Satellite No Longer Cost Effective?

[tomcrown1]

The only grace for Satellite TV is that soon they will broadcast 4k programming.

If rumors are correct next year Superball maybe 4k on Direct TV through their NFL package

 

[southsider]

I used to be the biggest fan of satellite, especially back when you really got different programming because of it. At one time, it was a cheaper alternative to cable. These days, with bandwidth limitations, satellite lags behind many cable providers in the number of HD channels offered. It's almost impossible to get distant networks or superstations, which used to be a big draw for satellite over cable. Plus, with TWC, we have Roku streamers on our three secondary TVs. With TWC's Roku app, I save $21 simply by eliminating DirecTV's $7 box rental fees per TV. Fees and taxes are a fact of life, and boy did satellite stick it to us, but those box rentals are one fee I have control over, as long as TWC keeps their Roku TV service free with a primary TWC cable subscription.

 

[harshness]

But when you add the cost of the equipment when subscribing to satellite, the price climbs on an order of magnitude.

If you're paying for equipment when you subscribe, you're doing it wrong. Both satellite providers typically grant you at least four TVs worth of hardware for little or no cost.

Depending on the number and type of receivers you have, your equipment costs can easily be greater than that of the programming package.

I was looking at the TWC fees/charges and they are many and considerable. Perhaps not DIRECTV altitude, but still pretty stiff. The Whole Home DVR fee of $19.99 is nothing to sneeze at.

I wouldn't be surprised to see fees/charges stacking up to easily 30% of the bill after the promotional period and you have to carefully weigh the value of the hardware (and its attendant software) that they're offering relative to the competition.

 

[harshness]

The only grace for Satellite TV is that soon they will broadcast 4k programming.

While many hints have been thrown around, there's been few signs of activity on the UHD front from DIRECTV of their "leadership" promises (and a perplexing absence of the necessary hardware) and pretty much nothing from DISH. Potential doesn't mean squat if there's no hint of progress.

If rumors are correct next year Superball maybe 4k on Direct TV through their NFL package

The rumor was that they were going to do SB49 and that clearly didn't happen. The one live event they've done was clearly not ready for public consumption.

How cable handles UHD is even more of a mystery from a hardware standpoint, but most of the new SoCs are UHD capable so it will come sooner than later. Netflix has proven that the infrastructure can carry it one way or the other.

 

[Tampa8]

Is there a lower cost by a Cable provider, not a promotion (or Directv but this thread is about Cable) that gives me two rooms with DVR access, 6 tuners (6 includes OTA antenna for me, just six is ok), includes similar to the Top 250, internet @ 50 -75 MBPS or so, and internet phone unlimited statewide calling some long distance minutes for $162.
Note that the internet phone company I use has abilities no Cable phone has but that's too much detail, I won't try to compare DISH equipment to the Cable, we will do basically just price and features.

I can't go by "I pay $50 less" etc.. need the actual cost with breakdown of all fees etc that I can also give. No promotional pricing, I'm not including HBO for $10 even though I have it and that it is widely available on DISH and not going to revert to a higher cost. But looking I would pay more with Cable for it.

 

[Tampa8]

....Netflix has proven that the infrastructure can carry it one way or the other....

Sort of. They have a very limited selection, if they had 200+ selections of 4K could Netflix or Amazon etc serve them? If Netflix, Vudu, HBO GO, Amazon Hulu etc all had hundreds of 4K selections would Cable internet be able to handle it?

 

[mdavej]

Is there a lower cost by a Cable provider, not a promotion (or Directv but this thread is about Cable) that gives me two rooms with DVR access, 6 tuners (6 includes OTA antenna for me, just six is ok), includes similar to the Top 250, internet @ 50 -75 MBPS or so, and internet phone unlimited statewide calling some long distance minutes for $162.
Note that the internet phone company I use has abilities no Cable phone has but that's too much detail, I won't try to compare DISH equipment to the Cable, we will do basically just price and features.

I can't go by "I pay $50 less" etc.. need the actual cost with breakdown of all fees etc that I can also give. No promotional pricing, I'm not including HBO for $10 even though I have it and that it is widely available on DISH and not going to revert to a higher cost. But looking I would pay more with Cable for it.

I can tell you that my Charter service plus a couple of lifetime Tivo's, no promo prices, clocks in at about $40 less for about the same thing (60 Mbps internet, phone and 250-ish channels). Difference is I have 8 tuners and 60 more HD channels than Dish or DirecTV. Cable also carries most of my local sub-channels, so I was able to disconnect my antenna as well, simplifying my wiring.

The bulk of my savings comes from Tivo lifetime, which comes to about $50 difference in fees for 2 DVRs and 4 Minis (6 rooms total) and from Ooma.

Here's a rough cost breakdown of non-promo prices:
- Cable card x 2 = $4
- Select pkg = $60
- Internet = $50
- Phone (Ooma) = $3
- Taxes and other fees ~ $8

My current promo is about $20 less than the above for another year.

Initial cost of all Tivo hardware with lifetime was around $900 ($300 x 2 + $70 x 4). I broke even in about 2 years.

 

[Tampa8]

Charter Spectrum package seems to have nowhere near the channels, and I mean actual channels not fillers that the Top 250 does going by their site.

I also use a third party VOIP as I see you do, something alot of people overlook and use the more expensive Cable phone.
TIVO's are hard to factor in. $900 is a alot to plunk down to have no monthly fees. Likely in the long run worth it but it drives the cost up for the first few years. I pay $17 total in fees for the two rooms, at $200 a year for DISH fees that would seem to take close to four years including the cable card costs to then get ahead with two TIVO's. I don't think it is fair to count what appears to be the cost of mini's to you since we are comparing two rooms.
I have a TIVO Roamio OTA with lifetime so that I can record more satellite channels, and because it gives the OTA channels in a room for a one time $99 cost, we don't need satellite in there. Problem is it has to last long enough to because lifetime is not transferable, I would say most units last. But the second problem is technology, I see in the forums people bemoaning the fact they paid so much just a few years ago and now do not get the new features. And maybe worse, if ATSC 3.0 is implemented in the next three or four years they become obsolete or at least as a real DVR.
If the FCC goes through with making every provider allow other receivers DISH (and Directv) subscribers could benefit in the same way. If the pricing structure with DISH remains the same for me $17 total fees I would probably stay with the DISH receivers.

I can see in the long run you could be less than DISH and who knows what will be charged by anyone in the coming years, I do feel it is fair to factor in the cost of the Tivo's. If I missed you did in factoring in the $40 difference I apologize. Overall with purchasing some equipment you make a good case for at the least being competitive, and after awhile less.... with the caveat of technology thrown in.

 

[harshness]

Sort of. They have a very limited selection, if they had 200+ selections of 4K could Netflix or Amazon etc serve them?

I was speaking more to the idea that cable can provide the medium and not so much about the video service(s) that you may subscribe to. Of course as more people become interested in a broader UHD offering, this may change but cable is clearly preparing for that eventuality by expanding their bandwidth and delivery options.

 

[southsider]

If you're paying for equipment when you subscribe, you're doing it wrong. Both satellite providers typically grant you at least four TVs worth of hardware for little or no cost.

DirecTV's DVR fee was $15, whole home added $3, the HD fee was $10, and the boxes were $7 per TV (not including the first one). Don't know anything about DISH's hardware cost, and I really loved DirecTV, but we weren't able to get four TVs worth of hardware for little or no cost. I understand your warnings, though - there's definitely sticker shock when the promotion expires. Streaming the cable service on the other TVs through Roku, though, helps now and in the future to keep at least that cost down.

 

[mdram]

DirecTV's DVR fee was $15, whole home added $3, the HD fee was $10, and the boxes were $7 per TV (not including the first one). Don't know anything about DISH's hardware cost, and I really loved DirecTV, but we weren't able to get four TVs worth of hardware for little or no cost. I understand your warnings, though - there's definitely sticker shock when the promotion expires. Streaming the cable service on the other TVs through Roku, though, helps now and in the future to keep at least that cost down.

yopu are talking monthly fees
up frees are usually little to nothing
compared to competitors dtv has low monthly fees

 

[harshness]

compared to competitors dtv has low monthly fees

I was on board up to this point. DIRECTV's pricing model is very much like how cable's was years ago. An ARPU of over $105 proves it. The idea of charging for using RVU devices is quite a jab even though it is understood that DIRECTV is having to subsidize development for the TV manufacturers for a technology (RVU) that can't seem to get traction.

Cable seems to be on a double extra secret pricing plan (especially TWC) where they don't tell you what their regular rates are. That's okay though as they don't seem to be pushing commitments all that much and it doesn't take much to get in and out of a cable subscription.

 

[mdram]

think about it
dtv charge $7 per box, box type does not matter

what does dish cahrge? comcast? anyone else

 

[harshness]

DirecTV's DVR fee was $15, whole home added $3, the HD fee was $10, and the boxes were $7 per TV (not including the first one).

This rate structure hasn't been available for years now. The new structure involves higher whole home fees (even if you don't have a whole home DVR configuration) and a TV fee on the first TV. DIRECTV is not the service that you want to be comparing to cable if cost is the primary concern.

 

[harshness]

think about it
dtv charge $7 per box, box type does not matter

what does dish cahrge? comcast? anyone else

As was pointed out earlier, it doesn't much matter how they arrive at the total cost if the total cost is higher than everyone else. The billing style is all a manipulation.

The bottom line for what you get is what matters and the value is different for every household (and it changes every year). History offing their best channel, H2, is clear evidence of that. It isn't the carrier's fault to be sure but it certainly devalued the History suite.

 

[Scola77]

I am no futurist, but I don't believe satellite or cable tv delivery is doomed. What I see is even more internet based content and a blending of services where the end user utilizes both methods of content delivery in a seamless experience - all from one service provider. What I mean is that the end user will not know (or care for that matter) where the content delivery is coming from. Some live tv will utilize satellite, some will utilize internet - some live content may even be a blending of both to deliver proper bandwith. I do see the end of home based DVRs and more cloud-based storage of recorded programs happening.

 

[mdram]

As was pointed out earlier, it doesn't much matter how they arrive at the total cost if the total cost is higher than everyone else. The billing style is all a manipulation.

The bottom line for what you get is what matters and the value is different for every household (and it changes every year). History offing their best channel, H2, is clear evidence of that. It isn't the carrier's fault to be sure but it certainly devalued the History suite.

if you think dtv fees are high, you never had dish
i was paying $17 a box + hd, ect ect, dtv is lower than any other service i have had for fees

 

[mdram]

I am no futurist, but I don't believe satellite or cable tv delivery is doomed. What I see is even more internet based content and a blending of services where the end user utilizes both methods of content delivery in a seamless experience - all from one service provider. What I mean is that the end user will not know (or care for that matter) where the content delivery is coming from. Some live tv will utilize satellite, some will utilize internet - some live content may even be a blending of both to deliver proper bandwith. I do see the end of home based DVRs and more cloud-based storage of recorded programs happening.

i disagree, until 100% of the country has high speed, or cable access sat tv will always be around
it was born out of a need to serve unserved area, and for many people is still the only choice.
I know its my only choice now, and for the foreseeable future

 

[navychop]

"WAS" paying.

 

[mdram]

so whats the current dish fee structure?
i wouldnt mind seeing side by sides of the major providers
see who is charging more for what