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

D* Announces New Rates Starting 2/9/2010

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by riprecked, Dec 27, 2009.

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

    Grentz New Member

    5,916
    1
    Jan 10, 2007
    I want to clarify that I do not like, nor want to have, any rate increases. I just know that they are not specifically DirecTV's doing and really I have no where else to go that is any better thus I am not going to threaten to leave DirecTV.

    I do try and straighten out some of the off the wall reasoning that some give and the attacks that some go on though.
     
  2. TBlazer07

    TBlazer07 Grumpy Grampy

    4,827
    7
    Feb 5, 2009
    Did you think I was serious and was blaming you? :confused:
     
  3. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    Based on what we know of the Versus spat, I'd be very surprised to see DIRECTV moving any sports channels into less populace tiers anytime soon.
     
  4. Grentz

    Grentz New Member

    5,916
    1
    Jan 10, 2007
    Nope, but you brought up a good time for me to explain my comments/intentions as I know some would see them as just being a DirecTV fanboy, unfair to other services, blindly following DirecTV, etc.

    ;)
     
  5. Ed Campbell

    Ed Campbell Hall Of Fame

    1,335
    10
    Feb 17, 2006
    Still grandfathered AFAIK - still ain't changing anything.
     
  6. tralfaz

    tralfaz Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    91
    0
    Oct 31, 2009
    Earlier this month, my FIOS Internet went from $39.99 per month to $49.99 per month. A 25% price increase. I did not even receive any advanced notice, just the new charge on last weeks bill.
     
  7. SParker

    SParker Active Member

    1,588
    2
    Apr 27, 2002
    These companies and the increases when people are losing jobs, the economy is still crappy and for people on SSI not getting a COL increase. Yeesh. :( We better get some new content.

    I.E. BBCA HD and WGN HD.
     
  8. Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    Rupert Murdoch nails it in this article today

    Mr. Murdoch nails it in the article below that coincidentally came out today. Programmers need the revenues to sustain their programming and they can't do it just on ad revenue. So they seek higher carriage rates from D*, E*, cable, telco, etc.

    D* is raising rates on average about 4.5% for 2010. Many MSO's will raise them even higher.

    These costs are HUGE and have to be passed on, no different than any other business. If the cost of coffee beans goes up, Starbucks has to raise their prices. No one likes to do this, that I can assure you.



    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Broadcasters-woes-could-spell-apf-2310306734.html?x=0&.v=1


    That will play out in living rooms across the country. The changes could mean higher cable or satellite TV bills, as the networks and local stations squeeze more fees from pay-TV providers such as Comcast and DirecTV for the right to show broadcast TV channels in their lineups. The networks might even ditch free broadcast signals in the next few years. Instead, they could operate as cable channels -- a move that could spell the end of free TV as Americans have known it since the 1940s.

    "Good programing is expensive," Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. owns Fox, told a shareholder meeting this fall. "It can no longer be supported solely by advertising revenues."
     
  9. Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    Programming content contracts change each year. When all of their rates go up each year for ESPN, HBO, AMC, CBS, etc, etc, then the distributors need to pass on those costs. Programming is very expensive.
     
  10. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,113
    1,066
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Unfortunately the FCC is not helping to protect "free TV". Right now they are pondering the question of taking away more broadcast TV spectrum and forcing broadcasters to share channels in SD for their "free TV" feed to the 10% of Americans who don't pay for delivery. Then the FCC would sell the freed up spectrum to the highest bidder for yet more subscription data service.

    Networks are businesses and they will follow the money. As long as there is good money in selling first run shows via affiliates on their networks to air on a market exclusive basis they will do so. When the networks make more money putting the same programming on their pay TV outlets or advertiser supported or subscription web sites they will move their content accordingly.

    The more content moved to pay TV the more the content providers will want for their services. They don't care about the viewers ... they just want to be paid - whether or not people are watching. So they continue to raise rates and bundle channels and push DISH and DirecTV for more money. At some point either channels drop (if a contract is not renewed) or prices go up (if a contract rise was agreed to in better times or the content is "too important to drop").

    If DISH, DirecTV and the many cable systems were charities or government run benefit programs I'd expect less increases in consumer costs. But they are businesses. Businesses running in debt on money borrowed from people who want a return on their investment. If they don't get their return they pull their investment and the companies can't borrow money to stay in business. (It is a shame that businesses run on debt flow instead of cash flow but that is an entirely different topic.)

    The only good news in the price increases is that perhaps the number of people relying on "free TV" will rise and the FCC will consider them important. But I suspect that people will find a way to feed their children less (or get assistance) and still make that subscription TV bill.

    Long winded and slightly off-topic ... but just a summary of the game. DirecTV is supposed to be a profitable business ... if they want to be profitable they need to charge you more. Including enough to offset subscriber loss and churn over higher prices.
     
  11. Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    Nor should they. The spectrum that OTA TV stations are sitting on right now could be put to much better uses than providing a service that 90% of the country doesn't even bother with. It's a relic that has no place in today's cable and satellite world. Just kill it.

    And that doesn't mean killing affiliates just yet, either. They can continue on, just like they always have. Although the whole affiliate model is pretty damn useless these days too.
     
  12. Dolly

    Dolly Hall Of Fame

    2,179
    0
    Jan 30, 2007
    Actually maybe my husband and my tastes aren't like the rest of the country, but where is this "good programming"? We have D*'s top package and there are getting to be more and more times when I go through ever channel we get and find nothing on that I or my husband wants to watch :eek2: I know TV programming is not the fault of D* they are just the messenger so to speak. I don't really mine paying D* more money I just wish TV programming in general was better :(
     
  13. Titon

    Titon Cool Member

    17
    0
    Oct 19, 2006
    THAT'S the sad thing in all of this. There IS NOT any quality programming.

    Hence i wish i could choose the channels i want to watch instead of this crap i keep paying for.

    :nono2:
     
  14. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    There's some truth to your observations...unfortunately....DirecTV generally is in the business to broadcast content...not create it.

    I had the Premier package for some time in the past...and agree with you that there were times that unseen content was limited, despite all the channels of programming.

    That's why we have multiple HD DVRs...so that we have additional options of viewing when we choose to do so - and for content we determine we want to see.
     
  15. Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    I personally wonder at what point will broadcasters become federally-subsidized. It may sound wrong to us but a lot of countries with a free press have state-owned broadcasting. Look at Great Britain. I feel that local, OTA broadcasting is a very important thing to have in this country but I wonder at what point it will be impossible to maintain the revenue.
     
  16. smiddy

    smiddy Tain't ogre til its ogre

    15,654
    121
    Apr 5, 2006
    Emergency Alert System (used to be Emergency Broadcast System), it isn't subsidy like you mention British Television (BTW, they've been making strides towards privatization of everything, including utilities etcetera, even though they are socialists) but can be used in extreme circumstances. DirecTV's roll in this is more recent than you would think, only being required since May of 2007. British Television is very limited however, those channels pushing the envelope are private stations, and satellite television is becoming bigger and bigger there, at least that was my experience when I lived there (which in reflection was quite a while ago BTW). I didn't like BBC for most of their shows. :rolleyes: Of course I watch AFN most of the time while I lived there. :)
     
  17. SledDog

    SledDog Icon

    676
    0
    May 5, 2007
    The increase on the DVR fee, if it includes MRV, does nothing for me... I have 1 DVR and an H20-100. The H20 can't be networked. So why should I have to pay that increase if it's for a service I can not use?

    Sure, I can get a network capable HD receiver... For a price and new commitment date. So no. IMHO, the DVR price increase should not cover MRV. Those that want MRV should have to pay for it.

    Don't take money out of my pocket, or anyone else who does not use MRV, so those that want it and don't want to pay for it, can have it.

    It's the same as the programming, if you want it, you should have to pay for it.
     
  18. SParker

    SParker Active Member

    1,588
    2
    Apr 27, 2002
    How would they charge for OTA? An added yearly tax?
     
  19. Smthkd

    Smthkd Icon

    928
    1
    Sep 1, 2004
    All I can say is, if carrier's like D*,E* and other continue to raise programming prices they are stabbing themselves to a slow death. People are aware that their money is precious these days and a some point will say enough is enough and look for better deals. Tv is great and so is HD but Im not going to give my hard earned money away just because every company has greed the size of drug dealers. Either way they are going to lose this battle by A.) People leaving or B). People reducing their package to something lesser. They can save money many ways if they wanted too, but because they are adding alot of feature that the majority don't use, this is what hurt their profitability. Seriously, I know DOD sounded good when it was first mention for them to compete with Comcast's ON Demand but how many of you "REALLY" use it especially considering how "SLOW" the downloads are!? Worthless in my opinion, plus whatever happen to them moving all SD to MPEG4 like they said years ago to save space? Why do we need both a SD and HD channel when HD boxes can convert HD signals to SD? Why contemplate broadcasting 3D material when the vast majority do not have 3D capable sets? So you can say we had it first? A waste of consumer money in my opinion. I can go on and on! Will I keep D*? Probably so, but I will be looking where to save my money to offset this increase by either dropping to a lesser package or deactivating a receiver in one of my kids room. All Im saying is to increase prices because programming cost more is a bunch of _____ talk to me. At some point prices should settle and then come down because technology is cheaper due to mass acceptance. The price of a CD isn't $30 anymore for one, now I can buy 100 for $19.99. A digital camera isn't $700 anymore now I can get one for less than $99. So spare me the worthless talk about cost to operate going up (No offense Satracer) but companies like D* don't care about that, the only thing on their minds are profits and shareholders as always.
     
  20. tralfaz

    tralfaz Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    91
    0
    Oct 31, 2009
    Well, there's varying degrees of "good" and I rarely go through every channel looking for something to watch. That's why I have a DVR. Even now, when most shows are on a brief hiatus, I still have 31 episodes of Oz, 9 episodes of Mercy, 10 episodes of Trauma and 9 episodes of Three Rivers that I could watch if I needed to, but I'm trying to save those for summer watching (or deletion if some get canceled).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page