Boston Globe article on DirecTV

[Dr_J]

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/08/27/higher_expectations/?page=full

[Jon J]

That's not counting the $199 customers pay for the set top box necessary to get that service, since DirecTV sells that equipment to its customers, rather than leasing it for a monthly fee, as cable companies do.

I thought it was an advanced equipment fee not purchase and the box still had to be returned if you cancel service. Am I wrong?

[Redlinetire]

I thought it was an advanced equipment fee not purchase and the box still had to be returned if you cancel service. Am I wrong?

No, the articles wrong. What a surprise! :rolleyes:

My favorite quote is from the cable guy:
"Consumers are going to learn over time that the top HD channels are going to be available on satellite or cable. The fact that Direct at the moment is going to promote that they have the most HD channels, I don't know is relevant, but it's a good marketing scheme," said Stephen R. Effros, a cable industry consultant.

"People don't watch wires and they don't watch satellites, either," he said. "They watch programming."

Yea, I want to watch HD cable guy. Why doesn't my cable offer me MLB in HD? Oh wait, that's right, they don't have the bandwith....

[ansky]

But I do agree when they say the $199 fee is going to hurt in the long run and that D* should change their marketing. While it may be cheaper for the consumer in the long run, many people are going to see the high upfront cost and be deterred from satellite.

Also, satellite still has the image of being much more complicated than cable, especially with its susceptibilty to rain fade. Every time I tell someone I have a dish the first question I always get is: "Doesn't it go out every time it rains?" I think cable TV has had some very effective advertising with those commercials with the guy up on the roof in the storm trying to align his dish. My friend is a huge football fan and wants NFLST, but refuses to get a dish, saying "I don't want to go through all that"

[chopperjc]

But I do agree when they say the $199 fee is going to hurt in the long run and that D* should change their marketing. While it may be cheaper for the consumer in the long run, many people are going to see the high upfront cost and be deterred from satellite.

Also, satellite still has the image of being much more complicated than cable, especially with its susceptibilty to rain fade. Every time I tell someone I have a dish the first question I always get is: "Doesn't it go out every time it rains?" I think cable TV has had some very effective advertising with those commercials with the guy up on the roof in the storm trying to align his dish. My friend is a huge football fan and wants NFLST, but refuses to get a dish, saying "I don't want to go through all that"


The rain fade thing is something I always hear as well. I can obviously only speak for myself but the rain fade issue is almost non-existent for me. At the beginnig of a large thunderstorm I may be out for a couple of minutes.

As far as being complicated that is what dbs talk is for.:lol:

[donshan]

Cable companies have a real dilemma on bandwidth to add enough HD channels to match the new D* HD, especially when D11 is operational. E* is expanding HD too with another HD satellite.

The cable dilemma comes about, in part, because most cable systems still use channels 2 -99 on the old analog NTSC analog signal. It is compatible with millions of old TVs where a cable box is not required- just hook it up to the antenna input. However this is a bandwidth hog. I read an article (link below) about Comcast in Chicago which is taking the plunge to convert every customer to digital and convert that channel 2-99 analog tier to digital too. By doing so they get bandwidth to add 2 to 3 HD channels for each analog channel deleted according the the article. Even assuming they don't compress THAT much, each analog channel converted should give them one good HD plus many SD digital channels. Converting 97 analog channels could create 90 HD channels plus enough SD channels to replace all the analog channels that are not HD ( or some other mix)

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/04/07/comcast-begins-digital-transition-in-chicago/

The problem they face is many low income cable subscribers that do not want extra costs of extra digital boxes or extra cost HDTV. In February, 2009 when analog TV goes off, many will want to have the cable company convert the SD digital back to analog so they don't have to do anything about their 20 year old TV.

Most posters here represent the cutting edge of digital HDTV and are willing to pay for the high quality, but there are millions out there still happy with analog TV. I expect cable to go through a "customer outrage" period in convincing their customers digital is better if it raises their cable bill with digital boxes. Comcast is trying to counter this with one free digital box.

[JLucPicard]

But I do agree when they say the $199 fee is going to hurt in the long run and that D* should change their marketing. While it may be cheaper for the consumer in the long run, many people are going to see the high upfront cost and be deterred from satellite.

Also, satellite still has the image of being much more complicated than cable, especially with its susceptibilty to rain fade. Every time I tell someone I have a dish the first question I always get is: "Doesn't it go out every time it rains?" I think cable TV has had some very effective advertising with those commercials with the guy up on the roof in the storm trying to align his dish. My friend is a huge football fan and wants NFLST, but refuses to get a dish, saying "I don't want to go through all that"
I would much rather pay for the box up front and keep my monthly bill down than pay nothing up front and pay a lot more each month for a box. It also gives D* leaway in making deals on the up front cost of the boxes. That's just my opinion. And besides, even before the leasing thing started, for people to get satellite they were paying for the boxes up front, so not a lot has changed there anyway. If that were the argument to be made, it's the same as it was 'pre-lease'.

As for outages, I would agree that cable's marketing has done it's job - plus the fact that cable has been around a lot longer and people see satellite as "new" and possibly scary or unproven. Oh well. I haven't had cable since before 1996, but I will say I had more outages with cable than I ever had with DirecTV - and cable outages are not measured by minutes, but hours and days (and in some cases-weeks).

[chopperjc]

Article has it's points, Doshan is right a lot of people like analog and will not understand upgrading

[funhouse69]

I do think that the upfront costs for going with any Satellite Solution is a little intimidating for most people looking to get in the game. Sure this could be an argument that if people have an HDTV then they wouldn't mind spending the $199 for a box upfront. Well that is a somewhat significant amount of money and what if you have more than one HD Capable TV? I'm sure you would want to take advantage of their capabilities. Now that we are seeing some smaller HD Ready Sets that are are only a few hundred dollars it is a little harder of a sell to spend an additional $199 to get an HD DVR.

As for service interruptions - this is a tricky one to me. I've been with D* forever and would say that sure I've suffered from "Rain Fade" many times over the years however since upgrading to HD it is at least 100 times worse if not higher then that. I did have an alignment issue that was corrected but even since then on a nice clear day I've got signals that "People would kill for" only to have them go to pretty much zero in nowhere near heavy rain.

Something that I said to a CSR recently totally took him back and by surprise. I said ok what if you sell someone that lives in an area that experiences a lot of severe weather. What good is your TV service if there is a severe thunderstorm or even worse tornado warning issues in your area and the person has no signal due to rain fade? He thought about it and said wow you know I've never thought of that.

To be fair if / when you lose your sat signal it is only for a few minutes but when you lose your cable it can be for hours or even days. This used to be very common back in the day but cable has gotten a lot better.

The bottom line is that since upgrading to HD I've been thrilled with the picture quality but the rain fade has made me really second guess my decision to go with Sat. I am pretty financially committed at this point but may consider FIOS when my town gets off its butt and approves it (we already have Phone / Internet).

[Lord Vader]

To be fair if / when you loose your sat signal it is only for a few minutes but when you loose your cable it can be for hours or even days.

Just curious as to what happens when you tighten your cable? ;)