It would be ok if it was a flate rate of $5.98 per household, but its not, its per DVR. I have 5 DVR's which is the only reason I subscribe to the HD Everything pack, as it would be more expensive without it.
Alright, now let's presume for a second, (which is obviously not the case but the number might be a bit higher) that half of DISH Network subscribers have a minimum of two DVRs, under your plan, DISH would be making $38,272,000 from DVR fees alone. Under current practice, they make $76,544,000 (6.4 million customers multiplied by $5.98 per DVR with 2 DVRs per half of DISH's customers.)
So you want Charlie, to eat 38mil in DVR fees because it would be the nice thing to do. But, and I'm going to beat this horse to death, that money pushes development, streamlining products and processes, and allows DISH to do more than it could do otherwise. IF Charlie did change that practice, that 38 mil would most likely have to come from somewhere. And if something was to be added or changed, I doubt it would stop at 38mil.
In all likelyhood, it might be that 38mil each year that allows DISH to maintain it's America's Lowest price point. If DISH did flat-rate as suggested, but raised programming costs to match competitors, would you jump ship for the DTV HR20 offers? Or another DTV bounty on DISH customers? What major business incentive is there for DISH to swallow a 38 million dollar loss and maintain its price point afterwards; because you want it to? New customers cost money to bring in, that's true. But knowing that across advertising and the like that DISH already is at a loss for each new customer it gains, would you then ask Charlie to double/triple that loss?
People want DISH to drop its fees, reduce them, or to in some cases rename them which I really don't get. Anytime a company has to justify a major loss to please its customers, it needs some VERY good reasons, especially with a company as large as DISH. What serious benefits that could skyrocket DISH above DTV are there to justify doing this? Because that's the first thing Charlie will ask.
DISH is a subscription television company, not a pay as you go phone. There are fees, contracts and obligations. It's that simple. Now, Devil's Advocate: You're a DISH Network stock holder. Do you really want DISH to drop its DVR fees, which in turn will slash your divid-ends and drop your stock price? Because there are more stock holders than people upset with the fee.
And if you're Charlie, do you want to explain to most of your employees (most DISH employees do own stock if they've been around for over a year) why their stock just dropped in price, because a minority of customers (it is a minority, this is just a case of a very vocal minority, and regardless people still pay) want a small fee off their bill each month? Do you in essence want to explain to your employees that they're now coming to work each day, to pay for the customers that are supposed to be paying them? It's like having those DVR fees taken out of your paycheck each month.
People dislike fees, alright fine, noone likes to spend "unnecessary" money (and then goes to the bar and spends it there.) But these are the reprecussions of flat-rating a fee or removing one altogether. Having seen, heard and done the research on DISH position compensations versus industry standards, DISH does not pay top-dollar to non-executives (it does compete with other business minimums, but not the top of the spectum.) Would you ask your employees under present circumstances which most of you are aware of, to then take additional reduction in pay and benefits?
I admit, at the end of the day, subscribers don't give a damn about the company employees, which is to be expected in this society. But it doesn't negate the points stated above. The customer just wants the fee gone, but there's FAR more issues than the customers' happiness about the six dollars a month involved. Six dollars that they WILL pay anyways.
