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

Why is the fight on ppv $10 more for HD ?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by jhillestad, May 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. May 3, 2007 #1 of 32
    jhillestad

    jhillestad Godfather

    425
    0
    Jan 13, 2007
    Man DTV is really nickel and diming its high end users on this! $10 more for the HD broadcast of an already expensive ppv event ?

    They started this with Superfan for football and now it has bled it way to ppv boxing events .....

    They are just taking the same signal that is being sent in HD and downconverting to 480p on one channel and leaving it on hd on the other and charging $10 extra - what the heck is that all about..... Or is it a whole different channel with different angles and everything ? I highly doubt it.

    This nickel and diming needs to stop....
     
  2. May 3, 2007 #2 of 32
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    Because they can...

    But who dictates the price on the PPVs? The sponsor/pub of the event? or DirecTV ?
     
  3. May 3, 2007 #3 of 32
    Smuuth

    Smuuth Well-Known Member

    2,402
    63
    Oct 4, 2005
    Same thing with HD PPV movies on Channel 99 - $4.99 for the same movie that is $3.99 on SD PPV. As Earl said: "Because they can..."
     
  4. May 3, 2007 #4 of 32
    gabe23

    gabe23 Legend

    107
    0
    Mar 6, 2007
    The price on the event is $54.95 as set by the promoter. The extra $10 is purely D* skimming off the top. E* offers it at $54.95 for HD, as does the cable company in my area.
     
  5. May 3, 2007 #5 of 32
    DCSholtis

    DCSholtis Up The Irons!

    5,775
    6
    Aug 7, 2002
    D* has done that for awhile with its boxing PPVs. If you dont want to pay the extra $10 its simple. Dont buy the fight, wait a week till its on HBO-HD.
     
  6. May 3, 2007 #6 of 32
    islesfan

    islesfan Hall Of Fame

    2,670
    1
    Oct 18, 2006
    Nevada
    Actually, we do. If no one buys the PPV at the higher price, they will make no extra profit. I know, its easy for me to say, since I'm not a fight fan. But, if they started adding, say, $30 for most NHL CI games in HD, well, I guess I'd pay that, but $50, I probably wouldn't. Eventually, if enough people don't opt for the extra $, they will have to either drop the price or drop the coverage. If it really is a cost thing, then they will drop the coverage. If it is a "skimming" (ie "profit") thing, then they will try dropping the price, and guaging the customer response.

    Please excuse the econ teacher here...:D
     
  7. May 3, 2007 #7 of 32
    Supervolcano

    Supervolcano Hall Of Fame

    2,085
    0
    Jan 23, 2007
    +1
     
  8. May 3, 2007 #8 of 32
    wmschultz

    wmschultz DBSTalk Club Member DBSTalk Club

    1,135
    0
    Jul 18, 2006
    Another prime example of why the $10 HD Access Fee is complete CRAP!

    If you buy the PPV, Sports Package or anything else that is broadcast in
    SD, the HD portion of it should be part of the price because you already pay
    the ridiculous $10 HD Access Fee.

    Just my $.02.
     
  9. May 3, 2007 #9 of 32
    Smuuth

    Smuuth Well-Known Member

    2,402
    63
    Oct 4, 2005
    Just to carry this one step further: If you think you are going to get 100-150 more HD channels for that same $9.99 HD access fee, dream on. I wager there will be stepped packages for HD channels. The $9.99 will be the base price and more content will cost more.
     
  10. HD AV

    HD AV Legend

    178
    0
    Nov 22, 2006
    That's right, we already pay the HD fee, and as stated by Direct, if you subscribe to the SD channel/package, and HD is available, you get the HD channel also for the $10 HD access fee. That's what we're paying extra for. If we all don't complain to D* about this, what do you think that we will be paying when they add the extra HD channels. The flip side of the coin: Why should we pay more for HD when all broadcasters will be required to transmit digitally in 2009 and D* is not charged a higher rate.
    I know this does not cover private providers who do not transmit OTA, but consider the ones that are going HD. Are we going to have to pay extra for each. We know that D*is not going to duplicate digital HD channels in SD, that would be asinine. If they do, and raise fees more, just because they can, then they can screw someone else 'cause I'm not going to bend over!
     
  11. bigshew

    bigshew Legend

    143
    0
    Feb 26, 2007
    in 2009 they'll come out with an SD Access fee to replace the HD fee.
     
  12. jhillestad

    jhillestad Godfather

    425
    0
    Jan 13, 2007
    So for the extra $10 I get to see the signal as it is transmitted from the event and for $10 less I get the lower quality signal NOT being transmitted from the event ... hahaha

    "because they can" is not a vaild reason... now if they added value to the event like backstage stuff post or pre fight that was not on the ' cheaper ' channel then I can see the ' premium' but this event is being presented in HD from the event itself so its just nickel and diming. A good promotion would have been :

    " See it live and in HD for the same great low price as SD $54.95 " and then you'd see a bunch of people upgrading their tv's and DTV to " hd access " but instead they just look like a bunch of nickel and dimers like the hotel industry with their extra charges like paying to park your car in the lot... it just comes off as lame.

    PPV in hd at least DTV has to convert the movie first and ' do ' something for that extra dollar but this fight is being transmitted in HD ... DTV isn't doing anything to add value for the extra charge they are demanding. Personally I believe if I pay for the event and the hd access monthly charge I should receive it for $54.95 like everyone else has to pay... but to cherry pick and nickel and dime is just plain lame.

    I think I'll offer DTV my new "pay my bill on time " package for an extra $10 off a month I'll pay on time and before all other bills - it's my premium package...

    Just my 2 cents on the whole nickel and dime ' squeeze play ' dtv is doing
     
  13. braven

    braven Hall Of Fame

    1,033
    0
    Apr 9, 2007


    +1
    That's good stuff.
     
  14. gnwes

    gnwes Mentor

    35
    0
    Oct 9, 2006
    I love how people reply with the "if you dont like it dont buy it" crap, what a completely useless comment. So people shouldnt be allowed to complain when something isnt fair? I'm all for capitalism but when you already pay for a service why should you have to pay for it again... its just bad business
     
  15. Mike770

    Mike770 Legend

    209
    0
    Mar 1, 2004
    I'm with you!!!!
     
  16. islesfan

    islesfan Hall Of Fame

    2,670
    1
    Oct 18, 2006
    Nevada
    No, please, don't get me wrong, you're angry and you should complain. All I'm saying is that they can do this "because they can." And, unfortunately, while complaining is cathartic, the only thing they will listen to is not participating. If you complain about the price of something, but still buy it, the message is that the price isn't the most important factor. In weighing opportunity cost, you have chosen to pay up. It is acutally the essence of fair.

    Recently, I posted here about how Charter was screwing me out of a $10 surcharge for not buying more from them. I thought this was gorssly unfair, and I let them know. I also let my Senators, Congressmen, and local officials know. I did this because, as a government granted monopoly, I thought it wrong that they could just tack on fees. The power company can't do that without permission, for example. Nevertheless, when I found out that they were allowed to do what they did, I had a choice. Pay $45 to the local phone company for 2 MB DSL, or keep paying the $55 to charter for 5 MB. I chose to stay with Charter, and I haven't complained since. I made the choice, and therefore, I consented to Charter's "screwing" me.

    It doesn't sound nice, but it is the essence of fairness. On the other hand, a third party telling one provider (DirecTV) how much it has to charge me for a service that I am willing to pay for is the essence of unfair.
     
  17. Diana C

    Diana C Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    2,117
    293
    Mar 30, 2007
    New Jersey
    It's only "bad business" if they make less money with the surcharge that they would without it. That can only happen if people either don't buy the event or change providers. You can complain (and have every right to do so) but in the final analysis it is money that talks.
     
  18. jhillestad

    jhillestad Godfather

    425
    0
    Jan 13, 2007
    Maybe DTV will start charging extra for remotes that have an ON/OFF button - the ' premium ' remote or HD remote they'll call it. Or how about the fight in 5.1 stereo for an extra $5.00 or else we'll make your signal mono - this would be a great PPV add on package.... Hey want to see the fight in COLOR ? order the special color version for an additional $6.99 !

    If you dont like their premium remote or premium sound for extra money then dont buy it.....

    DTV needs to be called out on this ridicules nickel and diming nonsense .
     
  19. islesfan

    islesfan Hall Of Fame

    2,670
    1
    Oct 18, 2006
    Nevada
    In my area, we have limited options for TV service compared to most, and yet I could still switch to Dish, Charter Cable, or On Now (the local phone company's pathetic service). So, even though D* may charge me for more stuff, like a remote with an ON/OFF button, I can just drop D*. OK, little caveat here. When we get stuck with a 2 year committment, there should be an escape clause such that if you want to get out within a certain period of time coinciding with a rate hike, you should be able to quit. Otherwise, you can be locked into a 2 year commit, and they double your monthly rate. Then you really don't have a choice. That's the only real argument about the "unfairness" of the arrangement.
     
  20. serenstarlight

    serenstarlight Legend

    200
    0
    Sep 16, 2006
    My arguement is this... who ever said life is fair? Is there some fairness clause? Some fairness law that companies have to abide by? If life was supposed to be fair we wouldn't be screwed over by the government with each tax charged. People complained about lack of HD and now people complain about paying for it. Is it really that surprising DTV would charge extra for a hd PPV? When you stop and think about the millions + dtv will be and has been dishing (no pun intended) out for hd.. is it really that incredible that they're trying to collect a small amount of those costs back? Does it mean people have to like it? I don't like it.
    I would love to invest in an HD system but I am no way prepared to throw away money on tv. Not that HD's not a really great product but I'm still trying to figure out how to afford $3 a gallon for gas.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page