# Eliminate DVR fees



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

*Does anyone think DVR fees will eventually become a thing of the past?*

I'm referring to the type of receiver equipment used, where perhaps all-in-one units with built-in DVR becoming so standard the fee goes away. This isn't just about DirecTV thing; I'm referring, industry wide, to minidish satellite and cable companies, etc..


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Do the math, (DVR Service Charge, Primary Leased Receiver Charge, HD Access Charge, ect.) are a cash cow for DirecTV. Until that income can be replaced or is no longer needed these fees will be with us for a long time.


----------



## Game Fan (Sep 8, 2007)

I don't think we'll ever see it. It would be nice though.


----------



## GP245 (Aug 17, 2006)

Direct will squeeze every last cent out of us!

Instead of retiring such extra charges, I'm sure they'll try to find new ones.

My monthly bill is getting out of hand and I'm at the point where I'm seriously considering an alternative method to receive TV!!!!!


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Though, to be fair, DirecTV is pretty good with this particular fee. Some providers charge it per DVR.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

APB101 said:


> *Does anyone think DVR fees will eventually become a thing of the past?*


 Nah ... it will just continue to increase along with the "mirroring" fees and programming fees.

Can't wait to see what's in store for us for the February "annual increase." Maybe we should start a pool.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

APB101 said:


> *Does anyone think DVR fees will eventually become a thing of the past?*


No it will Not go away anymore than Banks will quit charging you Fees for your Checking Account. They just Increased the DVR Fee from $5 to $6 so that supports my Theory that it will Not go away but just Increase in time as it is a necessary Cash Cow for Directv.


----------



## Gofastr (Sep 20, 2006)

Directv is expensive tv.If one can,t afford it you always have over the air.


----------



## FenixTX (Nov 11, 2005)

"dpeters11" said:


> Though, to be fair, DirecTV is pretty good with this particular fee. Some providers charge it per DVR.


This. I've heard, and I might be wrong, that Comcast charges $15 per hd DVR. That is crazy if true.


----------



## sbl (Jul 21, 2007)

Just look at where the airlines have gone with extra fees. The cable/satellite industry has found a model that works for them. I agree that DirecTV is more sane about these than some other providers.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> Though, to be fair, DirecTV is pretty good with this particular fee. Some providers charge it per DVR.


Directv Charges me $6 per DVR. Not saying that is unreasonable but they Nickel and Dime us just like Banks, Airlines, Credit Card Companies, etc.

Hidden Fees or Fees that are not broadcast visibly but bring in huge amount of revenue.

I worked for 2 Large Banks so that is how I know.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> Though, to be fair, DirecTV is pretty good with this particular fee. Some providers charge it per DVR.


I think Cablevision charges around twelve dollars per DVR. And they only have single tuner DVRs in my area. That would cost me about $280 a month to duplicate the number of tuners I have. The $66 D* charges me a month seems like a pittance compared to that.

I wouldn't mind having that reduced to zero, but I don't think we'll ever see that.

Nice dream, tho...:lol:

Rich


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

APB101 said:


> *Does anyone think DVR fees will eventually become a thing of the past?*
> 
> I'm referring to the type of receiver equipment used, where perhaps all-in-one units with built-in DVR becoming so standard the fee goes away. This isn't just about DirecTV thing; I'm referring, industry wide, to minidish satellite and cable companies, etc..


It is certain to happen at some point. Just like Dish advertised no HD fee someone will advertise no DVR fee. Of course, they will have somehow rolled that fee into their base price by then so you won't really see any cost savings.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Don't confuse equipment lease fees with DVR fees. While DVR fees are built into some pricing models, DIRECTV chooses to keep them separate.

I'm sure the rationale is that DVR customers are higher maintenance support-wise but it certainly doesn't justify the $7/month fee for support.

Long term, you have to look at it as a subsidy for leasing more expensive equipment.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

txtommy said:


> It is certain to happen at some point. Just like Dish advertised no HD fee someone will advertise no DVR fee. Of course, they will have somehow rolled that fee into their base price by then so you won't really see any cost savings.


I'd think that if they rolled it into the base price, I'd still save money. Can't believe that it will happen.

Rich


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

APB101 said:


> *Does anyone think DVR fees will eventually become a thing of the past?*
> 
> I'm referring to the type of receiver equipment used, where perhaps all-in-one units with built-in DVR becoming so standard the fee goes away. This isn't just about DirecTV thing; I'm referring, industry wide, to minidish satellite and cable companies, etc..


Considering that the Premier account used to not have DVR fees and it now does I don't think they'll do away with DVR fees in the near future.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

richierich said:


> Directv Charges me $6 per DVR.


DirecTV's DVR fee is not per DVR. The mirroring/lease fee is per DVR. What he was saying is some providers, like Comcast, charge a DVR fee per DVR and it's pretty high.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

RunnerFL said:


> DirecTV's DVR fee is not per DVR. The mirroring/lease fee is per DVR. What he was saying is some providers, like Comcast, charge a DVR fee per DVR and it's pretty high.


The Mirroring Fee is as far as I am concerned is a DVR Fee just by a different name.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

And lets not forget about the WHDVR fee as well.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Gofastr said:


> Directv is expensive tv.If one can,t afford it you always have over the air.


Not really. Although a small group, there are some folks who can only get satellite TV. This year you'll see the World Series with OTA, but won't see the baseball playoffs.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Considering that the Premier account used to not have DVR fees and it now does I don't think they'll do away with DVR fees in the near future.


I've always had the Premier package and I've always paid for my DVRs. I don't understand.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> The Mirroring Fee is as far as I am concerned is a DVR Fee just by a different name.


Yup, that's how I look at it.

Rich


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

richierich said:


> The Mirroring Fee is as far as I am concerned is a DVR Fee just by a different name.


No, because there actually is something else called a DVR fee. DirecTV had the mirroring fee long before DVRs even existed.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I've always had the Premier package and I've always paid for my DVRs. I don't understand.
> 
> Rich


A few years ago with the Premier package there was no DVR fee, it was free. Now with the Premier package there is a separate DVR fee except for those, like me, who had Premier when there was no fee and we're grandfathered in.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Yup, that's how I look at it.
> 
> Rich


How can it be a "DVR Fee" when you pay it on a non-DVR box too? It's not a DVR fee, it's a mirroring fee. The DVR fee is separate and not per box.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> How can it be a "DVR Fee" when you pay it on a non-DVR box too? It's not a DVR fee, it's a mirroring fee. The DVR fee is separate and not per box.


OK, I understand your point now. I have absolutely no experience with receivers that aren't DVRs. I had no idea that they were mirrored too. Sorry.

Rich


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

rich584 said:


> OK, I understand your point now. I have absolutely no experience with receivers that aren't DVRs. I had no idea that they were mirrored too. Sorry.
> 
> Rich


No need to apologize.

The mirroring fee is a per card/receiver fee so that your plan can be "mirrored" to that receiver as well. If you own the unit is a "mirroring" fee and if the unit is leased it's a "lease" fee.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"FenixTX" said:


> This. I've heard, and I might be wrong, that Comcast charges $15 per hd DVR. That is crazy if true.


20 if it's hd...


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"inkahauts" said:


> 20 if it's hd...


That's insane. The one I always liked back in my cable days, Time Warner charged per month for the remote. It wasn't much, but still was a charge. Though I never tried to return it and get the fee removed.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

richierich said:


> The Mirroring Fee is as far as I am concerned is a DVR Fee just by a different name.


Never mind someone already countered with the same question


----------



## gomezma1 (Mar 28, 2006)

Solid Signal sells a Zinwell DVR without telephone connection and fees to receive OTA HD signals without monthly fees. Also it can be used with analog or HD tv's. They told me I can even record Directv programming also.http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.as...a-HD-DVR-with-320GB-(BV-980H)&sku=87440900302. Check this out.


----------



## MountainMan10 (Jan 31, 2008)

gomezma1 said:


> Solid Signal sells a Zinwell DVR without telephone connection and fees to receive OTA HD signals without monthly fees. Also it can be used with analog or HD tv's. They told me I can even record Directv programming also.http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.as...a-HD-DVR-with-320GB-(BV-980H)&sku=87440900302. Check this out.


It can record Digital TV. That is not the same as DirecTV


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

APB101 said:


> *Does anyone think DVR fees will eventually become a thing of the past?*
> 
> I'm referring to the type of receiver equipment used, where perhaps all-in-one units with built-in DVR becoming so standard the fee goes away. This isn't just about DirecTV thing; I'm referring, industry wide, to minidish satellite and cable companies, etc..


Would you mind clarifying your OP? I'm not sure if you meant the "DVR" fee or the "Mirroring" fee. I don't mind the DVR fee, but I'd be happy to see the mirroring fee go away.

Rich


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

gomezma1 said:


> Solid Signal sells a Zinwell DVR without telephone connection and fees to receive OTA HD signals without monthly fees. Also it can be used with analog or HD tv's. *They told me I can even record Directv programming also.*http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.as...a-HD-DVR-with-320GB-(BV-980H)&sku=87440900302. Check this out.


From the website:


> Records Analog Video Contents from Other STB, Blu-ray or DVD Player


This is how it can "record Directv", by running the output from a DirecTV receiver in real time into the Aux A/V input of this unit. From the picture on that site of the back of the unit, the A/V input consists of 3 RCA jacks for composite video and left and right audio. This is the lowest quality SD output available from current DirecTV receivers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

MountainMan10 said:


> It can record Digital TV. That is not the same as DirecTV


But it _is_ DTV.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

harsh said:


> Sorry, I couldn't resist.


You should try harder.


----------



## gomezma1 (Mar 28, 2006)

But it beats paying the $7 monthly fee.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

gomezma1 said:


> But it beats paying the $7 monthly fee.


:nono:
You're still paying $7 for the DirecTV it must hook up to. You're not saving money and you can't record HD sat stations.


----------



## gomezma1 (Mar 28, 2006)

This would benefit people still with SD programming and they would not have to pay DVR service. Thye could just have it turned off or get a standar receiver. This unit gtes OTA HD signals. I can't see paying for HD and that's why I haven't bought an HD TV. I'm just waiting for my contract to expire to see what other options are avilable at that time.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

gomezma1 said:


> This would benefit people still with SD programming and they would not have to pay DVR service. Thye could just have it turned off or get a standar receiver. This unit gtes OTA HD signals. I can't see paying for HD and that's why I haven't bought an HD TV. I'm just waiting for my contract to expire to see what other options are avilable at that time.


But you'd pay $200 for that DVR just to avoid a $7 DVR fee? After 28 months, you will start to save money. That makes no sense.


----------



## gomezma1 (Mar 28, 2006)

To some people $7 is an inconvenience.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"gomezma1" said:


> This would benefit people still with SD programming and they would not have to pay DVR service. Thye could just have it turned off or get a standar receiver. This unit gtes OTA HD signals. I can't see paying for HD and that's why I haven't bought an HD TV. I'm just waiting for my contract to expire to see what other options are avilable at that time.


Quite a few of us don't pay an HD access fee. But for a lot of customers that box adds a level of complexity that they don't want or need. Sure it works for some, but I'd say a small minority.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

gomezma1 said:


> But it beats paying the $7 monthly fee.


You could always get a TiVo and pay $19.99 / $14.99 per month for DVR service.

I find the rate quite reasonable.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

rich584 said:


> Would you mind clarifying your OP? I'm not sure if you meant the "DVR" fee or the "Mirroring" fee. I don't mind the DVR fee, but I'd be happy to see the mirroring fee go away.
> 
> Rich


Well, I was asking about the DVR fee.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

txtommy said:


> It is certain to happen at some point. Just like Dish advertised no HD fee someone will advertise no DVR fee. Of course, they will have somehow rolled that fee into their base price by then so you won't really see any cost savings.


txtommy has given my favorite answer so far, to that question.

To really know, you need a crystal ball, but there are some things that the odds are high for. One of those is that as bandwidth for broadband to the home opens up, DBS and cable and OTA will find increasing pressure and competition for eyeballs. That has started already, with Netflix and Hulu and AppleTV; it's just not quite ready for prime time. But the day where that method of delivery is the one that makes the most sense is coming and is not really that far off. TV stations and networks have already embraced file-based delivery_ en masse _replacing conventional linear delivery (at least for acquisition). Final delivery is still linear streaming, but at least it is digital, so is not really that vastly different from how YouTube delivers content other than the particular infrastructure used to deliver it.

I see a day when the DVR is relegated to the dustbin of history along with the Selectric typewriter and the buggy whip. I think DTV will proportion increasing amounts of their own bandwidth to VOD, and as file-based delivery rather than as linear real-time playback, which effectively puts their content in a "cloud" similar to the internet, but their own private intranet, where only subs with dishes can access the content. Some of it may even come over the internet, possibly even bit-torrent style. But DBS content however delivered will probably be 90% VOD in just a few years. The HDD in the DVR may either go away altogether, or be used merely as a way to buffer the content, but local storage _per se _will either be fleeting or obsolete. I think the likely thing would be the HDD is replaced by a much smaller SSD, since it doesn't really have to store content, just buffer it for a while. This is the pattern at Apple; the MacBook Air (best computer by far that I have ever owned) is the first, but flash storage is definitely primed to replace mechanical HDDs in our lifetimes if not this decade.

So at that point it would be hard to charge something historically referred to as a "DVR fee". But of course it could morph into an access fee, or be baked into the PPV fees we will be paying for every program in lieu of the channel package fees we pay now.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

gomezma1 said:


> Solid Signal sells a Zinwell DVR without telephone connection and fees to receive OTA HD signals without monthly fees. Also it can be used with analog or HD tv's. They told me I can even record Directv programming also.http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.as...a-HD-DVR-with-320GB-(BV-980H)&sku=87440900302. Check this out.


I can "record DirecTV programming" right now with an equal level of quality using a similar method and connecting to my DVDR. And it even preserves the aspect ratio of HD shows (but of course not the resolution). It even records OTA HD in this same manner.

Neither of those nor this particular device is really very impressive; sounds more like hype than something anyone of us wants. My method is _SO_ exciting I have never_ (yawn) _even attempted to even try it.

I'm not sure what the advantage might be of recording "MPEG-4" OTA since that doesn't even exist. And a 320 GB HDD will probably hold 30 hours of MPEG-2. For not much more (much less if the DVR is free from DTV) I can put a $79 HDD in a DTV DVR with a legitimate GUI and store 475 hours of HD. The only additional cost is the DVR fee. The hype factor here sounds as suspiciously seedy as the Firesign Theatre car ads (if you'll forgive the 1972 reference): _"Each and every car comes with 'Factory Air': air-conditioned air from our air-conditioned factory!"_


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

APB101 said:


> Well, I was asking about the DVR fee.


That's just a few bucks, the mirroring fees are much higher. I'd like to see them go away.

Rich


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

It seems to me that complaining about "fees" of any type is like complaining about a car manufacturer charging extra for options like a sunroof. If they made sunroofs standard equipment, the price of every car would go up, and the person that doesn't want the sunroof would have to pay for it anyway.

Charging "mirroring fees" and "DVR fees" is simply a form of ala carte pricing. If you want the lowest bill possible, use one non-DVR receiver. Of course, you lose the convenience of being able to watch TV in multiple rooms, and record programming in HD. I'm sure lots of people do exactly that (though I'm sure few if any of them frequent this forum). 

If DirecTV, or any other provider, eliminated these fees they would simply be built into the basic content charges. This would drive up prices for those that don't use multiple receivers or DVRs. Is that fair?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Titan25 said:


> It seems to me that complaining about "fees" of any type is like complaining about a car manufacturer charging extra for options like a sunroof. If they made sunroofs standard equipment, the price of every car would go up, and the person that doesn't want the sunroof would have to pay for it anyway.
> 
> Charging "mirroring fees" and "DVR fees" is simply a form of ala carte pricing. If you want the lowest bill possible, use one non-DVR receiver. Of course, you lose the convenience of being able to watch TV in multiple rooms, and record programming in HD. I'm sure lots of people do exactly that (though I'm sure few if any of them frequent this forum).
> 
> If DirecTV, or any other provider, eliminated these fees they would simply be built into the basic content charges. This would drive up prices for those that don't use multiple receivers or DVRs. Is that fair?


The "mirroring fee", if you own, or "lease fee", if you lease, are not ala carte items. We all pay one or the other for anything more than 1 receiver.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

RunnerFL said:


> The "mirroring fee", if you own, or "lease fee", if you lease, are not ala carte items. We all pay one or the other for anything more than 1 receiver.


You have the option of only having 1 receiver though. I think that was the point he was trying to make.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Charter also charges $20 per HD DVR. I'm trying to get my brother to switch.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Charter also charges $20 per HD DVR. I'm trying to get my brother to switch.


Ouch! Does that come with some sort of petroleum based substance that makes it easier to take?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Charter also charges $20 per HD DVR. I'm trying to get my brother to switch.


That's even worse than Cablevision. Hard to believe people go for that. But, I really find it hard to believe that Cablevision has ANY customers. We used to have a bar in town that had a sign on one outside wall that said something like, "Warm beer, lousy food, bad service." Kinda like Cablevision.

Rich


----------



## mashandhogan (Dec 21, 2010)

TBlazer07 said:


> Nah ... it will just continue to increase along with the "mirroring" fees and programming fees.
> 
> Can't wait to see what's in store for us for the February "annual increase." Maybe we should start a pool.


:icon_dumm:new_puppy


----------



## naijai (Aug 19, 2006)

Also you have to remember that for the "dvr" functions some of that technology is licensed from other companies per dvr that is sold and used. Those cost for those fees have to be paid so until companies allow free use of technolgy i'd say those fees are going to be around.


----------

