1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the new DBSTalk community platform. We have recently migrated to a community platform called Xenfono and hope you will find this change to your liking. There are some differences, but for the most part, if you just post and read, that will all be the same. If you have questions, please post them in the Forum Support area. Thanks!

Rate increases coming, could be worse

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by ChicagoBlue, Sep 11, 2012.

  1. Sep 11, 2012 #1 of 134

    ChicagoBlue Godfather

    Apr 29, 2011
    Comcast had their second price increase in a year announced this weekend to Atlanta and other customers. DISH will be raising prices a good chunk this year considering their earnings were so below the mark this year, margins ate them up.


    DTV certainly will have to raise prices to offset Viacom, local channel increases and all the built in escalator rate increases from the HBO, ESPNs, etc of the world.

    Simply a matter of how much.
  2. Sep 11, 2012 #2 of 134

    HarleyD Hall Of Fame

    Aug 31, 2006
    The rates go up every year around February/March.

    I expect no different this year.
  3. Sep 11, 2012 #3 of 134

    lokar Icon

    Oct 7, 2006
    I am hopeful that the rates rise to the point where there will be mass defections from all cable/satellite providers and then the rates will fall. It is ridiculous that rates rise far higher than inflation every year and it's all because of no a la carte.
  4. Sep 11, 2012 #4 of 134

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    May 30, 2007
    To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

    I see a la carte mentioned a lot as the solution for the costs going up. If it was an option, I don't think it would actually end up being the solution people think it would be.
  5. Sep 11, 2012 #5 of 134

    Hoosier205 New Member

    Sep 3, 2007
    Because of no a la carte? Not exactly. Be thankful we don't have a la carte. You'd be paying more for far less.
  6. Sep 11, 2012 #6 of 134
    Carl Spock

    Carl Spock Superfly

    Sep 3, 2004
    lokar, you want to blame somebody, blame ESPN. They set their rate high because no service provider can survive being without them. They get their asking price. Every other network then falls in line.
  7. Sep 11, 2012 #7 of 134

    fireponcoal Icon

    Sep 26, 2009
    Thank god for bitmetv!
  8. Sep 11, 2012 #8 of 134
    Carl Spock

    Carl Spock Superfly

    Sep 3, 2004
    Here is an analysis of the typical cable/satellite customer's bill. For some folks, a quarter of their bill is just for ESPN and ESPN2. Wowsah!
  9. Sep 11, 2012 #9 of 134

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    Nov 1, 2010

    This year, we have seen:

    - Tribute Dispute.
    - Viacom Dispute.
    - Local LLC dispute.
    - NW Broadcasting dispute.
    - Several other local disputes.

    We are currently experiencing:

    - PAC12 dispute. (Or not really a dispute, but still price negotiations).

    We will see:

    - TWC Sports Net Los Angeles negotiations.
    - Discovery Communication contract renewal.
    - CBS contract renewal.

    And there are probably quite a few negotiations that have been done silently, where they came to terms quickly.

    The new station additions mean more money. And the disputes almost always mean more money. I would EXPECT a increase, as much as $5 per package per month.
  10. Sep 11, 2012 #10 of 134

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    Nov 1, 2010
    A la carte will most definitely INCREASE your monthly bill.
  11. Sep 11, 2012 #11 of 134

    jdspencer Hall Of Fame

    Nov 7, 2003
    Instead of following the crowd, it would be nice if a content provider just held the line in what they charge. It seems like they just raise their rates because they can and the customers just accept it.

    Although a-la-carte sounds like a solution, it would raise your costs as Hoosier said above.
  12. Sep 11, 2012 #12 of 134

    n3vino Godfather

    Oct 2, 2011
    What happens is that all broadcaster raise their prices. The problem with that is that if any provider let's those channels go, subrscribers will jump ship. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
  13. Sep 11, 2012 #13 of 134

    kevinturcotte New Member

    Dec 19, 2006
    Ala Carte is a double edged sword. If you really only want just a few channels, it will probably work out fine for you. If you like a variety though, chances are your bill would go up.
  14. Sep 11, 2012 #14 of 134

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    May 30, 2007
    Would probably depend on who owned those channels as well. If one was owned by Viacom as an example, it might not work out as well.
  15. Sep 11, 2012 #15 of 134

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    ESPN is kind of like HBO used to be before the sum total of their offering was two or three original series. I think people will start learning to survive without ESPN when the average monthly DIRECTV bill tops $100 (I'm predicting the Fall of 2013).

    With ESPN having to compete with new NCAA conference nets and new RSNs as well as the other incumbents, they're going to struggle mightily to justify the rates.

    Being the "Sports Leader" is going to be an exceedingly costly proposition.
  16. Sep 11, 2012 #16 of 134

    bobnielsen Éminence grise DBSTalk Club

    Jun 29, 2006
    Perhaps Directv could offer some ESPN-less packages at proportionally lower rates (e.g., why is it included in the Entertainment package?)
  17. Sep 11, 2012 #17 of 134

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    CSN-Houston too.
  18. Sep 11, 2012 #18 of 134

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    Dec 6, 2006
  19. Sep 11, 2012 #19 of 134

    ChicagoBlue Godfather

    Apr 29, 2011
    Not going to happen. ESPN requires 85% to 90% penetration for the entire subscriber base. They get it because they can. Which means, if DTV offers a package without ESPN and it sells too well, they are in breach of contract. This is across the industry. Fox is the same way, because they can.

    This is why you see very few packages in cable, telco, satellite that exclude ESPN. Those packages that do, they are very lightly penetrated.

    So your solution, while admirable, is not possible and the industry knows it.
  20. Sep 11, 2012 #20 of 134

    ChicagoBlue Godfather

    Apr 29, 2011
    It is not even a subject of debate. You would pay a lot more for a lot less. It is happening as we speak in Canada.

    There is also political reasons why it won't happen. Think about channels like BET that serves the African American audience. If that was no longer just included in your base package, how many people would buy it? 15% of the population? 20%? Let's be generous and say 30%. No way they could survive that way, they would go belly up. Now, tell a politician that and watch the sparks fly. Now gov't starts to pick winners and losers again (which they do all so well :nono2: ) and will demand some channels are still carried for political reasons while others have to survive via the market and a la carte. It is a disaster in the making.

    Far less options, higher prices = pure a la carte model. It has been studied many times. Will not work.

Share This Page