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

DirecTV Disses Broadcasters

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Athlon646464, Jun 12, 2013.

  1. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    Must I connect the dots? It is tying. Tying is illegal. Therefore...
     
  2. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    We watch Dexter, Borgias, and Homeland on SHO. Borgias is over.

    If one is willing to wait a year... last season (and all prior seasons) of Dexter can be owned in HD via Vudu for $36 or about the same on Blu-Ray from Amazon. Homeland is similar.

    Unless you are watching more than 3 series it's going to be cheaper to buy them later and if it's the only thing keeping you on sat/cable it's going to be FAR cheaper.

    Granted one has to swallow not having the show for a year while one waits to get in sync with other distribution mediums.

    This kind of rationalization is getting more and more appealing to my family. We skip 99.9% of movies in theaters. We skip 95% of PPV waiting for HBO/SHO/MAX/STARZ that we already pay for. We've even started using RedBox more - get it at same time as PPV for $1.50 vs $5.99 with a small added inconvenience. For series, if we can get over the bump of shifting down one more gear things start getting a lot cheaper.

    I just pulled up Skyfall on Vudu... $0.99 to rent. Yeh, sure, a la carte is going to cost us a lot more.
     
  3. James Long

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

    46,124
    1,068
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I have a hard time believing that DirecTV has been violating the law since day one of providing service to customers and has not been prevented from doing so. If requiring a customer to buy one channel to get another is illegal tying why was it not stopped YEARS ago when DirecTV started business? Or before that when cable sold channels in tiers?


    I suppose one could wait a year ... and stay away from all of the Internet and watercooler discussion of the shows. One could be that one guy at the office that one cannot talk about current series around because they are too cheap to pay the first run price.

    People want to be first. One pays a premium for that.
     
  4. Mike Greer

    Mike Greer Hall Of Fame

    1,612
    15
    Jan 20, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    I could lower the programming level but it doesn't decrease my bill much. With the 'fees', Whole Home, Advanced DVR, HD and 3 DVRs it adds up quick.
     
  5. Mike Greer

    Mike Greer Hall Of Fame

    1,612
    15
    Jan 20, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    I could wait the year but would rather not. I'd love to pay Showtime directly for streaming and dump the rest.

    I really don't think it will be that long before one way or another I will be able to get Showtime programming without Cable or Satellite - we'll see!
     
  6. goinsleeper

    goinsleeper Godfather

    673
    17
    May 22, 2012
    So you have almost everything they offer in services, yet you would prefer to just cut the cord and go to streaming? If the additional services are not that big of a deal, why have so much? This isn't meant to offend but if you want the luxury of such a nice system, your charges are going to reflect just that.
     
  7. Mike Greer

    Mike Greer Hall Of Fame

    1,612
    15
    Jan 20, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    Lets see... Which 'services' should I give up to lower the bill?

    XTRA $70.99
    Showtime $12.99
    Advanced Reciver-HD $10
    Advanced Receiver-DVR $10
    Whole-Home $3.00
    Additional TV $6.00
    Additional TV $6.00
    Sales Tax $2.13
    Utah Video Service Tax 4.00

    Total $125.11

    How about the $10 HD fee. HD isn't really needed right? Or how about the DVR fee? Don't really need that either! How about sending back two receivers to save $12 a month? I only need to watch 1 TV anyway right? Maybe Whole-Home? That $3 will make quite a dent in the bill. I could change packages so the $70.99 would become $64.99 or $54.99 and I may do that considering I'd only lose 1, maybe 2 channels I watch by going to the $54.99 package.

    It comes down to I pay $125.11 a month to be able to watch Showtime and 3 or 4 other channels. I'd gladly give up the 3 or 4 other channels if I could pay Showtime directly and stream it. I wouldn't need whole-home, or 3 receivers if I could stream Showtime.

    TV is a luxury no doubt - it isn't like it would by life-altering to give up DirecTV. As the prices continue to rise and the quality of programming continues to slide I suspect I wouldn't be alone in saying 'It just isn't worth it'.
     
  8. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,821
    86
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    I would say receivers if you dont need them. After that would be Whole Home if you dont need it and then lowering the package.
     
  9. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,386
    585
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    You're in a distinct minority being willing to have but one channel.
     
  10. Mike Greer

    Mike Greer Hall Of Fame

    1,612
    15
    Jan 20, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    That's the thing - I do need them but don't with OTA, Netflix, Hulu and Showtime if they'd sell it to me...
     
  11. Mike Greer

    Mike Greer Hall Of Fame

    1,612
    15
    Jan 20, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    Most of what we watch is broadcast networks, Showtime, AMC and once in a while another channel here or there. Not enough to justify if the price goes up much higher....

    I like the convenience of DirecTV, the HD quality (SD stinks but we don't watch any) and for the most part the receivers (with the exception everyone is well aware of)... But the prices is getting to the point of 'not really worth it'.
     
  12. goinsleeper

    goinsleeper Godfather

    673
    17
    May 22, 2012
    So right out of the gate, why not change to entertainment?
     

Share This Page