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

E* vs D* HD DVR Fees

Discussion in 'DISH™ High Definition Discussion' started by jrb531, Oct 21, 2007.

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

    MarkTTU New Member

    4
    0
    Sep 27, 2007
    I hadn't thought of the DRM aspect, but that's probably because I consider DRM a dead man walking... it will take time, but its fundamentally flawed and will die eventually IMHO...

    A single master box that could output an encrypted ATSC feed that could then in turn be decrypted by a dumb box with an HDMI jack (and SD CATV CH3 or CH4 for old TVs) would work fine for me... again it's welcome to use the existing coax, CAT5, whatever... actually even if I need to run new wires/fiber/whatever I don't really care, I just want the single server concept.

    I'd also like them to kill the phone line requirement if you have a high speed internet connection they can use to "phone home", but I think we're well on the way to that at this point so really this is a mute point.
     
  2. brettbolt

    brettbolt Legend

    215
    0
    Feb 22, 2006
    I agree. They would raise the DVR fee to cover what they had to pass along to the networks. I don't know the current percentage of households with DVR's s now, but I expect it will increase. Eventually, something will have to give. This could reach a critical point in 5 to 10 years.


    There are not a sufficient number of competitors in the satellite TV business. Two is not enough choice for me. I'm very happy that E* was not allowed to buy D* a few years back. And I recall E* saying that consumers would benefit from a merger! Wow, I found that hard to believe. Fortunately so did our government.
     
  3. Hound

    Hound Icon

    891
    0
    Mar 20, 2005
    What I am afraid of is that if E* is split and the DVR division is a separate company
    and ATT buys the TV broadcast distribution, then the new stand alone DVR
    company will get DVR fees from the subs just like TIVO. These fees will have to
    be increased periodically to keep earnings up so that the stock price of the new
    company continues to climb.
     
  4. jrb531

    jrb531 Icon

    916
    0
    May 28, 2004
    Me.

    622 and a 501

    I would like three 622's but I will not pay 3 DVR fees.

    I'm just fine with Basic and HD. I want to watch "real" HD on my three HD Sets and as I've pointed out before. One HD set in bedroom, one in Basement and one in living room.

    My wife and I often watch HD in different rooms and while she originally thought a DVR was a silly waste of money, now she cannot live without it. Add a DVR for me in the basement and one for the kids and bingo.... three DVR's

    So I seem to get the impression that I'm some form of mutant wanting three DVR's LOL

    -JB
     
  5. dmurphy

    dmurphy Active Member

    1,683
    6
    Sep 28, 2006
    Absolutely Tom. There are lots o' exceptions. I consider myself to be outside the "norm" too. (well, who at dbstalk isn't?)

    I have 6 DVRs in the house. In my mind - there's no reason NOT to put a DVR where I would put a standard receiver. The initial acquisition cost is relatively easy to swallow (the most expensive DVR I've added is the HR20, and that cost me $99.), and it doesn't cost me anything extra per month above and beyond what a standard receiver would.

    I have the old "Total Choice Plus" package, with HBO added on. That's still a rather "basic" package - it's not even close to the Premier package.

    So I guess I'm spoiled - having a DVR everywhere isn't necessarily about being able to record everything under the Sun. It's more about having "cruise control" everywhere. The recording capability (aside from our main TV and the master bedroom TV) is more of a bonus for us than anything else.
     
  6. paulman182

    paulman182 Hall Of Fame

    4,841
    4
    Aug 4, 2006
    I was under the impression that those who signed up for Premier when the DVR fee was included, would continue on that basis until changing packages.

    Since the new HD rollout the DVR fee has showed up on my bill in addition to the Premier package. I emailed D* and they made no reference to "grandfathering."

    I probably should call them on the phone, but really dread it. Am I correct in that someone who has had Premier since July 2006 should not be paying an extra DVR fee?
     
  7. dmurphy

    dmurphy Active Member

    1,683
    6
    Sep 28, 2006
    That's my understanding. But having said that - I don't a) have the Premier package; or b) have a DVR fee. I paid the "lifetime" fee back when it was offered and haven't paid a DVR fee since.
     
  8. Ron Barry

    Ron Barry 622 Tips & Trick Keeper

    9,881
    0
    Dec 10, 2002
    Well I think the networks are going to have to get smarter just as the Movie makers and record companies need to. The world is changing so what they need to do is embrace the change and find ways to obtain advertising revenue through other methods.

    I am sure we will see more in-show product placement, overlays, and if interactive TV ever becomes what it is suppose to become that will be another avenue for companies to obtain revenues.

    Personally I don't think passing DVR fee percentages to the major networks makes a lot of sense. What about all the other channels, the DVR effects them also and therefore if you were to pass out a percentage it should go to all and good luck finding a fair distribution model.

    Finally, I personally feel the DVR fee per receiver is not right. Does not pass the smell test and is the one fee that I feel is over the line. I can understand paying an addiition fee for the added value DVRs provide but it should be a per account fee as D* does.
     
  9. Hound

    Hound Icon

    891
    0
    Mar 20, 2005

    I have read that the advertisers still think there is some benefit to the ads
    even though subs fast forward through them. The name recognition is still
    there. And with DVR time shifting, more viewers are watching shows than
    they used to. I know in my case, there are very few network shows that I
    would watch without a DVR.
     
  10. texaswolf

    texaswolf Hall Of Fame

    1,073
    0
    Oct 18, 2007
    Yeah I could do with just a low basic package with the HD pack...but since E* (and I'm sure D* too) only offers FX on the top 250....im screwed. It's a basic cable station....but they put it up in the $ pack...which blows.
    I Have the AEP now, so i don't get DVR fee's.....but I am not giving E* $119 upfront AND THEN $6/month receiver fee....I think I'm gonna pay my next E* bill in all nickels and dimes.
     
  11. jrb531

    jrb531 Icon

    916
    0
    May 28, 2004
    ROTFL!

    I think you may be on to something :)

    Everyone pay Dish in loose change. LOL I'd love to see the headlines for that.

    -JB
     
  12. brettbolt

    brettbolt Legend

    215
    0
    Feb 22, 2006
    We agree that DVR usage adversely affects channels with commercials. And any fees passed on to them would have to go to all channels with commercials, not just the major local networks. Agreement on a fair distribution model will likely never happen.

    It just bothers me that the commercial channels are being hurt by DVR usage and E*, D*, and Tivo are getting richer from it,
     
  13. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    I agree when it comes to broadcast networks, as advertisements are their sole source of revenue. However, I feel less sympathy for cable networks. We pay through the nose for these channels, and are still subjected to the same amount of ads as broadcast networks. And as my Dish bill keeps going up and up, and ditto for D* and cable, I feel less and less sorry for those channels. The cost of pay-tv is skyrocketing, and has been for a long time. And no, this isn't a result of DVR usage, as this trend started happening long before they became popular. Excuse me if I'm not broken up about the "plight" of pay-tv networks as regards advertising. :nono2:
     
  14. jrb531

    jrb531 Icon

    916
    0
    May 28, 2004
    I feel the same way!

    This all started with us paying for TV in two ways:

    Watching stupid commercials or paying for no commercials.

    Little by little we have many channels that we pay "and" watch commercials.

    While you can say that our bills would be higher if they had no commericials and I would say "bring it on!"

    BUT

    only if we could have some control over the channels we want be it ala-cart or some form of theme packages so I could cancel sports or kids packages if I do not want either.

    DVR's have brought me back to watching more TV. Not only because I could tape them and watch them when I wanted but rather a way to watch a 20 minute program in 20 minutes instead of the 30 minutes with commercials.

    Before the DVR I would just wait until the shows were on DVD and rent them.... yes I HATE commericals that much!

    So if the Sci-Fi (for example) channels wants an extra dollar or two from me per month to drop commercials then where can I sign up?

    Am I the only one who finds it so very wrong (and unfair) for ESPN to be able to outbid free TV for sports only because they can show commercials "and" charge a large premium to everyone even if we do not want their crap?

    Maybe Monday Night Football would still be free if ESPN was not able to outbid ABC because ABC can only get revenue via commercials while ESPN can do both.

    While I admit that I watch some ESPN I would drop them in a minute if I ever had the choice just to protest their forced high prices on everyone.

    ESPN is NOT a basic pay channel and it would be no differtent if they forced everyone to pay $5-6 a month for HBO.

    Sorry for the ESPN rant but it really upsets me that everyone with Pay TV is "forced" to pay for a premium channel whether we want it or not.... and STILL watch their stupid commericals!

    -JB
     
  15. WilliamC

    WilliamC Cool Member

    21
    0
    Jun 18, 2006
    Just out of curiosity, but was this "I figured he couldn't handle a "quart" of fact. Turns out he couldn't handle the "pint" either." DBS related?

    No offense to E* fanboys or D* fanboys but both systems have their faults. Anyone remember when we recieved an update from E* that corrupted our DVR recordings?
    Also what about the issue with D* missing some recordings?

    Like I said both have flaws and no one should forget that. What works for you may not work for another. Personally I like the idea of being able to setup a 2TB or 3TB system. E* doesn't allow me to do that UNLESS I constantly switch HD's. I'd rather not be switching HD's. It may be fine for some, but I prefer a set it and forget it setup. Then again for most E* maybe a better way as you are allowed to keep using your existing HD and external is a supplement... almost a supplement last time I checked you couldn't record directly to the external HD.
     
  16. tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,374
    57
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...
    Actually FX is available in the top 200.
     
  17. texaswolf

    texaswolf Hall Of Fame

    1,073
    0
    Oct 18, 2007
    my mistake...point being it's a basic cable channel..that we have to pay more for....should come with the lowest package
     
  18. James Long

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

    45,954
    1,026
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    So everyone should be forced to pay more for it?

    The tiers are nice for that ... the oldest and most expected "cable" channels are in the lower tiers ... channels negotiate heavily to be seen by more viewers. Most new channels (on E*) end up in the "average" tier (AT200) or above in AT250. These tend to be more niche channels that just add a similar feed to something already on.

    D* doesn't have a low end package (other than the family pack). They start with an AT200 level package and work up. A few more channels are available in Choice Xtra or one can add premiums or "buy it all" with Premier.

    A la carte is the only real answer for getting just one's favorite channels and nothing else. Not quite available.
     
  19. texaswolf

    texaswolf Hall Of Fame

    1,073
    0
    Oct 18, 2007
    E* has the AT100...where channels like cnn, mtv,usa,tbs,tnt ect. are. Thats because those are typical "basic cable" channels where FX also is....on cable. D* has it on their choice (150) and E* doesn't have it until their 200 package...when i asked why this was, i was told...channels they have to pay more for get put in more expensive packages...understood..but they had to pay more for FX? maybe because it's Fox? Anyway, the real kicker is..if you drop to the AT200...you will also lose some HD channels that are only offered in higher tiers...which pretty much knocks out anybody who wanted basic and HD.

    I hate watching SD. If i dont have to i wont...so most of the lower SD channels are a waste of money for me...but since they tag the 2-3 channels i do want with 250 others...im stuck ..so a pick your own line up would be one hell of a promo...like the premiums...you want HBO..$13/month...you want usa $??/month...HD version $??...and i bet would grab a lot of customers...but then they wouldn't make their money.
     
  20. MarkTTU

    MarkTTU New Member

    4
    0
    Sep 27, 2007
    Which is only made more frustrating given that we pay a flat rate of $20 for HD, but that $20 buys us more or less HD depending on what package we're watching... I'm all for al la carte; price the SD channels at $0.50 each and the HD channels at $1.00 each and let me pick the ones I care about.

    As for DVR "fees" make that part of the lease fee, if the HD DVR box is going to cost $12 to lease then just say that, don't insult me by saying the box is worth $6 and the DVR part of the box is worth another $6. If the DVR fee is for maintaining the program guide (its not, but if it is) then just charge me that fee once...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page