Why is it so much more expensive than cable?

[trenton76]

All of the advertisements lead customers to believe that satellite is cheaper than cable. And if you're ONLY looking at the monthly fee for service, that may be correct... but as a total cost for one year, it's not even close.

Comparison using 2 tv's (1 HD/DVR and 1 standard):
Time Warner: $65 base + $8 dvr + $7 HD = $80/month.
Directv: $50 base + $5 extra standard receiver + $6 dvr + $10 HD = $71

That would be a fair competitive comparison if not for the recent stupidity where Directv makes their customers pay a huge equipment fee for the privledge to then pay a monthly leasing fee on it. Once you add in $300 for the receiver (or $100 less if you're crazy enough to lock in for 24 months), how exactly does anyone subscribe? Is it the advertisements that claim you get better picture quality and great customer service?

Cable companies have no contract and I certainly prefer 12 month rather than 24 month so the $300 receiver (I still don't understand why I pay this if I don't own it) would essentially add $25/month. If I wanted two HD/DVR receivers, it would add $50 month!

Thus:
Time Warner: $80/month - no contract
Direct Tv: $96/month - 12 month contract

For two HD/DVRs:
Time Warner: $88
Direct tv: $121

Oh, plus Time Warner would raise my high speed internet by $5/month if I no longer have cable tv with them.

Am I missing something?

I really would like to get Directv again, but $300 fee for equipment that I wouldn't own is a clear deal-breaker.

 

[Claude Greiner]

Satellite is cheaper than cable.

The issue is that the cable companies have these so called special deals that they put together to bundle cable, phone and Tv on a single bill and then they discount the package for a year.

Usually what happens is after the "Promotion" is over the cable company jacks up the customers bill to the regular rates, at which point they call the satellite companies about switching service.

They sign up with Dish, get that special deal for a year and then go back to cable until that promotion runs out

 

[trenton76]

Satellite is cheaper than cable.

The issue is that the cable companies have these so called special deals that they put together to bundle cable, phone and Tv on a single bill and then they discount the package for a year.

Please notice my post above shows the comparison on how it is not cheaper. The prices I used were NOT part of any promotion, bundle, or special.

Again, unless I'm missing something, I've concluded that cable is significantly cheaper because they don't make you pay $200-$600 fee for the equipment you pay a monthly lease on. I understood paying a few hundred dollars years ago when you purchased the DTV receivers but why does anyone pay this fee if you don't own it? I honestly don't understand.

 

[ktk3438]

A lot of people (mostly new customers) are getting free equipment especially when they mention the competition. You'll get it either through credits or some other freebees.

And I used to have Time Warner, the best thing I did was to leave for D*.

Why?

Mostly because TWC were always arrogant asses when I called about ANYTHING.

And when you compare rates, you're forgetting that when you have Digital cable, you only get digital cable one the TV with the box, additional boxes are more $$/month, and when my kids wanted to watch shows like Boomerang, or ones that were only available through digital, that had to come down & watch the only TV with the box, all other TV's had extended basic only unless I was willing to fork out more $$ per box, so add that in you calculation.

And the first thing I noticed on ALL my TV's was the PQ (not including HD) was 100% improved, and the sound quality ten times better.

And I don't get treated as though it were my privilege to be with D* as Time Warner made me feel.

And D* has credited my account and given away TONS of free movie channels just for being a good customer who pays on time, Time Warner ZERO credits in 10 years!

Add all those freebees into to your calculations as well, and D* comes out to almost 1/2 of what I paid out to TWC and I get treated like a human being.

I could not be happier with my move from TWC to D*

 

[cariera]

Comparison using 2 tv's (1 HD/DVR and 1 standard):
Time Warner: $65 base + $8 dvr + $7 HD = $80/month.
Directv: $50 base + $5 extra standard receiver + $6 dvr + $10 HD = $71

Huh?


It depends on what you are looking for and how often you switch your television services. If you were to get your original setup and keep it for 2 years, your cost for D* would actually be less than TW, even with the startup costs (Difference of $9/mo x 24 mos = $216. Plus your franchise fee is at least $3-4/mo - mine was $5.51 before I switched).

The HDDVR is only $199 currently and there isn't an option for a 2 year contract, it is a 2 year contract.

Everyone has a choice. Choose wisely.

 

[bidger`]

TWC nickels and dimes you to death. When I left you had to pay a monthly charge for the remote for the set top box.

 

[directvfreak]

DirecTV is 100% digital. Time Warner is not. Time warner is one of the lowest rated cable companies by JD Power while DirecTV is always number 1 or2. Directv turns out to be cheaper in the end. I just went online to compare pricing and to get the equivalent setup I have now. I currently have 3 HD DVRs, 2 SD DVRs and 1 H20 HD box. Each HD DVR from time warner cost $13 per month so $39 plus 2 SD DVRs at $7 per month is $14 and 1 HD Box is also $7. The Equipment cost alone are $60 per month. I received all of my but my HD box for free ad I got it for $199 three years ago. With that $60 in equipment cost is 1/2 my current D* bill already. Then I have to add Digital Cable (54.99) Hd package (9.99). My total per month before tax would be $125. With directv I pay $90. Directv gives me more and Better programming and for me it is $35 per month cheaper. The equipment is also much better. The SD DVRs from TW are 80Gb and the HD DVRs are one 160Gb! I like D* 250gb.

Pick who you want but D* is the winner for me.

 

[trenton76]

Thanks for the replies, guys.

I'm just shocked that you all are happy with DTV based on picture quality and service. I suppose their advertising campaign is extremely effective.

ktk is correct. I should've added $8/mo into cable price for extra digital cable receiver.

In my experience, TWC has had similar customer service as when I had DTV. If general, Time Warner Cable is probably better in customer service because a) they don't force me into a contract and b) they don't charge me to send a technician out to solve a problem and c) they don't charge me an upfront fee in order to lease their equipment.

I'm not fanatical about tv, I just want the lowest price possible for HD/DVR service. Signing a two year contract is insane in my opinion. It's certainly not worth $100 mail-in rebate (off a bogus equipment fee charge). My goal to get lowest price is to switch from cable to DTV each year. Two years ago I had DTV (paid to own equipment), this past year I had cable, and now I want the Sunday Ticket promotion again. Next year I planned to go back to TWC when they offer me $100 instant cash and over $50 off each bill again.

However, I just can't do DTV anymore for $300-$600 equipment fee.

 

[Brewer4]

To each their own. I like Directv as a company, as my provider, has had excellent customer service for me in the past and does a good combination of price, quality and selection. Not perfect but it currently works and fits me and is about to get better with regard to HD quantity and quality.

 

[bidger`]

I don't know, trenton76, it sounds like you're making a sales pitch.

 

[bmeeks8]

My opinion is this is very much influenced by where someone lives. In the larger cities and metro areas things are better price wise and usually quality wise. In the little tiny rural town where I live, the only cable company is Northland Cable, and they don't offer any HD at all in my town. They provide service in another town 50 miles away and have limited HD service over there. It is still higher per month than DirecTV, though. There is no upfront equipment fee, so from that standpoint they are cheaper (at least until you depreciate out the DirecTV equipment cost).

In my area, if I want HD I must subscribe to DirecTV or Dish. OTA HD is hit or miss at night from the Savannah, GA stations.

You have to toss out the comments from the flamers and the fan boys for satellite and search for the middle ground. Satellite is decent quality, but it is nowhere near "true digital quality picture and sound" as the advertisements would lead us to believe. In my case, it is head and shoulders better than the signal the cable outfit in my area provides, but I'm sure there are plenty of big-city cable companies that provide at least as good and maybe a better signal.

To sum it up, the answer to your question is "it depends on where you live".

 

[kb7oeb]

Where I live the HD DVR where I live rents for $25 a month.

Regarding the free analog on extra tvs I think most people would see that as a bonus and not a limitation. My local cable is now simulcasting all the analogs in digital and their new boxes lack analog support.

 

[Jhon69]

I don't know, trenton76, it sounds like you're making a sales pitch.

Sounds that way to me too.When a person wants to change back and forth just to
get the "special deals".That would be the kind of customer DirecTV does not want
and just one of the reasons they now have an upfront fee+2 year commitment.

 

[skyviewmark]

In all honesty.. The price is not even a factor to me.. It's all about quality. Cable quality in my area sucks.. So even if cable were free, I would still have my Dish Network and my DirecTV. I want it all.. And I want the best.. Who cares about saving money.

 

[Captain591]

In all honesty.. The price is not even a factor to me.. It's all about quality. Cable quality in my area sucks.. So even if cable were free, I would still have my Dish Network and my DirecTV. I want it all.. And I want the best.. Who cares about saving money.

I agree!!!

 

[atp1313]

In all honesty.. The price is not even a factor to me.. It's all about quality. Cable quality in my area sucks.. So even if cable were free, I would still have my Dish Network and my DirecTV. I want it all.. And I want the best.. Who cares about saving money.

Couldn't have said it any better!!:up

 

[Hemi 6.1]

Cable sucks in my area as well. 6 HD channels and a bill for $140 per month for everything. NO WAY !!! Keep your cable. Satellite isn't more money either!!! My mother has Basic plus cable ,1 TV is $52 per month. And NOT digital!!!For a base digital package it $60 per month. The same thing as Directvs Choice for ($49.99) and E* AMT-100 plus for ($39.99) So in my area Satellite is less $$$

 

[bonscott87]

DirecTV has Sunday Ticket.
Cable has ?????

Ahhh, thought so.

Even without Sunday Ticket I'd still be with DirecTV or Dish.
Why?
More channels, better quality, *better equipment* for less money. Period.

What I get for $99 a month with DirecTV would cost over $140 a month with cable. And I still get more channels. No comparison.

Not to say there aren't good cable systems out there here and there but certainly no around here.

 

[iwc5893]

Another reason not to go cable -

In my area we had a severe windstorm in January (100+ mph winds) that knocked down over 2 miles of power poles on two different roads. It took over two weeks for the local power company to get all of the poles put back up, and another week for the cable company to put their cables back up. The cable customers were without TV for three weeks, and the cable company refused to offer any credits for the lack of service. Needless to say, the DBS installers were quite busy in our area for a month or so.

BTW, I lost sat signal for 10 seconds during the same storm - when the leading edge of the hailstorm passed in front of the dish.

 

[Hemi 6.1]

Another reason not to go cable -

In my area we had a severe windstorm in January (100+ mph winds) that knocked down over 2 miles of power poles on two different roads. It took over two weeks for the local power company to get all of the poles put back up, and another week for the cable company to put their cables back up. The cable customers were without TV for three weeks, and the cable company refused to offer any credits for the lack of service. Needless to say, the DBS installers were quite busy in our area for a month or so.

BTW, I lost sat signal for 10 seconds during the same storm - when the leading edge of the hailstorm passed in front of the dish.

Yea that reminds me of the 2 Ice storms last winter,the cable was out for 3 weeks between the 2 storms!! I know because I watched the news on Directv during the storms.