[b4pjoe]

No, we see streaming hiking by larger percentages to catch up. ESPN+ just raised their prices 43%. Premium Hulu is going up 9.2%. Netflix, although, not live TV hiked by 11%.

Compare that with DirecTV. My price DROPPED by -11% this year. Just sayin'. If you're wondering how that's possible... I've been on promos for like 10-15 yrs, but in March of this year, I got better ones.

Your DirecTV price did not go down. It goes up every January. Your discount went up which is not something that is guaranteed like the yearly price increase.

Also you can’t compare prices by percentages. Someone that subscribes to streaming that had a 10% increase is less than my 4% raise on my DirecTV service in dollar figures.

 

[b4pjoe]

It's a bigger percentage.

Yes. And less dollars.

 

[b4pjoe]

Not. OTT is generally "skinny" packages. On DirecTV Stream the top package is less channels then on my lowly Preferred Xtra. The comparable priced package is 105 channels vs. 220+ on sat.

Do some research and tell us how many of the channels that are not on Stream but are on sat that you watch.

 

[b4pjoe]

DTV Stream doesn't include the infomerical and shopping channels. Aren't those part of the 220 channels?

Yes and the Music channels.

 

[b4pjoe]

I thought I did lol. CW and the PBS I watch. A lot of the channels I do watch, I'd have to go to at LEAST Choice+ on Stream, and Oxygen is only on Ultimate for Stream and some of the OTA sub channels I watch aren't on anything but OTA.

Still, even if I could get away with Choice+, it's $89.99/mo + taxes (does that include the RSN fee?). I only pay $91.30/mo OUT THE DOOR on Preferred Xtra + AM21 on sat. So why would I switch? It would raise my bill by a buck or two. If I had to raise my data cap, I'd be in the hole for another $50/mo.

Like we always say, the math is person specific... saying everybody will save money on streaming just isn't true.

CW you don't get but you do get CW OnDemand I believe. PBS is listed as a channel for my zip code too. And hey I am not trying to get you to switch. Just the channel differences you always bring up is that 99% of them are junk channels.

 

[b4pjoe]

Yeah, but my point is that I'd pay MORE for not having the junk channels and losing CW lol. So again, not everybody saves money by switching to streaming, its very case specific. The only blanket statement you can make is that if you have a lot of TVs, you'll save money. Low TV count is more like "it depends".

I never said that YOU would save money by switching. I never said that YOU should switch to streaming. Just that your reasons have flaws in them for many people. As long as you get your discounts you should keep DirecTV satellite. If your discounts go away you could save money on a TV package but no you won't find any with the exact same channels you get now. But you would probably lose that money either with paying for unlimited data or paying the extra charge if you go over your limit. In your case with the channels you want and the discounts you get and your limited internet and the fact you only have 1 TV you should stick with what you have. That isn't the case for everyone though.

 

[b4pjoe]

My situation is a bit different now since one bedroom is now an office and I don't watch too much TV in there any longer and no longer watch much TV in the living room either, so those are technically two boxes I can return and will probably do that once the apps on Roku or Firestick allow for "streaming" with a SAT account.

The app on Roku is working for sat now.

 

[b4pjoe]

you and Joe are gonna have to work a lot harder to get me to cancel lol.

Joe is not trying to get you to cancel.

 

[b4pjoe]

That is weird. I installed it on my Fire TV Cube yesterday and it didn't work. Allowed me to login but the the only option was that it wanted me to sign up for STREAM. I will check if there was an update overnight.

 

[b4pjoe]

If you are trying to pad the price of streaming by adding the cost of Internet please limit the padding to the incremental cost. How much more would one pay for Internet if they added streaming.

In my case I would not need to pay a penny more for Internet. I'd continue with my same plan whether or not I streamed.

Same here.

Where's all your linear channels? Hulu Live is $70/mo, less then the Charter $80. If you include both, you're paying $160/mo. I pay $91/mo for DirecTV Preferred Xtra.

Who needs linear channels? I never watch them live anyway.

 

[b4pjoe]

Who needs streaming? I never watch poorly dubbed Netflix shows imported from random countries cuz they lost all their licensed content.

I canceled Netflix months ago. I still have satellite but I record anything I want to watch or watch it on ad-free streaming. But there are some shows I want to watch but don't have recent episodes available on ad-free streaming so I watch it from the DVR and have to FF through commercials (the horror).

 

[b4pjoe]

I can do that too but I don’t have to on ad-free streaming.

 

[b4pjoe]

I've also mentioned that satellite is probably the cheapest since you just launch a sat and you're done and it scales to infinity (extra outlets don't put strain on the system).

I have to ask…if it is so cheap and easy for satellite why is it the most expensive for consumers to subscribe to? If it is that cheap and easy why haven’t they slashed prices to keep existing customers?

 

[b4pjoe]

It's not (at least for me). As I've said, my DirecTV bill is $91/mo out the door. A similar package on streaming is about the same. It may be for you or others because they don't own the content and have to pay fees and the content owners jack up the fees. ESPN is the most expensive channel out there by far.

Think about it. You add a cable / fiber box, that puts load on their backend. You add a streaming device, that puts load on their backend. What load does adding a HR54 add to DirecTVs backend?

Then why isn't DTV marketing all over this trying to get new subscribers? Because the satellite, cabling, and receivers have to be installed and maintained. New satellites would need to be launched to continue the service. There would need to be more R & D with new receivers being released. Turns out it isn't as cheap and easy as you claim and DirecTV has basically given up and are riding this dead horse until it dies. And yes consumers are still going to end up paying as much or more for their TV entertainment in the future. Except for those like me that are paying for both right now. Eventually I will just be paying for one of them. And it won't be satellite because it won't exist anymore.

 

[b4pjoe]

I never once said streaming was cheap and easy. Just that DirecTV isn't as cheap and easy as you say if they wanted to take it into the future.

 

[b4pjoe]

$500M to launch a sat that'll last 10-15 years is certainly cheaper then $1.5B loss per quarter.

That being said, DirecTV seems to be taking it into the future via streaming at this point. Although supposedly they're developing a new sat receiver. It would certainly be more convenient to have streaming apps on the DirecTV box so people don't need multiple remotes / switch inputs, etc. But if you are going streaming, why would you do that through DirecTV?

Btw, the HUGE majority of the market for linear channels is still delivered through traditional means (cable/sat/fiber) vs. streaming. Streaming is the king for VOD though. OTT market is relatively small.

And don't get me wrong... if a content / TV provider said no to streaming today, yeah, they're going to be left in the dust in the future.

The traditional sky isn't falling as hard and fast as you say it is .

Once again you keep saying I said things that I never said. I never said satellite was going away hard and fast. Just they would have to invest money in it to make it last longer than the next 8 to 10 years.

As far as a new receiver coming to sat...take this for what it is worth (not much)...a person on reddit claims a DIRECTV CSR told him they were coming out with a C71W receiver in mid December for satellite. Streaming box is also a C71W. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[b4pjoe]

And streaming companies don't? Streaming companies need to invest money every quarter to make it last even another quarter lol. $500M for another 10-15 years is "cheap". That's a rounding error. Or a Keleven if you're an Office fan.

Yes streaming companies are. DirecTV apparently is not.

I don't believe anything CSRs say lol. They don't have any inside knowledge. I will legit be surprised if they came out with a new device.

On that we agree.

 

[b4pjoe]

Now you're saying I said something I didn't lol. They both need to spend money every quarter, DirecTV / Dish / Cable companies orders of magnitude less. If anybody besides Disney lost 1.5B in a quarter, they'd likely be out of business. Even at Disney, it has now cost 2 high level execs their jobs. Don't get how you are comparing a 1.5B loss in a quarter to $500M over 10-15 yrs, but OK. DirecTVs entire satellite fleet was quoted as being worth 2B, almost what Disney lost in a QUARTER.

I have not said a word about Disney losing 1.5 billion dollars or compared to anything. That is their problem...not mine. All I said about DirecTV is they will need to spend a lot of money to stay relevant past the life of their current satellites and apparently they have no interest in doing that because...as I said...it is not as cheap and easy as you claim for satellite.

 

[b4pjoe]

Yeah it is. I told you exactly how much it costs. Launch and acquisition is approximately $500M per sat with an approximately lifetime of 10-15 yrs. They still need to pay for monitoring/operating the sats, but I believe they outsource that. Still doesn't cost them billions per quarter.

That being said, yes, AT&T said no new birds, but that can change on a dime, especially if they merge with Dish.

So back to square one. Why aren't they trying to keep the cheap and easy service going instead of letting it die? Gee they have lost millions upon millions of subscribers and are doing nothing to try to stem those losses. They could probably cut their prices in half and do a way with their per TV fees and other bogus service fees and still be making money and losing a lot less subscribers if they would only try.

 

[b4pjoe]

For me, my ISP has NO data caps and I was only 100 speed until recently which worked well for streaming, even when I left DirecTV Sat. I upped it to 500 because it only was a few dollars more to do so. I get that some folks have datacaps, but I wonder how often the average streamer goes above the data cap, and if paying the overage is STILL cheaper than Sat for some.

I have DirecTV satellite and we also stream quite a bit but a lot less than someone that also uses a Live TV Streamer. I am over 1 TB every single month so if I was doing everything on streaming I would probably be at around 2 TB plus per month. I have unlimited data so it wouldn't be a problem. I have a suspicion that unlimited data is going to go away at some point. Not because it is necessary but because the streaming companies are going to realize they can charge more for it when everyone starts going well over 1 TB per month.