Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

I'm tired of DIRECTV's Creative Ways of Digging into my pocket


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
163 replies to this topic

#51 OFFLINE   damondlt

damondlt

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 5,370 posts
  • LocationNewfoundland, Pa
Joined: Feb 27, 2006

Posted 11 August 2013 - 05:37 PM

I dropped the Protection plan, as I too think its a money grab.


Blue Ridge Communticatons

Digital HD Basic Plus, Cinemax,Showtime/TMC,Starz /Encore
Tivo T6 (Roamio Plus) Master Bedroom,Samsung 5300 40 Inch

Tivo Mini Livingroom Vizio M602i-B3 60 Inch

Tivo Mini Bedroom 2  LG 26LE5300 26 Inch
Tivo Mini Bedroom 3  Element ELEFW328 32 Inch
Cisco HD ,Bedroom office 4  Magnavox 32 inch

Arris Touchstone DG1660

Dream 60 Mbps down 3 Mbps up.

 


...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#52 OFFLINE   peds48

peds48

    🙈🙉🙊📡

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,437 posts
  • LocationNY
Joined: Jan 10, 2008

Posted 11 August 2013 - 05:43 PM

AT&T charges $35.00 to "mirror" my data plan to my 2nd and 3rd iPhone, but yet no one "complains"
Here’s to the crazy ones.
The misfits. The rebels.
The the troublemakers.
The round pegs in the square holes.

The ones who see things different.
They’re not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status quo.


Think Differently 

#53 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,955 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 11 August 2013 - 05:55 PM

AT&T charges $35.00 to "mirror" my data plan to my 2nd and 3rd iPhone, but yet no one "complains"


It's all in the packaging. Call it a "family plan" and up the price.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#54 OFFLINE   peds48

peds48

    🙈🙉🙊📡

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,437 posts
  • LocationNY
Joined: Jan 10, 2008

Posted 11 August 2013 - 07:30 PM

It's all in the packaging. Call it a "family plan" and up the price.

SO is a good thing that DirecTV only charges $6.00 per receiver
Here’s to the crazy ones.
The misfits. The rebels.
The the troublemakers.
The round pegs in the square holes.

The ones who see things different.
They’re not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status quo.


Think Differently 

#55 OFFLINE   Spike

Spike

    Legend

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 198 posts
Joined: Jul 04, 2007

Posted 12 August 2013 - 01:40 AM

AT&T charges $35.00 to "mirror" my data plan to my 2nd and 3rd iPhone, but yet no one "complains"

There are other companies out there currently that are addressing this issue to the point that people are switching and saving money. But that is the subject for a different type of web site.


Holy Cow! The Cubs?

#56 OFFLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,601 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 12 August 2013 - 06:11 AM

There certainly are ways that DirecTV could really try for a money grab, like not having the DVR fee per account. I honestly don't know of any carrier that doesn't charge a monthly fee for DVR. Tivo of course has their lifetime DVR, but you pay for that, and if the DVR fails after the warranty is expired, you lose it.

 

Could DirecTV include HD? Sure, but SD subscribers would feel that they are paying for something they don't use. DirecTV used to require Superfan to get HD Sunday Ticket, they dropped that several years ago.

 

All carriers have fees, everyone just has to decide which option is best for them. Fortunately, even for those in rural areas, there is more than one option.



#57 OFFLINE   Diana C

Diana C

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 2,106 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey
Joined: Mar 30, 2007

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:15 AM

On the issue of "mirror fees" - pricing is not solely based on cost, but on value. If the programming DirecTV delivers to you has value (and I don't argue that the cost is high) then delivering it to multiple outlets instead of just one has incremental value. If they charged nothing, then they would be giving away value (a cardinal sin in the rules of capitaIism). DirecTV has valued this service at $6 per outlet. Others value their service at different, but roughly analogous, prices. The same applies for whole home DVR service and HD. The fact that all the providers, satellite and cable, have pretty much the same bottom line price once you net out all the services shows that the prices are fair. If they were not, some provider would come along and try to steal market share with a lower price. Dish Network tried that, and had to bring their prices into line with everyone else to make a profit.

As has been noted, the problem is not DirecTV or any other middleman provider, it is the cost of the content itself. There are many factors that drive this but chief among these is the cost of people. Sports content is so outrageously expensive because athletes are paid so outrageously. Entertainment costs are high because big name actors are paid obscene amounts of money. I'm not saying actors and athletes shouldn't take the money...they'd be fools to turn it down. But why are the teams and producers willing to pay so much? Because viewers and fans want the sports coverage, the movies and the TV shows.

So, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We continue to pay for access to an ever larger pool of entertainment and sports. As long as most people keep shelling out the money costs will not come down. The consumer ultimately controls pricing.
  • Rich and MysteryMan like this

Dish Network Customer from 9/1998-11/2001
DirecTV Customer 10/2001 - 7/2014

FiOS TV/TiVo Customer since 6/2014
Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006

Current setup:
DirecTV: HR34-700 (1TB) / HR24-100 (1TB) / HR24-500 (1TB) / HR21-700 (320GB) / HR21-100 (1TB) / 2 H25s / C41-500 / SWiM16 / Nomad / CCK

FiOS: 2 Tivo Roamio Pros (6 TB total) / 5 Tivo Minis attached via MOCA


#58 OFFLINE   MysteryMan

MysteryMan

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 7,476 posts
  • LocationUSA
Joined: May 17, 2010

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:56 AM

On the issue of "mirror fees" - pricing is not solely based on cost, but on value. If the programming DirecTV delivers to you has value (and I don't argue that the cost is high) then delivering it to multiple outlets instead of just one has incremental value. If they charged nothing, then they would be giving away value (a cardinal sin in the rules of capitaIism). DirecTV has valued this service at $6 per outlet. Others value their service at different, but roughly analogous, prices. The same applies for whole home DVR service and HD. The fact that all the providers, satellite and cable, have pretty much the same bottom line price once you net out all the services shows that the prices are fair. If they were not, some provider would come along and try to steal market share with a lower price. Dish Network tried that, and had to bring their prices into line with everyone else to make a profit.

As has been noted, the problem is not DirecTV or any other middleman provider, it is the cost of the content itself. There are many factors that drive this but chief among these is the cost of people. Sports content is so outrageously expensive because athletes are paid so outrageously. Entertainment costs are high because big name actors are paid obscene amounts of money. I'm not saying actors and athletes shouldn't take the money...they'd be fools to turn it down. But why are the teams and producers willing to pay so much? Because viewers and fans want the sports coverage, the movies and the TV shows.

So, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We continue to pay for access to an ever larger pool of entertainment and sports. As long as most people keep shelling out the money costs will not come down. The consumer ultimately controls pricing.

Well said. :righton:


DIRECTV customer since 1995.

#59 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,109 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:27 AM

Agree. Pricing in these markets is based mostly on value, not cost. Grocery stores run off costs, by and large. 

 

I do wonder what will be the lever that brings down costs of sports- and team values, which I think are based mostly on TV and Gate revenues- If we consumers balk, then ad revenues fall, the value of TV contracts falls, distributors don't have to pay as much, and the poor little athletes have to settle for a few millions instead of dozens....


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#60 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 678 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 12 August 2013 - 09:53 AM

Government intervention is the last thing I want.  While it could control costs it would definitely control content and that  would destroy it.

 

Intervention doesn't have to be huge.  Just preventing ESPN (for example) from forcing all subscribers to receive and pay for their channels would be a big improvement.

 

As has been noted, the problem is not DirecTV or any other middleman provider, it is the cost of the content itself. There are many factors that drive this but chief among these is the cost of people. Sports content is so outrageously expensive because athletes are paid so outrageously. Entertainment costs are high because big name actors are paid obscene amounts of money. I'm not saying actors and athletes shouldn't take the money...they'd be fools to turn it down. But why are the teams and producers willing to pay so much? Because viewers and fans want the sports coverage, the movies and the TV shows.

So, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We continue to pay for access to an ever larger pool of entertainment and sports. As long as most people keep shelling out the money costs will not come down. The consumer ultimately controls pricing.

 

The only control that the consumer has over sports cost is to not have a sat/cable service at all.

 

With the CBS and TWC spat we now see that the ESPN-style fleecing of the consumer is going to spread to everything.  "locals" will become a package.

 

The TV industry is accelerating towards it's own demise.  On the one hand we get more and more worthless content (like Honey Boo Boo, Lizard Lick Towing, etc) and good content is rapidly increasing in cost beyond it's value for most people.



#61 OFFLINE   Gloria_Chavez

Gloria_Chavez

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 475 posts
Joined: Aug 11, 2008

Posted 12 August 2013 - 10:19 AM

Sports content is so outrageously expensive because athletes are paid so outrageously.

 

Athletes are paid so outrageously in large part due to ESPN.  And that's because every PayTV subscriber has to pay ESPN 5.50 a month, even though 80% of subs never watch a sporting event.  Without this subsidy from the NonSports Sub to the Sports Fanatic, ESPN would have to charge 30 dollars a month in order to honor their financial commitments to the sports leagues.

 

And since this scenario isn't viable, athletes' pay would immediately decline.


Since 1995 the average cable bill has increased 122%, while TV consumption per household just 13%.

http://www.multichan...1_Per_Month.php

http://blog.nielsen....-all-time-high/

#62 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,928 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 12 August 2013 - 10:36 AM

Intervention doesn't have to be huge.  Just preventing ESPN (for example) from forcing all subscribers to receive and pay for their channels would be a big improvement.

 

 

The only control that the consumer has over sports cost is to not have a sat/cable service at all.

 

With the CBS and TWC spat we now see that the ESPN-style fleecing of the consumer is going to spread to everything.  "locals" will become a package.

 

The TV industry is accelerating towards it's own demise.  On the one hand we get more and more worthless content (like Honey Boo Boo, Lizard Lick Towing, etc) and good content is rapidly increasing in cost beyond it's value for most people.

The problem though is that the round-robin blame game of finger pointing doesn't stop with providers like ESPN.

 

As they will no doubt complain just as vehement and passionately before congress that they are the ones being fleeced by the sports teams demanding ever higher prices for broadcasting rights to their games and therefore need this additional revenue from having them placed in the base packages of the various distributors.

 

There aren't enough sports viewers to sustain their operating costs with a optional sports tier model.

 

And of course the sports franchises will certainly argue with equal vehemence and passion to congress, that they have to charge these rates to cover the costs of operating their clubs.

 

So this vicious cycle of greed everywhere just never ends, and I agree is just heading toward its own demise for sports and most all other programming as well.  


DIRECTV sub. since Sep. of '95


#63 OFFLINE   Spike

Spike

    Legend

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 198 posts
Joined: Jul 04, 2007

Posted 12 August 2013 - 10:54 AM

On the issue of "mirror fees" - pricing is not solely based on cost, but on value. If the programming DirecTV delivers to you has value (and I don't argue that the cost is high) then delivering it to multiple outlets instead of just one has incremental value. 

 

Where they "would" run into a problem is when we the consumers don't place a value on what they place a value on!  And I for one do not value their mirroring fees.  Place a price on the programming content and let me purchase the hardware to watch it. Force them to "Cost provide" and not "Value provide." If we, as the consumer have the power, I say exercise it and make them deliver what we want to use.  If they don't like it, let the industry restructure itself into something new.  The entire broadcast industry may very well be slowly transforming anyway. Look, even the head of Directv is talking about a possible merger with Dishnetwork (yes, I know.  We've heard that before).  With the internet's impact on viewing options plus other programming venues, how can this industry stay as it is long term anyway? I, personally, doubt that it will. Let me put it this way.  Is it easier to string coax through a house or to install a wireless router for the whole house?


Edited by Spike, 12 August 2013 - 11:01 AM.

Holy Cow! The Cubs?

#64 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,109 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 12 August 2013 - 11:07 AM

Many folks, the majority here, don't want to watch much on little screens and low resolution. Yes, the tide is shifting on that as more folks die and younger viewers come into the market, the latter being used to and o.k. with computer monitor viewing. (Or those who have major setups with broadband-> TV.... but how many get 1920 pixels?


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#65 OFFLINE   Spike

Spike

    Legend

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 198 posts
Joined: Jul 04, 2007

Posted 12 August 2013 - 11:12 AM

I stream 1080p to my television all the time.


Holy Cow! The Cubs?

#66 OFFLINE   wingrider01

wingrider01

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,764 posts
Joined: Sep 09, 2005

Posted 12 August 2013 - 03:04 PM

When the cost gets to high more will drop the service and thats when changes will start to happen. TWC and ATT UVerce here are about the same in cost as Directv and have add on chages also so the only choice is to call and ask for a discounts or drop the service. TV service is not needed to live like food and housing.

 

One thing to remember with uverse, the number of streams (the number of concurrent shows being watched) you get are dependent on the distance you are from the vrad AND you only get one DVR with pathetic storage space

 

I have 13 tuners available (Genie + 4 dvrs w/ 1tb externals on all), when the Uverse people call me or stop me in a store, I point that out to them the 13 recordings and 5TB of storage then just shut up and turn away. with 5 kids, my wife, myself and a foreign exchange student sometimes 13 tuners are not enough



#67 OFFLINE   wingrider01

wingrider01

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,764 posts
Joined: Sep 09, 2005

Posted 12 August 2013 - 03:13 PM

I'm confused here. The protection plan is a complete waste of $$$, you don't need that. Unless you constantly bug DTV with issues and you're a good customer, theyll generally fix stuff for free.

 

Whole Home DVR, yeah, thats only $3, but also a waste of $$$. Just record it on the TV you plan to watch it on. Or walk over to your main TV.

 

I'm more pissed off on the more ridiculous charges. Like the $2 I pay for "regional sports fee". I have HONESTLY (and I'm not exagerrating here) NEVER watched a sports game on TV. Not even once. Not even the olympics. Sports just bore me. Yet I pay $2 a month for them.

 

The $10 for HD is also ridiculous. Dish gives it out for free. So do most other providers. Yet, I have to call in every 6 months to get a credit. Yeah, I'm getting a credit, but I'd rather not have to call in and get it. I've been with DTV since 2002 and have always paid my bill, yet some newbie comes in and gets free HD for life? yeah, I'm gonna complain.

 

$10 / month for the HD DVR is also a bit crazy. I already paid for the box.

 

I'm betting it doesn't cost DTV $10/month/household to get the guide info.

 

Sorry the PP is not "a complete waste of $$" or the genie and the 4 dvr's I have the only one that is leased is the genie, without the PP I have to get a leased one to replace my owned units, three have been replaced over the years. Something that is called a "waste of money" is in the eye of the end users, just because you think it is, does not mean other don't. Just like I take the protection plan out on any big ticket appliance or tv, have won more then not when the 4th repair was called in or the unit was deemed not repairable, my 60 inch LG cost me 500.00 when the 4 1/2 year old 45 inch gave up the ghost under a protection plan and that was just because of the ghost for another 5 year protection plan.

 

You know, come back when DirecTV has price increases like my local sewer company - 15 to 20 percent a quarter, then complain about it, and they DO have to go through a regulation board hearing to get the increase to pass


Edited by wingrider01, 12 August 2013 - 03:14 PM.


#68 OFFLINE   SledgeHammer

SledgeHammer

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,376 posts
Joined: Dec 28, 2007

Posted 12 August 2013 - 03:35 PM

You've had 3 DVRs die? What the heck are you doing to them? I've had a HR20 running forever. I've had to replace the fan in it twice and I upgraded the hard drive to a 1TB. Hard drive obviously not covered... but certainly replacing the fan myself is a lot cheaper then paying $8/month for the PP. Took me all of 5 mins.


  • damondlt likes this

#69 OFFLINE   Tubaman-Z

Tubaman-Z

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 525 posts
Joined: Jul 30, 2007

Posted 12 August 2013 - 03:48 PM

As has been noted, the problem is not DirecTV or any other middleman provider, it is the cost of the content itself. There are many factors that drive this but chief among these is the cost of people. Sports content is so outrageously expensive because athletes are paid so outrageously. Entertainment costs are high because big name actors are paid obscene amounts of money. I'm not saying actors and athletes shouldn't take the money...they'd be fools to turn it down. But why are the teams and producers willing to pay so much? Because viewers and fans want the sports coverage, the movies and the TV shows.

 

Interesting perspective and one I largely agree with.  However, you can't lay it all at the the feet of the content cost.  If DirecTV were to not have live sports programming how much per month would a package such as Choice Plus cost?  $30 $40? $50?  Whatever it would be it would be more than the $7.99/month that Netflix charges.  Or throw in a year of Amazon Prime (including Instant Streaming) and that's about $14.67/month for a LOT of content.  (I consider the internet access a sunk cost, needed for other things.)  DirecTV has substantial infrastructure charges that must be covered - same with Dish.  These do not exist for Netflix (yes - they have their own infrastructure to deal with but theirs is not..ahem...rocket science).

 

If it's true that content costs so much because of the viewers and fans it will be interesting to see what happens as new models continue to develop.  Netflix-original series got Emmy fourteen nominations - which sounds like it could lead to a cost increase.

 

To the OP - if you have high-speed internet I suggest you check out the combination of Roku, PlayOn/PlayLater, Netflix, and Amazon Prime (with Instant Streaming) as an alternative.  If you are a big live sports fan it won't be sufficient.  If not - it may well do.


Kevin

My top 5 wishlist: 1) Free MRV HR to HR 2) Fix Channels I Receive so that it is accurate 3) > 50 SeriesLink 4) Usage of both internal and external drives concurrently 5) Support for other video providers as DoD (i.e. Hulu, CBS)   

DirecTV HR21-200, 2008 (DirecTV anniversary gift)
DirecTV HR20-100 (2TB eSATA), 2007
DirecTV since 1995

<><


#70 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,109 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:08 PM

I stream 1080p to my television all the time.

 

OK, what programming (in general)? What is the source? What is the cost? Do you get sports via this method?


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#71 OFFLINE   Spike

Spike

    Legend

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 198 posts
Joined: Jul 04, 2007

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:35 PM

Laxguy,  I stream with a Roku player and Apple TV. The Roku has Hulu, Amazon, MLB, & Netflix etc.  I've been really happy with Amazon in particular. We are big Doctor Who fans.  Amazon has a lot of episodes of that program.  I'm looking at other Internet based content as well. The problem is, I'm only just learning what programs are provided by which streaming service.  Once my daughter begins college, I plan on cutting way back on Directv/cable/or Uverse and increasing my streaming content. She has shows that are not available by way of streaming through the internet, so I am going to respect her viewing habits until she leaves.  I'm also thinking about the possibility of putting up the old OTA antenna and using a TIVO in place of Directv's DVR service.  I am also taking the advice of one of the posters here and learning about PlayOn.  I've got a huge learning curve to overcome.  I'm not sure where I'll end up in the end.  


Edited by Spike, 12 August 2013 - 07:35 PM.

Holy Cow! The Cubs?

#72 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,109 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:53 PM

Sounds like you're on a nice journey! I've several Apple TVs, and like 'em. But they don't carry enough content that I want, mainly sports, news, new series, and movies- the latter I don't really know about, as I haven't done a comparison, but DIRECTV has plenty of film I haven't seen and would like to (or stuff I've seen and want to again.)

 

Netflix has made a good foray into new fields, but it remains to be seen if that'll spread. Fingers crossed.

 

Thanks for the reply....


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#73 OFFLINE   Diana C

Diana C

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 2,106 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey
Joined: Mar 30, 2007

Posted 12 August 2013 - 10:59 PM

Interesting perspective and one I largely agree with. However, you can't lay it all at the the feet of the content cost. If DirecTV were to not have live sports programming how much per month would a package such as Choice Plus cost? $30 $40? $50? Whatever it would be it would be more than the $7.99/month that Netflix charges. Or throw in a year of Amazon Prime (including Instant Streaming) and that's about $14.67/month for a LOT of content. (I consider the internet access a sunk cost, needed for other things.) DirecTV has substantial infrastructure charges that must be covered - same with Dish. These do not exist for Netflix (yes - they have their own infrastructure to deal with but theirs is not..ahem...rocket science).

If it's true that content costs so much because of the viewers and fans it will be interesting to see what happens as new models continue to develop. Netflix-original series got Emmy fourteen nominations - which sounds like it could lead to a cost increase.

To the OP - if you have high-speed internet I suggest you check out the combination of Roku, PlayOn/PlayLater, Netflix, and Amazon Prime (with Instant Streaming) as an alternative. If you are a big live sports fan it won't be sufficient. If not - it may well do.

Without sports programming, it is true, any programming tier would be less expensive. But without entertainment programming, sports programming would be less expensive. Blaming one genre of programming for the high cost of cable/satellite TV is an exercise in futility. If your bill is $100/month, roughly $40 of it is directly tied to the cost of content. Take out sports (ESPN, RSNs and a couple,of other channels) and the cost would drop about $15. But if someone wanted sports only, to compliment OTA and/or IPTV, then the cost for that person would drop $25. But all of that doesn't account for volume. Unbundling would not yield a 1:1 reduction in cost because the numbers of viewers would go down, and almost by definition, the ones that are left would be willing to pay more since they would be getting only what the really want. So, take out all the sports and your remaining entertainment channels would be about $8 cheaper. Your $100/month bill becomes $92/month, give or take a buck or two. Meanwhile the sports fan's bill goes from $100 to $88 or so.

The problem isn't confined to one channel or group of channels...it is across the board for EVERY channel and genre. ESPN gets a lot of attention because it is the single most expensive channel. But it also delivers the greatest value within the realm of sports programming because it is more densely packed than any other channel. Again, the value it provides is proportional to the cost. It is the costing model itself that is out of control.

Take any professional sport...since it's summer, let's take baseball, but this applies to all sports. The AVERAGE baseball salary is $3.2 million per year. The MINIMUM is $480,000. Multiply that by all the players on all the teams and you are talking big numbers. Now figure in the cost of all the other team employees, operating cost for the stadium, marketing, ticket sale processing, etc.. A baseball team needs to take in several billion dollars just to break even. So, they turn to TV rights as a source of revenue.

Meanwhile, from the fan's point of view, compared to the cost of a ticket, parking, snacks, and dealing with the guy behind you yelling obscenities at the players, $5/month for ESPN sounds like a bargain. This demand for baseball coverage leads ESPN to be willing to pay huge amounts of money to MLB because they know there are enough people willing to pay that $5 or $6 per month, and to demand basic tier inclusion because they know there are a lot of people that will watch one or two games a month, justifying the cost of the channel.

A similar analysis can be done for HBO, AMC, TNT, NBC or any other channel. The number of households willing to get off the escalator and cut the cord is simply not significant - at least not yet. Anyone that is unwilling to pay the cost of a bundled service can put up an antenna, subscribe to online coverage of most sports, and get movies and TV series from Netflix, Hulu and Amazon. Sure, your can't get everything that way...but that is the core issue. People WANT everything. And to get EVERYTHING, you have to pay for it. Until enough people decide that they don't really NEED to see every sporting event live in HD, and that they don't NEED to have 100 plus channels to choose from, the current system will keep going and keep making money and keep raising prices.

From the content providers' point of view, if they can get 90% of households to pay $100 per month or more, why disrupt the model, lower prices and cut profits just to get the other 10%? Until that 90% starts to seriously erode (down to 75% or so) there is no reason for anything to change.

But it IS in the hands of viewers to drive that 90% down. It is just that (so far) no one wants to go first. Instead we keep paying the cable or satellite bill and then go online to gripe about it.

Dish Network Customer from 9/1998-11/2001
DirecTV Customer 10/2001 - 7/2014

FiOS TV/TiVo Customer since 6/2014
Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006

Current setup:
DirecTV: HR34-700 (1TB) / HR24-100 (1TB) / HR24-500 (1TB) / HR21-700 (320GB) / HR21-100 (1TB) / 2 H25s / C41-500 / SWiM16 / Nomad / CCK

FiOS: 2 Tivo Roamio Pros (6 TB total) / 5 Tivo Minis attached via MOCA


#74 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,367 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 12 August 2013 - 11:09 PM

I'm confused here. The protection plan is a complete waste of $$$, you don't need that. Unless you constantly bug DTV with issues and you're a good customer, theyll generally fix stuff for free.

 

Whole Home DVR, yeah, thats only $3, but also a waste of $$$. Just record it on the TV you plan to watch it on. Or walk over to your main TV.

 

I'm more pissed off on the more ridiculous charges. Like the $2 I pay for "regional sports fee". I have HONESTLY (and I'm not exagerrating here) NEVER watched a sports game on TV. Not even once. Not even the olympics. Sports just bore me. Yet I pay $2 a month for them.

 

The $10 for HD is also ridiculous. Dish gives it out for free. So do most other providers. Yet, I have to call in every 6 months to get a credit. Yeah, I'm getting a credit, but I'd rather not have to call in and get it. I've been with DTV since 2002 and have always paid my bill, yet some newbie comes in and gets free HD for life? yeah, I'm gonna complain.

 

$10 / month for the HD DVR is also a bit crazy. I already paid for the box.

 

I'm betting it doesn't cost DTV $10/month/household to get the guide info.

Comcast has a HD fee and some other systems hide the HD fee in the box rent fees.


I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#75 OFFLINE   Tubaman-Z

Tubaman-Z

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 525 posts
Joined: Jul 30, 2007

Posted 13 August 2013 - 06:58 AM

<snipped for brevity's sake>

From the content providers' point of view, if they can get 90% of households to pay $100 per month or more, why disrupt the model, lower prices and cut profits just to get the other 10%? Until that 90% starts to seriously erode (down to 75% or so) there is no reason for anything to change.

But it IS in the hands of viewers to drive that 90% down. It is just that (so far) no one wants to go first. Instead we keep paying the cable or satellite bill and then go online to gripe about it.

Fair points - I tend to forget that I've gotten to a point in my life where I not only don't need it all, I really don't want it all.  "All" just tends to complicate my life :) and add unnecessary cost.

 

I do wonder how much the existing industry is paying attention to the increasing number of viewers turning to alternative sources largely based on cost - or the future generation of viewers who are already getting most/all of their content online as that is "what they know".  Our daughter is a 19 year old college sophomore.  I can say with 90% certainty that on her own she will never pay for satellite or cable delivered content.  That should scare the heck out of the existing industry.

 

http://money.msn.com...flix-alone-cant - This article discusses the increasing cost of "triple-play" packages whose price hikes have increased the cost of triple play by 20%, or $46 per month, since 2010. The average bill for those services in the U.S. is now more than $273 per month (deemed "unsustainable" by Marcquarie Capital analysts).  Content is usually the largest part of the cost.  While the article recognizes streaming as an alternative it also notes that streaming sources "...have finite content, few new shows and almost no sports. They're not a viable point-for-point alternative, especially with popular networks including HBO limiting their streaming content to cable or satellite subscribers."  ("Finite" is somewhat relative in this context - there is more content on-line than I could - or should - consume in my remaining lifetime :) )

 

http://www.al.com/sp..._sports_br.html - This article is largely about unbundling but does hit on the impact of sports programming costs.  "It's estimated that more than half of viewers' monthly cable TV costs are due to sports programming. Cable prices increased 3.3 percent over the past year and have steadily gone up through the years." is balanced with "More than one-third of consumers would cancel their pay TV service if they lost ESPN, the top cable channel for viewer loyalty, according to a 2012 survey by Lazard Capital Markets."   Very telling (and concerning I would think to the existing industry) are the following excerpts:

 

"In 2012, 100.4 million homes received video from cable, satellite or telecommunication providers, according to the research firm SNL Kagan. That's 84.7 percent of all households, down from the peak of 87.3 percent in early 2010.

According to a recent report by the Toronto-based Convergence Consulting Group, an estimated 4.7 million households that previously paid for TV will have "cut the cord" and dropped pay TV by the end of 2013, up from 3.74 million in 2012."

 

"Earlier this year, for instance, Netflix's "House of Cards" was delivered over the Internet with no cable required. Netflix reported that customers watched four billion hours of the show's streaming video over three months, a figure that BTIG Research calculated would make Netflix the most-watched cable television network."

 

I believe that the increasing costs of the current delivery models (and the content behind them), the absolute ease of connecting a one-time cost device such as a Roku (or PS3 or Xbox or whatever), and increasing quality, availability, and knowledge of on-line content will force a significant shift as more consumers are (1) unwilling to pay more when wages aren't increasing AND (2) alter their viewing habits to what's available vs. needing to have "all access".

 

It will surely be interesting to see how all of this shakes out.  Maybe we'll return to more ad driven revenue (fine with me if the content is free).  But probably not like this:


Edited by Tubaman-Z, 13 August 2013 - 10:02 AM.

Kevin

My top 5 wishlist: 1) Free MRV HR to HR 2) Fix Channels I Receive so that it is accurate 3) > 50 SeriesLink 4) Usage of both internal and external drives concurrently 5) Support for other video providers as DoD (i.e. Hulu, CBS)   

DirecTV HR21-200, 2008 (DirecTV anniversary gift)
DirecTV HR20-100 (2TB eSATA), 2007
DirecTV since 1995

<><





Protected By... spam firewall...And...