1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

2nd ppv poll

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by curt8403, Dec 25, 2008.

should Directv drop PPV and use the space elsewhere

  1. Yes.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No

    196 vote(s)
    79.0%
  3. I have no opinion / Other

    52 vote(s)
    21.0%
  1. Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    I believe this has happened once or twice in the past .. where some PPV were replaced by "real" channels. Even now, I believe some of the current HD PPV channels are placeholders (earning income) until new channels are added.

    I think (as Tom suggests) we are better off with 'em than without 'em.
     
  2. SledDog

    SledDog Icon

    676
    0
    May 5, 2007
    Some folks are looking at this issue from only one side... And that's the HRXX side.. The side with the 24 hour rule, the side with "on demand".

    Most are forgetting the folks with only SD and H2X boxes. The 24 hours rule does not effect them. They are watching the PPV when they purchase it. And they maybe recording it to a DVD or non DirecTV DVR to view it again at a later date.

    I'm in favor of keeping PPV because they help keep our bills down. :)
     
  3. photostudent

    photostudent Godfather

    298
    2
    Nov 8, 2007
    I voted "no". I never rent PPV but it is not up to me to tell other how to waste their money. Also I do not see enough HD content to come close to filling the PPV slots.
     
  4. tcusta00

    tcusta00 Active Member

    7,911
    1
    Dec 31, 2007
    I don't think it's a matter of Tom having some kind of insider knowledge that the rest of us aren't privy to. In this case I think it's just a matter of common sense: If a movie rental costs $1 at RedBox and $4 on DirecTV there's certainly a higher margin on the PPV. The studios still get their cut, which I'm sure is similar with both delivery methods. So it stands to reason that DirecTV makes big bucks off PPV, which in turn, somehow subsidizes our bills.
     
  5. barryb

    barryb New Member

    2,937
    3
    Aug 26, 2007
    I voted "no" as I like the idea of PPV.

    What I don't like is the pricing... what I really don't like is the 24 hour rule.
     
  6. curt8403

    curt8403 Hall Of Fame

    4,481
    0
    Dec 27, 2007
    we should split this in two. I am in favor of keeping Boxing, UFC, WWE, and etc. I am opposed to keeping all of the movie channels
     
  7. Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    So you want higher rates?
     
  8. gfrang

    gfrang Hall Of Fame

    1,335
    0
    Aug 29, 2007
    I just set my spending limits on both receivers to $1.00,so i can order ppv any time i want but never buy.Anyway i voted yes.
     
  9. curt8403

    curt8403 Hall Of Fame

    4,481
    0
    Dec 27, 2007

    I look at it like this. they have x number of channels that they sell for PPV usage, and the market really will only bear 1/2 x channels. I would favor reducing the number of channels since supply is way ahead of demand.
     
  10. newsposter

    newsposter Hall Of Fame

    1,429
    1
    Nov 12, 2003
    i love the PPV option..i watch probably less than 1 a year on avg but if it was gone, i'd feel like i was missing the chance to watch something :)
     
  11. ub1934

    ub1934 Icon

    518
    0
    Dec 30, 2005
    UpState NY
    I voted yes because of the extra cost of HD PPV & the 24 hr time limit .
     
  12. bsboggs

    bsboggs Legend

    210
    0
    Oct 18, 2007
    I voted yes because of the draconian usage policies and the cost.
    I use netflix and find it's a much better use of a few dollars for movie entertainment.
     
  13. Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    :confused: .. even if I thought that this statement was true, I would think using a channel for PPV vs. not using it at all would be the better option. Once agreements are worked out and channels are available, sure, but I wouldn't remove the PPV channel for the sole purpose of having less PPV channels. I'm sure there is plenty of profit in PPV or DIRECTV wouldn't bother with it at all.
     
  14. curt8403

    curt8403 Hall Of Fame

    4,481
    0
    Dec 27, 2007

    look at it like this. if you were an auto dealer, and bought 100 cars knowing you would only sell 50, and knew that the other 50 would be crushed into scrap at the end of your sale, would that be smart?
    the dealer in this case is the studios that buy the ppv space.
     
  15. Thaedron

    Thaedron Hall Of Fame

    1,886
    0
    Jun 29, 2007
    We have used PPV in the past, but very occasionally. With the change to the 24 hour rule, we'll likely never PPV again. The badwidth would be much better served for other purposes, IMO.
     
  16. barryb

    barryb New Member

    2,937
    3
    Aug 26, 2007
    I know I would use PPV much more for movies if they dropped the price at least a buck and turned the 24 hour rule into something more reasonable, such as a week.

    If others used it much more like I would, then D would do better in the PPV market.
     
  17. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,807
    84
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    I would not mind getting rid of the PPV movies if my bill would not go up but as for events I say keep PPV events. I watch UFC and alot of people watch Boxing and Wrestling events.
     
  18. paulh

    paulh Godfather

    447
    0
    Mar 17, 2003
    I voted yes as I have not ordered a PPV movie since they increased from $2.99 (used to think 2-3 PPV's was a better deal than getting any one premium channel)
    $3.99 makes a local DVD rental feel more affordable. (but I do not bother doing that, either)

    But, you do need to remember, the last few years, D* has essentially turned off all PPV (saying future programming in the guide on Sunday) to make room for NFL-ST channels. D* could not realistically change the PPV movies into, say, the extra HBO channels, because D* could then no longer show NFL-ST..
    Plus, most movie PPV channels are very bandwidth efficient (most movies have slow backgrounds which means better compression, and D* may be able to spend as much time as they want on extra processing time to compress the PPV even more than "live feeds" from other providers)
     
  19. Barmat

    Barmat Godfather

    261
    0
    Aug 26, 2006
    I stopped ordering PPV since the 24hr rule started. I used to order 2-3 a month. I will never order a PPV with the 24hr rule in effect.
     
  20. Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    Except that it's not that way .. It's more like the road that those cars travel on .. some are toll lanes some are not. Should you shut down the toll lane just because?

    I'm sure some of the PPV will be swapped for other channels as agreements or channels become available .. but why turn it off? It's inventory you have regardless of whether or not it's used and since you can't go backwards in time and use that unused bandwidth anyway .. why not use it?

    In any event, I suspect it makes more money for DIRECTV than you think it does.
     

Share This Page