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

PVR Charges are Illegal and Wrong

Discussion in 'Standard Definition Receiver Support Forum' started by ekammerzelt, Jun 16, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jun 20, 2005 #61 of 264
    garypen

    garypen Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,410
    0
    Feb 1, 2004
    Just a little thing called logic. I'm not saying they are required by law, of course. That's stupid. But, logic and common sense says they should. The 510 cost them no more than the 501/508 to develop, and offers no additional functionality. (hdd space is nmot a function.) And, the 510 actually provides less functionality than the 721.

    The argument against Dish DVR fees per receiver, especially for the 510, is clear and strong.
     
  2. Jun 21, 2005 #62 of 264
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,623
    385
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Do you buy Joe-Bob's ice cream? Or Ben & Jerry's? The ingredients are mostly the same, right?

    Or how about Coke/Pepsi vs Food Lion cola?

    We all are guilty of paying more for things that really aren't substantially different than something else...

    Ultimately, if you like the device then pay the fee... if you don't want to pay the fee, don't get the device. No one yet is being forced to get one of the fee-bearing devices.
     
  3. Jun 21, 2005 #63 of 264
    garypen

    garypen Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,410
    0
    Feb 1, 2004
    Not really a good argument. In many cases, brand name products do offer more than generic versions. (Better taste, higher quality, etc.) In those cases, most people will pay more, if they can afford it. (This is not the case with Dish DVR's, of course.)

    In those cases where there is no discernable difference, or there is actually lower quality (Dish DVR's could apply to that) you bet I choose the cheaper generic version. To do otherwise would be just plain stupid. (The fact that so many people choose "stupid" doesn't surprise me, of course.)
     
  4. Jun 21, 2005 #64 of 264
    airpolgas

    airpolgas Godfather

    493
    1
    Aug 12, 2002
    Two 508 user here. Enjoying the no-fee, for now.

    The fee debate would be much less if we were allowed to replace/add hard drives into our Dish PVRs. (Of course, only when it's bought, not leased)
     
  5. Jun 21, 2005 #65 of 264
    socceteer

    socceteer Icon

    558
    0
    Apr 22, 2005
    OK lets be realistic....!

    The cost of support should be factored into the cost of the unit, such as Tivo. The fact here is that Tivo and others DVR manufacturers started to charge for a subscription to their service of receiving a guide. not the service of updating the software. Just like all manufactures and software dealers, if they want additional revenue they can sale a new device with better features or sale a new software with new features. What we are all paying is for the use of the service and they choose to use that money to enhance the software and/or hardware.

    When you buy a new TV or car, etc, you get what you need to make sure it all works, yes you can add features, but you pay for those up front. I do not get monthly bills to cover the next development of a TV or car. The manufacturers factor that into the sale price. then they charge extra for services. just to those who need and and not to all customers.

    Ideally for the consumer we should all have to pay 1 fee for all DVR in a single house. and if I want enhancements, I will buy a new unit or a software upgrade. One time charge.

    The unfortunate fact is that they have us by the cojones because we accepted those conditions. The only solution is to wait for the first provider that offers the 1 charge per house and most people will start to move to that provider with time.
     
  6. Jun 22, 2005 #66 of 264
    ekammerzelt

    ekammerzelt Cool Member

    11
    0
    Jun 16, 2005
    If these fees are for software updates then they should have the balls to say that and stop discriminating between receivers.

    The problem I have with Dish is that they claim the DVR functionality is the reason for these extra fees.

    Everyone here knows the DVR function is a native ability of the hardware. These things are PC's with Hard-drives, they are not hosting the space for you on some server somewhere or providing a special service for DVR.

    I realize that if they did make this change and started charging a software update fee then everyone on the older systems would be pissed about having to pay those fees too.

    More upset people means better chance for a change. Change is what I want.
     
  7. Jun 22, 2005 #67 of 264
    tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,376
    58
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...
    :lol: Ya know if you're going that upset over something, you might as well make over something that actually matters. I mean shoot, people usually reserve getting that worked up over something like religion or politics or some such thing. I guess I have met some people for whom TV is their god and the programming and the electronic gadgets that go with it are their religion. Honestly if you want to change Dish's DVR charge the only real way to do it is with your wallet, e-mails filled with over-the-top false outrage probably won't get the job done. Dish Network has decided that DVR usage is feature that most people are willing to pay $4.98 for and living in this capitalist soceity the only thing that's going to change that is if the customers decide not to get DVR's and pay the charge. If enough people did that then Dish would change their price policies. Now of course if that did happen you know of course you'd still be paying more, because as soon as the DVR charge disappeared you know the programming charges would probably go up across the board three or four dollars a month for every subscriber. After all Dish is in this to make money and they've figured out their pricing to cover their costs and make a profit. So if you're really serious about this, dump Dish, subscribe to Direct or cable or go buy a stand-alone TiVO and spare us the ridiculous false accusations of Dish engaging in illegal and/or immoral business practices.
     
  8. Jun 23, 2005 #68 of 264
    jlabsher

    jlabsher Mentor

    38
    0
    Aug 26, 2002
    I have a 501 & 522, the 501 has no fee and the 522 has a $5 DVR fee. When I had the installer put in the 522 I got 50 feet of coax and ran it halfway through my house to the second set. By doing this the 522 replaced 2 301's. Each 301 had a $5 monthly receiver fee. I came out even on the deal.

    For the life of me I can't understand why anybody would need 4 DVRs in one house, replace those 508's with a 522 you come out ahead.

    With 200 channels, there still isn't enough on to warrent 4 DVR's! The weather is beautiful, the birds are singing, come on guys - the sun is shining - get outside!
     
  9. Jun 23, 2005 #69 of 264
    KingLoop

    KingLoop Custom User Title DBSTalk Gold Club

    886
    0
    Mar 3, 2005
    For anyone in that situation, I agree a 522 would be more desirable. Personally, I wouldn't want to pay the DVR fee or the additional outlet fee (for not having a phone line). I have (2) 721s so I would lose out a lot. I could live with a single DVR in the bedroom if I had to but I like the choice that the dual DVR gives me. To keep me happy I'd need 2 of the 522s the only real thing I would gain is NBR and a little more software stability. With (2) 522s my bill would go from $55 as it stands now to $75. I'd get jacked. If that happens maybe I'll move to D*. I like my E* though. D*'s guide would take some getting used to. When cable moves to all digital that would be something to consider. Until then I am happy with what I've got and how much I pay. At the end of the day I figure if you aren't happy with what you have or how much you pay get something differant. It is a consumer's market and I'm a consumer.
     
  10. Jun 29, 2005 #70 of 264
    jrb531

    jrb531 Icon

    916
    0
    May 28, 2004
    You "are" paying for the programming guide. Dish just grandfathered in the older DVR's because, at the time, they sold those partially based upon "we don't charge and others do" so they allow the older DVR's (why I'm keeping my 501 and 508 for as long as I can) to be waived for the $5 fee.

    What does suck is that they charge "either" a $5 rental fee or $5 DVR fee for the new ones. Why "anyone" would buy one instead of renting one if the fee is ther same is beyond me.

    I do agree, however, that this $5 is way way too much. It costs them the same for someone to type in the programming data for one unit or a million so why $5 each? Either that person makes a million dollars a month in salery or they are just using this as an excuse.... IE "we charge because we can get away with it"

    The line that we are paying for programming updates is utter and complete BS. They reprogram the non-DVR's for free so why do the DVR's cost so much?

    So we pay $60 a year for someone to type in guide data..... hmmmm is this not the same guide data that the non-DVR's get for free?

    What is the difference between a DVR and non-DVR? Why does it cost extra $$$ for the DVR's and not the base units?

    I can understand that "maybe" the additional programming needed to do recording and such takes a few more programmers but $60 a year per DVR? no way!

    This is a scam and when my units go out or MPEG4 comes I'll be renting the units so I only pay the one $5 fee which is what they always wanted to begin with.

    I do love how they charge you $250 up front in order to "rent" a HD DVR. This sounds more like leasing a car than renting a box LOL.

    -JB
     
  11. Jul 8, 2005 #71 of 264
    derwin0

    derwin0 Icon

    538
    0
    Jan 31, 2005
    The difference is that non-DVR's get a 2-day guide, and DVR's get a 9-day guide. The 9-day guide eats up some additional bandwidth at 100.
     
  12. Jul 14, 2005 #72 of 264
    Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    But companies have the rightt o price their products any way they choose. You may not agree with it or like it but they still have that right. In this case it is pretty clear that DISH would like to abandon the no fee DVR model. After the 7x00 brouhaha though they know that it is a lot easier to do it when the unit is purchased insted of adding (or reimposing)a fee later.

    Persoanlly I don't like it either. And I think it is a bad decisiion. But I guess the real yardstick is revenue raised. Is it higher than it would have been? If so they will no doubt continue the practice with future models.


    As for whether it is illegal. Well I agree that is not but hey that is the title of this thread.
     
  13. Jul 14, 2005 #73 of 264
    boylehome

    boylehome Hall Of Fame/Supporter

    2,143
    0
    Jul 16, 2004
    If the charges were, "Illegal and Wrong." E* wouldn't be charging them. A long, long time ago, our local cable company charged for a line per room fee. Now that became illegal having enacted legislation. Now a person can have a cable in every room witout the fee. I had moved into a home where the owner had ran cable to every room. When I activated the cable service and told the installer which rooms I wanted cable, the installer actually cut sections of the other cables shortening them so they couldn't connet to where they used to meet at the junction.

    The same was true with the telephone company. The rule was one line per phone, period.

    What should be illegal is the restriction to have no more than six activated receivers in a single family dwelling. I think that our congressmen and legislators could get some milage out of this issue and make it better for US citizens.
     
  14. Jul 14, 2005 #74 of 264
    Bill R

    Bill R Hall Of Fame

    2,498
    1
    Dec 20, 2002
    You don't have that quite right; there was never a rule of one line per phone (or one phone per line). What was true was that all extention phones had to be installed and rented from the phone company (you could NOT own or install your own equipment). Latter that rule changed to allow you to own and add equipment (like answering machines and extention phones) but all equipment had to be registered with the phone company and most companies charged you a fee for each addition piece of equipment you had on the line (usually something a little less than the fee that they charged for renting a phone from them; in the case of my local phone company the cost to rent a phone from them was $1.25 a month). All this changed in the early 80s and and all the fees for your own equipment were dropped. Despite the telephone industry's hype that the country's phone system would crash (because of incomputable equipment) that didn't happen.
     
  15. Jul 14, 2005 #75 of 264
    boylehome

    boylehome Hall Of Fame/Supporter

    2,143
    0
    Jul 16, 2004
    You may be correct as it was a additional charge for the second phone at the cost for the phone line X 2 (apples to oranges :) ). I'm referring back to the 50's/60's and party lines were were common. In the mid 60's into the 70's extention's were becoming more predominate and tolerated by the service provider at an additional expense but with lots of restrictions. The point is that sometimes business rules and practices go beyond what is reasonable, hence legislation to make change for the better. If you want additional information about this phone company and it's practices, I can PM it to you so not to get off track of the point of this thread.
     
  16. Jul 14, 2005 #76 of 264
    the_bear

    the_bear Godfather

    420
    0
    Oct 18, 2004
    Am I the only one that believes prices should be determined by supply and demand?
     
  17. Jul 14, 2005 #77 of 264
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,623
    385
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Nope... Supposedly in a capitalistic economy, supply and demand are exactly what determine the prices... I find it funny sometimes how people want to brag about being in a free country, then want to price-fix things.

    Legislation to fix prices causes as much problems as it helps. The phone company, for instance, regularly points to FCC regulations that "require" them to charge a particular fee... when the reality is the FCC just said they can charge it... so the phone company puts it on the bill as an FCC mandated fee and most folks are none the wiser.

    Perhaps a bad/limited example... but I find we try and be "free" when it suits us... then we want non-capitalistic controls in place when we think that would suit us better. We can't make up our minds what kind of country we want to live in sometimes.
     
  18. Jul 14, 2005 #78 of 264
    socceteer

    socceteer Icon

    558
    0
    Apr 22, 2005
    I hear you, and I agree that we want and should have free market until they become a monopoly and at that time the government needs to step in and control abuse. That is how our democrazy works (cable and Satellite are getting close to becoming a monopoly)
     
  19. Jul 14, 2005 #79 of 264
    BobaBird

    BobaBird EKB Editor

    4,022
    0
    Mar 30, 2002
    No, but that's not really the question here. Companies setting a price for anything and everything was a factor in the creation of the FTC, FDA, SEC, NHTSA, BBB and other agencies and organizations whose main focus is consumer protection. Not so much protection from high prices (a free and informed market should correct that) but from unfair business practices, fraudulent advertising, and unsafe and/or ineffective products. The right to charge a price carries with it an obligation to provide something in return. Dish's claim that DVR is a service is the modern consumer fraud equivalent of the cure-all claims of snake oil.
     
  20. Jul 14, 2005 #80 of 264
    ekammerzelt

    ekammerzelt Cool Member

    11
    0
    Jun 16, 2005
    Amen.
    A-Fricken-Men.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page