We don't think a fix is in the works because providers are refusing to give way. It doesn't matter that E* wants to correct the situation if the other side won't give way. This has been ongoing since at least February with no resolution. The Turbo packages have been removed from the front programming page. Scott has heard a rumor that they may be discontinued in August. I for one hope we Turbo subs are grandfathered if they are discontinued as they are still a good deal even if they don't include all the HD channels as compared to Classic.
Here's my solution to the Turbo HD problem...
- Thread starter york4311
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 70
- Views 8K
We don't think a fix is in the works because providers are refusing to give way. It doesn't matter that E* wants to correct the situation if the other side won't give way. This has been ongoing since at least February with no resolution. The Turbo packages have been removed from the front programming page. Scott has heard a rumor that they may be discontinued in August. I for one hope we Turbo subs are grandfathered if they are discontinued as they are still a good deal even if they don't include all the HD channels as compared to Classic.
So you advocate that DISH keep charging premium prices for Hd even when digital and now hd is the new standard DISHGUISE? Explain to me and everyone else here on this board ,why the cost of HD locals are the exact same price as Sd locals? How about premium movie channels like HBo/Showtime/Starz/cinemax? These cost exactly the same price for Hd as for SD .
So you think that they price of Lifetime in hd is any more than the Sd version? The contracts for all channels are negotiated at the same time, whether sd or hd or both. There is no evidence that I have ever seen that the hd version cost anymore than the sd version. Except for the platinum pack of hd channels and I wonder if that isn't just to get more money ; greed. Now there are local channels trying to extort more money for their hd signal vs their sd . One right here in my local area; channel 6 KFDM CBS. DISH's response is we won't carry your hd channel and they haven't. Do you think that they would negotiate any more of a deal that doesn't benefit DISH than the local channels? I seem to remember many a programming company being taken off the air to help get a better price on the channels. Viacom comes to mind recently.
In the next 5 years you are going to see most, if not all relevant cable channels going all hd or they will not be in watched. THe norm is going to be HD and as such they won't be able to charge an extra $10.00 just to be able to access them. DISH needs a winning strategy that can not only compete with Directv and Cable but to slaughter them. Being the FIRST sat company to advertise that they don't charge for HD would be a great marketing tool that would bring a lot of new subs.
Let me remind you of the early part of this decade when DISH did not charge a DVR fee for their 501/508 or 721 dvrs. They not only didn't charge for them , they advertised the fact. What was the direct result? DISH added more subs than ever before at record rates. It also forced DIRECTV to drop their dvr fee from $9.99 down to $4.99 at the time to compete. The more subs the more money for DISH and the more profits for the stock holders of DISH. THE more profits the more DISH can afford to build more powerful satellites that can expand their hd offerings and other video services. This also gives DISH more cache to negotiate a better price for channels from the programming companies like Viacom. THe more subs, the more negotiating power. Sat companies depend on new subs being added to grow their business and they must add more than they lose to churn. Something DISH has not been doing good at the last 3 quarters , as they continue to lose more than they add.
No charge for Hd would definitely help accomplish this goal of adding more subs than they lose. DISH has made profits just about every quarter for years, even when they lose subs. THey won't stop making profits just because they let the $10.00 hd charge go. THey have already stopped charging the $5.00 hd enabling fee that had gone up to $7.00 recently. SO you can have an hd receiver now , get your hd locals and or premium movie packs in hd without ever paying any more than the sd customer or having to sub to hd in the normal classic programming packs. So obviously this fee was a "just because we can " fee . So are the $10.00 hd pack fees. Even Directv calls their $10.00 hd fee a tech fee and they don't consider the hd channels a pack by themselves.
So what would happen if DISH did stop charging for hd?
1) THey would once again grow their sub base at a terrific rate.
a. Which would help DISH regain some of the subs they lost and attract new subs.
b. Help solve the turbo stand alone pack problems.
c. Give all hd subs now a break of $10.00-Imagine the joy that they would then feel ? A price roll back instead of a hike!
2) This would ripple across the industry forcing both DIRECTV and cable to do the same to compete.
3) All consumers would benefit because it would make hd the normal standard and they could no longer charge a premium price . Bringing hd to everyone.
Now if all that doesn't convince you then let me ask you this? DISH has continued to lose more sub than they gain for the last 3 quarters right? They even have more national hd channels than DIRECTV does , not counting sports right? SO obviously what they have been doing is NOT working . Their new advertisements are to attack DIRECTV over their higher costs . What better way to attack them , then to actually have some viable ammo to obliterate the enemy? So FREE hd for any programming packs would be that ammo. Because what DISH has been doing hasn't worked for them so far . What I am advocating would be good for the DISH subs, the over all consumers in the tv industry would benefit and DISH would benefit. WHat is your solution ?
So you think that they price of Lifetime in hd is any more than the Sd version? The contracts for all channels are negotiated at the same time, whether sd or hd or both. There is no evidence that I have ever seen that the hd version cost anymore than the sd version. Except for the platinum pack of hd channels and I wonder if that isn't just to get more money ; greed. Now there are local channels trying to extort more money for their hd signal vs their sd . One right here in my local area; channel 6 KFDM CBS. DISH's response is we won't carry your hd channel and they haven't. Do you think that they would negotiate any more of a deal that doesn't benefit DISH than the local channels? I seem to remember many a programming company being taken off the air to help get a better price on the channels. Viacom comes to mind recently.
In the next 5 years you are going to see most, if not all relevant cable channels going all hd or they will not be in watched. THe norm is going to be HD and as such they won't be able to charge an extra $10.00 just to be able to access them. DISH needs a winning strategy that can not only compete with Directv and Cable but to slaughter them. Being the FIRST sat company to advertise that they don't charge for HD would be a great marketing tool that would bring a lot of new subs.
Let me remind you of the early part of this decade when DISH did not charge a DVR fee for their 501/508 or 721 dvrs. They not only didn't charge for them , they advertised the fact. What was the direct result? DISH added more subs than ever before at record rates. It also forced DIRECTV to drop their dvr fee from $9.99 down to $4.99 at the time to compete. The more subs the more money for DISH and the more profits for the stock holders of DISH. THE more profits the more DISH can afford to build more powerful satellites that can expand their hd offerings and other video services. This also gives DISH more cache to negotiate a better price for channels from the programming companies like Viacom. THe more subs, the more negotiating power. Sat companies depend on new subs being added to grow their business and they must add more than they lose to churn. Something DISH has not been doing good at the last 3 quarters , as they continue to lose more than they add.
No charge for Hd would definitely help accomplish this goal of adding more subs than they lose. DISH has made profits just about every quarter for years, even when they lose subs. THey won't stop making profits just because they let the $10.00 hd charge go. THey have already stopped charging the $5.00 hd enabling fee that had gone up to $7.00 recently. SO you can have an hd receiver now , get your hd locals and or premium movie packs in hd without ever paying any more than the sd customer or having to sub to hd in the normal classic programming packs. So obviously this fee was a "just because we can " fee . So are the $10.00 hd pack fees. Even Directv calls their $10.00 hd fee a tech fee and they don't consider the hd channels a pack by themselves.
So what would happen if DISH did stop charging for hd?
1) THey would once again grow their sub base at a terrific rate.
a. Which would help DISH regain some of the subs they lost and attract new subs.
b. Help solve the turbo stand alone pack problems.
c. Give all hd subs now a break of $10.00-Imagine the joy that they would then feel ? A price roll back instead of a hike!
2) This would ripple across the industry forcing both DIRECTV and cable to do the same to compete.
3) All consumers would benefit because it would make hd the normal standard and they could no longer charge a premium price . Bringing hd to everyone.
Now if all that doesn't convince you then let me ask you this? DISH has continued to lose more sub than they gain for the last 3 quarters right? They even have more national hd channels than DIRECTV does , not counting sports right? SO obviously what they have been doing is NOT working . Their new advertisements are to attack DIRECTV over their higher costs . What better way to attack them , then to actually have some viable ammo to obliterate the enemy? So FREE hd for any programming packs would be that ammo. Because what DISH has been doing hasn't worked for them so far . What I am advocating would be good for the DISH subs, the over all consumers in the tv industry would benefit and DISH would benefit. WHat is your solution ?
You have stated in another thread that you are in the employ of DishNetwork. Can you go on record and dispel the current rumor that TURBO HD will end in August?
I'm an AbsoluteHD sub, and would love to change my package, IF, the Turbo packages get the channels they were supposed to get.
I watch the channels in the platinum pkg & really wouldn't like to see them exclusively in the AEP simply because & don't require all of the premium movie channels...
just my 2cents...
just my 2cents...
Well said! I may be in the minority here, but I'm happy with my Turbo. The price I pay sure beats the hell out of what I was paying for cable (programming and equipment). Who cares if I don't get some of the stations that people with SD + $10 HD fee get, you know what, I watch too much TV as it is! I don't need every HD channel available I'm happy with what I have, which is coincidentally, more than what was available when I signed up for Turbo. I don't ever reading in the Turbo ads or website that Turbo subscribers were supposed to get every HD station as they became available.
So please Dish, don't take my Turbo away!
Here's my suggestion:
Price DishTV so it truly is cheaper than the competition.
Seems like an obvious way to win over customers.
Price DishTV so it truly is cheaper than the competition.
Seems like an obvious way to win over customers.
I dispute that. It is much more likely the providers are wanting a premium to allow their channels in the HD-only package (without the SD version of course) and Charlie is just being too cheap to pay it -- despite the fact Charlie is charging TurboHD customers a premium for the HD channels they are getting (meaning the cost per channel is substantially higher in all the TurboHD packages compared the the Classics).
If Charlie doesn't want to lose most his TurboHD subs (when the contracts expire), then he needs to fix the situation ASAP and not just get rid of the packages.
I would agree. If you have kids, then it's hard to not have Nickeloden. Also, I'd say a noteworthy portion of the country prefers FoxNews over MSNBC and CNN. Then you have the race fans -- which there are a lot of -- that find it hard to not have Speed. Lastly, FX has quite a bit of original programming these days that has a decent following. So I'd say you are in the minority if none of those interest you.
If Dish Network would find a way to add all the current HD channels to their TurboHD packages, then I think they would have enough to make most subscribers satisfied (even if additional HD channels came along a didn't get added).
With Viacom, the problem seems to be related to the existence of SD-only channels that are included in the channel groups. Viacom apparently had no problems with CMT, COM, and SPIKE, but balked at Nick, MTV, VH1 and BET. There are several SD-only channels associated with some of the latter group, like MTV2, The-N, Noggin, TVLand, etc. Fox, I don't know. It seemed as though FN and FBN were contracted together and FX, Speed, and Fuel. Maybe the SD-only Fuel was the problem. Fox leaves me scratching my head. You'd think they'd want FN and FBN in HD competing with CNN and CNBC. If I were E*, I'd leave the all-HD packages alone and let CNN and CNBC dominate until Fox gets a clue, if they ever do.
I'd be surprised if many Turbo subs gave up their Turbo packages when their commitments were up.
Okay, how about we leave an ala carte option for Platinum pack just like they did the Encore pack of movies? You can still get them with AEP or pay for them ala carte. That way each side can win.
HD And SD
Hey guys, new poster to this forum.
I think the real problem is the industry is getting its premium customers to pay for both HD and SD versions of their channels. That is the new cash cow of the Satellite industry. The members of this web site tend to be some of the best customers of the industry. People with HD equipment are willing to pay more for their programming. The last thing they want to do is give us a true lower-cost alternative. They would be losing a lot of bucks from their best customers.
I understand that we need to keep the SD channels around for legacy customers. I just don't want to pay for the cost of their old technology.
We have Cartoon network in SD, HD, east and west coast feeds. Charlie has a per-channel cost to doing business for all of the hardware they invested in. Who out there really wants to pay for the same content on the Cartoon network four times.
As I advanced my hardware and programming into HD over the past year and a half, I've seen the cost of my bill almost double.
I'm looking to reduce my programming to a more reasonable amount. The Turbo packages appeared to be the only option. This is the only way to get changes, by voting with our dollars.
Hey guys, new poster to this forum.
I think the real problem is the industry is getting its premium customers to pay for both HD and SD versions of their channels. That is the new cash cow of the Satellite industry. The members of this web site tend to be some of the best customers of the industry. People with HD equipment are willing to pay more for their programming. The last thing they want to do is give us a true lower-cost alternative. They would be losing a lot of bucks from their best customers.
I understand that we need to keep the SD channels around for legacy customers. I just don't want to pay for the cost of their old technology.
We have Cartoon network in SD, HD, east and west coast feeds. Charlie has a per-channel cost to doing business for all of the hardware they invested in. Who out there really wants to pay for the same content on the Cartoon network four times.
As I advanced my hardware and programming into HD over the past year and a half, I've seen the cost of my bill almost double.
I'm looking to reduce my programming to a more reasonable amount. The Turbo packages appeared to be the only option. This is the only way to get changes, by voting with our dollars.
i cant believe how many people think that the HD channels do not cost more. they do. even if say viacom didnt charge dish more for the hd channels, it would still cost dish more money. an hd channel takes up more bandwidth on a transponder. hence this means they can put fewer hd channels per transponder then they can on sd channels. this results in higher cost, such as extra satellites needing to be launched. if dish had never gone hd, would they have ever needed to launch 129, 77 or 72.1? probably not. for years they operated with only 110 119 for american and latino programming, then 61.5 or 148 for international, and yes some rented space here and there from 105/121(not really sure if dish owned or leased these tp's, but im sure someone will tell me).
dish has had to pay licensing fees, construction costs, and launch fees for these extra satellites. plus they have the overhead cost of maintaining and monitoring these extra birds. so how can anyone say hd doesnt cost anything extra?
oh yeah, and i didnt even begin to scrape the surface of the extra cost for mpeg4 receivers that get the hd programming vs the cost of mpeg2 receivers.
dish has had to pay licensing fees, construction costs, and launch fees for these extra satellites. plus they have the overhead cost of maintaining and monitoring these extra birds. so how can anyone say hd doesnt cost anything extra?
oh yeah, and i didnt even begin to scrape the surface of the extra cost for mpeg4 receivers that get the hd programming vs the cost of mpeg2 receivers.
Thanks. I'm glad that you have the right idea. While obvious restrictions apply it just costs more to broadcast. Much more. This isn't exactly a terrific time in history to increase pricing by a substantial amount nor is it a good time for Dish to go into debt. While the PR buzz would be nice and gain subs, it would be an ethical nightmare. "Free HD" would be relegated to the same guise in which cable companies operate. It means you pay more for everything and you get a worse quality product in the long run.
I don't think you will have to worry about FREE HD from DISH. This is Charlie Ergen we are talking about. HE is so cheap that he hurts. DISH is the KING of extra fees that make him money. LOOK how long that DISH has fought TIVO in order to not pay them a $1.00 per dvr sub? How much has DISH/Echostar paid now in fines to TIVO so far? UHMMM...$103 million the first time and now $105 million and soon the stay on the injunction to disable all DISH DVRS will expire and we will all be looking for another satellite provider.
Yes CHarlie Ergen is well known for being penny wise and pound foolish. I offered the suggestion for FREE Hd to really give DISH the edge. You have to spend money to make money. Directv did this in the way of advertising this last quarter and added record number of subs, the most ever in a RECESSION even. DISH has made profits like I said before in record numbers for years, even in bad times like these. THeir profits continue to grow as they lose subs at record numbers for 3 quarters in a row. I guess all those $5.98 dvr fees PER RECEIVER, are really adding up , along with the $5.00 no phone connection fee, the $7.00 hd enabling fee-that is now gone. So don't worry DISHGUISE . Charlie won't be revolutionary and do what I suggest, nor will he fix the turbo packs. They will go away in August like Scott G. says is rumored to happen, and DISH will continue to lose subs at record numbers. IF the Tivo lawsuit is successful , and it looks like everything is headed in that direction , we will have no more dvrs anyway. All so CHArlie won't have to pay some money, for his "alleged" theft of Tivo software, to the Tivo company.
Yes DISH will continue to do the same as they have always done and continue to lose subs. They will continue to make profits on the backs of their ever dwindling amount of customers, which is not sustainable over the long run. The definition of insanity : Doing the same thing everyday , in the same way, and expecting a different outcome.
Yes CHarlie Ergen is well known for being penny wise and pound foolish. I offered the suggestion for FREE Hd to really give DISH the edge. You have to spend money to make money. Directv did this in the way of advertising this last quarter and added record number of subs, the most ever in a RECESSION even. DISH has made profits like I said before in record numbers for years, even in bad times like these. THeir profits continue to grow as they lose subs at record numbers for 3 quarters in a row. I guess all those $5.98 dvr fees PER RECEIVER, are really adding up , along with the $5.00 no phone connection fee, the $7.00 hd enabling fee-that is now gone. So don't worry DISHGUISE . Charlie won't be revolutionary and do what I suggest, nor will he fix the turbo packs. They will go away in August like Scott G. says is rumored to happen, and DISH will continue to lose subs at record numbers. IF the Tivo lawsuit is successful , and it looks like everything is headed in that direction , we will have no more dvrs anyway. All so CHArlie won't have to pay some money, for his "alleged" theft of Tivo software, to the Tivo company.
Yes DISH will continue to do the same as they have always done and continue to lose subs. They will continue to make profits on the backs of their ever dwindling amount of customers, which is not sustainable over the long run. The definition of insanity : Doing the same thing everyday , in the same way, and expecting a different outcome.
Last edited:
Geez Mike, quit being so subtle. Why don't you just open up & tell us how you really feel? 
Might want to insert the word "allegedly" for obvious reasons.
Last edited:
Geez Mike, quit being so subtle. Why don't you just open up & tell us how you really feel?
Might want to insert the word "allegedly" for obvious reasons.
I thought I just did. Oh and I changed it just for you.
DishGuise,
Just in case you missed it -- since you didn't answer it. Or is the "fix" just to make them go away?
Last edited:
I totally agree! The TurboHD packages were the only real reason to consider DISH over DirecTV. With the way Charlie is screwing his new TurboHD customers (word is getting out) even if these HD-only packages aren't going away, there is little reason someone would pick DISH over DirecTV. I know I personally had three people lined up to switch to DISH's TurboHD once a few of the new HD channels came online, but since DISH decided not to add them to the HD-only packges all of them are sticking with what they have now (cable and DirecTV).
Charlie can try to blame the providers all he wants, but anyone that knows his track record knows Charlie is the one who is really to blame -- and it's going to come back to bite him!
seriously, where does everyone get their sense of entitlement?
hd absolute is getting all the channels it is supposed to get. it was well known it was going to be ending. it was well known dish was going to not add new channels to those grandfathered in. oh, lets not forget....programming subject to change blah blah blah. we all know it. sounds like someone has case of the supposedahs. if you do not like the hd only packages that you can get from dish, then perhaps you should go purchase an hd only pack somewhere else. oh snap, you cant. other companies probably do not have hd only packs as they do not want to deal with the haggling of network owners, who pretty much have the final say on what channel goes into what package. if charlie did pay the amount viacom would probably require to have their new hd channels in a turbo package, it would probably drive the rate up so high it would be pointless. at least you have an option for hd only.
as for the fees, every company has them. direct tv may only have one dvr fee per account, but they got a 4.99 fee per extra tv no matter what. at least dish gives us the opportunity to plug in the phoneline line or broadband. i only got one fee listed on my account, just my extra rec fee. and i have one lousy 7.00 fee for my third television. dda plan covers my dvr fee.
oh, and the comment about dish having to spend money to make money? they are spending money to make money. its called echostar x, xi, and soon to be up xii. these satellites are not free. yes, i know echostar xii was a formerly purchased rainbow sat, but it wasnt free. money was spent to be able to supply more hd. its like you think charlie is santa clause and has a fleet of elves providing slave labor making his satellites, launching them, and also designing and building new receivers such as the vip922.
and when you got the hd install done, wasnt there some money spent by charlie upfront as well? yes you may have a 24 month commit and a large package, but think of the cost of say an install for a 722k 222k to four rooms, ea dish, and the labor and parts put in to install it. even if you did pay an upgrade fee of say 100.00 bucks for a dishintup, that 100.00 bucks doesnt even cover the cost of a dish antenna upgrade. this is all money spent by charlie up front. how is this money not spent to make money?
hd absolute is getting all the channels it is supposed to get. it was well known it was going to be ending. it was well known dish was going to not add new channels to those grandfathered in. oh, lets not forget....programming subject to change blah blah blah. we all know it. sounds like someone has case of the supposedahs. if you do not like the hd only packages that you can get from dish, then perhaps you should go purchase an hd only pack somewhere else. oh snap, you cant. other companies probably do not have hd only packs as they do not want to deal with the haggling of network owners, who pretty much have the final say on what channel goes into what package. if charlie did pay the amount viacom would probably require to have their new hd channels in a turbo package, it would probably drive the rate up so high it would be pointless. at least you have an option for hd only.
as for the fees, every company has them. direct tv may only have one dvr fee per account, but they got a 4.99 fee per extra tv no matter what. at least dish gives us the opportunity to plug in the phoneline line or broadband. i only got one fee listed on my account, just my extra rec fee. and i have one lousy 7.00 fee for my third television. dda plan covers my dvr fee.
oh, and the comment about dish having to spend money to make money? they are spending money to make money. its called echostar x, xi, and soon to be up xii. these satellites are not free. yes, i know echostar xii was a formerly purchased rainbow sat, but it wasnt free. money was spent to be able to supply more hd. its like you think charlie is santa clause and has a fleet of elves providing slave labor making his satellites, launching them, and also designing and building new receivers such as the vip922.
and when you got the hd install done, wasnt there some money spent by charlie upfront as well? yes you may have a 24 month commit and a large package, but think of the cost of say an install for a 722k 222k to four rooms, ea dish, and the labor and parts put in to install it. even if you did pay an upgrade fee of say 100.00 bucks for a dishintup, that 100.00 bucks doesnt even cover the cost of a dish antenna upgrade. this is all money spent by charlie up front. how is this money not spent to make money?
