Direct has one DVR fee on all of their packages. One fee covers all DVRs on the account no matter which package you have.
Dish Pricing Update
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 637
- Views 106K
You know that is predicted just about every year but they now have more customers than they have ever had.
Yes, but suddenly they are making it more expensive to have more receivers.
Note that he did not say "customers", he said "receivers".
Anything that is made more expensive, decreases in sales (all other factors being equal).
Note that he did not say "customers", he said "receivers".
Anything that is made more expensive, decreases in sales (all other factors being equal).
Did Charlie or his pals ever work for Coke in 1985?
Just wondering....
Ghpr13
Don't know but I'm sure they were asked to leave once they got caught trying to inhale a 12oz can.
I don't want to see any price increases either, but... On average, D* is about $10-$15 more per month than E* for the same level of programing and E* has far superior equipment. So maybe the gap becomes "only" $5-$10 cheaper per month for E*, it is still the better product/deal.
Brad
Brad
This fee restructuring and increase smells like Dish is preparing the means to pay TiVo its licensing fee without increasing the DVR fee, but they really are because it is now renamed and included in the other fees.
The DVR fee waiver was the primary and huge incentive for me to subscribe to AEP, but with word that DVR fees will no longer be waived and other fee increases that DO result in an increase in the monthly bill, I'll be canceling AEP, turning off some STB's, and and really cut Dish out of my budget, and out of my life, as they will no longer have the "price advantage". I've already priced it out, and if the new Dish fees go into effect, FiOS becomes just as expensive, meaning there is no reason to stay with Dish when FiOS has MORE HD channels than Dish and, it seems, in full-bit glory.
Dish's lower fees, overall, compared with cable and FiOS was the only major reason for me NOT to jump ship to FiOS--or even my cable company. But, as much as I like Dish, it will no longer make economic sense for me (yeah, some fees eliminated or going down or whatever; it still results in a big net increase for me), one of the bigger fishes--and just about all of their big fish who have AEP and lots of DVR's--and I will be saying, "buh-bye, Dish" It was nice knowing ye. And, no, Dish's superior DVR/STB technology does not make up for this. There is a limit to how much money any of us has. Oh, and, Dish, say goodbye to my Internationals $$$, too. How clever of you to kick your biggest money makers in the balls.
BTW, it is BS: I believe a majority of subs will end up seeing an increase in monthly bills. Is that not the point of such actions? Sure, the guy with one box, maybe 2, might not get damaged, but forget those with large families or those with a 3rd HDTV, etc. Personally, I view this huge fee restructuring and increase as a slap in the face, particularly to those who have given Dish the most $$$ over the years. If it treats its "most valued customers," as the man on the phone says, in this way, then get ready for the rest of you got get scr##ed down the line or never be able to afford DVR on that 3rd HDTV of yours that you may get in the future. The current TV commercial with chubby telling us all about how "affordable" and how lower the cost Dish Network is ought to be pulled from the airwaves, NOW. It is deceptive.
The DVR fee waiver was the primary and huge incentive for me to subscribe to AEP, but with word that DVR fees will no longer be waived and other fee increases that DO result in an increase in the monthly bill, I'll be canceling AEP, turning off some STB's, and and really cut Dish out of my budget, and out of my life, as they will no longer have the "price advantage". I've already priced it out, and if the new Dish fees go into effect, FiOS becomes just as expensive, meaning there is no reason to stay with Dish when FiOS has MORE HD channels than Dish and, it seems, in full-bit glory.
Dish's lower fees, overall, compared with cable and FiOS was the only major reason for me NOT to jump ship to FiOS--or even my cable company. But, as much as I like Dish, it will no longer make economic sense for me (yeah, some fees eliminated or going down or whatever; it still results in a big net increase for me), one of the bigger fishes--and just about all of their big fish who have AEP and lots of DVR's--and I will be saying, "buh-bye, Dish" It was nice knowing ye. And, no, Dish's superior DVR/STB technology does not make up for this. There is a limit to how much money any of us has. Oh, and, Dish, say goodbye to my Internationals $$$, too. How clever of you to kick your biggest money makers in the balls.
BTW, it is BS: I believe a majority of subs will end up seeing an increase in monthly bills. Is that not the point of such actions? Sure, the guy with one box, maybe 2, might not get damaged, but forget those with large families or those with a 3rd HDTV, etc. Personally, I view this huge fee restructuring and increase as a slap in the face, particularly to those who have given Dish the most $$$ over the years. If it treats its "most valued customers," as the man on the phone says, in this way, then get ready for the rest of you got get scr##ed down the line or never be able to afford DVR on that 3rd HDTV of yours that you may get in the future. The current TV commercial with chubby telling us all about how "affordable" and how lower the cost Dish Network is ought to be pulled from the airwaves, NOW. It is deceptive.
Last edited:
Those maps show it available in most of the top 20 metro areas and some smaller high population area where over 50% of the US population lives. Even tho those area might be a small fraction of the total country those small areas cover a large part of the total US population.
I never said U-Verse/Fios was available in rural america, my point was more directed towards the fact today large chunks of the US population has access to more than just sat or cable and in those area's this new increased competition is driving prices down. So not sure what Dish is thinking as they are basically pricing them selfs out of those markets by effectively raising their prices to a point that they are no longer competitive.
I switched from TWC to Dish 16 months ago because Dish was almost $40 cheaper per month than TWC and had more HD channels than TWC in Los Angeles, U-Verse and Fios was not available in my area either so my choices were Direct Tv, Dish or TWC. Today that is not the case anymore I can get U-Verse(I live in an ATT territory of Los Angeles but Santa Monica CA is Verizon and Fios is available their already as many friends have Fios), TWC or Direct Tv or Dish at my location and U-Verse and TWC both have more HD channels than Dish and both are cheaper by almost $30 a month. Things have changed and Dish has to know price wars are breaking out in parts of the country were cable companies are trying to defend their customers bases against ATT and Verizon. So it seems silly that Dish is going to price themselves out of those markets so they wont be able to pick up any new customers in those markets who just happen to have over 50% of the total customer base. Pricing competition is just going to increase over time and not decrease as telco tv service expands putting even more pricing pressure going forward.
DodgerKing I personally would never switch to U-Verse TV as I find the current limitation to be unacceptable but the fact remains because U-Verse has been deployed wide scale in Los Angeles and TWC has lost enough customers to both Fios and U-Verse that TWC started a price war in this area in an effort to retain it customers which both ATT and Verizon matched instantly. Which means everyone except Dish and Direct TV is lowering the price of their service in my area and Direct TV at least can claim they have some exclusive content which is why they might be able to demand a premium but Dish has no exclusive content and their new pricing is making Dish flat out uncompetitive in this area. TWC cable is running the $99 promo in all of LA County as they are advertising these packages on local networks and in Los Angeles Times so even if you are in an area in Los Angeles county where either U-Verse or Fios has not launch you are still benefiting from this new competition.
Actually City of Los Angeles population exceeded 4 million some years ago and is currently over 4 million.
Last edited:
First, Hollywood, North Hollywood and San Pedro are NOT incorporated cities; they area all districts in and a part of the city of Los Angeles.
Also, a few of the L.A. County cites you cited do NOT have their own police or fire departments: obviously, the 3 above mentioned districts of the city of Los Angeles are served by LAPD and LAFD, but at least one of the remaining (West Hollywood) contract with LA County Sheriff's and LA County Fire Dept. for law enforcement and fire protection. Are you sure you live in the area?
Yes I live in Los Angeles, But are you claiming Santa Monica, Long Beach, Manhattan Beach, Hawthorne, Ingelwood, Pasadena, Burbank, Gendale, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Azusa, etc weather they are served by LA County Sheriff and LA county Fire or they own police departments they are part of the City of Los Angeles and their populations are counted in City of Los Angeles? Yet they are smack in the middle of Los Angeles. Compton is it own City and the Sheriff service Compton and it is an incorporated City in Los Angeles County. I am not an expert in what Cities/district are incorporated cities in Los Angeles County nor which have their own proper police and fire which is why I listed a map.
But I know the Sheriff cars in West Hollywood say "West Hollywood Sheriff" and not "LA County Sheriff" or "City of Los Angeles Sheriff". If they are contracted police or not is irrelevant point still stand that West Hollywood is it own city just like Beverly Hills and both are 100% surrounded by Los Angeles and not part of rural america. The population in both cities is not counted in City of Los Angeles population numbers.
Maybe instead of trying to nit pick on my statement, you might want to consider the fact in Los Angeles County, TWC offers a $99 2 DVR package, with 250 digital channels and 101 HD channels plus free showtime and TMC and 6/1 Meg internet service. If you figure a DSL 6/608 connection from either ATT or Verizon is $35 bucks then the TV portion is $64 and U-Verse offers a similar package in Los Angeles with 3/1 internet and U-Verse 300 which includes Showtime +HD Fee with 1 DVR and 1 HD box for $99 also and Fios offers 15/5 Internet and FiOS TV Extreme HD + Showtime and 1 total DVR and 1 HD box. Once the new pricing structure goes into effect for Dish a comparable package would cost $67.99(Dish DVR 250)+ $17 for 2nd HD DVR Box or dual tuner box +10 HD fee making a comparable package on Dish cost $94.99(or $84.99 if you have a 2nd single tuner box) and that does not include any internet access either. So Dish and Direct TV are going to be the most expensive provider out their and Dish does not have any exclusive content like Direct TV, And Dish can not claim to have more HD channels either as TWC, Fios and U-Verse all have more HD channels than Dish, and Fios picture quality puts Dish to shame.
Again I quoted where my numbers came from, Those numbers were accurate as of 2005 for both LA Metro and LA City, If from 2005 till now the City of Los Angeles has added over 600k more residents then I am sure the 19.2 mil number from 2005 is much higher too. Again this all goes back to the same thing, I claimed 70% of the population lived in small part of the country which was over exaggerated as that number is closer to 50% but much more than 32mil others were claiming.
If the numbers are really 20-30% higher today than in 2005 like you claim it even more goes to my point that a very large % of the population has access to more than just cable and sat now.
Let me say that I, for one, support Scott reporting these rumors, as rumors can often be true. Furthermore, I believe Dish knows who is feeding the info to Scott, and most likely, wanted it leaked to "test the waters." In the past there have been a few things Dish really has kept secret until the last moment, but now there are several people at Dish confirming the rumored fee structure? Please! This isn't a leak, but a massive public fountain from which all are are open to drink while Charlie and Jim spy from the shadows.
Well, I am not betting that things will change between now and February, but it is my belief that Charles and company are intensely following Satellite Guys postings on this thread to find out what we find acceptable--I have to support the Protection Plan "penalty" as that service was abused--and just how many of us really would downgrade, cancel, or simply gauge the tolerance of those "one of our most valued customers" with AEP, with the most Duos and DVR's and paying the highest bills, are to these proposed changes to fees that will result in significant increases to the monthly bill, and are really interested in well reasoned posts of opposition.
Again, while I wouldn't bet on it, still, it would not surprise me if, due to our outrage, there are a few changes, to the subscribers advantage, some tweaks, if you will, to this fee overhaul because of Dish's trial balloon with Scott and the postings here at Satellite Guys.
So, in other words, Scott is doing the right thing sharing his confirmed information so that we have an opportunity to make our displeasure, or approval, pubic before it becomes policy, and perhaps influence Dish, or just plain do something about it. Not to mention that Dish probably wanted Scott to report it for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph. Let's hope Dish hears us and that Dish will make some attempt to ease the blow to those with more STB's and DVR's.
Well, I am not betting that things will change between now and February, but it is my belief that Charles and company are intensely following Satellite Guys postings on this thread to find out what we find acceptable--I have to support the Protection Plan "penalty" as that service was abused--and just how many of us really would downgrade, cancel, or simply gauge the tolerance of those "one of our most valued customers" with AEP, with the most Duos and DVR's and paying the highest bills, are to these proposed changes to fees that will result in significant increases to the monthly bill, and are really interested in well reasoned posts of opposition.
Again, while I wouldn't bet on it, still, it would not surprise me if, due to our outrage, there are a few changes, to the subscribers advantage, some tweaks, if you will, to this fee overhaul because of Dish's trial balloon with Scott and the postings here at Satellite Guys.
So, in other words, Scott is doing the right thing sharing his confirmed information so that we have an opportunity to make our displeasure, or approval, pubic before it becomes policy, and perhaps influence Dish, or just plain do something about it. Not to mention that Dish probably wanted Scott to report it for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph. Let's hope Dish hears us and that Dish will make some attempt to ease the blow to those with more STB's and DVR's.
True but they always will designite the least expensive receiver as the first receiver. I have a 722 and a second (SD no DVR I think it is a 301??) and that is designated as the primary.
Ross
I will appoloize up front for not reading 20 pages of posts many of which are folks venting (justifiably so). Just wondering how this will affect those with just a sd receiver no dvr. My dad lives in an area of coastal Maine that lost all of its OTA when the digital transition took place. Prior to that he had crystal clear OTA. And yes he did his research and spoke with several antennae installers and they all told him the same ting that the power of digital transmissions is much lower than the the old analog and thus with the terrain etc no one that lives right on the coast would receive OTA digital signals. Sucks as far as I am concerned. The best option to continue to receive locals was Dish. He had to pay $200 for installation but his monthly fee is $10.00 for the locals and a few "free" non broadcast channels that are mostly crap. So is he now going to get stuck with a hugh fee just to have this receiver so he and my mom can watch TV?
The situation stinks in my mind as he should not have to pay for what is free if all he wants is the locals...
Ross
Sorry got a bit off topic
The situation stinks in my mind as he should not have to pay for what is free if all he wants is the locals...
Ross
Sorry got a bit off topic
If your dad only has one receiver, there will be NO increase for him. I would like to pick apart the claim about OTA digital signals, but I'm not awake enough.
Well ,I doubt D* is going to be an option for me, Since they still want to charge me $398 +$19.95 for shipping on 2 HR-2*. I'll pay E* its $5 increase I guess.
My Math
According to what I have absorbed, I think I will actually be saving money with this change. Here are my assumptions:
First DuoDVR receiver...N/C
"with DVR" program package eliminated, will be $5.00 less.
Second DuoDVR...$17.00
Phone connection...-$5.00
My two receiver costs, 12.00
Currently paying $12.00 for second receiver plus $5.00 ("with DVR package")
So, if the "with DVR" up charge is eliminated, I save $5.00. If not, then no change. So for me, no problem if my assumptions are correct.
According to what I have absorbed, I think I will actually be saving money with this change. Here are my assumptions:
First DuoDVR receiver...N/C
"with DVR" program package eliminated, will be $5.00 less.
Second DuoDVR...$17.00
Phone connection...-$5.00
My two receiver costs, 12.00
Currently paying $12.00 for second receiver plus $5.00 ("with DVR package")
So, if the "with DVR" up charge is eliminated, I save $5.00. If not, then no change. So for me, no problem if my assumptions are correct.
Similar threads
- Locked
