may not care.

A few days back a poster who does understand and care about the SD subscriber tried to bring that to the group's attention. I was hoping to help explain his argument. There seems to be an attitude that everything should be in HD and anyone who watches SD is an idiot who should dry up and go away. I agree that everything should be available in HD and have posted that several times over the past few years. I do not agree that SD viewers are idiots or any other derogatory word that may be applied.

And while that specific term may not have been used as it would have led to moderation ... it is the attitude that I speak of - "get with the program, grandpa, HD is the way of the future". Perhaps it is, but higher prices are the way to other providers and cord cutting. The closer I get to being "grandpa" the more I feel for his plight.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

James Long said:


> Semantics. But yes, the price of DirecTV is apparently going up for new subscribers. They will be charged for a Porsche when they just want (and only need) a Golf. Those who do not understand the SD marketplace may not care.


I see that as a gross exaggeration. There are plenty of choices for obtaining service and watching TV...and $6 won't turn a Golf into a Porsche...not even close (not even figuratively).

Fact is costs keep going up on everything...so if $6 makes or breaks any subscriber's choice...perhaps they should seek a lower-cost alternative service (if they can get one). In the mean time...HD has been around a long time and is here to stay, but SD belongs in the Smithsonian.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I see that as a gross exaggeration. There are plenty of choices for obtaining service and watching TV...and $6 won't turn a Golf into a Porsche...not even close (not even figuratively).


It is a reference to a statement made earlier in the thread about receiver capabilities. Don't be so literal.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> Fact is costs keep going up on everything...so if $6 makes or breaks any subscriber's choice...perhaps they should seek a lower-cost alternative service (if they can get one). In the mean time...HD has been around a long time and is here to stay, but SD belongs in the Smithsonian.


OK ... another vote for "get with the program, grandpa, HD is the way of the future". 
Let me know when all SD duplicates are removed from DirecTV. See you in a few years ... maybe.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

James Long said:


> It is a reference to a statement made earlier in the thread about receiver capabilities. Don't be so literal.
> 
> OK ... another vote for "get with the program, grandpa, HD is the way of the future".
> Let me know when all SD duplicates are removed from DirecTV. See you in a few years ... maybe.


Yes, it is going to take a few years. Installing new accounts with HD equipment, even if the get SD programming is just the first step to getting all the subscribers prepared for the day when the SD Duplicate programming goes away.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

James Long said:


> I am a site moderator ... which is irrelevant to what I wrote so please do not allow that tag to cloud your understanding or distract you. My words are mine, based on subscribing to DBS for over a decade and following the industry for decades before that (yes, I have a BUD). And I certainly understand the benefit of getting rid of MPEG2 ... but I also know that getting rid of MPEG2 does not guarantee the SD versions of the channels go away. But that choice is far enough away for DirecTV that whatever predictions one would make today for "what happens to SD when DirecTV is all MPEG4" will be forgotten by the time DirecTV can make that decision.
> 
> I agree with you that eventually there will be a benefit ... but that benefit will not be seen Thursday. What will be seen Thursday (if reports are correct) is an effective $6 monthly increase for new customers being charged by a company that made $18.29 per month per subscriber in profit in 2013. ($17.23 in 2012, $15.51 in 2011, $14.26 in 2010.)
> 
> ...





James Long said:


> OK ... another vote for "get with the program, grandpa, HD is the way of the future".
> Let me know when all SD duplicates are removed from DirecTV. See you in a few years ... maybe.


But this transition is one that has to happen. You say it's "not clear" that SD feeds will go away when DirecTV goes all MPEG-4, but absolutely that IS clear. Why on Earth would they roll out all HD capable boxes to all customers that are able to downconvert to SD, only to keep duplicate channels up? They don't have to explicitly say what their end game is for you to know what it is.

And yes, "costs are going up" for new customers because they are "forced" to buy HD, but losing the distinction between HD and SD is better customer service, even if it costs more. My parents recently switched from U-Verse to Dish because they moved and U-Verse was not available. With U-Verse they were cheaping out and didn't get HD service even though they only had HDTVs. They don't know the difference, they only know they wanted the cheaper package. So, U-Verse looked like crap and they hated it but were in a contract. With Dish, they automatically got HD because if you order a certain class of equipment (Hopper) you automatically get put on HD. They never asked if they had an HD TV. Now they think Dish is the greatest thing since sliced bread because it looks so much better, EVEN THOUGH they get fewer channels for the same price they were paying U-Verse, or that they will have to pay more than U-Verse to get the channels they had before.

Same applies to cable. Charter in my town just recently went all digital and put HD auto-tune on their boxes. Now, just about every channel that offers an HD feed is on the system in HD, and if you type in the old SD number you get the HD channel. You can't buy cable without HD service, it's just part of the package.

In 2014, it's silly to differentiate between HD and SD services. It wastes bandwidth, and it creates confusion in the minds of the average consumer. Keep in mind that probably 19,994,000 of the 20 million DirecTV subscribers would never think to come to this or another internet message board much less have such a geeky/nerdy relationship with their TV service.

And while the benefits to the SD-only customer isn't happening immediately, this has to happen, and there has to be a lead time. They can't swap everyone's equipment out immediately. It's kind of like taking off a bandaid, but DirecTV can't rip it off all at once.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

James Long said:


> It is a reference to a statement made earlier in the thread about receiver capabilities. Don't be so literal.
> 
> OK ... another vote for "get with the program, grandpa, HD is the way of the future".
> Let me know when all SD duplicates are removed from DirecTV. See you in a few years ... maybe.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Not being literal...even stated as figuratively is a reach too...

HD has been around a long time...perhaps it's time to let the last millennium go....


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> I agree with you that eventually there will be a benefit ... but that benefit will not be seen Thursday. What will be seen Thursday (if reports are correct) is an effective $6 monthly increase for new customers being charged by a company that made $18.29 per month per subscriber in profit in 2013. ($17.23 in 2012, $15.51 in 2011, $14.26 in 2010.)


That profit per subscriber in dollars is obviously much higher for customers who are taking HD, whole home, higher packages, add ons like NFLST, etc. than it is for customers taking basic packages with SD equipment. Also, Directv offers all sorts of discounts to new subscribers, but for several years have only offered them for HD equipment. It might be a wash once these are factored in. Even if you're right and Directv is making all the wanna-be SD subscribers pay $6/month more, that's really Directv's problem not that of the new subscribers. If its a bad idea, those people will vote with their feet go elsewhere, like Dish, cable or become cord cutters.

As others pointed out, technology moves forward. You can't use your analog cell phone today, and AT&T is going to pull the plug on their 2G Edge network in 2017, at which point the original iPhone will no longer work as a phone. You can't run the latest applications on your Windows ME PC you bought in 2001, you can't run the latest apps on your smartphone that may only be 4 or 5 years old.

Since you know a lot more about Dish Network than I do, what is Dish's position on this? My understanding is that they have an eastern and western arc, and one of them is already MPEG4 only, the other is mixed MPEG2/MPEG4. That mixed network is going to have to be converted to MPEG4 at some point. Does Dish charge a HD fee? If not, did they ever and what happened to their other prices when they dropped it?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> That profit per subscriber in dollars is obviously much higher for customers who are taking HD, whole home, higher packages, add ons like NFLST, etc. than it is for customers taking basic packages with SD equipment. Also, Directv offers all sorts of discounts to new subscribers, but for several years have only offered them for HD equipment. It might be a wash once these are factored in. Even if you're right and Directv is making all the wanna-be SD subscribers pay $6/month more, that's really Directv's problem not that of the new subscribers. If its a bad idea, those people will vote with their feet go elsewhere, like Dish, cable or become cord cutters.
> 
> As others pointed out, technology moves forward. You can't use your analog cell phone today, and AT&T is going to pull the plug on their 2G Edge network in 2017, at which point the original iPhone will no longer work as a phone. You can't run the latest applications on your Windows ME PC you bought in 2001, you can't run the latest apps on your smartphone that may only be 4 or 5 years old.
> 
> Since you know a lot more about Dish Network than I do, what is Dish's position on this? My understanding is that they have an eastern and western arc, and one of them is already MPEG4 only, the other is mixed MPEG2/MPEG4. That mixed network is going to have to be converted to MPEG4 at some point. Does Dish charge a HD fee? If not, did they ever and what happened to their other prices when they dropped it?


Dish charges an HD fee . Don't let him fool you.
They also don't have an SD option for eastern arc. 
You can only use the Hopper or VIP receivers only.
And Dish is not going to lead customers to believe they can have SD only packages here.

You must ask and insist on SD services.
Been there done that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JosephB said:


> But this transition is one that has to happen. You say it's "not clear" that SD feeds will go away when DirecTV goes all MPEG-4, but absolutely that IS clear. Why on Earth would they roll out all HD capable boxes to all customers that are able to downconvert to SD, only to keep duplicate channels up? They don't have to explicitly say what their end game is for you to know what it is.


The logic is sound but all you have is the assumption that DirecTV will do what you believe is logical. DirecTV could convert the SD feeds to MPEG4 and leave them running if DirecTV wants to do that. Of course, they will have to wait until non-MPEG4 boxes are gone. It will be years before either of our opinions will be right.



slice1900 said:


> That profit per subscriber in dollars is obviously much higher for customers who are taking HD, whole home, higher packages, add ons like NFLST, etc. than it is for customers taking basic packages with SD equipment.


The numbers I have don't break out profit by customer type ... they are just simple division, profit divided by customers divided by months. Just like ARPU is simple math.



slice1900 said:


> Since you know a lot more about Dish Network than I do, what is Dish's position on this? My understanding is that they have an eastern and western arc, and one of them is already MPEG4 only, the other is mixed MPEG2/MPEG4. That mixed network is going to have to be converted to MPEG4 at some point. Does Dish charge a HD fee? If not, did they ever and what happened to their other prices when they dropped it?


DISH has a HD fee which up until last February was credited "for life" for new customers with autopay. The "for life" offers were also available to existing customers a few years ago. Their current offer is "for 24 months". I suppose if DirecTV gets away with "24 months" DISH can follow. Customers who are forced to get HD equipment because their locals are on the MPEG4 only Eastern Arc are not charged extra unless they subscribe to HD. DISH doesn't charge for the first receiver and that won't be changing on Thursday. 

And despite the ability of the HD receivers to output to a SD set DISH still has a full slate of SD channels on their MPEG4 only Eastern Arc. Not logical. Perhaps there is some weird contract thing going on. But MPEG4 only did not lead to the end of SD duplicates. We'll see if DirecTV does it differently in a few years.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Can a current customer call and request the new pricing? We are on the old plan of $10 HD and $10 DVR fee. It works out to just $1 more a month to add MRV. Does MRV require the internet to work or is it just over coax?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Dish charges an HD fee . Don't let him fool you.


No attempt has been made. Don't make false claims.



damondlt said:


> And Dish is not going to lead customers to believe they can have SD only packages here.
> 
> You must ask and insist on SD services.
> Been there done that.


Until asked it wasn't a question. There are certain packages that are ONLY in SD ... I'm not sure where you are getting your deception. It isn't from DISH or in this thread.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> And despite the ability of the HD receivers to output to a SD set DISH still has a full slate of SD channels on their MPEG4 only Eastern Arc. Not logical. Perhaps there is some weird contract thing going on. But MPEG4 only did not lead to the end of SD duplicates. We'll see if DirecTV does it differently in a few years.


Are there actually two separate MPEG4 broadcasts for all HD channels to provide a separate SD channel? Or does the guide just make it look like that? I could understand the latter, to avoid confusion between EA and WA.

If there are actually separate MPEG4 SD broadcasts I agree it is not logical, and pretty wasteful of bandwidth. Especially given that more and more networks are providing only a single MPEG4 HD feed (ESPN, for instance) so Dish would have to letterbox or stretch that 16:9 HD feed to create a MPEG4 4:3 SD channel which the receiver could just as well do itself.


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

Wow this thread got convoluted.


MPEG 4 is a compression standard not a resolution format
DIRECTV could go all MPEG 4 and still have channels that are not 16x9 and/or have a resolution of 480
Per the first post all new customers will get MPEG 4 only equipment
MPEG 4 only equipment means there will no longer be a distinction between SD or HD customer's (with the pricing that was reported in the first post)
The transition to MPEG 4 only is something both DBS companies have planned on their road maps
The only thing that would impact people with only SD TV's are going to that of line of sight with either provider


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

By the time DirecTV is at a point to be all MPEG-4, the need for SD feeds will be even less than it is now. If you think that DirecTV would, after all of this hullabaloo keep duplicated SD feeds up then I don't know what point we have discussing this further. More and more channels are simply using their HD feed downconverted and letterboxed for SD (like the Fox News and ESPN channels). If there's literally no difference, why keep two feeds up? I know we accuse cable and satellite executives of being stupid often, but they really aren't. They didn't build billion dollar companies by being complete morons.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

JosephB said:


> If there's literally no difference, why keep two feeds up?


Because currently SD only equipment is MPEG-2


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> Semantics. But yes, the price of DirecTV is apparently going up for new subscribers. They will be charged for a Porsche when they just want (and only need) a Golf. Those who do not understand the SD marketplace may not care.
> 
> A few days back a poster who does understand and care about the SD subscriber tried to bring that to the group's attention. I was hoping to help explain his argument. There seems to be an attitude that everything should be in HD and anyone who watches SD is an idiot who should dry up and go away. I agree that everything should be available in HD and have posted that several times over the past few years. I do not agree that SD viewers are idiots or any other derogatory word that may be applied.
> 
> And while that specific term may not have been used as it would have led to moderation ... it is the attitude that I speak of - "get with the program, grandpa, HD is the way of the future". Perhaps it is, but higher prices are the way to other providers and cord cutting. The closer I get to being "grandpa" the more I feel for his plight.


Let's take a step back for a moment and look at a bigger picture and compare what DIRECTV has done for years to what all the cable companies do.

Directv has always given the first outlet free and charged, a nominal amount for a second. Then over the years they added three additional fees. Hi Definition, DVR, and Whole Home Service. And those where all by account.

The rest of the industry prefers to do it different. They charge different prices for each outlet based on what receiver you have at each outlet. This can mean someone can be paying 20 or more per outlet if they have multiple Hi Definition DVRs in their system.

I would imagine more often the not the simple average customer was paying slightly more with cables fee system in place than DirecTVs if they had at least three boxes, and closer to equal if its one to two.

Earlier this year DIRECTV said they wanted to simplify bills. It's been posted now how they are changing them and it is IMHO a lot simpler, and makes,understanding certain things a lot easier.

One thing they did, is simply list how many outlets you use, and tell you its $6 for each. Then they tell you if you have advanced services.

Last year directv got rid of Whole Home Service fee. Only exsist ing customers still consider that fee as being separate. They made it 10 for Hi Definition and 15 for DVR and Whole Home Service, no longer separated out.

As of the 24th they are IMHO moving to a much simpler billing system. They decided to be a little more like cable and charge for every single outlet. So that's a change from the past. But then they decided the only add on for people to add anymore is DVR with Whole Home Service fee for $15.

Some will say that's $6 more for every sd customer that wants to sign up. I'd say so what? The only peope, that will pay more if they sign up after the 24 vs before is if they had been planning on only having sd. They have said flat out that sd is a minority of installs now vs Hi Definition. And more importantly, it will make it cheaper for them if they want to move to Hi Definition and or DVR! They will pay $4'less a month! And if you compare the costs of DIRECTV vs my local cable company that still and always has charged per outlet no matter what, again, their hardware fees are still the same or less with DIRECTV.

I am sure they have done the math and realized that the extra $6 a month from sd only customers going forward will more than offset the loss of $4 per New Hi Definition sub. Add in the fact that over time boxes become,cheaper and cheaper, I'm guessing that the cost of hardware and installation costs between sd and Hi Definition customers was so close that the difference in those costs will also be covered by the extra $6 a month. Also by producing more boxes of two platforms instead of four platforms I'm sure that will save on costs for the two continuing platforms.

I think DIRECTV saw this as the right time to both simply their system pricing AND begin the slow transition to get out of the sd buisness.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Are there actually two separate MPEG4 broadcasts for all HD channels to provide a separate SD channel? Or does the guide just make it look like that? I could understand the latter, to avoid confusion between EA and WA.


Separate feeds on different transponders.



Joe Tylman said:


> Wow this thread got convoluted.


It started with "Directv would start doing only HD installs for new customers beginning this summer." and the thread title is "Directv going HD only as of July 24th (?)". I suppose we will find out tomorrow if "MPEG4 only installs" means "HD only". 

And no, I'm not blaming slice for the confusion. That honor belongs to DirecTV for charging a $25 "advanced receiver fee" that includes their fee for HD instead of keeping it separate. Are they going to have a different $15 "advanced receiver fee" for the same equipment?


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

peds48 said:


> Because currently SD only equipment is MPEG-2


Yes, but at some point Directv will tell those "few" sd only equipment customers that you have to switch to mpeg4 equipment or you won't get service. Granted that day is many years off, but it will happen, IMNSHO.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

In their last quarterly earnings call Directv reported that two thirds of their new installs are Genie, and their churn for HD DVR customers was 9% lower than last quarter. Yearly churn (both HD and SD) is a little under 20%. So it sounds like most incoming customers are HD (over two thirds) and an increasing number of outgoing customers are SD, though the exact split between HD & SD isn't provided.

Hopefully in the next call in a few weeks they'll mention discontinuing SD installs and they'll state or someone will ask when they anticipate discontinuing MPEG2 broadcasts. But even if they don't provide a target date, if trends continue with an increasing number of SD only subscribers leaving relative to HD subscribers (due to budget, cord cutting, or getting a better low end deal elsewhere) natural attrition should drive down the number of SD subscribers to a level where they can force migration on the remainder in no more than three years.

I'll bet they discontinue SD broadcasts of premium channels and packages (HBO, NFLST, NHLCI etc.) by next summer. There can't be many subscribing to expensive packages in SD only. Of course there will be a lot of HD subscribers who have a SD receiver or two, but they're easy to migrate as Directv can simply ship replacements.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

peds48 said:


> Because currently SD only equipment is MPEG-2


I meant 5 years from now. Yes, I know that currently there is a lot of SD/MPEG2 only equipment out there. James made the argument that even after everyone has HD and MPEG4 capable equipment, regardless of the set its connected to, DirecTV might still leave SD duplicates up, and I don't think that will happen.


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

James Long said:


> Separate feeds on different transponders.
> 
> It started with "Directv would start doing only HD installs for new customers beginning this summer." and the thread title is "Directv going HD only as of July 24th (?)". I suppose we will find out tomorrow if "MPEG4 only installs" means "HD only".
> 
> And no, I'm not blaming slice for the confusion. That honor belongs to DirecTV for charging a $25 "advanced receiver fee" that includes their fee for HD instead of keeping it separate. Are they going to have a different $15 "advanced receiver fee" for the same equipment?


The only person I see continuing to talk about this is you. The title of the thread is wrong but I can understand why it was put up that way as most DIRECTV customer's assume MPEG 4 =HD so the point is still made to a decent enough effect.



JosephB said:


> I meant 5 years from now. Yes, I know that currently there is a lot of SD/MPEG2 only equipment out there. James made the argument that even after everyone has HD and MPEG4 capable equipment, regardless of the set its connected to, DirecTV might still leave SD duplicates up, and I don't think that will happen.


The only reason DIRECTV has SD duplicates is because of MPEG 2. Unlike most other providers their channel number system doesn't differentiate between SD/HD except for the -1 if you have both enabled. I would guess that DISH does it just to keep everything consistent regardless of what arc customer's are on. Once they go all MPEG 4 there would be no reason to duplicate them anymore, but only one arc is and I haven't seen them put out a % of how many customer's are on each arc.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

James Long said:


> Separate feeds on different transponders.
> 
> It started with "Directv would start doing only HD installs for new customers beginning this summer." and the thread title is "Directv going HD only as of July 24th (?)". I suppose we will find out tomorrow if "MPEG4 only installs" means "HD only".
> 
> And no, I'm not blaming slice for the confusion. That honor belongs to DirecTV for charging a $25 "advanced receiver fee" that includes their fee for HD instead of keeping it separate. Are they going to have a different $15 "advanced receiver fee" for the same equipment?


Well, the confusion only really exists here. Most people will order DirecTV service, get an HD box, and pay whatever that entails. Most people don't know what "other" things are offered or what all the various fees are. They call, order a certain package and DVR for certain number of TVs, and they're probably going to get a Genie.

Long game is that the differentiation between HD and SD goes away, and there's no different fees for the two, even if you only have SD televisions. It will be a little messy because you don't turn around a 20 million subscriber ship all at once.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

When I signed up for DirecTV as a new customer this past winter, their introductory offer reduced the regular $25 Advanced Receiver Fee down to $15 per month for my first 24 months. And I don't pay any fee for my first TV/receiver.

I'm wondering if tomorrow, when DirecTV will enact the new fee system for new subscribers (i.e. a regular Advanced Receiver Fee of $15 and a regular first TV charge of $6), if they will waive the $6 first TV fee for the first 24 months. If they don't waive it, then that means anyone considering signing up with DirecTV may want to do so today, because waiting until tomorrow to sign up would mean paying $144 more over the course of their first two years (assuming all other pricing and incentives remain the same).


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

Along with the idea of installing MPEG 4 equipment for all new subscribers, once the supply of receivers is built up, DirecTV could replace SD DVRs with MPEG 4 equipment as they are replaced, speeding up the transition. I'm currently on the second generation of both SD DVRs I have, with the understanding that they too will need to be replaced at some point. If they were replaced with MPEG 4 equipment that would be fine. Because of LOS issues, they would have to be used for SD only.

Maybe with more new installs getting the HR 34/44, that will leave the older 2X series DVRs to replace MPEG 2 equipment.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

crkeehn said:


> Because of LOS issues, they would have to be used for SD only.


If you don't have LOS, then this will mean the end for you as far as DirecTV® is concerned. They wont be able to install MPEG-4 equipment without the correct LOS, even though you don't need it


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

peds48 said:


> If you don't have LOS, then this will mean the end for you as far as DirecTV® is concerned. They wont be able to install MPEG-4 equipment without the correct LOS, even though you don't need it


I was confused by this part ("LOS") of the poster's statement as well.

But I think he was referring to rain fade issues, not LOS (or Line-Of-Sight).


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Joe Tylman said:


> The only person I see continuing to talk about this is you. *The title of the thread is wrong but I can understand why it was put up that way as most DIRECTV customer's assume MPEG 4 =HD so the point is still made to a decent enough effect.* ...


Confused here;

I thought starting tomorrow the deal is all new subscribers only get HD equipment from now on with HD programming enabled for a $15.00 ARF for DVRs and now a $6.00 charge for the primary receiver just like any additional ones?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

HoTat2 said:


> .
> 
> But I think he was referring to rain fade issues, not LOS (or Line-Of-Sight).


Well, "LOS issues" taken literally means there are issues seeing the satellites


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

HoTat2 said:


> Confused here;
> 
> I thought starting tomorrow the deal is all new subscribers only get HD equipment from now on with HD programming enabled for a $15.00 ARF for DVRs and now a $6.00 charge for the primary receiver just like any additional ones?


No, they get HD equipment but if they subscribe to SD only they would not get the HD channels. Basically this is an equipment "migration" not programming. Programming "migration" will sure come on a date "kind of" far away


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

peds48 said:


> No, they get HD equipment but if they subscribe to SD only they would not get the HD channels. Basically this is an equipment "migration" not programming. Programming "migration" will sure come on a date "kind of" far away


So if at a later time they choose to upgrade to HD programming, the charges revert to the current old pricing structure of a $25.00 ARF (for DVRs) and the primary receiver fee waived?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

peds48 said:


> If you don't have LOS, then this will mean the end for you as far as DirecTV® is concerned. They wont be able to install MPEG-4 equipment without the correct LOS, even though you don't need it


So how will they handle RV accounts, no more 101 auto tracking dishes will be allowed?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

RAD said:


> So how will they handle RV accounts, no more 101 auto tracking dishes will be allowed?


Its not known, but they'll still use the 101 satellite, it will broadcast MPEG4 HD programming. Theoretically they could put all the most watched and/or lower package channels on 101, and allow customers to use a 101 only dish for lower level packages like in a RV.

I did some back of the envelope calculations a while back, and probably 2/3 to 3/4 of the current list of non-PPV HD channels could fit on 101 at the same quality level as today if it was dedicated to MPEG4 HD programming. That's based on 26 CONUS tpns being available on 101, 44 CONUS tpns currently in use on 99/103, the reduced error correction requirement roughly balancing the reduced bandwidth per Ku tpn, and some 99/103 capacity being used for PPV and MPEG4 SD channels.

If you want stuff like MLBEI and NFLST to be available on RVs, you're looking at more like 1/2 to 2/3 of the current list, but that would still cover a lot of content. You probably wouldn't even miss much. If you drop one feed for channels with both a east coast and west coast feed, some of the extra channels for premiums like HBO and SHO, the content that's unavailable from 101 would be niche channels that only a few percent of people ever watch.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

slice1900 said:


> Its not known, but they'll still use the 101 satellite, it will broadcast MPEG4 HD programming. Theoretically they could put all the most watched and/or lower package channels on 101, and allow customers to use a 101 only dish for lower level packages like in a RV.
> 
> I did some back of the envelope calculations a while back, and probably 2/3 to 3/4 of the current list of non-PPV HD channels could fit on 101 at the same quality level as today if it was dedicated to MPEG4 HD programming. That's based on 26 CONUS tpns being available on 101, 44 CONUS tpns currently in use on 99/103, the reduced error correction requirement roughly balancing the reduced bandwidth per Ku tpn, and some 99/103 capacity being used for PPV and MPEG4 SD channels.
> 
> If you want stuff like MLBEI and NFLST to be available on RVs, you're looking at more like 1/2 to 2/3 of the current list, but that would still cover a lot of content. You probably wouldn't even miss much. If you drop one feed for channels with both a east coast and west coast feed, some of the extra channels for premiums like HBO and SHO, the content that's unavailable from 101 would be niche channels that only a few percent of people ever watch.


Just asking since Peds said no LOS to all 3 slots no service.


----------



## Rickt1962 (Jul 17, 2012)

peds48 said:


> Can't fight with the laws of physics....unless you want a BUD on your roof


Nahhh don't need the BUD people only need a small Antenna to receive HD channels OTA with out rain fade ! Just use a http://www.amazon.com/3500STBII-Multi-Function-Converter-Recording-Playback/dp/B00GOILYB6/ref=sr_1_18?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1402444570&sr=1-18&keywords=tv+with+qam+tuner#productDetails
For a DVR for Free and get basic Internet for XBMC and they will have everything for a fraction of the cost per month !


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

HoTat2 said:


> Confused here;
> 
> I thought starting tomorrow the deal is all new subscribers only get HD equipment from now on with HD programming enabled for a $15.00 ARF for DVRs and now a $6.00 charge for the primary receiver just like any additional ones?


When I read the title I saw that as the removal of SD channels or MPEG 2 channels for all customers.

The following would be slightly clearer:


DIRECTV only installing MPEG 4 equipment for new customers
DIRECTV no longer differentiating between HD/SD for new customers
Another phase of going MPEG 4 only coming
Cheesecake is awesome (ok not really clearer but it is awesome)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Joe Tylman said:


> The only person I see continuing to talk about this is you.


Perhaps you should read the posts I am replying to ... and the posts I'm not replying to that are still posting about HD only installs (as opposed to MPEG4 only installs). 



Joe Tylman said:


> ... most DIRECTV customer's assume MPEG 4 =HD ...


MPEG4 = HD is an incorrect assumption that should be corrected, not condoned. It is the type of assumption that leads people to believe that the PI channels in MPEG4 are "HD". Accuracy is better.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rickt1962 said:


> Nahhh don't need the BUD people only need a small Antenna to receive HD channels OTA with out rain fade ! Just use a http://www.amazon.com/3500STBII-Multi-Function-Converter-Recording-Playback/dp/B00GOILYB6/ref=sr_1_18?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1402444570&sr=1-18&keywords=tv+with+qam+tuner#productDetails
> For a DVR for Free and get basic Internet for XBMC and they will have everything for a fraction of the cost per month !


My post was in reference to Ka satellite signals, it had nothing to do with OTA. Two different animals. But go ahead and jump right in... :rotfl:


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

RAD said:


> Just asking since Peds said no LOS to all 3 slots no service.


In order to activate an HD receiver, you must have LOS to the required sats, don't forget about IV.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Joe Tylman said:


> When I read the title I saw that as the removal of SD channels or MPEG 2 channels for all customers.
> 
> The following would be slightly clearer:
> 
> ...


Which would be true? I do like cheesecake but some people may not. At this point the first is should be true, the third is true but esoteric and confusing, and the second has yet to be seen. I'd read "no longer differentiating between HD/SD for new customers" as "everyone gets HD channels" not "everyone gets HD (that's MPEG 4) equipment".


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

They should just remove the $10 monthly HD fee already for all customers, If 4k is the new future even though is HD also with higher resolution.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Morning has broken ... the low end receiver on the DirecTV website is a HD model (complete with $6 fee).

It looks like existing customers paying $25 advanced receiver fees or some combination of grandfathered fees get to pay more than new customers. And new customers who don't want HD do not get a choice. (Sorry grandpa.)


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

And because they are not turning HD on for everyone, they need to keep the SD duplicates indefinitely. They can't rely upon the receivers to down convert because I doubt they can lock a receiver to 480i output only. The only mechanism they have to control HD vs SD reception is in channel authorization. So the SD duplicates will be around until they decide to stop selling SD service.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Diana C said:


> And because they are not turning HD on for everyone, they need to keep the SD duplicates indefinitely. They can't rely upon the receivers to down convert because I doubt they can lock a receiver to 480i output only. The only mechanism they have to control HD vs SD reception is in channel authorization. So the SD duplicates will be around until they decide to stop selling SD service.


What makes you think that? They are able to detect 3D comparability and are able to turn off the premium movie channels based upon connection types. Why couldn't they turn off HD resolutions in software? I'm not saying they are now but who says they can't? In fact, we know they can. The only thing is the trigger mechanism.

The SD dupes will be around for a while, so they don't need to do anything now but you are making an assumption with no basis.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> Morning has broken ... the low end receiver on the DirecTV website is a HD model (complete with $6 fee).
> 
> It looks like existing customers paying $25 advanced receiver fees or some combination of grandfathered fees get to pay more than new customers. And new customers who don't want HD do not get a choice. (Sorry grandpa.)


Picking on us grandpas again?


----------



## revolg (Apr 7, 2012)

I think this is a good idea on directv helping the techs. It's a multi year conversion to hd. So the end result is hard to see. But with only carrying hd stuff takes half my inventory away thank god!!!!! 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Diana C said:


> And because they are not turning HD on for everyone, they need to keep the SD duplicates indefinitely. They can't rely upon the receivers to down convert because I doubt they can lock a receiver to 480i output only. The only mechanism they have to control HD vs SD reception is in channel authorization. So the SD duplicates will be around until they decide to stop selling SD service.


I think over time they will just get rid of the SD vs. HD pricing difference. Right now they have to keep SD duplicates anyway because of the old equipment in the field. It's advantageous since they can start getting HD gear out there, and gradually adjust pricing on the SD customers so that it converges with HD pricing over a long arc, instead of just dumping a $10 price increase instantly. Also, that price doesn't necessarily have to be $10 once every single customer is paying it, or when they wring some costs out of the system after the AT&T acquisition.

When everyone has HD equipment, there won't be an "HD Fee" and they will dump SD duplicates. Otherwise the whole exercise of getting everyone on HD-capable equipment is a waste of time, energy, and money.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Another small advantage to installing new customers with HD receivers if they also install the Slimline dishes with them is that there would be no "upgrade costs" to moving to HD. Just turn it on.
This would possibly make it an easier decision for someone to change from SD to HD programming.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

peds48 said:


> In order to activate an HD receiver, you must have LOS to the required sats, don't forget about IV.


Are installers involved when someone orders service for their RV? Since the dish is either built in or you set it up when you park, I figured there's no "install" as such for RVs. If that's the case, IV doesn't matter, though most people would be concerned when they see red Xs over 99 and 103 during setup. Maybe in this case they'd modify the software so if it sees only 101 and nothing else it doesn't show 99 and 103.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> Morning has broken ... the low end receiver on the DirecTV website is a HD model (complete with $6 fee).
> 
> It looks like existing customers paying $25 advanced receiver fees or some combination of grandfathered fees get to pay more than new customers. And new customers who don't want HD do not get a choice. (Sorry grandpa.)


New customers always get a better deal, so that's not new. If today's new customers hit the two year mark and they're still paying $4 less, then existing customers have a right to *****, but I would guess they'll make the same changes (dropping HD fee / $15 ARF and removing the $6 refund for the first receiver) for existing customers at some point.

They said they were going to simply the billing, removing one fee and removing the refund of another fee would make the billing more clear.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C said:


> And because they are not turning HD on for everyone, they need to keep the SD duplicates indefinitely. They can't rely upon the receivers to down convert because I doubt they can lock a receiver to 480i output only. The only mechanism they have to control HD vs SD reception is in channel authorization. So the SD duplicates will be around until they decide to stop selling SD service.


But they are turning on HD for all new customers, right? That's all that matters today. Upgrading the existing MPEG2 receivers is a separate issue, but they've taken the first step by not placing additional MPEG2 receivers or Ku only dishes in the field starting today. Even if they turned on HD for everyone today it would do little good, most of those who subscribe SD only have SD/MPEG2 only equipment. We'll have to wait for the next step to see where things go from here, but I already post my theory (no more premiums / pro sports networks like NFLST in SD by next summer)

I agree with tonyd79, there's no reason they couldn't lock HD receivers to 480i output only in software. Either remove the ability to switch resolutions, or disable the HDMI and component outputs. But I don't see why they would want to for new customers, since they no longer pay a HD fee, and get HD capable equipment, why should any of them be locked to SD only? Even if they had only SD TVs at installation time, they might get a shiny new HD TV for Christmas. An existing SD only customer, sure, they might want to lock them to SD only but whether they do it by enforcing channel selection or resolution selection or locking outputs is irrelevant. Nothing changed for them today, only for new customers.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

The only reason they would want to lock people into SD even if they have HD equipment would be if they pay the content providers additional $$ for HD feeds. There is evidence for this because they weren't activating HD channels in those markets where locals were MPEG-4 only and everyone, even SD customers, got MPEG-4 capable equipment and dishes.

I suspect if that is or was the case, it's likely going away over time. 

One other thing that is strange is that they are just now starting to standardize on Ka/Ku dishes and HD receivers, but in the next year or two they will be launching a new satellite with a payload that no one can currently receive. At what point do they start installing dishes and equipment for THAT, and will they jump directly to everyone getting a new RDBS/BSS dish or let you get a Ka/Ku only for a while and make the "new" stuff optional?


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

James Long said:


> Which would be true? I do like cheesecake but some people may not. At this point the first is should be true, the third is true but esoteric and confusing, and the second has yet to be seen. I'd read "no longer differentiating between HD/SD for new customers" as "everyone gets HD channels" not "everyone gets HD (that's MPEG 4) equipment".


All of them are true.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

JosephB said:


> The only reason they would want to lock people into SD even if they have HD equipment would be if they pay the content providers additional $$ for HD feeds. There is evidence for this because they weren't activating HD channels in those markets where locals were MPEG-4 only and everyone, even SD customers, got MPEG-4 capable equipment and dishes.
> 
> I suspect if that is or was the case, it's likely going away over time.
> 
> One other thing that is strange is that they are just now starting to standardize on Ka/Ku dishes and HD receivers, but in the next year or two they will be launching a new satellite with a payload that no one can currently receive. At what point do they start installing dishes and equipment for THAT, and will they jump directly to everyone getting a new RDBS/BSS dish or let you get a Ka/Ku only for a while and make the "new" stuff optional?


Isn't the next bird going into the 99 slot so it will be receivable with current Ka/Ku systems? Just as there is more than one HD bird at 103.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

If new customers don't want HD equipment or service, they can do HD install for now, then try to get a lease or owned D12 or R16 then switch out HD equipment, problem solved, Unless they don't allow that either. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Diana C said:


> And because they are not turning HD on for everyone, they need to keep the SD duplicates indefinitely. They can't rely upon the receivers to down convert because I doubt they can lock a receiver to 480i output only. The only mechanism they have to control HD vs SD reception is in channel authorization. So the SD duplicates will be around until they decide to stop selling SD service.


How did they do the R22? Was that just channel authorization on the access card?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JosephB said:


> One other thing that is strange is that they are just now starting to standardize on Ka/Ku dishes and HD receivers, but in the next year or two they will be launching a new satellite with a payload that no one can currently receive. At what point do they start installing dishes and equipment for THAT, and will they jump directly to everyone getting a new RDBS/BSS dish or let you get a Ka/Ku only for a while and make the "new" stuff optional?


The RDBS/BSS thing is still a mystery. The way I figure it there are one of two possible outcomes:

1) SWM LNBs have been designed from the start to receive it. Directv knew well before the first ones were designed/tested that they would be doing RDBS, and all they need is a slightly wider feedhorn for 99 and 103 (there have been patents showing this, so we know it to be true) Only four of the six possible SWM chip inputs are used for KaKu, the others could be used for 99 & 103 RDBS. They'd still have to upgrade everyone using legacy dishes and SWM16s, but that's a much smaller number to deal with. If someone posted pictures of the inside of one it might be possible to tell, by looking to see the connections between the feedhorn assembly and the SWM board, or counting the DROs on it (it would need more than the two the legacy LNB uses, or a complex frequency divider network)

2) RDBS will be used for niche content only, like private corporate channels, 4K, international programming (mirroring 95 and avoiding the need for that dish on new installs after RDBS is up and running) so most people won't need to receive it.

If I had to place a bet, I'd put my money on #1.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Are installers involved when someone orders service for their RV?


Techs are only supposed to install DirecTV® services in RVs that are permanent and have no wheels. But of course, some techs will install the service with a temporary dish, not me.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Maybe in this case they'd modify the software so if it sees only 101 and nothing else it doesn't show 99 and 103.


Aint happening, they are not going to modify software for a .01% of customers. DirecTV® wont give you a waivers just because of this reason


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Diana C said:


> They can't rely upon the receivers to down convert because I doubt they can lock a receiver to 480i output only.


It has been done with the R22


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

tonyd79 said:


> Isn't the next bird going into the 99 slot so it will be receivable with current Ka/Ku systems? Just as there is more than one HD bird at 103.


Yes, D14/RB-1 is destined for the 99 nominal slot.

I strongly suspect it will display (at least its Ka payload) as a new "99ca" s.s. screen with active transponders from 9-24 like its counterpart at 103, "103ca".

The current "99c" then likely becomes relabeled as "99cb"


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> The RDBS/BSS thing is still a mystery. The way I figure it there are one of two possible outcomes:
> 
> 1) SWM LNBs have been designed from the start to receive it. Directv knew well before the first ones were designed/tested that they would be doing RDBS, and all they need is a slightly wider feedhorn for 99 and 103 (there have been patents showing this, so we know it to be true) Only four of the six possible SWM chip inputs are used for KaKu, the others could be used for 99 & 103 RDBS. They'd still have to upgrade everyone using legacy dishes and SWM16s, but that's a much smaller number to deal with. If someone posted pictures of the inside of one it might be possible to tell, by looking to see the connections between the feedhorn assembly and the SWM board, or counting the DROs on it (it would need more than the two the legacy LNB uses, or a complex frequency divider network)
> 
> ...


Yeah. could be likely #1;

Officially though, all we've got from DIRECTV (that I'm aware of) for the RDBS customer equipment is the vaguest of vague statements in their recently filed milestone extension requests for RB-1 and 2;



> _... DIRECTV has also made significant progress with other elements of its [RDBS] system,_
> _including the construction of in-orbit test, TT&C and communications ground_
> _infrastructure at three of DIRECTV's existing uplink facilities (in Castle Rock, CO,_
> _New Hampton, NH, and Moxee, WA), *and development of new consumer*_
> *equipment capable of receiving and processing signals in the 17/24 GHz BSS band.*


Make of whatever this "new consumer equipment" is what you will ...


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

acostapimps said:


> If new customers don't want HD equipment or service, they can do HD install for now, then try to get a lease or owned D12 or R16 then switch out HD equipment, problem solved, Unless they don't allow that either.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk


I would "think" that if they are going to install HD in new installs that at the same time they would stop activating SD receivers.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Just checked the costs for a new subscriber. The new fee system put in place today amounts to $6 more per month for the first 24 months of service than what DirecTV had been charging new sign-ups in 2013 and 2014. So the change lowers monthly costs by $4 for some people (HD subscribers beyond their initial 24 month commitment) but it raises costs for others.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Just checked the costs for a new subscriber. The new fee system put in place today amounts to $6 more per month for the first 24 months of service than what DirecTV had been charging new sign-ups in 2013 and 2014. *So the change lowers monthly costs by $4 for some people (HD subscribers beyond their initial 24 month commitment) but it raises costs for others.*


Sorry to come off like a dolt on this new pricing;

But I'm still not getting all this;

Specifically, how does it lower the cost $4.00 for HD subscribers beyond their initial 24 month commitment?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Sorry to come off like a dolt on this new pricing;
> 
> But I'm still not getting all this;
> 
> Specifically, how does it lower the cost $4.00 for HD subscribers beyond their initial 24 month commitment?


There is no longer an Hi Definition fee for any new customers. So while they pay 6 more for receivers they pay 10 less for Hi Definition.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

jimmie57 said:


> I would "think" that if they are going to install HD in new installs that at the same time they would stop activating SD receivers.


Its way too early to do that. All the people with owned or leased but currently inactive SD receivers would be unable to reactivate - both those who are mixed SD/HD subscribers and those who are SD only subscribers. It will be some time before they stop activating existing SD receivers.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> Its way too early to do that. All the people with owned or leased but currently inactive SD receivers would be unable to reactivate - both those who are mixed SD/HD subscribers and those who are SD only subscribers. It will be some time before they stop activating existing SD receivers.


Since they are charging per TV now instead of Leased Receivers, what difference does it make if you have an Owned receiver ?


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> Its way too early to do that. All the people with owned or leased but currently inactive SD receivers would be unable to reactivate - both those who are mixed SD/HD subscribers and those who are SD only subscribers. It will be some time before they stop activating existing SD receivers.


They told me when I talked to them that they are trying to discourage people from replacing their SD receivers when the call in with a dead one and let them put in an HD receiver in it's place.
Replacing the old ones and not activating new ones seems to go hand in hand to me.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

What happens to the people on the $10 and $10 plan? Do they get grandfathered in?


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> There is no longer an Hi Definition fee for any new customers. So while they pay 6 more for receivers they pay 10 less for Hi Definition.


But then why would a new sign-up now request SD only service if it cost the same as HD?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

It will be a gradual process. Making changes like this causes consternation and generates calls and even some limited churn. The easiest step is the one they've taken now, which is that all new customers get HD equipment, regardless of what packages they subscribe to or televisions they have in their home. It doesn't change anything at all for existing subscribers, since they can still order SD boxes, activate old SD boxes, and etc.

I'm sure part of this process is "strongly" encouraging customers who call in for a repair or new box to just give them an HD box, even if it's not 100% mandatory. Eventually, one day soon that will become mandatory since they have probably stopped manufacturing SD boxes and their refurb and remaining new stock will cycle out. That will cause a tiny amount of trouble as people call in and want a specific type of box and can't get it, but that number is tiny, and I doubt anyone would cancel over it.

Eventually everyone will get moved to an HD box and HD dish, and they've already been through this before with the MPG/APG swapout. They know how to do it and what levels they need to let "naturally" occur before they start forcing upgrades.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

This didnt happen ?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> They said they were going to simply the billing, removing one fee and removing the refund of another fee would make the billing more clear.


Removing a fee ... no problem for the customer. Removing a credit? Watch out CSRs! 
(Even if the credit removal matches a fee removal ... people like their credits.)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> But then why would a new sign-up now request SD only service if it cost the same as HD?


Uh they won't. They will simply be singing up for service. Unless what was reported was wrong you get directv now you get Hi Definition as part of it.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

JosephB said:


> It will be a gradual process. Making changes like this causes consternation and generates calls and even some limited churn. The easiest step is the one they've taken now, which is that all new customers get HD equipment, regardless of what packages they subscribe to or televisions they have in their home. It doesn't change anything at all for existing subscribers, since they can still order SD boxes, activate old SD boxes, and etc.
> 
> I'm sure part of this process is "strongly" encouraging customers who call in for a repair or new box to just give them an HD box, even if it's not 100% mandatory. Eventually, one day soon that will become mandatory since they have probably stopped manufacturing SD boxes and their refurb and remaining new stock will cycle out. That will cause a tiny amount of trouble as people call in and want a specific type of box and can't get it, but that number is tiny, and I doubt anyone would cancel over it.
> 
> Eventually everyone will get moved to an HD box and HD dish, and they've already been through this before with the MPG/APG swapout. They know how to do it and what levels they need to let "naturally" occur before they start forcing upgrades.


This will be more like killing off mpeg2 Hi Definition IMHO. That required dish changes and such. The apg thing didn't

That why I suspect in about a year they will start discontinuing sd Showtime or sd nhl center ice and other things like that. .


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> Uh they won't. They will simply be singing up for service. Unless what was reported was wrong you get directv now you get Hi Definition as part of it.


That's what I originally thought;

But peds responded to me in his post #160:



> _No, they get HD equipment but if they subscribe to SD only they would not get the HD channels. Basically this is an equipment "migration" not programming. Programming "migration" will sure come on a date "kind of" far away_


And I think JosephB also mentioned in a post about the title of this thread being wrong as this is a change to only MPEG-4 equipment for new subscribers. Whether it will include HD programming as well is the choice of the sub. for additional money.

This was what was confusing me. ...


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

jimmie57 said:


> Since they are charging per TV now instead of Leased Receivers, what difference does it make if you have an Owned receiver ?


They've always charged for owned receivers. It just gives you the option to activate/deactivate at will, sell it, or open it up and replace/upgrade the hard drive.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

dpeters11 said:


> They've always charged for owned receivers. It just gives you the option to activate/deactivate at will, sell it, or open it up and replace/upgrade the hard drive.


Thanks, for some reason I always thought that they did not pay the "lease fee".


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jimmie57 said:


> Since they are charging per TV now instead of Leased Receivers, what difference does it make if you have an Owned receiver ?


Price wise, I don't think it's ever made a difference, the reason for owning your HRs is a big one, tho. And it's this: Stick a 2TB in an HR and it runs better. It just plain works better. I own ten and nine have the 2TB drives in them and they run really well. Just a comment based on my own experience.

Jimmie, I can state that as a fact, as far as I'm concerned. I have no problems with any of my HRs (and that includes one old 20-700 that still blows away any Series 2 HR) that have the 2TB drives installed internally.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jimmie57 said:


> Thanks, for some reason I always thought that they did not pay the "lease fee".


A hip, hip and a hoorah for that thought. That would reduce my bill rather drastically. We pay, as you do, the "mirror fee".

Rich


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

jimmie57 said:


> Thanks, for some reason I always thought that they did not pay the "lease fee".


Well, technically true. On an owned receiver, it wasn't called a lease fee, but the price was the same.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

HoTat2 said:


> That's what I originally thought;
> 
> But peds responded to me in his post #160:
> 
> ...


Perhaps I could have chosen the thread title better, but I believe JosephB's assertion is incorrect. I don't think a new sub has any choice whether or not to add HD programming "for additional money" because the HD fee no longer exists for him. He's going to get HD programming whether he wants it or not. Of course today all the SD channels are still there, but someday they won't be, so someone who is installed today won't need to change a thing if they're still around a few years from now when Directv shuts off the last MPEG2 SD duplicate.

If I had to choose the thread title over again I'd say *Directv installing only HD capable equipment for new subscribers as of July 24th* as that would more accurately reflect the change. I can see where some people might read that title and think that SD channels will be going away on July 24th. That won't happen for some time - actually a very long time because even after Directv switches off the last MPEG2 SD _duplicate_, there will still be MPEG4 SD channels around - channels that are only available in SD, or that Directv for whatever reason can't/won't make available in HD.

I don't think that calling it "MPEG4 capable equipment" instead of "HD capable" would add anything to the title. Both are equally true, since Directv doesn't have any MPEG4 capable SD receivers, and phased out MPEG2 only HD capable receivers many years ago (H10 / HR10) While you and I and JosephB might understand the title just as well with MPEG4 in there, others will not, and would have no idea what impact such a change might have. New subscribers getting only HD receivers, that's something that almost everyone will understand immediately.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> If I had to choose the thread title over again I'd say *Directv installing only HD capable equipment for new subscribers as of July 24th* as that would more accurately reflect the change.


It turned out to be fairly accurate ... although I understand why clarity could not be added before the official release of the new offers on July 24th. "DirecTV installing HD equipment only as of July 24th" might be a fix ... although people should just read the thread ...



slice1900 said:


> I can see where some people might read that title and think that SD channels will be going away on July 24th. That won't happen for some time - actually a very long time because even after Directv switches off the last MPEG2 SD _duplicate_, there will still be MPEG4 SD channels around - channels that are only available in SD, or that Directv for whatever reason can't/won't make available in HD.


Fortunately the new pricing is public now. It is easier to say what the change actually is ... a $6 increase for subscribers who don't want HD but are going to get it anyways and a $4 net decrease for customers who actually want HD over ordering it on July 23rd. Of course with all the other new customer offers mixed in it may not be quite that simple ... but that seems to be the major change of July 24th. Everyone new gets HD.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

JosephB said:


> By the time DirecTV is at a point to be all MPEG-4, the need for SD feeds will be even less than it is now. If you think that DirecTV would, after all of this hullabaloo keep duplicated SD feeds up then I don't know what point we have discussing this further. More and more channels are simply using their HD feed downconverted and letterboxed for SD (like the Fox News and ESPN channels). If there's literally no difference, why keep two feeds up? *I know we accuse cable and satellite executives of being stupid* often, but they really aren't. They didn't build billion dollar companies by being complete morons.


Never when it concerns their pocketbooks


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> But then why would a new sign-up now request SD only service if it cost the same as HD?


HD now comes with it no matter what. I just checked by starting a new account. The advanced receiver fee for a genie system is $15. No more HD fee at all. You no longer sign up for sd or hd. you just sign up for stations.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

Do local retailers still have the option to do SD installs?, although I doubt it with limited or no SD boxes, unless they order it online from ebay or someplace, Not everybody have HDTV's, even though it works on tube TV's via the rca connection.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

inkahauts said:


> HD now comes with it no matter what. I just checked by starting a new account. The advanced receiver fee for a genie system is $15. No more HD fee at all. You no longer sign up for sd or hd. you just sign up for stations.


My latest DirecTV bill shows Advanced Receiver-HD Monthly $10.00 fee.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

MysteryMan said:


> My latest DirecTV bill shows Advanced Receiver-HD Monthly $10.00 fee.


Yup...that fee is still there.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> HD now comes with it no matter what. I just checked by starting a new account. The advanced receiver fee for a genie system is $15. No more HD fee at all. You no longer sign up for sd or hd. you just sign up for stations.


OK;

One other question though;

Does this mean the more recent existing customers who signed up when the HD access fee was permanently waived will now see a $6.00 increase in their bill, perhaps by showing the primary receiver fee credit line item disappear or some other?

EDIT: Or maybe I should say with the new pricing format, there will be no "Primary TV" credit line item listed for these customers?


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Could DTV be getting this new pricing ready in preparation for the merger? Could ATT use this pricing once the merger is complete? Right now UVerse doesn't charge for their HD DVR. I read that their HD Receiver's just went up to $8 a month. I wonder how much HD Receivers and Genie Mini's will cost after the merger? Will they choose something in between like $7 a month? Or stick with $6 a month?


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

I believe they are planning on running the systems separately, so probably not.



CraigerM said:


> Could DTV be getting this new pricing ready in preparation for the merger? Could ATT use this pricing once the merger is complete? Right now UVerse doesn't charge for their HD DVR. I read that their HD Receiver's just went up to $8 a month. I wonder how much HD Receivers and Genie Mini's will cost after the merger? Will they choose something in between like $7 a month? Or stick with $6 a month?


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

CraigerM said:


> Could DTV be getting this new pricing ready in preparation for the merger? Could ATT use this pricing once the merger is complete? Right now UVerse doesn't charge for their HD DVR. I read that their HD Receiver's just went up to $8 a month. I wonder how much HD Receivers and Genie Mini's will cost after the merger? Will they choose something in between like $7 a month? Or stick with $6 a month?


I read on one f the AT&T news reports that they had agreed with the government that they would not change pricing to existing customers for either 2 or 3 years. However, if they change them now that probably gets them around the agreement until the actual takeover occurs, if it occurs.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

jimmie57 said:


> I read on one f the AT&T news reports that they had agreed with the government that they would not change pricing to existing customers for either 2 or 3 years. However, if they change them now that probably gets them around the agreement until the actual takeover occurs, if it occurs.


I forgot about the price not changing for a couple of years.


----------



## kaminar (Mar 25, 2012)

I've read speculation that one of the unmentioned goals for AT&T's merger/buyout plans is to use the satellite bandwidth for internet access...after all, they will be expanding their user base by 500% (uneducated guess, lol) and increase their limited access in the US. Who knows? More satellites to be launched...

As for new customers, the new pricing and other things..sales/support operations have had so many changes in the past couple of months, it would make your head spin. Streamlining as many things as possible is definitely in D*'s (and the customers') best interest. Regarding fixed income folks..well, that's an entirely different discussion.

-=K=-


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Strongly doubt that AT&T would be moving Internet traffic to satellite, too much latency involved. I could see them wanting to use DBS more for TV vs. U-Verse to free up some of their land based network for more Internet traffic.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

RAD said:


> Strongly doubt that AT&T would be moving Internet traffic to satellite, too much latency involved. I could see them wanting to use DBS more for TV vs. U-Verse to free up some of their land based network for more Internet traffic.


ATT's CEO and CFO said they didn't see them getting rid of UVerseTV. I like your way better.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

acostapimps said:


> Do local retailers still have the option to do SD installs?, although I doubt it with limited or no SD boxes, unless they order it online from ebay or someplace, Not everybody have HDTV's, even though it works on tube TV's via the rca connection.


Why would they want to? Even for a customer who didn't have any HDTVs, they might get some later.

Directv may simply refuse to activate SD receivers on an account created after July 24th, but if they don't, what is the benefit for the installer or the customer to do so?

Even in the situation of a customer with no LOS to 99 or 103, there's no benefit to giving them a SD dish and SD receivers. They might have LOS to half the HD channels, a tree might fall or be cut down removing their LOS issues, they might move and take the receivers they've already paid for and have recordings on with them, etc.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> My latest DirecTV bill shows Advanced Receiver-HD Monthly $10.00 fee.


New customer sign ups. Not us old timers.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> OK;
> 
> One other question though;
> 
> ...


They never mess with editing customers, this is only for new customers. We are status quo.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> They never mess with editing customers, this is only for new customers. We are status quo.


I hope I am not spamming in this thread but since its not been answered yet I am on that old plan. What if a person wants to sign up for MRV will they get the new pricing or can they request the new pricing?

Old plan would be - $10 HD, $10 DVR, $3 MRV?

New plan would be - $15, $6 - with MRV included?

So I would be saving $2 a month even though they would be adding a receiver fee.

Just curious is MRV only over coax and doesn't need internet?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The only way to know for sure is to call DirecTV and see what they offer you.

The deal being discussed in this thread is for NEW CUSTOMERS. You are not a new customer.


Only DirecTV will know all the facts needed to give you the correct answer.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

James Long said:


> The only way to know for sure is to call DirecTV and see what they offer you.
> 
> The deal being discussed in this thread is for NEW CUSTOMERS. You are not a new customer.
> 
> Only DirecTV will know all the facts needed to give you the correct answer.


Ok, sorry about that.


----------



## Jacob Braun (Oct 6, 2011)

jimmie57 said:


> I read on one f the AT&T news reports that they had agreed with the government that they would not change pricing to existing customers for either 2 or 3 years. However, if they change them now that probably gets them around the agreement until the actual takeover occurs, if it occurs.


No, they agreed to have the same national pricing for all DIRECTV and same for all AT&T customers for that period. They did not agree to a price lock.

In other words DIRECTV costs $100 per month for someone in California, it will cost the same $100 for someone in New York for the exact same stuff.
AT&T costs $100 for someone in Oklahoma, it will cost the same $100 in Missouri for the exact same stuff.

Either Mike White or Randal Stephenson clarified that they could still adjust prices throughout that time for programming and overhead cost increases. This was on a joint conference call right after the merger. For DIRECTV I think they only thing this would change is the RSN fee...maybe they'll just add it to all CHOICE+ packages at $2 or something for all markets (this is just my pure speculation based on these statements). I don't know what this would do for AT&T.


----------



## zuf (May 25, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> How did they do the R22? Was that just channel authorization on the access card?


The R22 on an SD only account was software limited to SD only. Even though it had similar (the same?) software as the HR-21 DVRs, the HD related menu choices were greyed out and could not be selected. It wasn't possible to change the resolution--it was locked into 480p for component and HDMI outputs (the composite output was 489i, of course). The entire HDTV menu option was greyed out. In the channel menu, the option to hide HD channels was selected and greyed out so it couldn't be selected or changed.

Later, DIRECTV added the ability to enable the HD options on the R22 once you had HD on your account. On the day I upgraded to HD, my R22 (which had been locked down as described above) immediately went from being an "R22-100" to an "R22-100 with HD" when looking at the model number in the system information. All of the previously locked down options became available and my R22 behaved the same as my new HR21s.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Yeah, I thought it was something similar, not just channel authorizations.


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

If there was a post about how DIRECTV was going to launch a new feature everyone would talk about how long it would take to get it out. With this everyone gives DIRECTV credit for making a major overhaul to their systems in barely 2 months because of the ATT merger. Anything that is coming out in the next year or two has already been scheduled and budgeted. This is going to be a hit to ARPU and revenue overall so they had to be planning it for awhile or they would have run into potential problems with investors. The amount of of people who "would pay more" than before is significantly less than those who are now paying less. Neither company is going to even start to spend a lot of time with synergy until the paperwork is signed. Lawsuits would be filed before the end of the conference call if either company announced they did something to intentionally reduce shareholder value because of the other company at this point.

There is a very simple change really. There's no behind the scenes what if's or anything else. New customer's only receive MPEG 4 equipment, HD is included in the packages, and the first receiver credit has been removed.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> HD now comes with it no matter what. I just checked by starting a new account. The advanced receiver fee for a genie system is $15. No more HD fee at all. You no longer sign up for sd or hd. you just sign up for stations.


Then they are at parity with cable. There's no distinction between an HD or SD customer with cable, you just get everything.

Now, pricing is not at parity, DirecTV is significantly more expensive that cable in my area, but at least in terms of how the system "works", the cable and satellite companies have been slowly converging. DirecTV and Dish have moved to a lease model, DirecTV no longer has distinct HD fees, and cable is moving to requiring a digital box on every TV.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Joe Tylman said:


> If there was a post about how DIRECTV was going to launch a new feature everyone would talk about how long it would take to get it out. With this everyone gives DIRECTV credit for making a major overhaul to their systems in barely 2 months because of the ATT merger. Anything that is coming out in the next year or two has already been scheduled and budgeted. This is going to be a hit to ARPU and revenue overall so they had to be planning it for awhile or they would have run into potential problems with investors. The amount of of people who "would pay more" than before is significantly less than those who are now paying less. Neither company is going to even start to spend a lot of time with synergy until the paperwork is signed. Lawsuits would be filed before the end of the conference call if either company announced they did something to intentionally reduce shareholder value because of the other company at this point.
> 
> There is a very simple change really. There's no behind the scenes what if's or anything else. New customer's only receive MPEG 4 equipment, HD is included in the packages, and the first receiver credit has been removed.


And totally in line with plans they announced a couple of years ago.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Joe Tylman said:


> If there was a post about how DIRECTV was going to launch a new feature everyone would talk about how long it would take to get it out. With this everyone gives DIRECTV credit for making a major overhaul to their systems in barely 2 months because of the ATT merger. Anything that is coming out in the next year or two has already been scheduled and budgeted. This is going to be a hit to ARPU and revenue overall so they had to be planning it for awhile or they would have run into potential problems with investors. The amount of of people who "would pay more" than before is significantly less than those who are now paying less. Neither company is going to even start to spend a lot of time with synergy until the paperwork is signed. Lawsuits would be filed before the end of the conference call if either company announced they did something to intentionally reduce shareholder value because of the other company at this point.
> 
> There is a very simple change really. There's no behind the scenes what if's or anything else. New customer's only receive MPEG 4 equipment, HD is included in the packages, and the first receiver credit has been removed.


Who is suggesting this has anything to do with the AT&T deal? Earlier this year I posted some quotes from a Directv VP discussing the MPEG2 cutover last year, suggesting it could happen as soon as late 2015/early 2016. I don't think it will really happen that quickly, but they've clearly planned this for a long time and this was only step one.

Before long we'll see other changes that involve forcing certain groups of those customers with existing SD equipment to migrate to HD. Directv can easily produce for themselves a spreadsheet that shows how many customers with a SD dish there are, how many receivers/DVRs they have, what packages they subscribe to, where they're located, how many installers they have in the area, and how busy they typically are, etc. and can estimate that if they want to take away the SD version of a given package, it'll take X days for the installers to be able to replace all the dishes.

They know from the MPG upgrade experience how many calls they're going to receive from people who are upset about changing their equipment, can probably factor in a good guess of how many people who have LOS to 101 will be forced to leave Directv because they can't see 99 or 103.

Somewhere in Directv HQ there's a PM with a MS Project plan for the whole thing, who is happy he finally got to mark something as complete! !rolling


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

JBv said:


> No, they agreed to have the same national pricing for all DIRECTV and same for all AT&T customers for that period. They did not agree to a price lock.
> 
> In other words DIRECTV costs $100 per month for someone in California, it will cost the same $100 for someone in New York for the exact same stuff.
> AT&T costs $100 for someone in Oklahoma, it will cost the same $100 in Missouri for the exact same stuff.
> ...


what about tiers?

I don't want to have to pay for showtime and stars to get some of the non premium channels I have now.

Att has no DRV fee right now as well.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

JosephB said:


> Then they are at parity with cable. There's no distinction between an HD or SD customer with cable, you just get everything.
> 
> Now, pricing is not at parity, DirecTV is significantly more expensive that cable in my area, but at least in terms of how the system "works", the cable and satellite companies have been slowly converging. DirecTV and Dish have moved to a lease model, DirecTV no longer has distinct HD fees, and cable is moving to requiring a digital box on every TV.


Well my area is about the same price and goes way higher on cable the more advanced receivers you have in the system since they charge around 20 per box. You are lucky if cable is cheaper in your area!!!! But we all know cable is different in every market.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

JoeTheDragon said:


> what about tiers?
> 
> I don't want to have to pay for showtime and stars to get some of the non premium channels I have now.
> 
> Att has no DRV fee right now as well.


I imagine things will stay as they are for existing. For a very long time at least.

I suspect over time we will see more tiers. I wish we would see more packages than teirs like the Hi Definition extra pack. Break all the teirs into packages and I can get the better channels for a little less by not picking up a lot of channels indont care about.


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

slice1900 said:


> Who is suggesting this has anything to do with the AT&T deal? Earlier this year I posted some quotes from a Directv VP discussing the MPEG2 cutover last year, suggesting it could happen as soon as late 2015/early 2016. I don't think it will really happen that quickly, but they've clearly planned this for a long time and this was only step one.
> 
> Before long we'll see other changes that involve forcing certain groups of those customers with existing SD equipment to migrate to HD. Directv can easily produce for themselves a spreadsheet that shows how many customers with a SD dish there are, how many receivers/DVRs they have, what packages they subscribe to, where they're located, how many installers they have in the area, and how busy they typically are, etc. and can estimate that if they want to take away the SD version of a given package, it'll take X days for the installers to be able to replace all the dishes.
> 
> ...


From about post 220 - 228 the ATT conversation was born.


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Then they are at parity with cable. There's no distinction between an HD or SD customer with cable, you just get everything.
> 
> Now, pricing is not at parity, DirecTV is significantly more expensive that cable in my area, but at least in terms of how the system "works", the cable and satellite companies have been slowly converging. DirecTV and Dish have moved to a lease model, DirecTV no longer has distinct HD fees, and cable is moving to requiring a digital box on every TV.


Cable always looks cheap until you start adding in a couple HD DVR's and some HD receivers. Cable has always been able to legally claim "No extra charges for HD and no extra charges for DVR." Because the rental fee on the units hide those costs.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Joe Tylman said:


> Cable always looks cheap until you start adding in a couple HD DVR's and some HD receivers. Cable has always been able to legally claim "No extra charges for HD and no extra charges for DVR." Because the rental fee on the units hide those costs.


Cable is still cheaper than DirecTV even with DVR fees and lease fees, because at only a dollar more than DirecTV, I don't have enough TVs to make the "more expensive" box rental fee bite me. And if you factor in the HD fee, which cable doesn't charge, the cable DVR fee is the same as or slightly less than the advanced receiver fee + HD fee (though with this new setup DirecTV is doing, that math may be different)

If you buy a retail TiVo instead of renting, it's even worse. Since cable is my only option for internet, and the fact that they really want to sell their phone service, I save somewhere around $50 a month by taking phone, TV, and internet from Charter vs. internet from Charter and TV from DirecTV, and that's comparing the Premiere package vs. the "all the channels" package from Charter. Oh, and they have more HD and more overall than DirecTV. Oh and no contract AND the price will still be cheaper when my two year promo is up.

DirecTV and Dish have a long way to go to catch back up to the competition. Cable, at least some of them, have greatly improved in the past year or so.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I'm in a charter area. You need three recirders from charter to equal one genies tuners. Youd then need another seven to equal the same recording space as that same first genie! Their recirders are just awful. Really awful. In every way. 

And as you said tivo would cost a ton more. 

And pq in my area is also terrible in comparison to directv. 

But their internet is great for me. Go figure.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> ...And as you said tivo would cost a ton more...


Depends on your configuration. To have the equivalent of our 2 TiVo Roamio Pros we would need 2 Verizon VMS1100 tuners (which would equal the 12 recordable tuners) but we'd be short by 4TB of storage. Even still, that would cost $81/month. I bought the TiVos and Minis for about $1700. So in less than 2 years, I break even on the hardware, while saving almost $100/month on programming.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

Sorry, I did not read this whole thread, but tried to read the posts made after July 24th.

Has any current (pre July 24th) customer called DirecTV to see what can be offered to existing customers?

I currently have SD. Not sure what the exact receiver model is, it's about 5 years old (I'm out of contract) and doesn't have any HDMI ports.

I'm wanting to upgrade to HD, which will require a new receiver (I don't use DVR service, and don't have multi-room set up, I just have the one TV).

Wondering if I can switch to this new setup, as I understand it, my bill would essentially go up $6 but include HD (maybe, *fingers crossed*, get some other promotional discounts, if I agree to another contract).

I've read in this thread where it's been stressed that this is for new customers only, but it looks to me like that if you are out of contract (like me) then you should be able to sign a new 2 year contract and get these same deals or at least some discounts.

Wondering if anyone else has done this and have any experiences to share. I know I'll have to call them just to see what they offer, but I thought some others might have had similar experiences.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

evotz said:


> Sorry, I did not read this whole thread, but tried to read the posts made after July 24th.
> 
> , my bill would essentially go up $6 but include HD


No, your bill will go up by $21. $15 +$6.00


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> No, your bill will go up by $21. $15 +$6.00


Would the $15 apply if he doesn't get a DVR? He doesn't have one currently and the new customer offer for a customer without a DVR (HD receiver only) does not have the $15 advanced receiver fee.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

James Long said:


> Would the $15 apply if he doesn't get a DVR? He doesn't have one currently and the new customer offer for a customer without a DVR (HD receiver only) does not have the $15 advanced receiver fee.


Right, no DVR. The $15 only applies to DVR, that's how I understand it. But I may be wrong. I have the Choice package now, which for new customers includes the HD channels. I don't get the HD channels (I don't have an HD receiver). My bill has the $6 receiver fee, then a $6 credit. Essentially I wouldn't get that $6 credit.

That's how I understand it. Really I'd have to call to find out, but I thought someone else might've had a similar experience.

And *peds48* may be right, it may require the $15 DVR fee. If that's the case, I might as well get the DVR too.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> Would the $15 apply if he doesn't get a DVR? He doesn't have one currently and the new customer offer for a customer without a DVR (HD receiver only) does not have the $15 advanced receiver fee.


You do have a point. Keep forgetting not not every one gets a DVR or Genie. According to the new pricing, there is no HD fee. So the poster's bill may go up by $6.00 if they get new pricing or it may go up by $10.00 if they get old pricing. Interesting to find out!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

evotz said:


> Right, no DVR. The $15 only applies to DVR, that's how I understand it. But I may be wrong. I have the Choice package now, which for new customers includes the HD channels. I don't get the HD channels (I don't have an HD receiver). My bill has the $6 receiver fee, then a $6 credit. Essentially I wouldn't get that $6 credit.
> 
> That's how I understand it. Really I'd have to call to find out, but I thought someone else might've had a similar experience.
> 
> And *peds48* may be right, it may require the $15 DVR fee. If that's the case, I might as well get the DVR too.


If you've never had a DVR, you're in for a pleasant surprise. I still remember the day I got my first one. I was stunned. Simply stunned.

Rich


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I know multiple people that said they didn't need or want a DVR, until they got one. My mother was one and I just had to clear out a few series links that aren't needed anymore because she had 97 of them.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> I know multiple people that said they didn't need or want a DVR, until they got one. My mother was one and I just had to clear out a few series links that aren't needed anymore because she had 97 of them.


I ignored the DVRs for too long. I was using 12 VCRs at the time I first took notice of them and was satisfied with that setup. What a revelation my first DVR was! No more storing hundreds of blank tapes used over and over, no more keeping logs of what was on every tape. Wonderful.

Rich


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

I called DirecTV today. Apparently I would still be on the $10 HD plan, although they offered it to me for free for the first 12 months. Said they would eventually get everyone over to the new pricing. But I didn't ask how long eventually might be.

Wasn't all that impressed. I like my DirecTV service, but switching to Dish would appear to be cheaper. It looks like switching back and forth every couple of years is the way to go.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

You might get a better deal from retention. I ok now some that switch every two years, that would drive me nuts personally.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

evotz said:


> It looks like switching back and forth every couple of years is the way to go.





dpeters11 said:


> . I ok now some that switch every two years, that would drive me nuts personally.


Yup, losing shows, getting stuff reinstalled, hope nothing goes wrong, etc... Not for me. I will rather try to "hustle it out" to get some discounts to keep the same provider than be switching back and forth, even it it costs a little but more


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I don't mind switching companies. 
It's more exciting when you have more experience with the other companies equipment and prices.
I never record things permanently anyway, if I like something that much I buy the blu ray, or DVD. I don't rely on Directv's equipment that's for sure.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

evotz said:


> I called DirecTV today. Apparently I would still be on the $10 HD plan, although they offered it to me for free for the first 12 months. Said they would eventually get everyone over to the new pricing. But I didn't ask how long eventually might be.
> 
> Wasn't all that impressed. I like my DirecTV service, but switching to Dish would appear to be cheaper. It looks like switching back and forth every couple of years is the way to go.


Just don't take away the NHL network from old choice extra subs or at the very least add NBC SN reverse mirror feed


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

damondlt said:


> I don't mind switching companies.
> It's more exciting when you have more experience with the other companies equipment and prices.
> I never record things permanently anyway, if I like something that much I buy the blu ray, or DVD. I don't rely on Directv's equipment that's for sure.


Where do I go to purchase the HD DVD of Annie for my grandchildren and 1776 for myself?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

damondlt said:


> I don't mind switching companies.
> It's more exciting when you have more experience with the other companies equipment and prices.
> I never record things permanently anyway, if I like something that much I buy the blu ray, or DVD. I don't rely on Directv's equipment that's for sure.


Based on what I saw of the Dish UI at my inlaws, I'm not sure I could take it. I found it very confusing, and I'm generally pretty good with this stuff. Though I don't know if the Hopper is the same way. Plus, I avoid the local installers as much as possible. I think if I ever did leave, it would be to the local phone company with my own roamio.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Billzebub said:


> Where do I go to purchase the HD DVD of Annie for my grandchildren and 1776 for myself?


Reminds me of something Al Bundy said. If the movie was any good, they'd have put it out in Betamax.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Rich said:


> If you've never had a DVR, you're in for a pleasant surprise. I still remember the day I got my first one. I was stunned. Simply stunned.
> 
> Rich


Ultimate TV DVR was my first, great DVR for its time.



Rich said:


> I ignored the DVRs for too long. I was using 12 VCRs at the time I first took notice of them and was satisfied with that setup. What a revelation my first DVR was! No more storing hundreds of blank tapes used over and over, no more keeping logs of what was on every tape. Wonderful.
> 
> Rich


I was using 5 or 6 at one time. Remember getting tapes on sale someplace for 99¢ a piece.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> If the movie was any good, they'd have put it out in Betamax.


And would have been remastered on DVD or Blu Ray.
You guys can rely on a hard drive for your entire movie collection.
But I'm not nor will I ever, until they stop making blu rays.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

damondlt said:


> And would have been remastered on DVD or Blu Ray.
> You guys can rely on a hard drive for your entire movie collection.
> But I'm not nor will I ever, until they stop making blu rays.


Oh, I don't keep movies on my DVR, just TV shows. I don't buy movies digitally, just physical media.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> You might get a better deal from retention._* I ok now some that switch every two years, that would drive me nuts personally.*_


That would driven me completely ********* (my asterisks, I know I can't put what I would feel into the proper words). I can't even imagine going thru that. For what? A few bucks?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Ultimate TV DVR was my first, great DVR for its time.
> 
> I was using 5 or 6 at one time. Remember getting tapes on sale someplace for 99¢ a piece.


I used to buy them in bulk. Each one had it's own number and I kept logs. We had VHS tape racks all over the house. What a nightmare!

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

damondlt said:


> And would have been remastered on DVD or Blu Ray.
> You guys can rely on a hard drive for your entire movie collection.
> But I'm not nor will I ever, until they stop making blu rays.


Most of us don't intentionally archive and I don't watch movies on D* at all, but I do spend a lot of time on NF. I spent a lot of money on VHS videos, on DVD videos and they're all gone now. I'm not about to spend any more when I can get pretty much anything I want online.

Rich


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> I'm in a charter area. You need three recirders from charter to equal one genies tuners. Youd then need another seven to equal the same recording space as that same first genie! Their recirders are just awful. Really awful. In every way.
> 
> And as you said tivo would cost a ton more.
> 
> ...


Actually, you got it wrong. TiVo costs a ton LESS. And if you get a TiVo, they have them with 6 tuners now.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Tivo comes out less for me too over directv in 24 months time. Even with $750 up front on equipment.

Thanks to internet bundles and new upfront promos.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> I used to buy them in bulk. Each one had it's own number and I kept logs. We had VHS tape racks all over the house. What a nightmare!
> 
> Rich


You can't imagine going through switching providers every couple years to save hundreds of dollars, but were willing to keep logs of your individually numbered VHS tapes? !rolling

I never understood why people "saved" recordings since they'd never find the time to go back and watch anything. My dad probably still has a couple hundred tapes he recorded golf and football on back in the 80s and because it was a really good match/game he wanted to save it. My mom was always after him to throw them out, but he said he'd watch them one day after he retired. He's been retired for a decade and doesn't even have a VCR hooked up to the TV. Instead he's got a DVR that's always about 90% full because he doesn't have time to watch the stuff he records as it is, let alone go back and watch something from 25 years ago!


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

JosephB said:


> Actually, you got it wrong. TiVo costs a ton LESS. And if you get a TiVo, they have them with 6 tuners now.


Yup...

We were paying DirecTV $190/month on average (Premier, 7 TVs, HD, DVR and MRV fees, RSN fee, plus a PPV or two) and $85 month with Verizon for phone and internet.

Now, we pay Verizon $140/month (Ultimate HD, 75/75 internet, phone and 2 cablecards).

So, all in, we are saving $135 per month! As I've said elsewhere, $135/month pays off the investment in TiVos with lifetime service pretty quick...less than 18 months. After that, the $135 is pure savings (and is still $90/month after the new subscriber discounts expire in 2 years). Had we taken Verizon's hardware that would have added over $80 to the bill, making it far less attractive.

Verizon's picture and sound quality is equal to DirecTV's, and the channel lineup is nearly identical. The only feature I miss from DirecTV is the unified playlist across multiple DVRs - but we can access the ToDo list and manage season passes from any TV in the house, the TiVo mobile app, or from TiVo's website (including moving season passes between DVRs). Plus I can copy recordings between DVRs (so if we ever need to replace one, we can copy important recordings to the other one).

While DirecTV may be better than a lot of cable companies, they are rarely cheaper these days, particularly with the availability of third party hardware you can buy without any recurring cost.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C said:


> Had we taken Verizon's hardware that would have added over $80 to the bill, making it far less attractive..


No wonder the cable companies are trying to kill off cable cards! I know I save money over the cable solution, but I have a single Tivo and only one TV hooked up these days so the savings are a lot smaller than for you with that many TVs.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> You can't imagine going through switching providers every couple years to save hundreds of dollars, but were willing to keep logs of your individually numbered VHS tapes? !rolling
> 
> I never understood why people "saved" recordings since they'd never find the time to go back and watch anything. My dad probably still has a couple hundred tapes he recorded golf and football on back in the 80s and because it was a really good match/game he wanted to save it. My mom was always after him to throw them out, but he said he'd watch them one day after he retired. He's been retired for a decade and doesn't even have a VCR hooked up to the TV. Instead he's got a DVR that's always about 90% full because he doesn't have time to watch the stuff he records as it is, let alone go back and watch something from 25 years ago!


We've always watched what we've recorded unless it was a poor show. Yeah, using VCRs was a PITA, but we've been time shifting since the 80s and we never watch live shows.

As for your first comment, I don't care about saving hundreds of dollars. First you assume I'm a sarcastic person (still don't understand that) and now you think I'm a fool for not switching providers just to save money that I simply don't care about. You should really get to know people before making assumptions about them.


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

Diana C said:


> Yup...
> 
> We were paying DirecTV $190/month on average (Premier, 7 TVs, HD, DVR and MRV fees, RSN fee, plus a PPV or two) and $85 month with Verizon for phone and internet.
> 
> ...


There are a couple of other factors though then just monthly cost. First is that most consumers won't have the ability to just pay up front for what you have and even a smaller % of those will be able to do with without putting it on credit (You have never said if you did or didn't nor is it any one else's concern). If people do have to use credit then there's the monthly credit card cost as well as the service plus the interest which we know for the majority of credit card holders is not cheap.

Then the factor if warranty/replacement comes in to the picture. While most users on here or the TiVo boards wouldn't have any issues popping the case open and putting a new HD in when it dies the majority of consumers wouldn't and wouldn't want to have to deal with it. They want to pick up the phone and have someone else fix it.

The other side of the coin is that internet mark up is ridiculous so that covers any profits that are lost without the equipment fees. If internet services were truly competitive then you wouldn't see the lax attitude for the loss of revenue for these devices. The fee for cable cards would go up significantly to offset those. Fortunately for ISP's they have convinced consumers that $50+ a month for fast internet service is a great deal. (which I understand has no impact on your savings at this time)


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Valid points. If you are buying on credit, that is something to consider, since that will erode the net savings by a couple hundred dollars. As far as servicing the equipment goes, for $30 you can buy an 3 year extended warranty and then TiVo will replace a failed unit. I know what you are saying about internet costs, but they can't push the price of Cablecards too high...the regulations specify a "nominal" cost. AFAIK, the most expensive Cablecard fee in the country is $7.50/month and some operators charge as little as $1. I think $10 is probably the limit that can be considered "nominal."

Honestly, TiVo's biggest problem has been that most people just don't think about how monthly costs add up. DirecTV is not immune to that either. Between receiver fees, the HD, Advanced Receiver and MRV fees, plus the RSN fee, we were paying DirecTV $738 (about the cost of a Roamio Plus with lifetime service - a near perfect analogue of a Genie) per year above and beyond our programming package. With Verizon equipment we would have been paying almost $1000/year in addition to the programming.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Joe Tylman said:


> There are a couple of other factors though then just monthly cost. First is that most consumers won't have the ability to just pay up front for what you have and even a smaller % of those will be able to do with without putting it on credit (You have never said if you did or didn't nor is it any one else's concern). If people do have to use credit then there's the monthly credit card cost as well as the service plus the interest which we know for the majority of credit card holders is not cheap.
> 
> Then the factor if warranty/replacement comes in to the picture. While most users on here or the TiVo boards wouldn't have any issues popping the case open and putting a new HD in when it dies the majority of consumers wouldn't and wouldn't want to have to deal with it. They want to pick up the phone and have someone else fix it.
> 
> The other side of the coin is that internet mark up is ridiculous so that covers any profits that are lost without the equipment fees. If internet services were truly competitive then you wouldn't see the lax attitude for the loss of revenue for these devices. The fee for cable cards would go up significantly to offset those. Fortunately for ISP's they have convinced consumers that $50+ a month for fast internet service is a great deal. (which I understand has no impact on your savings at this time)


I've already been to this rodeo a "few" times. You ain't gonna win Joe.... !rolling


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Diana C said:


> Valid points. If you are buying on credit, that is something to consider, since that will erode the net savings by a couple hundred dollars. As far as servicing the equipment goes, for $30 you can buy an 3 year extended warranty and then TiVo will replace a failed unit. I know what you are saying about internet costs, but they can't push the price of Cablecards too high...the regulations specify a "nominal" cost. AFAIK, the most expensive Cablecard fee in the country is $7.50/month and some operators charge as little as $1. I think $10 is probably the limit that can be considered "nominal."
> 
> Honestly, TiVo's biggest problem has been that most people just don't think about how monthly costs add up. DirecTV is not immune to that either. Between receiver fees, the HD, Advanced Receiver and MRV fees, plus the RSN fee, we were paying DirecTV $738 (about the cost of a Roamio Plus with lifetime service - a near perfect analogue of a Genie) per year above and beyond our programming package. With Verizon equipment we would have been paying almost $1000/year in addition to the programming.


even with a low Cablecard fee some systems have in past made you rent the sdv tuner at an added cost.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

JoeTheDragon said:


> even with a low Cablecard fee some systems have in past made you rent the sdv tuner at an added cost.


TWC does not charge for the Tuning Adapter for SDV. Not even a concern for Diana since FIOS does not require one.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

But does comcast charge?


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

And we forget that most customers have no idea what a cable card / Tivo combination is or how to get it since it's not provided by the cable company.

The CSR at my local (read LOCAL) cable company couldn't find the price. And it's very well hidden on their website.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> But does comcast charge?


they don't have SDV and there HD lineup sucks.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Ok, I wasn't sure. My main point was if TWC doesn't charge for it now, will they if the merger happens.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> Ok, I wasn't sure. My main point was if TWC doesn't charge for it now, will they if the merger happens.


TWC may drop HD channels and kill SDV as part of comcast.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

JoeTheDragon said:



> TWC may drop HD channels and kill SDV as part of comcast.


If they killed SDV they'd have to drop some HD channels, or something else, to make up for the loss of bandwidth that SDV buys them. Or spend the money, that TWC didn't and upgrade their plant to support more bandwidth.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Or Comcast may get SDV and get HD channels. TWC is king at TV. Comcast is king at Internet. It's a match made in heaven. But why are we talking about that in this thread?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

I don't think any of the top 4-5 cable companies (Comcast, TWC, Charter, Bright House) charge for tuning adapters. 

I'm about to move and am pricing out my options. Currently, where I live, Charter's phone+internet+tv bundle is in the range of $90 a month cheaper than DirecTV. Where I'm moving to, the cable company is Bright House, and the pricing comes out to be about even if I take BHN internet and DirecTV. However, U-Verse is significantly cheaper, and has more channels than DirecTV (U-Verse and Bright House are about at parity with channel availability).

Satellite has managed to get way out of whack with their pricing over the past few years, most of it on the equipment side. Now, granted, their equipment is way better than the crap you'd get from the cable company, but that gap is shrinking, and cable has real TiVos available too.


----------

