Pricing Update from Dish Network

[whatchel1]

Your program package, like mine, was probably padded $5.00 for one DVR fee. IE, Silver is/will be $52.99 but have been paying $57.99. After Feb, it will go back down, then the $6.00 DVR fee.

I'm absolute w/ locals so it was hidden pretty well. I have lease fee back in Aug then I did my upgrade to the 722k. So I'll have to see what happens.

[Totoro]

Your receiver fees should be,
722k free
722 $17
722 $17
612 $10
DVR $6
HD $10
Plus whatever your programming is.

I was a bit worried because I have a 612 as my primary and a 722 as my secondary. I just spoke with a CSR who said that under the new plan, the most expensive receiver will be included as your free receiver and the less expensive one will be charged the extra receiver fee. Therefore, in my case I will be charged only the $10 (not $17) even though the 612 is my primary. That means my bill should go down by a couple of dollars.

[Totoro]

I'm not trying to defend Dish in any way, but playing devils-advocate, the extra $3 fee tacked on to DVR receivers is not necessarily a double-dip - it may just represent the higher cost of the receiver since they have an approx $80 hard drive built-in.

That's what a DVR fee is, the fee for the hard drive. If you say that you are not going to charge for the DVR (hard drive), then don't tack it on somewhere else. I understand your logic, but they should not try to "hide" the fact that they are charging extra. Instead, they should just do away with the DVR fee altogether say that they are "including the DVR fee in the equipment rental cost."

Not to mention that Dish charges many folks $199 or more a feww to geta leased box, a fee that is not a deposit. The customer more then pays for the hard drive.

Dish is double dipping... or in this case triple dipping.

Very true. They should also do away with the up front cost if they are going to include extra fees in the rental. Or give customers the choice: Pay $99 up front and then no extra monthly fees, or pay nothing up front and pay an extra $7 per month for a minimum of 2 years.

Ah yes, I almost forgot about that.

The price to purchase a 722k is somewhere between $300-$350. As you said, Dish very often charges $199, just to LEASE the machine. In my case, they only charged $99.

Assuming Dish leases a receiver at the initial cost of $99, then it would take them just under 15 months to collect the additional $251 (for a total of $350). From then on, each $17 monthly fee is pure profit.

It's much worse for those who own their receiver. They pay $350 to get the receiver, and they STILL have to pay the $17/month fee. For what? What service is Dish providing to them that warrants such a ridiculously huge fee?

That would be like me going out and buying a car outright, and the manufacturer requiring me to pay $50/month to them for as long as I own the car.

Under the new pricing scheme, you would have to be out of your mind to purchase a receiver. They should definitely wave the fee for people who own their own receivers.

Here is what DISH should do to be fair.

Owned receiver = no monthly equipment fee. Zero, nada!
Up front $99 payment = DVR monthly fee the same as non-DVR ($7)
No up front fee, leased receiver = $17 per month

Sound fair? That would be similar to the pricing model of other products (housing, automobiles, etc.).

[Hemi 6.1]

OK Where are you Guys getting this $3 fee from?

Last I checked $17 from $12 is $5
Even AEP the fee is going from $7 -$17 now that they are Charging for DVR service.

Or $7-$10 on Solo DVRs. OK thats $3 But I bet Most HD DVR customers have Duo Receivers

So What is Increasing only $3?

[LER]

Their talking about the difference in fees for DVR vs NON-DVR receivers.

[Jim5506]

The new charges will not show up in any bills issued in January.

Look at your bill issued in February, that will reflect the increase.

[TravelFan1]

My 2 cents on this new pricing structure:

For those of you that have 1 gazillion DVRs in your home, how much do you think the cable cos would charge you? Can't say on all areas but in mine, Comcast used to charge back in 2008 17.95 for the first and 24.95 for the second and so one - and that's for, IMHO, a very crappy Motorola DVR, far worse than the 722k that I currently own.

If I am understanding your complains correctly, Directv charges less for their DVRs if one wants to have a ton of DVRs home, so why don't you just move to Directv then? I played a bit with Directv's DVR and, IMHO, it can't compare with Dish 722k - no wonder Dish 722k is a PC Mag's editor's choice.

Like Scott says many times, Dish hardware rocks, and it's something that Dish Network should use more often on their promos.

I do not work for Dish, I have several issues with Dish, such as the fact that they don't have PBS in HD, if Directv was available to me in my buldings(NYC Metro area), I'd probably be a Directv subscriber due to the local RSNs in HD, but all that said, I think people should check their competitor's prices before making all these claims that the sky will fall, that they will pay much more.... Again, I am making these statements based on my unique situation, NYC MEtro Comcast area.

[eacalhoun]

My 2 cents on this new pricing structure:

For those of you that have 1 gazillion DVRs in your home, how much do you think the cable cos would charge you? Can't say on all areas but in mine, Comcast used to charge back in 2008 17.95 for the first and 24.95 for the second and so one - and that's for, IMHO, a very crappy Motorola DVR, far worse than the 722k that I currently own.

If I am understanding your complains correctly, Directv charges less for their DVRs if one wants to have a ton of DVRs home, so why don't you just move to Directv then? I played a bit with Directv's DVR and, IMHO, it can't compare with Dish 722k - no wonder Dish 722k is a PC Mag's editor's choice.

Like Scott says many times, Dish hardware rocks, and it's something that Dish Network should use more often on their promos.

I do not work for Dish, I have several issues with Dish, such as the fact that they don't have PBS in HD, if Directv was available to me in my buldings(NYC Metro area), I'd probably be a Directv subscriber due to the local RSNs in HD, but all that said, I think people should check their competitor's prices before making all these claims that the sky will fall, that they will pay much more.... Again, I am making these statements based on my unique situation, NYC MEtro Comcast area.

I think cool heads on this board agree with this and the few other similar posts -- I tend to agree with this, too, though I fired off a snail mail to Mr. Ergen - film and gory details at 11. However, I think there's "deception" regarding the DVR fees fueling most everyone's frustration here. In one breath, they now say a $6 DVR fee per account giving the appearance they are on the same level as DirecTV. But in another breath, they now have these tiered additional receiver fees with "duh" DVRs being the priciest. The "sales pitch" to us is that it simplifies your bill's appearance. As some others have stated, it IS -- for multiple DVR customers -- double dipping, and wreaks of unethical.

Eric

[Scherrman]

OK Where are you Guys getting this $3 fee from?

Last I checked $17 from $12 is $5
Even AEP the fee is going from $7 -$17 now that they are Charging for DVR service.

Or $7-$10 on Solo DVRs. OK thats $3 But I bet Most HD DVR customers have Duo Receivers

So What is Increasing only $3?

The old additional receiver fee was $7 for TV1 and $5 for TV2. They seem to be going to a $7 per tuner structure now. So a 222 is $14. Whats makes the 722 worth $17? It should only cost $14 like the 222, since you are already paying their so-called $6 whole house DVR fee. So technically they are charging an $3 for the DVR.

You are right in saying that it is actually $5 more than the old fee though.

[probinson]

My 2 cents on this new pricing structure:

For those of you that have 1 gazillion DVRs in your home, how much do you think the cable cos would charge you? Can't say on all areas but in mine, Comcast used to charge back in 2008 17.95 for the first and 24.95 for the second and so one - and that's for, IMHO, a very crappy Motorola DVR, far worse than the 722k that I currently own.

If I am understanding your complains correctly, Directv charges less for their DVRs if one wants to have a ton of DVRs home, so why don't you just move to Directv then? I played a bit with Directv's DVR and, IMHO, it can't compare with Dish 722k - no wonder Dish 722k is a PC Mag's editor's choice.

Like Scott says many times, Dish hardware rocks, and it's something that Dish Network should use more often on their promos.

I do not work for Dish, I have several issues with Dish, such as the fact that they don't have PBS in HD, if Directv was available to me in my buldings(NYC Metro area), I'd probably be a Directv subscriber due to the local RSNs in HD, but all that said, I think people should check their competitor's prices before making all these claims that the sky will fall, that they will pay much more.... Again, I am making these statements based on my unique situation, NYC MEtro Comcast area.

I would agree with you that the Dish 722k is an incredible machine. I've had the crappy Time Warner Scientific Atlanta DVR (which was free, with only a $6/month DVR fee when I had it), I've had the DirecTIVO, and I've had the 622 and 722k. IMO and by far, my 722k is hands down the best DVR I've ever used.

Now that Dish is increasing the early termination fee, I'd be looking at a penalty of $245 to make the switch to DirecTV.

I don't have "1 gazillion DVRs". I have 2 (a 722k and a 622), running 4 TV's (2 HD and 2 SD), which I believe is a fairly reasonable number that represents an increasing number of "average" homes. I'm looking at a price increase of $6.01/month. Now sure I'm not thrilled about that, but that in itself does not bother me. It is the way that Dish is approaching this that bothers me.

They are saying that they're charging (1) DVR fee, but that's not true. All they've done is wrapped up the additional DVR fees into one ginormous additional receiver fee to "simplify" things. They also say that they've increased prices less than other providers. But I don't buy that either. Having had TW, D* and E*, the largest annual price increase I've ever had with any of them was $3.00. This is more than double that amount.

So it's not so much the price increase that bothers me, as it is the way they're trying to make it sound like they're doing me a favor. If you're going to increase my prices, don't make it sound like it will "simplify" anything for me. Be honest and say, "We've decided to charge you $17 for your receiver because we're greedy and we can."