DirecTV admits to incorrect billing for RSNs

[Troch77]

But you had said above that there were no RSN fees, which I believe has been the point you've been trying to make here and as it turns out you're paying them with your new service as well.

The point that was being made, was Directv double dips.
So Directv Xtra package real price is $109.
Because there is absolutely no way I can get it for $94.99.



Samsung Galaxy S6 Active

 

[Jimbo]

The point that was being made, was Directv double dips.
So Directv Xtra package real price is $109.
Because there is absolutely no way I can get it for $94.99.



Samsung Galaxy S6 Active

Not really, the difference in your prices look like the SP being added, $13, you Can get your package without the SP for $ 94.99 if I'm reading your post right.
Your choosing to add the SP for the $13.

 

[Troch77]

Not if you include the first receiver fee, and RSN fee.
I wasn't including the sports pack.


Samsung Galaxy S6 Active

 

[spiketoo]

This was so much easier when they just gave you the cost, you paid it if its what you wanted and was done with it.
Now that everything is broke down (so others can officially get thier share) its all arguments and complaints !

Without joining the debate on the rationale of the RSF, I respectfully disagree with you on this.

I've had the same programming for 6 years (including the Sports Pack) with no RSF. I review most of my bills from all companies when received. I noticed the RSF of 7.29 being charged for this first time in Jan. After discussing this with neighbors and hearing some were charged 0.00, I began my analysis and 'adventure' with ATT in which they determined this was an error on their part.

If the RSF had not been broken out separately, I guess I may have become aware of an increase in my bill but it would have been even more difficult to ascertain the nature of the increase.

 

[keenan]

Not if you include the first receiver fee, and RSN fee.
I wasn't including the sports pack.


Samsung Galaxy S6 Active

But what does the addition of the first receiver fee have to do with anything? It sounds like you're not happy with them breaking out the RSN fee as a below the line charge. I do agree that below the line charges are sometimes straight up BS but in most cases like this, they do that so the advertised package price stays competitive to what other providers offer.

It looks like to me that DirecTV is applying around a 25%-50% profit onto these sports fees since a portion of the RSN cost has already been factored into the base programming package cost. If this is what you mean by double-dipping I can sort of see your point, but in the last 5-10 years the cost of these RSNs has continued to go up and up and the providers finally started to break out that cost and that's why you have a separate RSN fee along with paying a portion of the channel cost in your programming package price. The combination of what you've paid in the package price and the below the line RSN fee covers(more than covers really) the now current cost for that RSN.

They are doing the exact same thing with Broadcast TV fees, most cablecos are already doing it and if DirecTV hasn't started doing it yet you can take it to the bank that they will eventually. These fees are just like the RSN fees in that that help cover the rising costs of your local channels without adding that cost int the advertised pricing.

I should also add that these fees(RSN/Broadcast TV) are a bit of contract negotiation gamesmanship in that the providers want their subscribers to see what these networks are asking for their channels; a way to stay "hey, it's not us increasing the costs every year, it's these networks" sort of thing. It's a way of "shaming" these channels rising costs, especially RSNs.

 

[cpalmer2k]

I just got my DirecTV bill for the month yesterday and on it was an $11.66 credit for RSN fees with a message that says "We credited the regional sports network fees we mistakenly billed you. We're sorry for the error."