DVR Service Fee

[harshness]

I guess thats one way of looking at it, although I dont know how you look at it at all when you dont even have any directv equipment or service.

From a standpoint of making money off of the people who are willing to pay for what they get. Making money off of the lower to middle incomes seems slightly unfair.

What service one subscribes to has little to no bearing on the fairness of charges and I defy you to explain otherwise.

The other way is that multiple dvr's might increase the viewing of content and may lead to more optional programming services, increasing the income from multiple dvr subscribers.

It is just as likely, if not more likely that the converse is true: that DVR users subscribe to lesser programming levels because they can record what they want and watch it for some time.

Having one flat fee doesnt discourage people from adding a second or third dvr.

I didn't say that it did. I said that it didn't help pay for the second DVR and that burden of that cost might be being put on everyone as opposed to only those who take advantage of it.

So perhaps the directv model works better than the dish model.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how you look at it.

Which company is doing better than the other, btw?

I'd guess that financially DISH is doing better having more than doubled its stock value since March 2009.

 

[enricong]

Although I currently pay for DVR "service" I think I would agree with the OP. Back when TIVO first came out, I was still on regular analog cable and had my computer setup as a DVR. I remember thinking, why would I buy a TIVO and pay a monthly fee when I can have my spare computer do the same. Sure, the computer itself may cost more, but it was an old spare computer I wasnt using so it was no added cost to me. Also, I liked the power of being able to customize the system to my liking. I could also save off recorded files (compressed in a format of my choosing). That way I had near unlimited recording space.

Back then, I think the argument was that TIVO offered the guide service and that was what you are paying for. I would agree that the TV guide is an actual "service" because there is an on-going cost to keep the guide updated. The actual recording device is just a tuner, capture card, and hard drive.

NOW, with directv (or any other digital tv service), the guide is included whether or not you have DVR so why do I need to pay a fee every month. It would make much more sense to charge some flat fee the when you upgrade the box. I COULD still attempt to do the same on my computer but they have made it much more difficult. the Satellite signal is encrypted and proprietary so the only way for me to record is the capture the analog output from the box at a reduced quality. I also cannot record two shows at once since I cannot get two different outputs. Also, it is much more difficult for me to tune to different channels since I have to buy an IR device to change channels.

I think the closest I can do is to get an R-5000 box where they charge you like $800 for the box upfront and then you can use it as a DVR thereafter for no further costs. OR getting an HD tuner card which can only see unencrypted HD channels.

It would be much more fair to charge everyone an extra $50-$100 for a DVR box they can use forever than charge a monthly fee, but people are obviously willing to pay the fee so why would a company make an effort to reduce their own profits.

Going by the same logic, Software companies should participate in this type of collusion and start charging people "service fees" rather than flat fees. Microsoft could charge you 10 cents for every time you click on a link or $1 for every time you use spell check or save a file in Microsoft word. Or just a monthly fee to use windows. As long as people are convinced its really a "service" and willing to pay a fee, they'd be able to make millions more.

 

[cfb]

I defy you to explain otherwise.

Its an easy explanation. The entirety of your posts on this topic are a specious strawman, set up and knocked down. The actual facts in evidence are that directv offers more channel value than most other providers, so if they're sucking the life out of the poor and middle class, the other guys are doing the same, only moreso.

But you're right in one way. Its hard to explain how charging people less for DVR service is somehow a drag on the less financially fortunate customers.

I'd guess that financially DISH is doing better having more than doubled its stock value since March 2009.

A fine example of my assertion. Dish network made $63M this past quarter and thats a rare profitable quarter. Directv made $4.5B in the last quarter. Dish network added 26,000 subs while Directv added 224,000.

So except for stock value, it appears that by almost any measure that Directv is doing far better than Dish financially.