Why is it so much more expensive than cable?

[ShadowEKU]

so far in equipment costs for direct ive paid 400 dollars total... had Direct since 2003

Okay...

Time Warner for my area.... BASIC cable is 50.35 thats almsot enough to prove my point right there.... less channels way higher price... but lets go deeper... I have HBO, and HD, but with TW it would be Digital Cable, 4 DVRs, 2 of which are HD (I have 2 R10s, and 2 HR20s)

Lets look at the TW price

71.35 (service) + 7.00 (DVR Service) + 5.00 (HD Service for a whole 4 channels) + 15.90 (2 DVRs at 7.95 per month) + 15.90 (2 HD Dvrs) = 115.15 + Tax

The Last bill i Paid for D* was $91.80 for more channels and better service



so lets compare my costs over the past 4 years

Time Warner Per Year = 1381.80 + Tax

Directv Per Year = 1101.60

So right there ive saved 200 per year... give or take... so lets figure that out over 4 years

Time Warner 5527.20

Directv 4406.40 + 400 in equipment = 4806.40

So I have saved 720.80 over the past 4 years......

whats the beauty? Well acutally of my out of pocket expenses 300 has been covered by various rebates and credits so ive saved a cool grand.


My parents jsut signed on with Direct... out of pocket they spent 300 for 3 dvrs. How much did they get in rebates? 350.00, and they are saving almost 40 bucks a month in programming so essentially D* paid them to switch.


I think Ive made my point.

 

[weldgooch]

For 5 years I lived in the shadow of Comcast with 3 month super promotions that ended up costing bookoo bucks after they jacked the fees up on me, and refused to give any more deals to existing customers. I switched to DirectV because they had lower rates and no installation fees.

In my 6 years with DirecTV, I have only paid for equipment ONCE. $99 for my HR20 in February. Yes, I signed another 2 year contract which locked me in until Feb 2009, but that really was a moot point. I am happy with Directv.

I recently moved from KCMO to North East Ohio and the only option for High Speed Internet in my neighborhood is RoadRunner. Yes, I could save about $20/month for me to have Time Warner Cable instead of Directv (if I didn't have the cancellation fee), but Time Warner also wants to charge ~$75 for installation. Not to mention that there is no guaranteed rates via a contract.

I don't consider myself sold on the advertisements. I'm happy with the service I've had with Directv. If I weren't under contract with Directv, I would probably still be with them. They've always treated me right and anytime I've had an issue with service, I could call a CSR and get a better rate and the latest and greatest in their technologies.

If I recounted the dealings I've had with Directv, I could easily be a commercial.

 

[bonscott87]

I've actually missed the "sold on the advertisements" argument. Anybody that ever listens to any advertisement without their own research gets what they deserve.

 

[Bigguy]

When I left TWC i got a gift of paying $30.00 to cancel my cable. when asked why the charge"They needed to roll a truck". They may not have a commitment but the get you going.

 

[trenton76]

so far in equipment costs for direct ive paid 400 dollars total... had Direct since 2003

Okay...

Time Warner for my area.... BASIC cable is 50.35 thats almsot enough to prove my point right there.... less channels way higher price... but lets go deeper... I have HBO, and HD, but with TW it would be Digital Cable, 4 DVRs, 2 of which are HD (I have 2 R10s, and 2 HR20s)

Lets look at the TW price

71.35 (service) + 7.00 (DVR Service) + 5.00 (HD Service for a whole 4 channels) + 15.90 (2 DVRs at 7.95 per month) + 15.90 (2 HD Dvrs) = 115.15 + Tax

The Last bill i Paid for D* was $91.80 for more channels and better service



so lets compare my costs over the past 4 years

Time Warner Per Year = 1381.80 + Tax

Directv Per Year = 1101.60

So right there ive saved 200 per year... give or take... so lets figure that out over 4 years

Time Warner 5527.20

Directv 4406.40 + 400 in equipment = 4806.40

So I have saved 720.80 over the past 4 years......

whats the beauty? Well acutally of my out of pocket expenses 300 has been covered by various rebates and credits so ive saved a cool grand.


My parents jsut signed on with Direct... out of pocket they spent 300 for 3 dvrs. How much did they get in rebates? 350.00, and they are saving almost 40 bucks a month in programming so essentially D* paid them to switch.


I think Ive made my point.

Thanks, you definitely had the best reply. Everyone else seems to want to pick a fight (such as calling my post a sales pitch?).

I guess the difference between you and I is:
1. I honestly don't care about quality. You could put 10 different HD pictures up on different screens (plasma, LCD) and different providers (cable, satellite) and I'd be happy with any of them. HD quality is great... I haven't seen an HD picture I didn't enjoy. I do understand that's just me.
2. I care more about price. Unlike you, I'm not happy about spending over $1,200 per year on tv. This is why I was switching yearly to get the huge promotions from both companies.

Also consider the following:
a) The $300 total you paid for DVR's four years ago was for you to OWN the equipment. I wouldn't mind paying to own equipment. It's the $300 upfront leasing fee before paying a monthly leasing fee that I have a problem with.
b) For you to only have paid $300 over 4 years seems like you're not necessarily the typical customer or one that I could compare to. You're obviously using outdated equipment. I want two HD/DVR's which would be $500-$600. If the equipment lasts 4 yrs from now and I remain a "loyal" customer, that's roughly $10.50 on each bill on top of the leasing fees.

Anyway, based on the replies here, I have concluded that Directv is certainly more expensive than cable (once you factor in the equipment fee into the monthly fee). But most directv customers are willing to pay more because they either hate their cable company or believe it's better quality.

 

[trenton76]

Everyone is citing great picture quality as a reason for paying more for Directv but now I just read Scott's review where he claims standard def channels were so poor they were almost unwatchable!

I wish I could see for myself.

IMO, if Directv believed their product was superior, they wouldn't lock me into a contract.

 

[Brewer4]

Everyone is citing great picture quality as a reason for paying more for Directv but now I just read Scott's review where he claims standard def channels were so poor they were almost unwatchable!

I wish I could see for myself.

IMO, if Directv believed their product was superior, they wouldn't lock me into a contract.

Thats not the full picture. He states the national MPEG2 HD is worse then what he has seen. However, he admits that the MPEG4 channels match in quality to native OTA HD. Based on Directv's objectives and rollout plans, all HD should be in MPEG4 going forward. That has all of us remaining positive that the HD future looks sharp. And SD is not as good but I dont fully buy that assessment. I've had Voom, Dish Network and Directv and the SD channels are watchable.

 

[Hemi 6.1]

I don't buy that either, Because I think Directvs SD is better then Dish by far. I've got them side by side as well,with same exact hook ups.I don't even want to talk about cable!

 

[bidger`]

I've been to friends who have TWC and the analog PQ is horrid. Digital and HD PQ is nice though.

 

[MikeD-C05]

I now have both sat companies again and I have compared both in sd quality on several channels and my assesment is the following; DISH has more color in their picture and looks like it is on a warm setting. DIRECTV has a more faded look on their colors or it looks like it is on a cool setting.

Now I am watching both services through the rca jacks to my old super VCR, then to my dvd recorder that upconverts the picture to 1080i by hdmi. The dvd recorder is sent through my Sony a/v receiver then to my tv. I only have one hdmi port on my tv, so the same port for my DISH hd dvr is used for my dvd upconverting player. The picture controls are set for a medium setting on color temp, 50 % on all brightness, contrast and color with sharpness being turned down to aobut 25 %.

I have tried this on both services comparing them in 480p , 720p and 1080i upconverted of course. I still say that DISH has a more life like picture in regards to color resolution. I was surprised to see that Directv doesn't have as much artifacts and macro blocking in the picture as it did in 2003 when I last had them. But if I was to pick one service over another I would still pick DISH as the service with better picture quality in sd at least. I can't compare HD because I don't have hd receiver with Directv .

 

[bonscott87]

Anyway, based on the replies here, I have concluded that Directv is certainly more expensive than cable (once you factor in the equipment fee into the monthly fee). But most directv customers are willing to pay more because they either hate their cable company or believe it's better quality.

Methinks you didn't read all the posts. DirecTV is clearly the cheaper choice for many people. Maybe not for you, but it is for many others, especially if you have multiple DVRs.

I do a check of prices every year. And every year the past 10 DirecTV is still cheaper for me. Hands down. And I can spend that savings and get Sunday Ticket.

 

[Hemi 6.1]

I now have both sat companies again and I have compared both in sd quality on several channels and my assesment is the following; DISH has more color in their picture and looks like it is on a warm setting. DIRECTV has a more faded look on their colors or it looks like it is on a cool setting.

.

Thats about the best way to describe E* SD and D* SD. Only I don't like E* SD because your right, Its too warm. Too much red!I like a neutral or cool setting,because it doesn't look like a big red blob all over the screen.For HD on D* your not missing a thing. Trust me . E* worst HD channel is D* best, IMO.

 

[bidger`]

TWC can't provide CBS or FOX HD in my area. If I'm gonna leave DIRECTV I'd require at least that.

 

[bonscott87]

Thats about the best way to describe E* SD and D* SD. Only I don't like E* SD because your right, Its too warm. Too much red!I like a neutral or cool setting,because it doesn't look like a big red blob all over the screen.

Yea, PQ is so subjective to the person.

I personally have always liked D* SD PQ better. Back in the day it was described like this: E* was "smoother" but less sharp. D* was sharper but you might get some artifacts.

I personally preferred the sharper picture to my eyes.

 

[MLBurks]

Having had DISH for several years and coming to D* earlier this year for EI, I can say without a doubt that DISH has a better SD picture by far. I have said before that the SD picture on DISH is almost like HD compared to DirecTV. BUT I look for that to hopefully improve once the new satellite is in operation.

 

[Hemi 6.1]

Having had DISH for several years and coming to D* earlier this year for EI, I can say without a doubt that DISH has a better SD picture by far. I have said before that the SD picture on DISH is almost like HD compared to DirecTV. BUT I look for that to hopefully improve once the new satellite is in operation.

I'm not sure I'd go that far !

 

[trenton76]

Methinks you didn't read all the posts. DirecTV is clearly the cheaper choice for many people. Maybe not for you, but it is for many others, especially if you have multiple DVRs.

I do a check of prices every year. And every year the past 10 DirecTV is still cheaper for me. Hands down. And I can spend that savings and get Sunday Ticket.

I did read all the posts. Some people claim it's cheaper but they don't show the math trying to prove it.

Logically speaking, it's really difficult to be less expensive once you consider the immediate $500 upfront to cover the two LEASED hd/drv receivers. The only way to make the math work is assume you'll be a loyal customer for many years using the same equipment you're paying the fee on today.

 

[trenton76]

Yea, PQ is so subjective to the person.

I personally have always liked D* SD PQ better. Back in the day it was described like this: E* was "smoother" but less sharp. D* was sharper but you might get some artifacts.

I personally preferred the sharper picture to my eyes.

True, and I said a few times... I'm not too worried about picture quality. I only mentioned it since PQ seemed to be the #1 reason people were willing to pay more for Directv.

I'm not fanatical about tv. I just want a reasonable bill each month. I'm disappointed that DTV now charges an equipment fee (same cost as purchase price) and you don't own the equipment. I just don't understand why everyone is ok with that. Especially, when you consider what that fee does if you factor it into the monthly payments.

As much as I want Sunday Ticket, I just can't wrap my mind around the $200-$600 equipment fee for leased equipment.

 

[Hemi 6.1]

True, and I said a few times... I'm not too worried about picture quality. I only mentioned it since PQ seemed to be the #1 reason people were willing to pay more for Directv.

I'm not fanatical about tv. I just want a reasonable bill each month. I'm disappointed that DTV now charges an equipment fee (same cost as purchase price) and you don't own the equipment. I just don't understand why everyone is ok with that. Especially, when you consider what that fee does if you factor it into the monthly payments.

As much as I want Sunday Ticket, I just can't wrap my mind around the $200-$600 equipment fee for leased equipment.

Yea me either we already have to give D*2 years of our life, I don't think their should be any lease fees.I say they should pick one or the other. Lease my equipment no contract then .Giving me a contract ,no upfront fees.

 

[bonscott87]

I did read all the posts. Some people claim it's cheaper but they don't show the math trying to prove it.

Logically speaking, it's really difficult to be less expensive once you consider the immediate $500 upfront to cover the two LEASED hd/drv receivers. The only way to make the math work is assume you'll be a loyal customer for many years using the same equipment you're paying the fee on today.

So here is my work.

So for 2 HD DVRs...

DirecTV
$500 (and you aren't trying if you pay that much). FYI it's $750 each to buy it outright.
$4.99 lease fee for the 2nd one.
$5.99 DVR that covers both.

So $500 up front and $11 a month
So let's prorate the $500 over 2 years, the length of the commitment and that's $20.83 per month

Grand Total $31.83 a month

Cable (my cable)
$30 installation fee (don't forget that!)
$14.99 DVR fee per DVR ($30 total)
$3.00 HD fee (on top of the HD tier fee) ($6 total)
$6.95 extra fee for an HD DVR ($14 total)

So $30 up front and $50 a month (and I don't even have any channels yet!)

So please tell me in what universe is Cable cheaper? And that's not even counting the fact that programming is more expensive for less channels.
And after that first 2 years I'm only paying $11 per month with DirecTV vs. still paying $50 a month for cable.

So I save $19 a month for the next 2 years (paying for Sunday Ticket) and then I save $39 a month after that.

Again, maybe for *you* it's cheaper to go with cable, but you can't make that a statement for everyone. More people are on my end of things in terms of cable costs.