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

New Directv Prices

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by A_Bear, Dec 23, 2011.

  1. Alan Gordon

    Alan Gordon Chancellor

    Jun 7, 2004
    Dawson, Georgia
    I believe MVPD is Multi-Video Provider... I'm blanking on the D part...

    OTT.... off the t???? I don't know. I'm assuming it has nothing to do with OPP... ;)

    That's part of the problem... companies like Time Warner, Comcast Universal, Disney, Fox, etc. are hurting too, so they try to make up for the lost revenue, hitting the providers offering their services in the pocket, which leads to DirecTV and other MVPDs having to raise their prices...

    When someone hurts, we all hurt... :(

  2. mreposter

    mreposter Hall Of Fame

    Jul 29, 2006
    Just because Disney, Fox, NBC and CBS are willing to dramatically increase their payments to the NFL doesn't mean that Directv and the other distributors have to go along with these extreme price increases.

    What if the networks had doubled their payments or tripled them? If no one is willing to say no, then the price will just continue to skyrocket. Customers who say they want this programming no matter what the price shouldn't be surprised when the price for this must-have programming goes through the roof.
  3. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    May 30, 2007
    OTT - Over The Top, basically video on demand.
  4. Deels1

    Deels1 Cool Member

    Jun 17, 2007
    MVPD = multichannel video programming distributors. Thank's for the dissertation must-carry research flashback SR!
  5. loudo

    loudo Well-Known Member

    Mar 24, 2005
    Central Maine
    It would be interesting to know if the DirecTV's NFL ST is taking in enough money to pay the NFL Contract they have. It seems hard to believe they could take in a Billion Dollars a year, to pay for it, or are we all paying for it in a small way.
  6. Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    Mar 18, 2008
    You haven't looked at what the commercial accounts pay for it. With that said if it draws in new customers then part of their revenue is included.
  7. Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    Sep 16, 2006
    To break even (at full price) it would take about 2.7 million subscribers to Sunday Ticket.
    That does not seem to be an unusually high number, considering the total number of subscribers, and the number of people who post on here that they would leave DirecTv if it werent for Sunday Ticket.
  8. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    May 30, 2007
    And I honestly think consumers aren't the main focus for Sunday Ticket. You've got to figure in bars and restaurants.
  9. loudo

    loudo Well-Known Member

    Mar 24, 2005
    Central Maine
    That is true, they get big bucks for them. Price is based on the occupancy of the bar of restraurant.
  10. Blurayfan

    Blurayfan Hall Of Fame

    Nov 16, 2005
    Comcast has a cap of 250 GB a calendar month. However they claim they only go after those users who have the biggest bandwidth usage above the cap and 99% of their customers don't use that much data.
  11. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    May 30, 2007
    Right, at one point Ruby Tuesday was the single biggest subscriber, with over 700 locations. Even if they were charged $2000 a location (don't know if that's close to the real price for a chain that averages about 170 capacity), that's 1.4 million for one customer.
  12. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    May 30, 2007
    Frontier used the same argument with their 5gb limit. That didn't go over all that well.
  13. Araxen

    Araxen Icon

    Dec 18, 2005
    I'd make a bet that everybody pays for it that is a Directv sub. $10 HD fee, mirror fee's are some of the stuff they hide it in.
  14. loudo

    loudo Well-Known Member

    Mar 24, 2005
    Central Maine
  15. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    May 30, 2007
    But as stated, it's not hard to come up with a billion dollars a year in revenue for Sunday Ticket, plus money to pay other costs related to it, plus profits.
  16. Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    Dec 6, 2006
    Maybe, but if ESPN comes down what happens to that provider? Look at what happened during the FOX dispute. You are correct that the distributors don't have to go along, but their are repercussions (good and bad) with making those decisions. Let's also not forget that the distributors often don't go along. Fox wanted a 40% increase and Directv said no. The battle then begins. MSG and Time Warner are going through me now. Dish lost a ton of customers when hey told Fox no and the handles came off the air for 28 days.
  17. DogLover

    DogLover Hall Of Fame

    Mar 18, 2007
    I'd be inclined to take that bet.
  18. renbutler

    renbutler Godfather

    Oct 17, 2008
    I suppose they could keep their revenue stream flat and cut back on their employee base, but then those people would be hurting too.

    Don't forget: TV is a luxury. If people are really hurting, luxuries should be the first thing on the chopping block. Go for it. I would guess that you would benefit personally as well as financially.
  19. paulman182

    paulman182 Hall Of Fame

    Aug 4, 2006
    Satellite TV is still one of the least-expensive luxuries there is, IMHO, when you calculate all the hours of entertainment it can provide.
  20. Sgt. Slaughter

    Sgt. Slaughter Hall Of Fame

    Feb 20, 2009
    but I thought the Economy was bad? lol

    funny how no matter how bad the Economy got there was always one constant, and that was networks/studios getting away with raising programming costs.

    Sucks for providers b/c they are stuck in a hard place, since all the providers are on different cycles of when contracts are set to renew. B/c of this they have a slight tough time giving the networks a harder hand. If they try to stand firm alone ppl end up leaving their service which costs them more $ anyway, so they are forced to pay up some most of the time.
    Now if you could get it to where TWC, Dish, and DIRECTV all had their contracts with providers run out at the same time then they could do something about the raising costs as there would be less chance ppl would leave for another provider since they all would be going through the same thing.

    has there ever been a time when ANY network contract was up and the new one was LESS? Like if DIRECTV showed noone watched X channel, so they don't want to pay as much for it next term? or they typically end up bundling those things with the bigger players at those times?

    just find it interesting this seems like the one group in the economy that has gone unfazed. Not DIRECTV but the networks or their talent.

Share This Page