# Now that the Dispute has Ended what have we Learned?



## PK6301 (May 16, 2012)

Now that Directv and Viacom have come to terms and ended the dispute what have we learned from this?

1) The sun came up every morning..(sometimes it was even too HOT !!! ) No dark clouds covered the earth.

2) Most of our children were able to come up with other viewing choices, or even better they read a book, played outside, used their imagination.

3) The adults realized how much we really did not miss most of the stations, or how little we actually watched them.

4) In my opinion I believe we have gained a some and lost some..In the long run it probably came out equal.

a. My son gained Disney Jr. (he does not care if it is in HD)
b. I might upgrade to gain Sprout (he liked that also)
c. Direct lost some subs due to this dispute (some are really never happy)

5) In the long run time will tell how this all will play out. Now we can put the 115+ page thread to bed.


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

For those of us in the industry, this was a real eye opener. Viacom got humiliated, that's the best way I can state it and the chatter among nearly everyone I speak to that does this for a living.

Humiliated, publicly undressed, you name it. They thought they had the leverage and DTV got what they wanted from what I hear. The channels are back up, they aren't paying anything close to the 30% and if I am a betting man, Epix isn't coming. Meanwhile, Viacom got clobbered in the ratings, have to give make-goods to advertisers, likely lost some of their digital rights and they helped their competition like Disney, Sprout and others gain market share.

WHAT AN ABSOLUTE DEBACLE FOR VIACOM. 

There is no other way to put it. I've also not seen a major programmer act in such a low brow manner as they did. The sniping on both sides was not needed, but especially what Viacom had done. When they altered the video of DTV's CEO Mike White and called him a liar, that is not something you do. The 26 channels BS right from the start was garbage. The comment that DTV was only negotiating 10 minutes a day - knowing a few folks over at Viacom and DTV, that was a bald face lie and Denise Denson should apologize for that rhetoric. Unprofessional. 

The relationship will take some time to heal. Redstone must be fuming.

DTV certainly lost some customers but they came out stronger from this. This was a strategic battle they picked and sends a message to the other majors out there. The message is simple, we can live for a long time without you and we are willing to lose customers. The days of grow grow grow subscribers at all costs are over, we can sustain what you throw at us so think real hard before you do it.

That's my view from inside the television world in talking to friends and colleagues the last few days.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

That's a great sum-up of the situation.

I really can't understand why Viacom took this route. All of our sniping at them here over the past couple of weeks aside, Viacom...like DirecTV...is a major public company and knows how to properly negotiate. The mess, yes, *mess *it created by aiming its characters at children(?), blowing the cover off of the negotiations in the beginning and publicly sniping at DirecTV was nonprofessional at best, reprehensible at worst.

*WHO TOLD THEM THIS WOULD WORK AND WHY HAVEN'T THEY BEEN FIRED?*

Were I a major Viacom stockholder I would be furious. Were I an advertiser I would be demanding major make-goods. Were I a viewer (oh, I am!  ) I would have found something else to watch (oh, I did! )

Other program suppliers will learn the lesson that Viacom has. Don't screw with DirecTV. DirecTV can now go before Congress (yes, expect hearings) in a strong position. And yes, our rates will probably go up.

But the shows will be there for years to come.



ChicagoBlue said:


> The days of grow grow grow subscribers at all costs are over, we can sustain what you throw at us so think real hard before you do it.


An excellent point....DBS is now a mature industry, and all the players need to act as such.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Viacom is one of the most dishonest companies around.

Everything they posted on their website, FB, and Twitter was a lie. They went as far as saying that they were not negotiating anymore.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I think we have learned that the Sat/Cable providers are going to be more willing to play hardball a bit more, which should help in keeping subscription rates from climbing too fast and too high. And I think we have learned that for all the gnashing of teeth we did about the channels not seen, we didn't miss them anywhere near as much as we thought we would.

I think that Direct learned that taking down a fairly big content provider's stations isn't as costly as it might have been thought.

And I think that the other content providers learned, or should have learned, that going very negative and doing childish things is not in their best interest.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"lparsons21" said:


> I think we have learned that the Sat/Cable providers are going to be more willing to play hardball a bit more, which should help in keeping subscription rates from climbing too fast and too high. And I think we have learned that for all the gnashing of teeth we did about the channels not seen, we didn't miss them anywhere near as much as we thought we would.
> 
> I think that Direct learned that taking down a fairly big content provider's stations isn't as costly as it might have been thought.
> 
> And I think that the other content providers learned, or should have learned, that going very negative and doing childish things is not in their best interest.


They picked their battle. Big player but nothing essential to the business on a day-to-day basis. They could not have pulled this with espn. Good choice. Maybe a landmark for the business.


----------



## PK6301 (May 16, 2012)

tonyd79 said:


> They picked their battle. Big player but nothing essential to the business on a day-to-day basis. They could not have pulled this with espn. Good choice. Maybe a landmark for the business.


I doubt that ABC/Disney would pull a stunt like Viacom did.


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

I learned you can get a $15 credit in exchange for losing Viacom channels for a week.

That is the sweetest deal ever. I will call again in in 3 months and offer them the same deal.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

"PK6301" said:


> I doubt that ABC/Disney would pull a stunt like Viacom did.


What stunt?

Disney has significant leverage with ESPN, far more than Viacom ever had. Since, Unlike the Viacom channels, the decision makers at the house who pay the sat bill will care about missing Monday night football, whereas those same decision makers wouldn't be nearly willing to switch providers because their teen cannot watch Jersey Shore.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"PK6301" said:


> I doubt that ABC/Disney would pull a stunt like Viacom did.


Not talking about the tactics but the choice to draw a line in the sand by directv.


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

tonyd79 said:


> Not talking about the tactics but the choice to draw a line in the sand by directv.


Is it really such a great victory that we now have to pay 15% more for some lousy Viacom channels instead of 30% more? I would call that a defeat for us, the customers.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

raott said:


> What stunt?
> 
> Disney has significant leverage with ESPN, far more than Viacom ever had. Since, Unlike the Viacom channels, the decision makers at the house who pay the sat bill will care about missing Monday night football, whereas those same decision makers wouldn't be nearly willing to switch providers because their teen cannot watch Jersey Shore.


Maybe, but don't forget Nick channel is the number 1 rated channel on D*. ESPN is not. Many people do not care about sports one iota. However, to your point, the difference is who is paying the bill...the kids or the parents. Typically you can find something else for the kids to do, parents not so much.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

mitchflorida said:


> Is it really such a great victory that we now have to pay 15% more for some lousy Viacom channels instead of 30% more? I would call that a defeat for us, the customers.


Well, uhm, yes. In my opinion anyway. The reality is the content was going up but instead of going up to the level they wanted, it will not go up as high. All depends how you view things I suppose, but I'd rather pay $3.50 for gas than $4.00. Of course, I'd rather not pay anything for it, but that isn't reasonable.


----------



## John Strk (Oct 16, 2009)

PK6301 said:


> Now that Directv and Viacom have come to terms and ended the dispute what have we learned from this?


...that I really did not miss any of these overrated channels and that our bills will probably see a significant increase next year! :nono2:


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

I learned thet I dont watch any of Viacoms channels.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

DodgerKing said:


> Viacom is one of the most dishonest companies around.
> 
> Everything they posted on their website, FB, and Twitter was a lie. They went as far as saying that they were not negotiating anymore.


Yup, but that's not a surprise. They launched a full on smear campaign so I'm not surprised to find out they were lying the whole time.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> Maybe, but don't forget Nick channel is the number 1 rated channel on D*. ESPN is not. Many people do not care about sports one iota. However, to your point, the difference is who is paying the bill...the kids or the parents. Typically you can find something else for the kids to do, parents not so much.


If, during some future dispute with Disney, the ESPN channels were pulled I seriously doubt that it isn't the #1 channel would hold much water. The torches and pitchforks would come out very quickly and there'd be rioting in the streets.


----------



## Old_School (Nov 29, 2011)

That even after the dispute we seem to still be getting many Viacom threads!:lol:


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

mreposter said:


> If, during some future dispute with Disney, the ESPN channels were pulled I seriously doubt that it isn't the #1 channel would hold much water. The torches and pitchforks would come out very quickly and there'd be rioting in the streets.


OK - who's going to be the first satco/cableco to let ESPN go dark?

The only lesson I can think of would be what happened in New York last winter when Time Warner yanked MSG off its systems for seven weeks, denying Knicks and Rangers telecasts to 3 million subscribers. New York's governor had to intervene in that dispute, according to Bloomberg News. I don't think you will find the president of the United States doing the same thing if ESPN goes dark.

Frankly, I believe this is shaping up to be the doomsday dispute that could do serious -- maybe even historic -- damage to both sides.


----------



## wmj5 (Aug 26, 2007)

I don't like sports one iota, I don't have anything to say about people that do, but I have always said half the stuff on D* is junk and that takes in all of viacom, that is your junk, I would like to see D* come out with a pakage without sports
p.s. I don't know if this is the right place to send a reply or not, if its not would someone please tell me how, it looks like I would know by now.
[email protected] jerry johnson


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

Ira Lacher said:


> don't think you will find the president of the United States doing the same thing if ESPN goes dark.


It depends on who is president at the time and whether it is during the NCAA basketball season


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

Satelliteracer said:


> Well, uhm, yes. In my opinion anyway. The reality is the content was going up but instead of going up to the level they wanted, it will not go up as high. All depends how you view things I suppose, but I'd rather pay $3.50 for gas than $4.00. Of course, I'd rather not pay anything for it, but that isn't reasonable.


Viacom did everything it could to sabotage DTV, including forcing DTV to give millions of dollars away in credits to customers deluging the customer reps.

As I mentioned before, I got $15 to do without Viacom for three months and I would have been fine with a 2 or 3 month outage. DTV had a lot more leverage than they thought and could have driven a much better deal and at lower costs. How many kids who miss Nickelodeon are going to call up DTV to cancel their service? Not too many would care and of course are not authorized to.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

"Ira Lacher" said:


> OK - who's going to be the first satco/cableco to let ESPN go dark?
> 
> The only lesson I can think of would be what happened in New York last winter when Time Warner yanked MSG off its systems for seven weeks, denying Knicks and Rangers telecasts to 3 million subscribers. New York's governor had to intervene in that dispute, according to Bloomberg News. I don't think you will find the president of the United States doing the same thing if ESPN goes dark.
> 
> Frankly, I believe this is shaping up to be the doomsday dispute that could do serious -- maybe even historic -- damage to both sides.


I'd love to see a comeuppance to ESPN. I can't stand what they have done to college sports and I don't like the way they cover and jam down our throats those sports they carry while largely ignoring a sport if they don't carry it (ie watch their afternoon shows and see what topics are covered and which are ignored and compare that to whether ESPN is carrying that sport).

With all I can't stand about ESPN, it is probably still the channel I watch most, because of the content they have. That is unbelievable leverage IMO, a network who I largely can't stand, I still watch.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Satelliteracer said:


> Maybe, but don't forget Nick channel is the number 1 rated channel on D*. ESPN is not. Many people do not care about sports one iota. However, to your point, the difference is who is paying the bill...the kids or the parents. Typically you can find something else for the kids to do, parents not so much.


Nick maybe #1 but it does not bring in close to the revenue that ESPN brings. Even a lower rated ESPN brings in much more revenue to the providers than the higher rated nick. How many bars and restaurants carry DirecTV because of ESPN and not Nick? How much more add revenue and revenue from sporting events does ESPN bring compared to Nick?


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

"raott" said:


> I'd love to see a comeuppance to ESPN. I can't stand what they have done to college sports and I don't like the way they cover and jam down our throats those sports they carry while largely ignoring a sport if they don't carry it (ie watch their afternoon shows and see what topics are covered and which are ignored and compare that to whether ESPN is carrying that sport).
> 
> With all I can't stand about ESPN, it is probably still the channel I watch most, because of the content they have. That is unbelievable leverage IMO, a network who I largely can't stand, I still watch.


You mean like the NHL that they ignore now while acting like every NBA game they ever air is a ***** classic in SC highlights?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

I learned how snobbish people can be with what they watch on TV. Words like trash, garbage & crap to describe content on Viacom channels really showed the arrogance of some posters.


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

Some people do have standards.


----------



## pappy97 (Nov 14, 2009)

I discovered that you can watch the most recent new episode of Degrassi in HD on their website about an hour after it airs up until the next new ep airs...better than watching in SD on TeenNick!


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> I learned how snobbish people can be with what they watch on TV. Words like trash, garbage & crap to describe content on Viacom channels really showed the arrogance of some posters.





mitchflorida said:


> Some people do have standards.


My point is proven.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"sigma1914" said:


> I learned how snobbish people can be with what they watch on TV. Words like trash, garbage & crap to describe content on Viacom channels really showed the arrogance of some posters.


Face it. A lot of what we all watch is trash, garbage & crap. It's just *my* trash, garbage & crap.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

zimm7778 said:


> You mean like the NHL that they ignore now while acting like every NBA game they ever air is a ***** classic in SC highlights?


NHL is on NBC. ESPN is ABC. Of course ESPN will show more highlights from sports for which they have the rights than for sports they have to obtain the rights from another network to show.


----------



## pablo (Oct 11, 2007)

I was hoping we'd get Epix out of this debacle.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

ChicagoBlue said:


> For those of us in the industry, this was a real eye opener. Viacom got humiliated, that's the best way I can state it and the chatter among nearly everyone I speak to that does this for a living.
> 
> Humiliated, publicly undressed, you name it. They thought they had the leverage and DTV got what they wanted from what I hear. The channels are back up, they aren't paying anything close to the 30% and if I am a betting man, Epix isn't coming. Meanwhile, Viacom got clobbered in the ratings, have to give make-goods to advertisers, likely lost some of their digital rights and they helped their competition like Disney, Sprout and others gain market share.
> 
> ...


I completely agree with the assessment above.

From a financial point of view, this was MUCH harder for viacom.

Viacom spent money on radio ads, full-page newspaper ads, and several other ways trying to convince the public that DirecTV is bad.

Viacom will have to pay off a large number of advertisers that expected their products to be shown on-air to DirecTV's 20 million potential viewers during popular (and less popular) shows.

Meanwhile....

DirecTV mainly waged a online war, which is cheap. And if they lost a 1000 customers in total over these last 10 days, I'd say it is a lot. Of course we won't see the numbers, but it won't be anywhere near the amount of money they lost that Viacom has used up and lost in this.

And yes, I think the television industry will have learned from this:

DirecTV is willing to go black for 2 weeks for.... ehm.... lets just say "17 to 26" channels.  But is the next television producer willing to go that far? Now that they know DirecTV isn't going to be bullied into submission, how far are they willing to let things go when their turn to negotiate comes up?


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

sigma1914 said:


> I learned how snobbish people can be with what they watch on TV. Words like trash, garbage & crap to describe content on Viacom channels really showed the arrogance of some posters.


Those are called opinions.

I still think the television produced by Viacom, besides the fact it is geared towards audiences under 25, spread over a number of channels, with exception of Spike and TVLand, is mostly reality garbage and trash that I would never watch. But to each their own, some people like it, I think it is pure trash.

I do believe however, that people are entitled to that opinion, just as they are entitled to proclaim it was the best television since they invented sliced bread.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

I think it could be more far reaching than just directv being tough. It could adjust the balance of who has the upper hand. 

The demands to get paid for programming have gotten out of hand. Satellite and cable companies would be happy to be conduits an make their money for what they do...transmit signal but the content providers started to make it all about the paycheck for the programming so the satellite and cable industry get squeezed. Then they try to be content providers cause that is where the money is going. 

It is all out of kilter and this may not turn it back around but it at least slowed the freight train of companies thinking because they own 1000 reruns of King of the Hill that they are king of the hill.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

We learned that, in no uncertain terms (and consistent with their previous statements), DIRECTV doesn't want anything to do with Epix.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"harsh" said:


> We learned that, in no uncertain terms (and consistent with their previous statements), DIRECTV doesn't want anything to do with Epix.


Guess we will have to save this post for when Epix appears on directv.

Nuance is beyond your ken?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

DodgerKing said:


> Viacom is one of the most dishonest companies around.
> 
> Everything they posted on their website, FB, and Twitter was a lie. They went as far as saying that they were not negotiating anymore.


Thats what I learned, 
Also learned that millionares are never satified!


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

tonyd79 said:


> Satellite and cable companies would be happy to be conduits an make their money for what they do...transmit signal but the content providers started to make it all about the paycheck for the programming so the satellite and cable industry get squeezed.


Well, you can't run a supermarket without groceries to sell. So yes, the content providers do have the upper hand, and probably always will have. That's why HBO, Showtime, etc., which only used to retransmit movies owned by other producers, became producers themselves.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Ira Lacher" said:


> Well, you can't run a supermarket without groceries to sell. So yes, the content providers do have the upper hand, and probably always will have. That's why HBO, Showtime, etc., which only used to retransmit movies owned by other producers, became producers themselves.


It has gotten out of balance though. It should be a symbiotic relationship. Viacom and others (yes, I mean you, mr mickey mouse) have been pushing it to the extreme.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

I learned that I am totally dependent on The Daily Show for a huge portion of my news. I hope they find a way to catch us up with the missed episodes. (before it gets said, on the tv, not the web)


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"armophob" said:


> I learned that I am totally dependent on The Daily Show for a huge portion of my news. I hope they find a way to catch us up with the missed episodes. (before it gets said, on the tv, not the web)


I hope you meant "news" in quotes.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

I hope that the networks learned that playing hard ball hurts them a lot more than it hurts the sat/cable companies and that they don't have anywhere near the leverage they thought they had.

I learned that Dish needs to hire some of DirecTV's negotiators.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

I also learned it's possible to have another thread about the dispute. :lol:


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

tonyd79 said:


> Guess we will have to save this post for when Epix appears on directv.
> 
> Nuance is beyond your ken?


I'm not so sure it will any time soon. DirecTV will have to manage their bandwidth carefully over the next 2 years, and although I very much think that eventually Epix will be carried, I think they will want to wait until they have secured more bandwidth through new satellite launches.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

mdavej said:


> I learned that Dish needs to hire some of DirecTV's negotiators.


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

armophob said:


> I learned that I am totally dependent on The Daily Show for a huge portion of my news.


This may be the saddest and/or most frightening post I've ever read in my years on dbstalk.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

Ira Lacher said:


> Well, you can't run a supermarket without groceries to sell.


On the other hand, you can't sell any advertising if you don't have the viewers to back it up.

And television companies are hit with a double-whammy there.

No carriage: No income from carriage fees.
No carriage: Less income from advertisers. (provided the channel is still carried elsewhere.)

Also: grocery stores also pull certain brands/product lines every so often. If they just don't sell all that well, or a distributor is asking too high a price, they might not carry that brand. But there is still enough brands left to carry to make a profit. And I believe DirecTV would have continued to make a profit, even without Viacom.

Viacom would stand to lose a lot more money with losing DirecTV as a potential audience, especially with their ratings as dismal as they are, and their stock responding to it.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

armophob said:


> I learned that I am totally dependent on The Daily Show for a huge portion of my news. I hope they find a way to catch us up with the missed episodes. (before it gets said, on the tv, not the web)





makaiguy said:


> This may be the saddest and/or most frightening post I've ever read in my years on dbstalk.


Let's just say.....analysis.....and leave it at that! :lol:


----------



## alnielsen (Dec 31, 2006)

I learned I need to jump on the discounts bandwagon before the ride ends.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

armophob said:


> I learned that I am totally dependent on The Daily Show for a huge portion of my news.


I hope you were thinking about news for some reason, and therefore typed that word instead of the word "comedy".


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

maartena said:


> I hope you were thinking about news for some reason, and therefore typed that word instead of the word "comedy".


Sadly it seems like there is a large number of people these days who really do consider The Daily Show and Colbert Report to be news, instead of comedy shows, and form a lot of their opinions based on these shows.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"maartena" said:


> I'm not so sure it will any time soon. DirecTV will have to manage their bandwidth carefully over the next 2 years, and although I very much think that eventually Epix will be carried, I think they will want to wait until they have secured more bandwidth through new satellite launches.


Wait. Aren't you the guy who says there is plenty when we talk about California centric sports channels?


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"maartena" said:


> On the other hand, you can't sell any advertising if you don't have the viewers to back it up.
> 
> And television companies are hit with a double-whammy there.
> 
> ...


I learned that no analogy is perfect. But then again, it is called an analogy not a congruity.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Beerstalker" said:


> Sadly it seems like there is a large number of people these days who really do consider The Daily Show and Colbert Report to be news, instead of comedy shows, and form a lot of their opinions based on these shows.


So? A lot of people form their opinions on Internet forums. <ducking>


----------



## thomas_d92 (Nov 29, 2004)

We learned that Directv caved in and gave Viacom a 20% increase to $600 million a year.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

We learned that DIRECTV didn't cave in and give them a 30% increase.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

"Beerstalker" said:


> Sadly it seems like there is a large number of people these days who really do consider The Daily Show and Colbert Report to be news, instead of comedy shows, and form a lot of their opinions based on these shows.


Still more real news on those shows than anything broadcast by the idiots on Faux News.


----------



## SteveHas (Feb 7, 2007)

Comcrap is still running
"D* lost 26 channels..." radio ads here in Boston

Viacom and Comcrap, a match made in heaven


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

Well, The Daily Show and Colbert Report don't actually fabricate any of the current events they report. That they satirize and lampoon them doesn't make what they started with less factual.

Every "news" channel takes immutable fact and bends it to their agenda. Don't kid yourselves. Fox, NBC News Channel (formerly MSNBC), CNN...they all filter the facts with their own interprative editorial slant.

Are The Daily Show and Colbert Report really so vastly different just because their agenda is to mock and create humor out of current events? They are still starting out with the same "news" as everyone else. You still receive as much factual information.

Facts is facts. Or as Ronald Reagan said "facts are stupid things"


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

I also learned that there was more in play here than just carriage compensation fees.

It seems that by adding the Viacom content to DirecTV Everywhere, etc. and the way that they have gone out of their way to point that out in the reporting of the resolution that there was a significant Digital Rights component to the negotiations.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

Two threads on this and no one has asked, are we getting HD versions of the Viacom channels we don't have in HD? Isn't that typically done at the same time?


----------



## Sea bass (Jun 10, 2005)

I learned that I am with the right provider! Nice job Directv! So where does this leave us with EPIX??? I would really like to see EPIX added...


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

FLWingNut said:


> Two threads on this and no one has asked, are we getting HD versions of the Viacom channels we don't have in HD? Isn't that typically done at the same time?


That might be part of the deal, but DirecTV has never announced HD channels until they are actually up. DirecTV might have the rights to show them, and there might be something in the contract regarding when they will go up, but they would not have gone up overnight, and we will not know they are coming until a few days before they are here.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> My point is proven.


Good thing there are no snobbish Yankee fans.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Face it. A lot of what we all watch is trash, garbage & crap. It's just *my* trash, garbage & crap.


Amen. One man's trash....

FWIW - if you call what I watch trash, I don't care. There is little content, even amongst what I choose to watch, that I would consider "treasure". And there are much bigger concerns in life that what someone else thinks of my choices in television viewing.


----------



## n3vino (Oct 2, 2011)

The real problems, in my opinion, happen when a broadcaster owns a bunch of local channels. Most people don't like losing their local prime time shows on ABC, CBS, NBC. Fox, some can take it or leave it. Here in San Antonio, Fox is a must during football season since they carry most of the Dallas Cowboy games. 

Besides that, broadcasters that own locals have an edge because they own several stations in various cities in the country. Here in S.A., Sinclair Broadcasting is buying our local NBC affiliate. That gives them NBC and Fox affiliates. That's two locals where we would lose signals, not to mention all the other locals in the country that would go dark if any provider such as D*, E*, TW, and other cable companies would let them go dark.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

n3vino said:


> The real problems, in my opinion, happen when a broadcaster owns a bunch of local channels. Most people don't like losing their local prime time shows on ABC, CBS, NBC. Fox, some can take it or leave it. Here in San Antonio, Fox is a must during football season since they carry most of the Dallas Cowboy games.
> 
> Besides that, broadcasters that own locals have an edge because they own several stations in various cities in the country. Here in S.A., Sinclair Broadcasting is buying our local NBC affiliate. That gives them NBC and Fox affiliates. That's two locals where we would lose signals, not to mention all the other locals in the country that would go dark if any provider such as D*, E*, TW, and other cable companies would let them go dark.


Oof. Sinclair loves to do that. They own or run three stations here. And they are very contentious when it comes to agreements with cable/satellite.


----------



## thomas_d92 (Nov 29, 2004)

How can anyone say Directv did a good job when they handed Viacom a 20% increase for their crap channels. I am leaving before my rates go up again for channels I do not watch. If anything Directv should have offered less then the last deal. Over the last month I have watched Directv about 30% of the time and the rest of the time it was Netflix or OTA and sub channels like ME Tv .


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

n3vino said:


> The real problems, in my opinion, happen when a broadcaster owns a bunch of local channels.


I hear that. Our local NBC/MNT owner (Nextar) just bought our Fox and CW stations pending FCC approval. That means one company will own all the channels in town except ABC and CBS.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

makaiguy said:


> This may be the saddest and/or most frightening post I've ever read in my years on dbstalk.


Not really.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

FLWingNut said:


> Two threads on this and no one has asked, are we getting HD versions of the Viacom channels we don't have in HD? Isn't that typically done at the same time?


I thought of the issue _immediately_.


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

It looks like people who have the Choice Package are going to be losing a bunch of Viacom channels. TVLand, Spike, VH1, MTV2 and others. Hopefully it will only apply to new customers,, though.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

tonyd79 said:


> Wait. Aren't you the guy who says there is plenty when we talk about California centric sports channels?


There is bandwidth. But I am basing it only on what Sixto sees, and what he thinks about it.... And from what he sees there are about 13 or 14 slots readily available right now, and IF the 6 HD on 1 transponder can work, there may be a possibility for 10 more or something along those lines.

So sure, if they add everything in the pipeline:

Los Angeles, Houston, New Orleans: 4
PAC 12: 7
EPIX: 3 (one is SD, right?)

That's 14 right there if they were to add all those.

On top of that, they then MAY OR MAY NOT be able to add some HD by doing the 6 HD per transponder trick.....

And who knows, there may still be a dormant transponder on D12 not in use. I know they woke a few up for all these push services at some point.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

FLWingNut said:


> Two threads on this and no one has asked, are we getting HD versions of the Viacom channels we don't have in HD? Isn't that typically done at the same time?


I thought of that. They may have worked that out in the deal, but we'll just have to wait and see. If we see anything, it could very well be months.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

maartena said:


> So sure, if they add everything in the pipeline:
> 
> Los Angeles, Houston, New Orleans: 4
> PAC 12: 7
> EPIX: 3 (one is SD, right?)


I think all Epix (there are 4) are available in HD but no one carries them all in HD. In fact, maybe only Dish carries them all at all.

They could add just one or two Epix HD to start. Two would match what Fios has. And if they put it in the HD Pack or offer it as a lower priced premium, one would suffice. Add more later if it is successful and/or more bandwidth is available.

I don't know why we usually think all or nothing on these things.

A big key would be getting access to the Epix on line library. On Demand and streaming. There is a ton of programming from many, many decades.


----------



## Barry in Conyers (Jan 14, 2008)

Don't know if anything was really learned, but it was very clearly shown that both DirecTV and Viacom are just large money grubbing corporations with no apparent interest in their subscribers and viewers except as a way to feed the cash cows.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Beerstalker said:


> Sadly it seems like there is a large number of people these days who really do consider The Daily Show and Colbert Report to be news, instead of comedy shows, and form a lot of their opinions based on these shows.


True enough.

OTOH, there are some "news" channels that don't provide much real news...

Probably better not to identify them by name...


----------



## Taltizer (Sep 26, 2007)

glad you brought that back up now that comedy central is back on i have to make sure my season passes are set again for my 2 favorite news shows.These are the only reliable news shows on tv today.So thanks for the reminder.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

makaiguy said:


> This may be the saddest and/or most frightening post I've ever read in my years on dbstalk.


I guarantee there are many here that would disagree this is true of just my posts on DBSTalk over all the years.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

thomas_d92 said:


> How can anyone say Directv did a good job when they handed Viacom a 20% increase for their crap channels. I am leaving before my rates go up again for channels I do not watch. If anything Directv should have offered less then the last deal. Over the last month I have watched Directv about 30% of the time and the rest of the time it was Netflix or OTA and sub channels like ME Tv .


Happy trails.


----------



## Taltizer (Sep 26, 2007)

Art7220 said:


> I learned We will still be waiting for Direc to show LA Complex cause they won't carry MuchMusicHD. They must have a 10-50 year rule for certain shows. As in, "Sure we'll show more Canadian Content...in 10 or 50 years".
> 
> Does Direc show anything good?


The CW network started airing season 2 of the La Complex this week check there website for the full episodes they maybe there also.


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

Viacom footprint on programming is larger and much more important than I first thought. Sports may be king to us older guys in the 40 plus range but most companies primarly target consumers in the young (Disney, Nick Jr.) age range and upwardly bound 20 plus groups.(MTV, BET and SPIKE) 

Direct knows this. All the credits and frebbies given by thems shows they wanted to keep us current customers happy until they worked out their numbers with Viacom. A 20% price increase sounds pretty sweet to me. Think if your employer told you he/she was only going to give you a 20% raise instead of a30% pay increase. Would you really be that upset? We're talking almost a 3/4 billion dollars increase.


----------



## Taltizer (Sep 26, 2007)

Taltizer said:


> The CW network started airing season 2 of the La Complex this week check there website for the full episodes they maybe there also.


the LA Complex Season 2:
http://www.cwtv.com/shows/the-la-complex


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> I think all Epix (there are 4) are available in HD but no one carries them all in HD. In fact, maybe only Dish carries them all at all.


Epix 1,2 and 3 are in HD and Epix Drive-In is SD.

The reason I think Epix is off the table is that the DIRECTV announcement specifically noted that Epix was not part of the deal.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

What I've learned is that way too many people get way too excited over television. Take a walk, read a book, sit down and talk with your wife/husband/son/daughter/mother/father/...


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

harsh said:


> Epix 1,2 and 3 are in HD and Epix Drive-In is SD.
> 
> The reason I think Epix is off the table is that the DIRECTV announcement specifically noted that Epix was not part of the deal.


I don't get the impression that it will be available anytime soon. Too many bruised feelings. Maybe in a year or so.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

That even paying TWO providers for service you may still not be able to watch all the channels you want and are paying for due to carriage disputes.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"harsh" said:


> Epix 1,2 and 3 are in HD and Epix Drive-In is SD.
> 
> The reason I think Epix is off the table is that the DIRECTV announcement specifically noted that Epix was not part of the deal.


That is how dish has them. The Epix webpage makes it sound like they are all available in HD. The movies from Drive In are available on demand and they are all HD.


----------



## android.cphone (Jan 11, 2012)

"Laxguy" said:


> Happy trails.


Glad u live in an area with affordable high speed internet and can get locals easily


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

I learned DTV will throw a bunch of $$$ at you if you just ask.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> That is how dish has them.


And since DISH is the only carrier with Epix 3 and Epix Drive-In, that's how they are.


> The Epix webpage makes it sound like they are all available in HD. The movies from Drive In are available on demand and they are all HD.


You answered your own question here.

The Wikipedia article is quite detailed with lots of citations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epix_(TV_channel)


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"harsh" said:


> And since DISH is the only carrier with Epix 3 and Epix Drive-In, that's how they are.You answered your own question here.


That does not mean they are not available. That is just how they are seen.

BBCA had an HD feed for a while that no one used.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> That does not mean they are not available. That is just how they are seen.


It is all academic if DIRECTV maintains their current position on carrying the channels.

DIRECTV's position on BBC America HD is less obvious but it is obviously not a priority.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"harsh" said:


> It is all academic if DIRECTV maintains their current position on carrying the channels.
> 
> DIRECTV's position on BBC America HD is less obvious but it is obviously not a priority.


Everything we post on here except technical info and help is academic. Does that mean you will post less?


----------



## speedy4022 (Jan 26, 2004)

"mitchflorida" said:


> I don't get the impression that it will be available anytime soon. Too many bruised feelings. Maybe in a year or so.


I don't think directv will ever add epix.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

What have we learned?

This too, (fill in the blank), shall pass.

It took less than two weeks. 

I doubt many will remember the next time around, as we impose upon ourselves yet another bout of hand-wringing, hyperbole and near hysteria.

So, what have we learned? Probably not a darn thing.


----------



## onan38 (Jul 17, 2008)

What have i learned, Batter up!

Bruising Blackout: A Prelude?
As DirecTV, Viacom Settle Dispute, Contract Talks Loom for Both Fox and CBS.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577538492034772130.html


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"onan38" said:


> What have i learned, Batter up!
> 
> Bruising Blackout: A Prelude?
> As DirecTV, Viacom Settle Dispute, Contract Talks Loom for Both Fox and CBS.
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577538492034772130.html


Misleading headline. Fox is withComcast. Directv did theirs recently.

But just because Viacom was nasty does not mean CBS or Fox will be. Fox and Directv got to the edge last time but they settled quietly. Viacom has shown they are a bunch of children who lie thinking they will not get caught.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

SteveHas said:


> Comcrap is still running
> "D* lost 26 channels..." radio ads here in Boston
> 
> Viacom and Comcrap, a match made in heaven


Well, we have to give them a break...if Comcrap did a big ad buy, it can take some time to get those ads pulled.


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

I learned there were a lot of people I could put on my Ignore List to greatly improve my reading experience.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"mnassour" said:


> Well, we have to give them a break...if Comcrap did a big ad buy, it can take some time to get those ads pulled.


Hmmm. Not buying that one. They had to have a contingency plan. Or not.


----------



## luckydob (Oct 2, 2006)

"makaiguy" said:


> I learned there were a lot of people I could put on my Ignore List to greatly improve my reading experience.


+1


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

makaiguy said:


> I learned there were a lot of people I could put on my Ignore List to greatly improve my reading experience.


I agree. It is much easier to read the opinions of those who are of like mind then to have to contemplate the thoughts of those who may offer a different view. Makes for a less stressful day.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

makaiguy said:


> I learned there were a lot of people I could put on my Ignore List to greatly improve my reading experience.


+1


----------



## lacubs (Sep 12, 2010)

stop over reacting! DirecTV has everything under control! its may take a few weeks


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

ChicagoBlue said:


> For those of us in the industry, this was a real eye opener. Viacom got humiliated, that's the best way I can state it and the chatter among nearly everyone I speak to that does this for a living.
> 
> Humiliated, publicly undressed, you name it. They thought they had the leverage and DTV got what they wanted from what I hear. The channels are back up, they aren't paying anything close to the 30% and if I am a betting man, Epix isn't coming. Meanwhile, Viacom got clobbered in the ratings, have to give make-goods to advertisers, likely lost some of their digital rights and they helped their competition like Disney, Sprout and others gain market share.
> 
> ...


Funny.. Redstone.. He's the one that basically ripped and kicked in all the trade papers and newspapers at Tom Cruise and Lindsey Lohan for acting like entitled children in public. In fact I think he even yanked Lohan off of a project as I recall.


----------



## lipcrkr (Apr 27, 2012)

I learned that what happened last night in Colorado makes the Viacom dispute meaningless and just lucky to be in this crazy world. We can take many things for granted.....but i'll never take a loved one for granted.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

lipcrkr said:


> I learned that what happened last night in Colorado makes the Viacom dispute meaningless and just lucky to be in this crazy world. We can take many things for granted.....but i'll never take a loved one for granted.


 You may pick any national headline and say the same thing.

It's not going to stop people from living and, yes, giving however much thought to any topics that would pale in comparison. In fact, they couldn't compare.

So, let's continue with _this_ thread topic.&#8230;


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

I learned that contrary to what Viacom and the media would have you believe, 98 percent of DTV subscribers didn't even care about missing Viacom's mostly low-rent cable channels.


----------



## PK6301 (May 16, 2012)

lipcrkr said:


> I learned that what happened last night in Colorado makes the Viacom dispute meaningless and just lucky to be in this crazy world. We can take many things for granted.....but i'll never take a loved one for granted.


+10


----------



## domingos35 (Jan 12, 2006)

we learned that directv doesn't care to keep the prices in check and caves in way to easily.next time Viacom will ask for a 50% increase and directv will give it to them.directv got no balls to stand up against these blood suckers.
don't cry when your bill goes up


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

I have learned that social media, when spinning out of control, can make a major corporation look like it's run by fifteen year olds.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Carl Spock" said:


> I have learned that social media, when spinning out of control, can make a major corporation look like it's run by fifteen year olds.


I don't think commercials on cable channels are considered "social media." Viacom looked like 15 year olds were running it from the get go.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

I was talking about Viacom.

DirecTV often did respond in kind but most of the gutter snipping was started by Viacom. I have no idea if the end deal was good for them financially but in the PR war, they often looked like children.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Carl Spock" said:


> I was talking about Viacom.
> 
> DirecTV often did respond in kind but most of the gutter snipping was started by Viacom. I have no idea if the end deal was good for them financially but in the PR war, they often looked like children.


I understood. I meant that it didn't take social media to make them look childish.


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

Now that we know that DTV will pay 20% more for Viacom programs I would like to learn how much of fee increase it would be on our monthly bill.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...Yrcdtg?docId=254cd0ad0fa949cf98d9120502f5622b


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Alexandrepsf said:


> Now that we know that DTV will pay 20% more for Viacom programs I would like to learn how much of fee increase it would be on our monthly bill.


No one knows at this point, except management, about how much fees will go up, due to this, other programming costs, overhead, and a dozen other items.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Alexandrepsf" said:


> Now that we know that DTV will pay 20% more for Viacom programs I would like to learn how much of fee increase it would be on our monthly bill.
> 
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gXQ6-l4u7lvI28dh9dIlqFYrcdtg?docId=254cd0ad0fa949cf98d9120502f5622b


The increases are planned based with expected fee increases in mind. They anticipated at least somewhere around 10% for Viacom and, if they planned properly, probably planned for a bit more. (even though viacom's ratings are down recently, the contract was 7 years old and below the going rate for viacom's channels).

I don't know but I get the feeling they got a long enough term from the deal that they are comfortable with the increase and it is fixed over the term so it doesn't have to be accounted for in one years increase to the customer. Any increase in year one that was not budgeted for can be handled by pushing other expenditures a bit further out.

Anyway, I would imagine that generally, the annual increases are going to be pretty steady over a number of years and not blip because of one contract increase such as this one. A sudden doubling of the standard rate increase would be bad business and directv does not make many bad business decisions.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

We learned that no matter whether we want it or not, DirecTV will not provide us with Epix.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

I've learned people can focus on a second rate movie channel over most anything else.


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

You can get Epix now included in the $7.95 monthly charge for Netflix. Netflix has to wait 90 days after a movie first appears on Dish or other cable tv provider.

DTV would probably charge the same for the same service on their system.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

tonyd79 said:


> Hmmm. Not buying that one. They had to have a contingency plan. Or not.


Well, that's kind of the way radio works. If it was a local buy on just a few stations it probably could have been pulled. A big national buy on hundreds of stations, not so much. But you have to remember that radio isn't WKRP any longer. Far off offices control what goes over the air in my town, as well as yours.

Getting a spot pulled on a moment's notice can be done...but there are always those that slip through the cracks.



tonyd79 said:


> I don't think commercials on cable channels are considered "social media." Viacom looked like 15 year olds were running it from the get go.


Yessir! Just what I was thinking when I read the original post.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

inkahauts said:


> "... acting like entitled children in public. "


Let's see....what corporation does that remind us of?

But what have I learned...? That it's only television.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

One more thing on Epix: who says it can't be added later? This is the carriage agreement. A separate agreement on Epix could come later. DirecTV might have thought the price Viacom wanted for it right now was too much.


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

zimm7778 said:


> You mean like the NHL that they ignore now while acting like every NBA game they ever air is a ***** classic in SC highlights?


Sour grapes, because they tried to lowball the NHL and NBC turned a good profit on it. ESPN, in my humble opinion, is not near as good, as it was 5 or 10 years ago. It's disappointing, having all of the different variations of ESPN and allot of it goes to waste on filler. I'd have no problem dropping it, if it saved me a few bucks a month.


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

Carl Spock said:


> One more thing on Epix: who says it can't be added later? This is the carriage agreement. A separate agreement on Epix could come later. DirecTV might have thought the price Viacom wanted for it right now was too much.


Viacom should put it on free, for 3 months and see how many people would pay for it, if they were satisfied. Put a $7.00 price on it and make it a standalone. I would like to see it, before passing judgement on it. As it sits now, I will not see it, so I will never be able to buy into it.


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

Carl Spock said:


> One more thing on Epix: who says it can't be added later? This is the carriage agreement. A separate agreement on Epix could come later. DirecTV might have thought the price Viacom wanted for it right now was too much.


Is this channel just one, or a number of channels, like Encore?


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"PrinceLH" said:


> Sour grapes, because they tried to lowball the NHL and NBC turned a good profit on it. ESPN, in my humble opinion, is not near as good, as it was 5 or 10 years ago. It's disappointing, having all of the different variations of ESPN and allot of it goes to waste on filler. I'd have no problem dropping it, if it saved me a few bucks a month.


They've done the same with the Big Ten. Subtly bash it since BTN chose Fox Sports over espn for its network partnership. No accident that the espn super pumping of the sec coincided with their contract to syndicate sec sports.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"PrinceLH" said:


> Is this channel just one, or a number of channels, like Encore?


It is a suite of four channels though I think only dish offers all four. Some services only offer one.


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> They've done the same with the Big Ten. Subtly bash it since BTN chose Fox Sports over espn for its network partnership. No accident that the espn super pumping of the sec coincided with their contract to syndicate sec sports.


I remember when ESPN went HD. It was fabulous. Couldn't get enough if it. Then ESPN News came on and was a 24 hour headline format, it was great also. Then they decided to become lord and master of the Sportsworld, dictating terms, using the big stick to put properties in their place. They really need to get back to basics.

I remember when NBC had the Saturday afternoon baseball game of the week, with Curt Goudy and Tony Kubek. Back then, we had no chance of seeing every game, of our favourite teams. We always anticipated, seeing the best game of an important series. Now we have access to almost every game imaginable. It's killed the fun of the penent race. ESPN unknowingly has oversatuated the market with too much of a good thing. That and the idiotic MLB setup off a luxury tax, has made 2/3rd's of the league redundant. Revenue sharing has killed MLB and ESPN had a hand in it. You've also made reference to the Big 10. ESPN is actually hurting sports, right now.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"PrinceLH" said:


> I remember when ESPN went HD. It was fabulous. Couldn't get enough if it. Then ESPN News came on and was a 24 hour headline format, it was great also. Then they decided to become lord and master of the Sportsworld, dictating terms, using the big stick to put properties in their place. They really need to get back to basics.
> 
> I remember when NBC had the Saturday afternoon baseball game of the week, with Curt Goudy and Tony Kubek. Back then, we had no chance of seeing every game, of our favourite teams. We always anticipated, seeing the best game of an important series. Now we have access to almost every game imaginable. It's killed the fun of the pennat race. ESPN unknowingly has oversatuated the market with too much of a good thing. That and the idiotic MLB setup off a luxury tax, has made 2/3rd's of the league redundant. Revenue sharing has killed MLB and ESPN had a hand in it. You've also made reference to the Big 10. ESPN is actually hurting sports, right now.


Totally agree with the last statement. Overhyping of everything. Pack mentality on everything. No real analysis. Just hype, hype, hype. Players now try to make the highlights rather than play good ball.

Gee. We sound old.


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> It is a suite of four channels though I think only dish offers all four. Some services only offer one.


I might be interested in that, if the movies were good and they didn't do as many repeats. I like Encore, but not all of their movie channels are in HD. That's a turnoff and I wish that they would get with it, making HD feeds available, especially the Westerns Channel.


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> Totally agree with the last statement. Overhyping of everything. Pack mentality on everything. No real analysis. Just hype, hype, hype. Players now try to make the highlights rather than play good ball.
> 
> Gee. We sound old.


Yes, old, but with age comes wisdom. I miss the old days, when players played hard, taking no quarter to their opponent. I miss the old days, when players like Pete Rose would kill someone to score a run. Still remember the Allstar game, when he tried to kill Ray Fosse, in extra innings, in a nothing game. Also remember some of the great old football players who played dirty and played hard. Good old fashioned hate. Hockey had become the last great hope, for this kind of emotion. The powers that be, have tried to sanitize it, by taking the passion out of the game. It's starting to resemble soccer on ice and I can do without that.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

I learned I can get everything off USENET without any guilt (or commercials ) since I pay for it.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

TBlazer07 said:


> I learned I can get everything off USENET without any guilt (or commercials ) since I pay for it.


Usenet, really? Could you please tell us how? Or did you mean the internet?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Usenet, really? Could you please tell us how? Or did you mean the internet?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

Old school newsgroups.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"RunnerFL" said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
> 
> Old school newsgroups.


Kind of the forgotten back alley, but generally safe neighborhood as long as you have AV.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Kind of the forgotten back alley, but generally safe neighborhood as long as you have AV.


Yup, and not many providers still have USENET servers either. I remember when this was how people discussed things instead of arguing on forums like this.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

mitchflorida said:


> I learned you can get a $15 credit in exchange for losing Viacom channels for a week.
> 
> That is the sweetest deal ever. I will call again in in 3 months and offer them the same deal.


Why?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

RunnerFL said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
> 
> Old school newsgroups.


I see you're being helpful, but I am a long time participant on usenet, and my question was of Tblazer.


----------



## PK6301 (May 16, 2012)

After 2+ days of having the Viacom channels back, I have watched 0 minutes of their programming.. If USA network were to go dark then I would be MAD !!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> I see you're being helpful, but I am a long time participant on usenet, and my question was of Tblazer.


Is this an inside joke?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RunnerFL said:


> Yup, and not many providers still have USENET servers either. I remember when this was how people discussed things instead of arguing on forums like this.


Must be a different USENET than I remember ... lots of people abusing each other verbally. Moderated groups were good ... but most of the alt.* world was a cesspool --- at least it was when I finally gave up on "abusenet" in 2002. (And to think I actually paid for access because my ISP's servers were not good enough to make sure one got the whole conversation.)


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

harsh said:


> Is this an inside joke?


I doubt it.

You do have, however, outstanding questions I have posed of you, in threads you seem to have ignored recently.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

RunnerFL said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
> 
> Old school newsgroups.


 And done in VERY 21st century ways these days. They even have Usenet software DVR's! A bit too complex for me although it did get Daily Show & Colbert for me.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

RunnerFL said:


> Yup, and not many providers still have USENET servers either. I remember when this was how people discussed things instead of arguing on forums like this.


 Very true, but now there are hundreds of dedicated Usenet providers so you don't need to deal with your ISP. You obviously haven't checked it out recently. The difference is, it isn't free, but it's real cheap.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

James Long said:


> Must be a different USENET than I remember ... lots of people abusing each other verbally. Moderated groups were good ... but most of the alt.* world was a cesspool --- at least it was when I finally gave up on "abusenet" in 2002. (And to think I actually paid for access because my ISP's servers were not good enough to make sure one got the whole conversation.)


 Wayyyyy different. Haven't looked at an "abusegroup" in decades.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> I doubt it.


Since you're claiming that you're not engaged in making an example of TBlazer07, your usenet experience has decided limitations. Lots of current video programming is available there. Maybe not all of the latest Comedy Central "news" reports but a lot of the stuff that shows up as torrents is also available on usenet. There have been a couple of copies of a blockbuster that debuted in American theaters last week show up in the last day or so.

I don't advocate or condone this as a regular source of entertainment, but it is there nonetheless.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

When I raised the question of TBlazer saying he was able to get "everything from usenet", it's because you simply can't get everything there. Some might be able to download some shows from some groups, but it's an arcane and tedious process. 

And, yes, usenet is as contentious as ever, but with far less trolls than a few years ago. (probably because access is now mostly paid).


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> I've learned people can focus on a second rate movie channel over most anything else.


It is the only Viacom channel I have any interest in.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> I see you're being helpful, but I am a long time participant on usenet, and my question was of Tblazer.


If you're a "long time participant" then you know how to use it so why ask unless you're just trying to start an argument?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

TBlazer07 said:


> Very true, but now there are hundreds of dedicated Usenet providers so you don't need to deal with your ISP. You obviously haven't checked it out recently. The difference is, it isn't free, but it's real cheap.


No, it's been quite a while since I checked out newsgroups. I just really haven't had the time.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> When I raised the question of TBlazer saying he was able to get "everything from usenet", it's because you simply can't get everything there. Some might be able to download some shows from some groups, but it's an arcane and tedious process.
> 
> And, yes, usenet is as contentious as ever, but with far less trolls than a few years ago. (probably because access is now mostly paid).


Yup, just trying to start an argument. I shouldn't be surprised.

I took TBlazer's "everything" to mean everything he needed not everything under the sun.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> When I raised the question of TBlazer saying he was able to get "everything from usenet", it's because you simply can't get everything there.


I think you would be surprised to see the changes to using usenet that have come about recently. Don't ignore the usenet DVR that TBlazer07 brought up. usenet binaries aren't about uudecode and munpack anymore.

Again, I'm not (nor is TBlazer07) asserting that usenet is the all-encompassing solution, but it is a surprisingly comprehensive alternative if your first line goes down. usenet is still about finding an oasis in a vast desert.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

RunnerFL said:


> Yup, and not many providers still have USENET servers either. I remember when this was how people discussed things instead of arguing on forums like this.


It has moved to its own 3d party service. I have a $10-a-month Usenet account, and whenever I need something the DVR missed.... it will be there, and download at the full speed of my internet connection. (which is 24 Mbps atm).


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

Laxguy said:


> When I raised the question of TBlazer saying he was able to get "everything from usenet", it's because you simply can't get everything there. Some might be able to download some shows from some groups, but it's an arcane and tedious process.
> 
> And, yes, usenet is as contentious as ever, but with far less trolls than a few years ago. (probably because access is now mostly paid).


Usenet is no longer "arcane and tedious". Ever heard of NZB files? Download a client like SABNZBd, it will be a web-based tool just running on the background, and then you can use a NZB index site, just search something, and with 1 or 2 clicks it will download it from the usenet server you subscribe to. A ".nzb" file is to usenet what a ".torrent" file is to BitTorrent.

"Everything" is a rather loaded statement of course, you can't get "Everything" from any media and/or provider and/or technology and/or you-name-it. The statement would be more correct if it is "Everything I like to watch".


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Laxguy said:


> When I raised the question of TBlazer saying he was able to get "everything from usenet", it's because you simply can't get everything there. Some might be able to download some shows from some groups, but it's an arcane and tedious process.
> 
> And, yes, usenet is as contentious as ever, but with far less trolls than a few years ago. (probably because access is now mostly paid).


I beg to differ. First of all, you have zero contact with any of the usenet groups. I haven't seen a usenet group since the 90's. As I said, you can get virtually every OTA and cable network TV show within hours after it has been aired (and sometimes sooner because many are recorded in Canada earlier). Well, let me clarify that a bit since *I obviously haven't tried to watch "every" TV show that has been on,* but if there is one you missed from a major network you can be almost 100% certain it will be there going back at least a season or more depending on your usenet providers retention capacity.You can also select with or without DD5.1.

As for being "an arcane and tedious process," if you have the proper tools it takes 3 simple steps and (not counting download time) a matter of 2 minutes. It's much easier than setting up a SL on a DVR. So easy that I talked my wife through getting a show for me I forgot to record record it while away. Her computer knowledge is limited to a Google search. You obvioulsy either haven't tried it recenly or simply don't have the proper tools.

Since I pay for all the channels I have no feelings of guilt taking them off the 'net.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

maartena said:


> "Everything" is a rather loaded statement of course, you can't get "Everything" from any media and/or provider and/or technology and/or you-name-it. The statement would be more correct if it is "Everything I like to watch".


 Of course you are correct, but more like "Everything I like to watch and more."  I'd bet it's pretty close to "every cable & ota network's prime time series lineup for at least a season or more."

I've been using a "$10/month" provider for about 5 years but am considering switching to a "non-expiring block purchase." For my infrequent use it seems to be a lot more efficient. I probably could have had 5 years worth of data for less than what I have been paying per year.


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

armophob said:


> I agree. It is much easier to read the opinions of those who are of like mind then to have to contemplate the thoughts of those who may offer a different view. Makes for a less stressful day.


Can't tell if this is a straight or sarcastic response.

I have no problem with different views. I DO have a problem with the same people repeating the same stuff over and over and over. I've plonked quite a few of these folks, on both sides of the issue, lately.

Now if there were just a way to automatically block any post containing the phrase "As I've said before" ...


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

makaiguy said:


> Can't tell if this is a straight or sarcastic response.


Exactly


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

harsh said:


> I think you would be surprised to see the changes to using usenet that have come about recently. Don't ignore the usenet DVR that TBlazer07 brought up. usenet binaries aren't about uudecode and munpack anymore.
> 
> Again, I'm not (nor is TBlazer07) asserting that usenet is the all-encompassing solution, but it is a surprisingly comprehensive alternative if your first line goes down. usenet is still about finding an oasis in a vast desert.


I especially like that last sentence.

And, yeah, I should have stated I have no interest in using a web based service to find binary files on usenet. For that access you've got to pay, unless you have a rare ISP.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

RunnerFL said:


> Yup, just trying to start an argument. I shouldn't be surprised.


Actually, I was looking for clarification from TBlaz, and I got it. He pays a lot for binary access, and has a web based method for finding what he wants. 
Also got useful info for others, whereas you posted a link to a Wiki article.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Laxguy said:


> Usenet, really? Could you please tell us how? Or did you mean the internet?


What with all the asides and some blather, I just want to say thanks for the thorough replies that you and others have provided.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> When I raised the question of TBlazer saying he was able to get "everything from usenet", it's because you simply can't get everything there. Some might be able to download some shows from some groups, but it's an arcane and tedious process.





Laxguy said:


> And, yeah, I should have stated I have no interest in using a web based service to find binary files on usenet. For that access you've got to pay, unless you have a rare ISP.


The point I'm trying to make is that you're statements have been pretty far off base. You claimed to be quite familiar with usenet but it is apparent that you're not. You speak of the entirety of usenet being clogged with contentious discussions and that's not true. You say that finding and grabbing binaries is arcane and tedious and it isn't. You also assert that there isn't much there to be had and that's not true either.

Not every ISP has given up on usenet. I have a couple of accounts that offer high reliability usenet feeds (Calweb and Earthlink).

Whether you have an interest in going through a particular process (that you seem quite unfamiliar with) does not determine what can be done. Life is more fun if you're looking for ways to get things done as opposed to declaring them unimportant because you can't be bothered to learn about them.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> When I raised the question of TBlazer saying he was able to get "everything from usenet", it's because you simply can't get everything there. Some might be able to download some shows from some groups, but it's an arcane and tedious process.





Laxguy said:


> And, yeah, I should have stated I have no interest in using a web based service to find binary files on usenet. For that access you've got to pay, unless you have a rare ISP.





harsh said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that you're statements have been pretty far off base. You claimed to be quite familiar with usenet but it is apparent that you're not. You speak of the entirety of usenet being clogged with contentious discussions and that's not true. You say that finding and grabbing binaries is arcane and tedious and it isn't. You also assert that there isn't much there to be had and that's not true either.
> 
> Not every ISP has given up on usenet. I have a couple of accounts that offer high reliability usenet feeds (Calweb and Earthlink).
> 
> Whether you have an interest in going through a particular process (that you seem quite unfamiliar with) does not determine what can be done. Life is more fun if you're looking for ways to get things done as opposed to declaring them unimportant because you can't be bothered to learn about them.


Well said Harsh! (never thought I'd ever say that and yes, it hurt :lol


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

The only thing we have learned is that of the two satellite television service providers, DirecTV has proven yet again that it is more capable.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

This is not a discussion about usenet. Take it to PM. From this point on discuss the topic, NOT each other.

:backtotop

Mike


----------

