DirecTv makes it hard to not like them...

[Dayze]

Originally Posted by Shag

I've had ST since '98, and I'm pretty sure it's gone up every year. It was $160 when I first got it, and I believe it's $299 now. $99 more if you want SuperFan.

Granted, I've not paid full price for it in quite a long time, but it's ridiculously priced and getting worse every year...

so my memory is roughly in tact.

I remember the first year I got it; I had convinced the wife to get on board; and the $200 was a little bit of a stretch. But we made it work and enjoyed it. Following year it went to like $225 or something. “OK” I said etc and got it again. The 3rd and final year I think I paid $249 but got it lowered back to 225. This was the first year I had my HD and HD Receiver; those other games were awful. That’s when I found out that “HD” was included in the SF package. I thought SF was for stats, and other in-screen stuff. but, obviously, the bundled it so you’d have to over pay for HD.


…and that was the end of my ST experience. Bummer. I really liked it; but not enough to shell out $400 for the whole deal. That’s $25/wk for ‘extra’ game. F that.

[HC_Chief]

Originally Posted by Long Duk Dong

Been thinking of switching over to DirectTV here. It would actually be cheaper for me to go with DirectTV than cable by about $25 a month.

Savings alone is worth changing.

Anyone have any really bad experiences with them?

So right now, I can get a deal that, for 12 months, I would pay around $50/month for the package, which is like 150 channels and HD service.

After the 12 months is over, then it is up to $55/month.
Do the prices go open often?
There website touts that cable prices increase all the time, where as DirectTV does not. Anybody want to comment on that?

Thanks.

They definitely have the best channel lineup for the price. Only issues are when there are heavy thunderstorms... your signal willscramble and even stop completely until the storm subsides.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Long Duk Dong

Been thinking of switching over to DirectTV here. It would actually be cheaper for me to go with DirectTV than cable by about $25 a month.

Savings alone is worth changing.

Anyone have any really bad experiences with them?

So right now, I can get a deal that, for 12 months, I would pay around $50/month for the package, which is like 150 channels and HD service.

After the 12 months is over, then it is up to $55/month.
Do the prices go open often?
There website touts that cable prices increase all the time, where as DirectTV does not. Anybody want to comment on that?

Thanks.

The service itself is fine. It was rough going through the infancy of HD, but they have their shit together now.

However (as you will see from my earlier posts) you must assume that they're out to screw you. If you upgrade equipment, don't assume they'll cancel charges for the old stuff just because not doing so would be reeruned; tell them to cancel it and call back and check on it a couple of times and then check your bill carefully. Check your bill carefully anyway. They can also occasionally add packages to your service and then claim later it was a mistake. Check that. I used to have the HBO/Cinemax/Starz package and cancelled Cinemax and Starz - it took several months to actually accomplish this. The channels would no longer be available, and then one day I'd check the channel and it would be on again (and of course I'd be getting charged for it again).

And I'm pretty sure that every time they tell me I'm a valued customer they really mean that they hope I die a slow, painful death. And I know for a fact that "I'm sorry, sir" means "**** YOU."

Just be careful. They are NOT your friends. Nor will they ever be.

[donkhater]

Am I the only one not blown away by HD? I see the difference and all, but I just don't find in imperative to have at the higher prices. It's nice, but I don't see it as 'gotta have' like some of you seem to.

[Dayze]

Originally Posted by donkhater

Am I the only one not blown away by HD? I see the difference and all, but I just don't find in imperative to have at the higher prices. It's nice, but I don't see it as 'gotta have' like some of you seem to.

I think there is a huge difference.
HD on a 720p or 1080i TV (especially one with 120gHz) is amazing (assuming all connections are good/HDMI etc).

However, I do not understand why DTV charges $100 for HD; especially since I already pay $120 annually for HD service. Why make HD a part of the Superfan package? Why not just include this in the price of the ticket.

Those question were rhetorical etc; I know the answer: $$$.
Charge what the market with bear.


It’s just Flustrating.

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by Dayze

However, I do not understand why DTV charges $100 for HD; especially since I already pay $120 annually for HD service.

This is what infuriates me. ****ing swindlers.

[Dayze]

Originally Posted by BigChiefDave

This is what infuriates me. ****ing swindlers.

Yep.

I mean, the ‘know’ people will want it in HD; so they bundle it with SF.
There are people, like me, who simply want HD and not SF. Sure, SF would be cool, but I don’t need it.

I wish they’d give you an option for only HD; ok, sure – you want to charge me for HD (Even though I’m already paying for it)? Fine. Just don’t – essentially- charge me $100 for it.

Make a separate line item for HD; say…$20?

I sent them a very cordial email today; basically saying I haven’t subscribed in 3 years because of price; I would be willing to subscribe again if they will be willing to work on their price.

They’ll probably laugh in my face, but worth a shot.

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by donkhater

Am I the only one not blown away by HD? I see the difference and all, but I just don't find in imperative to have at the higher prices. It's nice, but I don't see it as 'gotta have' like some of you seem to.

I'm an HD snob. Its difficult for me to watch some shows unless its in HD.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by donkhater

Am I the only one not blown away by HD? I see the difference and all, but I just don't find in imperative to have at the higher prices. It's nice, but I don't see it as 'gotta have' like some of you seem to.

Once I got used to watching HD, it kind of sucks to have to watch non-HD, particularly football games.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Brock

Once I got used to watching HD, it kind of sucks to have to watch non-HD, particularly football games.

For movies and sports, you can't beat it.

I have a 46" 1080p HDTV in the den, a 32" 720i HDTV in the bedroom and an old 36" tube TV in the living room. There is nothing wrong the old TV and the screen is certainly big enough, but there's no comparison between it and either of the other TVs. I don't even have a DVD player hooked up to the old one anymore.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by donkhater

Am I the only one not blown away by HD? I see the difference and all, but I just don't find in imperative to have at the higher prices. It's nice, but I don't see it as 'gotta have' like some of you seem to.

HD is like having a parter who's great at sex and loves it: you don't really know what you're missing, until you see the other side constantly, LOL.

Since we have two TVs side-by-side, we'll watch a lot of prime-time stuff on TiVo on the tube set, while on the HD we'll have the sound down and the closed-captioning on and it'll just be tuned to some randomly beautiful cable channel, like Animal Planet, Discovery, Travel, Learning, History, Food Network, etc.,., so we can look over and see some beautiful scenery or wildlife or delicious-looking food plate being cooked. (Food Network in HD is like soft porn.)

HD looks like you're there. Analog looks like shit when compared side-by-side. Now, when I watch sports on the regular TV, I can barely read the score or player info it's so blurry by comparison.

Of course, I'm not paying extra for HD, it's included with the high-tier price for my digital cable. If I had to pay extra for HD, I might enjoy it less...

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by JD10367

Of course, I'm not paying extra for HD, it's included with the high-tier price for my digital cable. If I had to pay extra for HD, I might enjoy it less...

To me, HD on Directv or Dish looks better than cable.

[Dayze]

Originally Posted by BigChiefDave

To me, HD on Directv or Dish looks better cable.

This.

My Father-in-law has Cable HD and consistently comments that he ‘thinks’ my rear projection LCD looks better with DTV than his plasma with cable HD.

Granted, it would be hard to compare the two w/out them being side-by-side. But, I’ve noticed when watching things on his TV they ok…but not great.

Maybe it’s a mind thing.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Dayze

This.

My Father-in-law has Cable HD and consistently comments that he ‘thinks’ my rear projection LCD looks better with DTV than his plasma with cable HD.

Granted, it would be hard to compare the two w/out them being side-by-side. But, I’ve noticed when watching things on his TV they ok…but not great.

Maybe it’s a mind thing.

Well, there are so many variables. My parents in FL have Comcast, and they have a $2,000 1080p LCD huge-incher (50"? 60"?) by LG. And, frankly, I think their picture looks crappier than my 32" 720p. So maybe Comcast has a shittier digital HD signal than Cox, I dunno... or maybe my parents have their TV set up differently in terms of contrast and color and whatnot.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by BigChiefDave

To me, HD on Directv or Dish looks better than cable.

I've never seen DirecTV or Dish in HD, but I would think it also depends on your cable provider (clarity and strength of signal). The advantage to satellite, of course, is that you can get it in the middle of nowhere, but with cable you don't get outages in bad weather. Not sure if bad weather affects satellite's HD clarity...