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

Dish Announces Price Increases for 2/1/07 and 'a la carte' discussion

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by TNGTony, Dec 21, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cdoyle

    cdoyle AllStar

    94
    0
    Feb 2, 2005
    Actually since singing up with netflix, I'm finding way more movies then I ever did with any of the movie channels.

    just browsing through the library, I've added at least 20 movies that I totally forgot about since they were released. Plus the more movies you rate, the more recommendations based off your ratings appear.
     
  2. killzone

    killzone AllStar

    89
    0
    Dec 27, 2006
    I haven't tried it yet, so I didn't know they give you suggestions and such. This is looking better and better.

    It's looking like the movie packs are losing their value.
     
  3. killzone

    killzone AllStar

    89
    0
    Dec 27, 2006
    Is there any more information on the DVR Advantage packages? Are these going to be available to existing customers? I thought I saw a post somewhere saying it was only for new customers.

    What about if you have 2 DVRS? Would the DVR fees still be included?

    Would it have any impact on grandfathered items, like the $8.99 local+superstation or the $5 service contract that includes all equipment and service with no other service fees?
     
  4. Jim5506

    Jim5506 Hall Of Fame

    3,652
    34
    Jun 7, 2004
    DVR Advantage is for new and existing customers.
     
  5. jrb531

    jrb531 Icon

    916
    0
    May 28, 2004
    Not sayig anything bad about Netflix cause it a real good value but when I compared the two you get a much better value with Blockbuster "if" you have one local.

    You see they now give you the option of either mailing back your returns or if you want to drop off the return at any local store you can trade it for any movie in the store on the spot!

    You also get one free movie coupon each month that is also good for video game rentrals.

    As I said... I have nothing bad to say about Netflix but the Blockbuster exchange is so great that I thought I would mention it.

    -JB
     
  6. jonsnow

    jonsnow AllStar

    54
    0
    Apr 17, 2006
    As of today, cable tv is a luxury, for those with 62" flat screen tvs, period. Pre-Bill Clinton and the year 1996 it was affordable for all. Now I'd rather go to the library system and put a hold on a movie and pay 50 cents for it 9 months latter. HBO and At120 is nice if you can afford it, but I can't. It's my fault not dish, I'm not entitled to cheap cable tv.
     
  7. linuxworks

    linuxworks Legend

    138
    0
    Dec 27, 2006
    I'm currently going further than that.

    I'm now taking the .vob files and running vob2mpg to create a DRM FREE mpg file. its "just a file" - no indexing or any other fluff - but all I really care about is the full movie (or concert) from start to finish. 'features' usually don't interest me.

    and when I save the single .mpg file to disk, that's it - no 'iso emulation' nonsense or any of that.

    sigh. I wish things weren't so wrapped up on policy and politics. its JUST a movie and should be JUST a single file. songs are single files. life should be simple, not complex.

    and hd-dvd and bluray is even MORE of a nightmare. I have zero desire to even go there for those nutty formats..
     
  8. Jim5506

    Jim5506 Hall Of Fame

    3,652
    34
    Jun 7, 2004
    Doesn't the fine print on the BlockBuster commercial indicate that DVD's picked up locally are not included in your subscription to the mail in plan and you will be charged at the regular rental rate?
     
  9. jrb531

    jrb531 Icon

    916
    0
    May 28, 2004
    I don't know anything about the commercial but I have been using this from the start. The only differnece is when you "trade" in a return for a new movie locally you have to return it to that store and you will pay overdue charges if you return the movie late.

    How it works:

    1. You pick a zillion movies online for them to send to you
    2. They send you 3 movies off that list with no time limit for returns
    3. When you are done watching them you have the option of either dropping the movies in the mail via pre-paid envelope "or" you may elect to bring the envelope to your local Blockbuster and trade each envelope for any movie in the store.
    4. Movies traded in at the local Blockbuster are inmmediate marked as returned and they send you move movies in the mail "while" you still have the swaped movies you got locally!

    As I said before... you pay nothing for the swaped movies but you do have to return those to the store as well as the usual time limit the store has for those movies.

    Why is Blockbuster doing this? I'm only guessing that they save the postage because they can return movies in bulk instead of one at a time. The stores collect them in mass and return them at a bulk rate.

    If you add the free coupon for either a movie or now a video game rental each month I think Netflix will have a hard time competing with Blockbuster for those who have local Blockbuster stores.

    -JB
     
  10. jrb531

    jrb531 Icon

    916
    0
    May 28, 2004
    http://www.blockbuster.com/signup/rp/howItWorks

     
  11. Mike D-CO5

    Mike D-CO5 Hall Of Fame

    3,099
    0
    Mar 11, 2003


    I use this service now instead of paying for the premium channels from Dish . It works very well. I encourage others to try it as well.:D
     
  12. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,572
    373
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Cable TV has always been a luxury... and for the record, no one is "entitled" to cable TV be it cheap or expensive. Our US Constitution is meant to guarantee us the "pursuit of happiness" but does not actually guarantee us happiness!

    If there is cable TV and you can pay for it, then you have the right to pay for and receive it... but you are not guaranteed cable TV nor is it guaranteed to be affordable.

    I am not similarly "entitled" to a limousine w/ driver to carry me around everywhere I go! ;)
     
  13. jrb531

    jrb531 Icon

    916
    0
    May 28, 2004
    So I guess phone service, heat, electric and other items not in the US constitution should also not be regulated?

    At what point does something "stop" being a luxury and start becoming a required necessity?

    While I can understand to a lessor extent that heat and electricity have passed toward the realm of luxury to required... not as if most of us can go chop down our local trees for firewood LOL but when did a telephone become required?

    If it's required then why? If it's not required then why did the government step in and break up their monopolistic practices?

    I seem to remember them breaking up the railroad tycoons also along with investigating Microsoft and any other company or companies that attempt to circumvent competition.

    I fail to see how these Pay TV programmers get a free ride. Must be some bribes... errr lobbyists LOL.

    No Pay TV is not required. In fact maybe we would be much better off without mindlessly looking at a box for hours on end but I still have yet to have anyone explain why the Pay TV industry should be exempt from oversight when so many other businesses could never get away with even a portion of the crap that is happening today.

    -JB
     
  14. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,572
    373
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Be careful mixing "regulated" with "required/necessity"... Just because something is a necessity for life doesn't mean it is or should be regulated. We need oxygen, for instance, but there is no government regulation on the air we breathe (except as it pertains to noxious emissions from cars, manufacturing plants, etc.)...

    The general public often wants the government to "run" things... which is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes a bad thing. De-regulation of the power companies in California, for instance, seems to have had a negative effect so it can be argued government controls over some things can be good.

    A lot of it depends upon where you are in your life. A homeless man would most likely not consider a phone to be a requirement. He would consider food, water, and shelter to be requirements no doubt... but phone, TV, internet, and even "fancy clothes" would be luxuries most homeless people would gladly pass up for the basic necessities.

    On the other hand... those of us more fortunate in life might get used to our electricity and our heat/cool air conditioners, our fancy phones, TV, and so forth and perhaps consider them hard to live without... but are they really?

    I know when the power goes out, a rarity admittedly... I don't freak out like some folks. There was an ice storm in NC a few years ago where a lot of areas were without power for more than a week. Now, heat was a problem especially with babies and the elderly or sick who had a very hard time with the cold temperatures at night. I understand that... but a LOT of people were calling in and not going to work just because their power was out... not because they needed to be home, but because they felt "lost" without power. People couldn't eat, in some cases, because they couldn't go to their favorite fast-food place that had no power! It was insane to see how many folks were unnecessarily "crippled" by lack of power as compared to folks who actually were in need of assistance during that week.

    I'm not sure *I* consider a phone a requirement or something the government should guarantee me... but given the way of life, and the relatively low cost of ownership to have a phone... I wouldn't have a problem if it were something that everyone had. Of course today not everyone has a phone. Some folks can't pay the bill and afford it, so not everyone has one. There are different phone plans and land-line vs cellular, but there are lots of folks without a phone because they cannot afford to have one.

    Obviously the government (and the general populace) has not stepped in to mandate everyone has a phone... or everyone would have a phone! :) So, even with some FCC regulation on phone companies, there is no guarantee of phone to you or I except as long as we can pay our bill.

    Again, don't confuse things... The government steps in when they believe the market is being unfairly manipulated. This can be from the old anti-trust legislation or monopolies or the price-gouging that occurs after natura disasters. When the government comes down on a price-gouger after the hurricane, it doesn't mean the government is suddenly regulating and guaranteeing fence-mending services to everyone! It just means they are trying to weed out some of the folks who are unfairly manipulating the system.
     
  15. FTA Michael

    FTA Michael Hall Of Fame

    3,474
    4
    Jul 21, 2002
    That's a real question. Phone service, for example, began as a real luxury, but now it's considered such a necessity that some states have provisions for low-cost "lifeline" accounts.

    But the real reason why phone service, heat and electric are typically regulated is that they are typically utilities. The concept of utilities goes back to Edison, who saw the expense and waste of building competing electric grids. Edison came up with the idea of locking in a reduced (but more certain) profit in exchange for governmental approval of Edison's company being the only game in town.

    When cable TV first arrived, its similarly large infrastructure led some to believe that it should be regulated as a utility, but instead, we got the local franchise agreement model. Some early franchise agreements were exclusive, but more often the expense of duplicating the existing grid was sufficient to prevent meaningful competition.

    Now we have satellite TV :righton: which is regulated federally, competing with cable, which has a mixture of local and federal regulations.

    But even though a huge majority of US households subscribes to multichannel TV, few consider it to be a true necessity, and even fewer call for it to be regulated as a utility.
     
  16. jrb531

    jrb531 Icon

    916
    0
    May 28, 2004
    First off thanks for the interesting and educational responses with some great points that I would like to add to.

    While I do not prescribe to this theory there are some who feel that a "true" open market is one in which supply and demand dictate the prices of things and as such there is nothing wrong with prices rises dramatically short term.

    The thing is "who" decides what is too much or when the line has been crossed between profit taking and predatory profits?

    Surely when the hurricane hit the price of gas rose instantly while the gas stations were still selling the "cheap" gas already in their tanks. When the price drops they do not "instantly" drop the price accordingly but wait until the tank is refilled. This is nothing new and has been happening for years and each time people cry foul and there are investigations and nothing becomes of it.

    Now another interesting point is the "logic" for not having duplicate distribution networks.

    Why have two sets of power grids for different power companies?
    Why have two sets of water pipes for different water companies?
    Why have two sets of gas pipes for different companies?

    or I might add...

    Why have two sets of satalites for different companies?
    Why have two sets of cables for cable companies?

    Do people realize how much cheaper our bills "could" be if there was only one satalite company? One set of birds will serve 1 or 1 zillion people for the same cost! Right now we have two sets of satalites up in space sitting next to each other (figuratively) broadcasting the same signals in duplicate. This makes ZERO sence and is utterly silly!

    All that wasted bandwidth because congress is afraid that those in the boonies who cannot get cable will somehow get charged more by the satalite company because they have no cable compentition over those in the cities who do have competition! You know how stupid this concept is and the FCC bought it and blocked the DTV-Dish merger.

    More like the Cable industry feared (as well they should) that one satalite company would be able to undercut them so they bribed... errr donated huge sums of $$$ to "educate" the FCC and congress how one Satalite company would kill competition for the farmers :)

    Kind of funny how this has come full circle and now the cable companies with bundling of phone and internet now have the upper hand.... want to bet that eventually the merger will be allowed but only when cable has the firm upper hand.

    I find it shocking how little our representatives actually represent the voters and instead most are nothing but shills for big business and the donations (bribes).

    Some may say that these are not bribes but as I see it:

    What are donations? Seems to me they are defined above. You do not vote the way those who donate to you and you get no more $$$.

    So yes I feel very strongly that the cable industry bribed the government into killing the merger which made sense. I also find it very interesting that they seem to care very little about the programmers monopolistic practices but only after the bribes started pouring in and suddenly everyone who thought something needed to be done backed off and changed their mind.

    Amazing!

    How many people really have two sets of cable coming down their streets with two distict cable companies in competiton? If the answer is very little then why was it so important to have two satalite companies in direct competition?

    Cable, FIOS, Satalite are nothing but "distribution" methods for Pay TV and nothing more. So until we have multiple sets of cable running down "everyones" street, untill we have multiple sets of phone wires running does "everyones" street....

    well until that point... well why do we "need" two sets of expensive birds up in the sky duplicating the very same programming?

    -JB
     
  17. Jim5506

    Jim5506 Hall Of Fame

    3,652
    34
    Jun 7, 2004
    You'd be surprised how many times such overlaps actually DO occur. We have 2 power companies each with seperate distribution grids, 3 cable companies each with their own distribution systems (they do not all cover all of the city, but they DO overlap.

    Dish and Direct's receivers and dishes are SO different that one or the other or both would have to be entirely replaced.
     
  18. eatonjb

    eatonjb Legend

    161
    0
    Nov 21, 2006
    both would have to replaced, and it would take some time. also a merge would take years anyways, and they would have to set cut off dates when new system has to be in place at Dish/Direct's expence, (witch would come back to us in the long run) and if there was only one, god only knows what the price would be, since they wont have any other sat company to compeate with!

    I dont know if it will happen.. we will see
     
  19. jrb531

    jrb531 Icon

    916
    0
    May 28, 2004
    What would one vs two Satalite companies have to do price-wise matter when the real competition is cable?

    When the merger was proposed it was pre-HD for the most part and they were still rolling out locals. The FCC canned the merger because those areas without cable would have zero competition.

    The silly fact (that Dish brought up and they ignored) is that the price is fixed for "all" customers and the fact that most people "do" have cable competition would mean that the price would remain competative.

    The FCC (if you beleive it) thought that one Dish company would mean the price would go up for those without competition.

    It was a total and utter farce - yes it would have been rolled out over the years but in the past year the 622 could have been rolled out for "all" customers and with the huge $$$ saved along with the extra bandwidth we would have plenty of room for HD as well as the price being kept in check.

    Right now, instead of cable getting ready for the kill with cheaper bundled service, Dish would be viable long term because it would have been cheaper to provide Pay TV with cable being better if you wanted to get phone-internet from them...

    Example:

    Dish+3rd party internet+3rd party Phone = about same price as bundled cable PayTV-Phone-Internet

    Now in the coming years it will be the satalite companies that struggle to convince people why they should pay more for their Pay TV than you can get with a bundled deal from cable.

    Which is why, in the long run, they will allow the merger. They help them up until cable got their act together.

    If their original reasons to deny the merger were valid it will remain valid and they will "never" be allowed to merge. If they pull up some ok in the future it will yet again prove that $$$ talks and the error was Satalite not pumping their own bribe $$$ in the bougth and paid for politicians who sell their votes to the highest bidder yet we elect these same hacks over and over.

    -JB
     
  20. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,572
    373
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Often it is a matter of perspective. If you were running a company, and you could buy components to make a cool gadget that everyone wanted and you were the only one who could make them... then you would likely sell for whatever the market would bear.

    What if you could buy and assemble for $5, but you found that you could sell them rather quickly at $25 per? Is that gouging or good business? What if you found you could raise the price to $35 and they still moved quickly?

    Often "greed" is a matter of perspective rather than being a blatantly obvious thing.

    Basic economics makes use of price in controlling supply/demand. If you have a lot of demand and limited supply, then you control things by raising the price until things still sell briskly but not so fast that you cannot keep up. As a control mechanism, pricing is as much about profit as it is about keeping the market "balanced"... An item priced too cheaply will sell faster/more often than it should until the price reaches a proper level.

    Similarly, you find out when you are priced too high for the market when your demand begins to drop and you find profitability taking a hit.

    Using gasoline as an example... there are some folks who would argue gasoline is obviously not too expensive yet because we have not changed our driving habits. Some folks think the only way to effect that change would be to raise the price even more. In the short term that would also mean big profits for the oil companies! But in the long-term it would serve to shift market interest away from fossil fuels.. so it can be a tricky thing to guage whether even greed is a bad thing if it effects positive change down the road.

    People having to pay too much for the gasoline could lead to less driving, which means less air polution... and could also lead to alternative sources of fuel that are cheaper or more efficient or better for the environment... and while an oil company may be raking it in today, 20 years from now it could be a has-been industry if they are unable to adapt. History is littered with "big companies" that couldn't change with the times and market shifts and even their days of big profit didn't help in the end.

    This is a tougher thing... when you consider that in many areas one company put a lot of money into infrastructure of pipes and power grids... so why should another company get to piggy-back along without having to do the same? Yes, it is inefficient... but how many of us would want our co-worker to reap all the reward and recognition for tagging along at the end of the day after we put in the blood and sweat to get the bulk of the project done?

    Inefficient yes... but another power company isn't entitled to free or even cheap use of a power grid that some other company spent years and millions of dollars building.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page