or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › DirecTV HDTV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DirecTV HDTV - Page 440

post #13171 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by tokerblue View Post

Does anyone not like the idea of a la carte pricing, other than the providers?

I don't like it since I watch several shows on several networks. At Ala Carte pricing, I'd be paying more than I am now. Even if I paid for direct access to just the shows, I'd be paying more.

I can see where it might work for people who only watch a couple channels, but once you want more than a handful, you're toast.

Before someone hauls out the list of what channels charge the MSO's, keep in mind that the rate is what channels get for wide carriage. That rate would be far higher when cherry picking. You only have to look at what you pay for something like HBO to get a better view of it. For that matter, look at the Disney Channel: ala carte, it was around $9 a month until it got widespread carriage on cable. You'll be lucky if you can pay as little as $2 a month for that channel that the cable company pays $.25 a sub for.

Plus, the cable companies are likely going to fee you to death: ala carte selection fees, box fees (because you'll need it to control your access), etc, etc, etc. In reality, the big winners will still be the cable and satellite companies who will likely get the same revenue through fees, which will yield more profit without all the carriage fees.
post #13172 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I don't like it since I watch several shows on several networks. At Ala Carte pricing, I'd be paying more than I am now. Even if I paid for direct access to just the shows, I'd be paying more.
I can see where it might work for people who only watch a couple channels, but once you want more than a handful, you're toast.
Before someone hauls out the list of what channels charge the MSO's, keep in mind that the rate is what channels get for wide carriage. That rate would be far higher when cherry picking. You only have to look at what you pay for something like HBO to get a better view of it. For that matter, look at the Disney Channel: ala carte, it was around $9 a month until it got widespread carriage on cable. You'll be lucky if you can pay as little as $2 a month for that channel that the cable company pays $.25 a sub for.
Plus, the cable companies are likely going to fee you to death: ala carte selection fees, box fees (because you'll need it to control your access), etc, etc, etc. In reality, the big winners will still be the cable and satellite companies who will likely get the same revenue through fees, which will yield more profit without all the carriage fees.

All of the above is supposition, and you can't state it as fact. Until we get a choice, we'll never find out what the market will bear, it is artificially controlled now and we have the all or nothing choice. Until we have an actual choice in what we pay for, we'll never really know what kind of prices we would end up paying for programming.
post #13173 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelLAX View Post

The Young and the Restless is produced by SONY Pictures Television...

Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

You're right - I didn't realize that had changed.
It used to be Columbia, which is a CBS company.
I'm starting to think that you are a "shoot from the hip" kinda guy, who does not check his facts before he states them:

The Young and the Restless has always been produced by the same corporate entity, which used to be known as Columbia Pictures Television, until it and the movie studio, were acquired by SONY in the 1980s. They then changed the name of their television division to SONY Pictures Television.

Columbia Pictures and its television division, Columbia Pictures Television (and its earlier name, Screen Gems) were NEVER a subsidiary of the CBS Radio or Television Network or any of its affiliated entities.
post #13174 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by tokerblue View Post

Does anyone not like the idea of a la carte pricing, other than the providers?
It is very simple: those who have channel packages that are subsidized by the many, do not like the idea of a la carté pricing. They want you to continue to subsidize it for them and will do their best to spread propaganda that claims that you are better off with bundling than you are with a la carté!
post #13175 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by fcb View Post

Simple, not compound, inflation 2007-present is 11.16%
Hardly negligible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moob View Post

I guess it's a matter of perspective. Given a monetary value, it's not much compared to the overall increase. Don't get me wrong, if I had had an account since 1995 or whatever, I'd be right with you, but over the last 5 years? Eh...
This is a guy who stays with DirecTV in spite of:

1. Their questionable billing practices;

2. Mysterious charges popping up on his bill for at least 6 or 7 times; and

3. Charging ex-customers for equipment even though it was returned.

Yet he still renews his contract with DirecTV so that he has one year remaining.

You think that he has checked with Time-Warner Cable to see how much their rates have risen in the last 5 years?

Or would understand the nuances of cost of money vs. inflation?
post #13176 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelLAX View Post

I'm starting to think that you are a "shoot from the hip" kinda guy, who does not check his facts before he states them:
The Young and the Restless has always been produced by the same corporate entity, which used to be known as Columbia Pictures Television, until it and the movie studio, were acquired by SONY in the 1980s. They then changed the name of their television division to SONY Pictures Television.
Columbia Pictures and its television division, Columbia Pictures Television (and its earlier name, Screen Gems) were NEVER a subsidiary of the CBS Radio or Television Network or any of its affiliated entities.
OK, I was wrong again. If CBS hadn't cancelled their NY City produced shows, I could have cited one of those. Sorry I tried to provide an example.

Seriously, studio and network ownership is complicated and sometimes you think you know what's what and you make a mistake. I thought I knew who produced the show and so I didn't look it up. The very fact there was a question about distributing verse producing says this stuff is complicated.

You act like you've never stated something incorrectly or that no one else ever does. At least I admit it when I do, unlike some around here (and no, I'm not directing it at you).
post #13177 of 14740
D* can't mess up my Braves game today, it's on Fox and I have an antenna.
That SD was painful to watch last night.
post #13178 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebkell View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I don't like it since I watch several shows on several networks. At Ala Carte pricing, I'd be paying more than I am now. Even if I paid for direct access to just the shows, I'd be paying more.
I can see where it might work for people who only watch a couple channels, but once you want more than a handful, you're toast.
Before someone hauls out the list of what channels charge the MSO's, keep in mind that the rate is what channels get for wide carriage. That rate would be far higher when cherry picking. You only have to look at what you pay for something like HBO to get a better view of it. For that matter, look at the Disney Channel: ala carte, it was around $9 a month until it got widespread carriage on cable. You'll be lucky if you can pay as little as $2 a month for that channel that the cable company pays $.25 a sub for.
Plus, the cable companies are likely going to fee you to death: ala carte selection fees, box fees (because you'll need it to control your access), etc, etc, etc. In reality, the big winners will still be the cable and satellite companies who will likely get the same revenue through fees, which will yield more profit without all the carriage fees.

All of the above is supposition, and you can't state it as fact. Until we get a choice, we'll never find out what the market will bear, it is artificially controlled now and we have the all or nothing choice. Until we have an actual choice in what we pay for, we'll never really know what kind of prices we would end up paying for programming.

I would say its a pretty safe "supposition" that any channel will try everything they can to at least bring in the same revenue as before. So even a channel like ESPN that gets a very high rate per subscriber would need to charge much more per those that actually watch just to break even. The channels that get pennies now and have low ratings would need to charge quite a bit to stay on the air. How else could it work? No channel seems to be looking for less money these days...
post #13179 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebkell View Post

All of the above is supposition, and you can't state it as fact. Until we get a choice, we'll never find out what the market will bear, it is artificially controlled now and we have the all or nothing choice. Until we have an actual choice in what we pay for, we'll never really know what kind of prices we would end up paying for programming.

A lot of us had that choice with C-Band and NetworkTV has it right. For the price of about 10 channels I could get a package that included those 10 channels and many more.
post #13180 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

OK, I was wrong again. If CBS hadn't cancelled their NY City produced shows, I could have cited one of those. Sorry I tried to provide an example...
Does that mean CBS has cancelled "The Good Wife"?
post #13181 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

...You act like you've never stated something incorrectly or that no one else ever does. At least I admit it when I do, unlike some around here (and no, I'm not directing it at you).
You're right, I should not personalize it and for that I apologize.
post #13182 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by KK in CT View Post

I would say its a pretty safe "supposition" that any channel will try everything they can to at least bring in the same revenue as before. So even a channel like ESPN that gets a very high rate per subscriber would need to charge much more per those that actually watch just to break even. The channels that get pennies now and have low ratings would need to charge quite a bit to stay on the air. How else could it work? No channel seems to be looking for less money these days...
Are you really suggesting that ESPN breaks even?!?

You are correct, the successful channels like ESPN will cost the individual subscriber more. Unless, of course that is the only channel you subscribe to.

The lower rated channels will go dark, just like our favorite television shows do once they cannot be supported by their ratings. Or maybe the higher rated television shows should be required to subsidize the lower rated ones, so that they do not have to be cancelled!
post #13183 of 14740
I have a question about Direct TV, can it receive signal through glass? I live in an apartment and really getting tired of Medicom.
post #13184 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by joed32 View Post

A lot of us had that choice with C-Band and NetworkTV has it right. For the price of about 10 channels I could get a package that included those 10 channels and many more.
Are you really comparing the universe of C-Band subscribers in the 90s with the universe of cable/satellite/telco subscribers of today?
post #13185 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teisco View Post

I have a question about Direct TV, can it receive signal through glass? I live in an apartment and really getting tired of Medicom.
No, but you can pass a slim-coax connector through a window and close the window.

I have not used these since the pre-HD days, so I have no experience with their success or failure with HD channels on DirecTV.

389
Edited by MichaelLAX - 7/14/12 at 9:51am
post #13186 of 14740
Disney Junior is now on DirecTV.

In SD.

Idiots!
post #13187 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelLAX View Post

Does that mean CBS has cancelled "The Good Wife"?
I meant the NYC soaps shot at CBS's 5th avenue studios - "As the World Turns" and "Guiding Light". I should have been more clear that I was only referring to the soaps. It was crystal clear in my own brain, but psychic energy doesn't transfer well via http....
post #13188 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teisco View Post

I have a question about Direct TV, can it receive signal through glass?

Yes but you still wont be able to throw stones.
post #13189 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelLAX View Post

Are you really suggesting that ESPN breaks even?!?
You are correct, the successful channels like ESPN will cost the individual subscriber more. Unless, of course that is the only channel you subscribe to.
The lower rated channels will go dark, just like our favorite television shows do once they cannot be supported by their ratings. Or maybe the higher rated television shows should be required to subsidize the lower rated ones, so that they do not have to be cancelled!

My worry is that it could affect networks like AMC, which produce great content that people might not want to pay the freight to watch if it doesn't already come into their homes as part of a service. Plus, if only the actual viewers financed shows like Mad Men, I doubt they could afford to pay for it.

Networks like TNT and USA might be OK since people are used to having them (and there's sports to drive in more viewers), but I don't think a network like AMC would do as well without those carriage fees.

You can say all you want about how networks should be left to fail, but I would sure miss the kind of quality AMC puts out with the shows they do - several of which were passed over by other networks, like Breaking Bad which didn't get picked up by FX.

My fear is that when cable becomes solely a popularity contest, all we'll be left with is Snooki - assuming D* strikes a deal with Viacom, of course...

I do think carriers should certainly push back when a channel clearly is a money grab, but then they essentially become the gatekeepers of what's "good" or "bad" rather than simply being the provider of a choice in programming for the viewer.

Honestly, what would be a great compromise is better packaging. Break down the channels into types, pretty much into the groups as they often sit in the guide. That way, you could choose packages for general entertainment (USA, TNT, AMC, SciFi, etc) Sports, Kids and Family, Educational, News, etc. Then add the ala carte option to add individual channels to whatever package(s) you chose as your base. It would avoid the issue of paying more for fewer channels, but limit the number of channels you buy that you don't want.

So, for example, I might choose a general entertainment package since I like stuff on USA, TNT, SciFi, etc, then add Discovey and the Disney Channel ala carte to get those two channels without getting the whole package they might come in. It means I pay for FX, which I don't currently watch anything on, but I wouldn't have to pay for MTV, the news channels or ESPN, which I also don't watch.

Another option might be a "pick any X number of channels for Y price" where you can choose channels in set numbers in micro packages you build yourself.
Edited by NetworkTV - 7/14/12 at 10:20am
post #13190 of 14740
According to the installation status screen in my receiver, I've lost both 99 odd and 103 odd; all others are OK.
That would be why my Braves game wouldn't come in in HD last night.
Question for the gurus, before I have to climb up on my roof:
Is this more likely a dish or receiver problem?
post #13191 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

My worry is that it could affect networks like AMC, which produce great content that people might not want to pay the freight to watch if it doesn't already come into their homes as part of a service. Plus, if only the actual viewers financed shows like Mad Men, I doubt they could afford to pay for it....
You make some interesting points...

Are you aware of the history of AMC?

They started as a direct competitor to Turner Classic Movies: 24/7 movies: uncut and no commercials, with the name American Movie Classics. Apparently they were unable to financially sustain this business model and first added advertising, to boost their income, and then original programming, to differentiate themselves; and of course in the KFC tradition, changed their brand to AMC.

AND, they now show their HD content in true HD!

So, now, having come full circle, perhaps TCM does not have the financial business model that is required to license, obtain cablecast masters, and have the technological facilities to cablecast in HD!

They should call themselves: Turner Classic Movies - ED (extended definition)!
post #13192 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelLAX View Post

You make some interesting points...
Are you aware of the history of AMC?
They started as a direct competitor to Turner Classic Movies: 24/7 movies: uncut and no commercials, with the name American Movie Classics. Apparently they were unable to financially sustain this business model and first added advertising, to boost their income, and then original programming, to differentiate themselves; and of course in the KFC tradition, changed their brand to AMC.
AND, they now show their HD content in true HD!
So, now, having come full circle, perhaps TCM does not have the financial business model that is required to license, obtain cablecast masters, and have the technological facilities to cablecast in HD!
They should call themselves: Turner Classic Movies - ED (extended definition)!

I might buy into the latter part of you argument if it weren't for the fact that TCM, as of 2009, was earning more per subscriber in fees.

AMC, which not only presents movies they get the rights to, but their own original series in HD for $.03 less per subscriber than TCM. Granted, AMC also shows ads, but they often air relatively recent movies and are often able to air all the films in a franchise, which is very expensive. TCM, aside from a few exceptions, often airs movies once then they disappear, often permanently.

I just think that TCM doesn't get complaints about the lack of true HD from anyone other than folks like us. There simply aren't enough of us to make them want to make the investment, be it either some missing piece of equipment in the chain or the actual HD rights.
post #13193 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I might buy into the latter part of you argument if it weren't for the fact that TCM, as of 2009, was earning more per subscriber in fees.
Just as soon as AMC can be bundled with CNN, HLN, TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network, and its ilk, you will see its per subscriber rate go up; just like magic!

My point: just because Time Warner is able to extract a higher per subscriber rate for TCM than the marketplace would bear (due to its bundling with powerful "must have" channels), does not mean that their income goes into their channel budget. I am sure it is skimmed...

Also, I do not have the information to compute the difference between 3 cents per subscriber vs. AMC's advertising income; but I suspect that it is substantial!

A better comparison would be to TCM's per subscriber price and that of other non-advertising supported channels. You seem to have a chart at ready access: compare it to The Disney Channel and I am sure you will see the increase in subscriber rates that is required to support a full service basic cable channel that does not sell advertising...

Turner Classic Movies is a "prestige" channel; it does not exist because of its standalone ability to survive financially (Similar to what happened to the legendary Z Channel that existed in Los Angeles, until the local cable company spun it off and required it to survive financially as an independent; which it did not; see: Z Channel: A Magnificent Obsession).

Speaking of which, I sure enjoyed TCM's Presentation of the digitally restored "Singing in the Rain" at my local theater last Thursday evening, complete with newly filmed introduction of Robert Osborne interviewing Debbie Reynolds. I would have never known it was happening if I had not gone to TCM's website for some research on this thread; thanks, to you, and all the grumpy old men who mischaracterized my posts on this subject!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I just think that TCM doesn't get complaints about the lack of true HD from anyone other than folks like us. There simply aren't enough of us to make them want to make the investment, be it either some missing piece of equipment in the chain or the actual HD rights.
TCM-HD will get plenty of complaints from me, just as soon as DirecTV starts carrying it!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Granted, AMC also shows ads, but they often air relatively recent movies and are often able to air all the films in a franchise, which is very expensive.

As Ronald Reagan once said: "There you go again!!!"
Edited by MichaelLAX - 7/14/12 at 2:16pm
post #13194 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by tokerblue View Post

Does anyone not like the idea of a la carte pricing, other than the providers?

Me! I HATE the idea, it makes me SICK! I want nothing to do with a la carte, I hope it never happens and hopefully enough people in the government can be bought and enough palms can be greased. And fortunately for those of us 110% against a la carte, it looks like it will never happen on a channel by channel basis.

The real solution is not a la carte channels, but a la carte shows. Wah wah Wah, why should I have to pay for a whole channel of Syfy when all I watch is Warehouse 13. Then at $2 or $3 bucks per episode for every show you watch, see how fast that adds up. I probably pay more for TV than anyone else on this site and I could easily see myself paying a lot more for the same or even less amount of content.

I watch way too much content spread across way too many channels for a la carte to even look like a remotely good idea. With this whole Viacom thing, I hardly ever watch Spike, but I watch 1,000 Ways To Die. Nickelodeon is useless these days, but I enjoy iCarly. Comedy Central for South Park, Roasts and some late night stand up. I probably watch at least one show or series a month on over 100 channels. Good thing I kept cable so I can see these shows, among others. I just moved my scheduled recordings for the 90s programming on Teen Nick and 1,000 Way To Die over to my Time Warner boxes. I don’t give a damn who the good guy or bad guys is with these disputes, I just want to watch my shows.
post #13195 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Mehs View Post

...The real solution is not a la carte channels, but a la carte shows. Wah wah Wah, why should I have to pay for a whole channel of Syfy when all I watch is Warehouse 13. Then at $2 or $3 bucks per episode for every show you watch, see how fast that adds up. I probably pay more for TV than anyone else on this site and I could easily see myself paying a lot more for the same or even less amount of content....

I watch way too much content spread across way too many channels for a la carte to even look like a remotely good idea. ...
Why should we subsidize your eclectic taste in television programming??? I vote with my money at the iTunes Store!
post #13196 of 14740
iTunes, barf! I refuse to use anything from Apple. I've severed all ties with that company. These online services are useless for the highlight shows I watch like Inside NASCAR and Inside The NFL on Showtime, NHL Tonight, SportsCenter and others. They're useless for live news, they’re useless for live sports.

Likewise, why should I have to pay more for TV, just because a few crybabies are whining about paying for content they don’t want when this has been the way it’s been done since the beginning of the Pay TV industry? C-band was a la carte and it’s all but gone, Dish Network had their Dish Pix package, that was a complete failure. A la carte does not work, and it will never be a reality. There really is no point in even arguing about it, as my side has already won.

If you don’t like the way things are done, then by all means cancel your pay TV service and suffer with using iTunes, this way you are only paying for the exact content you want.
post #13197 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Mehs View Post

iTunes, barf! I refuse to use anything from Apple. I've severed all ties with that company. These online services are useless for the highlight shows I watch like Inside NASCAR and Inside The NFL on Showtime, NHL Tonight, SportsCenter and others. They're useless for live news, they’re useless for live sports.
Likewise, why should I have to pay more for TV, just because a few crybabies are whining about paying for content they don’t want when this has been the way it’s been done since the beginning of the Pay TV industry? C-band was a la carte and it’s all but gone, Dish Network had their Dish Pix package, that was a complete failure. A la carte does not work, and it will never be a reality. There really is no point in even arguing about it, as my side has already won.
If you don’t like the way things are done, then by all means cancel your pay TV service and suffer with using iTunes, this way you are only paying for the exact content you want.
Many subscribers have done exactly that: it is known as "cutting the cord" and the industry is very nervous about it and its growth! Talked to a college student lately?

Live News and live sports is just right around the corner:

Live Broadcast TV, meet the Internet. FINALLY!

At the end of the day, you are a Sports Guy; the most subsidized of all the cable subscribers!!! OF COURSE you do not want any changes to the existing system...
post #13198 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Mehs View Post

iTunes, barf! I refuse to use anything from Apple. I've severed all ties with that company.
That is my feeling on all things Apple as well. Vertical integration was bad back in the day, and it still is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Mehs View Post

A la carte does not work, and it will never be a reality. There really is no point in even arguing about it, as my side has already won.
I think you are mistaken here. I think the infrastructure will force a la carte. You will eventually pay for each show you watch on subscription. It is already that way for music ... think albums vs just the song you like ...

It is already happening. Carriage disputes with a subtext of dilution by "online" carriage are just one facet of this transition. I'm not sure how long it will take, but it will happen.
post #13199 of 14740
'Cord cutting' *Yawn*. Just is done by a few. Don’t need to talk to a college student when I can go online, look at subscriber numbers and see that in the US there are approx. 116 million TV households, and combined there are about 100 million pay TV subscribers. Wake me up when that number decreases by 20 or 30 million. While ‘cord cutting’ may be all the rage according to some, it is just a very very small minority. The vast majority of US households have one form of traditional pay TV or anothe.r

Aereo, looks like that’s only good for OTA content. I have no use for that. I’m making it a point to drastically reduce and eventually eliminate my OTA TV viewing aside from sports. There is so much high quality content on the cable and premium cable channels there is no point to watching OTA. I haven’t watch ABC in years, now that Chuck is finished, so is me watching NBC, CBS has some decent shows, and Fox has me for Animation Domination. CW, ION, My Network TV and PBS are of absolutely zero interest to me. All OTA networks could go away this very second and I would even know or care until the next time the Yankees and scheduled for a Saturday game on FOX.

I’m really not sure why this is a big deal. For example, I have no use for TCM. I do not want to watch boring black and white movies from 100 years ago. Do I care I’m paying for a channel that I have no interest in? No not really, I forgot the channel even existed until people on here started mentioning DirecTV will be adding it in HD
post #13200 of 14740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Mehs View Post

iTunes, barf! I refuse to use anything from Apple. I've severed all ties with that company. These online services are useless for the highlight shows I watch like Inside NASCAR and Inside The NFL on Showtime, NHL Tonight, SportsCenter and others. They're useless for live news, they’re useless for live sports.
Likewise, why should I have to pay more for TV, just because a few crybabies are whining about paying for content they don’t want when this has been the way it’s been done since the beginning of the Pay TV industry? C-band was a la carte and it’s all but gone, Dish Network had their Dish Pix package, that was a complete failure. A la carte does not work, and it will never be a reality. There really is no point in even arguing about it, as my side has already won.
If you don’t like the way things are done, then by all means cancel your pay TV service and suffer with using iTunes, this way you are only paying for the exact content you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Mehs View Post

'Cord cutting' *Yawn*. Just is done by a few. Don’t need to talk to a college student when I can go online, look at subscriber numbers and see that in the US there are approx. 116 million TV households, and combined there are about 100 million pay TV subscribers. Wake me up when that number decreases by 20 or 30 million. While ‘cord cutting’ may be all the rage according to some, it is just a very very small minority. The vast majority of US households have one form of traditional pay TV or anothe.r
Aereo, looks like that’s only good for OTA content. I have no use for that. I’m making it a point to drastically reduce and eventually eliminate my OTA TV viewing aside from sports. There is so much high quality content on the cable and premium cable channels there is no point to watching OTA. I haven’t watch ABC in years, now that Chuck is finished, so is me watching NBC, CBS has some decent shows, and Fox has me for Animation Domination. CW, ION, My Network TV and PBS are of absolutely zero interest to me. All OTA networks could go away this very second and I would even know or care until the next time the Yankees and scheduled for a Saturday game on FOX.
I’m really not sure why this is a big deal. For example, I have no use for TCM. I do not want to watch boring black and white movies from 100 years ago. Do I care I’m paying for a channel that I have no interest in? No not really, I forgot the channel even existed until people on here started mentioning DirecTV will be adding it in HD

So it is OK for us "a few crybabies [who] are whining" to subsidize your SPORTS addiction, yet you complain when others want you to subsidize their ("the whiners and cry babies") cost of satellite radio subscriptions:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

...They are why the rest of us pay more for having Satellite Radio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Mehs View Post

110% agree! Yep. If one is truly on the fence about a service, then I have no problem with a few discounts and such, but those that play the game are just ruining it for the rest of us. Either satellite radio is worth it to you at the price it’s being sold at or not. If it’s not worth it, don’t subscribe. I too pay full price for my XM Subscription (XM subscriber Since Aug, 2003) and Sirius Subscription (Sirius Subscriber Since Oct 2004), and have never once called up and asked for a discount. I’m satisfied with the service, I have no reason to complain, and want the service to improve, and it can’t improve without money.
Where I work, if a customer wants to cancel their service, either altogether or go to a competitor due to price (not like there’s competition in the SDARS industry anymore), sure we’ll bend over backwards to keep your business and offer all sorts of discounts, free value added service and whatnot, but that doesn’t go without notice. At the end of the year, we know exactly how much money we lost in the form of giving discounts and freebies to the whiners and cry babies. That figure is then used in determining the following years price increases. So in the end everyone pays.

YOU ARE SO BUSTED!!!
Edited by MichaelLAX - 7/14/12 at 4:41pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › DirecTV HDTV