Dish Network and DirecTV to increase rates?

[TheTiger]

Well, as we are approaching the new year, I would expect to see both Dish Network and Direct TV increase their rates as well as most of the cable companies will. With Dish having the NFL channel as part of the "America's Top 120 package"(which I subscribed to), would that package increase any higher because of the channel?. Also, Soap Net moved from the previous Top 180 package to this package.

Would this make it possible for cable and satellite companies to consider "a la carte" packages for consumers to pick out a channel they are interested in and only pay for them what they want to watch?

 

[JayR]

> Well, as we are approaching the new year, I would expect to
> see both Dish Network and Direct TV increase their rates as
> well as most of the cable companies will. With Dish having
> the NFL channel as part of the "America's Top 120
> package"(which I subscribed to), would that package increase
> any higher because of the channel?. Also, Soap Net moved
> from the previous Top 180 package to this package.

They increase the rates, and for what? Because DISH shifted some networks down? That's crap! I can see the justification if they added a network worthy of watching but they haven't.

 

[nuzguy]

> > Well, as we are approaching the new year, I would expect
> to
> > see both Dish Network and Direct TV increase their rates
> as
> > well as most of the cable companies will. With Dish having
>
> > the NFL channel as part of the "America's Top 120
> > package"(which I subscribed to), would that package
> increase
> > any higher because of the channel?. Also, Soap Net moved
> > from the previous Top 180 package to this package.
>
> They increase the rates, and for what? Because DISH shifted
> some networks down? That's crap! I can see the justification
> if they added a network worthy of watching but they haven't.

Good observation. Everytime DirecTV raises rates, subscribers are burdened with one or two new channels that amount to nothing more than tripe viewing. And DirecTV does a snow job with a bit about "look at what we've added just for you." Nobody watches the additions and the rates go up a few dollars.

DirecTV's substituting XM for Music Choice was another bad move. I'm now set up to hear Sirius in the house. Sent an e-mail to DirecTV regarding the change and received an automated reply basically saying, "If you don't like it, don't listen." So I don't.
>

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

If cable and satellite companies were to offer channels "A La Carte", cable/satellite networks would scream bloody murder and sue.

This litigation may keep "A La Carte" pricing from happening (if it does get implemented at all) for as long as ten years.

 

[KMRichards]

> If cable and satellite companies were to offer channels "A
> La Carte", cable/satellite networks would scream bloody
> murder and sue.
>
> This litigation may keep "A La Carte" pricing from happening
> (if it does get implemented at all) for as long as ten
> years.

And there isn't one damn thing the FCC and Congress could do about it, either.

HA.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[XL]

What Makes You Think THAT?!

> Well, as we are approaching the new year, I would expect to
> see both Dish Network and Direct TV increase their rates as
> well as most of the cable companies will.
What makes you think that? DISH is very adamant about not raising their rates unless they absolutely have to. The last time they did this was a few years ago and only by a couple of bucks -- literally. I've seen absolutely nothing where DISH is even considering charging more.


> With Dish having
> the NFL channel as part of the "America's Top 120
> package"(which I subscribed to), would that package increase
> any higher because of the channel?. Also, Soap Net moved
> from the previous Top 180 package to this package.

So?

 

[zman]

>
> They increase the rates, and for what? Because DISH shifted
> some networks down? That's crap! I can see the justification
> if they added a network worthy of watching but they haven't.
>


Wheather a network is worthy of watching depends on ones own personal opinion. While you may not concider these networks worthy of watching, Aparently some people do. IIRC. NFL network was added to AT 120 to replace OLN. Not sure if that was the same reasoning for moving Soap Net to AT 120 from 180. Again that's just what I read on a satelite tv mesage board so I'm not sure if that is the reason, it is just what I read. So if they moved one channle down to replace one that was removed then the rates should not go up. "Should not" being the operative phrase. I have mixed feelings on al a carte priceing. Yes, I would love to chose the channles I watch and not have to pay for what I don't if my bill would stay the same or be lower. Right now it is about sixty bucks. But if it is going to make my bill higher, then I'd rather keep things the way they are.

 

[KMRichards]

Re: What Makes You Think THAT?!

> > Well, as we are approaching the new year, I would expect
> to
> > see both Dish Network and Direct TV increase their rates
> as
> > well as most of the cable companies will.
> What makes you think that? DISH is very adamant about not
> raising their rates unless they absolutely have to. The
> last time they did this was a few years ago and only by a
> couple of bucks -- literally. I've seen absolutely nothing
> where DISH is even considering charging more.

And, as a DirecTV subscriber, I can tell you that there has been nothing said by them about a rate increase either. The last time they increased was a little over a year ago, IIRC, and primarily was a result of integrating the local channels option into the basic configuration of Total Choice, and it only went up two or three dollars as a result.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[Garrett]

Re: What Makes You Think THAT?!

> And, as a DirecTV subscriber, I can tell you that there has
> been nothing said by them about a rate increase either. The
> last time they increased was a little over a year ago, IIRC,
> and primarily was a result of integrating the local channels
> option into the basic configuration of Total Choice, and it
> only went up two or three dollars as a result.
>
Right!

What we should be asking is, not if Satellite TV will go up, but if any of the subscriptions services (cable and sat) will charge us more with a teired system. In other words, if we choose to select only CNN, and Fox News, and not Disney or Nick, will we be charged more per channel.

I think that's something people should worry about.

 

[XL]

Cost Per Channel

> Right!
>
> What we should be asking is, not if Satellite TV will go up,
> but if any of the subscriptions services (cable and sat)
> will charge us more with a teired system. In other words, if
> we choose to select only CNN, and Fox News, and not Disney
> or Nick, will we be charged more per channel.
>
> I think that's something people should worry about.

What most people don't seem to realize is that every channel has a "cost" to it. It's obvious that not even most of the putzes in Washington know this (gee, not that we should be surprised LOL).

Any "ala carte" system would fail because it would cost more. Most likely, the providers (esp. cable) would simply add the cost of each channel you wanted to your bill, like your grocery shopping. Once people realize this is not cheaper and understand how it truly works, they would see that "ala carte" is not the most economical way to go.

What should be looked into is the true costs that cable (not sattelite) providers have to justify their several rate increases each year.

 

[CrankyYankee]

To a degree, back in the "old days" when the only dishes in your yard were the "big ones", you could do a sort of "a la carte" with channels.

I remember getting CNBC and MSNBC for a year for about 10-12 dollars!



<P ID="signature">______________
"What's That?" "French Horns!"

</P>

 

[TheREALJM1]

Someone explain to me please...

> To a degree, back in the "old days" when the only dishes in
> your yard were the "big ones", you could do a sort of "a la
> carte" with channels.
>
> I remember getting CNBC and MSNBC for a year for about 10-12
> dollars!


If there were to be "a la carte" channel selection how would that cost me more money than I am paying now? I currently have cable and get about 100 channels and pay about $70 a month. I only watch about five of them ever, all sponsored supported (outside of the local channels). Even if I were to pay $5 a month for each of them plus the montly sevice fee, I should be saving money. Let me go on to explain, I probably would not subscribe to ESPN or any other sports channel or any religious or ethnic channel. Anything I would order would be general entertainment like TBS, TV Land, History Channel, etc.
>

 

[Garrett]

Re: Cost Per Channel

> What most people don't seem to realize is that every channel
> has a "cost" to it. It's obvious that not even most of the
> putzes in Washington know this (gee, not that we should be
> surprised LOL).
>
> Any "ala carte" system would fail because it would cost
> more. Most likely, the providers (esp. cable) would simply
> add the cost of each channel you wanted to your bill, like
> your grocery shopping. Once people realize this is not
> cheaper and understand how it truly works, they would see
> that "ala carte" is not the most economical way to go.
>
> What should be looked into is the true costs that cable (not
> sattelite) providers have to justify their several rate
> increases each year.
>

<h1>EXACTLY!</h1>

 

[Markxxx]

Re: Cost Per Channel

> > What most people don't seem to realize is that every
> channel
> > has a "cost" to it. It's obvious that not even most of
> the
> > putzes in Washington know this (gee, not that we should be
>
> > surprised LOL).
> >
> > Any "ala carte" system would fail because it would cost
> > more. Most likely, the providers (esp. cable) would
> simply
> > add the cost of each channel you wanted to your bill, like
>
> > your grocery shopping. Once people realize this is not
> > cheaper and understand how it truly works, they would see
> > that "ala carte" is not the most economical way to go.
> >
> > What should be looked into is the true costs that cable
> (not
> > sattelite) providers have to justify their several rate
> > increases each year.
> >
>
This is very true, but ALA CARTE would serve to weed out the junk. Under the present system ala carte would fail. But for example let's look at Chicago. I would "Rosanne" on two different cable stations and a local channel. I'm not getting more choices. Just more of the same thing. The Discovery Channels repeat so much I would love to do a study to see how much non repetititve programs there are. I bet you would be able to support only a few Discovery Nets if they didn't repeat ad nauseum.

Ala Carte would allow me to pick TVLand CNN and BBCAmerica. These were the ONLY channels I watched every day. Once in a great while I would turn on a Discovery Channel.

No one is saying to REPLACE the present system with ala carte, just add ALA carte as a choice.

For intstance if I could get my over the air channels and those three I'd resign up with cable. So they would have ONE more customer.

Part of digital cable's appeal is they say things like 400 channels. But that includes like 5 HBOs, 5 showtimes, the east AND west coast feed of Nickalodeon. (so that is an exact duplication, just later)

I dropped my cable company Comcast when we got a flyer that said "Due to imporovements in VOP and Internet access" OK so Comcast told ME, that as a cable subscriber and cable alone I am getting my rates ON CABLE raised due to improvments to two services I don't have. And it especially irks me since cable modems are not open to competition. <P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>

 

[DeanSB]

Re: Someone explain to me please...

I don't think I would go with the "a la carte" option on my cable package.

The reason is that, every once in awhile, one of the channels that I don't normally watch may have a program that peaks my interest.

I think "a la carte" would ultimately cost MORE for the consumer in the long run, and I think that people would eventually miss the selection they have now with the current scheme.

So, for me, I'd much rather stick with the current scheme.

DeanSB<P ID="signature">______________
Dance Music RULEZ!! </P>

 

[KMRichards]

Re: Someone explain to me please...

> If there were to be "a la carte" channel selection how would
> that cost me more money than I am paying now? I currently
> have cable and get about 100 channels and pay about $70 a
> month. I only watch about five of them ever, all sponsored
> supported (outside of the local channels). Even if I were to
> pay $5 a month for each of them plus the montly sevice fee,
> I should be saving money. Let me go on to explain, I
> probably would not subscribe to ESPN or any other sports
> channel or any religious or ethnic channel. Anything I
> would order would be general entertainment like TBS, TV
> Land, History Channel, etc.

One likely scenario: The more popular channels, sensing their worth, would raise their monthly rate to whatever the market will bear. Meanwhile, the lesser channels which you shun in your example would likely go under for lack of sufficient subscribers, because they would not be able to raise their monthly rates high enough.

Part of what makes the current system work is that there is a per-subscriber charge for every network, based on a cable system total.

Let's say that I decide I don't want the same "general entertainment" channels that you do. This is not unlikely, as I rarely watch TBS or TV Land and wouldn't see the value in subscribing to those channels given my viewing patterns. Let's say that 10% of current cable/satellite subscribers feel the same way that I do and don't subscribe either. That means that your rate for those two channels will go up to cover that 10% loss.

Let's also say that the History Channel becomes one of the more popular choices but that sister channel A&E loses 25% of its viewers under the a la carte system. You might end up paying more for History because A&E is losing revenue but History is so popular they can get away with the increase.

Take enough of those possibilities and combine them and you will find many scenarios where (a) your cable bill goes down somewhat but you are getting far less value; (b) your cable bill goes up because the channels you want turn out to be the most expensive; or (c) the channels you want are either no longer available because you were in the minority of subscribers wanting them or they have priced themselves out of reach.

You know the old saying: Be careful what you wish for ... you might just get it.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[Les]

Strike back

> Good observation. Everytime DirecTV raises rates,
> subscribers are burdened with one or two new channels that
> amount to nothing more than tripe viewing. And DirecTV does
> a snow job with a bit about "look at what we've added just
> for you." Nobody watches the additions and the rates go up
> a few dollars.

I haven't heard any announcement about it but, suddenly this week,
the MSNBC listing on my on-screen guide turned red and it was no
longer prt of the basic DISH package. Looking at the "All Channels"
menu I found that Fox News was no longer red...it was now "included".
No big deal but it would have been nice if there had been some
disclosure.

But back to the programming...

There is no DISH charge to put your service on "vacation hold" and no
limit to the number of times per year you can exercise the option.
There IS a six month limit before they just drop your service and you
have to start over.

I have found the "summer" repeat situation to be so bad that I just
go on "vacation hold" sometime in May and don't bring it back to normal
until late September. This year, with the "holiday" re-runs (very
little new programming between about December 1 and January 3), I'm
planning a new "vacation hold" for that period in 2006. Yeah, they
charge $5.00/month to hold your account open but that's cheap compared
to spending $32/month for crap you don't want. Especially since I
was skookum enough to keep my old outdoor antenna so I'm not totally
out of contact.

Anybody know whether DirecTV or their local cable outfits offer similar
"holds"?

<P ID="signature">______________
Misanthropy:

The only religion that truly comes from within!</P>

 

[KMRichards]

Re: Strike back

> I haven't heard any announcement about it but, suddenly this
> week,
> the MSNBC listing on my on-screen guide turned red and it
> was no
> longer prt of the basic DISH package. Looking at the "All
> Channels"
> menu I found that Fox News was no longer red...it was now
> "included".
> No big deal but it would have been nice if there had been
> some
> disclosure.

I can't fathom why ANY news channel would be part of tiered service.

> Anybody know whether DirecTV or their local cable outfits
> offer similar
> "holds"?

DirecTV does not, as far as I can tell, but unlike you, I don't feel any compelling need to "hold" my service during the summer months. Having access to MSNBC plus the movies on TCM and Fox Movie Channel are sufficient incentives for me (I know, you'll tell me those movies are reruns but they happen to be movies I enjoy seeing over and over) to keep the dish active.

You've brought this up before, Les, and IIRC you are a minority of one in thinking this is a wonderful thing.
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[Les]

Different strokes....

> DirecTV does not, as far as I can tell, but unlike you, I
> don't feel any compelling need to "hold" my service during
> the summer months.

Compelling need? No....just adverse to wasting money on
programming that holds no enjoyment. Perhaps because the
extended daylight encourages activity beyond kicking back
in the recliner for some of us.

> Having access to MSNBC plus the movies
> on TCM and Fox Movie Channel are sufficient incentives for
> me (I know, you'll tell me those movies are reruns but they
> happen to be movies I enjoy seeing over and over) to keep
> the dish active.

Glad you have some enjoyment in life. I never did care all
that much for movies, even "current" ones, so wouldn't
spend the money for them Summer or Winter. Now, there are
a couple of movies I have enjoyed. Because of that I bought
the VHS or DVD and, when the urge becomes overpowering, can
watch them at MY convenience. For that reason I'm comforted
by HBO, Showtime, etc. being additional-cost. May God forbid
they ever move them into the basic tier and kick up the price.

> You've brought this up before, Les, and IIRC you are a
> minority of one in thinking this is a wonderful thing.

Perhaps. If one presumes that everybody who reads this board
has read it "forever", then my pointing out the option does
no good. I prefer to believe the readership is not stagnant.

Of course I could be wrong.

"Wonderful"? No....just a good way to economize; maybe have a
few extra bucks to take one's domestic partner out to dinner.

Paying for services one does not use is not unlike running
the heating system with the windows open all summer. OK, so
some might do that in order to complain about how hot it is.
Of course for those who feel they the additional heat it's
worth their expenditure!

Ah....nearly forgot....

While I don't miss MSNBC, I also am not finding Fox News any
more of an attraction. But I do wonder about the logic
behind the shift. Of course my choice would be that they
drop them both and save me 50-cents a month.
<P ID="signature">______________
Misanthropy:

The only religion that truly comes from within!</P>

 

[TheREALJM1]

Re: Someone explain to me please...

> >
> One likely scenario: The more popular channels, sensing
> their worth, would raise their monthly rate to whatever the
> market will bear. Meanwhile, the lesser channels which you
> shun in your example would likely go under for lack of
> sufficient subscribers, because they would not be able to
> raise their monthly rates high enough.

Or they could raise their advertising rates.

>
> Let's also say that the History Channel becomes one of the
> more popular choices but that sister channel A&E loses 25%
> of its viewers under the a la carte system. You might end
> up paying more for History because A&E is losing revenue but
> History is so popular they can get away with the increase.

Or they could package them for the consumers. Lets say the History Channel is $5 a month and A&E is $4. Why not offer them both for $7
>
> Take enough of those possibilities and combine them and you
> will find many scenarios where (a) your cable bill goes down
> somewhat but you are getting far less value; (b) your cable
> bill goes up because the channels you want turn out to be
> the most expensive; or (c) the channels you want are either
> no longer available because you were in the minority of
> subscribers wanting them or they have priced themselves out
> of reach.

> Well, this is America home of capitalism. Let the strong survive and the weak fall to the side. Why should I pay money to support underacheiving TV channels? That is welfare. For some people it may be more expensive, but as I said above, I probably would only want a total of 5 or 6 channels other than the broadcast networks. That would have to be cheaper for me and certainly more satisfying of getting what I pay for. I don't see any value in getting anything I don't want.
>