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

HD-extra fiasco

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Barmat, Dec 16, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dec 17, 2007 #81 of 760
    MIKE0616

    MIKE0616 Godfather

    484
    0
    Dec 13, 2006
    And the problem there is? D* charges us to get the locals now, so they are being compensated and making a profit off the carriage, are they not?



    Back to Topic, having come back to D* a while back from cable (after having had D* for years and E* for what only seemed like an eternity), I appreciate the option to NOT have to pay for the channels in this tier. The channels in this package were OK, IMO, when they were the "only games in town", however, they had all relied on that, and now will either sink or swim based on their programming. When I looked at the "3 months for free" option, I decided it wasn't even worth that much (free) to me, so a no-go here.

    Now, if they only offered me a way to opt out of all the other channels that I never turn to............. :D
     
  2. Dec 17, 2007 #82 of 760
    MIKE0616

    MIKE0616 Godfather

    484
    0
    Dec 13, 2006
    Same here, those channels have not been turned to on any of my sets since the other channels started rolling out the HD versions. I have seen "Planet Earth" enough times and there is only so many times you can look at a HD close-up of a grasshopper and be interested. Now, MythBusters in HD is another story. :D
     
  3. Dec 17, 2007 #83 of 760
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005

    The problem there is.... the signal is already free to the region.
    DirecTV is just re-distributing that signal that is already there free.

    And what you are being "charged" for is the distribution costs (you know all that fancy equipment and satalite uplinks and stuff that has to all work to get that signal to you). What... $3-4ish... for the 25+ locals in some markets? So unless they add a specific line item to their quarterly statement, who knows if they are making a net profit on "locals" accross the board.

    You would think the local markets would do what ever they could to get DirecTV to carry them... as it only increases their viewer ship... thus they can charge more for advertising.... sounds more like the affiliates are double-dipping.... get a check from DirecTV, and then get more money from the advertisers...
     
  4. Dec 17, 2007 #84 of 760
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,741
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    That's irrelevant, Earl. Advance notice doesn't negate what they did.


    This is not a typical price increase, Earl; therefore, you cannot argue on that point. It's more than that.

    Sorry, Earl, but with the exception of, say, the Smithsonian Channel, for example, your statement is improper. People had been receiving these channels already, as part of whatever package they had (HD Access included). Now DirecTV comes along--notwithstanding an irrelevant 3-month advance warning--and removes these channels from people's lineup and turns around and tells them that they now have to pay extra for basically the same channels they had been receiving. That's just bogus.

    I do believe you could at least agree that DirecTV didn't handle this one well. I like them, too, but there's no way I'm going to defend them when they're obviously wrong in a particular action. They handled this one terribly, partly evidenced by what a supervisor there told me back in October when I called to voice my displeasure with this decision:

    My incredulous response was something like, "And so you created another separate charge for me to get what I essentially got before? And why even worry about creating some additional channel package of maybe 4 or 5 channels and charging for them? Just leave them be as part of your channel-less so-called HD Access fee?"
     
  5. Dec 17, 2007 #85 of 760
    trdr_vix

    trdr_vix Cool Member

    10
    0
    Oct 24, 2007
    You all defending D* are just way too funny.

    Here is what you are saying:

    Nov. 1 - Do you want to continue with your "anywhere/anytime" U.S. long distance service? You will need a new phone because we are eventually upgrading our switching equipment...so it is a 2 year committment, do you want the upgrade your phone and to continue your plan?

    Sure..no problem.

    Dec. 16...Hey I just noticed that you are now charging me for calling Botidontwana, Alaska, that is where my sister lives...that has not cost me anything additional for the last 4 years that I have "invested" in this long distance plan to call there ..what gives?

    Uhhhh..we decided to move Botidontwana to a new tier we just created called the "It Really Really IS the Anywhere/Anytime/ calling plan"...for only an additional 4.99 a month....plus we added Gotcha, Arkansas to this new tier, just in case you want to call anyone there....haven't you been reading the blog's? You would have known this if you stayed up to speed with the latest (off the beaten path) internet foums, or read the fine print buried somewhere on our Web site....so what do you say?
    :grin:

    But wait a minute...wouldn't Gotcha, Arkansas have always been included with the old plan?

    We don't know...no one ever called there before, but we are now happy to include it and Botidontwana in our newly created tier..so what do you say???

    I say...%^&&(^$###^!#%^&^@^
    :eek2:

    (Like I said, you all are tooooooo funny)
    :D
     
  6. Dec 17, 2007 #86 of 760
    kaminsco

    kaminsco Guest

    200
    0
    Nov 27, 2006
    I didn't!
     
  7. Dec 17, 2007 #87 of 760
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    Why is it irrelevant?
    Have we not been discussing this for the last 3-4 months?

    Has nothing to do with what they did, or didn't do... just because the date arrived over the weekend.... and things didn't "magically" change at zero hour..

    Doesn't change that this is semi-old news to most of the users here...

    Why is it not a "typical" price increase... are any price increases "typical" ?
    The content costs... there are costs associated with distribution... thus it is just as a "typical" as any other increase.


    What is statement improper ?
    Do you not have the option to receive those channels or not? Yes or No.
    If you want them... you can optionally add them.
    If you don't... you don't have to add them.

    They could have given everyone 2 year notice... and people would still be upset. They have given almost 3 years notice that the MPEG-2's are goign to go away, and people are still up in arms about it.

    This is not the first time that channels have shifted from a package.
    This is probably NOT going to be the last time channels shift from a package.

    What you have paid $10 for in the past...is the past...
    This is no longer the past... this is the now. and now for that $9.99 and subscription to a corresponding base package, you have access to 80+ HD networks..... They could have increased that 8 times... They could have done anything.

    They have opted this choice, for the HD Extra package.


    As for blinding defending DirecTV...
    And I am flat out tired of everyone using that statement to try to contradict my posts.
    If you don't want to have a discussion about it... fine.
    If you want to have an opinion about me... fine.

    But I don't accuse any of you for working for DishNetwork, Comcast, or blinding attacking DirecTV....
     
  8. Dec 17, 2007 #88 of 760
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    I can understand that none of you wants to pay more, I get that. However, continuing to pay the same, and still getting all the channels in the HD Extra pack... was never on the table.

    If we can take that as a given for a moment, how would you rather this whole thing went down? The HD Extra channels have been 100% free for the 3 months since the other HDs went online. You can get another 3 months free for signing up for them today. You can choose not to get charged if you see no value here.

    Seriously, for a moment ... you're the head of programming. Again, there will be a price increase. That's out of your hands. How do you handle it?
     
  9. Dec 17, 2007 #89 of 760
    mightythor88

    mightythor88 Legend

    141
    0
    Sep 22, 2007
    I am actually a fan of the ALA Carte option, so I dont mind this move. I will pay the $5 a month as to me personally $60 is well worth it for a year , plus it is smply one less nice dinner at PF Changs or my favorite steak house etc for the year to cover the $60.

    I see Directv has a Family Pack, and I wish they had a sports pack as for my personal taste I would prefer more ala carte options. I know we all watch TV differently but from reading this forum for the last 6months I know there are a lot of sports fans and I would like an ala carte option that allowed me Network OTA and all HD sports channels for a certain price... I could do without a lot of the other channels.

    So I personally approve the move towards more choices and more ala carte. If I had it my way it would be 100% ala carte and each person could create their own programming package.
     
  10. Dec 17, 2007 #90 of 760
    Hansen

    Hansen Hall Of Fame

    1,344
    0
    Jan 1, 2006
    Given what is clearly a very unpopular decision by DirecTV, I too am a bit perplexed by the strong defense of DirecTv advocated by some here. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion and that provides value to the forum. Another perspective is always good.


    In any event, I'm voting with my dollars and saying, no thank you DirecTV. I will not pay for those channels and I'm very disappointed as a customer by your actions. In fact, even if DirecTV offered me those channels for free for a year, I would refuse as that only helps to bolster their position on the issue as it increases the numbers of the those subscribing and helps justify the dingbat decision made by some nuckle-head at DirecTV.
     
  11. Dec 17, 2007 #91 of 760
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    Do you think anyone is happy to spend more money?
    No one is saying they are happy to spend more money....

    I am certainly not happy that I will be spending another $4.99 a month.
    But I want those channels, and that is their cost.
     
  12. Dec 17, 2007 #92 of 760
    Geekzilla

    Geekzilla AllStar

    91
    0
    Jun 10, 2007
    The real slap in the face is that 2 of the 5 channels are still in HD-Lite! I've been paying the HD fees since the beginning, and if I don't add this I'll lose a large percentage of the HD-Lite channels available on my non-MPEG4 receivers.
     
  13. Dec 17, 2007 #93 of 760
    Sixto

    Sixto Well-Known Member

    12,224
    95
    Nov 18, 2005
    The way I've looked at this ...

    DirecTV is now the leader in HD.

    DirecTV had significant additional cost to become the leader in HD.

    They could have increased the $9.99/mo for everyone.

    Instead, they took a few channels (that maybe they pay the programming provider by number of subscribers) to a new package for $4.99/mo.

    They reduce their programming costs because now they only pay the programming provider for the people that actually want the more costly HD channels, and they also more properly align revenue with cost for those channels.

    And they no longer pay those providers for the other millions of subscribers that don't care about those few channels.

    And they keep the basic HD price at $9.99, which probably helps against the competition for the majority of John/Jane Doe's out there.

    Seems like a reasonable plan.
     
  14. Dec 17, 2007 #94 of 760
    durl

    durl Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Mar 27, 2003
    I don't recall people freaking out when channels have moved DOWN from a higher tier, giving us more channels at no extra cost.

    I don't think Directv is pulling one over on it's customers. They have the right to change packages, and we have the right to refuse any package we don't want. We knew the changes were coming. At least Directv is giving people the choice to refuse the new package if they don't want the channels and allowing them to maintain their current price.

    Was there this much "grab your torches and pitchforks" talk when the Total Choice Extra became available? As I recall, that package was originally 5-6 new channels and some extra Music Choice channels for $5 more.
     
  15. Dec 17, 2007 #95 of 760
    psweig

    psweig Hall Of Fame

    1,070
    0
    Feb 4, 2006
    I wholeheartedly agree; signing up just for the extra three months is like occasionally accepting a free toy with lead because it's free. :D
     
  16. Dec 17, 2007 #96 of 760
    gvatty

    gvatty AllStar

    82
    0
    Sep 21, 2006
    Directv just made a marketing mistake. Not many people will be paying an extra $5 for this extra tier. Directv should have just raised their HD fee to $11.99 for all HD subscribers for all of their HD channels. They would have made more money and there would have been less bitching. It always bothers people more when you take something away from them that they always had.
     
  17. Dec 17, 2007 #97 of 760
    mluntz

    mluntz Icon

    642
    0
    Jul 13, 2006
    The way I see it, what frustrates me more was the fact that we all had to upgrade all the equipment to get the new HD, some at much more expense than others. I purchased all my equipment outright, and did my own install because I didn't want D* doing it. That was my choice, fine.

    What I didn't like was the new 2 year committment to do so, so like it or not, they have us all for another 2 years at some point, so I don't think $5 is that big a deal to them right now.

    Besides, as long as I have a choice about the $5, I'm not really upset about that. In 3 months I'll re-evaluate the situation and make a decision one way or the other.
     
  18. Dec 17, 2007 #98 of 760
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    Oh, you don't want to know how people would complain then---

    I'd expect this post:
    "I've been paying $9.99 a month for the same crummy channels for 3 years and now, just when they get good, they jack the prices up on me!!"
     
  19. Dec 17, 2007 #99 of 760
    durl

    durl Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Mar 27, 2003
    Another thing I just thought I'd throw in. Many complain about Directv charging more and threatening to leave.

    Where I am, Comcast next year will increase basic cable rates another 5%. The DVR package will increase 17% (to $14!!). Over the past 7 years, rates have increased 40%. Other areas around Tennessee: 60% increase in Chattanooga since 2000; 52% in Knoxville.

    To blast Directv for charging $5 for an optional package is almost laughable when compared to cable.
     
  20. gvatty

    gvatty AllStar

    82
    0
    Sep 21, 2006
    They would still bitch. But you'd do it at the just after the rollout of the new channels and say we haven't raised the hd fees in x number of years, it's only $1.99 more, it was for the cost of the satellite that just went up and the cost of the one going up next year. Hey, we are paying $3.25 gallon for gas at a price much higher than 2 years ago and it's the same product.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page