Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by FrozenAsset, Dec 27, 2012.
No I am not.
True, but neither Dish nor DirecTV off a "triple play" which is where the savings come in.
My Example: I was paying $60/month for 15/5 internet, $15/month for phone and $120/month for DirecTV. That's $195. Now I'm paying $140/mo yr 1 and $160/mo yr 2 for all three services PLUS getting HBO/SHO included (which I didn't have on DirecTV) PLUS getting 75/25 internet and not even taking into consideration the $300 VISA gift card they are sending me.
2 years from now while BOTH services prices will definitely go up neither sat service will be able to provide the triple-play which will have to be some sort of savings over the 3 separate services even taking into consideration they ALL will increase.
It's a matter of the $$$. Maybe 2 years from now I will be cutting the cable entirely. For now I am saving a LOT of money when I need to.
Thanks for the clarification. I've been a subscriber for so long...I think I actually pre-date the annual price increases...that I don't have any idea what new subscribers receive. I think in my case it was limited to new equipment when I signed up through the old American Satellite company.
If I recall, early on I would go a couple of years at a time without a price increase.
But most (sat tv excluded) allow you to break your contract if THEY raise costs over the term of your contract. Cellular services is one that comes to mind.
Except when you "renew" your contract for new equipment or whatever other reason and they lock you in for another 2 years this does not apply. But yes, your INITIAL NEW SUBSCIBER deal is locked in. After that they got you by the gonads.
I believe that's required by law, not by choice of the cellular companies.
And it's really not as bad as some seem to suggest, with us having to pay whatever DirecTV says. It makes it sound like they can change their mind
At least their increases are predictable. They happen once a year at the same time, and really aren't huge increases. Sure $5 or so adds up over time, but they do add things etc. at east it's not like Frontier raising a package price from $65 to $95.
I too have Plus HD DVR and I scrolled through this comparison matrix yesterday after SR told me my package would be converted to its' individual components but the programming would be the same.
I did not find a single channel in Xtra that was not in Plus HD DVR. Plus HD DVR says 200+ channels and that could be 201...or it could be 210. 205+ for Choice Xtra could be 206 or it too could be 210.
I am not so anal retentive that I am going to actually count them, but both packages could have the same number of channels and as long as the count is greater than 205 both descriptions are "correct".
Bumping the number in the Choice Xtra description could be a subtle enticement to get us to convert from a grandfathered package to a current offering by giving the appearance that there is something more in that package.
But DirecTV wouldn't engage in that kind of misdirection, now would they? :lol:
You are correct. It is not really that bad but between the increases and the availability of other sources at (sometimes) substantially lower prices for some people the price difference just pushes you over the edge. Frankly, if I was a sports aficionado I'd stay but in MY CASE I stand to save quite a bit of money and get MORE SERVICES for a lot less.
We get a triple play with AT&T but two years into it the price gos up. I can see the day when I go back to OTA and that's free as the antenna is up and in use now.
Where did you come up with 20%, 30% and 60% figures?
The only channels that most likely have anything like that are the Local ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC stations - because they have been so undervalued compared to viewership for years (Remember, Satellite subs did not take off until locals became available).
Most retransmission agreements between these Companies and both Satellite Companies has been 5 year agreements and 5 years go the payment was among the lowest of any channels - so those are just catching up - though still much lower than other lesser viewed channels - such as ESPN.
Bottom line, you really think it takes 25% more for a DVR now than it did last year (as if it really cost $8 for a DVR to begin with).
That whole fee is just essentially a ~$125M+ per month bonus for D*.
And that does not include the 20% increase in every IRD fee last year ($5-$6roughly another ~$80M+ per month bonus for D*).
HD fee - really?
I purchase an iPhone for $199-$399 and am subject to a 2 year contract with my wireless company. They do not charge me an extra $6 extra month to "lease" the phone I already paid for up front.
D* isn't doing the consumer any favors here, regardless of how they spin it in their press release.
TWC gave the LA Lakers a super high amount and promised a RSN Channel.
The were forced to offer it to other MVPD as part of the deal (and to recoup their cost). Furthermore, TWC's footprint is very hit and miss in Southern California.
As 12% of D*'s customers are located in Southern California - if they wanted to keep those customers, many there because of Sports, they had to take it at whatever price TWC offered it to them for.
They are using the $2 RSN fee to try and offset this expenditure. They had to take it for everyone as part of their deal with TWC.
E* has let people sub to just HBO (or Showtime or Starz) without a basic package. I did it for years until they killed the 148W bird which had full bandwidth HBO compared to what they offered on the normal arc.
This would actually REDUCE the SAC for D*, not increase it - especially as one would not be getting a free install or discounted equipment with a limited subscription.
However, with D*'s current pricing, probably no one would do a sub such as this.
$5 Charge for no basic service
$43+ tax and you are close to a $50 bill just for HBO on 1 receiver. $6 more for every additional receiver.
D* should WISH people would pay that just for HBO. It would be a gold mine of excess revenue for them for the fool that paid it.
There is no "law" to require that.
On some of the older systems that offered HBO on channel 2-13 in the 70s (and put a trap on the line outside your house to kill it if you did not subscribe) you can get HBO with limited basic, but for the most part, most systems killed that concept decades ago.
Regardless, there is no "law" to require it.
EDIT: For clarification, there might be a local franchise agreement which requires it in your town, but as many have moved to State Franchise agreements, it is not required there - and certainly not by the FCC Nationally.
Unless you have an owned HR34, you might not think you are under a 2 year contract, but you are. If you truly have an owned HR34, there are apparently plenty of people that would want to purchase it from you.
Unless Congress creates a bill that program providers not offered to consumers a la carte are paid entirely by a portion of their total hours of viewing (and considering the FCC says cable can now encrypt local channels, this is easily measurable very accurately providing the unit is connected to cable, internet or telephone and would not operate without it), don't expect the increasing fees to stop, especially with channel bundling.
Of course, this is akin to Obamacare - and since Congress cannot even pass a bill to stop the cost of milk from probably doubling next week - lots of luck seeing it ever pass.
Q: What is the “tier buy-through” prohibition in the 1992 Cable Act?
A: The tier buy-through provision of the 1992 Cable Act generally prohibits cable operators from requiring subscribers to purchase tiers of programming, other than the basic service tier, in order to obtain access to video programming offered on a perchannel or per-program basis. In addition, the provision prohibits a cable operator from discriminating between consumers who subscribe to only the basic tier and other subscribers with regard to the rates charged for programming on a per-channel or per event basis. The tier buy-through provision does not apply if the cable operator is subject to “effective competition” as that term is defined by federal law. In addition, a cable operator may request a waiver of the tier buy-through prohibition from the Commission.
Source and more detail: FCC WebsiteHBO and the other premium packages qualify as programming offered on a per channel basis (even though they are packs of channels). Cable systems MUST offer per channel packages on an equal basis to all customers ... whether they subscribe to the lifeline tier or the highest package.
Cable providers are not required to offer HBO on a per channel basis ... they could put it in a higher tier and not sell it to lower tier subscribers. But once they make the service a "per channel" offering cable can't discriminate based on the customer's choice of tier. (Unless, of course, they have "effective competition" or the waiver mentioned above.)
BTW: Lets leave the politics out of this thread and focus on DirecTV and prices. This is not the forum for political comments.
I have Premier and am running two DVRs and one HD receiver and also Whole Home. Living in the L.A. TV market, what does the new pricing do to me? I assume $5 for the package and $2 for RSN. Is there something else I'm missing?
Yes, Yes, No, Yes
We read and we also have resources close to some of the negotiations.
It's not hard.
In one case of contract renewal negotiations...the % expected (prior to a lower compromise) was even higher. Greed greed greed.
Neither does DirecTV. The 6$ fee is for the programming that is shared, which is why your primary reciever is free and the fee is charged whether it's leased or owned.
It's not different than the cellphone service you speak of, where they do family plans. You pay full package price on the primary phone and each additional phone is 5-10$ to share the minutes.
Same with DirecTV. You pay the full package price on your primary reciever (why it's free) and additional 6$ for every other TV to share the programming. It's also why you still pay the 6$ on C31 clients, because it's not for equipment. It is for the shared programming.