2015 Dish Price Increase

[mike123abc]

Until they do. TWC charges something like $25/month for a (2-tuner) DVR. Their whole home setup costs almost $50 for a DVR and 1 client. And it is still only 2-tuners! They're supposed to be coming out with something better soon, but I expect it will cost even more.

The charges that TWC has, quickly pays the $$ for a TiVo. I have 3 TiVos, and 2 minis with TWC, costs $7.50/month for the three cable cards. Whole house DVR (5 TVs in HD), not to mention 10 tuners worth of recording would cost a fortune, it pays for itself quickly.

Unfortunately buying your own equipment with Dish does not result in a lower monthly bill.

 

[navychop]

And TWC has noticed. Stand by for heavy seas.

 

[SomeRandomIdiot]

I wouldn't say a lot. Let's agree that they have atleast, a minimum of 100 pay channels in the AT250. Seems like a reasonable number to start off of. Now let's assume average price is $0.75 per channel(some more than $5 some less the. $0.25, so we can just agree average of $0.75). For those 100 channels, that's $75. We can even lower he average per channel. Let's say $0.50. That's still $50 for those 100 channels. Now they have to make a profit, not to mention all expenses. Their price point is right in line with what they need to charge for the AT250, even at $86.99 per month(if it goes that high).

The average channel cost is .13 cents (wholesale).

Obviously there are some that cost A LOT more.

 

[SomeRandomIdiot]

I really don't see any of the other providers being any less expensive than Dish, and I have done the comparisons. Of course, each situation and household is different. I can say that Verizon Fios is still MORE than $20 more expensive per month for what we have on Dish. I think it is probably fair to say that Dish has been losing it "lowest price" claim for quite some time. The cost of the alternatives now seem "competitive" but NOT any better than Dish. Charter in our area still has no whole home DVR system and only provides for 4 DVR's and it pricing AFTER the discounts go away are still higher than Dish, AND I would have to triple play in order to get that pricing. For me, there is just no less expensive MVPD out there today, and I know of those who have just sworn off Uverse, despite its decent pricing because the system just doesn't work. They can't watch TV. And DirecTV, for us, is still, bottom line, just more expensive than Dish, even if that difference is not nearly as wide as it once was, (in fact, it may be itty bitty difference in some situations), but IMHO, the Hopper is superior to the Genie, so even with a slight difference in price and the money Direct and cable are willing to stuff into our pockets to switch, Dish still comes out ahead for us. For what amounts to almost identical pricing, we would dearly miss the Hopper.

The ONLY truly compelling thing now keeping me with Dish is the Hopper and overall satisfied with what we are getting as far as channels and PQ, etc. and having been treated very well by Dish, including some FREE upgrades. No great motivation to change to a different MVPD who MAY not be any less or more expensive, but just does not have the Hopper and its particular advantages that we like, such as TWO Hoppers and the ability to playback from EITHER Hopper. However, at some point, even Dish may just force me to move on. We shall have to see.

Considering TWC and FiOS are offering $79 and $89 Triple Play Packages in NYC (including NY,CT,NJ suburbs) and in LA - plus considering one needs internet (and on top of that FiOS giving $400 Visa Gift Cards which will pay for a TiVO or two, pretty hard for Dish to be the lower price option. BTW, that price is locked in for 2 years.

 

[SomeRandomIdiot]

People don't mind a small price increase, but they oppose paying for the hundreds of channels that they don't watch. That will eventually be the demise of Dish and the others unless they start letting us customize our packages.

Unfortunately customizing your package (a la carte) if possible would end up costing you just as much (if not more) than what you are paying now (for programming).

Interesting enough, it was all those channels that DBS offered with digital quality that had people subscribing to make the Industry in the 90s.

Now that cable has gone digital and increased from 36 analog channels (the norm in 1990), DBS's advantage has essentially disappeared - in selection, price and quality - all 3 metrics.

With everyone always explaining why they are leaving Dish, I often think about all of the technology and technical work Dish has provided let alone some of the equipment they provide
For one who was one of their first 55000 customers, I have never looked back! It will never take a $4-7 dollar increase to cause me to run away.................I remember the first
small dish, and my the way? they did not have installers! You did it all. That doesn't mean the haven't made mistakes, but where I come from thats common with engineers on their trek
to improve.

See above.

 

[SomeRandomIdiot]

Until they do. TWC charges something like $25/month for a (2-tuner) DVR. Their whole home setup costs almost $50 for a DVR and 1 client. And it is still only 2-tuners! They're supposed to be coming out with something better soon, but I expect it will cost even more.

TWC was giving away a HD DVR with their $79 Triple Play after the CBS Blackout last year to try and get subs. I do not think they are including a DVR (but could be wrong) in the current promotion. Though with those type of rates, use the savings to buy a TiVO with 5 tuners.

 

[TheKrell]

Unfortunately customizing your package (a la carte) if possible would end up costing you just as much (if not more) than what you are paying now (for programming).

Why do you find that argument plausible? If this were true, and broadcasters believed it too, then it would be their fiduciary duty to maximize profits by going to an a la carte regime where they make more money with fewer channels.

 

[Hall]

More channels = more eyeballs (well, potential eyeballs) for advertisers

 

[Yespage]

Why do you find that argument plausible? If this were true, and broadcasters believed it too, then it would be their fiduciary duty to maximize profits by going to an a la carte regime where they make more money with fewer channels.

This is a good observation. The channels are saying, "Hey, we'd love to do a la carte, but we are trying to save you money." Since when?!

I think ESPN would probably cost a bit more if it was a la carte. Though, it may not be all that bad as it'd still be a generally preferred channel to have so the subs wouldn't drop by a substantial amount. Niche channels like IFC... not wait... Sundance... no that isn't niche anymore either. How about Discov... no... TLC.. nope... Is there an actual niche channel left that would suffer from a la cartism?

What does a la carte do? HBO exists, Showtime exists. Why? Because they produce a product worth paying for. A la carte means channel providers would have to actually offer a channel worth buying. So instead of offering Food Network and Cooking, it'd become one channel that was great, instead of two mediocre channels. But they want to get money for two channels, not one. Better business model to offer more of something that isn't as great and expensive for a higher price.

 

[SomeRandomIdiot]

This is a good observation. The channels are saying, "Hey, we'd love to do a la carte, but we are trying to save you money." Since when?!

I think ESPN would probably cost a bit more if it was a la carte. Though, it may not be all that bad as it'd still be a generally preferred channel to have so the subs wouldn't drop by a substantial amount. Niche channels like IFC... not wait... Sundance... no that isn't niche anymore either. How about Discov... no... TLC.. nope... Is there an actual niche channel left that would suffer from a la cartism?

What does a la carte do? HBO exists, Showtime exists. Why? Because they produce a product worth paying for. A la carte means channel providers would have to actually offer a channel worth buying. So instead of offering Food Network and Cooking, it'd become one channel that was great, instead of two mediocre channels. But they want to get money for two channels, not one. Better business model to offer more of something that isn't as great and expensive for a higher price.

According to Sports Illustrated ESPN alone would cost $30 or more. Others estimate it over $50.

More people view ABC, FOX, CBS or NBC than HBO, Showtime and the others in your example. All they do is repeat 50 - 100 titles a month with a few new thrown in.

Others could do the same thing. But do you really want to pay ~$50 for a ABC/ESPN Package, ~$15 for a Fox Package, ~$10 for a CBS Package, ~$15 for a Turner Package, ~$12 for a NBC/Universal Package, ~$10 for a Viacom Package etc., ~$10 for a Discovery Package, ~$5 for a Scripps Package, ~$5 for AMC etc and there are more that have not been covered. What have you really saved?

If you say, "well, that is still not a la carte, I want to pick a single channel", you can expect that it is their most popular channel so they would price that at near that max for the package a la carte. The others are in the .13 cent channel category.

 

[SomeRandomIdiot]

Why do you find that argument plausible? If this were true, and broadcasters believed it too, then it would be their fiduciary duty to maximize profits by going to an a la carte regime where they make more money with fewer channels.

Costing YOU more does not increase their revenue. It is offset by loss of Viewers and Ad Revenue.

Furthermore, most channels would not get subs needed to survive, so they would die.

As thus, they are doing their fiduciary duty keeping those alive with the limited revenue.

One can keep a channel alive with 100 Million people paying .13 cents a month ($13M a month) as well as potential advertising revenue.

One cannot keep it alive when only 1M people are willing to only pay $1 a month for it.

 

[ncted]

TWC was giving away a HD DVR with their $79 Triple Play after the CBS Blackout last year to try and get subs. I do not think they are including a DVR (but could be wrong) in the current promotion. Though with those type of rates, use the savings to buy a TiVO with 5 tuners.

Still not worth it, even at $79, IMHO.

 

[osu1991]

Costing YOU more does not increase their revenue. It is offset by loss of Viewers and Ad Revenue.

Furthermore, most channels would not get subs needed to survive, so they would die.

As thus, they are doing their fiduciary duty keeping those alive with the limited revenue.

One can keep a channel alive with 100 Million people paying .13 cents a month ($13M a month) as well as potential advertising revenue.

One cannot keep it alive when only 1M people are willing to only pay $1 a month for it.

Then it doesn't need to survive. Those prices they keep stating are inflated. They may ask that, but if the market won't support it, then they will have to reduce their asking price and if NFL, NBA or whatever want to be scene, then they will have to accept less for their broadcast rights. Paying $15billion for games has to stop and they can fail, just like the Dodgers failed channel

Not everyone is going to want netflix and hulu and amazon and cbs and hbo. Hell, I have yet to find an HBO series that actually interests me. Same with AMC. Last time I turned on AMC was to watch White Christmas and Holiday Inn, other than that I have scrolled right by it in the guide with the other 100 channels I pay for and never watch. The programmers need a reality check and will have to stop paying actors $1 million an episode and the CEO's $60 million a year. Athletes need a reality check too, the average MLB salary was $3.8 million last year.

 

[Yespage]

According to Sports Illustrated ESPN alone would cost $30 or more. Others estimate it over $50.

Uh huh. Corporations would need to adjust how they bid for sports programming.

More people view ABC, FOX, CBS or NBC than HBO, Showtime and the others in your example. All they do is repeat 50 - 100 titles a month with a few new thrown in.

But people pay the premium for HBO already. And there is Epix as well. Those are showing that the la carte market is proven to work. If you provide a good enough product people will pay for it.

Others could do the same thing. But do you really want to pay ~$50 for a ABC/ESPN Package, ~$15 for a Fox Package, ~$10 for a CBS Package, ~$15 for a Turner Package, ~$12 for a NBC/Universal Package, ~$10 for a Viacom Package etc., ~$10 for a Discovery Package, ~$5 for a Scripps Package, ~$5 for AMC etc and there are more that have not been covered. What have you really saved?

I want TCM, NBCSN, Cartoon Network, Cooking, and maybe one other channel, with a 722k. I'm willing to pay $50 to $55 for that. I am willing to sacrifice for a lower bill. Did it with Latino Dos until the EPL moved to NBCSN. Didn't have any Disney channel, including ESPN.

 

[SomeRandomIdiot]

Uh huh. Corporations would need to adjust how they bid for sports programming.

Then it doesn't need to survive. Those prices they keep stating are inflated. They may ask that, but if the market won't support it, then they will have to reduce their asking price and if NFL, NBA or whatever want to be scene, then they will have to accept less for their broadcast rights. Paying $15billion for games has to stop and they can fail.......

.....Athletes need a reality check too, the average MLB salary was $3.8 million last year.

The problem is that now many of these Sports TV Contracts are locked in to the 2020-2022 area.

That does not help you in the next 5-7 years.

 

[SomeRandomIdiot]

I want TCM, NBCSN, Cartoon Network, Cooking, and maybe one other channel, with a 722k. I'm willing to pay $50 to $55 for that. I am willing to sacrifice for a lower bill. Did it with Latino Dos until the EPL moved to NBCSN. Didn't have any Disney channel, including ESPN.

Depending on the study, most viewers watch 14-18 channels.

I suspect you do as well.

35% of the viewing from a MVPD is from the ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC affiliate. While one can naively try to argue that fact, simply think about why Dish rolled out the Hopper on those 4 channels - because they represent the single largest concentration of viewers.

 

[ChadT41]

Then it doesn't need to survive. Those prices they keep stating are inflated. They may ask that, but if the market won't support it, then they will have to reduce their asking price and if NFL, NBA or whatever want to be scene, then they will have to accept less for their broadcast rights. Paying $15billion for games has to stop and they can fail, just like the Dodgers failed channel

Not everyone is going to want netflix and hulu and amazon and cbs and hbo. Hell, I have yet to find an HBO series that actually interests me. Same with AMC. Last time I turned on AMC was to watch White Christmas and Holiday Inn, other than that I have scrolled right by it in the guide with the other 100 channels I pay for and never watch. The programmers need a reality check and will have to stop paying actors $1 million an episode and the CEO's $60 million a year. Athletes need a reality check too, the average MLB salary was $3.8 million last year.

Then they just go right back to the traditional TV model. This has been proven, already, when Dish offered packages Ala Carte some years back. It didnt work out for them, they fought, and now channels have to be offered in the traditional package model. There should always be some ala carte channels, such as Epix, but having an all ala carte package will destroy their cash cow. I agree that they should regulate how much they pay actors per episode, and that CEO better be the CEO of one of the top companies with more than just TV going on(Disney). That all said, I agree that reducing channels, and increasing quality, reducing frivilous pay, and removing the management teams that think they know what is best for the public, would over all increase the value and reputation of TV. The problem with fixing whats taking place, we as consumers are dumb as a whole. We will not stop watching a channel, because we do not agree with what they choose for us, and we will continue to watch their sub channels. I will use Fox as an example, since it is fresh. Fox News customers that are pissed about them trying to include another channel, not involved in the Fox News contract, will not stop watching Fox, FXX, FS1 Etc(whatever it is they watch), to put the strain on the channel owner. This Fox News debacle hurts Fox minimally, only because it has a suite of channel churning in revenue. Thats how they survive. I have stated multiple times that I want minimal government involvement in the TV industry, however I do beleive a single company/entity should only be allowed to own so many channels. I would say no more than 5, maybe 6.When they start saturating the market, we get one of these disputes, or one like the Disney dispute(luckily Disney had the business sense to do the extensions and Dish was smart enough to capitalize on that).

 

[Hall]

While one can naively try to argue that fact, simply think about why Dish rolled out the Hopper on those 4 channels - because they represent the single largest concentration of viewers.

Anyone that argues otherwise is a fool. Hopper users can use the "What's Hot" function to confirm this -- especially during primetime hours. Programming from the (4) 'local' channels will likely dominate that listing. Yes, there will be some "cable" channel shows thrown in (a MNF game, Walking Dead, etc). As to how accurate that info is, well, that's not clear.

 

[Yespage]

The problem is that now many of these Sports TV Contracts are locked in to the 2020-2022 area.

That does not help you in the next 5-7 years.

Sure it does, if I can live with ESPN, I wouldn't have to pay for it.

Depending on the study, most viewers watch 14-18 channels.

I suspect you do as well.

I told you what I would pay for and how much I would pay for it. Sure I watch more channels, but if I could cut the bill by $30+, I'd be willing sacrifice.

35% of the viewing from a MVPD is from the ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC affiliate. While one can naively try to argue that fact, simply think about why Dish rolled out the Hopper on those 4 channels - because they represent the single largest concentration of viewers.

Actually, I was under the impression it had to do with the streams of the channels and how they were manipulating them in order to record them all using without using all the timers.

 

[SomeRandomIdiot]

Fox News customers that are pissed about them trying to include another channel, not involved in the Fox News contract...

99.99% of Fox News Customers have no idea about the details of the Fox dispute - and quite simply, we only have Charlie's word that is true (and we know what that is worth....).