Switch from DirecTV to Dish Network?

[Done A Ton]

I've had DirecTV for several years. My plan started out at under thirty dollars and is now over fifty dollars per month. I'm always seeing ads for good deals for new customers only, including DVRs. No good deals for existing customers. I'm thinking about switching to dish network, which also offers good deals to new customers, including DVRs. Anyone here who has used both services have any opinions on how the two compare? Thanks.

[Mister Charlie]

I switched some years ago, both services are really about the same. However, when I bailed from Direct the rep said that had I asked for the 3 free setup (which was one reason I was jumping to Dish) they would have matched it.

So if you want to avoid all the hassle, assuming you have no other issues with DirectTv, go ahead and tell them you are leaving for this better deal, and let them match it first. Could save all the re-installation grief.

As to channels, etc. , in some ways Direct Tv was better, in some ways Dish Tv is. Dish is in a battle with TIVO over their dvr's, so there is a possibility that Dish may have to ultimately pay a lot to TIVO for 'borrowing' their technology. Which would likely mean a huge rate hike for customers. Direct TV already has a deal with TIVO over the dvr's, one less thing to worry about.

[Evan L]

Dish Network is awesome. I think it's the best satellite tv service provider.

Evan

[audiomixer]

Are either of these better than a good HD cable feed? My Time Warner HD looks really awesome...just like a Blu-ray disc.

[signothetimes53]

Dish Network is awesome. I think it's the best satellite tv service provider.

Evan

What makes it better?

I'm genuinely curious, and I'm thinking about dumping my cable.

I used to have DirecTV standard until about 4 years ago, then took Comcast for the package deal with high speed internet.

Now that I have a high def TV, Comcast's HD offerings absolutely stink, both in terms of # of channels, and especially because the HD quality is badly compromised by their lousy engineering standards.

[Evan L]

1)Better channel choices(over 200)
2)Local channels available(such as WCAX, WPTZ, etc)
3)Less storm-related problems with losing the signal
4)Better customer service if there are any probs
5)Better music-only channels(okay, it's only Sirius, but still)

It truly is a better deal for the money then what Comcast offers locally here, Sign.

I can't comment on the HD offerings as I haven't seen them however.


Evan

[Doug Sclar]

Well I'm very pro Directv, but I get a nice commission check from them every month, so I guess I should disqualify myself.

I will say this. I've seen hundreds of installations, and I've seen far more issues with Dishnet than Directv. My neighbor has a Dishnet system and often gets the 'searching for satellite' error message.

[jojopuppyfish]

I have the Dish......love it. I hate cable.
One reason I got Dish over Directv is that I knew they would come here and install it quicker.
Plus, I like the subscription packages.

[sadie]

We've not had a problem with DishNetwork. I understand they are fairly similar to Direct though we have had friends that had problems with Direct.

Sadie

[Doug Sclar]

We've not had a problem with DishNetwork. I understand they are fairly similar to Direct though we have had friends that had problems with Direct.

Sadie

Customer service pretty much sucks for both of them. OTOH if you have no problems you'll never have to deal with either of them.

There are not that many differences between the two, though the quality varies from channel to channel. One channel may look better on Dish and another may look better on Directv.

I think Directv has more overall channels, especially in HD, but Dishnet has a nice slate of international channels which you can't get from Directv. Dishnet took over many of the Zoom HD channels, but now Directv has nearly 100 HD chanels, so it's nip and tuck to know who will end up with the most.

I'd recommend Directv for personal reasons because I want them to have a long happy life, but you could probably flip a coin to decide what is best for you.

[Tuco]

I had Direct for several years, but switched to Dish back in 2005/6 for the better selection of HD. In the last year, I've had a lot of "lost signal" problems with several of my HD channels. Also, I'm a subscriber to the NHL "Center Ice" package, and there's little doubt that they are not assigning enough bandwidth to those channels; the SD pictures are anything from average to awful.

Is Direct better? I don't know at this time, but I'm getting ready to research a switch.

[howlinrock]

My contract with Direct TV is up June 3. I had a period of (approx) 45 days with no HD (they said it was a transponder 2 of the 5) and they told me it would be a service call of at least $77 to fix and they also tried to sell me a monthy service plan. I told them to shove it... as they don't stand behind the gear they lease.

Then surprisingly two weeks later my HD broadcasts reappeared. I figured it was the satellite and they gave me $5 off a month (for 3) after complaining. My bill is now $56 a month. I want to change for a better deal with a HD DVR after my contract expires.

Any more suggestions to those already posted?

Thanks
John

[JMT]

I've been a DISH subscriber for about 4 years and recently switched to WAVE Broadband cable. DishTV was not bad, but one thing I wanted was the Golf Channel and I could not get that through Dish without subscribing to their high end package at $99 per month. They would not, or could not give me that channel only. I also wanted to upgrade my HD receiver to an HD DVR, they were going to charge me $199 up front to upgrade and lease the DVR for an additional $10 per month.

I now get the Golf Channel and have the DVR with no up front cost. I pay the same month rate as I was with DISH as well. The downside is that the number of HD channels is less, but out of the 5 or so that I do not receive the only one I really miss is TLC-HD.

[BZync]

I'd say they are equal, but there is one crucial difference. The Dish Network DVR does not have a feature equivalent to season pass (this is part of the litigation with TiVo). That was a deal breaker for me.

What is Direct TV's "season pass". If it is plugging in a show & having the DVR follow it if it changes schedules, Dish has it.

We've had Dish for a few years and have been pretty happy with it. About six months ago we upgraded to HD service. Not all HD channels are equal. Some look amazing. Some are just okay. And, unfortunately, some show "square" films stretched to fill up the widescreen ration.

In general, the HD programming is of a satisfying quality.

[LeeS]

I've been very, very happy with DirectTV. I have had really good customer service; they lead in the consumer surveys like JD Power:

http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2007137

[BZync]

My understanding is that the new DVR's don't do that anymore. And that that is the crux of the TiVo lawsuit.

Wow. Then I must have gotten in right at the end of that feature being offered.

[therockman]

I have Dish, I have had Dish since 1998, I have 33 HDTV channells, I really like it.

[RDK]

I have Dish and love it, but right now Direct offers more HD choices (that will hopefuly soon change).

[Doug Sclar]

I have Dish and love it, but right now Direct offers more HD choices (that will hopefuly soon change).

Well this has been a great year for HD on Directv. I am now getting the Padres games in HD. All in all there are over 100 HD channels if you count the sports channels which are not necessarily full time.

The Directv Extra Innings package started a few years back, but it did not include any San Diego broadcasts. That was because the SD broadcasts were done by Cox Cable and they are the arch enemies of satellite. What happened was they wanted to carry the Extra Innings package on their cable offerings, but Directv said no way Jose, unless you contribute your broadcasts to the overall package.

Well last year I started seeing some Ch 4 Padres broadcasts but they were not in HD. This year they are. I don't get them all, mind you. I do get the Padre games, but sometimes they're the SD broadcasts and sometimes they're the visiting team's broadcasts.

You wouldn't believe some of the things I've done in the past to get Padre broadcasts. I am now in heaven.

[therockman]

I have Dish and love it, but right now Direct offers more HD choices (that will hopefuly soon change).



How many HD channells does Direct offer?

[RDK]

How many HD channells does Direct offer?

That's really a loaded question because of all the locals and regional sports channels they toss into the mix. For most of the last 2-3 years, Dish had many more HD chanels than Direct; then Direct launched a new satellite and added dozens of channels to surpass Dish in quantity. But now Dish is planning (in a month or two) to add another dozen or two channels to regain parity if not the lead.

[RDK]

Check out the numerous threads about this at avsforum.com

[jpbarn]

Well this has been a great year for HD on Directv. I am now getting the Padres games in HD. All in all there are over 100 HD channels if you count the sports channels which are not necessarily full time.

The Directv Extra Innings package started a few years back, but it did not include any San Diego broadcasts. That was because the SD broadcasts were done by Cox Cable and they are the arch enemies of satellite. What happened was they wanted to carry the Extra Innings package on their cable offerings, but Directv said no way Jose, unless you contribute your broadcasts to the overall package.

Well last year I started seeing some Ch 4 Padres broadcasts but they were not in HD. This year they are. I don't get them all, mind you. I do get the Padre games, but sometimes they're the SD broadcasts and sometimes they're the visiting team's broadcasts.

You wouldn't believe some of the things I've done in the past to get Padre broadcasts. I am now in heaven.

Doug, how likely is it that channels that are somewhat marginal in US viewership (FSC & Setanta) wind up making the switch to HD? Is it an unjustifiable expense? Football/soccer is shown in England in hi-def, but here we get the sides lopped off & a picture quality that sometimes reminds me of watching satellite broadcasts from the early '70s. I'm constantly bugging Setanta about this, & they never give me a clear answer.

Thanks

[Doug Sclar]

Doug, how likely is it that channels that are somewhat marginal in US viewership (FSC & Setanta) wind up making the switch to HD? Is it an unjustifiable expense? Football/soccer is shown in England in hi-def, but here we get the sides lopped off & a picture quality that sometimes reminds me of watching satellite broadcasts from the early '70s. I'm constantly bugging Setanta about this, & they never give me a clear answer.

Thanks

Gosh, I don't have a clue. I've never heard of Setanta, but I looked it up and it appears to be a European sports channel.

Well sports seem a natural fit for HD. I know watching the baseball and basketball games in HD is much more like being there. Each regional sports network wants to have them. It doesn't seem like that much of an expense for Directv to show them in HD. The expense seems to be for the individual channels to produce them.

I have noticed that a few of the Directv HD RSN channels do take the standard feed and stretch it to fit to the 16x9 aspect ratio. Those don't look very good, but at least they have a clearer transmission path so there are less digital artifacts. Once again, this is the first year of baseball season where we have most all of the RSN's in HD and it is just wonderful if you ask me. :D

[JA Fant]

Stick w/ DirecTV.