HDTV Almanac - DirecTV Raises Rates

I have found to keep my Directv billing lower is by cancelling the Premium package. I have stopped HBO, SHOWTIME and STARZ and honestly have not missed them at all.....

Aside from some original series the premium movie channels show the same ol' tired movies. I use Netflix now and haven't looked back.

As far as the networks charging more....I would be more than happy to dump them too. I purchased the off air receiver for my set top box and receive HD local channels for free.

Local channels WAS a perk years a go....who cares now....just buy an good off air HD antennae and let Directv tell them to stuff it!

I would like to say that Directv has excellent customer services and I will continue to be a customer.

Happy New Year!

At THIS point, the rate increases are part of the inflation that isn't happening everywhere else. According to that self-same government that could decide to "mandate" a la carte cable/dish pricing, there ISN'T any inflation. Of course there isn't. If you don't go to the supermarket, or pay for electricity, or a few other things there isn't.

If there were a la carte pricing, based on a business decision by the cable companies, rather than by government force, why wouldn't pricing for individual channels be enormously steep per channel to make it worth the companies' while and to cover their equipment, personnel and retransmission costs?

Or...who is to say that the a la carte channels we might choose won't become locked in one of those same rate-increase battles?

I am NOT saying that Alfred is suggesting government mandates. He's just pointing out the possibility. Wherever the government sees an opportunity for controlling something it is incapable of handling, it will muscle in. And they would love nothing better than to control cable television. First the pricing, then the content. That's the next "logical" step for those overreaching incompetents in Washington.

Just what we all want and need: government "oversight" of cable TV! After they regulate the Internet. Of course, THAT one will hopefully die in the courts.

No, I don't have the easy answer. However, I do know increased government involvement wouldn't be it. Although, based on past experience, it would make everything worse. And even more expensive. And limit choices.

Giovanni, I don't want to debate the merits of big vs. small federal governments. And I acknowledge that the price of many things has gone up lately (but the price of other things, like housing and home mortgage interest rates have gone down). I'm not an economist, and I can't debate the merits of one Cost of Living measure over another. There be monsters in those waters, matey.

I will offer a historical perspective on this, however. You indicate your opposition to "government 'oversight' of cable TV". I would argue that without government oversight, we would not have cable (or satellite) television subscription services.

Cable started as "community antenna" systems. For communities in fringe reception areas, a company would put up a tall tower to pull in distant signals, and then it would distribute them all over town. The "all over" part is significant, as the government decided that it was in the best interest of the community to require the cable companies to wire 100% of the community, even though there might be sparsely populated areas where this would not be economically rewarding. This total coverage was the requirement to get to play at all, and in return, the cable company got an exclusive license for that community. This quid pro quo is what made it possible to get a massive build out for the cable infrastructure that eventually would be the tail wagging the over-the-air broadcast dog, and community antennas are no longer part of the equation.

The cold fact is that federal, state, and local governments exercise all sorts of oversight for all our sources of television content. From zoning regulations to OSHA health and safety requirements, from community cable franchises to regulating what you can put in orbit and where, right down to deciding whether or not Comcast should be allowed to buy NBC Universal, government at all levels is already making lots of decisions about how these systems work. You might like some of what they do, and might not like other parts. But it's been a part of the "system" ever since those folks met in Independence Hall some time ago.

Alfred

Hi, Alfred,

Thank you for your overview of the beginnings of cable television. Notwithstanding, I still don't think government mandates are the answer to development of new technologies or anything else for that matter. That's just my opinion, of course.

I understand that government involvement in and control of the airwaves is the reality, and, as you listed, that government is involved too deeply in too many aspects of our lives. I'm simply stating my view that I don't think that should be the case, and that the level of current overreach is quite disturbing to me.

In New York City, for instance, the city government's interference in the cable industry over the years has created a mess and left most of us with one cable provider. A particular company is "awarded" various parts of the city, and that's it. You don't like the service, or the fees? Well, do without then because there's no competition to turn to for very many of us.

City mandates such as land-marking of buildings or neighborhoods forbid placing dishes on apartment house roofs, and often forbid individual tenants in a land-marked building from attaching a dish outside his apartment windows. Of course, those windows have to face the Empire State building too for some dish reception. If you're "allowed" to use a dish, but your windows don't happen to face the right direction...Hey, tough.

Of course, many Americans don't live in vastly over-regulated cities like New York. I hope they can keep it that way. However, cable TV in this city is one good example of the "unintended consequences" of government overreach and interference in our daily lives.

Cordially,

Giovanna

Giovanna,

I agree with you that in many cases government intrusion is unwelcome and has negative consequences.

However, as I was reading about your situation in NYC, and the limitations that are placed on renters there ("City mandates such as land-marking of buildings or neighborhoods forbid placing dishes on apartment house roofs, and often forbid individual tenants in a land-marked building from attaching a dish outside his apartment windows."), it occurred to me that was is needed there is more gov't regulation, not less.

Even outside the big cities, renters used to have major problems with putting up their own dishes or antennas, as an opportunity to get something other than the cable monopoly offered. I myself was sued and almost evicted back as a renter (years ago), for having a sat dish on my balcony. But that was before the feds stepped in and mandated that a gov't regulation overruled any contracts, agreements, or limitations that landlords may have imposed. And the apt. communities had to allow it.

In your situation, there should be a mandate that in those housing situations where it is impossible for individuals to put up their own sat dishes or antennas (either due to physical constraints, or landmark limitations), that the landlord should be required to provide a full set of community access options. I.e., while dozens or hundreds of tenants can't put sat dishes on the roofs, the landlord could certainly put ONE DirecTV setup, and ONE DishNetwork setup, and ONE OTA antenna cluster. And in many cases even provide camouflage or cover that would conceal same.

Then they simply provide a distribution system where for each tenant, they get to pick which of the 4 sources their cable feed to their apt. is connected to. Antenna gets them free OTA signals, the sat hookups let them subscribe to one of those 2 options, or the cable hookup lets them pay the cable co. This would NOT be difficult to do, nor particularly expensive. And if the landlords squawked how they should get paid extra for that, ask if they charged extra to run plumbing to each unit.

Unfortunately, something like this is unlikely to ever happen WITHOUT the gov't regulation you are so opposed to, though it wouldn't shock me to hear that some enlightened landlords already provide it.

- Tim

Thanks, Videograbber, for your response.

I don't know where you live, but in NYC what you suggest will never happen. Count on it.

However, my response is still: How about LESS government intervention instead of more? Just get the city government OUT of the way. No prevention of competition among cable providers, and NO land-marking (which creates all kinds of other "unintended consequences for tenants and landlords). This last would allow Verizon to enter neighborhoods that the city has stipulated are Time-Warner only. It would allow Time-Warner into neighborhoods that "belong" to Cablevision, etc.

That's the REAL problem: that NYC picks and chooses who gets what. And that "choice" by the city government costs the particular cable company a huge amount of money for the "privilege" of operating in a given area. And ultimately it costs me, the consumer, and, in my particular case, I'm left with no options other than Time-Warner or nothing.

There's no free market here. That, in my opinion, would ultimately create lower rates.

Giovanna

While servicing Atlanta I have seen the effects of competition and lack thereof with cable services.

Those who have a choice typically get better service from both parties.

Those who did not have a choice and suddenly had one discovered their service improving dramatically in short order to make sure they don't leave. Needless to say these customers found this behavior despicable.

This year Comcast changed over their service to QAM only. Now every TV in the home requires a cable box, even for basic.

That's the reality of monopoly versus competition around here.

My own provider, Charter, raised our rates last January. I called them to eliminate some services. Instead I was given some special deal to keep everything at the same price. I was told the rate would go up every year on January and to call them to my old price back. So those who accept the increase get the shaft and those who complain get a discount. How is that fair for a community service?

Hello, Richard,

Calling the cable guys in January to discuss keeping your old rate is the same here. At least, it HAS been possible to do that with Time-Warner in the past. When I receive my next bill it should show roughly a $12 increase so I'll call and see if I can roll it back for another year!

However, re your last paragraph: I don't think cable TV is a "community service." It's a business. Or it SHOULD be a business. As it is, at least in the most expensive, over-regulated city in the U.S., it's "something" trying to operate within constant government constraints. If those constraints were removed from the equation and competition ensued, we'd all be paying lower rates whether we chose cable or a dish network.

Anyway, my new LG Infinia is scheduled to arrive Monday morning. I've been saving for over three years to get a new flat panel with the features I want so I am looking forward to a few days of "playing" with my new toy before I have to call Time-Warner.

Hey, maybe they'll give me a "new-TV-on-the-block" rate break!

Cheers...and happy new year at old rates!

I had pretty much the same experience Alfred. We have OTA, cable, and satellite as well as high speed Internet from the cable company. We decided that we really didn't need the basic cable as we can get the local channels OTA and via Satellite as well. So we called Charter and told them to disconnect the basic cable which they did promptly. However within a week we received a call like you, offering the basic cable at no additional cost (the old price) for a year.

It's been my experience that fewer regulations and more competition (free market) spell better service and often at a lower price. There are of course exception just as there were exceptions written into the so called net neutrality.

Internet wise we could go with wireless or DSL instead of cable. The current price of DSL is about 10-20% of what it was 6 years ago and the speed is far higher. There is also a lot of dark fiber out here throughout the township, but unfortunately none of that goes by here and apparently who ever owns it is hanging onto it, so it will apparently stay dark for some time to come.

There is very likely something I don't understand about OTA reception. Of course I'd have to buy an antenna, but even with one I don't think trying to operate strictly OTA would be too successful in New York City. So I would hesitate to suggest to Time Warner that they disconnect the cable portion of my service!

For example, I wouldn't be able to get my Yankees games since the YES Network, along with most of the other channels I watch, operates via cable. Ditto for the MLB Network, ESPN and ESPN 2, Turner Classic Movies, and on and on.

I don't know ANYONE in this city that doesn't receive television via either cable or dish/satellite.

All that said, I do agree that at least here in New York getting the city government OUT of the cable business would benefit us, the consumers, and the companies too!

We seems to have strayed a bit, but the original article (the cost of cable and satellite going up with out services increasing) misses one important point. That point is the ever increasing cost "to the provider" that they have to pass on.

We've recently seen battles between stations/mini networks and both the cable and satellite companies. The fact is satellite and cable companies are having to pay more for the same stuff which means raising their prices just to stay even. Then we (naturally) cut back on channels or services and that again cuts into the profit margin of said cable and satellite companies. What with legitimate inexpensive sources for movies and music the entertainment industry rails about lost profits and with their background we know they will try to wring as much as they possibly can out of the cable and satellite companies. Next contract time will probably see a substantial change in the price of NetFlix.

In the end the prices to all of our providers will be going up. How much it will go up? Who knows, but I think the cable and satellite companies are caught in the middle. Of course they too are going to do all they can to maximize profits so prices can go up, or quality of service can go down... or both. In addition the cable companies have much more hardware out in the elements that requires maintenance.

IMO they're jacking the rate so that the CEO can insure he gets his golden parachute when internet TV takes it all away or when FIOS is a reality everywhere. We have 5 choices in the Bay Area, Comcast, ATT Uverse, Dish, Direct and OTA.

It remains to be seen, however, whether the bandwidth will crash when all of these new internet ready HDTV's are actually in use.

Anybody know of a good set top DVR for OTA programming?

Hi, Roger,

Yes, I guess we did stray from the original point. But it was the original point that led me to muse about an antenna and OTA reception to try to circumvent the ever-rising cost of cable.

I think your last post is excellent in describing the position in which the cable/dish companies continue to find themselves. Your post lays out many reasons for the constant rate increases simply and straightforwardly.

Here in New York, however, everything you discuss is magnified many times over by the involvement of city government picking winners and losers and determining who can service what areas of the city thus eliminating any competition between cable companies. Getting the city out of the equation would be a big first step toward lowering rates.

It won't happen, however, and ultimately the city will use force to stop the cable companies from raising rates. Then, what companies can do so will leave the market. Those who remain for whatever reasons will offer fewer channels and ancillary services, etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps it has to reach that point before any fundamental changes in attitude and mindset can be made.

Move

Unfortunately the migration is "to" the cities and "burbs" and not from. This gives the ones in control more of a captive market and even less incentive to give up even a little of that control.