# DirecTV/Viacom Dispute?



## danpeters

So, I was just flipping through channels and when I stopped on Nick, I happened to see a crawl at the bottom of the screen.

It states:

Attention DirecTV Customers - Call 1-800-531-5000 Now!
Tomorrow Night, DirecTV will drop this and 25 other channels.
You will lose Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central, BET, VH1, Spike, TV Land and many more. You can stop them! Call now and demand that DirecTV keep these channels on the air. You must be at least 18 years old to call.

This is the first I've heard about any DirecTV/Viacom dispute and haven't seen the crawl on any other Viacom channels. Also, I would assume that the crawl would have started running prior to the night before.

Any one have any information on this?

Dan


----------



## jcrout

Dan, the only thing I'm finding on the 'net is Viacom's blog slamming DirecTV for dropping these channels. Common sense tells me since Viacom is the one running the info on the blog as well as the screen call, this is a last-ditch effort to get the pressure on DirecTV to meet their demands for pricing, particularly with their claim that they comprise 20% of DirecTV's viewing. My gut instinct tells me that DirecTV likely serves more than 20% of Viacom's customers, though, so I don't know how this will play out.

Over/under on stations going away? I'm gonna take about 3 days.


----------



## smitmor

This is the website Viacom has set up concerning the dispute. So far, not a peep from DirecTV.

http://whendirectvdrops.com/


----------



## wahooq

BOOM>...the first volley


----------



## danpeters

Now there is a DirecTV-inserted crawl on Nick that says:

"It's unlikely but Viacom could suspend this channel on July 11. Please see DIRECTVpromise.com. Viacom, who owns this channels, wants you to pay 30% more ($1 billion extra) to get the same networks without any choice."


----------



## smitmor

I kind of get the feeling DirecTV got blindsided by Viacom on this one.


----------



## cjrleimer

I think someone has some explaining to do as to why there was no notice on this. This is inexcusable by both sides.


----------



## danpeters

smitmor said:


> I kind of get the feeling DirecTV got blindsided by Viacom on this one.


That's likely have since they don't even have anything up on directvpromise.com yet regarding this.


----------



## Bmayes04

cjrleimer said:


> I think someone has some explaining to do as to why there was no notice on this. This is inexcusable by both sides.


This! Usually Dtv is good about getting info out. If true, this puts a huge hit on my confidence in them for lack of communication.


----------



## Davenlr

smitmor said:


> I kind of get the feeling DirecTV got blindsided by Viacom on this one.


And Viacom failed to note the fate of AMC's suite of channels with DISH. I really wondered how long the providers were going to keep caving. Adios Viacom. PS...Play music on MTV some time.


----------



## loudo

It is like a war going on, with the banners from both sides and the commercials about DirecTV shutting everything off. There is so much on the screen, it is hard to see the shows.


----------



## cjrleimer

Bmayes04 said:


> This! Usually Dtv is good about getting info out. If true, this puts a huge hit on my confidence in them for lack of communication.


I agree, and my sister watches Nick religiously. I am going to call them and ask where was the communication? I mean this is unprofessional at its best.


----------



## smitmor

Before the night is over there will probably be a permanent Viacom banner at the bottom of the channel & a DirecTV banner running simultaneously at the top.


----------



## loudo

smitmor said:


> Before the night is over there will probably be a permanent Viacom banner at the bottom of the channel & a DirecTV banner running simultaneously at the top.


 The DirecTV one is under the Viacom one, covering about a quarter of the screen,when both are on.


----------



## cjrleimer

http://blog.viacom.com/2012/07/directv-to-drop-26-viacom-channels-at-midnight-on-tuesday-july-10/ it was suppose to expire June 30th, still its a lack of unprofessionalism on both sides.


----------



## Jacob Braun

One thing though...DirecTV is fantastic with negotiations. You usually never even know when they're going on, unlike Dish Network which yanks channels all the time and for extended periods (FX was six months, YES, SNY, MSG have been gone for...two years?). The Tribune dispute lasted a week before they came back online.


----------



## cjrleimer

If I didnt have two more months to fullfil, I would be bolting, but since I do well I may just suspend service possibly, and temporarily go to charter.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

If D* does keep these channels, they better be offered and get every available HD feed Viacom has.


----------



## Bmayes04

According to DTV rep I spoke with in the phone, they were in fact blindsided by the Viacom scroll, and threats to pull channels. Just more positioning in contract negotiations. She also said the directv promise site would be updated soon.


----------



## smitmor

These dueling banners are like he-said-she-said.


----------



## wahooq

Bmayes04 said:


> According to DTV rep I spoke with in the phone, they were in fact blindsided by the Viacom scroll, and threats to pull channels. Just more positioning in contract negotiations. She also said the directv promise site would be updated soon.


+1


----------



## Mark Holtz

Waitasec.... does one of the Viacom channels show that Snookie show from the shores of Jersey? 

PULL DIRECTV PULL THE CHANNEL!!!!!!!


----------



## cjrleimer

Bmayes04 said:


> According to DTV rep I spoke with in the phone, they were in fact blindsided by the Viacom scroll, and threats to pull channels. Just more positioning in contract negotiations. She also said the directv promise site would be updated soon.


Im talking with them right now, and Im wondering what the hell is going on? I think we may be getting credits apalooza which would be nice for people like me that are trying to compensate for Sunday Ticket.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Does anyone have a complete list of the 26 channels?


----------



## loudo

That is a little greedy on behalf of Viacom. They want a 30% increase and people that were lucky to get an increase in their pay, maybe got 3%. Most fixed or retires incomes that have a cost of living clause, might get a 3% increase in their checks. I would be glad to give them 30%, increase, if I got a 30% increase in my pay.


----------



## Sixto

Always find these spats interesting. Shame that there's not some way to make the content provider pricing more transparent to the end consumer to let the public decide what's a fair price.

And with the newer technologies they may be haggling over some other terms as well.


----------



## Mark Holtz

Sometime between 2003 and 2005, there was a massive no-holds-barred fight between Dish and Viacom where there were crawls in the middle of the screen followed by Dish Network quickly blacking it out. It was very annoying for those of us with DirecTV and other providers. 

Of course, I would remember this... I was a moderator back then.


----------



## Davenlr

loudo said:


> That is a little greedy on behalf of Viacom. They want a 30% increase and people that were lucky to get an increase in their pay, maybe got 3%. Most fixed or retires incomes that have a cost of living clause, might get a 3% increase in their checks. I would be glad to give them 30%, increase, if I got a 30% increase in my pay.


Yea, all that reality programming and cartoon stuff is expensive 
And Colbert and Stewart are ALWAYS on vacation anyway.


----------



## wahooq

http://www.viacom.com/ourbrands/Pages/default.aspx


----------



## danpeters

TheRatPatrol said:


> Does anyone have a complete list of the 26 channels?


I really don't think DirecTV carries 26 of their channels..

I am coming up with: MTV, Nick, Comedy Central, BET, VH1, Spike, TV Land, CMT, Logo, MTV 2, VH1 Classic, Centric, Palladia, Nick Jr, Nicktoons, TeenNick.

It looks like they are starting to put Alert channels under each channel in the guide so I'll scroll through and see if I missed any.

Dan

Edit: Missed MTV t3es


----------



## Linxs

danpeters said:


> I really don't think DirecTV carries 26 of their channels..
> 
> I am coming up with: MTV, Nick, Comedy Central, BET, VH1, Spike, TV Land, CMT, Logo, MTV 2, VH1 Classic, Centric, Palladia, Nick Jr, Nicktoons, TeenNick.
> 
> It looks like they are starting to put Alert channels under each channel in the guide so I'll scroll through and see if I missed any.
> 
> Dan
> 
> Edit: Missed MTV t3es


Theirs also the Viacom owned local channels.


----------



## cjrleimer

I called a CSR from America amazingly, and she said D* has a 99 percent success rate with this etc etc. I pretty much wasnt angry, but I was irritated by the lack of PR on both sides about this. I mean when stuff like this occurs, you get a couple of weeks notice not 24 hours.


----------



## TomK

Please drop these channels and lower my bill.  At least give me a chance to drop their stuff and lower my bill. Go ahead Viacom, make my day.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Mike White is on 299-1. I wonder when he made that video?


----------



## danpeters

TheRatPatrol said:


> Mike White is on 299-1. I wonder when he made that video?


It had to be fairly recent. And likely not 20 minutes ago recent. So.. it sounds like they have been working with Viacom for a while and had a feeling it might come down to this?

The directvpromise.com site still doesn't have the new video or any other information on it yet.


----------



## tulanejosh

All due respect to those that don't like viacom channels - viacom properties basically are "cable". This isn't FX or VS or G4. These re some pretty serious heavy hitter tv properties. I can't imagine not having access to them. 

Btw LUV hie mie white days this is about a la carte. Haha. Yeah right.


----------



## cjrleimer

tulanejosh said:


> All due respect to those that don't like viacom channels - viacom properties basically are "cable". This isn't FX or VS or G4. These re some pretty serious heavy hitter tv properties. I can't imagine not having access to them.
> 
> Btw LUV hie mie white days this is about a la carte. Haha. Yeah right.


Mike white is wrong, but your right on your first point. I mean MTV,Nick, and VH1 along with BET are highly rated channels and this if it happens could be something that drives subscribers away from D*.


----------



## Davenlr

cjrleimer said:


> Mike white is wrong, but your right on your first point. I mean MTV,Nick, and VH1 along with BET are highly rated channels and this if it happens could be something that drives subscribers away from D*.


Or $150/mo bills might drive them away. Pick your poison.


----------



## danpeters

I really can't see this going on for more than a couple of days, if the channels are even dropped at all.

I think DISH dropped them for, what, 2 or 3 days in 2004 before they got everything worked out?

Dan


----------



## tulanejosh

"Davenlr" said:


> Or $150/mo bills might drive them away. Pick your poison.


Personally I already pat that. My choice. But certainly won't continue to pay that with such a sizable chunk of cable missing from my line up.

You can run but you can't hide forever from higher tv bills - even if you cut the cord. Piper is going to get paid sooner or later.


----------



## jeffgbailey

Linxs said:


> Theirs also the Viacom owned local channels.


not anymore. Viacom and CBS split back in 06 into 2 separate companies. So no locals are affected


----------



## capt14k

Viacom says 26 channels Directv says 17 channels which is it and exactly what channels are they. Honestly I can care less about MTV, BET, VH1, LOGO Spike is OK but I can live without it. The Nickelodeon Channels I would like to have. Viacom is asking for an absurd price increase 30% or $1B is way too much. Most channels beside the Nickelodeon Networks show nothing but garbage reality shows. Viacom wants all their channels or nothing because no one would pay for anything but possibly the Nickelodeon Channels and $1B for just those channels can't be justified. If anyone knows which side is telling the truth and the complete channel list affected could you please post.


----------



## tulanejosh

"capt14k" said:


> Viacom says 26 channels Directv says 17 channels which is it and exactly what channels are they. Honestly I can care less about MTV, BET, VH1, LOGO Spike is OK but I can live without it. The Nickelodeon Channels I would like to have. Viacom is asking for an absurd price increase 30% or $1B is way too much. Most channels beside the Nickelodeon Networks show nothing but garbage reality shows. Viacom wants all their channels or nothing because no one would pay for anything but possibly the Nickelodeon Channels and $1B for just those channels can't be justified. If anyone knows which side is telling the truth and the complete channel list affected could you please post.


Neither is being truthful.


----------



## maartena

smitmor said:


> I kind of get the feeling DirecTV got blindsided by Viacom on this one.


It's usually the media companies that start the mudslinging first.

I say dump the channels.

I might miss TV Land and Spike..... but ah well.


----------



## scott0702

danpeters said:


> That's likely have since they don't even have anything up on directvpromise.com yet regarding this.


They've updated their Facebook page but not the directvpromise site yet. It's probably coming soon.


----------



## kevinturcotte

I say dump the channels for awhile. Let Viacom explain to their advertisers how they're suddenly 20 million viewers less. Watch their stock drop. Then renegotiate next week.


----------



## caseyf5

Hello everyone,

Another typical dispute between the content provider and DirecTV. Following the trend the content providers will reach a point that the content will be rejected due to overvaluation of the content vs the ability of the subscribers to pay. As others have noted the subscribers income is increasing at a very small rate, not at all or actually decreasing. The subscriber base will eventually dwindle thus making the system a candidate for collapse. :soapbox:


----------



## kevinturcotte

Interesting comments on Facebook about breach of contract if channels are dropped. Is there anything in the contract about just how many channels they're allowed to drop before you can be let out of your contract? Can they just turn EVERYTHING off and you still legally have to continue to pay monthly or pay an ETF?


----------



## Davenlr

kevinturcotte said:


> Interesting comments on Facebook about breach of contract if channels are dropped. Is there anything in the contract about just how many channels they're allowed to drop before you can be let out of your contract? Can they just turn EVERYTHING off and you still legally have to continue to pay monthly or pay an ETF?


If I recall from reading it, it just says it is at their discretion to add/drop channels. They would probably do like DISH did, and add channels to fill in the holes. There are lots of channels they dont carry they could pick up.


----------



## Inkosaurus

JBv said:


> One thing though...DirecTV is fantastic with negotiations. You usually never even know when they're going on, unlike Dish Network which yanks channels all the time and for extended periods (FX was six months, YES, SNY, MSG have been gone for...two years?). The Tribune dispute lasted a week before they came back online.


Err what? FX, FSN and Natgeo were dark on Dish Network for about 28 days I dont know where your getting your "6 months" from but it is not correct.

Also whats this talk of being blindsided? I get that DTV might have been blind sided by the crawls but I dont see how they could be blind sided by contracts expiring


----------



## espnjason

I don't even know how Viacom could justify a 30% increase. 

MTV has been crap since Beavis & Butthead went off the air, Comedy Central isn't all that funny, the other 'music' channels fail to live to their names, and Nickelodeon is starting to get questionable. 

They'll be fortunate if they get 5%


----------



## kevinturcotte

A


espnjason said:


> I don't even know how Viacom could justify a 30% increase.
> 
> MTV has been crap since Beavis & Butthead went off the air, Comedy Central isn't all that funny, the other 'music' channels fail to live to their names, and Nickelodeon is starting to get questionable.
> 
> They'll be fortunate if they get 5%


All those reality shows they air cost SO MUCH to make don't you know


----------



## Jeffro

If Viacom is saying 26 channels and DirecTV is saying 17 channels does this possibily mean the new contract has 26 channels and not just 17 channels. That would probably justify the 30% increase. I saw Epix is one of their networks at Viacom's website, I do believe. Is this what Jim Norton meant when he said Epix is coming to DirecTV in July? Viacom and DirecTV did add channels to their contract back in 2005 that I saw on DirecTV's news release way back then.


----------



## espnjason

kevinturcotte said:


> All those reality shows they air cost SO MUCH to make don't you know


I do like what is on Spike even after the UFC jumped ship. But really, I don't love them that much to warrant that increase.


----------



## Inkosaurus

kevinturcotte said:


> A
> 
> All those reality shows they air cost SO MUCH to make don't you know


unfortunately shows like "snooki goes to mexico to meet her biological parents" probably do cost small fortune, in paying for booze and ratty appartments/condos lol.

Unfortunately millions of tools tune into that terrible programming even on reruns and Viacom is probably using those viewer ratings as a justification for there rate hike.


----------



## espnjason

I counted 17 channels unless Viacom is counting their HD feeds of select channels plus Epix, otherwise the math is wrong somewhere.



Jeffro said:


> If Viacom is saying 26 channels and DirecTV is saying 17 channels does this possibily mean the new contract has 26 channels and not just 17 channels. That would probably justify the 30% increase. ...


----------



## Birdieman30

Maybe the glass is half full. If they lose 17 or so Viacomm channels, D* would then have the bandwith to put a dent in the wish list from the Anticipation thread.


----------



## Araxen

Here we go again another company that doesn't know how to make money with ad revenue and needs to stick it to the consumer instead. If I lived alone I would drop pay TV totally.


----------



## alnielsen

I watch Spike and VH1C, but I would like D* to put the screws to them. I don't want my bill to rise.


----------



## zimm7778

"danpeters" said:


> I really can't see this going on for more than a couple of days, if the channels are even dropped at all.
> 
> I think DISH dropped them for, what, 2 or 3 days in 2004 before they got everything worked out?
> 
> Dan


I think it was maybe a day and a half.


----------



## zimm7778

"JBv" said:


> One thing though...DirecTV is fantastic with negotiations. You usually never even know when they're going on, unlike Dish Network which yanks channels all the time and for extended periods (FX was six months, YES, SNY, MSG have been gone for...two years?). The Tribune dispute lasted a week before they came back online.


Directv has gotten worse in the last year or two. The channels may stay but not without public arguing.


----------



## PK6301

Inkosaurus said:


> unfortunately shows like "snooki goes to mexico to meet her biological parents" probably do cost small fortune, in paying for booze and ratty appartments/condos lol.
> 
> .


You forgot the condoms(if they used them) , pregnancy tests, ugly clothes..the list goes on and on..

But seriously, This all went down after I signed off for the night..IMHO I think Viacom did blindside D*.. a 30% increse is unjustified..Looking over my viewing habits I only watch a few of the channels a little of the time.. I do not let my 4 year old watch Nick ( I absolutly HATE !! Spongebob and will not allow him to watch) ((RIP Ernest Borgnine:angel)

I guess we will see what takes place in the next few hours or days..


----------



## gio12

EDIT:

I am going to be PISSED if Nick gets dropped for GOOD, period. This bickering on both sides is getting inexcusable and our bills are hight enough as it is. I just renewed for 2 years last week. If Nick is going to be for an extended time, I will call Uverse who said they would be HAPPY to pay my full ETF to get be on board.

Maybe D* needs to ear info like this and Viacom needs to realize 20 mil viewers both watching in not good either. Then maybe D* will care less if I leave as they will get a huge EFT.

Overall, I support DIRECTV on this one and relayed that i get get Nick stuff via netflix and my Blu-ray player.


----------



## MysteryMan

No big loss here if the Viacom channels go dark. With the exception of a few concerts on Palladia we don't watch any of their channels. They don't fit our viewing habits and are loaded with annoying commercials.


----------



## akw4572

I've got a four and six year old, and I say let the channels go. Plenty of other Kids channels out there. 30% increase is a flipping joke.


----------



## zimm7778

I don't blame Directv for doing this. But honest.y if I could legally get all games local and otherwise through Internet and mobile apps from MLB, NHL, and NFL live I'd drop pay tv. I only watch one Viacom channel (Spike) and that's only when they are showing reruns of CSI:NY or something Iike that. But this is becoming way too commonplace and until providers finally bite the bullet and stand up to them over the long haul, nothing will change. As I said when Fox or ESPN was in public dispute. Remove the channels and issue a refund to customers for the amount they say those channels were charging. Then maybe people will begin to understand. I'm tired of this.


----------



## zimm7778

"gio12" said:


> I am going to be PISSED if Nick gets dropped, period. This bickering on both sides is getting inexcusable and our bills are hight enough as it is. I just renewed for 2 years last week. If Nick is going to be for an extended time, I will call Uverse who said they would be HAPPY to pay my full ETF to get be on board.
> 
> Maybe D* needs to ear info like this and Viacom needs to realize 20 mil viewers both watching in not good either. Then maybe D* will care less if I leave as they will get a huge EFT.


My wife's parents have UVERSE and acccording to them they have already had trouble renegotiating channels and they've been around for what? 2-3 years maybe? You aren't going to get away from this short of putting an antenna up.


----------



## braven

But how will I watch "Walking Dead" and "Mad Men"? Oh wait, never mind.


----------



## tulanejosh

If you are all so content to lose this many channels tht you don't think provide any value - why do yOu pay for tv in the first place. You can get NHL MLB nba and nfl vie the Internet as well as local news and network tv ota - and anything else you might want through a collection of iTunes amazon and Netflix. Just cut the cord already. You don't because it's all just chest pounding about a supposed increase in fees. 

Has directv ever jacked your bill up by a 30%? Nope. How many times have they claimed some outrageous fee increase? Pretty much every time. And financially they continue to do very well. I must've missed the huge opex increase in their quarterly reports. these fee increases aren't real or our based on some fuzzy math or are over some absurd period of time or they are asking for something more like hd, tv everywhere, setter in demand rights etc.


----------



## fleckrj

jeffgbailey said:


> not anymore. Viacom and CBS split back in 06 into 2 separate companies. So no locals are affected


Viacom still owns one local channel - KGBS-CA, a low power analog channel (32) in Austin TX. I do not know for sure, but I doubt this channel is on DirecTV, anyway.


----------



## Sixto

If taking down some channels for a few days gets DirecTV a better price for every subscriber, for several years, then that's fine.

It seems like that's the only way to a better end result these days.


----------



## meldar_b

corporate creed at work:bad_nono: give'em the axe 30% increase is to much to pay for mostly rerun channels


----------



## fleckrj

espnjason said:


> I don't even know how Viacom could justify a 30% increase.
> 
> MTV has been crap since Beavis & Butthead went off the air, Comedy Central isn't all that funny, the other 'music' channels fail to live to their names, and Nickelodeon is starting to get questionable.
> 
> They'll be fortunate if they get 5%


I do not know what it will be like this year, but in the past, Comedy Central had the most entertaining coverage of the Republican and Democratic national conventions.


----------



## wedge40

I've been mulling over Uverse for a while.. This could be the push I need I pick up the phone and make the call.

Wedge


----------



## tulanejosh

"Sixto" said:


> If taking down some channels for a few days gets DirecTV a better price for every subscriber, for several years, then that's fine.
> 
> It seems like that's the only way to a better end result these days.


Sixto

a couple days is ok. But when you get to a point where the peanut gallery is screaming take the bum channels down I don't watch tht crap anyway. You have to wonder what they do watch. And while I'm not passing judgment on whatever that might be its not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that many simply have philosophical issues paying for any tv over a certain amount and based in the appearance of their somewhat limited channel interests the might be better served not paying directv at all and cutting cord.

I never believe that directv or the network are being 100% truthful. It's probably not 30% becausyoy just don't see that in the annual reports of any of these companies.


----------



## loudo

It wouldn't bother me a bit, if they took them down, I don't watch any of them. The wife does watch a few programs on them though, and she might not be to happy. But when I tell her the increase Viacom is demanding, she will understand.


----------



## slimoli

Directv should request a big price reduction from Viacom. These channels are crap and if they are gone, great, more room for better stuff on the transponders. Play hard ball, Directv !


----------



## maartena

slimoli said:


> Directv should request a big price reduction from Viacom. These channels are crap and if they are gone, great, more room for better stuff on the transponders. Play hard ball, Directv !


I agree. And if you have kids, there are better things you can challenge their minds with instead of pushing them in front of the TV so they'll keep quiet. 

DirecTV isn't going to let Viacom go.

I was on TWC when they had to re-negotiate a couple of years ago, and they went black for about a week. And that's fine, no one is going to leave DirecTV for channels being black for a week, but Viacom is going to lose some advertising income as it won't show their ads to a potential 20 million viewers.

Play hard. I'm with DirecTV.


----------



## mws192

I think they are counting standard def and HD separately (I'm still missing one)

2	BET
1	Centric
2	CMT
2	Comedy Central
1	Logo
2	MTV
1	MTV2
1	MTV t3es
3	Nick, NickW
1	Nick Jr
1	Nick Toons
1	Palladia
2	Spike 
1	Teen Nick
1	TV Land
2	VH1
1	VH1 Classic
*25	Total*


----------



## RACJ2

For the most part, I can live w/o the Viacom channels. I occasionally watch The Colbert Report on comedy central, but that's about it.


----------



## zimm7778

Is Lifetime not part of Viacom? For some reason I thought they were.


----------



## mws192

zimm7778 said:


> Is Lifetime not part of Viacom? For some reason I thought they were.


A+E Networks (Hearst, ABC/Disney & Comcast)


----------



## hancox

tulanejosh said:


> If you are all so content to lose this many channels tht you don't think provide any value - why do yOu pay for tv in the first place. You can get NHL MLB nba and nfl vie the Internet as well as local news and network tv ota - and anything else you might want through a collection of iTunes amazon and Netflix. Just cut the cord already. You don't because it's all just chest pounding about a supposed increase in fees.


Erm, sort of. Good luck getting local baseball (blacked out), local college sports (blacked out for some, if not most), local hockey, etc.

Exclusive cable RSN's really make cutting the cord, for a sports fan, very very difficult.


----------



## snappjay

I've usually been okay with disputes, but these are some very popular channels... 
No matter what, we lose. Either our bill stays the same and we lose a huge chunk of channels, or we keep the channels and the extra cost is passed to us.

My wife and I have discussed dropping pay TV completely, "cutting the cord" if you will, and this might be the tipping point. We have an Apple TV and an iPad, so that gets us Hulu (airplay), netflix, mlb, nhl, and nba.


----------



## TravelFan1

I have to ask the moderators: Why isn't this thread under "Directv Programming"? I really think Programming is much more appropriate than "General Discussion".


----------



## Drew2k

At least I got to watch Teen Wolf on MTV last night without any banners or screen crawls...

I read the press release from DIRECTV, stating that Viacom is forcing DIRECTV to take the channels down, and then I read the press release from Viacom which states DIRECTV will take the channels down. If Viacom is indeed forcing DIRECTV to go black on those channels, then Viacom needs to own up to that, rather than make it appear DIRECTV is doing this on its own.


----------



## Carl Spock

It's just like high school, only with larger stakes.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Jeffro said:


> If Viacom is saying 26 channels and DirecTV is saying 17 channels does this possibily mean the new contract has 26 channels and not just 17 channels. That would probably justify the 30% increase. I saw Epix is one of their networks at Viacom's website, I do believe. Is this what Jim Norton meant when he said Epix is coming to DirecTV in July? Viacom and DirecTV did add channels to their contract back in 2005 that I saw on DirecTV's news release way back then.


So this is EPIX plan to get carriage???? and 30% more may be the cost of EPIX?


----------



## TravelFan1

I would rather have *all* these crappy channels dropped. There isnt' a single one that my family watches. I used to watch MTV back when M standed for Music... Nowadays, reality crap, I don't give a rat's.... Once in a blue moon, i catch an old show on Nick at Nite, like Wonder Years. I like South Park, but there are so many alternative ways to watch it. The 2 shows I'd miss from comedy Central are the Daily Show and Colbert, but I can live w/out them.

So, if like you are saying on twitter, #DirectvHasMyBack, then drop all of these crappy channels and add beInSports HD, BBC America HD and Fox Deportes HD!


----------



## maartena

tulanejosh said:


> If you are all so content to lose this many channels tht you don't think provide any value - why do yOu pay for tv in the first place. You can get NHL MLB nba and nfl vie the Internet as well as local news and network tv ota - and anything else you might want through a collection of iTunes amazon and Netflix. Just cut the cord already. You don't because it's all just chest pounding about a supposed increase in fees.


Yes you can get all these sports via the internet, but it will cost you almost as much as DirecTV itself. I am not someone that watches all teams and all sports, I follow a few specific teams, being MLB Angels, NHL Ducks, and MLS Galaxy.

If I want to watch the Angels online, I have to pay for their FULL package that gets me all the teams. If I want to see the Ducks, I have to pay for the FULL NHL package. If I want to see the L.A. Galaxy, I would have to pay for the FULL MLS package.

By the time I done dishing out money just so I can see those three teams, I have already spent almost the same money I give DirecTV over a period of about 6 months. And if you happen to like NBA on top of that (which I don't) or want to watch some other sports that sell packages online, you are starting to close in to the amount you pay DirecTV for the year....

On top of that, there are plenty of channels I do watch, plenty of stuff I record, and the ease of being able to walk into the living room in the morning, turning on the TV with the remote, switching to CNN for the morning news, is worth some money to me. And there happens to be a channel that doesn't even stream online.

The EASE of a product like a TV carrier is worth money to me. I don't want to go put a computer next to every TV just so I can browse to MLB EI Online streaming to find the game I want to watch, I just want to flip on the TV and press channel 692 or 693, and there is my Angels game. PLUS I want to be able to switch to the Dodgers channel easily in between innings just to see how their game is going, they often play at the same time. Not wait to start buffering the Dodgers stream, and then waiting to start the Angels stream again.

Cutting the cord is a hassle. Every online service uses its own streaming service, it uses its own billing system, one device might not be able to stream everything. If you want to use a Roku with movies/TV you bought through iTunes, you have to have a PC with software installed called Plex, and then switch to the Plex channel on your Roku to be able to watch them. And there is bugs in that software too, it doesn't always work.

Additionally, I don't always want to have to think about what I want to watch. Sometimes I just want to turn on the TV and.... simply see what is on. I might encounter an old re-run of MASH that I had not thought about. Or an interesting interview on PBS I would have never thought of watching. Or get hooked up in some stupid tow show where they are trying to repo someone's car or whatever that I would have never thought to start watching online.

Sorry, but cutting the cord is simply said.... ANNOYING. DirecTV might cost me $100 a month or so, but it is worth the ease of mind and the ease of use for me.

And I will keep subscribing to DirecTV, whether there are Viacom channels or not.


----------



## TravelFan1

http://whendirectvdrops.com/shows-youll-miss

Of the list above, the only shows I watched from time to time are South Park, daily Show and Colbert Report. My Gosh, I checked the list and I realized how much crap can an organization put out there!


----------



## BlackCoffee

I will stand behind DirecTV in this fight. I may get a little complaining from the kids, but they are kids and don't have a vote.

Personally, I might miss some of SPIKE, but overall most of these programs aren't worth the additional costs. More power to DirecTV for trying to hold costs down for it's customers.


----------



## zimm7778

"hancox" said:


> Erm, sort of. Good luck getting local baseball (blacked out), local college sports (blacked out for some, if not most), local hockey, etc.
> 
> Exclusive cable RSN's really make cutting the cord, for a sports fan, very very difficult.


That and the fact I don't want to buy a PS3 for the NFL.


----------



## zimm7778

"maartena" said:


> Yes you can get all these sports via the internet, but it will cost you almost as much as DirecTV itself. I am not someone that watches all teams and all sports, I follow a few specific teams, being MLB Angels, NHL Ducks, and MLS Galaxy.
> 
> If I want to watch the Angels online, I have to pay for their FULL package that gets me all the teams. If I want to see the Ducks, I have to pay for the FULL NHL package. If I want to see the L.A. Galaxy, I would have to pay for the FULL MLS package.
> 
> By the time I done dishing out money just so I can see those three teams, I have already spent almost the same money I give DirecTV over a period of about 6 months. And if you happen to like NBA on top of that (which I don't) or want to watch some other sports that sell packages online, you are starting to close in to the amount you pay DirecTV for the year....
> 
> On top of that, there are plenty of channels I do watch, plenty of stuff I record, and the ease of being able to walk into the living room in the morning, turning on the TV with the remote, switching to CNN for the morning news, is worth some money to me. And there happens to be a channel that doesn't even stream online.
> 
> The EASE of a product like a TV carrier is worth money to me. I don't want to go put a computer next to every TV just so I can browse to MLB EI Online streaming to find the game I want to watch, I just want to flip on the TV and press channel 692 or 693, and there is my Angels game. PLUS I want to be able to switch to the Dodgers channel easily in between innings just to see how their game is going, they often play at the same time. Not wait to start buffering the Dodgers stream, and then waiting to start the Angels stream again.
> 
> Cutting the cord is a hassle. Every online service uses its own streaming service, it uses its own billing system, one device might not be able to stream everything. If you want to use a Roku with movies/TV you bought through iTunes, you have to have a PC with software installed called Plex, and then switch to the Plex channel on your Roku to be able to watch them. And there is bugs in that software too, it doesn't always work.
> 
> Additionally, I don't always want to have to think about what I want to watch. Sometimes I just want to turn on the TV and.... simply see what is on. I might encounter an old re-run of MASH that I had not thought about. Or an interesting interview on PBS I would have never thought of watching. Or get hooked up in some stupid tow show where they are trying to repo someone's car or whatever that I would have never thought to start watching online.
> 
> Sorry, but cutting the cord is simply said.... ANNOYING. DirecTV might cost me $100 a month or so, but it is worth the ease of mind and the ease of use for me.
> 
> And I will keep subscribing to DirecTV, whether there are Viacom channels or not.


I'm on the app so it doesn't show where you live. I assume you do not live in Southern California since baseball and hockey would black out you watching those live anyway. However, if you ordered the out of market sports packages on Directv then you would save a lot of $$$ by cutting the cord because you could pay for just those. It really depends on how you look at it. We moved from Jacksonville to Tampa in 2008. My son was 3'so I decided even though I didn't care about them I'd purposely try to raise my son as a fan of the Tampa teams and not the teams I was a fan of. I figured we'd be here in his formative years so I wanted him to grow up feeling totally part of the community he was in. As long as we can afford it and I don't think the majority of channels become so trashy I can no longer justify the expense I don't want him to be denied being able to watch those teams which he would be if we cut the cord.


----------



## njfoses

As much as i hate to say it even if these channels go dark there is a 0% chance mtv stays dark once jersey shore starts this season. To many viewers and bad publicity.


----------



## SPACEMAKER

Sometimes I like to watch mindless crap. Not often but sometimes. My 8yr old watches a few shows on Nick but he'd obviously survive. But those of us here don't represent the masses. There is a huge number of people who would freak out and cancel if Viacom went dark for any length of time. A deal will get done because neither side wants to go dark. But the good thing about this is that it allows posters to come here and boast their superiority over others due to these channels being beneath them.


----------



## SPACEMAKER

Also, right now there is a Viacom ad at the bottom of the DBSTalk Android app encouraging people to call DIRECTV to protest.


----------



## DaveC27

Way back last June

http://www.deadline.com/2012/06/cou...p-viacoms-channels-its-possible-analyst-says/

Analysts were saying that Viacom's ratings are so dire that it might lead Providers to start dropping Viacom channels. Now because their stock is tanking Viacom are seeking to get revenue by increasing the fees they charge providers rather than produce decent programming that people want to watch


----------



## tduffney

http://www.directvpromise.com/faq/#.T_wRwo5j6-I


----------



## Justin23

mws192 said:


> I think they are counting standard def and HD separately (I'm still missing one)
> 
> 2	BET
> 1	Centric
> 2	CMT
> 2	Comedy Central
> 1	Logo
> 2	MTV
> 1	MTV2
> 1	MTV t3es
> 3	Nick, NickW
> 1	Nick Jr
> 1	Nick Toons
> 1	Palladia
> 2	Spike
> 1	Teen Nick
> 1	TV Land
> 2	VH1
> 1	VH1 Classic
> *25	Total*


I think [email protected] is the missing one. Even though it is broadcast on the Nick channel, I think they count it as a separate "channel".

From Wikipedia: [email protected] broadcasts over the channel space of Nickelodeon on Sundays through Thursdays from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m., Fridays from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. and Saturdays from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. (Eastern and Pacific Time). Though it shares channel space with Nickelodeon, The Nielsen Company rates Nick at Nite as a separate channel from Nickelodeon for ratings purposes. Since Nick at Nite and Nickelodeon are commonly considered as two individual channels that share the same channel space, the two services are sometimes referred to under the collective name 'Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite'.


----------



## Mike Greer

I don't really care about anything but TV Land and Comedy Central and I don't care much about those two... The so-called 'music' channels haven't had music on them in 15 years. Why do they call it Music Television anyway? Puke is more descriptive of the content!

The worst part is we lose no matter what. If DirecTV did drop all the Viacom channels, and it won't, would they lower their prices? Hell no. When they do give in to Viacom's demands they'll use Viacom to justify even a bigger increase in subscription costs than they already have planned for us. It is a lose-lose situation.

My vote - drop the 90% of all the channels - not just Viacom - and lower the sub prices to match the savings. I'm a dreamer I know....


----------



## bman3333

DaveC27 said:


> Way back last June
> 
> http://www.deadline.com/2012/06/cou...p-viacoms-channels-its-possible-analyst-says/
> 
> Analysts were saying that Viacom's ratings are so dire that it might lead Providers to start dropping Viacom channels. Now because their stock is tanking Viacom are seeking to get revenue by increasing the fees they charge providers rather than produce decent programming that people want to watch


While my 3 year old watches a little Nick Jr and my wife and I watch some of their other channels, I would not be the least bit concerned if they let the Viacom channels go dark. What pisses me off is Viacom charges Netflix a lower fee to stream the same content - it should be the same, regardless of delivery method. Directv needs to get aggressive with all the networks to stop the annual rise in monthly tv fees. I'm a big sports fan, but I despise ESPN for creating the precedent of strong arming cable and sat providers with all or nothing deals. A la carte would be much more fair.


----------



## Inches

I say "Let 'em go and free up some bandwidth" :hurah: :lol:


----------



## mws192

That works for me. Additional suggestions welcome.

Assuming Viacom counts SD and HD as different:

DirecTV	|Viacom	
1 |2	BET
1 |1	Centric
1 |2	CMT
1 |2	Comedy Central
1 |1	Logo
1 |2	MTV
1 |1	MTV2
1 |1	MTV t3es
1 |3	Nick, NickW
0 |1	Nick at Nite (evening programming on Nick) ?
1 |1	Nick Jr
1 |1	Nick Toons
1 |1	Palladia
1 |2	Spike 
1 |1	Teen Nick
1 |1	TV Land
1 |2	VH1
1 |1	VH1 Classic
*17	|26	Total*



Justin23 said:


> I think [email protected] is the missing one. Even though it is broadcast on the Nick channel, I think they count it as a separate "channel".


----------



## ub1934

TravelFan1 said:


> http://whendirectvdrops.com/shows-youll-miss
> 
> Of the list above, the only shows I watched from time to time are South Park, daily Show and Colbert Report. My Gosh, I checked the list and I realized how much crap can an organization put out there!


Same here all the other chs are crap, :hurah:


----------



## larry55

i don't care if d drop all of these.


----------



## fluffybear

While I enjoy watching 'Repo Games' on Spike & the kids do like a couple of shows on the Nick networks (SpongeBob, Victorious, Family Game Night), we can find other ways to watch these shows so no loss if all, most, or any of these disappear.


----------



## Old_School

TheRatPatrol said:


> Mike White is on 299-1. I wonder when he made that video?


What??? you got channel 299-1??? I'll have to make a call to Directv you got one more channel more than me..... :lol:


----------



## Clemsole

Inches said:


> I say "Let 'em go and free up some bandwidth" :hurah: :lol:


I agree 100%. Drop all of them.


----------



## smiddy

Meh, my kids like Nick, but other than that, I can let them go. DirecTV should be driving to lower costs.


----------



## RawisTheGameHhH

Clemsole said:


> I agree 100%. Drop all of them.


then drop our bills too


----------



## pearkel

Let them go, and lower my bill. Let Viacom renegotiate their advertisements with a few less subscribers.


----------



## fornold

My 9 year old just called me to tell me to call DirecTV right away so we don't lose Nick. I had to chuckle. Nick and NickToons are the only ones that get any airtime at our house.


----------



## RunnerFL

The only channel I'd miss is Comedy Central and I can get their content by other means.


----------



## RawisTheGameHhH

RunnerFL said:


> The only channel I'd miss is Comedy Central and I can get their content by other means.


well said; 100% agree


----------



## RD in Fla

Don't watch any of them. My 8 year old occasionally watches Nick, but she's glued to Netflix and Hulu on her iPad most of the time anyway.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

maartena said:


> *I agree. And if you have kids, there are better things you can challenge their minds with instead of pushing them in front of the TV so they'll keep quiet.*
> 
> DirecTV isn't going to let Viacom go.
> 
> I was on TWC when they had to re-negotiate a couple of years ago, and they went black for about a week. And that's fine, no one is going to leave DirecTV for channels being black for a week, but Viacom is going to lose some advertising income as it won't show their ads to a potential 20 million viewers.
> 
> Play hard. I'm with DirecTV.


You obviously don't have kids. :lol:

The little TV I do allow my 4 & 7 year olds to watch is on the Nick channels. Nickjr has zero commercials, btw.

That being said, I hope they do work something out.


----------



## carl6

DirecTV should package all of these channels in a separate group, not include them in any of the standard programming packages, and charge appropriately for that group (like the HD Extra pack). Then people that really want them can pay accordingly and the rest of us can avoid the added cost.

Do this for all of the content providers that offer multiple channels. You buy a basic programming package then add the channel groups you want. A somewhat minor variation of the ala-cart concept.


----------



## maartena

zimm7778 said:


> I'm on the app so it doesn't show where you live. I assume you do not live in Southern California since baseball and hockey would black out you watching those live anyway. However, if you ordered the out of market sports packages on Directv then you would save a lot of $$$ by cutting the cord because you could pay for just those. It really depends on how you look at it. We moved from Jacksonville to Tampa in 2008. My son was 3'so I decided even though I didn't care about them I'd purposely try to raise my son as a fan of the Tampa teams and not the teams I was a fan of. I figured we'd be here in his formative years so I wanted him to grow up feeling totally part of the community he was in. As long as we can afford it and I don't think the majority of channels become so trashy I can no longer justify the expense I don't want him to be denied being able to watch those teams which he would be if we cut the cord.


I live in Southern California. I watch Angels and Ducks games in full 1080i HD on channels 692/693, and occasionally on KDOC56. And those are all I really care about as far major teams go. I watch LA Galaxy games on occasion as well, and every so often I turn in to the Dodgers or NHL Kings. I also like to watch the Tour de France early in the morning nowadays on 603 NBC Sports Network. I usually catch about 20-30 minutes after the news headlines on CNN before I head out to work. Additionally, I try to catch some international soccer - like UEFA - when I am near a TV at the right time, as the games are usually live in the mornings.

And again: Money is by far the only factor. I wake up in the morning, grab the remote, turn on CNN, make coffee.... The ease of doing that is worth money to me.

What also makes it worth it is - again and I repeat myself - is that sometimes.... its just great to flip channels to see what is on. I catch a lot of OLD shows that way that I had forgotten about (and might not be found online either way).

I know that for cut-the-corders, MONEY is everything, and every other aspect of a pay TV subscription is less important. For me, it is not. The ease of use, the quality of the HD picture, and the hassle that comes with guaranteeing more-or-less the same TV coverage by using 5+ different services that don't always work together very well.... is important for me. I don't want to have to get Roku's for all my TV's, not do I want to overload my internet connection with HD streams to 2 TV's. Having to pick and choose from Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, MLB/NHL/MLS, Hulu, and other services to get the shows I want, is just not worth it to me.

That said, I am not going to miss Viacom channels. The TVLand comedies is about all I would miss really, I only watch Spike every so often for some unintelligent, dumbed down entertainment such as cops chasing bad guys, big dudes repo-ing cars, stuff like that. And it is probably better for my intelligence that I stop watching those.   (besides, the tow-type and cops-type reality shows can be found on TruTV and others as well)

So, I support DirecTV going black until they get to a reasonable price. I know the channels won't be gone forever, and I won't be crying if they are gone for a month or so.


----------



## pablo

Every time something like this happens, I always wonder why it even needs to happen? Why can't these contracts be permanent or at least long enough for this not to happen multiple times a year? And this seems to happen with pretty much every provider, and it's the viewer who gets screwed every time.


----------



## SParker

I'm so sick of being used as a pawn by both sides. Quit running childish scrolls.


----------



## spartanstew

My kids watch a lot of Nik, but we'd be alright if they went dark.

Heck, my boys are starting to use Netflix more to watch their shows via the bluray player anyway.


----------



## Ken984

My son would miss Nick and nicktoons, i might miss comedy central once in a while. Other than that I say good riddance to mtv and the rest of the list. None of them are watched here.


----------



## skierbri10

I won't miss any of these over commercialed terrible programming channels. Good riddance viacrap.


----------



## jimstick

DirecTV says they pay Viacom "Hundreds of Millions of Dollars a Year" for their progamming, already. Now they (Viacom) want a 30% increase that amounts to a "Billion Dollars More". What kind of math are using? Since when does 30% of hundreds of millions equal a billion?

Reality is, Directv and Viacom will come to a compromise that will satisfy both of them and result in higher monthly fees for us.

I agree with who said that they should be able to pay their expenses with the ad revenue generated, since about 40% of their air time are ads. Problem is, nobody is watching the ads, thanks to the most wonderful invention ever: the DVR!

Directv wants to be able to buy channels ala carte, but they don't want to give us that option. Can't have it both ways.

I would hate to lose some of the channels Viacom offers, but frankly, their programming has gotten increasingly worse over the years. Maybe they need a wake up call.

If Nickelodeon is doing so poorly, maybe they should consider that most people don't want to watch marathons all weekend long. Just air a couple episodes of something, and then show something else.


----------



## FlyinV

I am getting tired of this story.
Perhaps I will switch back to comcast cable.


----------



## maartena

carl6 said:


> DirecTV should package all of these channels in a separate group, not include them in any of the standard programming packages, and charge appropriately for that group (like the HD Extra pack). Then people that really want them can pay accordingly and the rest of us can avoid the added cost.
> 
> Do this for all of the content providers that offer multiple channels. You buy a basic programming package then add the channel groups you want. A somewhat minor variation of the ala-cart concept.


You know.... we're slowly starting to get to a point where there are about 8 or so major players. We have AMC, Discovery, Viacom, Tribune, NBC/Comcast, ABC/Disney, and probably some more I forget. Then there are a bunch of smaller ones.

I don't see it as impossible that due to mergers and changes in the media industry, we'll end up with 10 media companies, each controlling 20-30 channels of different varieties.

A channel group a-la-carte where you can decide which media companies you want to pay for might be a nice idea. However, it is not going to keep contract negotiations and disputes away. To offer a "Viacom Package" they would still need to negotiate over the price, and if the price is higher, the customer will just see a higher price for that package.

But it does allow one to decide whether it is worth it.

I don't believe neither DirecTV (or any carrier) nor Viacom (or any media company) would actually go for this concept.

Example: I would probably NOT pick a Viacom Package. But having the channels now, I do find myself on Spike or TVLand from time to time, which means.... I watch their commercials, which means in turn I am part of the numbers they present to their advertisers as a "potential viewer". With hard subscription numbers that DirecTV will provide, it will be a lot harder to sell advertising. Furthermore, DirecTV rather would have you pay for a large package of channels, even if you don't watch half of them, as they would make more money that way.

So although a nice idea, it will probably never happen.


----------



## maartena

FlyinV said:


> I am getting tired of this story.
> Perhaps I will switch back to comcast cable.


And you think Comcast never has disputes like this?


----------



## n3vino

pearkel said:


> Let them go, and lower my bill. Let Viacom renegotiate their advertisements with a few less subscribers.


 I'll drink to that.


----------



## Drew2k

Solid Signal has an article about the dispute, blaming Viacom's poor ad rates for their need to raise the rates.

http://blog.solidsignal.com/content.php/594-DIRECTV-vs-VIACOM-The-real-reason-for-the-squabble


----------



## ATARI

Drew2k said:


> Solid Signal has an article about the dispute, blaming Viacom's poor ad rates for their need to raise the rates.
> 
> http://blog.solidsignal.com/content.php/594-DIRECTV-vs-VIACOM-The-real-reason-for-the-squabble


Sounds like Viacom is in the weaker position here. D* should drop the channels for a week and then renegotiate for a cheaper rate than they are getting now.


----------



## afulkerson

I say let the channels go dark. I do not watch any of them so I would not miss anything at all. :contract::nono:


----------



## Alan Gordon

I won't lie... I'm kind of bummed by this!

When there was a potential FOX blackout last year, I really didn't care as I would have essentially missed the last couple of episodes of "American Horror Story"... and potentially "Justified" had it gone on much longer, but with the things going on in my life at the time, I really didn't care about AHS, and I never got around to seeing "Justified" season two on Blu-ray, so I ended up skipping season three with the intention of catching up one of these days.

With Viacom though, I find I watch more of their programming (shows in blue are showing new episodes now!):

*TV Land:* "Hot In Cleveland," "The Soul Man", "Happily Divorced", "Retired At 35," "The Exes".
*MTV:* "Awkward." and "Teen Wolf". 
*Comedy Central:* "Futurama"
*NickToons:* "Iron Man: Armored Adventures"

I'll occasionally tune in to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central and the occasional concert, etc., on Palladia or CMT, but it's rare.

That being said, I can always catch up on the TV Land shows at a later time, and ditto for "Futurama" which is often rerun on CC. I'll be bummed about "Awkward." and "Teen Wolf," but I'm hoping DirecTV stands firm for as long as they need to in order to get a good deal, so oh well... 

~Alan


----------



## maartena

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> You obviously don't have kids. :lol:


Nope. But I have nephews, nieces, etc.... and I believe parenting has gone by the wayside. We rather put our kids in front of mind-numbing entertainment then letting them discover the world for themselves.

I had a TV with 5 channels when I grew up. I got to watch it maybe half an hour or so at night, and on Saturday morning.

And guess what, I turned out just fine. My parents played with me, taught me things, raised me to respect everyone, and let me explore the world on my own as much as they could.

This is totally off topic, but when I see a family in a restaurant where the kids are playing games on the iPad or some other electronic device, and both parents aren't even talking to each other but staring at their phones.... "pathetic" is the word that comes to mind.

We are so involved in our own minds we are forgetting to raise our children. And this is not directed at anyone in particular, as I do not know any of you personally, but I more and more get annoyed at parents using technology to "escape" from their children more and more and more. It has been proven that television at young ages actually does more harm then good. Children need other humans to interact with, not humans or cartoon characters locked up in a box.

TV is fine for an hour a day or so, but they'll get addicted to it if that is all you give them after school or after work. Parents should turn off their kids TV's after 1 hour and force them to read, build, construct, create, think, move.

I'm sure that many of you will accuse me of not knowing how it is to raise kids, and I don't know what I am talking about....but that is how I feel about current society and the way we deal with kids. Something just doesn't feel right, and kids just don't seem to be raised right any more. But maybe I am just getting old.

Anyways, too far off topic - back to Viacom's channels.


----------



## BAHitman

I think since the content on those channels has declined in the last 5 years, maybe the rate should also decline....

I think the only channel I watch is spike, and that is for the powerblock anyway... they have a website and I can watch for free so I won't miss them... goahead, DirecTV, Drop Viacom and either replace those channels with something else or lower my bill...


----------



## maartena

ATARI said:


> Sounds like Viacom is in the weaker position here. D* should drop the channels for a week and then renegotiate for a cheaper rate than they are getting now.


Aye. Let them go dark, and let Viacom panic for a bit.


----------



## tonyd79

We have had discussions about how DirecTV gets signal from channels. Many saying that they only pull down what is on the birds, everyone getting them all at the same time from the same place. And yet, today, Viacom is running a banner for DirecTV that is not showing up on Fios. So, the source can dictate what they see somehow.


----------



## FHSPSU67

Only one I've ever watched is TVLand, but Viacom can keep it & the others.


----------



## APB101

I'm listening to CEO Mike White, on any one of the Viacom channels (with a "-1"), and he says "Viacom wants you to pay over 30 percent more." That "[Viacom] demands [subscribers] pay substantially more" for the same channels we get. Well, DirecTV could drop all of them. Let time pass, and see if Viacom is okay having lost distribution of all its programming through DirecTV.


----------



## Ira Lacher

FlyinV said:


> I am getting tired of this story.
> Perhaps I will switch back to comcast cable.


It will happen to them too.


----------



## lola521

I believe they are both being untruthful. Someone mentioned blindsiding Dtv. When they must have know they're contract would be up with them tonight. And they also must know that the tickers on the specific Viacom stations is a typical tactic. 

I am upset with this, only if the channels are taken off and my bill remains the same.

I only really like TVland and the others I very rarely watch.


----------



## BAHitman

maartena said:


> Nope. But I have nephews, nieces, etc.... and I believe parenting has gone by the wayside. We rather put our kids in front of mind-numbing entertainment then letting them discover the world for themselves.
> 
> I had a TV with 5 channels when I grew up. I got to watch it maybe half an hour or so at night, and on Saturday morning.
> 
> And guess what, I turned out just fine. My parents played with me, taught me things, raised me to respect everyone, and let me explore the world on my own as much as they could.
> 
> This is totally off topic, but when I see a family in a restaurant where the kids are playing games on the iPad or some other electronic device, and both parents aren't even talking to each other but staring at their phones.... "pathetic" is the word that comes to mind.
> 
> We are so involved in our own minds we are forgetting to raise our children. And this is not directed at anyone in particular, as I do not know any of you personally, but I more and more get annoyed at parents using technology to "escape" from their children more and more and more. It has been proven that television at young ages actually does more harm then good. Children need other humans to interact with, not humans or cartoon characters locked up in a box.
> 
> TV is fine for an hour a day or so, but they'll get addicted to it if that is all you give them after school or after work. Parents should turn off their kids TV's after 1 hour and force them to read, build, construct, create, think, move.
> 
> I'm sure that many of you will accuse me of not knowing how it is to raise kids, and I don't know what I am talking about....but that is how I feel about current society and the way we deal with kids. Something just doesn't feel right, and kids just don't seem to be raised right any more. But maybe I am just getting old.
> 
> Anyways, too far off topic - back to Viacom's channels.


+1


----------



## zimm7778

"maartena" said:


> I live in Southern California. I watch Angels and Ducks games in full 1080i HD on channels 692/693, and occasionally on KDOC56. And those are all I really care about as far major teams go. I watch LA Galaxy games on occasion as well, and every so often I turn in to the Dodgers or NHL Kings. I also like to watch the Tour de France early in the morning nowadays on 603 NBC Sports Network. I usually catch about 20-30 minutes after the news headlines on CNN before I head out to work. Additionally, I try to catch some international soccer - like UEFA - when I am near a TV at the right time, as the games are usually live in the mornings.
> 
> And again: Money is by far the only factor. I wake up in the morning, grab the remote, turn on CNN, make coffee.... The ease of doing that is worth money to me.
> 
> What also makes it worth it is - again and I repeat myself - is that sometimes.... its just great to flip channels to see what is on. I catch a lot of OLD shows that way that I had forgotten about (and might not be found online either way).
> 
> I know that for cut-the-corders, MONEY is everything, and every other aspect of a pay TV subscription is less important. For me, it is not. The ease of use, the quality of the HD picture, and the hassle that comes with guaranteeing more-or-less the same TV coverage by using 5+ different services that don't always work together very well.... is important for me. I don't want to have to get Roku's for all my TV's, not do I want to overload my internet connection with HD streams to 2 TV's. Having to pick and choose from Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, MLB/NHL/MLS, Hulu, and other services to get the shows I want, is just not worth it to me.
> 
> That said, I am not going to miss Viacom channels. The TVLand comedies is about all I would miss really, I only watch Spike every so often for some unintelligent, dumbed down entertainment such as cops chasing bad guys, big dudes repo-ing cars, stuff like that. And it is probably better for my intelligence that I stop watching those.   (besides, the tow-type and cops-type reality shows can be found on TruTV and others as well)
> 
> So, I support DirecTV going black until they get to a reasonable price. I know the channels won't be gone forever, and I won't be crying if they are gone for a month or so.


Oh I pretty much agree with you. Very few channels would I care if they disappear. And even some of those, if the end result was the networks being brought back in pricing line (which would put every other one on notice too) then I'd be fine with that too. Spike for reruns occasionally of CSI NY is all I ever watch. I have MTV, VH1, BET, and Comedy Central I have blocked so if they disappeared forever I wouldn't care. However, I am not a fan of cable/sat providers complaining about holding down costs, dropping channels, and then raising the price of their service anyway. If, and I know it won't happen, but if in an alternate universe these channels left and were gone for months. The bill should in turn drop. Not only did you not agree to their increase, you are now not paying them at all.

FYI, on the parental front. My sons attitude changes when I let him watch cartoons now. I've seen it for years every time I've tried. So all the kids channels are blocked also and only rarely do I let him watch any of it.


----------



## maartena

tonyd79 said:


> We have had discussions about how DirecTV gets signal from channels. Many saying that they only pull down what is on the birds, everyone getting them all at the same time from the same place. And yet, today, Viacom is running a banner for DirecTV that is not showing up on Fios. So, the source can dictate what they see somehow.


Yeah that is interesting.

I know most cable outlets (and Dish and DirecTV nationally) just have a bunch of large dishes sitting in their local market, and pick up either the east coast or the west coast feed (or both) for a certain channel from a commercial satellite, and they then distribute the channel. The Time Warner Cable plant in my city (which feeds about half of Orange County) has about 8 or so HUGE dishes sitting on their roof and parking area, presumably to receive feeds from all sorts of different satellites.

However, nowadays there are other ways of getting a signal from A to B, and Verizon is one of those providers that have a nationwide network, that virtually connects every well-sized town with each other, so it is much easier for them to use e.g. a fiber feed from the Viacom building to the closest Verizon plant.

Additionally, there might simply be a system in place that allows them to say.... display this banner only to those with decryption key xyz, where DirecTV has decryption key xyz.


----------



## BAHitman

lola521 said:


> I believe they are both being untruthful. Someone mentioned blindsiding Dtv. When they must have know they're contract would be up with them tonight. And they also must know that the tickers on the specific Viacom stations is a typical tactic.
> 
> I am upset with this, only if the channels are taken off and my bill remains the same.
> 
> I only really like TVland and the others I very rarely watch.


I think by blindsided, they mean that it was a private negotiation until Viacom started mudslinging without a warning about DirecTV with the crawl on the TV stations.


----------



## maartena

BAHitman said:


> I think by blindsided, they mean that it was a private negotiation until Viacom started mudslinging without a warning about DirecTV with the crawl on the TV stations.


And this seems to happen every time. DirecTV is perfectly content to keep negotiating, and the media companies start wetting the mud.


----------



## JimAtTheRez

mws192 said:


> That works for me. Additional suggestions welcome.
> 
> Assuming Viacom counts SD and HD as different:
> 
> DirecTV	|Viacom
> 1 |2	BET
> 1 |1	Centric
> 1 |2	CMT
> 1 |2	Comedy Central
> 1 |1	Logo
> 1 |2	MTV
> 1 |1	MTV2
> 1 |1	MTV t3es
> 1 |3	Nick, NickW
> 0 |1	Nick at Nite (evening programming on Nick) ?
> 1 |1	Nick Jr
> 1 |1	Nick Toons
> 1 |1	Palladia
> 1 |2	Spike
> 1 |1	Teen Nick
> 1 |1	TV Land
> 1 |2	VH1
> 1 |1	VH1 Classic
> *17	|26	Total*


Wow, we have all of those channels? Obviously, I don't watch any of those. My wife watches TV Land sometimes, but I would personally not care if they went dark. Having said that, I hope Viacom blinks, and allows D to keep those channels on the air while negotiations continue. I'm sure those channels are important to many viewers.


----------



## yosoyellobo

I would be quite happy if they gave me BBC and TCM as compensation.


----------



## lola521

Oh I see, thanks BaHitman


----------



## woj027

"tonyd79" said:


> We have had discussions about how DirecTV gets signal from channels. Many saying that they only pull down what is on the birds, everyone getting them all at the same time from the same place. And yet, today, Viacom is running a banner for DirecTV that is not showing up on Fios. So, the source can dictate what they see somehow.


I wonder if it's some sort of sub-fed that is sent out with the transmission. And each provider (cable &sat) each have their own descrambler code and directvs causes the banner to stay intact. Kinda like the band stop filter concept


----------



## f300v10

Probably in the minority here, but no one in my household of 5 watches a single show on any of the Viacom channels. Not gonna happen by I wish D* would drop them and give us BBCA HD.


----------



## lokar

I would be fine with losing all the Viacom channels if my bill was dropped accordingly. My contempt for Viacom went sky-high when I saw Spike adding 8 minutes of commercials to CSI shows in the afternoons, absolutely obscene. Futurama hasn't been as good since it's been on Comedy Central and anything good on Palladia is available on blu-ray anyway. The rest is garbage IMHO.


----------



## MrWindows

Nobody but my daughter watches ANY of the Viacom channels in our household. I echo the call to let them drop and see how they like the lack of revenue. In the meantime, the collective IQ's of DirecTV households will increase by 30%, AND maybe we'll finally have enough bandwidth for BBC America HD!


----------



## pappy97

There are some (many) of us who watch programming on Viacom channels, so I personally don't want to see them dropped and don't really appreciate the "I don't watch those channels, so drop them" comments (*said in that tone*), but maybe that's just me.

I don't care whose fault it is, just fix this DirecTV and Viacom.


----------



## trdrjeff

meldar_b said:


> corporate creed at work:bad_nono: give'em the axe 30% increase is to much to pay for mostly rerun channels


_Well I just heard, The News Today
Seems Nick at Night, Has Gone away

_


----------



## SPACEMAKER

pappy97 said:


> There are some (many) of us who watch programming on Viacom channels, so I personally don't want to see them dropped and don't really appreciate the "I don't watch those channels, so drop them" comments (said in that tone), but maybe that's just me.
> 
> I don't care whose fault it is, just fix this DirecTV and Viacom.


I agree. These types of threads always degenerate into "I don't watch these channels because I am above them!" type of posts. Sometimes we even get someone grandstanding about "kids these days.." or "parents these days..."

The bottom line is that DirecTV needs Viacom and Viacom needs DirecTV. They will get a deal done at the 11th hour and everyone will win. After that this thread will die off and people will save their grandstanding for another day.


----------



## HoTat2

jimstick said:


> DirecTV says they pay Viacom "Hundreds of Millions of Dollars a Year" for their progamming, already. Now they (Viacom) want a 30% increase that amounts to a "Billion Dollars More". What kind of math are using? Since when does 30% of hundreds of millions equal a billion ...


Could be that DIRECTV is referring a 30% yearly increase in fees over the length of the purposed contract will result in the ~$1 billion increase in payout to Viacom.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

I'm pretty sure there'll be a lot of upset parents if the lose the Nick stations.

Nick is a staple for just about every family. Until my daughter was about 10-11 it was on constantly. IIRC, Niclelodeon is in the top ten for cable channels. 

The Country Music channels will probably also be an issue for some people.

This is gonna be an interesting fight.

Mike


----------



## anopro

I’ll miss spike for the car shows on weekends but no biggie. However if DTV is dropping 25 channels then my monthly $ better drop too!


----------



## steveT

It's interesting to compare how DirectTV has handled this dispute, versus how Dish handled the AMC dispute:

1. DirectTV extended past the June 30 deadline without dropping channels, and apparently at least tried to keep negotiating over the 10 day extension. Dish dropped AMC at precisely midnight on the 30th. No extension. And that was after kicking AMC to the nether-region of channel 9610, right in the middle of "The Killing", with no notice.

2. DirectTV is publicly saying that they have offered Viacom a price increase. AMC says Dish has never made any financial offer, and Dish hasn't refuted that publicly.

3. DirectTV's CEO now has a video online where he personally tells his customers, "We will work this out, we always do". Whereas no one at Dish, including Charlie Ergen, made any commitment to his customers.

To me, that speaks volumes about which company actually cares about their customers. I have my DirectTV install set for Thursday morning, leaving Dish after 15+ years with them. The Viacom news at first concerned me, but after doing this bit of research, I'm not worried. I feel like I'm now going with a much better company.


----------



## RunnerFL

yosoyellobo said:


> I would be quite happy if they gave me BBC and TCM as compensation.


We're already getting TCM in a few days.


----------



## HoTat2

SPACEMAKER said:


> I agree. These types of threads always degenerate into "I don't watch these channels because I am above them!" type of posts. Sometimes we even get someone grandstanding about "kids these days.." or "parents these days..."
> 
> The bottom line is that DirecTV needs Viacom and Viacom needs DirecTV. They will get a deal done at the 11th hour and *everyone will win*. After that this thread will die off and people will save their grandstanding for another day.


Agree with everything you say here, except the part about "everyone wining," since the cost of the 11th hour deal will simply be past onto to us (John Q. Subscriber) in the annual $5-6 fee increase in February or March the following year.


----------



## Paul Secic

capt14k said:


> Viacom says 26 channels Directv says 17 channels which is it and exactly what channels are they. Honestly I can care less about MTV, BET, VH1, LOGO Spike is OK but I can live without it. The Nickelodeon Channels I would like to have. Viacom is asking for an absurd price increase 30% or $1B is way too much. Most channels beside the Nickelodeon Networks show nothing but garbage reality shows. Viacom wants all their channels or nothing because no one would pay for anything but possibly the Nickelodeon Channels and $1B for just those channels can't be justified. If anyone knows which side is telling the truth and the complete channel list affected could you please post.


i watch Nick at Nite sometimes.The rest I don't watch. Viacom needs to get rid of channels that overlap others.


----------



## Satelliteracer

"tulanejosh" said:


> If you are all so content to lose this many channels tht you don't think provide any value - why do yOu pay for tv in the first place. You can get NHL MLB nba and nfl vie the Internet as well as local news and network tv ota - and anything else you might want through a collection of iTunes amazon and Netflix. Just cut the cord already. You don't because it's all just chest pounding about a supposed increase in fees.
> 
> Has directv ever jacked your bill up by a 30%? Nope. How many times have they claimed some outrageous fee increase? Pretty much every time. And financially they continue to do very well. I must've missed the huge opex increase in their quarterly reports. these fee increases aren't real or our based on some fuzzy math or are over some absurd period of time or they are asking for something more like hd, tv everywhere, setter in demand rights etc.


That's part of the point. Directv hasn't increased your bill 30% per year but Directv's bills with some of these programmers are going up by that much if Directv was to agree to a deal like this. In the old days you could expect programming costs to go up 4% to 5% per year. Now in total they go up 10% as mentioned in the price increase notice this year, yet Directv is only increasing your bill each year the same 4 to 5%. All this despite programmers like Viacom having ratings fall and further diluting value by selling to Netflix, etc.

That puts Directv, Dish, Uverse,Fios, and everyone else in the position of either raising rates above 5% each year just to stay even with programming costs, don't raise the rates that high and continue to shrink margins ( resulting in less infrastructure expansion, new technologies, etc) or getting the programmers to charge a reasonable rate.


----------



## Snickering Hound

Let'em go.

Replace them with Longhorn Network and PAC-12.


----------



## larry55

take these channels off and get other in hd like hgw ,hln,tcm,bbc.


----------



## APB101

pappy97 said:


> &#8230; I &#8230; don't really appreciate the "I don't watch those channels, so drop them" comments &#8230;


+1,000,000,000,000,000,000 &#8230;

(It is selfishness and stupidity that motivates such comments.)

I am with you on not wanting to see a loss, for even a second, of the Viacom programming. I have entertained the notion of losing them anyway, but not permanently, to see Viacom suffer with not having DirecTV distributing their programming. And after a new contractual agreement has been reached, I would be even more appreciative of the Viacom programming which would include: MTV2 HD, Nick Jr. HD, TV Land HD and - even though they're not available in high definition - BET Gospel, BET Hip-Hop, CMT Pure Country, MTV Hits, MTV Jams, MTVU, and VH1 Soul.


----------



## Jtaylor1

How come there's no crawl and "important information" on the Showtime channels? Aren't D* supposed to take them down along with Nick, Nicktoons, Comedy Central, TV land, etc. or is this separate?


----------



## RandybinSC

I think we will only have a few more years to deal with this. It seems every time a Viacom and a Directv get in a dispute we get closer to realizing that this is not the best way to watch tv. Like other people have said my family does not watch Viacom shows except for some Nick programming by my 8 year old, but if we were not able to watch it anymore our lives would still move forward. We would find something else to occupy our time. Maybe this is a personal choice and I am the only one that feel this way, but I doubt it, the providers and producers of programming are not as creative as they used to me. Except for a few shows I could care less if I have tv, my wife feels the same way. As my kid gets older he is actually watching less tv because he has more freedom outside to skateboard, ride his bike and scooter, and play with friends. 

I say to Viacom and Directv and to the people involved in the next dispute please keep them coming. You are making the decision for me to drop cable/satellite come quicker and easier, and it is turning out to be a healthier situation for my family.


----------



## tuff bob

wow, I just spotted the dualing banner battle on Nick. So childish. Viacom were obviously more prepared than DirecTV on this one, they've even got ads where the Shore kids are telling people to let DirecTV know that you want your MTV (play some music videos then!!!)

After the Tribune dispute revealed some internal communication, and apparently DirecTV being a bit caught out on this one, I do wonder if there is an issue on the DirecTV side about keeping on top of the retrans agreements....


----------



## Alan Gordon

Mike Bertelson said:


> The Country Music channels will probably also be an issue for some people.


CMT doesn't carry a whole lot of music... maybe more than MTV or VH1, but it's mainly reality shows.

GAC shows more country music, and is not affected.

~Alan


----------



## RunnerFL

Jtaylor1 said:


> How come there's no crawl and "important information" on the Showtime channels? Aren't D* supposed to take them down along with Nick, Nicktoons, Comedy Central, TV land, etc. or is this separate?


Showtime went with CBS in the CBS - Viacom split years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showtime_(TV_network)


----------



## Draconis

wedge40 said:


> I've been mulling over Uverse for a while.. This could be the push I need I pick up the phone and make the call.
> 
> Wedge


You do realize Uverse goes through contract negotiations as well? All the TV distributors do.


----------



## Paul Secic

MysteryMan said:


> No big loss here if the Viacom channels go dark. With the exception of a few concerts on Palladia we don't watch any of their channels. They don't fit our viewing habits and are loaded with annoying commercials.


+1


----------



## skaman74

Definatly need CC for tonight for Tosh.0 . Stick to your guns DirecTV


----------



## djrobx

> (It is selfishness and stupidity that motivates such comments.)


No. People are voicing their opinion on this matter ("Drop em!"), and their reasoning behind it ("I don't watch em!"). The motivation is to show support of DirecTV's argument that they need to fight to keep costs down.

You're free to disagree and weigh in on the matter, but it is not fair to call people who don't share your viewpoint "stupid and selfish".


----------



## cjrleimer

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...primetime-for-week-ending-july-8-2012/140800/ weekly ratings kind of a explanation of where some of the top networks stand.


----------



## APB101

Alan Gordon said:


> CMT doesn't carry a whole lot of music... maybe more than MTV or VH1, but it's mainly reality shows.
> 
> GAC shows more country music, and is not affected.
> 
> ~Alan


Great American Country is under Scripps, which owns Home & Garden Television, DIY Network, Food Network, Cooking Channel, and Travel Channel.


----------



## Paul Secic

wedge40 said:


> I've been mulling over Uverse for a while.. This could be the push I need I pick up the phone and make the call.
> 
> Wedge


Uverse is horrid. It went out 3 times when I had it. Never Again!


----------



## BearsFan

It'd be unfortunate for my family to lose these channels. My young son enjoys Nick Jr. programming on the weekends, sometimes during the week; wife & I do enjoy some Comedy Central programming as well. 

I'm sure the cost of the deal will be passed along to the customer...and here I thought the networks & providers would realize that many people are considering dropping pay-for-access all together and opting for streaming, and would LOWER costs to KEEP customers. Yeah, I know, silly me...

I love DirecTV, but if there were truly a way for me to drop it, and yet keep just the channels we want & me to keep the sports channels & live programming I want, I'd do it in a heartbeat.


----------



## cjrleimer

djrobx said:


> No. People are voicing their opinion on this matter ("Drop em!"), and their reasoning behind it ("I don't watch em!"). The motivation is to show support of DirecTV's argument that they need to fight to keep costs down.
> 
> You're free to disagree and weigh in on the matter, but it is not fair to call people who don't share your viewpoint "stupid and selfish".


+1, I mean we can all address this issue civilly and without bashing one another. Personally, this dispute has been the most controversial because of the fact that their was no notice on this, and it kind of reminds me of Dish's dispute in 2004 with these guys. With that said, lets see what happens between now and Midnight tonight et, or pt as I dont know when will they pull the plug.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I think it's midnight local time.


----------



## yosoyellobo

RunnerFL said:


> We're already getting TCM in a few days.


I should have mention that I get the Spanish package and don't get those two plus a few others. Espndeportes would be nice in HD.


----------



## RawisTheGameHhH

smart move Viacom; take your programming away from 20 million people; that sounds like a great plan


----------



## APB101

Satelliteracer said:


> &#8230; That puts Directv, Dish, Uverse,Fios, and everyone else in the position of either raising rates above 5% each year just to stay even with programming costs, don't raise the rates that high and continue to shrink margins ( resulting in less infrastructure expansion, new technologies, etc) or getting the programmers to charge a reasonable rate.


Sounds like more cable-television providers, and not just DirecTV, need to take this tactic of saying a big "*F* you" to the companies and their programming owners. Viacom, and other owners, need the providers.

I'm with DirecTV on this. Perhaps how AMC Networks and Dish Network dealt with each other is the way to go between Viacom and DirecTV. Those channels will be back on Dish Network just as the ones will be (whether or not a loss, for even a sec, will be had) on DirecTV.


----------



## Alan Gordon

djrobx said:


> No. People are voicing their opinion on this matter ("Drop em!"), and their reasoning behind it ("I don't watch em!"). The motivation is to show support of DirecTV's argument that they need to fight to keep costs down.
> 
> You're free to disagree and weigh in on the matter, but it is not fair to call people who don't share your viewpoint "stupid and selfish".


It's one thing to say that since you don't watch a channel, you would be okay if the channel(s) was/were dropped, but just because one person doesn't care about a channel doesn't mean that others don't, so I don't think it's a very fair thing to say that they SHOULD drop them.

There are multiple channels on DirecTV that I don't like, and be just fine if they were dropped, but I realize others like those channels, and they may not like mine.

For instance, my #1 want in HD is CW HD-DNS, and I'd personally accept the possibility of DirecTV dropping the ESPNs in HD in order to add them, but I suspect most people would have a problem with that! 



APB101 said:


> Great American Country is under Scripps, which owns Home & Garden Television, DIY Network, Food Network, Cooking Channel, and Travel Channel.


I know... 

~Alan


----------



## cjrleimer

I am in the same boat as Alan. I mean I dont watch the BS shopping channels, and some other channels, but I understand the others that watch them. We all have different tastes, and we need to realize that one persons interests are not the same as others. With my viewing habits, I probably watch a few channels religiously, and some I watch on a casual yet frequent basis.


----------



## snowcat

RawisTheGameHhH said:


> smart move Viacom; take your programming away from 20 million people; that sounds like a great plan


Viacom knows that they will be suffering a lot less than DirecTv will. There is no way DirecTv can keep the Nick channels off for very long before customers start switching to other providers.


----------



## lola521

I picked this choice of Directtv because it includes all the channels I watch. (Except the Tennis Channel.) As for the rest of the channels, they come with the package along with Viacom channels all the many many info commercial stations and the many many religious stations I don't watch. There's a lot about the TV lineups I can complain about other then this one. 

It never seems to get better. I had cable for many years and they kept raising the bill and dropping channels to a tier I didn't have and finally I switched to satellite.

It won't take much more for me to drop TV altogether. I already pay too much for it as it is. I really don't want to do it anymore.


----------



## jeffmacguy

Don't forget, V'com makes more money on its advertising than its carriage fees. Their advertisers will be quite unhappy if they lose all those eyeballs. Seems to me like V has more to lose than d*... just saying.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

lola - streaming over the internet is your friend.

DirecTV - did you hire Charlie?

Wow - this never would have happened in the Hughes days....


----------



## Snickering Hound

snowcat said:


> Viacom knows that they will be suffering a lot less than DirecTv will. There is no way DirecTv can keep the Nick channels off for very long before customers start switching to other providers.


Actually that's part of Viacom's problem.

Your kid really likes Sponge Bob? He can fire up the Roku or the Blu-ray player and watch it over Netflix. He probably already is.

Comedy Centrals Colbert and Daily Show are available on Hulu. Of course much of their audience already knows that and has switched over and watches it when it's convenient for them.


----------



## ATARI

jeffmacguy said:


> Don't forget, V'com makes more money on its advertising than its carriage fees. Their advertisers will be quite unhappy if they lose all those eyeballs. Seems to me like V has more to lose than d*... just saying.


Totally agree.


----------



## maartena




----------



## Alan Gordon

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Wow - this never would have happened in the Hughes days....


Possibly not... I remember when I started to switch to Dish Network years ago... partially because ABC Family was threatening to pull.

However, the main reason is because the channel groups have been more aggressive with price increases compared to the way they were back then.

~Alan


----------



## gio12

I am also sick on people who say drop them as I don't watch them. Well how about we drop the programming YOU watch and see how YOU like it! 

Why does buy bill have to be so high, to pay the CRAP that you watch? Same with you paying for the CRAP that I watch, LOL!

THIS is why everyone needs to pull their head out of their backsides and offer Ala carte programming. I know people that HATE sports, but they bills are much higher to support ESPN and what not.

So, please keep yoru "drop them as I don't care" crap to yourself!

And lease don't go there with the parenting stuff and what not about TV. How many of you here have NO LIFE and watch nothing BUT TV with 10 DVRs and what not? Please don't be judgmental.


----------



## gio12

yosoyellobo said:


> I should have mention that I get the Spanish package and don't get those two plus a few others. Espndeportes would be nice in HD.


That should ONLY be on a Spanish package, not regular programming, sorry!


----------



## gio12

The sad part is, the programing will stay and our bill WILL go up.


----------



## trdrjeff

I have a feeling all these dirty laundry contract negotiations and programming blackouts are going to come back to haunt the programmers. Some politico looking to get his name in the press is bound to take this on and bring a la carte to fruition one and for all...


----------



## maartena

snowcat said:


> Viacom knows that they will be suffering a lot less than DirecTv will. There is no way DirecTv can keep the Nick channels off for very long before customers start switching to other providers.


I am not so sure. Customers might start switching, but not for a few weeks..... They will have to find out what their options are, whether there is a contract to buy out, and many customers rather wait a few weeks to see how things play out.

I'd be surprised if they lost more than a few thousand customers before August 1st. If there still is no contract by then, chances are a lot higher customers will switch.

Although many customers don't understand the carriage disputes, I do believe they do understand that every carrier has them. Fleeing to another carrier isn't going to make that go away. TWC had the same dispute with Viacom in January 2010 and took the channels away for about a week. (or the other way around, the feeds were pulled). Other carriers will have these kinds of disputes as well.


----------



## maartena

gio12 said:


> I am also sick on people who say drop them as I don't watch them. Well how about we drop the programming YOU watch and see how YOU like it!


I like TVLand programming. I watch "Hot in Cleveland" every week. (When new episodes air) and I enjoy watching reruns of sitcoms.

Still doesn't change my opinion though. Why should DirecTV bend over and pay what is asked (and thus, increase our bills more then they should) every time a dispute is around the corner? We'd have $200 monthly bills by now without any premiums/sports.

Let viacom cook in their own stew for a few weeks. We all know they will work it out at some point in time, and I don't mind having them go dark for a few weeks while they negotiate a lower price. We'll get the channels back. Viacom loses a lot more (advertising) then DirecTV will in customers, because most will wait a little longer and see.


----------



## darkpowrjd

Registered to comment, since I also have DTV (and have had issues regarding a local station's subchannels in HD on the service).

There's another company that will be affected by this, and this video shows who it'll be: 




Yeah, TNA, which airs on Spike TV. They kind of need the exposure (and freedom) that Spike is giving to them. There are some wrestling fans that have been saying that TNA has been getting a bit better recently (they aren't as big as the WWE is, but still). That and there are a LOT of TNA fans out there that want to watch the shows (and unlike other programs, I don't think you can actually WATCH TNA Impact any other way).

Plus, keep in mind about what wrestling companies try to do with these shows: promote their PPV's, which in turn affects buyrates for these shows. If TNA can't promote their PPVs to DTV subscribers, then that means there could be less of a chance for DTV subscribers that will want to buy the TNA PPV's, which means lost revenue for BOTH TNA AND DTV (since DTV, as I recall, gets some of the cut for providing the means of broadcasting the show). TNA needs the free TV to show what the card is, and build up the matches so people will want to buy the PPV. And since there are some that think the organization is improving, they might be interested to watch.

So TNA is just now getting in some good standing with wrestling fans, and THIS happens. TNA can't get a break, but then again, this could add to the troubles these negotiations can have.

But this might be troubling that DTV might not budge, since they still haven't with G4 (have any of THOSE sides even TRIED to get that channel back on their lineup?). And anyone remember how long it took for TWC to warm up to having NFL Network (is it STILL not on that lineup)?

EDIT: I guess I can't embed YouTube videos on this site. Either that or I can't yet...or maybe I'm just doing it wrong.


----------



## tonyd79

maartena said:


> I like TVLand programming. I watch "Hot in Cleveland" every week. (When new episodes air) and I enjoy watching reruns of sitcoms.


HiC is available on Netflix streaming.


----------



## Alan Gordon

maartena said:


> Still doesn't change my opinion though. Why should DirecTV bend over and pay what is asked (and thus, increase our bills more then they should) every time a dispute is around the corner? We'd have $200 monthly bills by now without any premiums/sports.
> 
> Let viacom cook in their own stew for a few weeks. We all know they will work it out at some point in time, and I don't mind having them go dark for a few weeks while they negotiate a lower price. We'll get the channels back. Viacom loses a lot more (advertising) then DirecTV will in customers, because most will wait a little longer and see.


There's a difference between saying that, and saying that the channels should be pulled because that someone doesn't like them...

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon

tonyd79 said:


> HiC is available on Netflix streaming.


Months later...

~Alan


----------



## lparsons21

maartena said:


> I am not so sure. Customers might start switching, but not for a few weeks..... They will have to find out what their options are, whether there is a contract to buy out, and many customers rather wait a few weeks to see how things play out.
> 
> I'd be surprised if they lost more than a few thousand customers before August 1st. If there still is no contract by then, chances are a lot higher customers will switch.


I think you'll turn out to be right. Yeah, there will be some gnashing of teeth and threats to cancel, but when the dust settles the vast majority will not switch or cancel. They might continue to complain about it though.

Same thing happens with every sat/cable provider when these things come up.

In the case of Viacom, to ask for more without offering something more is assinine. They have a relatively weak product line imo. Not as weak as AMC's though!


----------



## DCSholtis

Let em go. Only channel I'd miss is Paladia. But since HDNet changed to concert central lol I won't miss anything


----------



## georule

trdrjeff said:


> I have a feeling all these dirty laundry contract negotiations and programming blackouts are going to come back to haunt the programmers. Some politico looking to get his name in the press is bound to take this on and bring a la carte to fruition one and for all...


I think the real answer is to force the content providers to publicly publish a price list every year on Nov 1, effective for January 1. Bundle however they want, including multiple options (if they want), but it is what it is. Available to every carrier at the same per sub price, no volume discounts.

They can lower the rates whenever they want (but not raise them), but if they do, they have to republish the list and the rate change goes into effect immediately for everybody (remember, they can only lower between Jan 1 and the following Jan 1).

Transparency to the consumer and the carriers (who are always worried somebody else is getting a better deal), no MFN clauses mucking up the works. And you'll be able to know who to blame for ala carte or no ala carte, and the real price increase being demanded.


----------



## fluffybear

Our family does watch programming on their channels but for the most part we wouldn't object if any or all of them were to disappear. Yes, it would effect our lives and we would be forced to find something else to do (like read a book or play outside) instead of the kids watching spongeBob


----------



## maartena

Alan Gordon said:


> There's a difference between saying that, and saying that the channels should be pulled because that someone doesn't like them...
> 
> ~Alan


True. There are plenty of people screaming about having to pay $5 or so (that is roughly the carriage price for it per subscriber) to have ESPN 1/2 while they never watch it.

Don't know if Viacom's 17 channels will come close to that or whether a 30% increase is noticeable, but I would imagine it isn't that much less for the "viacom package".


----------



## DaveC27

snowcat said:


> Viacom knows that they will be suffering a lot less than DirecTv will. There is no way DirecTv can keep the Nick channels off for very long before customers start switching to other providers.


The viewers for Viacom's channels are falling off of a cliff and thus the advertising rates. One of the reasons for the huge price hikes is that the company's profits have taken a huge downturn and now need to find other ways of getting money

The reduction in advertising caused by losing D*'s 19million viewers will hurt Viacom very badly. And if they succeed in getting a huge hike out of D* then Dish, AT&T et al will follow


----------



## darkpowrjd

Soooo....has there been any update yet on how this is going? We're sitting here saying "let them go...oh wait, let's not....but we can live without them, even though we can't", and yet, we don't know if we even need to have this discussion.

So...anyone keeping tabs on what's going on behind the closed doors? Are they even talking right now?


----------



## bobvick1983

RawisTheGameHhH said:


> smart move Viacom; take your programming away from 20 million people; that sounds like a great plan


I wouldnt want to guess the exact number of "eyeballs" but DirecTV has about 20 million SUBSCRIBERS that is not counting the mothers, fathers, children, extended family etc... That actually watch the channels. That is just counting the account holder. If you figure that there is an average of say 2.5 people at each household that is 50 million sets of eyeballs that Viacom will not get their networks in front of.


----------



## kevinturcotte

DaveC27 said:


> The viewers for Viacom's channels are falling off of a cliff and thus the advertising rates. One of the reasons for the huge price hikes is that the company's profits have taken a huge downturn and now need to find other ways of getting money
> 
> The reduction in advertising caused by losing D*'s 19million viewers will hurt Viacom very badly. And if they succeed in getting a huge hike out of D* then Dish, AT&T et al will follow


So basically Viacom's plan is to have garbage programming that costs almost nothing to make (What percentage of their programming is "Reality"?) and that most advertisers won't pay top dollar to be on, and just let the subscribers foot the bill? It USED to be, if you had poor ratings, you channel cost LESS. If you programming was in high demand, it cost more.


----------



## Alan Gordon

darkpowrjd said:


> So...anyone keeping tabs on what's going on behind the closed doors? Are they even talking right now?


I have a spy drone disguised as a pigeon sitting outside on the windowsill. He's feeding me information... but I'm having trouble understanding everything since the camera isn't working, and I didn't start from the beginning.

I would have started from the beginning, but the drone got the address wrong and ended up at a porno filming. It was very confusing for me as the audio wasn't clear enough for me to tell if Viacom and DirecTV REALLY disliked each other, or REALLY liked each other. Eventually, the audio made it quite clear that the secretary and pizza man weren't there to help the two parties take a lunch break during negotiations. 

~Alan


----------



## Santi360HD

I'll say this...D* will look a whole lot worse than E* for yanking so many channels in 1 shot..If I'm an advertiser paying for air-time on any of these channels, how do I feel right now about my product being blocked from airplay??


----------



## maartena

darkpowrjd said:


> Soooo....has there been any update yet on how this is going? We're sitting here saying "let them go...oh wait, let's not....but we can live without them, even though we can't", and yet, we don't know if we even need to have this discussion.
> 
> So...anyone keeping tabs on what's going on behind the closed doors? Are they even talking right now?


Until an official announcement is made by DirecTV and Viacom, no one here knows anything. These kind of negotiations are usually done behind close doors, and no-one outside the room - unless they are eavesdropping - knows anything. At some point they will walk out of the room (or their respective rooms if done by conference calls) and make a statement.

If not, you'll know when the channels go dark tonight.


----------



## zimm7778

Just saw this on a friends Facebook status. For anyone who thinks its better elsewhere:

http://www.wesh.com/news/central-fl...0/-/ytkjwg/-/index.html#.T_x6vhFzoZQ.facebook


----------



## maartena

Santi360HD said:


> I'll say this...D* will look a whole lot worse than E* for yanking so many channels in 1 shot..If I'm an advertiser paying for air-time on any of these channels, how do I feel right now about my product being blocked from airplay??


Well.... DirecTV would like nothing better then to keep the stations without paying anything extra, so THEY won't pull the feeds. Viacom will pull the feeds, so if they are no longer visible on DirecTV, then the finger should be pointed at viacom. After all, they CAN decide to leave the channels up while they negotiate.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Santi360HD said:


> I'll say this...D* will look a whole lot worse than E* for yanking so many channels in 1 shot..If I'm an advertiser paying for air-time on any of these channels, how do I feel right now about my product being blocked from airplay??


I'm not one of these "my television provider is better than yours" people, but Dish Network has had their fair share as well, as has other providers.

If I was an advertiser on Viacom's channels, I'd be saying, if Viacom is asking for that much of an increase, why are my advertising costs so high?



maartena said:


> These kind of negotiations are usually done behind close doors, and no-one outside the room - unless they are eavesdropping - knows anything. At some point they will walk out of the room (or their respective rooms if done by conference calls) and make a statement.


... or has a spy drone disguised as a bird... 

~Alan


----------



## RunnerFL

Santi360HD said:


> I'll say this...D* will look a whole lot worse than E* for yanking so many channels in 1 shot..If I'm an advertiser paying for air-time on any of these channels, how do I feel right now about my product being blocked from airplay??


Considering DirecTV isn't the one doing the yanking, Viacom is, I don't see how they would look bad to advertisers. If anything Viacom would look bad to advertisers. The advertisers pay Viacom, not DirecTV.


----------



## Santi360HD

whatever & whom-ever is pulling the plug...There is no political way to polish it off..losing this many in 1 bulk is bad...no matter how you slice it


----------



## old7

Viacom makes most of their shows available on Hulu and/or Netflix. Why should DirecTV pay a premium price for watered-down content.


----------



## damondlt

maartena said:


> Until an official announcement is made by DirecTV and Viacom, no one here knows anything. These kind of negotiations are usually done behind close doors, and no-one outside the room - unless they are eavesdropping - knows anything. At some point they will walk out of the room (or their respective rooms if done by conference calls) and make a statement.
> 
> If not, you'll know when the channels go dark tonight.


 I know if there is no agreement and midnight they go dark if an agreement is not reached. That was posted right on Facebook by Directv!


----------



## DViper2399

I would probably be ok in paying a little extra to have Mtv eliminated from Dtv, but on a serious note my son watch's Nick & I watch a lot of Comedy Central so I would be upset if lost, on the + side maybe new contracts will bring some new viacom owned HD


----------



## damondlt

Thats fine they can drop them, But I want my bill dropped then too. No big deal.


----------



## tonyd79

Alan Gordon said:


> Months later...
> 
> ~Alan


Not exactly a topical show....

And Netflix is in HD-ish.


----------



## Santi360HD

Alan Gordon said:


> I'm not one of these "my television provider is better than yours" people, but Dish Network has had their fair share as well, as has other providers.
> 
> If I was an advertiser on Viacom's channels, I'd be saying, if Viacom is asking for that much of an increase, why are my advertising costs so high?
> 
> ... or has a spy drone disguised as a bird...
> 
> ~Alan


this is the reason I have 2 providers at my bar D* and TWC. I will pay out the wazoo to have both because I refuse that both companies try to dictate to me how to run my business by ruining it. My bar had the Knicks while Time Warner pulled it early this year, brought more business for me because D* wasnt affected..While the current threat has absolutely no implications to any sports. My sympathies go out to anyone affected by this alleged pull.


----------



## TheDaddy

I hope it gets worked out without an outage. My kids watch the various nick channels and I enjoy Tosh.0, Workaholics, Daily Show, South Park, Teen Wolf etc...also enjoy Paladia because it plays lots of UK groups live that get no play here like Kasabian etc...shows festivals like Isle of Wight, Glastonbury etc...


----------



## Max Mike

Hold the line DirecTV do not give a inch.


----------



## Alan Gordon

tonyd79 said:


> Not exactly a topical show....
> 
> And Netflix is in HD-ish.


To me it comes down to where do you draw the line?

I pay DirecTV to be my TV provider. If I feel the need to get a second or third source for entertainment, then the worth of DirecTV is devalued in my mind.

Like I stated, I won't be happy if they're pulled tonight, but I don't feel that Viacom is justified in this large of a price increase either, so I support whatever DirecTV can do to fight it.

~Alan


----------



## gphvid

It is basically simple. The price point where subscribers will no longer pay because it is too high has been reached already. Viacom and the other providers need to know this. AMC is beginning to get a clue from DISH. SOI Viacom needs the same treatment. They think that they can get these price increases every time stating whatever market factor they wish to present. But the fact remains that the bottom line for consumers is the overall monthly cost which always goes higher.

DirecTV hit the high price point about 2 years ago, and increases since have cause defections to start. They are right to stand in the way of these big increase requests at least for their own business. Because, without the subscribers, neither DirecTV nor Viacom has an audience...


----------



## darkpowrjd

Max Mike said:


> Hold the line DirecTV do not give a inch.


Well, the "my way or the highway" thing doesn't work, either, because then they will not have anything on their service. Viacom isn't in any position to negotiate such a high rate increase (assuming that's what's going on: each side is going to try to spin things so people will think the other side is the bad guy), but at the same time, we don't need DTV to become like Dish in that they don't ever budge for anyone. That kind of thing has made Dish subs lost AMC and a good bit of locals so far (the latter is if the WFMJ FAQ is accurate). DTV doesn't have to be like that. Find some kind of middle ground, and keep finding some way to make everyone happy.

Yeah, Dish is doing the "my way or the highway" routine way too many times now. It's killing their PR. DTV needs to NOT be Dish!


----------



## maartena

damondlt said:


> Thats fine they can drop them, But I want my bill dropped then too. No big deal.


If you called during the blackout of the Tribune channels back in may, which lasted about 3 days I think, you would get a $5 discount on your bill for that month. I am willing to bet that if these channels stay offline for DirecTV, and you give them a call they will give you a similar credit for each month the channels are not there.

I have found DirecTV to be fairly helpful in that regard if your account is in good standing.


----------



## vobguy

Mark Holtz said:


> Waitasec.... does one of the Viacom channels show that Snookie show from the shores of Jersey?
> 
> PULL DIRECTV PULL THE CHANNEL!!!!!!!


Seriously!

I haven't seen a full listing of the affected channels, but so far the ones highlighted in the news won't really be missed in my household.

We watch Spike a little (basically, when one of the Star Wars movies is on) but the commercials on it are so bad I can't watch it with the kids.

The kids used to watch NickJr but haven't in a while, Noggin is about all of the kids shows they watch, now everything else is DVD. :lol:

I agree with DirecTV on this, if they want big rate increases, then let us pick alacarte from the Viacom channels. Because I think I would happily pick "None of the Above"


----------



## Laxguy

Santi360HD said:


> I'll say this...D* will look a whole lot worse than E* for yanking so many channels in 1 shot..If I'm an advertiser paying for air-time on any of these channels, how do I feel right now about my product being blocked from airplay??


*Blocked??* Blocked you say? Almost certainly, V-com will tell DIRECTV® to stop broadcasting their stuff if DIRECTV® doesn't meet their demands for mo' money. So, it'd be the other way around.....


----------



## Darcaine

I'm just glad its not AMC on the chopping block. I don't care if all the viacom channels go away permanately, especially if I got BBC HD in return as that one HD channel would be worth giving up all of viacoms channels, for me personally.


----------



## SHS

The way I see it is television provider would like nothing better then to keep the stations without paying anything over rated extra like they are wanting if ture 30% hike, so they won't pull the feeds. Viacom will pull the feeds, so if they are no longer visible on television provider, then we people need point are finger at ceo at viacom. After all there one getting a bit over greedy, they can decide to leave the channels up while they negotiate.
How ever if they are unwlling to negotiate then I say tell to just f$%k off after all it viacom lost and all other television provider both cable and sat should tell them big media company where to it stick it then sooner or later thoses big media company will fail or stop trying to so f$%king greedy man I'm all really getting sick of hearing this carp ever 6 month more memory.
Come on people it not end world and try sicking to your gun's or we all end up with higher bill.
Yes I miss a few channel.
How ever if Viacom only really only dose want an small increase of a couple of pennies per day per subscriber then I see nothing wrong 0.40 to 0.60 increase per month with that then we need point are finger at ceo at DirecTV or we can all just switch over to Dishnetwork even this dosen't make very happy at all.
How ever both of them don't need be greedy or uncut each other.


----------



## darkpowrjd

gphvid said:


> It is basically simple. The price point where subscribers will no longer pay because it is too high has been reached already. Viacom and the other providers need to know this. * AMC is beginning to get a clue from DISH.* SOI Viacom needs the same treatment. They think that they can get these price increases every time stating whatever market factor they wish to present. But the fact remains that the bottom line for consumers is the overall monthly cost which always goes higher.


AMC is in a different position, though. DISH played a dirty trick to spin things their way in the remaining weeks of the channel being on the service. They did that quiet channel change so viewers couldn't find it and then say "see, no one noticed you were gone". Umm, YEAH THEY DID! Hard to watch a channel if you can't FIND the damn thing! Dish did that in a deliberate attempt to cook the books to make it seem as though AMC didn't have the support that they said they did. Not to mention that there could be more involved into why they pulled AMC than just price rates (competition, past grudges, etc.).

With DTV, there's the sole thing about what we, and they, should pay for the service. AFAIK, there's currently no other issue standing in the way of Viacom and DTV being happy as long as they can work out something on the price issue. Viacom doesn't own a cable company that can directly compete with DTV or anything like that. Just money, and that's usually the biggest enemy for a lot of Americans.


----------



## meldar_b

lets see what corporate creed at work will get them axed, a 30% increase is to much to pay for mostly rerun channels don't this so :nono2:

*Spike* - the only channel I'd miss
MTV *- not worth watching 
MTV2 *- not worth watching 
VH1 *- not worth watching 
VH1 Classic - I'll miss metal...but reruns
CMT *- not worth watching 
BET *- not worth watching 
Palladia *- not worth watching I don't pay for this extra hd channel anyway
Logo *- not worth watching 
Comedy - nope don't do this 
oneNick - needs to be playing outside learning by doing
Nick Jr - needs to be playing outside learning by doing
Teenick - needs to be playing outside learning by doing
NickToons - needs to be playing outside learning by doing
Centric - never heard of this so it must be - not worth watching


----------



## jeffmacguy

RunnerFL said:


> Considering DirecTV isn't the one doing the yanking, Viacom is, I don't see how they would look bad to advertisers. If anything Viacom would look bad to advertisers. The advertisers pay Viacom, not DirecTV.


They actually BOTH make money on advertising... D*gets all the local availability slots.

However, V stands to lose much more in advertising dollars than D.

D* is the good guy in this fight, from a customer's point of view, as they are trying to keep the cost of programming lower, which helps keep the rates we pay lower. Sure, they may still raise our rates, but they would have to raise them even more if all the content providers raise their cost of doing business.


----------



## ciurca

My 14 year old will miss comedy central and MTV and my younger two will miss Nick. If it is permanent I would have to go back to Comcast. I doubt it would be permanent.


----------



## Santi360HD

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 275 (93 members and 182 guests) 

Hello Swanni !!! im sure you're in there somewhere!!! and waiting for the other shoe to drop here in regards to any news on this alleged pull. Heaven forbid you do any real journalism. Copy & paste doesnt count for being savvy jerky!!


----------



## dxtrfn80

I assume you can watch previously recorded programs from the Viacom channels. If some people are smart they would have recorded many and many Spongebob, Dora, Victorious, Big Time Rush, etc. on their receivers so the kids can still watch those shows and with this being summer and the Summer Olympics the networks will shy away from new episodes during the Olympics. I know there supposed to be a new BTR on Monday but you can download for a fee ($3 HD, $2 SD) for the show the next day. If Nick were smart they would postpone the premiers of the shows until Viacom and DTV get a deal. With all the ad dollars Viacom would miss, Viacom would be stupid for the blackout to last more than 48 hours or so.


----------



## slimoli

I wouldn't pay a single Dollar a month for this package. Write it off, Directv !


----------



## raott

D* needs to stop with the sense of entitlement, stop with the whining and pay the asking price. :lol:


----------



## DCSholtis

"Alan Gordon" said:


> I have a spy drone disguised as a pigeon sitting outside on the windowsill. He's feeding me information... but I'm having trouble understanding everything since the camera isn't working, and I didn't start from the beginning.
> 
> I would have started from the beginning, but the drone got the address wrong and ended up at a porno filming. It was very confusing for me as the audio wasn't clear enough for me to tell if Viacom and DirecTV REALLY disliked each other, or REALLY liked each other. Eventually, the audio made it quite clear that the secretary and pizza man weren't there to help the two parties take a lunch break during negotiations.
> 
> ~Alan


Watch that pigeon, Alan. I'd put a hat on if I were you.


----------



## RunnerFL

raott said:


> D* needs to stop with the sense of entitlement, stop with the whining and pay the asking price.


You're joking right? :lol:


----------



## Stuart Sweet

raott said:


> D* needs to stop with the sense of entitlement, stop with the whining and pay the asking price.


You realize where DIRECTV's money comes from, right?


----------



## kevinturcotte

raott said:


> D* needs to stop with the sense of entitlement, stop with the whining and pay the asking price.


Okay, so a billion here, then NBC/Universal says THEY want a billion, and another company decides THEY want a billion. Before we know it, we're going to be paying $200 a month in JUST programming fees.


----------



## inkahauts

danpeters said:


> I really don't think DirecTV carries 26 of their channels..
> 
> I am coming up with: MTV, Nick, Comedy Central, BET, VH1, Spike, TV Land, CMT, Logo, MTV 2, VH1 Classic, Centric, Palladia, Nick Jr, Nicktoons, TeenNick.
> 
> It looks like they are starting to put Alert channels under each channel in the guide so I'll scroll through and see if I missed any.
> 
> Dan
> 
> Edit: Missed MTV t3es


I'd guess they are counting Hi Definition and sd feeds both.


----------



## danpeters

inkahauts said:


> I'd guess they are counting Hi Definition and sd feeds both.


Yeah, that's what they did. Had to make their channel counts sound more dramatic.

Dan


----------



## raott

Stuart Sweet said:


> You realize where DIRECTV's money comes from, right?


It is sarcasm Stuart. Simply parroting what a handful here say whenever someone posts about negotiating with D* for lower rates or deals.


----------



## raott

RunnerFL said:


> You're joking right? :lol:


Yes. I'll edit with a Smilie.


----------



## kevinturcotte

inkahauts said:


> I'd guess they are counting Hi Definition and sd feeds both.


MTV SD is 1 channel. MTV HD is 1 channel. The REAL fun one is Nickelodeon. Nick SD is 1 channel. Nick HD is one channel. Nick at Nite SD is 1 channel. Nick at Nite HD is 1 channel. So they basically call 1 actual channel 4 channels lol


----------



## RunnerFL

raott said:


> Yes. I'll edit with a Smilie.


I thought so.


----------



## Draconis

Personally, I have a nasty solution to this. 

Step 1: Drop all Viacom channels from the base packages then lower the cost of said packages by whatever amount it used to cost to keep them. 

Step 2: Make Viacom a premium channel service like HBO, Showtime, Etc. then let them raise the price. See how many subscribers they get then.

Just my $0.02 :evilgrin:

Doubt it will happen though.


----------



## rlj1010

If these channels are pulled, even for a day, I am dropping Directv. We are a Nick household.

Directv already pissed me off, with the Sunbeam television dispute earlier this year. (We lost our FOX station for a week, during NFL playoffs, and lost Idol.)
I did not appreciate being used as 'leverage'.

I will not stand for it again. 

(And also annoyed that Directv has made zero effort to add Disney Junior to the lineup.)


----------



## mreposter

I feel sorry for all the CSRs at Directv that are having to deal with the tons of phone calls into Directv that this is probably generating. And if these channels do go dark, it's going to get even worse.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

kevinturcotte said:


> MTV SD is 1 channel. MTV HD is 1 channel. The REAL fun one is Nickelodeon. Nick SD is 1 channel. Nick HD is one channel. Nick at Nite SD is 1 channel. Nick at Nite HD is 1 channel. So they basically call 1 actual channel 4 channels lol


more like 6 when you count west


----------



## kevinturcotte

rlj1010 said:


> If these channels are pulled, even for a day, I am dropping Directv. We are a Nick household.
> 
> Directv already pissed me off, with the Sunbeam television dispute earlier this year. (We lost our FOX station for a week, during NFL playoffs, and lost Idol.)
> I did not appreciate being used as 'leverage'.
> 
> I will not stand for it again.
> 
> (And also annoyed that Directv has made zero effort to add Disney Junior to the lineup.)


Are you under a contract? You'll be a large fee if you are. Also, whether you go to Dish Network, cable, or some other company, this will come up with them as well. Dish just dropped AMC, WE, some others. Our local cable company just dropped our local ABC. There's no way you're going to be immune from this unless you completely cut the cable and go with OTA/streaming.


----------



## mnassour

rlj1010 said:


> If these channels are pulled, even for a day, I am dropping Directv. We are a Nick household.
> 
> Directv already pissed me off, with the Sunbeam television dispute earlier this year. (We lost our FOX station for a week, during NFL playoffs, and lost Idol.)
> I did not appreciate being used as 'leverage'.
> 
> I will not stand for it again.
> 
> (And also annoyed that Directv has made zero effort to add Disney Junior to the lineup.)


You DO realize that each provider goes through this at one time or another? Cable, Dish, Direct, UVerse, it doesn't matter. I wouldn't pretend to tell you what to watch. And I certainly make my own decision on a provider based on what channels are available. But don't think you're getting away from this kind of nonsense by switching providers.

My personal prediction is that if they don't get a deal done by tonight, the channels will be pulled by Viacom and will be off for about a week. That's not enough time to get another provider in, learn the equipment, and get back to where you were with DirecTV.


----------



## rlj1010

kevinturcotte said:


> Are you under a contract? You'll be a large fee if you are. Also, whether you go to Dish Network, cable, or some other company, this will come up with them as well. Dish just dropped AMC, WE, some others. Our local cable company just dropped our local ABC. There's no way you're going to be immune from this unless you completely cut the cable and go with OTA/streaming.


I am not under contract. And I don't mind switching to yet another provider if and when this happens again elsewhere. I want the CONTENT, and don't give a rat's a$$ who's providing it. While I'd prefer not to, if I have to jump around between providers endlessly, so be it.


----------



## kevinturcotte

rlj1010 said:


> I am not under contract. And I don't mind switching to yet another provider if and when this happens yet again elsewhere. I want the CONTENT, and don't give a rat's a$$ who's providing it.


If you switch to Dish, you WILL be under a contract. What will you do next year when they drop one of your favorite channels? Don't know if cable has contracts if your area (Time Warner doesn't here), but more than likely, PQ is going to suffer, and you'll probably have to use their sub par equipment.


----------



## ndole

rlj1010 said:


> If these channels are pulled, even for a day, I am dropping Directv. We are a Nick household.
> 
> *Directv already pissed me off, with the Sunbeam television dispute earlier this year.* (We lost our FOX station for a week, during NFL playoffs, and lost Idol.)
> *I did not appreciate being used as 'leverage'*.
> 
> I will not stand for it again.
> 
> (And also annoyed that Directv has made zero effort to add Disney Junior to the lineup.)


Do you know who starts these disputes? I'll give you a hint:

Directv isn't pulling channels in order to pay LESS money to the providers than they are already getting. To add to that.. do you think it does Directv any favors to 'leverage' negotiations by dropping channels?

Think about it for just a second..


----------



## kevinturcotte

rlj1010 said:


> If these channels are pulled, even for a day, I am dropping Directv. We are a Nick household.
> 
> Directv already pissed me off, with the Sunbeam television dispute earlier this year. (We lost our FOX station for a week, during NFL playoffs, and lost Idol.)
> I did not appreciate being used as 'leverage'.
> 
> I will not stand for it again.
> 
> (And also annoyed that Directv has made zero effort to add Disney Junior to the lineup.)


And the cost doesn't matter at all? If the programmers had they're way, we'd be paying $300-$400 a month BEFORE Directv added in any of their fees. Directv is trying to prevent this from happening.


----------



## cjrleimer

rlj1010 said:


> I am not under contract. And I don't mind switching to yet another provider if and when this happens again elsewhere. I want the CONTENT, and don't give a rat's a$$ who's providing it. While I'd prefer not to, if I have to jump around between providers endlessly, so be it.


My question is what are your providers in your area, and what is their track record in these because as another poster said, " it happens to everyone". Welcome to 2012 tv in which disputes rule, and costs go ape you know what.


----------



## ladannen

This thread and the Viacom page at Facebook is full of "I'm leaving Directv if these channels are dropped!" I always laugh at these comments.

First, any TV provider should fight for the lowest possible carriage fees. If I started a cable/satellite/FIOS TV provider today and decided that I would offer every channel available no matter what the cost, what would the monthly charge be to the customer? $500? $1000? Who would pay that?

Second, this is not an isolated Directv issue. No current TV provider is immune to contract disputes and channels being dropped because of them.

If this Viacom/Directv dispute lasts longer than even one week, this might be the final straw and the government might step in. They didn't care about the Directv/Versus dispute or the Dish/MSG dispute, but this drop will include some very popular channels.


----------



## cjrleimer

ladannen said:


> This thread and the Viacom page at Facebook is full of "I'm leaving Directv if these channels are dropped!" I always laugh at these comments.
> 
> First, any TV provider should fight for the lowest possible carriage fees. If I started a cable/satellite/FIOS TV provider today and decided that I would offer every channel available no matter what the cost, what would the monthly charge be to the customer? $500? $1000? Who would pay that?
> 
> Second, this is not an isolated Directv issue. No current TV provider is immune to contract disputes and channels being dropped because of them.
> 
> If this Viacom/Directv dispute lasts longer than even one week, this might be the final straw and the government might step in. They didn't care about the Directv/Versus dispute or the Dish/MSG dispute, but this drop will include some very popular channels.


If the government gets involved, I am sure the politicians will use it as grand standing as they are bought and paid for by the media conglomorates.


----------



## RunnerFL

rlj1010 said:


> I am not under contract. And I don't mind switching to yet another provider if and when this happens again elsewhere. I want the CONTENT, and don't give a rat's a$$ who's providing it. While I'd prefer not to, if I have to jump around between providers endlessly, so be it.


So you'd be fine with DirecTV giving Viacom what they want and raising our bills to make up for it? Yeah, you need to go to another provider alright.


----------



## rlj1010

I don't give a flying F who's responsible for these disputes.... The bottom line is, these things need to be negotiated behind the scenes well in advance, and not at the last second in this manner. If you want to stand behind Directv during this stalemate, go right ahead. I am not.


----------



## rlj1010

RunnerFL said:


> So you'd be fine with DirecTV giving Viacom what they want and raising our bills to make up for it? Yeah, you need to go to another provider alright.


Yes. I can afford it.

You see, I work hard and don't waste all my time racking up 11,000 posts on a silly web site.


----------



## Shades228

rlj1010 said:


> If these channels are pulled, even for a day, I am dropping Directv. We are a Nick household.
> 
> Directv already pissed me off, with the Sunbeam television dispute earlier this year. (We lost our FOX station for a week, during NFL playoffs, and lost Idol.)
> I did not appreciate being used as 'leverage'.
> 
> I will not stand for it again.
> 
> (And also annoyed that Directv has made zero effort to add Disney Junior to the lineup.)


If you're upset about being used a leverage and you swtich companies then you're proving to the content providers that it works. Neither company wants to turn off the stations but it's the trump card the content providers can call. It starts costing the companies that distribute the content money from having to have extra staff, deal with customer's calling in, having customer's threaten to leave, having customer's actually leave, add subs go down due to people holding off ordering, and other cost factors.



rlj1010 said:


> I don't give a flying F who's responsible for these disputes.... The bottom line is, these things need to be negotiated behind the scenes well in advance, and not at the last second in this manner. If you want to stand behind Directv during this stalemate, go right ahead. I am not.


These have been being negotiated for a long time behind closed doors. It's already been reported that the official contract ended on 6/30 but had been extended. This only happens when both companies are happy with how things are going and feel that they are close to a deal. This last minute issue is for whatever reason Viacom feels they can do this to press whatever issue they're holding up.

My advice to you is if you switch companies I wouldn't get too comfortable with them because this is becoming the SOP of the big players. They're going to force channels to go dark to get their concessions. So good luck in whatever you choose.


----------



## RunnerFL

rlj1010 said:


> Yes. I can afford it.


Lucky you Richie Rich... Enjoy your new provider.


----------



## kevinturcotte

rlj1010 said:


> I don't give a flying F who's responsible for these disputes.... The bottom line is, these things need to be negotiated behind the scenes well in advance, and not at the last second in this manner. If you want to stand behind Directv during this stalemate, go right ahead. I am not.


So Directv should just accept ANY deal that is throw it's way? What if Viacom said it wanted $3 billion? Just take it and pass it on to us?


----------



## RunnerFL

kevinturcotte said:


> So Directv should just accept ANY deal that is throw it's way? What if Viacom said it wanted $3 billion? Just take it and pass it on to us?


He's Richie Rich, he can afford it.


----------



## tvropro

These last minute battles are getting old fast. In the past none of this went on. The negotiations were done and everything was resolved ahead of time. It's time both sides quit playing these childish games and resolve things without this display of I'm better than you crap just to make a point.


----------



## loudo

The greed is getting so bad with cable and satellite providers and packagers, it will eventually lead the way for cheaper alternatives for people to get their programing. 

I just saw where our local cable company TWC, dropped the local ABC network station today.


----------



## ndole

rlj1010 said:


> I don't give a flying F who's responsible for these disputes.... The bottom line is, these things need to be negotiated behind the scenes well in advance, and not at the last second in this manner. If you want to stand behind Directv during this stalemate, go right ahead. I am not.


Again.. do a little bit of research. Who decided to make sure that the channels get pulled? And who did that at the last minute as a 'negotiating tactic'. (Some would call it highway robbery)


----------



## cjrleimer

RunnerFL said:


> He's Richie Rich, he can afford it.


He probably wouldnt care if his bill was 5,000 dollars, just as long as he gets 1000 channels he is ok :grin:


----------



## zimm7778

"Draconis" said:


> Personally, I have a nasty solution to this.
> 
> Step 1: Drop all Viacom channels from the base packages then lower the cost of said packages by whatever amount it used to cost to keep them.
> 
> Step 2: Make Viacom a premium channel service like HBO, Showtime, Etc. then let them raise the price. See how many subscribers they get then.
> 
> Just my $0.02 :evilgrin:
> 
> Doubt it will happen though.


If the former happened with every testy renegotiation the networks fees would be far less than what they are because everyone would see what it costs them up to now and would know they wanted even more of an increase.


----------



## mnassour

rlj1010 said:


> Yes. I can afford it.
> 
> You see, I work hard and don't waste all my time racking up 11,000 posts on a silly web site.


Please do not speak in a derogatory manner about those who have spent their time here to help others. You dropped in to whine about losing a couple of precious channels and have stomped your feet and said you're about to move on.

Go right ahead, sir.

Oh, by the way, the next time you enter someone's home for the first time, you might consider *not* pissing on the floor.


----------



## RunnerFL

cjrleimer said:


> He probably wouldnt care if his bill was 5,000 dollars, just as long as he gets 1000 channels he is ok :grin:


That's the vibe I'm getting from him too. Some sort of "I'm rich so screw you guys" mentality.


----------



## mnassour

loudo said:


> The greed is getting so bad with cable and satellite providers and packagers, it will eventually lead the way for cheaper alternatives for people to get their programing.


I'm on board with that. Now, what are they? No slam intended, but the program companies hold all the cards, er, programs.


----------



## inkahauts

kevinturcotte said:


> MTV SD is 1 channel. MTV HD is 1 channel. The REAL fun one is Nickelodeon. Nick SD is 1 channel. Nick HD is one channel. Nick at Nite SD is 1 channel. Nick at Nite HD is 1 channel. So they basically call 1 actual channel 4 channels lol


Yeah, I didn't realize I was seven pages behind when I posted that!

Yikes!


----------



## Starchild

I'm alright with whatever directv decides. There wil be an agreement between the two companies that they will both say they has made them the winning party. 

And hopefully we will see additional HD out of this new carriage agreement such as TV Land HD for an example.


----------



## kevinturcotte

Starchild said:


> I'm alright with whatever directv decides. There wil be an agreement between the two companies that they will both say they has made them the winning party.
> 
> And hopefully we will see additional HD out of this new carriage agreement such as TV Land HD for an example.


I'm NOT all right if Directv caves and our bill skyrockets.


----------



## cjrleimer

Starchild said:


> I'm alright with whatever directv decides. There wil be an agreement between the two companies that they will both say they has made them the winning party.
> 
> And hopefully we will see additional HD out of this new carriage agreement such as TV Land HD for an example.


+1, and EPIX possibly as well.


----------



## zimm7778

"ladannen" said:


> This thread and the Viacom page at Facebook is full of "I'm leaving Directv if these channels are dropped!" I always laugh at these comments.
> 
> First, any TV provider should fight for the lowest possible carriage fees. If I started a cable/satellite/FIOS TV provider today and decided that I would offer every channel available no matter what the cost, what would the monthly charge be to the customer? $500? $1000? Who would pay that?
> 
> Second, this is not an isolated Directv issue. No current TV provider is immune to contract disputes and channels being dropped because of them.
> 
> If this Viacom/Directv dispute lasts longer than even one week, this might be the final straw and the government might step in. They didn't care about the Directv/Versus dispute or the Dish/MSG dispute, but this drop will include some very popular channels.


Had the FCC not allowed all these mergers, network creations under the same banner, and regulated this kind of crap years ago we might not be here. They don't do things like regulate this, but the one monopolistic merger they should have allowed without a problem, Sirius and XM, they drug their feet on for so long the company almost went belly up over it.


----------



## damondlt

Hey I have an Idea, How about Directv just makes less profit. OH no we couldn't have that could we.


----------



## tftc22

mws192 said:


> That works for me. Additional suggestions welcome.
> 
> Assuming Viacom counts SD and HD as different:
> 
> DirecTV	|Viacom
> 1 |2	BET
> 1 |1	Centric
> 1 |2	CMT
> 1 |2	Comedy Central
> 1 |1	Logo
> 1 |2	MTV
> 1 |1	MTV2
> 1 |1	MTV t3es
> 1 |3	Nick, NickW
> 0 |1	Nick at Nite (evening programming on Nick) ?
> 1 |1	Nick Jr
> 1 |1	Nick Toons
> 1 |1	Palladia
> 1 |2	Spike
> 1 |1	Teen Nick
> 1 |1	TV Land
> 1 |2	VH1
> 1 |1	VH1 Classic
> *17	|26	Total*


I don't think Viacom is counting Nick at Nite separately. What's missing from the list is MTV India (channel 2006). To summarize, the difference between the two channel counts is that Viacom is also including 7 HD channels, a west coast feed, and an international channel to get to a total of 26.


----------



## RunnerFL

zimm7778 said:


> Had the FCC not allowed all these mergers, network creations under the same banner, and regulated this kind of crap years ago we might not be here.


Ding ding ding! We have a winner! This man sees the whole forest.


----------



## carl6

Draconis said:


> Personally, I have a nasty solution to this.
> 
> Step 1: Drop all Viacom channels from the base packages then lower the cost of said packages by whatever amount it used to cost to keep them.
> 
> Step 2: Make Viacom a premium channel service like HBO, Showtime, Etc. then let them raise the price. See how many subscribers they get then.
> 
> Just my $0.02 :evilgrin:
> 
> Doubt it will happen though.


Exactly my sentiments.


----------



## zimm7778

"loudo" said:


> The greed is getting so bad with cable and satellite providers and packagers, it will eventually lead the way for cheaper alternatives for people to get their programing.
> 
> I just saw where our local cable company TWC, dropped the local ABC network station today.


I posted a link earlier that Brighthouse (whom Time Warner does all the negotiating for) in Orlando is about to drop the NBC affiliate over in Orlando.


----------



## mnassour

damondlt said:


> Hey I have an Idea, How about Directv just makes less profit. OH no we couldn't have that could we.


Well, hell, like I told someone over on Viacom's Facebook page earlier, I'm going to raise your mortgage by 30% tomorrow. Say, you don't need any extra income to cover that, do you?

:shrug:


----------



## zimm7778

"RunnerFL" said:


> Ding ding ding! We have a winner! This man sees the whole forest.


Them allowing Comcast to own the NBC Universal stations is a disastrous renegotiation waiting to happen when it's time. That one could get very nasty.


----------



## ndole

damondlt said:


> Hey I have an Idea, How about Directv just makes less profit. OH no we couldn't have that could we.


There's a reason that you're probably not the CEO/CFO (or even the night manager) anywhere.. Just a wild guess  :lol:


----------



## inkahauts

Lets see.. Viacom has increased its distribution by allowing streaming of its programs via the Internet, and that takes value away from the channels for dtv to carry. It has less and less new programing on several of its channels....

And yet they want more and more money from DIRECTV for something that has lost value to DIRECTV. 

It sounds like mike is saying that DIRECTV would like to drop a few of the channels to lower costs.

I also have a feeling that $1 billion is over the life of the contract, probably several years.

Both will spin.


I just wonder at what point does DIRECTV say, here's the final offer, or we replace you with other channels and there won't bee enough space to bring your channels back no matter what. That's something that would put a lot more pressure on Viacom IMHO. (although i doubt they could event find enough channels to add at reasonable prices to actually fill up all their bandwidth.)


----------



## tampa8

"mnassour" said:


> Please do not speak in a derogatory manner about those who have spent their time here to help others. You dropped in to whine about losing a couple of precious channels and have stomped your feet and said you're about to move on.
> 
> Go right ahead, sir.
> 
> Oh, by the way, the next time you enter someone's home for the first time, you might consider not pissing on the floor.


Damn good post.


----------



## sdk009

Since John Stewart and Stephen Colbert in hiatus this week, I will not get too excited. But, with that programming available on the Internet I will find the shows somehow.
Don't tell D* and other carriers, but with TVs now capable of direct internet connections, the carriers will eventually go the way of the dinosaur.


----------



## inkahauts

"mnassour" said:


> I'm on board with that. Now, what are they? No slam intended, but the program companies hold all the cards, er, programs.


I wonder if sat and cable companies actually have more or less profit% today vs say ten years ago. How about 20 years ago? And 30 years ago when cable was really just getting going?


----------



## ndole

There's a good article about the dispute HERE


----------



## damondlt

ndole said:


> There's a reason that you're probably not the CEO/CFO (or even the night manager) anywhere.. Just a wild guess  :lol:


 Shows what you know! 
I unlike corprate America take losses all the time. We are called Small Business Owners.

Millionares don't know anything about declining profit. Why do you think they can lose business and still never take a loss.

They just drop or take what they need for themselves!
Or just get a free government bailout!


----------



## zimm7778

Since I (fortunately) don't have Brighthouse I didn't know this but apparently we in Tampa lost a local channel today. So, we lose an independent and Brighthouse in Orlando is set to drop NBC over there. Again, if you leave to go to another provider there is no telling how long it'll be before they are at odds with someone....especially if that provider is Time Warner or Brighthouse.

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/media...r-ch-32-and-digital-tv-tampa-bay-cable-system


----------



## zimm7778

"damondlt" said:


> Shows what you know!
> I unlike corprate America take losses all the time. We are called Small Business Owners.
> 
> Millionares don't know anything about declining profit. Why do you think they can lose business and still never take a loss.
> 
> They just drop or take what they need for themselves!


Right, that's how the company stays in business. Dropping or taking what they need for themselves. And how about before you presume to decide they should take less profit how about you know where that profit goes, what the profit margin is, and if it bothers you that much....leave. Then they'll make less profit because they wont have your business anymore.

And I hate saying that to people, but if you are going to all side with the networks and say oh well, Directv should eat it all it really shows how much you know about business.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

The hyperbole is getting rediculous. This isn't going to make people's bills $500 - $1000 . The elasticity of prices isn't that great. All cable/satellite companies need to keep their prices competitive, or they won't have any subscribers. Also, there is only so much the market will bear. They both know this. They word things in a way to get people on their side. $1 billion, ooooh big scary number.

It's all about whether directv gets to keep more of your money or has to pass more on to viacom (and others). It's not in anyone's best interest to just cave into the other's demands. They need to negotiate a fair deal. Both parties are playing YOU. Don't buy into their BS.


----------



## domingos35

until dish and directv band together and refuse these and future outrageous programming price increases it will only get worse


----------



## ndole

damondlt said:



> Shows what you know!
> I unlike corprate America take losses all the time. We are called Small Business Owners.
> 
> Millionares don't know anything about declining profit. Why do you think they can lose business and still never take a loss.
> 
> They just drop or take what they need for themselves!
> Or just get a free government bailout!


Do you know the difference between owning a Business, and owning your Job?
..
...
....
PROFIT


----------



## ndole

Pepe Sylvia said:


> The hyperbole is getting rediculous. This isn't going to make people's bills $500 - $1000 . The elasticity of prices isn't that great. All cable/satellite companies need to keep their prices competitive, or they won't have any subscribers. Also, there is only so much the market will bear. They both know this. They word things in a way to get people on their side. $1 billion, ooooh big scary number.
> 
> It's all about whether directv gets to keep more of your money or has to pass more on to viacom (and others). It's not in anyone's best interest to just cave into the other's demands. They need to negotiate a fair deal. *Both parties are playing YOU. Don't buy into their BS.*


They're all out to get you. Better stay inside.


----------



## mnassour

inkahauts said:


> I wonder if sat and cable companies actually have more or less profit% today vs say ten years ago. How about 20 years ago? And 30 years ago when cable was really just getting going?


I *do* know that the price of programming has gone through the roof.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

domingos35 said:


> until dish and directv band together and refuse these and future outrageous programming price increases it will only get worse


That's illegal, it's called collusion.


----------



## jmpfaff

I care about 2 of those "26" channels. And I can very easily live without them, especially if keeping those 2 leads to a big rate increase on the other 15...errr....24.


----------



## damondlt

I found out some info I called Viacom and Directv and Honestly they are both at Fault. Directv pays Viacom less then any provider per subscriber, Viacom wants them to pay Fair value.

Well Directv claims a Billion dollar increase, But Viacom claims its only pennys, So How does Directv come up with its Billion dollar number? $1 increase per subscriber is only $20 million. So Directv is never going to convince me that Viacom want an addtional $5 per customer. Sorry don't buy it!


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

ndole said:


> They're all out to get you. Better stay inside.


What the hell are you talking about? Try making some sense.


----------



## I WANT MORE

zimm7778 said:


> Had the FCC not allowed all these mergers, network creations under the same banner, and regulated this kind of crap years ago we might not be here. They don't do things like regulate this, but the one monopolistic merger they should have allowed without a problem, Sirius and XM, they drug their feet on for so long the company almost went belly up over it.


Al Franken is trying to fix that.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

damondlt said:


> I found out some info I called Viacom and Directv and Honestly they are both at Fault. Directv pays Viacom less then any provider per subscriber, Viacom wants them to pay Fair value.
> 
> Well Directv claims a Billion dollar increase, But Viacom claims its only pennys, So How does Directv come up with its Billion dollar number? $1 increase per subscriber is only $20 million. So Directv is never going to convince me that Viacom want an addtional $5 per customer. Sorry don't buy it!


They're probably talking about the whole value of the contract (over x years), not just the increase. $1 billion dollars is a scary big number, pennies is miniscule. Like I said, they are both playing games with the numbers.


----------



## damondlt

ndole said:


> Do you know the difference between owning a Business, and owning your Job?
> ..
> ...
> ....
> PROFIT


Yea I pay 11 employees every week. If I have to take a loss, thats what I do!. You take the good with the bad. You can't only take good. 
My crew and myself work a lot harder and help more people for a low six figure per year number!


----------



## Tubaman-Z

One upside to this for my household would be that if D* dropped the Viacom channels we could move to a lower tier programming package ("Murder She Wrote" on TVLand is watched by my wife - but that's about it).


----------



## damondlt

Pepe Sylvia said:


> They're probably talking about the whole value of the contract (over x years), not just the increase. $1 billion dollars is a scary big number, pennies is miniscule. Like I said, they are both playing games with the numbers.


 OK say the contract is 10 years? Directv payed more then that for NFL ST in much less years. You understand my point. Directv is blurting out a Billion dollar number, OK give us a list of what you pay per subscriber for all the other networks , then we can compair.


----------



## zimm7778

"I WANT MORE" said:


> Al Franken is trying to fix that.


I doubt he'd fix anything in a way I'd agree with. Seriously though I just read where some politician is upset about his constituents losing a channel. People might be interested if they didn't all stay quiet until it affects them.


----------



## Snickering Hound

damondlt said:


> I found out some info I called Viacom and Directv and Honestly they are both at Fault. Directv pays Viacom less then any provider per subscriber, Viacom wants them to pay Fair value.
> 
> Well Directv claims a Billion dollar increase, But Viacom claims its only pennys, So How does Directv come up with its Billion dollar number? $1 increase per subscriber is only $20 million. So Directv is never going to convince me that Viacom want an addtional $5 per customer. Sorry don't buy it!


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/analyst-cuts-viacom-stock-rating-346861

And Viacoms stock was just downgraded thanks to under-performing programming. Shouldn't Directv be asking LESS to carry their programming instead of getting stuck with a 30% increase?


----------



## maartena

rlj1010 said:


> If these channels are pulled, even for a day, I am dropping Directv. We are a Nick household.


Please report back TOMORROW which carrier you will go to. 

It certainly looks like you will be without Nick tomorrow. Well, maybe now your kids will actually have to do something like.... reading. There's a scary thought.  (And there are of course Disney channels for the time being)

I'm not seeing any news at the moment of them being close to signing anything... from their Twitter account they mentioned just a few minutes before this post that they are still negotiating.

It has been known to happen that a deal is reached at 11 PM with just an hour to go.... so we just don't know. But if indeed 1 day is too much, I'd seriously consider calling for an installation date of a new provider TODAY so you have your slot in with an installer, you can always call back and cancel if they make a deal.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

damondlt said:


> OK say the contract is 10 years? Directv payed more then that for NFL ST in much less years. You understand my point. Directv is blurting out a Billion dollar number, OK give us a list of what you pay per subscriber for all the other networks , then we can compair.


Neither party wants to open their books. I agree with the sentiment, but it's never going to happen.


----------



## mnassour

Pepe Sylvia said:


> That's illegal, it's called collusion.


Yea, I know. But if Viacom gets away with this one, then other providers will pile on.


----------



## zimm7778

"maartena" said:


> Please report back TOMORROW which carrier you will go to.
> 
> It certainly looks like you will be without Nick tomorrow. Well, maybe now your kids will actually have to do something like.... reading. There's a scary thought.  (And there are of course Disney channels for the time being)
> 
> I'm not seeing any news at the moment of them being close to signing anything... from their Twitter account they mentioned just a few minutes before this post that they are still negotiating.
> 
> It has been known to happen that a deal is reached at 11 PM with just an hour to go.... so we just don't know. But if indeed 1 day is too much, I'd seriously consider calling for an installation date of a new provider TODAY so you have your slot in with an installer, you can always call back and cancel if they make a deal.


I've kind of stayed mute on this. But maybe it's just coming off like this to me through text but some of these people it's like they think there household will meltdown into oblivion without Nick. Kind of scary really.


----------



## HarleyD

rlj1010 said:


> Yes. I can afford it.
> 
> You see, I work hard and don't waste all my time racking up 11,000 posts on a silly web site.


Well, seriously...just go then. No offense intended. That is your right as a consumer. You can choose what you buy and where you buy it.

But to come on the internet and anonymously post your anger ad nauseum...and criticize those with a different perspective for wasting their time on the internet...well, can you see the irony?

You claim you don't care, you can afford it and you just want the programming but the outrage you're spewing here says otherwise.

If you really just wanted the programming, cost be damned, you'd already have another provider lined up.

You've ranted. Now take a deep breath, think about it, make a reasoned decision (or an un-reasoned one) and just do whatever you're going to do. Raging on the internet isn't going to solve your problems...not a one of them.


----------



## maartena

Snickering Hound said:


> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/analyst-cuts-viacom-stock-rating-346861
> 
> And Viacoms stock was just downgraded thanks to under-performing programming. Shouldn't Directv be asking LESS to carry their programming instead of getting stuck with a 30% increase?


I am willing to bet that some analyst at DirecTV has run the numbers on all of that and has presented his board with the findings, to be used in the negotiations. This news came at a pretty dire time for Viacom.


----------



## PCampbell

Switch to Dish, oh they just droped AMC. Go to Brighthouse or Comcast they will also be dropping channels like everyone else. I am all for standing up to the price increases.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

mnassour said:


> Yea, I know. But if Viacom gets away with this one, then other providers will pile on.


I sometimes wonder what it would be like if they had let the Directv/Echostar merger go through. They let Sirius and XM do it.


----------



## The Walrus

i finally had to register to weigh in on this,

to all of you that say, just pay it and keep the channels,

this would set a terrible precedent for future negotiations, if they cave to Viacom, the next up will hold out for the full asking price.

I am a parent with a 5 year old, and he loves Nic channels,but we will go outside, play catch, read books, etc. Time for parents to be parents, not put there kids off on a tv to babysit.


----------



## mnassour

The Walrus said:


> i finally had to register to weigh in on this,
> 
> to all of that say, just pay it and keep the channels,
> 
> this would set a terrible precedent for future negotiations, if they cave to Viacom, the next up will hold out for the full asking price.
> 
> I am a parent with a 5 year old, and he loves Nic channels,but we will go outside, play catch, read books, etc. Time for parents to be parents, not put there kids off on a tv to babysit.


Well said, sir. It bears repeating!

:welcome_s


----------



## mnassour

Pepe Sylvia said:


> I sometimes wonder what it would be like if they had let the Directv/Echostar merger go through. They let Sirius and XM do it.


This might have been one of the good effects of such a merger. Viacom may be able to survive the loss of 20 million sets of eyeballs, but 35 million? That's a tough nut...especially when fewer and fewer people want to watch what you're putting out.


----------



## maartena

The Walrus said:


> I am a parent with a 5 year old, and he loves Nic channels,but we will go outside, play catch, read books, etc. Time for parents to be parents, not put there kids off on a tv to babysit.


Like someone else already said in different words.... It is like the world is going to end in some houses, because the family doesn't know what to do with their kids if some of the kids channels are turned off, for what is probably not going to be for more then a week, if that, or if at all.

Look, it is everyone's right to switch provider, state your opinion, and raise your children the way you see fit... but the world is NOT ending because Nick* channels are off the air for a bit. Your family will really survive this. Trust me.


----------



## zimm7778

"Pepe Sylvia" said:


> I sometimes wonder what it would be like if they had let the Directv/Echostar merger go through. They let Sirius and XM do it.


It was 2 different issues which explains why they did it. I'll say both of those cases are one of the rare times in the last several years they've done their job. Although dragging their feet on the SXM merger almost killed the company IMO.

One effect that would have come about from the merger is NFL ST would probably be exclusive to IN Demand now.


----------



## hasan

gio12 said:


> I am also sick on people who say drop them as I don't watch them. Well how about we drop the programming YOU watch and see how YOU like it!
> 
> Why does buy bill have to be so high, to pay the CRAP that you watch? Same with you paying for the CRAP that I watch, LOL!
> 
> THIS is why everyone needs to pull their head out of their backsides and offer Ala carte programming. I know people that HATE sports, but they bills are much higher to support ESPN and what not.
> 
> So, please keep yoru "drop them as I don't care" crap to yourself!
> 
> And lease don't go there with the parenting stuff and what not about TV. How many of you here have NO LIFE and watch nothing BUT TV with 10 DVRs and what not? Please don't be judgmental.


The price increases for ala carte programming would be ginormous. You would pay a lot more for the channels you want, compared to what you are paying for them now.

I'm not sure it would balance out, hard to say.

Just be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. (although I think it is unlikely).


----------



## zimm7778

"maartena" said:


> Like someone else already said in different words.... It is like the world is going to end in some houses, because the family doesn't know what to do with their kids if some of the kids channels are turned off, for what is probably not going to be for more then a week, if that, or if at all.
> 
> Look, it is everyone's right to switch provider, state your opinion, and raise your children the way you see fit... but the world is NOT ending because Nick* channels are off the air for a bit. Your family will really survive this. Trust me.


Also, it's like 4 out of 7 or 8. It isn't like all they'll be left with are right wing and left wing news blowhards.


----------



## maartena

mnassour said:


> This might have been one of the good effects of such a merger. Viacom may be able to survive the loss of 20 million sets of eyeballs, but 35 million? That's a tough nut...especially when fewer and fewer people want to watch what you're putting out.


Its a bit more complicated then that.... just like with Sirius/XM, they were different services with different radios. I have a XM radio and can't get all the Sirius channels, just like Sirius radios can't get all the XM channels. Just recently they started selling radios that can receive everything.

A Dish/DirecTV merger does NOT mean that all over sudden all DirecTV subscribers would get all them basic HD channels, nor do all Dish subscribers now have the option to get NFL Sunday Ticket.

There is actually a good chance that a new "DirectDish" company would have to build a completely new receiver, that is capable of receiving signals from both Echostar and DirecTV satellites, and with the release of said receiver they would have to issue a new dish with a LNB that can talk to them all. You would still have MANY, MANY, years of legacy to overcome, and it could be 10+ years before a merged company really is able to offer ALL services to ALL customers.

Chances are high that if such a merger would occur, Dish and DirecTV products would remain a separate product for quite some time to come.


----------



## damondlt

Snickering Hound said:


> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/analyst-cuts-viacom-stock-rating-346861
> 
> And Viacoms stock was just downgraded thanks to under-performing programming. Shouldn't Directv be asking LESS to carry their programming instead of getting stuck with a 30% increase?


 Stock is the problem. I don't feel bad for stock holders. Stock is the reason the companys will do what ever it takes to make up a loss. The customer always loses and the rich get richer.

I don't know if a 30% increase is fair, and neither do you!

If the customer pays .10 well 30% sounds kindof small to me! Just because 30% sounds big doesn't mean it is!


----------



## tuff bob

We're getting off topic here, but I still don't understand why DirecTV and Dish dont jointly own a satellite LIL broadcasting service that supplies the LIL's to both company customers, surely that would be much cheaper than both services rebroadcasting the same channels. anyway as I said, off topic.


----------



## mnassour

maartena said:


> A Dish/DirecTV merger does NOT mean that all over sudden all DirecTV subscribers would get all them basic HD channels, nor do all Dish subscribers now have the option to get NFL Sunday Ticket.
> 
> Chances are high that if such a merger would occur, Dish and DirecTV products would remain a separate product for quite some time to come.


Oh absolutely, I need to be more clear. I was referring only to the financial negotiations that a combined company would hold. Even though there would be two systems (for some time), a single satellite provider (something I'm *not* in favor of) would turn...or off...a programmer's access to all satellite customers in the country, meaning if you wanted to be on DBS, you'd have to play ball.


----------



## joshjr

"damondlt" said:


> Stock is the problem. I don't feel bad for stock holders. Stock is the reason the companys will do what ever it takes to make up a loss. The customer always loses and the rich get richer.
> 
> I don't know if a 30% increase is fair, and neither do you!
> 
> If the customer pays .10 well 30% sounds kindof small to me! Just because 30% sounds big doesn't mean it is!


BS, do you get 30% raises every other year at work? I don't and I can only imagine what my boss would say for even asking!


----------



## zimm7778

"maartena" said:


> Its a bit more complicated then that.... just like with Sirius/XM, they were different services with different radios. I have a XM radio and can't get all the Sirius channels, just like Sirius radios can't get all the XM channels. Just recently they started selling radios that can receive everything.
> 
> A Dish/DirecTV merger does NOT mean that all over sudden all DirecTV subscribers would get all them basic HD channels, nor do all Dish subscribers now have the option to get NFL Sunday Ticket.
> 
> There is actually a good chance that a new "DirectDish" company would have to build a completely new receiver, that is capable of receiving signals from both Echostar and DirecTV satellites, and with the release of said receiver they would have to issue a new dish with a LNB that can talk to them all. You would still have MANY, MANY, years of legacy to overcome, and it could be 10+ years before a merged company really is able to offer ALL services to ALL customers.
> 
> Chances are high that if such a merger would occur, Dish and DirecTV products would remain a separate product for quite some time to come.


I don't think they really push that radio anymore. They did for awhile but now you have to search for it to find it. The brass at Sirius lied to the FCC. They told them they were going to maintain the services as is for I think they gave a year number. As soon as they thought the FCC wouldn't care they started merging all the channels into one for each service. I think they actually overestimated the time when the FCC would do nothing since I think the wouldn't have done anything 30 seconds after walking out the door with approval.

I had Dish at the time they purchased Directv and the FCC was looking into it. I watched a Charlie Chat and someone asked about NFL Sunday Ticket and would it be on, what would the name of the company be, etc. Charlie said the name of the merged company would probably be Directv since it was more recognizable. About Sunday Ticket he said they'd look into it and then he started hem hawing around about the future if it, IF the NFL would even continue offering it, costs, etc. That's why I said I think it would have been exclusive to In Demand by now because he wouldn't have paid it, would cry about wanting fair rates, have his webmaster make 12 websites about it, all the while charging the same thing everyone else does for his basic programming services.


----------



## Shades228

sdk009 said:


> Since John Stewart and Stephen Colbert in hiatus this week, I will not get too excited. But, with that programming available on the Internet I will find the shows somehow.
> Don't tell D* and other carriers, but with TVs now capable of direct internet connections, the carriers will eventually go the way of the dinosaur.


Perhaps you can explain how they will get the millions of dollars per month they get now. They're not going to give it up as this entire thread is about money. People have been saying that IPTV is the future and perhaps one day it could be. However delivery method will not change the business methods behind it.


----------



## zimm7778

"damondlt" said:


> Stock is the problem. I don't feel bad for stock holders. Stock is the reason the companys will do what ever it takes to make up a loss. The customer always loses and the rich get richer.
> 
> I don't know if a 30% increase is fair, and neither do you!
> 
> If the customer pays .10 well 30% sounds kindof small to me! Just because 30% sounds big doesn't mean it is!


Then from all of us who have mutual funds in our 401k's based largely on stocks you don't care about, we appreciate you hoping ours sink and we have nothing when retirement comes. The more you talk the more you just sound jealous of anyone with $1 more than you.


----------



## zimm7778

"joshjr" said:


> BS, do you get 30% raises every other year at work? I don't and I can only imagine what my boss would say for even asking!


Even Viacoms BS about that deal is 7 years old holds no water. Have you gotten a 30% increase in salary in 7 years? I sure know I haven't.

There's an easy way to solve the whole a la carte issue when people say the costs would be high. The FCC makes every network owner negotiate each and every channel separately. Then they get paid based on number of subs to that channel. If ESPN wants to negotiate a fee to charge $10 for their channel they'll get 1/18th of subs they had before and put themselves out of business. Regardless of a la carte or not, I think every channel should be mandated to be negotiated separately. It would prevent stuff like this mass pulling of channels and would remove the leverage of holding one channel over the head of providers if they don't renegotiate them all. As I said earlier, these media conglomerates never should have been allowed to own as much as they do. But it's kind of hard to undo that now.


----------



## damondlt

zimm7778 said:


> Then from all of us who have mutual funds in our 401k's based largely on stocks you don't care about, we appreciate you hoping ours sink and we have nothing when retirement comes. The more you talk the more you just sound jealous of anyone with $1 more than you.


 our 401 k wouldn't be invested in Directv or Viacom, so your point is ZERO!

These are luxury Stocks. Your 401 would be invested in companys that are needed, and one that don't matter if they are here or not!


----------



## damondlt

joshjr said:


> BS, do you get 30% raises every other year at work? I don't and I can only imagine what my boss would say for even asking!


 Our Gas , Taxes and many other Item have increased 30% or more in some cases. Not uncommon, and stop using 30 % just to make it sound big 30% hold no value as a term when you and I don't even know what its 30% of! Or how many years it involves!


----------



## zimm7778

"damondlt" said:


> our 401 k wouldn't be invested in Directv or Viacom, so your point is ZERO!
> 
> These are luxury Stocks. Your 401 would be invested in companys that are needed, and one that don't matter if they are here or not!


No, you have no idea what you are talking about. I've had mutual funds where media corporations were in them before so perhaps you should do your research. Plus, you stated you don't care about stockholders. Not about Viacom vs Directv but since you go there then your statement about stockholders means zip and I guess you are typing to see yourself type.

In re-reading yeah you really need to research different types of mutual funds obviously because apparently you haven't a clue.


----------



## damondlt

zimm7778 said:


> No, you have no idea what you are talking about. I've had mutual funds where media corporations were in them before so perhaps you should do your research. Plus, you stated you don't care about stockholders. Not about Viacom vs Directv but since you go there then your statement about stockholders means zip and I guess you are typing to see yourself type.
> 
> In re-reading yeah you really need to research different types of mutual funds obviously because apparently you haven't a clue.


 A mutual fund is not a 401 K


----------



## Shades228

damondlt said:


> our 401 k wouldn't be invested in Directv or Viacom, so your point is ZERO!
> 
> These are luxury Stocks. Your 401 would be invested in companys that are needed, and one that don't matter if they are here or not!


I'm thinking you should do more research into this before you just start posting things about it. I think you'd be more hard pressed to find a funds manager who don't invest in these companies.


----------



## zimm7778

"damondlt" said:


> A mutual fund is not a 401 K


Do you look at what you type? Mutual funds are apart of most everyone's 401K.


----------



## damondlt

zimm7778 said:


> Do you look at what you type? Mutual funds are apart of most everyone's 401K.


 I don't care what Type or anything about your Directv investments. Point is these company will flatout refuse to take a loss of anykind. So here we are today because of it.

Thats why we get increased prices every year. So your going to sit there and tell me Directv and Viacom don't have Wiggle room with a 2 billion dollar profit from Viacom a year and Directv hundreds if not Billion of Profit a year!

Yea OK !:lol: When they think they may not profit they both raise rates.

So who's fault is that! The investers!

Invester Pressure on a company to Profit at the customers expence!


----------



## alhurricane

After reading many 'classy' twitter posts, I'm beginning to think the loss of MTV type channels might be in the best interest of our country's welfare.  I'm mostly joking of course, but holy smokes, people need to turn it down a notch. The end of the world it is not.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

zimm7778 said:


> I don't think they really push that radio anymore. They did for awhile but now you have to search for it to find it. The brass at Sirius lied to the FCC. They told them they were going to maintain the services as is for I think they gave a year number. As soon as they thought the FCC wouldn't care they started merging all the channels into one for each service. I think they actually overestimated the time when the FCC would do nothing since I think the wouldn't have done anything 30 seconds after walking out the door with approval.
> 
> I had Dish at the time they purchased Directv and the FCC was looking into it. I watched a Charlie Chat and someone asked about NFL Sunday Ticket and would it be on, what would the name of the company be, etc. Charlie said the name of the merged company would probably be Directv since it was more recognizable. About Sunday Ticket he said they'd look into it and then he started hem hawing around about the future if it, IF the NFL would even continue offering it, costs, etc. That's why I said I think it would have been exclusive to In Demand by now because he wouldn't have paid it, would cry about wanting fair rates, have his webmaster make 12 websites about it, all the while charging the same thing everyone else does for his basic programming services.


no way it's going cable only. The bar seen is to big for it to be cable only and even in 2012 sports HD sucks on most cable systems.


----------



## zimm7778

"damondlt" said:


> I don't care what Type or anything about your Directv investments. Point is these company will flatout refuse to take a loss of anykind. So here we are today because of it.
> 
> Thats why we get increased prices every year. So your going to sit there and tell me Directv and Viacom don't have Wiggle room with a 2 billion dollar profit from Viacom a year and Directv hundreds if not Billion of Profit a year!
> 
> Yea OK !:lol: When they think they may not profit they both raise rates.
> 
> So who's fault is that! The investers!
> 
> Invester Pressure on a company to Profit at the customers expence!


I know you don't care. You made that plain. I'm going to tell you anyone who has these companies as part of their portfolios be it an investor, a 401K mutual fund, an employee who works at these companies making $30K a year and purchases stock through the company, and anyone else with a stake wants them to make as much of a profit as they can. That's just facts and life. The only thing you see is billionaires and "greedy" corporations. You don't bother to think about the large percentage of common stockholders who work 40 hours a week like I do who may have money invested in this for their futures as well. Like I said, you come off very bitter and jealous over anyone who makes $1 more than you.


----------



## zimm7778

"JoeTheDragon" said:


> no way it's going cable only. The bar seen is to big for it to be cable only and even in 2012 sports HD sucks on most cable systems.


No, it isnt. I said had Dish been approved to buy Directv years ago.


----------



## damondlt

zimm7778 said:


> Like I said, you come off very bitter and jealous over anyone who makes $1 more than you.


No, Just bitter toward Millionares that claim they don't make enough money,and want the little guy to give them more! The more you invest your little pay check the more you make them. So be my guest! You can invest you hard earned dollars into another Billionare CEO pocket to make penuts. Enjoy!

Maybe he'll take you out in his personal Jet sometime!


----------



## tonyd79

"damondlt" said:


> Our Gas , Taxes and many other Item have increased 30% or more in some cases. Not uncommon, and stop using 30 % just to make it sound big 30% hold no value as a term when you and I don't even know what its 30% of! Or how many years it involves!


It is not that hard. It is 30% of their current cost.

Don't know how long the contract would be for but 30% is 30% no matter if it is $1 or $100.

You don't hand Viacom 30% then try to deal with others. They will all expect 30% which would mean a lot of money.

Or this way. A1 cent increase per day per channel leads to

.01 a day x 20 channels x 20,000,000 customers x 365 days = $1.4 billion per year.

Directv says $1 billion. Viacom says pennies a day. Both are right. But it is still 30%.


----------



## maartena

alhurricane said:


> After reading many 'classy' twitter posts, I'm beginning to think the loss of MTV type channels might be in the best interest of our country's welfare.  I'm mostly joking of course, but holy smokes, people need to turn it down a notch. The end of the world it is not.


I wasn't going to say anything.... but I did some twitter searches too, and man.... if that is the average viewing audience of the Viacom channels, please God, help this nation.

A few prized examples:

Wtfff! Direct tv trippinn 4 real hell naw they tryna take away alot of tv showz datz f**ked up im fenna kall this # and go off!!!!

Yall dat got Direct Tv needa call 1800-531-5000 to see wassup so we can keep da channels Viacom owns. Like BET, MTV, VH1,NICK, etc

If u @DIRECTV I feel for you...they tryna take all da good channels from.yall #TeamCOX w/ dey high asses

Are you serious? 

I remember doing some twitter searches during the Tribune dispute in May, but I haven't seen anything THIS bad.

Must be that overdose of Jersey Shore.

I'm really, really sorry to offend anyone, but PLEASE!!! Can someone teach these people.... you know... ENGLISH? It's not MY first language either, but come on, that is just ridiculous.


----------



## cjrleimer

maartena said:


> I wasn't going to say anything.... but I did some twitter searches too, and man.... if that is the average viewing audience of the Viacom channels, please God, help this nation.
> 
> A few prized examples:
> 
> Wtfff! Direct tv trippinn 4 real hell naw they tryna take away alot of tv showz datz f**ked up im fenna kall this # and go off!!!!
> 
> Yall dat got Direct Tv needa call 1800-531-5000 to see wassup so we can keep da channels Viacom owns. Like BET, MTV, VH1,NICK, etc
> 
> If u @DIRECTV I feel for you...they tryna take all da good channels from.yall #TeamCOX w/ dey high asses
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> I remember doing some twitter searches during the Tribune dispute in May, but I haven't seen anything THIS bad.
> 
> Must be that overdose of Jersey Shore.
> 
> I'm really, really sorry to offend anyone, but PLEASE!!! Can someone teach these people.... you know... ENGLISH? It's not MY first language either, but come on, that is just ridiculous.


The thugs who wear their pants down probbably are tweeting that. With that said, in 3 hours time all hell will potentially break loose with the Directv csr's and angry customers. This could be fun in a very bad way.


----------



## zimm7778

"maartena" said:


> I wasn't going to say anything.... but I did some twitter searches too, and man.... if that is the average viewing audience of the Viacom channels, please God, help this nation.
> 
> A few prized examples:
> 
> Wtfff! Direct tv trippinn 4 real hell naw they tryna take away alot of tv showz datz f**ked up im fenna kall this # and go off!!!!
> 
> Yall dat got Direct Tv needa call 1800-531-5000 to see wassup so we can keep da channels Viacom owns. Like BET, MTV, VH1,NICK, etc
> 
> If u @DIRECTV I feel for you...they tryna take all da good channels from.yall #TeamCOX w/ dey high asses
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> I remember doing some twitter searches during the Tribune dispute in May, but I haven't seen anything THIS bad.
> 
> Must be that overdose of Jersey Shore.
> 
> I'm really, really sorry to offend anyone, but PLEASE!!! Can someone teach these people.... you know... ENGLISH? It's not MY first language either, but come on, that is just ridiculous.


Think about the audience Viacom plays to with channels like MTV, VH1, etc. It's not "Video Killed the Radio Star" anymore it's "play to the lowest common denominator with trailer park trash reality programming killed the video star." Who do you think is going to watch the crap? Doctors and Engineers?


----------



## joshjr

"zimm7778" said:


> Even Viacoms BS about that deal is 7 years old holds no water. Have you gotten a 30% increase in salary in 7 years? I sure know I haven't.
> 
> There's an easy way to solve the whole a la carte issue when people say the costs would be high. The FCC makes every network owner negotiate each and every channel separately. Then they get paid based on number of subs to that channel. If ESPN wants to negotiate a fee to charge $10 for their channel they'll get 1/18th of subs they had before and put themselves out of business. Regardless of a la carte or not, I think every channel should be mandated to be negotiated separately. It would prevent stuff like this mass pulling of channels and would remove the leverage of holding one channel over the head of providers if they don't renegotiate them all. As I said earlier, these media conglomerates never should have been allowed to own as much as they do. But it's kind of hard to undo that now.


There would be to many other ways we would all suffer. How would new channels ever get started with no subs and no revenue? Only the large stations would survive and what makes you think stations like ESPN won't make the subs they have pay the difference from the customers they lost.


----------



## Alan Gordon

maartena said:


> I wasn't going to say anything.... but I did some twitter searches too, and man.... if that is the average viewing audience of the Viacom channels, please God, help this nation.


Getting rid of 90% of the programming on CMT, MTV, and VH1 would be a service to this country (and yes, I did previously admit to liking two shows on MTV... something that I didn't expect I would ever say only two years ago)...

... but TV Land has some quality programming (and some not so quality programming), and there are SOME decent children's programming on some of the other channels, so it's not ALL of the Viacom channels.

~Alan


----------



## cjrleimer

Alan Gordon said:


> Getting rid of 90% of the programming on CMT, MTV, and VH1 would be a service to this country (and yes, I did previously admit to liking two shows on MTV... something that I didn't expect I would ever say only two years ago)...
> 
> ... but TV Land has some quality programming (and some not so quality programming), and there are SOME decent children's programming on some of the other channels, so it's not ALL of the Viacom channels.
> 
> ~Alan


+1, and they are highly rated channels unlinke G4 and WGN.


----------



## zimm7778

"joshjr" said:


> There would be to many other ways we would all suffer. How would new channels ever get started with no subs and no revenue? Only the large stations would survive and what makes you think stations like ESPN won't make the subs they have pay the difference from the customers they lost.


They give the channel away for a set period of time, just like when you take out a large loan from a bank to start up a company. You then find advertisers willing to gamble on you. After 6 months or a year, you have to pay for the channel if you want it. What do you mean about ESPN? If they struck some outrageous deal for 5 years and the price came up to $10 a month for just that one channel (I'm exaggerating the cost I don't think they'd be that stupid) they are stuck with it for 5 years unless they want to come back to the table to renegotiate something a whole lot more reasonable because that's the terms of their deal. If they are that headstrong they'll go out of business doing so. So I still don't see the downside.


----------



## Alan Gordon

cjrleimer said:


> +1, and they are highly rated channels unlinke G4 and WGN.


High ratings doesn't necessarily mean quality though. "Jersey Shore" does well in the ratings, but it's the opposite of what I call quality.

~Alan


----------



## cjrleimer

Alan Gordon said:


> High ratings doesn't necessarily mean quality though. "Jersey Shore" does well in the ratings, but it's the opposite of what I call quality.
> 
> ~Alan


True, but its not like its on a B crap network e.g. G4 so to speak that barely gets viewers. By the way http://www.directvpromise.com/other-ways-to-watch/#.T_zKUZFLnwk they are advertising ways to watch the shows online.


----------



## Sackchamp56

I know it won't happen, but I hope DTV tells them to kick rocks. I watch one of the channels, Comedy Central. I would love to see them fill this bandwidth with some quality programming. None of these channels will be missed in my house.


----------



## cjrleimer

http://www.directvpromise.com/latest-updates/#.T_zLZZFLnwk it will go down at 9:00 pst Midnight est tonight.


----------



## sigma1914

I'm not happy with this. I enjoy MTV, Comedy Central, BET, CMT & Spike. All you posters on your high horses, can stuff their stereotypes about people who watch these shows up where the sun doesn't shine.


----------



## Alan Gordon

cjrleimer said:


> True, but its not like its on a B crap network e.g. G4 so to speak that barely gets viewers. By the way http://www.directvpromise.com/other-ways-to-watch/#.T_zKUZFLnwk they are advertising ways to watch the shows online.


I love how they have a very limited number of shows listed for each network...

The only shows I watch on MTV aren't listed... the only two shows on TV Land listed are shows that are on hiatus. :lol:

~Alan


----------



## Bradman

Directv be tripppin fo real dawg.


----------



## Alan Gordon

sigma1914 said:


> I'm not happy with this. I enjoy MTV, Comedy Central, BET, CMT & Spike. All you posters on your high horses, can stuff their stereotypes about people who watch these shows up where the sun doesn't shine.


That's a rather tame thing to say...

Snooki would have stated something like:

^(%&^$^%*#^%*%)^*&%&^$^%#$*^% %)*&%)&^$&%$&^_&%&_%^ %%*&_^++^*)&%&^$$$$)*^_(*(*(

"The Situation" would have replied back:

&*)*%$(&^$E(&%((+^)&*%(&^$&%#$$%)*&^&_&_&*&)%(^%&^$ ^)&*%(&^$%&^$%*)_*&*^)&*^$$&^&#!#@@

Then somebody would have walked in and stated "Up your ziggy with a wah-wah brush!"

NAH.... 

~Alan<~~~~~~~~~~~~Who assumes that Bradman was joking with the comment above, but I personally use "Dawg" quite often... heck, my Mom even uses that...


----------



## JoeTheDragon

cjrleimer said:


> +1, and they are highly rated channels unlinke G4 and WGN.


G4 is carp and WGN was lumped with local channels. Loacls are a different issue.


----------



## Retro

carl6 said:


> DirecTV should package all of these channels in a separate group, not include them in any of the standard programming packages, and charge appropriately for that group (like the HD Extra pack). Then people that really want them can pay accordingly and the rest of us can avoid the added cost.
> 
> Do this for all of the content providers that offer multiple channels. You buy a basic programming package then add the channel groups you want. A somewhat minor variation of the ala-cart concept.


Ditto!:read:


----------



## SteveHas

This sh*& has got to stop. Changing carriers is no shelter from this sort of extortion on the part of program providers, they do it to cable companies too! 
I would miss Comedy Central a great deal, but I can get the programs I want else where on the net. 

I really think D* has to draw a line in the sand here and stop giving in to these shiesters.

NO MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MY BUCK STOPS HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Alan Gordon

JoeTheDragon said:


> G4 is carp and WGN was lumped with local channels. Loacls are a different issue.


I assumed he was referring to Superstation WGN?!

I'd _*LOVE*_ to have WGN back... but I have no interest in Superstation WGN. 

~Alan


----------



## JcT21

i like those viacom channels. i watch tvland, vh1 classic, & spike everyday. my son likes mtv and my 4yr old daughter loves nickelodeon & nickjr. but ill miss tvland more than any other channel. besides, it sucks to lose channels period. 

good thing i got hours of nickjr programs on my dvr


----------



## ActiveHDdave

I hate almost all of these channels so I hope they get rid of them. That was easy!


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

cjrleimer said:


> http://www.directvpromise.com/latest-updates/#.T_zLZZFLnwk it will go down at 9:00 pst Midnight est tonight.


It sounds like they're not close. The soft-soap talk is so annonying to me. They're on MY side, they want to keep MY costs down. Please. They're both fighting over a bigger slice of the proverbial profit pie.

Why do these companies have to talk to people like they're children?


----------



## alnielsen

I think we have Viacom trolls aboard.


----------



## Snickering Hound

Alan Gordon said:


> High ratings doesn't necessarily mean quality though. "Jersey Shore" does well in the ratings, but it's the opposite of what I call quality.
> 
> ~Alan


Jersey Shore ratings have been declining since Season 3. MTV has renewed them for Season Six.

Some of the "kids" in the cast are over 30 now. :nono2:

Something make me think that when Viacom came up with that 30% price increase the giggling pissed them off so much that they decided to pull programming.


----------



## RunnerFL

alnielsen said:


> I think we have Viacom trolls aboard.


That's a pretty safe bet.


----------



## cypherx

I'm 30 and my wife is 27. We have our first baby on the way in December. Statistically we watch programs on MTV, Comedy, VH1, Spike, Palladia and sometimes even a little CMT. When the baby gets old enough I'm sure Nick Jr / Nick will be on at some point if its still around.

I think Palladia is a great station and what I like is they have music performances. I wish the M in MTV still stood for Music. Even when MTV2 came out, it played music videos for the first few years until it finally turned into the Rob Drydek channel. Tosh.0 is WAY funnier than Rob D's Rediculousness. 

I miss the days of finding MTV2 in the clear on C-Band analog finally satisfying my crave to discover new music video's. I guess these days you just have to use the internet. Still the wife likes the reality programming... just wish we would get some MTV Hits, MTV Jams, CMT Pure Country, and bring all the viacom channels to live streaming on the ipad. You can't ask for 30% more without coming halfway and agreeing on something new in return. More HD, more VOD in HD and streaming.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Pepe Sylvia said:


> They're on MY side, they want to keep MY costs down. Please. They're both fighting over a bigger slice of the proverbial profit pie.
> 
> Why do these companies have to talk to people like they're children?


A company wants your money. It's a conspiracy... 

If DirecTV were to allow all these companies to continue to have increase after increase, DirecTV's costs (as well as others) would be sky-high! Because of this, DirecTV (as well as others) would lose out on a lot of revenue from people deciding it's simply not worth it and cancelling service.

It's in DirecTV's best interests to keep these costs down while making a profit themselves.



Snickering Hound said:


> Jersey Shore ratings have been declining since Season 3. MTV has renewed them for Season Six.


Not fast enough...



RunnerFL said:


> That's a pretty safe bet.


Indeed... one can only wonder how many on DirecTV's Facebook and Twitter pages...

~Alan


----------



## TigersFanJJ

Sackchamp56 said:


> I would love to see them fill this bandwidth with some quality programming.


If they do replace these channels, it will probably be with.....more shopping networks. :lol:

Seriously though, the Nick channels alone are considered to be quality channels in many households (especially mine). Spike has some UFC, Impact Wrestling, and other shows. And everyone else has been mentioning the Comedy Central and "music channel" programming.

We can all make jokes but this will affect a lot of people if these shows go off air. I saw a lot of people switch to Directv when Dish dropped FX. I would be willing to bet there will be many more leaving if a deal doesn't get done pretty quick.


----------



## cjrleimer

The one thing I am interested to see, is if the networks go dark tonight, will viacom block access online for those who subscribe to direct? I mean this pissing game is like two children fighting over a toy.


----------



## android.cphone

The countdown begins t-2 ½ hours till spongebob and tosh dies on direct tv lets see if they actually yank the channels


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

Alan Gordon said:


> A company wants your money. It's a conspiracy...
> 
> If DirecTV were to allow all these companies to continue to have increase after increase, DirecTV's costs (as well as others) would be sky-high! Because of this, DirecTV (as well as others) would lose out on a lot of revenue from people deciding it's simply not worth it and cancelling service.
> 
> It's in DirecTV's best interests to keep these costs down while making a profit themselves.
> 
> ~Alan


I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I just think the language they use is insulting. They talk like they're my best friend. They don't "care" about my finances. I'm not against companies making profits. I don't like getting gouged either.

Basically, they are both trying to make the other out to be the "bad" guy to save face.


----------



## RML81

The only channel I'd miss is Comedy Central and that's because of Stewart, Colbert, and Tosh.


----------



## android.cphone

RML81 said:


> The only channel I'd miss is Comedy Central and that's because of Stewart, Colbert, and Tosh.


RIP TOSH.O


----------



## tonyd79

"Pepe Sylvia" said:


> I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I just think the language they use is insulting. They talk like they're my best friend. They don't "care" about my finances. I'm not against companies making profits. I don't like getting gouged either.
> 
> Basically, they are both trying to make the other out to be the "bad" guy to save face.


They actually do. They don't want to overprice their product so you leave.

Plus do not assume they don't care. That is unwarranted. I doubt they want to gouge you either. That is not good long term business.

The wording on their pages is no more over the top than "your call is important to us."


----------



## zimm7778

"cjrleimer" said:


> The one thing I am interested to see, is if the networks go dark tonight, will viacom block access online for those who subscribe to direct? I mean this pissing game is like two children fighting over a toy.


How would they know? You aren't logging in through a directv Internet service or do some of their channels have the same set up as CNN, TNT, and TBS?


----------



## android.cphone

Grrrrt and its raining right now i cant watch any tv. No signal


----------



## Dradran

I will miss Comedy Central. But I am with DTV and not getting extorted. Plus they have Sunday Ticket so I am stuck with them for the long haul.


----------



## RunnerFL

zimm7778 said:


> How would they know? You aren't logging in through a directv Internet service or do some of their channels have the same set up as CNN, TNT, and TBS?


For Comedy Central you're logging in using your DirecTV credentials like HBOGO, MAXGO, etc.


----------



## snappjay

At one point, I would have fought for Viacom, but the quality of their programming hasn't increased in years (IMHO, of course).

At this point, the only two I will fight for is Disney (ESPN, ABC Fam, etc.) and Newscorp (RSN).


----------



## blusgtone

loudo said:


> That is a little greedy on behalf of Viacom. They want a 30% increase and people that were lucky to get an increase in their pay, maybe got 3%. Most fixed or retires incomes that have a cost of living clause, might get a 3% increase in their checks. I would be glad to give them 30%, increase, if I got a 30% increase in my pay.


I agree! I'm a teacher and I have taken almost a 30% pay reduction in the last few years.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Pepe Sylvia said:


> I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I just think the language they use is insulting. They talk like they're my best friend. They don't "care" about my finances. *I'm not against companies making profits. I don't like getting gouged either.*
> 
> Basically, they are both trying to make the other out to be the "bad" guy to save face.


I understand the bolded part... but I have to ask you this:

You're a broadcasting group. You're stock is being downgraded due to under-performing programming, yet you're going around asking for a 30% increase in an economy that while improved, continues to struggle.

Are your cajones not a little TOO big?! :eek2:

~Alan


----------



## snappjay

blusgtone said:


> I agree! I'm a teacher and I have taken almost a 30% pay reduction in the last few years.


That sucks  I'm sorry to hear that


----------



## sweep49

Drop them DTV! Don't give in to 30% extortion.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

tonyd79 said:


> They actually do. They don't want to overprice their product so you leave.
> 
> Plus do not assume they don't care. That is unwarranted. I doubt they want to gouge you either. That is not good long term business.
> 
> The wording on their pages is no more over the top than "your call is important to us."


Again, I agree with that. That's why I put "care" in quotes. It's a business decision, not an emotional one. Don't speak to me emotionally. Watching that Mike White video makes me want to knock that toupee off his smug face.


----------



## zimm7778

"RunnerFL" said:


> For Comedy Central you're logging in using your DirecTV credentials like HBOGO, MAXGO, etc.


Ok. Had no idea any of them offered anything like that. Then I would assume no it won't work because they will no longer have an agreement.


----------



## RunnerFL

blusgtone said:


> I agree! I'm a teacher and I have taken almost a 30% pay reduction in the last few years.


It's a thankless job, especially here in South Florida.


----------



## zimm7778

"RunnerFL" said:


> It's a thankless job, especially here in South Florida.


My wife is one. It's thankless from coast to coast in this state.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

Alan Gordon said:


> I understand the bolded part... but I have to ask you this:
> 
> You're a broadcasting group. You're stock is being downgraded due to under-performing programming, yet you're going around asking for a 30% increase in an economy that while improved, continues to struggle.
> 
> Are your cajones not a little TOO big?! :eek2:
> 
> ~Alan


Again, I'm not saying that Directv should just give into whatever Viacom demands. It's a negotiation, so negotiate. I don't like being used by both sides against the other.

The funny thing is, as always the case, when they finally get this resolved they will both claim victory. What, I guess neither side gave in?


----------



## Alan Gordon

tonyd79 said:


> They actually do. They don't want to overprice their product so you leave.
> 
> Plus do not assume they don't care. That is unwarranted. I doubt they want to gouge you either. That is not good long term business.
> 
> The wording on their pages is no more over the top than "your call is important to us."


While they've obviously had several regime changes since then, I can remember a time when I rarely had a price increase from DirecTV, and when those price increases came, it usually was around the same time they added a ton of channels. Granted, one might not find those channels to be worth the increase, but it still softened the blow.

DirecTV pretty much started going to a yearly increase around the same time that these groups started trying to raise their fees, and all providers started experiencing these constant standoffs and the like.

One might say that these groups have invested heavily in more original programming which raises their costs as well, yet a good majority of these channels are full of reality crap that costs them less money than some of the syndicated programming they were airing before, and of the original scripted programming which is more expensive to make, these networks have experienced ratings improvements that have no doubt increased their ad revenue to go along with it.

BTW, if DirecTV is interested, I'll create my own reality shows for only a quarter of the price Viacom is asking for ONE of their channels a year by using a bunch of crazy people I pick up off the street! 

~Alan


----------



## android.cphone

2 hours to go


----------



## snappjay

android.cphone said:


> 2 hours to go


It will be 11:59 EST before we hear anything :lol:


----------



## android.cphone

Hate to be a direct tv telephone rep later on tonight and tomorrow if these channels go dark


----------



## Juggernaut

So sick of these disputes, the consumer loses one way or the other. Thank you D* for putting up a fight to keep our costs down.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Pepe Sylvia said:


> Again, I'm not saying that Directv should just give into whatever Viacom demands. It's a negotiation, so negotiate. I don't like being used by both sides against the other.


Don't hate the player... hate the game... LOL!!

I understand, but I do feel that one party is in a group that likes to do this sort of thing, and as long as they feel this course of action holds power, they will continue to use it to get what they want.



Pepe Sylvia said:


> The funny thing is, as always the case, when they finally get this resolved they will both claim victory. What, I guess neither side gave in?


Negotiations are often a case of compromise. When done right, both sides should be able to claim victory... and both side will have given in some.

~Alan


----------



## tonyd79

"Pepe Sylvia" said:


> Again, I agree with that. That's why I put "care" in quotes. It's a business decision, not an emotional one. Don't speak to me emotionally. Watching that Mike White video makes me want to knock that toupee off his smug face.


But for most viewers, it is emotional. Just go look at tweets or Facebook comments.

I now understand what you are suing but I don't find their stuff very emotional at all. It looks like pretty straight forward PR to me.

Meanwhile, Viacom is making posters and cajoling children to get their parents to call directv. Maybe it is just in that comparison I see directv being professional.


----------



## tonyd79

"Alan Gordon" said:


> While they've obviously had several regime changes since then, I can remember a time when I rarely had a price increase from DirecTV, and when those price increases came, it usually was around the same time they added a ton of channels. Granted, one might not find those channels to be worth the increase, but it still softened the blow.
> 
> DirecTV pretty much started going to a yearly increase around the same time that these groups started trying to raise their fees, and all providers started experiencing these constant standoffs and the like.
> 
> One might say that these groups have invested heavily in more original programming which raises their costs as well, yet a good majority of these channels are full of reality crap that costs them less money than some of the syndicated programming they were airing before, and of the original scripted programming which is more expensive to make, these networks have experienced ratings improvements that have no doubt increased their ad revenue to go along with it.
> 
> BTW, if DirecTV is interested, I'll create my own reality shows for only a quarter of the price Viacom is asking for ONE of their channels a year by using a bunch of crazy people I pick up off the street!
> 
> ~Alan


I'm sure it would be at least as good as Jersey Shore without seeing any of it.


----------



## Davenlr

Alan Gordon said:


> One might say that these groups have invested heavily in more original programming which raises their costs as well


Remember free TV? You know, the three channels, and maybe an independent if the city was big enough... Somehow they didnt charge a thing, came up with original programming we are still paying to watch reruns of, and were entirely ad supported.

Then HBO came with the subscription, but no commercials. Suddenly, all these programmers decided to extort money from both advertisers AND the very people they are in business to entertain. Its like going to a concert, and having the artist stop the concert every couple of songs to pass the hat for more money (oh yea, like church).

We need to get back to basics. Pay a provider to provide, let the programmer get their money from the advertisers. If the show is good, the ad dollars will follow (Super Bowl comes to mind).

There is really not enough programming I enjoy anymore to warrant the ever expanding costs.


----------



## android.cphone

, Viacom sent a letter to our executives forcing us to take the channels away at 9:00pm PST July 10/12:00am EST July 11,


----------



## tonyd79

BTW, directv has said they have offered an increase. Jut not 30%. Both sides just need to get the right number.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

At this point, it's a certainty they will go dark IMO. The question is for how long?


----------



## Starchild

Juggernaut said:


> So sick of these disputes, the consumer loses one way or the other. Thank you D* for putting up a fight to keep our costs down.


Agree completely.


----------



## zimm7778

"android.cphone" said:


> Hate to be a direct tv telephone rep later on tonight and tomorrow if these channels go dark


True. Not their fault either way. Maybe they'll ship all those calls to India for "Bud" and "Mary" to deal with.


----------



## Santi360HD

If it was the MTV of old (the 80's), it'd be a sleepless night waiting till midnight

since its not...gnite everyone..


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

zimm7778 said:


> True. Not their fault either way. Maybe they'll ship all those calls to India for "Bud" and "Mary" to deal with.


or Peggy in Siberia


----------



## zimm7778

"Santi360HD" said:


> If it was the MTV of old (the 80's), it'd be a sleepless night waiting till midnight
> 
> since its not...gnite everyone..


If it was the MTV of old the VJ's would be on every few songs demanding we call Directv.


----------



## snappjay

zimm7778 said:


> If it was the MTV of old the VJ's would be on every few songs demanding we call Directv.


The 80s/90s MTV I would be on the phone right now screaming I WANT MY MTV and emailing every corporate DTV email I could find.

The current product isn't even worth turning to, let alone fighting for.


----------



## android.cphone

I think viacom should be worried if direct tvv puts their foot down and wont budge viacom will lose alot more than if they would take direct tvs offer


----------



## Alan Gordon

tonyd79 said:


> I'm sure it would be at least as good as Jersey Shore without seeing any of it.


I'd say thank you for the compliment, but that's really not much of one... :lol:



Davenlr said:


> Remember free TV? You know, the three channels, and maybe an independent if the city was big enough... Somehow they didnt charge a thing, came up with original programming we are still paying to watch reruns of, and were entirely ad supported.
> 
> Then HBO came with the subscription, but no commercials. Suddenly, all these programmers decided to extort money from both advertisers AND the very people they are in business to entertain. Its like going to a concert, and having the artist stop the concert every couple of songs to pass the hat for more money (oh yea, like church).
> 
> We need to get back to basics. Pay a provider to provide, let the programmer get their money from the advertisers. If the show is good, the ad dollars will follow (Super Bowl comes to mind).
> 
> There is really not enough programming I enjoy anymore to warrant the ever expanding costs.


There's a ton of programming I enjoy, but yeah, the costs continue to skyrocket, and while I'm not a teacher, I too find that my income continues to decrease as well, yet my costs continue to go up!

I personally have no issue with paying a small amount of money to SOME of the networks that offer a good majority of SCRIPTED programming that have higher budgets due to special effects, production costs, etc., but to be paying so much money for all these channels that spend so much of their time showing stuff that looked like something your drunk neighbors recorded, it's getting ridiculous!

~Alan


----------



## Santi360HD

has any other cable company or satellite every dropped 25 channels in 1 shot during a dispute? D* is on pace here to set some records here.

Usually whenever cable or satellite have quarrels with channels its usually 1 channel affected..and it makes news cause its 1 channel..or the recent disputes with cable companies and ABC and FOX, yeah that involved several.....Dish's recent pull of 4 channels as well..

D* is in some uncharted territory here..a 25 channel pull..wow...anyone got the Guinness book of world records?? anyone got Guinness on the phone?? at 11:59pm I'm sure someone will note that stat if it happens..


----------



## zimm7778

"Alan Gordon" said:


> I'd say thank you for the compliment, but that's really not much of one... :lol:
> 
> There's a ton of programming I enjoy, but yeah, the costs continue to skyrocket, and while I'm not a teacher, I too find that my income continues to decrease as well, yet my costs continue to go up!
> 
> I personally have no issue with paying a small amount of money to SOME of the networks that offer a good majority of SCRIPTED programming that have higher budgets due to special effects, production costs, etc., but to be paying so much money for all these channels that spend so much of their time showing stuff that looked like something your drunk neighbors recorded, it's getting ridiculous!
> 
> ~Alan


Except all that latter stuff you are talking about is just as scripted as the shows with special effects.


----------



## tuff bob

wow, every other commercial on MTV is the DirecTV dispute, even one copying the "frustation with cable" style of ad DirecTV has been using. sure seems bitter from the viacom side. quite fascinating indeed and very childish indeed, though I've already had one of my kids tell me to call DirecTV to save Nick. That way crosses the line Viacom.


----------



## fluffybear

After seeing that banner sprawled across the screen this afternoon, I'm completely on DirecTV's side. As a matter of fact, I'd insist on a rate cut after that stunt..


----------



## Santi360HD

tuff bob said:


> wow, every other commercial on MTV is the DirecTV dispute, even one copying the "frustation with cable" style of ad DirecTV has been using. sure seems bitter from the viacom side. quite fascinating indeed and very childish indeed, though I've already had one of my kids tell me to call DirecTV to save Nick. That way crosses the line Viacom.


childish...with mtv & nicks programming...are you surprised with these tactics from this prestigious company?

Spike will be missed..


----------



## Davenlr

Anyone see the Comedy Central parody of the DirecTv commercials?


> When DirecTv drops your favorite channels, Spongebob gets upset.
> When Spongebob gets upset, he calls Stephen Colbert
> When he calls Colbert, Colbert rallys the troops
> When Colbert rallys the troops, Elka calls for Alien backup
> And when Elka calls for Alien backup, Cartman gets a satellite lodged up his as*
> 
> Dont let Cartman get a satellite lodged up his as*
> Call DirecTv NOW at 800-531-5000 and DEMAND that DirecTv keeps your favorite channels.


Seriously, I was falling off the couch laughing. I gotta record that commercial.


----------



## StarClout

"Santi360HD" said:


> childish...with mtv & nicks programming...are you surprised with these tactics from this prestigious company?
> 
> Spike will be missed..


As an Impact Wrestling fan, I'll miss spike. However, I have other ways to watch Impact. Viacom has damaged this generation enough (as evidenced on Twitter tonight )


----------



## android.cphone

1 ½ hours to go


----------



## Santi360HD

Directv's twitter feed is saying the channels will stay up during negotiations. and is making it clear that, that is what they mean. Doesn't stop Viacom from stopping the beam to D* right guys?

I can see the politically correct tweet already in copy & paste mode..."Viacom has denied you of these channels not us.." so predictable..


----------



## zimm7778

So Viacom wants me to call and demand Directv keep my CBS affiliate, USA, TNT, GSN, FNC, CNN, NFLN, and MLBN? Ok.


----------



## Santi360HD

StarClout said:


> As an Impact Wrestling fan, I'll miss spike. However, I have other ways to watch Impact.


well aware of some of those torrent sites..


----------



## tuff bob

fluffybear said:


> After seeing that banner sprawled across the screen this afternoon, I'm completely on DirecTV's side. As a matter of fact, I'd insist on a rate cut after that stunt..


and a contractual obligation not to do that in future..


----------



## Alan Gordon

zimm7778 said:


> Except all that latter stuff you are talking about is just as scripted as the shows with special effects.


The difference being that the former stuff makes no secret of it's scripted nature...

~Alan


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

Davenlr said:


> Anyone see the Comedy Central parody of the DirecTv commercials?
> 
> Seriously, I was falling off the couch laughing. I gotta record that commercial.







 Yeah, this will get done soon.


----------



## zimm7778

"Alan Gordon" said:


> The difference being that the former stuff makes no secret of it's scripted nature...
> 
> ~Alan


I know, just saying its all scripted whether they claim it is or not. In fact Star Trek:TNG might be more reality than some of that crap on MTV.


----------



## tulanejosh

I don't mean this in an insulting way, i really don't. But whenever these issues come up, I'm always pretty astounded at how many people side with Directv with little or no evidence supporting that Directv is actually being honest and sincere in its claims. I really respect their PR machine, its incredibly effective. They give minimal information, skewed facts, and we eat it up - because their on our side! Of course, they are coming at it from the most enviable of all positions - that is "we're protecting YOUR wallet". All Viacom or Fox or whoever can really say is... "you like our programming". I'm reminded of old school mafioso racketeering... they are trying to protect us from cost increases that they themselves implement. Gee thanks!


----------



## android.cphone

From what i read viacom is demanding that the signal be cut at 11pm cdt.. , Viacom sent a letter to our executives forcing us to take the channels away at 9:00pm PST July 10/12:00am EST July 11,


----------



## zimm7778

"Pepe Sylvia" said:


> Yeah, this will get done soon.


Just watched. That was not funny however it was very enlightening on the type of crowd they draw I guess.


----------



## Santi360HD

called it!!! the latest twitter feed from DirecTV now states "IF VIACOM PULLS THE PLUG.."

please guys...dazzle me with something I dont already know!!!


----------



## StarClout

"Santi360HD" said:


> well aware of some of those torrent sites..


Wasn't insinuating that; I have a grandmother 5 mins away from me with Time Warner, and a friend around the corner with Dish


----------



## Santi360HD

StarClout said:


> Wasn't insinuating that; I have a grandmother 5 mins away from me with Time Warner, and a friend around the corner with Dish


or my bar that has both Time Warner and D*


----------



## android.cphone

The cable company in my area fought viacom several years ago i think. Viacom soubds ruthless


----------



## StarClout

Me and said friend have watched the past few impacts over his house. It's business as usual if this happens


----------



## mcl77

seriously. this is the best news ever if my bill gets cut in half.


----------



## inkahauts

"Santi360HD" said:


> has any other cable company or satellite every dropped 25 channels in 1 shot during a dispute? D* is on pace here to set some records here.
> 
> Usually whenever cable or satellite have quarrels with channels its usually 1 channel affected..and it makes news cause its 1 channel..or the recent disputes with cable companies and ABC and FOX, yeah that involved several.....Dish's recent pull of 4 channels as well..
> 
> D* is in some uncharted territory here..a 25 channel pull..wow...anyone got the Guinness book of world records?? anyone got Guinness on the phone?? at 11:59pm I'm sure someone will note that stat if it happens..


Voom?


----------



## APB101

rlj1010 said:


> *If these channels are pulled, even for a day, I am dropping Directv.* We are a Nick household.
> 
> Directv already pissed me off, with the Sunbeam television dispute earlier this year. (We lost our FOX station for a week, during NFL playoffs, and lost Idol.)
> I did not appreciate being used as 'leverage'.
> 
> *I will not stand for it again.*
> 
> (And also annoyed that Directv has made zero effort to add Disney Junior to the lineup.)


Bright House or Comcast? Both carry Disney Junior. Bright House has been very impressive coming up with a basic-cable lineup of HD.


----------



## Alan Gordon

zimm7778 said:


> I know, just saying its all scripted whether they claim it is or not. In fact Star Trek:TNG might be more reality than some of that crap on MTV.


No arguments here....



tulanejosh said:


> I don't mean this in an insulting way, i really don't. But whenever these issues come up, I'm always pretty astounded at how many people side with Directv with little or no evidence supporting that Directv is actually being honest and sincere in its claims. I really respect their PR machine, its incredibly effective. They give minimal information, skewed facts, and we eat it up - because their on our side! Of course, they are coming at it from the most enviable of all positions - that is "we're protecting YOUR wallet". All Viacom or Fox or whoever can really say is... "you like our programming". I'm reminded of old school mafioso racketeering... they are trying to protect us from cost increases that they themselves implement. Gee thanks!


DirecTV is on their side...
Viacom is on their side...

The thing is... what I know of things in the pay TV industry tells me that DirecTV's side is on the side of right in this matter.

~Alan


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

mcl77 said:


> seriously. this is the best news ever if my bill gets cut in half.


Let us know how that works out for you. :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## hdfan1

That 26 channel count is a little overstated on Viacom's part. They are counting their HD feeds as separate channels according to Directv


----------



## Santi360HD

inkahauts said:


> Voom?


Voom was only a 15 channel pull...as I said b4 DirecTV in about 1 hour and 15 minutes will top that mark and surpass that channel pull..


----------



## dandoherty

If you can't come to an agreement I go back to cable in a minute. I can't believe you are dropping 25 channels all at once. you need to hire people that are able to settle disputes.


----------



## Shades228

dandoherty said:


> If you can't come to an agreement I go back to cable in a minute. I can't believe you are dropping 25 channels all at once. you need to hire people that are able to settle disputes.


Please name all 25


----------



## Santi360HD

hdfan1 said:


> That 26 channel count is a little overstated on Viacom's part. They are counting their HD feeds as separate channels according to Directv


yeah I couldn't count 25 or 26 myself..I felt it was sort of inflated..

How many is it actually? last I recall the VOOM dispute stood as the next to highest channel pull by a provider..


----------



## Shades228

Santi360HD said:


> yeah I couldn't count 25 or 26 myself..I felt it was sort of inflated..
> 
> How many is it actually? last I recall the VOOM dispute stood as the next to highest channel pull by a provider..


There are 17 different channels carried.


----------



## Carl Spock

dandoherty said:


> If you can't come to an agreement I go back to cable in a minute. I can't believe you are dropping 25 channels all at once. you need to hire people that are able to settle disputes.


Nice first post.  Let us know the details as to how this works out for you.


----------



## snappjay

When they pulled XM, that was a ton of channels! :lol:
/s


----------



## cjrleimer

dandoherty said:


> If you can't come to an agreement I go back to cable in a minute. I can't believe you are dropping 25 channels all at once. you need to hire people that are able to settle disputes.


Are you under contract? If so then breaking it might be spendy.


----------



## upjtboogie

I can't imagine all the kids home from school for the summer going long without their Nick jr fix.


----------



## onan38

You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.
Walt Disney
Let them kick each other in the teeth ! Just grab a snack sit back see how it unfolds.


----------



## Santi360HD

Shades228 said:


> There are 17 different channels carried.


Then you guys will break Voom's 15 channel pull!!...Nice going!!!


----------



## inkahauts

"Alan Gordon" said:


> No arguments here....
> 
> DirecTV is on their side...
> Viacom is on their side...
> 
> The thing is... what I know of things in the pay TV industry tells me that DirecTV's side is on the side of right in this matter.
> 
> ~Alan


To me it's simple math. You know DirecTV doesn't want to pay more and the broadcaster wants them to pay more. I have not seen anything on any channel come on in The last few years that makes any channel more valuable today than it was two years ago so I go with DirecTV cause their goals is to pay as little as possible. And the less they pay the less I will pay.

With viacom id say their program in is less valuable overall than it was the year before.


----------



## inkahauts

"dandoherty" said:


> If you can't come to an agreement I go back to cable in a minute. I can't believe you are dropping 25 channels all at once. you need to hire people that are able to settle disputes.


I wouldn't even think of doing anything for a couple weeks.


----------



## vobguy

RunnerFL said:


> Lucky you Richie Rich... Enjoy your new provider.


Well you know maybe they will get multiple providers, since money is no object and all. They did seem to indicate they were willing to pay whatever.

Though if money was truly no object, they could just hire the show's actors/voice talent to come over and perform the shows live.


----------



## Shades228

Santi360HD said:


> Then you guys will break Voom's 15 channel pull!!...Nice going!!!


The difference is DISH stopped Voom. Viacom is stopping theirs. Also DISH lost Viacom as well and I think they had more Viacom than Voom channels so it's already been beat.


----------



## tonyd79

"tulanejosh" said:


> I don't mean this in an insulting way, i really don't. But whenever these issues come up, I'm always pretty astounded at how many people side with Directv with little or no evidence supporting that Directv is actually being honest and sincere in its claims. I really respect their PR machine, its incredibly effective. They give minimal information, skewed facts, and we eat it up - because their on our side! Of course, they are coming at it from the most enviable of all positions - that is "we're protecting YOUR wallet". All Viacom or Fox or whoever can really say is... "you like our programming". I'm reminded of old school mafioso racketeering... they are trying to protect us from cost increases that they themselves implement. Gee thanks!


In this case, directv has told more of the truth. They are not pulling the channels. Viacom put the ads up before thy notified directv. Directv has out forth the better argument while Viacom has outright lied and resorted to "pennies a day" (which gets into a billion quite quickly) without disputing dirctv's numbers while pushing kids to lobby this parents.

Neither may be "right" but directv has taken a better position. That is all it takes.


----------



## zimm7778

"snappjay" said:


> When they pulled XM, that was a ton of channels! :lol:
> /s


And music choice before that.


----------



## dandoherty

My contract is up.


----------



## cjrleimer

dandoherty said:


> My contract is up.


Then you may exit.


----------



## zimm7778

"Shades228" said:


> The difference is DISH stopped Voom. Viacom is stopping theirs. Also DISH lost Viacom as well and I think they had more Viacom than Voom channels so it's already been beat.


If I remember right though Dish didn't pull all the Viacom channels off when that happened. I think MTV and a few others went, but Spike among others stayed on. Also, didn't they have a dispute last year over the Fox RSN's and pull those for a little while? The website "greedyfox" is coming to mind.


----------



## android.cphone

55 mins till darkness


----------



## speedy4022

"cjrleimer" said:


> Then you may exit.


If you do exit don't think u can avoid channel disputes it is that time of year and no one is immune.


----------



## tulanejosh

Alan Gordon said:


> No arguments here....
> 
> DirecTV is on their side...
> Viacom is on their side...
> 
> The thing is... what I know of things in the pay TV industry tells me that DirecTV's side is on the side of right in this matter.
> 
> ~Alan


I've been a directv customer for 10+ years. By and large i like them. I mean i must, I've generally never truly considered leaving.

That said... I understand how Fortune 500 companies operate. They have to hit certain growth targets to keep their shareholders and board happy. There's also an upper limit to what customers are willing to pay before they start considering alternatives - whether it be cable, dish, or cutting the cord. But don't confuse that reality with directv being in the right. Their only concern with that is that it limits their ability to generate revenue. They don't want to pay more - that much is true - but that's only because cost control is their only real way to control profits.

Things always cost more money. You might not like it but its the natural order of the things. It's not intended to be a reflection of the 'value' of the programming but rather the cost realities it take to make it. All the things in life that cost more for us - gas, food, utilities, health care, etc etc - the entertainment industry isn't immune from those either. It costs them more to produce and market their programming, to employee all the people, to maintain studios and equipment, to service their debt, upgrade and invest in new technologies - Why shouldn't they ask for more money? Why should directv get to continue to pay the same rate it paid 7 years ago that is dramatically below the market value set by other distributors? What's so special about your wallet or Directv's bottom line that should make it immune from the inflationary pressures that the rest of the world experiences everyday?

If you owned a business, you'd want to get as much for your product as you could, why would you fault someone else for doing the same?


----------



## vobguy

tulanejosh said:


> I don't mean this in an insulting way, i really don't. But whenever these issues come up, I'm always pretty astounded at how many people side with Directv with little or no evidence supporting that Directv is actually being honest and sincere in its claims. I really respect their PR machine, its incredibly effective. They give minimal information, skewed facts, and we eat it up - because their on our side! Of course, they are coming at it from the most enviable of all positions - that is "we're protecting YOUR wallet". All Viacom or Fox or whoever can really say is... "you like our programming". I'm reminded of old school mafioso racketeering... they are trying to protect us from cost increases that they themselves implement. Gee thanks!


And what evidence do we have that Viacom is being honest and sincere?

Since the Reuters article I read indicated that industry analysts say that viewership on Viacom channels is declining, for them to ask for an increase of any kind is ludicrous. I see no other side of this argument other than the emotional appeal by Viacom to "favorite shows".


----------



## zimm7778

"dandoherty" said:


> My contract is up.


Have you not noticed this is happening more and more with everyone? I still think Dish and TW/BH are the worst with it, but Directv has had quite a few lately, FIOS here has had a couple and they haven't been around for many years so far as I know, Comcast had them, and U-Verse has apparently removed a channel or two over negotiation issues. It's not going to get any better probably until the do-nothing FCC patterning their work ethic from everyone elected in DC step in and start doing their jobs.


----------



## Santi360HD

Shades228 said:


> The difference is DISH stopped Voom. Viacom is stopping theirs. Also DISH lost Viacom as well and I think they had more Viacom than Voom channels so it's already been beat.


channel pull, channel dark by whichever side still winds up in absence!! no matter how you slice it.. no politically correct way to explain an absence of broadcasts.


----------



## Alan Gordon

inkahauts said:


> I have not seen anything on any channel come on in The last few years that makes any channel more valuable today than it was two years ago so I go with DirecTV cause their goals is to pay as little as possible. And the less they pay the less I will pay.


The increase in original programming on TV Land has me watching them more than I did a few years ago... not that I disliked the older syndicated programming, but I watch it more consistently now.

Until "Teen Wolf", "Awkward." and "Death Valley" premiered last year (the latter now cancelled), I hadn't watched MTV in YEARS!!

I enjoy JS and SC from time to time on Comedy Central, but "Futurama" is the only thing I watch religiously.

I could continue, but I think you get the picture...

Different strokes for different folks...

~Alan


----------



## Sea bass

Ohhh I hope the Viacom channels go dark! Think of the HD bandwidth! Maybe we can ge t Fuse HD! Stick to your guns Directv!


----------



## Jammasterd

I don't want to pay $5 for the HD Extra pack, but I like Palladia.

If Palladia is pulled tonight, I could save $5!


----------



## tulanejosh

vobguy said:


> And what evidence do we have that Viacom is being honest and sincere?
> 
> Since the Reuters article I read indicated that industry analysts say that viewership on Viacom channels is declining, for them to ask for an increase of any kind is ludicrous. I see no other side of this argument other than the emotional appeal by Viacom to "favorite shows".


the point of my comment is not to support one side or another, but to point out that people blindly believe whatever directv tells them so long as they use the key words "bill", "increase", and "you".

additonally - you don't even know what directv is really asking for - how do you know they didn't ask for HD feeds for the remaining viacom channels, new channels that directv doesn't yet carry (every consider that's where the 26 comes from even though directv only carries 17), and TV everywhere rights? How do you know they didn't ask for additional stuff and viacom said "ok, with all that and your normal increase - that comes to 30%".


----------



## mnassour

tulanejosh said:


> additonally - you don't even know what directv is really asking for - how do you know they didn't ask for HD feeds for the remaining viacom channels, new channels that directv doesn't yet carry (every consider that's where the 26 comes from even though directv only carries 17), and TV everywhere rights? How do you know they didn't ask for additional stuff and viacom said "ok, with all that and your normal increase - that comes to 30%".


We know that didn't happen because had DirecTV asked for all that the negotiations would have blown up weeks ago, the two sides would have cooled off, then come back to the table this week and gotten a deal done for just TV rights. We would never have known anything was amiss.

No one pulls 17 channels off the birds over TV Everywhere....c'mon. :lol:

Anyway, at this moment we have 42 minutes to go. If the channels stay on past 11, I'm betting they won't go off.


----------



## android.cphone

I dont have twitter account what the latest direct tv saying?


----------



## tulanejosh

mnassour said:


> We know that didn't happen because had DirecTV asked for all that the negotiations would have blown up weeks ago, the two sides would have cooled off, then come back to the table this week and gotten a deal done for just TV rights. We would never have known anything was amiss.
> 
> No one pulls 17 channels off the birds over TV Everywhere....c'mon. :lol:


you don't know that just i don't know it either. point is - this is probably more complicated that it appears. Both side are revealing only the information that puts them in the best light. If you believe that this is all about getting the exact same deal for 30% more, you're in luck because i have the 360 bridge for sale and the COA city council told me you can put a toll on it so long as the salamanders approve.


----------



## Santi360HD

android.cphone said:


> I dont have twitter account what the latest direct tv saying?


they're just responding to alot of people's tweets...stating they're working hard to keep the channels on...nothing new
they officially corrected the channel count ...its 17 channels in peril


----------



## ffoooo54

tulanejosh said:


> I've been a directv customer for 10+ years. By and large i like them. I mean i must, I've generally never truly considered leaving.
> 
> That said... I understand how Fortune 500 companies operate. They have to hit certain growth targets to keep their shareholders and board happy. There's also an upper limit to what customers are willing to pay before they start considering alternatives - whether it be cable, dish, or cutting the cord. But don't confuse that reality with directv being in the right. Their only concern with that is that it limits their ability to generate revenue. They don't want to pay more - that much is true - but that's only because cost control is their only real way to control profits.
> 
> Things always cost more money. You might not like it but its the natural order of the things. It's not intended to be a reflection of the 'value' of the programming but rather the cost realities it take to make it. All the things in life that cost more for us - gas, food, utilities, health care, etc etc - the entertainment industry isn't immune from those either. It costs them more to produce and market their programming, to employee all the people, to maintain studios and equipment, to service their debt, upgrade and invest in new technologies - Why shouldn't they ask for more money? Why should directv get to continue to pay the same rate it paid 7 years ago that is dramatically below the market value set by other distributors? What's so special about your wallet or Directv's bottom line that should make it immune from the inflationary pressures that the rest of the world experiences everyday?
> 
> If you owned a business, you'd want to get as much for your product as you could, why would you fault someone else for doing the same?


No things would not cost more money IF governments did not need inflation to pay off old debts, because debts are only listed at a certain dollar amount, so if you inflate the cost things cost now - then you can pay old debt faster - but at same time you destroy the economy.

also DIRECTV & VIACOM are two sides of the same coin, dishonest crooks, Viacom intimating kids to tell parents to complain to DIRECTV and DIRECTV claiming VIACOM wants a certain increase but never providing proof of it.


----------



## android.cphone

Well we will find out something in about 35 mins


----------



## zimm7778

"tulanejosh" said:


> the point of my comment is not to support one side or another, but to point out that people blindly believe whatever directv tells them so long as they use the key words "bill", "increase", and "you".
> 
> additonally - you don't even know what directv is really asking for - how do you know they didn't ask for HD feeds for the remaining viacom channels, new channels that directv doesn't yet carry (every consider that's where the 26 comes from even though directv only carries 17), and TV everywhere rights? How do you know they didn't ask for additional stuff and viacom said "ok, with all that and your normal increase - that comes to 30%".


Here's my two cents as to why. Most people here who think rationally know higher programming cost means a higher bill. That's simple economics. However, I think a lot of the reason you see people take Directv's side is because they built up such goodwill over many years. They would get agreements signed and by and large they would happen with no fuss whatsoever. There may have been 1 or 2 but that was over many years. Meanwhile there were other providers constantly crying about wanting "fair rates" and holding down costs for consumers being why this channel couldn't be added or that one was pulled. All the while their "fair rates" when factoring in everything from programming to equipment was about the same as Directv. Do I think some of this goodwill has begun to fade due to the consistency of these disputes now? Possibly. But I know when I was with Brighthouse I never faulted the network because I knew TW/BH's history of negotiating. It's the reputations they've earned. That's why I think people are so willing to give them a pass so often.


----------



## skaman74

I could care less in they drop those channels. All they play is absolute TV trash. MTV is illiterate, VH1 is just as retarded and the list goes on. GOOD BY TRASH TV...YOU WILL NOT BE MISSED!


----------



## tulanejosh

ffoooo54 said:


> No things would not cost more money IF governments did not need inflation to pay off old debts, because debts are only listed at a certain dollar amount, so if you inflate the cost things cost now - then you can pay old debt faster - but at same time you destroy the economy.


sure that's one driver - but so is good old supply and demand. it's why my grandfather paid 25 cents a gallon for gas and i pay $3.02.


----------



## tulanejosh

skaman74 said:


> I could care less in they drop those channels. All they play is absolute TV trash. MTV is illiterate, VH1 is just as retarded and the list goes on. GOOD BY TRASH TV...YOU WILL NOT BE MISSED!


why do you pay for TV at all my friend? Downton Abby is free with an antenna on PBS!


----------



## cjrleimer

the theme of this dispute.


----------



## zimm7778

"ffoooo54" said:


> No things would not cost more money IF governments did not need inflation to pay off old debts, because debts are only listed at a certain dollar amount, so if you inflate the cost things cost now - then you can pay old debt faster - but at same time you destroy the economy.
> 
> also DIRECTV & VIACOM are two sides of the same coin, dishonest crooks intimating kids to tell parents to complain to DIRECTV and DIRECTV claiming they want a certain increase but never providing proof of it.


Intimidating kids? Give me a break! Oh whatever will they do without 4 kids channels out of what? 8? 10?


----------



## cjrleimer

skaman74 said:


> I could care less in they drop those channels. All they play is absolute TV trash. MTV is illiterate, VH1 is just as retarded and the list goes on. GOOD BY TRASH TV...YOU WILL NOT BE MISSED!


Please, quit doing those tactics. Its just something that not everyone agrees on.


----------



## Alan Gordon

tulanejosh said:


> I've been a directv customer for 10+ years. By and large i like them. I mean i must, I've generally never truly considered leaving.
> 
> That said... I understand how Fortune 500 companies operate. They have to hit certain growth targets to keep their shareholders and board happy. There's also an upper limit to what customers are willing to pay before they start considering alternatives - whether it be cable, dish, or cutting the cord. But don't confuse that reality with directv being in the right. Their only concern with that is that it limits their ability to generate revenue. They don't want to pay more - that much is true - but that's only because cost control is their only real way to control profits.


I never stated that DirecTV was doing this out of moral reasons... I do believe their goals are aligned with doing what I feel is right.



tulanejosh said:


> Things always cost more money. You might not like it but its the natural order of the things. It's not intended to be a reflection of the 'value' of the programming but rather the cost realities it take to make it. All the things in life that cost more for us - gas, food, utilities, health care, etc etc - the entertainment industry isn't immune from those either. It costs them more to produce and market their programming, to employee all the people, to maintain studios and equipment, to service their debt, upgrade and invest in new technologies - Why shouldn't they ask for more money?


I have no qualms with them asking for more money... I just support DirecTV telling them what they can do with themselves for asking it.



tulanejosh said:


> Why should directv get to continue to pay the same rate it paid 7 years ago that is dramatically below the market value set by other distributors?


I apparently missed the part about Viacom being dramatically below the market value set by other distributors

Where did you see that?!.



tulanejosh said:


> What's so special about your wallet or Directv's bottom line that should make it immune from the inflationary pressures that the rest of the world experiences everyday?


While I could state, that like a fellow poster in this thread, I've actually experienced a DECREASE in income, I'm not a woe is me type of person, so I don't blame Viacom for asking for an increase.



tulanejosh said:


> If you owned a business, you'd want to get as much for your product as you could, why would you fault someone else for doing the same?


Actually, no, that's not the way I was taught. I would want a FAIR price for my product.

Viacom is apparently experiencing a DECLINING viewership, and is expecting a 30% raise for this. They are most likely holding more popular channels hostage unless DirecTV carries others as well...

~Alan


----------



## skaman74

"tulanejosh" said:


> why do you pay for TV at all my friend? Downton Abby is free with an antenna on PBS!


For NFL Sunday Ticket and ESPN


----------



## ffoooo54

tulanejosh said:


> sure that's one driver - but so is good old supply and demand. it's why my grandfather paid 25 cents a gallon for gas and i pay $3.02.


TRUE supply and demand has not been a REAL factor for decades - all is drove by inflation (so there is more fake money to pay down old debts) and speculators sriving the markets through the rough.

Consumers are not even a real factor anymore.

If the were DIRECTV would have a better channel lineup, when a national company hasa worse lineup of channels then many rural cable and local IPTV companies (no i a do not mean verizion and ATT) then we have a problem folks.


----------



## tuff bob

so if viacom is only asking for pennies a day, how about we start a little raffle or bake sale - should be easy to come up with 4 pennies x365=$14.60 to keep the viacom channels on for a year


----------



## Shades228

Santi360HD said:


> channel pull, channel dark by whichever side still winds up in absence!! no matter how you slice it.. no politically correct way to explain an absence of broadcasts.


Not sure what PC has to do with broadcast stations but the intent of the channels going dark are different. If DIRECTV stated they were no longer going to carry Viacom stations then it would be on DIRECTV for the reason it went dark. If Viacom says they'll ceasing to allow DIRECTV to carry them then Viacom is the reason they have gone dark. It's not overly complicated. However I think that all you want to do is stir the pot so have fun with that.



Sea bass said:


> Ohhh I hope the Viacom channels go dark! Think of the HD bandwidth! Maybe we can ge t Fuse HD! Stick to your guns Directv!


Permanent changes will not take place for a very long time if the channels do go dark. Only once both companies have decided that an agreement is no longer an option would a permanent replacement program be put in place.


----------



## cjrleimer

skaman74 said:


> For NFL Sunday Ticket and ESPN


I in away for the same reasons, but its kind of like this. " I may not agree on what you say or what you watch, but I respect your point of view". Basically, I rarely watch any of the viacom stuff, but I understand other view points towards this.


----------



## RunnerFL

I just love how Viacom's portion of the 3 line scroll (one is actually stationairy) on Tosh.0 says "only pennies a day, which will not affect your bill". 

1. "Pennies a day" is easy to say. Afterall $10 is only 1000 pennies.

2. How can they say it "will not affect your bill"? They can't guarantee DirecTV won't raise our rates because of Viacom's demands. That's pretty gutsy for them to assume that.


----------



## cjrleimer

RunnerFL said:


> I just love how Viacom's portion of the 3 line scroll (one is actually stationairy) on Tosh.0 says "only pennies a day, which will not affect your bill".
> 
> 1. "Pennies a day" is easy to say. Afterall $10 is only 1000 pennies.
> 
> 2. How can they say it "will not affect your bill"? They can't guarantee DirecTV won't raise our rates because of Viacom's demands. That's pretty gutsy for them to assume that.


I had to laugh at the bottom lines going on, this dispute has turned into a comedy show of epic proportions.


----------



## n3vino

tulanejosh said:


> Why shouldn't they ask for more money? Why should directv get to continue to pay the same rate it paid 7 years ago that is dramatically below the market value set by other distributors? What's so special about your wallet or Directv's bottom line that should make it immune from the inflationary pressures that the rest of the world experiences everyday?
> 
> If you owned a business, you'd want to get as much for your product as you could, why would you fault someone else for doing the same?


Your product is worth what someone is willing to pay. If you owned a business you would go broke if you didn't try to get the best deal when you buy inventory or supplies. Your inventory could stay on the shelves if they are too expensive for anyone to buy, especially if people can do without what you sell.


----------



## skaman74

If the channels go dark they should at least do what Dish did and fill it with HD movies.


----------



## Santi360HD

Shades228 said:


> Not sure what PC has to do with broadcast stations but the intent of the channels going dark are different. If DIRECTV stated they were no longer going to carry Viacom stations then it would be on DIRECTV for the reason it went dark. If Viacom says they'll ceasing to allow DIRECTV to carry them then Viacom is the reason they have gone dark. It's not overly complicated. However I think that all you want to do is stir the pot so have fun with that.


pot was stirred way before i put this post on DBSTalk.com!! when your employer made news of this on the web, and the ticker below each channel started way before I said anything!!.. Thanks for giving me props and labeling me as stirring the pot, when you guys are the ones with the soup of mess in said pot already!!


----------



## tulanejosh

Alan Gordon said:


> I never stated that DirecTV was doing this out of moral reasons... I do believe their goals are aligned with doing what I feel is right.
> 
> I have no qualms with them asking for more money... I just support DirecTV telling them what they can do with themselves for asking it.
> 
> I apparently missed the part about Viacom being dramatically below the market value set by other distributors
> 
> Where did you see that?!.
> 
> While I could state, that like a fellow poster in this thread, I've actually experienced a DECREASE in income, I'm not a woe is me type of person, so I don't blame Viacom for asking for an increase.
> 
> Actually, no, that's not the way I was taught. I would want a FAIR price for my product.
> 
> Viacom is apparently experiencing a DECLINING viewership, and is expecting a 30% raise for this. They are most likely holding more popular channels hostage unless DirecTV carries others as well...
> 
> ~Alan


1) fair enough. 
2) It was in the Hollywood Reporter article on this topic.
3) Fair is a subjective term. Who determines fair? You? Me? Directv? Viacom? 
4) I call Shennanigans on that declining viewership report. Over what period of time? Plus you don't know what the true terms they've asked for are... maybe they asked for more hd and that's being factored into the deal.

Here's the quote:

Viacom said its agreement with DirecTV was seven years old and that it calls for below market rates for the Viacom networks, which account for 20% of all viewing on DirecTV but receive less than 5% of DirecTV's programming spending.


----------



## wahooq

7 minutes


----------



## mnassour

tulanejosh said:


> If you believe that this is all about getting the exact same deal for 30% more, you're in luck because i have the 360 bridge for sale and the COA city council told me you can put a toll on it so long as the salamanders approve.


Indeed....all we know is that Viacom wants more than DirecTV is willing to give and neither side...at this instant...appears ready to budge. It doesn't matter if it's 3%, 30% or 300%. But it IS over money and I don't think anyone believes Viacom is asking for less.

Me, I'm guessing a week's outage, everyone comes back and kisses, and the salamanders get their own show on The Audience Network.

(Sorry about that last line, everyone who doesn't live in Austin....it's a local joke!)


----------



## Santi360HD

20 Minutes ...your NYC representative here will be posting at 12:01

I'm so excited!!

readying my digital camera...for video recording


----------



## android.cphone

20 mins till doomsday lol


----------



## tulanejosh

n3vino said:


> Your product is worth what someone is willing to pay. If you owned a business you would go broke if you didn't try to get the best deal when you buy inventory or supplies. Your inventory could stay on the shelves if they are too expensive for anyone to buy, especially if people can do without what you sell.


yes... and the rest of the market is willing to pay more than directv... or so says viacom. I don't find that statement to be so outrageous that i doubt its truth. this is an old agreement up for renewal (7 years old from media reports). not unreasonable to think that maybe directv is paying dramatically lower rates considering how things have been going for all distributors lately.

And that metaphor - btw - goes both ways. Viacom has a responsibility to get the best deal too.


----------



## Drew2k

DIRECTV has a grammatical error in their scrolling banner: "Viacom, who owns this channel, wants you to pay 30% more ..."

Viacom is not a person, so it should be "Viacom, which owns this channel, wants you to pay 30% more ..."


That is all.


----------



## tulanejosh

mnassour said:


> Indeed....all we know is that Viacom wants more than DirecTV is willing to give and neither side...at this instant...appears ready to budge. It doesn't matter if it's 3%, 30% or 300%. But it IS over money and I don't think anyone believes Viacom is asking for less.
> 
> Me, I'm guessing a week's outage, everyone comes back and kisses, and the salamanders get their own show on The Audience Network.
> 
> (Sorry about that last line, everyone who doesn't live in Austin....it's a local joke!)


If it was salamanders playing guitars singing songs about the environment set to the backdrop of the F1 track construction - ALL. OVER. THAT. SHOW. just keep the hipsters out, they tell me how cool they are too often.


----------



## ffoooo54

To enlighten you SHEEPLE, I have no doubt DIRECTV & VIACOM are colluding on this because if VIACOM (with all their scrolls) wante dpeople to actually get a point accross DIRECTV they would provide the 50 or so known phone numbers wher epeople actually answer Direct and where dont have to go through voice mail hell.......


----------



## cjrleimer

15 minutes until we have our second dispute of 2012 with Directv.


----------



## onan38

Reminds me of snake plissken shutting down the world.


----------



## tuff bob

VH1 Classic just went to the DirecTV Technical Difficulties screen. The first to go?

VH1 HD too!


----------



## ffoooo54

Drew2k said:


> DIRECTV has a grammatical error in their scrolling banner: "Viacom, who owns this channel, wants you to pay 30% more ..."
> 
> Viacom is not a person, so it should be "Viacom, which owns this channel, wants you to pay 30% more ..."
> 
> That is all.


No that is actually correct (its sickening though) the courts have ruled corparations are people, look up the rulings, they have the sae rights as people now. That is why free speech can be repressed so easily now by corporations (guest vs customer definitions)


----------



## Drew2k

Spike TV just displayed a DIRECTV "technical issues" banner...


----------



## RunnerFL

ffoooo54 said:


> To enlighten you SHEEPLE, I have no doubt DIRECTV & VIACOM are colluding on this because if VIACOM (with all their scrolls) wante dpeople to actually get a point accross DIRECTV they would provide the 50 or so known phone numbers wher epeople actually answer Direct and where dont have to go through voice mail hell.......


Which number goes directly to your desk there at Viacom?


----------



## Davenlr

I am finding it interesting that with all the scrolls flying on the viacom channels on D*, watching the same channels on Xfinity shows NONE. I always thought all the satcasters and cable companies got the signal from the same C Band distribution source. Apparently not.


----------



## Santi360HD

tuff bob said:


> VH1 Classic just went to the DirecTV Technical Difficulties screen. The first to go?


probably testing the channel pull


----------



## android.cphone

They are gone


----------



## onan38

303 teen nick off the air.


----------



## hdfan1

All the channels now giving that message. Looks like someone cut the cord 15 minutes early


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

And they're off. Tvland, Nick West, and Spike so far.


----------



## RML81

tuff bob said:


> VH1 Classic just went to the DirecTV Technical Difficulties screen. The first to go?
> 
> VH1 HD too!


MTV2 is down


----------



## Santi360HD

Regular VH1 is hit now


----------



## inkahauts

Alan Gordon said:


> The increase in original programming on TV Land has me watching them more than I did a few years ago... not that I disliked the older syndicated programming, but I watch it more consistently now.
> 
> Until "Teen Wolf", "Awkward." and "Death Valley" premiered last year (the latter now cancelled), I hadn't watched MTV in YEARS!!
> 
> I enjoy JS and SC from time to time on Comedy Central, but "Futurama" is the only thing I watch religiously.
> 
> I could continue, but I think you get the picture...
> 
> Different strokes for different folks...
> 
> ~Alan


Actually, my point was do they actually have more programming on now that is more valuable to all the Viacom channel's overall viewers than they did a few years ago?

I actually watch more TVLand now then ever before, but that doesn't mean all their programs overall for Viacom have increased in value. I am looking at it from a package standpoint.

Everything I have read is that overall their view ship is down, so even if they have a few good shows, they may have more shows that are bad in the ratings now that more than offset the new shows, vs a more solid top to bottom lineup in the past.


----------



## Drew2k

Now I'm not going to see how Julia Roberts fools Matthew Perry into dressing in women's underwear and leaves him in a restaurant bathroom...

And I won't learn if Joey and Ross do have their weekend game or if Ross will pick Marcel the Monkey over Joey...

Oh well.


----------



## crashHD

Comedy Central as of a few minutes ago, too


----------



## luckydob

Yep....comedy central gone. Just in the middle of workaholics.


----------



## android.cphone

Looks like they pulled all the channels


----------



## Snickering Hound

VH-1 Classic just went dark...

And Directv started playing Gnarls Barkley "Crazy".

Nice touch. :lol:


----------



## hdfan1

They just changed the message on Palladia it says Viacom forced them to remove the channel


----------



## RunnerFL

Drew2k said:


> Spike TV just displayed a DIRECTV "technical issues" banner...


Same for Comedy Central.


----------



## Davenlr

Drew2k said:


> Spike TV just displayed a DIRECTV "technical issues" banner...


Which in and of itself is a total lie


----------



## tuff bob

Snickering Hound said:


> VH-1 Classic just went dark...
> 
> And Directv started playing Gnarls Barkley "Crazy".
> 
> Nice touch. :lol:


I noticed that too .... tho that was turning into a good episode of Larry Sanders, dang it.


----------



## Santi360HD

Maybe D* put the banner up so as not to give the satisfaction of Viacom doing the pull on them..


----------



## tulanejosh

YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! OH, [email protected] YOU! [email protected] YOU ALL TO HELL!

~ Charlton Heston


----------



## mnassour

And so it begins....




(Watching Stewart and Colbert on Hulu, that is!)


----------



## tuff bob

Davenlr said:


> Which in and of itself is a total lie


Unless Viacom pulled the plug early and the DirecTV computers insert the temporary tech difficulties screen if they detect the feed is lost


----------



## RML81

mnassour said:


> And so it begins....


Yes, it is like the battle for middle earth, if it were about satellite retransmission fees :lol:


----------



## android.cphone

Viacom decided to pull early would not let us finish the hour


----------



## hdfan1

So far Palladia is the only station showing the Viacom forced us to shut the channel down message


----------



## RunnerFL

tuff bob said:


> Unless Viacom pulled the plug early and the DirecTV computers insert the temporary tech difficulties screen if they detect the feed is lost


That was what I was thinking too. Normally during a dispute DirecTV displays a graphic about the dispute, not technical difficulties.


----------



## cjrleimer

Over/Under a week on this dispute.


----------



## SParker

Dead... http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/6595/deadit.jpg


----------



## Darcaine

ffoooo54 said:


> No that is actually correct (its sickening though) the courts have ruled corparations are people, look up the rulings, they have the sae rights as people now. That is why free speech can be repressed so easily now by corporations (guest vs customer definitions)


Umm that has been true since at least 1819. Corporate personhood is not a new concept, and is what allows them to sign contracts and sue or be sued in a court of law for nearly 200 years now.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#section_1


----------



## Shades228

RunnerFL said:


> I just love how Viacom's portion of the 3 line scroll (one is actually stationairy) on Tosh.0 says "only pennies a day, which will not affect your bill".
> 
> 1. "Pennies a day" is easy to say. Afterall $10 is only 1000 pennies.
> 
> 2. How can they say it "will not affect your bill"? They can't guarantee DirecTV won't raise our rates because of Viacom's demands. That's pretty gutsy for them to assume that.


If you use the math given it's coming out to .1369/day per subsciber (using 20 million subs and 1 billion increase) or $4.10 a month per sub. That's with going that the 1 billion number


----------



## Santi360HD

I couldn't even get my camera ready for the pull..


----------



## tuff bob

Shades228 said:


> If you use the math given it's coming out to .1369/day per subsciber (using 20 million subs and 1 billion increase) or $4.10 a month per sub. That's with going that the 1 billion number


it might be a 3 to 5 year deal, that gets you to pennies.


----------



## ffoooo54

RunnerFL said:


> Which number goes directly to your desk there at Viacom?


I have IPTV and how dare you think i have so low of morals to work for a company like VIACOM


----------



## danjfoley

Channel 567 has a different message that all the others will get soon


----------



## RunnerFL

Shades228 said:


> If you use the math given it's coming out to .1369/day per subsciber (using 20 million subs and 1 billion increase) or $4.10 a month per sub. That's with going that the 1 billion number


I figured that, my point was that "pennies a day" could mean anything.


----------



## tulanejosh

tuff bob said:


> it might be a 3 to 5 year deal, that gets you to pennies.


last one was 7 years. Doubt they go that long this time. :nono2:


----------



## crashHD

What channel number is palladia?


----------



## hdfan1

"crashHD" said:


> What channel number is palladia?


567


----------



## ffoooo54

Darcaine said:


> Umm that has been true since at least 1819. Corporate personhood is not a new concept, and is what allows them to sign contracts and sue or be sued in a court of law for nearly 200 years now.
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#section_1


I am not referencing that - I am referencing the rulings in the last 20 years


----------



## RunnerFL

ffoooo54 said:


> how dare you think i have so low of morals to work for a company like VIACOM


It's a pretty obvious conclusion based on your posts and that you signed up today just to post them.


----------



## onan38

Viacom is getting slammed on their facebook wall.

https://www.facebook.com/Viacom


----------



## tuff bob

MTV2 has the new 'contract dispute' slide now

maybe all SD's do.


----------



## danjfoley

567


----------



## speedy4022

Wow what a jerk move to pull them 15 mins early.


----------



## Drew2k

Spike TV just came back on

EDIT: And off again


----------



## Shades228

Mike White's message is updated.


----------



## tuff bob

If Viacom pulled the channels 15 minutes early, looks like someone has breached their contract. :grin:


----------



## speedy4022

"onan38" said:


> Viacom is getting slammed on their facebook wall.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/Viacom


Yeah I saw that some really funny posts


----------



## Drew2k

And now the message shows the owner of the channel forced DIRECTV to suspend the channel.


----------



## inkahauts

tulanejosh said:


> 1) fair enough.
> 2) It was in the Hollywood Reporter article on this topic.
> 3) Fair is a subjective term. Who determines fair? You? Me? Directv? Viacom?
> 4) I call Shennanigans on that declining viewership report. Over what period of time? Plus you don't know what the true terms they've asked for are... maybe they asked for more hd and that's being factored into the deal.
> 
> Here's the quote:
> 
> Viacom said its agreement with DirecTV was seven years old and that it calls for below market rates for the Viacom networks, which account for 20% of all viewing on DirecTV but receive less than 5% of DirecTV's programming spending.


Wait, they are claiming that their channels equate to 20% of all DirecTV viewers TV viewing? I call BS on that one for sure...

And also, why on earth would they give the same portion of their income to any broadcaster as what their view ship % is. That's what they are trying to equate this too. How would they be able to afford any of the infrastructure that is required to keep the company running if they did that?

That is all just marketing talk. Of course, Directv is all about marketing too when it comes to what we are all actually seeing, no two ways about it.

I just hope the negotiators don't listen to either marketing departments for guidance.


----------



## prushing

I would miss Comedy Central, but that is all


----------



## android.cphone

All channels now display forced removal


----------



## ffoooo54

Shades228 said:


> Mike White's message is updated.


He recorded that way before today and i doubt the overpayed pampered out of touch with reality executives from both sides are not negioating now, it would cost them sleep time


----------



## Drew2k

Well, I hope to have MTV back before Teen Wolf next Monday, but I can actually go two weeks, as MTV shows the previous and new episodes back to back on Monday night.

Here's hoping for a quick resolution for those who don't have that luxury and will be missing their favorite channels and shows....


----------



## RunnerFL

Notice just went up on Comedy Central.


----------



## Santi360HD

android.cphone said:


> All channels now display forced removal


Spike isnt


----------



## ffoooo54

inkahauts said:


> Wait, they are claiming that their channels equate to 20% of all DirecTV viewers TV viewing? I call BS on that one for sure...
> 
> And also, why on earth would they give the same portion of their income to any broadcaster as what their view ship % is. That's what they are trying to equate this too. How would they be able to afford any of the infrastructure that is required to keep the company running if they did that?
> 
> That is all just marketing talk. Of course, Directv is all about marketing too when it comes to what we are all actually seeing, no two ways about it.
> 
> I just hope the negotiators don't listen to either marketing departments for guidance.


MARKETING = LIES and BULLCRAP


----------



## hengnv

prushing said:


> I would miss Comedy Central, but that is all


+1


----------



## tuff bob

either way, this is a big dispute and is going to be setting the bar for future content provider / video provider contract negotiations. This one will be fascinating to see how it plays out. I'm still a bit in shock the channels came down!


----------



## Davenlr

onan38 said:


> Viacom is getting slammed on their facebook wall.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/Viacom


I am loving the comments too...."I not have smallpox because of you", "Suck my ween" ?? Must be a spongebob fan hahaha


----------



## cjrleimer

The Directv music is certainly setting a tone for these negotiations. Gold on the celing is being played by the Black Keys.


----------



## Santi360HD

Mike White's message looks pre-recorded...meaning this was doomed to crash & burn..


----------



## Draconis

tuff bob said:


> either way, this is a big dispute and is going to be setting the bar for future content provider / video provider contract negotiations. This one will be fascinating to see how it plays out. I'm still a bit in shock the channels came down!


I'm not, DIRECTV has proven in the past (multiple times) that they will not be bullied.


----------



## Shades228

ffoooo54 said:


> He recorded that way before today and i doubt the overpayed pampered out of touch with reality executives from both sides are not negioating now, it would cost them sleep time


Of course he did, just like the commercials Viacom has been running were made before today, this was all done in preperation for this potential outcome.


----------



## tulanejosh

inkahauts said:


> Wait, they are claiming that their channels equate to 20% of all DirecTV viewers TV viewing? I call BS on that one for sure...
> 
> And also, why on earth would they give the same portion of their income to any broadcaster as what their view ship % is. That's what they are trying to equate this too. How would they be able to afford any of the infrastructure that is required to keep the company running if they did that?
> 
> That is all just marketing talk. Of course, Directv is all about marketing too when it comes to what we are all actually seeing, no two ways about it.
> 
> I just hope the negotiators don't listen to either marketing departments for guidance.


i think you misread the quote... they aren't saying they should get 20% of d* revenue, they are saying they should get a more equitable share of their programming spend commensurate with what their properties represent in terms of viewership %s.

Those are popular channels. You can debate numbers all you want and program quality all you want - they are popular channels.


----------



## Davenlr

tuff bob said:


> either way, this is a big dispute and is going to be setting the bar for future content provider / video provider contract negotiations. This one will be fascinating to see how it plays out. I'm still a bit in shock the channels came down!


Im not. Dish took the lead with AMC and Rainbow. Its DirecTv's turn at the plate.


----------



## ffoooo54

tuff bob said:


> either way, this is a big dispute and is going to be setting the bar for future content provider / video provider contract negotiations. This one will be fascinating to see how it plays out. I'm still a bit in shock the channels came down!


for all these contracts are multi-year, they tell us that, thats false, they are year to year renewable actually and disputes most people never hear about happen yearly.

this one they both just want some pub


----------



## RML81

Santi360HD said:


> Mike White's message looks pre-recorded...meaning this was doomed to crash & burn..


Who knows? Maybe they were just preparing for eventualities. There may be one saying, "We did it!" too that wasn't aired because of the subsequent developments.


----------



## cjrleimer

Davenlr said:


> Im not. Dish took the lead with AMC and Rainbow. Its DirecTv's turn at the plate.


Anyone want to pay 30 bucks to watch these two fight on PPV? Direct and Viacom.:grin:


----------



## RunnerFL

Davenlr said:


> I am loving the comments too...."I not have smallpox because of you", "Suck my ween" ?? Must be a spongebob fan hahaha


I love how some of the comments are from adults using their children as scapegoats for why they are upset. :lol:


----------



## charlie460

Everything's down for me now, even Palladia. SD channels just say technical difficulties. :lol:

I have no doubt this will be resolved quickly. I don't care how many of you "don't watch these channels," Comedy Central, Nickelodeon etc are huge and I suspect DirecTV knows that people will switch providers quickly if they don't come back shortly.


----------



## ffoooo54

Shades228 said:


> Of course he did, just like the commercials Viacom has been running were made before today, this was all done in preperation for this potential outcome.


potential nothing, this has been planned for weeks by both sides


----------



## speedy4022

I love the post on viacom's facebook page that quotes an la times article saying viacom's execs are among the highest paid in the industry.


----------



## cjrleimer

charlie460 said:


> Everything's down for me now, even Palladia. SD channels just say technical difficulties. :lol:
> 
> I have no doubt this will be resolved quickly. I don't care how many of you "don't watch these channels," Comedy Central, Nickelodeon etc are huge and I suspect DirecTV knows that people will switch providers quickly if they don't come back shortly.


Agreed, I mean as long as they are rated within the top 20 this will be brief.


----------



## RunnerFL

ffoooo54 said:


> potential nothing, this has been planned for weeks by both sides


They planned for any potential outcome yes...


----------



## onan38

Draconis said:


> I'm not, DIRECTV has proven in the past (multiple times) that they will not be bullied.


I glad directv is standing up and drawing a line in the sand. 30% increase is a joke. Viacom has lost its mind! Or may i say wallet!


----------



## ffoooo54

Direct already got our increase this year to cover this known channel cost increase, this "dispute" is just to rip the consumer


----------



## mnassour

Those of you watching Comedy Central saw a REALLY messy transition. It was obvious that DirecTV was not ready for the plug to be pulled early, I'm guessing that's why the TD slides went up.

Really bush league, Viacom. You didn't even keep your promise to keep the video up so we could finish the 10:30 (CT) program.

That's it. This Means War.


----------



## Alan Gordon

tulanejosh said:


> 2) It was in the Hollywood Reporter article on this topic.


I didn't read that... I do think it's interesting that you're so quick to doubt DirecTV, but you have no trouble believing Viacom.



tulanejosh said:


> 3) Fair is a subjective term. Who determines fair? You? Me? Directv? Viacom?


In the case of DirecTV vs. Viacom, I'd say the two parties involved. However, you were asking a hypothetical question involving me and my fictional business/product, in which the answer would be ME! 



tulanejosh said:


> 4) I call Shennanigans on that declining viewership report. Over what period of time? Plus you don't know what the true terms they've asked for are... maybe they asked for more hd and that's being factored into the deal.


It's very possible that Viacom is asking DirecTV to carry more HD feeds of their programming... DirecTV has even said something along the lines of how Viacom is forcing them to negotiate for their whole package of channels instead of picking and choosing.



tulanejosh said:


> Here's the quote:
> 
> Viacom said its agreement with DirecTV was seven years old and that it calls for below market rates for the Viacom networks, which account for 20% of all viewing on DirecTV but receive less than 5% of DirecTV's programming spending.


I have a really hard time believing that Viacom's networks (now that CBS has been spun off) equates to 20% of all viewing on DirecTV. That discredits the whole quote in my mind...

~Alan


----------



## ffoooo54

RunnerFL said:


> They planned for any potential outcome yes...


no, they KNEW it was going to happen, planning infers planning for if happens, they knew this, since this is standard MO


----------



## Alan Gordon

ffoooo54 said:


> Direct already got our increase this year to cover this known channel cost increase, this "dispute" is just to rip the consumer


Apparently you don't remember the new FOX contract last year... or realize that multiple contracts have fees that go up every year.

~Alan


----------



## RunnerFL

ffoooo54 said:


> no, they KNEW it was going to happen, planiing infers planning if happens, they knew this, since this is standard MO


No... I'm sure he made videos for either outcome. Now be quiet, the adults are talking...


----------



## tulanejosh

RunnerFL said:


> I love how some of the comments are from adults using their children as scapegoats for why they are upset. :lol:


right... because it's an unreasonable thing to want to avoid your kid having a meltdown because he's 3 and doesn't understand why he can't watch Ni Hao, Kai Lan and Max and Ruby. It's so wrong of us to want to avoid those types of situations. I suppose I'll just make him go sit in the corner or tell him I'll give him something to be upset about if he doesn't knock it off. That better? Your tone say it all. I'll keep what I'd really like to say to you private but it goes a little something like bleepety bleep bleep bleep.


----------



## RML81

Did Spike just disappear from anybody else's program guide?


----------



## tuff bob

Did they just renumber the Viacom channels, I notice the slide disappeared to a DTV logo and now I'm on 8327?


----------



## RML81

tuff bob said:


> Did they just renumber the Viacom channels, I notice the slide disappeared to a DTV logo and now I'm on 8327?


Yeah. Spike redirected to something in the 8000s.


----------



## RunnerFL

tulanejosh said:


> right... because it's an unreasonable thing to want to avoid your kid having a meltdown because he's 3 and doesn't understand why he can't watch Ni Hao, Kai Lan and Max and Ruby. It's so wrong of us to want to avoid those types of situations. I suppose I'll just make him go sit in the corner or tell him I'll give him something to be upset about if he doesn't knock it off. That better? Your tone say it all. I'll keep what I'd really like to say to you private but it goes a little something like bleepety bleep bleep bleep.


1. You could have stocked up on recordings for him so I guess that makes it partially your fault because YOU could have done something about it.

2. Let him go outside and play and get exercise. It won't hurt him.

3. Feel free to PM me with anything you want to say but I'll warn you, you're attacking the wrong person and you will be flamed back.


----------



## Sixto

"DirecTV is throwing around some big numbers that are misleading. Here’s the truth: Viacom is asking DirecTV for an increase of a couple of pennies per day per subscriber. That’s far less than DirecTV pays other programmers with fewer viewers than Viacom. We have always been open to negotiating and hope to get a deal done."

Isn't a couple of pennies ... two pennies a day.

And 2 times 365 days is $7.30.

And $7.30 times 20M subscribers is $146M per year.

And for a new 7 year contact ... $1B.

Is that maybe where the $1B comes from.


----------



## charlie460

Yes, all the Viacom channels seemed to have been remapped from 8247-8337. Now there's a subchannel on each Viacom channel looping Mike White's message, and this on the main channel feeds:


----------



## Alan Gordon

Drew2k said:


> Well, I hope to have MTV back before Teen Wolf next Monday, but I can actually go two weeks, as MTV shows the previous and new episodes back to back on Monday night.


If need be, I'll sacrifice, but +1!!

~Alan<~~~~~~~~Who still hasn't watched last night's episode, but has been singing "Karma Kamina" all day...


----------



## Davenlr

tulanejosh said:


> right... because it's an unreasonable thing to want to avoid your kid having a meltdown because he's 3 and doesn't understand why he can't watch Ni Hao, Kai Lan and Max and Ruby.


Stream it. I doubt a 3 yr old will care if its in HD. http://www.playon.tv/playon should have a server program which will allow you to play any of its content on your DirecTv DVR if its hooked to your home network.


----------



## RunnerFL

tuff bob said:


> Did they just renumber the Viacom channels, I notice the slide disappeared to a DTV logo and now I'm on 8327?


They probably did a virtual redirection on all of them so they only had to put up whatever slide once instead of on each channel. Each channel still has the -1 with DirecTV's message.


----------



## Xsabresx

Who can I complain to that Mike White's message on 299-1 is in SD?


----------



## Alan Gordon

Sixto said:


> "DirecTV is throwing around some big numbers that are misleading. Here's the truth: Viacom is asking DirecTV for an increase of a couple of pennies per day per subscriber. That's far less than DirecTV pays other programmers with fewer viewers than Viacom. We have always been open to negotiating and hope to get a deal done."
> 
> Isn't a couple of pennies ... two pennies a day.
> 
> And 2 times 365 days is $7.30.
> 
> And $7.30 times 20M subscribers is $146M per year.
> 
> And for a new 7 year contact ... $1B.
> 
> Is that maybe where the $1B comes from.


Is Viacom asking for a couple pennies more a day per subscriber from DirecTV for the suite of channels, or for each channel?! :eek2:

~Alan


----------



## hdfan1

tuff bob said:


> Did they just renumber the Viacom channels, I notice the slide disappeared to a DTV logo and now I'm on 8327?


Yes I can't believe they remapped the channels that quickly. This may go on longer than I originally thought. Even during their brief WGN outage this year they never bothered to remap the channel.


----------



## charlie460

They seem to be having problems with the mapping... 249 says "Sports Mix" and is just a technical difficulties message.


----------



## RunnerFL

Alan Gordon said:


> Is Viacom asking for a couple pennies more a day per subscriber from DirecTV for the suite of channels, or for each channel?! :eek2:


That's the $1,000,000,000 question.


----------



## Drew2k

They're definitely playing around with guide data. I just noticed channel 272, Logo, is showing a program title of "Mix Channel", but the description is about Viacom forcing DIRECTV to remove the channel.

300, NIKw, shows a title of "Kids Mix".

etc.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Xsabresx said:


> Who can I complain to that Mike White's message on 299-1 is in SD?


DirecTV nixed the HD budget in order to sweeten the pot to Viacom executives. They didn't go for it... 

~Alan


----------



## SParker

I thought I would give a person manning the Directv twitter account a good laugh and posted the following:

@DIRECTV ‪#ViacomHasMyBack‬ and they didn't even have the common courtesy to offer me lubrication...


----------



## charlie460

Drew2k said:


> They're definitely playing around with guide data. I just noticed channel 272, Logo, is showing a program title of "Mix Channel", but the description is about Viacom forcing DIRECTV to remove the channel.
> 
> 300, NIKw, shows a title of "Kids Mix".
> 
> etc.


I suspect they'll be remapping "related" mix channels to "appease" customers -- Nick/Nick Jr remapping to Kids Mix for example to show them the other kids channels they can watch.

Don't know what they're going to use for Comedy Central, LOGO, etc, though.


----------



## tuff bob

I think I'm on DirecTV's side here but Mike White just doesn't seem that likable.


----------



## Alan Gordon

RunnerFL said:


> That's the $1,000,000,000 question.


If it was for the suite of channels, and Viacom was only asking for two pennies per subscribers, and DirecTV offered Viacom an increase, but it wasn't enough, would that have been a penny, or a half a penny?! :lol:

~Alan<~~~~~~~~~~Wondering if Richard Pryor was able to get a hold of those other half pennies...


----------



## tulanejosh

Alan Gordon said:


> I didn't read that... I do think it's interesting that you're so quick to doubt DirecTV, but you have no trouble believing Viacom.
> 
> In the case of DirecTV vs. Viacom, I'd say the two parties involved. However, you were asking a hypothetical question involving me and my fictional business/product, in which the answer would be ME!
> 
> It's very possible that Viacom is asking DirecTV to carry more HD feeds of their programming... DirecTV has even said something along the lines of how Viacom is forcing them to negotiate for their whole package of channels instead of picking and choosing.
> 
> I have a really hard time believing that Viacom's networks (now that CBS has been spun off) equates to 20% of all viewing on DirecTV. That discredits the whole quote in my mind...
> 
> ~Alan


First off - i don't side with anyone - i pay a well over $130/month for TV. All i know is that this morning my kid was able to watch an assortment of programs that he likes, and tomorrow he can't. I don't like that. I don't really care who's as fault. And I'm not really at the point yet where I'm willing to say - i pay enough, forget those channels.

if you are implying i work for Viacom, you're barking up the wrong tree. Take a look at where i live. It's not New York, I live in a technology hub and i naturally work for a very large technology company. One that has zero to do with tv, networks, or entertainment - unless you count video games and other internet that can be consumed with the devices we sell.

I'm quick to doubt Directv because i doubt their sincerity. They always tell me they've got my back. Viacom on the other hand - they make no bones about what they want... more money. I might not like paying more, but i respect the honesty. They aren't telling me - hey we're your friend, our shows are like family members, don't turn your back on your family. They are telling me - hey are shows and networks are great, if you want to keep watching them switch providers or tell Directv to pay us a "fair rate". I find that directness to be pretty refreshing. They aren't treating me like a rube. In Texas, we have a saying... All hat, no cattle. That sums up D* in a nutshell for me.

Alright in your fictional scenario, i want to pay you a fraction of whatever you ask for. I don't care how great the product is, or how much expense you incurred over the last few years. You sold it to me at that price 7 years ago, and by golly, you should continue to sell it to me for that same price now. Will you still sell to me?

I don't care whether its 20% or not. It's more than 5%. And the point is valid.


----------



## android.cphone

They have now pulled some channels all together others say mix channel or kids mix


----------



## gregftlaud

All the Viacom channels are now gone from my guide


----------



## crashHD

I hope DirecTV goes for blood. Let viacom lose ad revenue for as long as it takes, and then offer to carry them at a discount from the old contract.

These aren't ad-free premium channels. They make money on the ads, they should be offering their content at no charge. If their content is going to be sold, it damn well ought to be ad free.


----------



## RunnerFL

And now I've lost all my channels. The big thunderstorm overhead took care of what Viacom didn't pull. :lol:


----------



## charlie460

crashHD said:


> I hope DirecTV goes for blood. Let viacom loose ad revenue for as long as it takes, and then offer to carry them at a discount from the old contract.
> 
> *These aren't ad-free premium channels. They make money on the ads, they should be offering their content at no charge. *If their content is going to be sold, it damn well ought to be ad free.


:lol::nono:


----------



## Davenlr

I was on Comedy Central. Hit Guide, and now I am in the middle of the 8327 range, with a bucket load of what appears to be streaming videos of Yo Gabba Gabba, Spongebob, etc. 
Weird. They are gonna sub streaming for the real channels?


----------



## Alan Gordon

tulanejosh said:


> right... because it's an unreasonable thing to want to avoid your kid having a meltdown because he's 3 and doesn't understand why he can't watch Ni Hao, Kai Lan and Max and Ruby. It's so wrong of us to want to avoid those types of situations. I suppose I'll just make him go sit in the corner or tell him I'll give him something to be upset about if he doesn't knock it off. That better?


I live in the South... and that's what most parents would do in that situation.

If I had kids, I might consider the corner scenario until he calmed down, and then find something more productive for him or us to do. I'd definitely be finding some way to break the kid's reliance on such a thing...

No cursing necessary, please!

~Alan


----------



## charlie460

Davenlr said:


> I was on Comedy Central. Hit Guide, and now I am in the middle of the 8327 range, with a bucket load of what appears to be streaming videos of Yo Gabba Gabba, Spongebob, etc.
> Weird. They are gonna sub streaming for the real channels?


These are not streaming videos, these are just remappings of the former Viacom channels.


----------



## Deadpool

So Viacom is saying 20+ stations. I'm not counting anywhere near that. Does anyone have a complete list of the stations?

Also I hope DirecTV sticks to their guns on this one. I'm completely behind them here.


----------



## tulanejosh

RunnerFL said:


> 1. You could have stocked up on recordings for him so I guess that makes it partially your fault because YOU could have done something about it.
> 
> 2. Let him go outside and play and get exercise. It won't hurt him.
> 
> 3. Feel free to PM me with anything you want to say but I'll warn you, you're attacking the wrong person and you will be flamed back.


1) great point. I would have done that if i had more than 24 hours notice this was happening.

2) he plays outside all the time, but thanks for the input. Just so you know - it's well over a 100 degrees in texas during the summers most days, and in my part of the state, fire ants, scorpions and a variety of other insects are pretty common.

3) I'm not going to PM because I've said my piece and I have a little more class than that. But don't think that you puffing your chest up - after you insulted people who are upset because their children are affected by this - has even the slightest bit of affect. I've been far worse than "flamed" in my life and I lived to tell the tale.


----------



## hdfan1

Deadpool said:


> So Viacom is saying 20+ stations. I'm not counting anywhere near that. Does anyone have a complete list of the stations?
> 
> Also I hope DirecTV sticks to their guns on this one. I'm completely behind them here.


It is 16 or 17 channels total. The Viacom number is overstated as they are double counting the same channel. Like MTV for example they count MTV SD and MTV HD as two channels and that is how they get 26


----------



## cjrleimer

Deadpool said:


> So Viacom is saying 20+ stations. I'm not counting anywhere near that. Does anyone have a complete list of the stations?
> 
> Also I hope DirecTV sticks to their guns on this one. I'm completely behind them here.


+1, for now Im with Directv.


----------



## Alan Gordon

tulanejosh said:


> First off - i don't side with anyone - i pay a well over $130/month for TV. All i know is that this morning my kid was able to watch an assortment of programs that he likes, and tomorrow he can't. I don't like that. I don't really care who's as fault. And I'm not really at the point yet where I'm willing to say - i pay enough, forget those channels.


That's fair...



tulanejosh said:


> if you are implying i work for Viacom, you're barking up the wrong tree. Take a look at where i live. It's not New York, I live in a technology hub and i naturally work for a very large technology company. One that has zero to do with tv, networks, or entertainment - unless you count video games and other internet that can be consumed with the devices we sell.


I believe there are plenty of Viacom plants on Facebook/Twitter, and possibly even a couple on here, but no, I never suggested you were, I just found it interesting that you're so quick to believe one side of the story over another's.



tulanejosh said:


> I'm quick to doubt Directv because i doubt their sincerity. They always tell me they've got my back. Viacom on the other hand - they make no bones about what they want... more money. I might not like paying more, but i respect the honesty. They aren't telling me - hey we're your friend, our shows are like family members, don't turn your back on your family. They are telling me - hey are shows and networks are great, if you want to keep watching them switch providers or tell Directv to pay us a "fair rate". I find that directness to be pretty refreshing. They aren't treating me like a rube. In Texas, we have a saying... All hat, no cattle. That sums up D* in a nutshell for me.


While I understand your point regarding DirecTV, and mostly agree, I do not believe Viacom to be honest in the least, and have found them to be more morally wrong in this situation.



tulanejosh said:


> Alright in your fictional scenario, i want to pay you a fraction of whatever you ask for. I don't care how great the product is, or how much expense you incurred over the last few years. You sold it to me at that price 7 years ago, and by golly, you should continue to sell it to me for that same price now. Will you still sell to me?
> 
> I don't care whether its 20% or not. It's more than 5%. And the point is valid.


If I own a business, and I'm selling a product, then no, I would expect you to pay for full price. IF this is a business in which a lot of negotiation is done, then I'd consider your offer, and decide if it's fair or not.

~Alan


----------



## RunnerFL

tulanejosh said:


> 1) great point. I would have done that if i had more than 24 hours notice this was happening.
> 
> 2) he plays outside all the time, but thanks for the input. Just so you know - it's well over a 100 degrees in texas during the summers most days, and in my part of the state, fire ants, scorpions and a variety of other insects are pretty common.
> 
> 3) I'm not going to PM because I've said my piece and I have a little more class than that. But don't think that you puffing your chest up - after you insulted people who are upset because their children are affected by this - has even the slightest bit of affect. I've been far worse than "flamed" in my life and I lived to tell the tale.


1. Why more than 24 hours? They just replay the same kids shows all day. You could have been recording all day today. You can also probably find the shows on Netflix.

2. And? I grew up in South Florida with high heat, high humidity, fire ants, palmetto bugs that can carry a small car, poisonous snakes and alligators, just to name a few.

3. I made a comment about people on Viacom's page, no insult. Those people are clearly using their kids as scapegoats and you can tell from their posts. Not once did I say anything about you at all. I think you just need to take a deep breath, maybe even call it a night and get some sleep.

I just can't feel sorry for someone who lashes out at me like you did. You're on your own.


----------



## cypherx

So the channels went away. I had to change from my favorites list to "all channels" and all the Viacom channels now say "mix channel" and there are -1 channels alongside of them playing a looping video of Mike White.

I also notice a bunch of channels in the 8000's and though they all take you to a DirecTV slate, the guide data looks like Viacom content.


----------



## tulanejosh

Alan Gordon said:


> I live in the South... and that's what most parents would do in that situation.
> 
> If I had kids, I might consider the corner scenario until he calmed down, and then find something more productive for him or us to do. I'd definitely be finding some way to break the kid's reliance on such a thing...
> 
> No cursing necessary, please!
> 
> ~Alan


Alan - i've read your comments from afar for a long time. I think you are nice guy, so Im going to take this as helpful input.

He's not reliant on TV. He plays outside a ton. But it's really really hot here. Like 109 hot. He can't play outside all day. It's not safe. And if you had small kids, you'd know that sometimes mom, dad, grandma whoever - need a mental health break, need a chance to clean up the spilled milk, make lunch, whatever, and access to said programming is extremely helpful in those instances.

If you don't have kids or are cranky old coot living in snowbird heaven, it's really tough to put yourself in the position of a parent of young children. It's far easier to tell people what they should do - then it is to actually live it.


----------



## Sixto

Many of these comments by Viacom really smell of some sleezy behavior.

1. They claim 26 channels when it's clear that they are counting some channels twice (SD & HD): Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV, BET, VH1, CMT, Logo, Spike, TV Land, MTV2, VH1 Classic, Palladia, Nick Jr., NickToons, TeenNick, Nickelodeon West, Tr3s, Centric, MTV India, Nickelodeon HD, Comedy Central HD, MTV HD, BET HD, VH1 HD, CMT HD and Spike HD.

2. Now they're bashing DirecTV for taking down the channels early. "At approximately 11:50 p.m ... DirecTV dropped the channels without giving Viacom advanced warning". Pleez.

3. They claim that "DirecTV dropped 26 Viacom channels". Didn't Viacom order DirecTV to take down the channels via a legal letter.

4. As described above, 2 pennies per day per subscriber is $1B over 7 years. They make it sound like it's a rounding error.

I'm sure that there's two sides to every story, but as I read the Viacom story, it just really smells.


----------



## adam1115

Wow, this sucks.


----------



## ffoooo54

charlie460 said:


> :lol::nono:


Young pup, I would not laugh if I was you. That is the way cable was - we paid for it and there was no ads.


----------



## cjrleimer

Sixto said:


> Many of these comments by Viacom really smell of some sleezy behavior.
> 
> 1. They claim 26 channels when it's clear that they are counting some channels twice (SD & HD): Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV, BET, VH1, CMT, Logo, Spike, TV Land, MTV2, VH1 Classic, Palladia, Nick Jr., NickToons, TeenNick, Nickelodeon West, Tr3s, Centric, MTV India, Nickelodeon HD, Comedy Central HD, MTV HD, BET HD, VH1 HD, CMT HD and Spike HD.
> 
> 2. Now they're bashing DirecTV for taking down the channels early. "At approximately 11:50 p.m ... DirecTV dropped the channels without giving Viacom advanced warning". Pleez.
> 
> 3. They claim that "DirecTV dropped 26 Viacom channels". Didn't Viacom order DirecTV to take down the channels via a legal letter.
> 
> 4. As described above, 2 pennies per day per subscriber is $1B over 7 years. They make it sound like it's a rounding error.
> 
> I'm sure that there's two sides to every story, but as I read the Viacom story, it just really smells.


This probably echos the VS Direct dispute from a few years ago. Now I think we may have a nice long dispute.


----------



## ffoooo54

Sixto said:


> Many of these comments by Viacom really smell of some sleezy behavior.
> 
> 1. They claim 26 channels when it's clear that they are counting some channels twice (SD & HD): Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV, BET, VH1, CMT, Logo, Spike, TV Land, MTV2, VH1 Classic, Palladia, Nick Jr., NickToons, TeenNick, Nickelodeon West, Tr3s, Centric, MTV India, Nickelodeon HD, Comedy Central HD, MTV HD, BET HD, VH1 HD, CMT HD and Spike HD.
> 
> 2. Now they're bashing DirecTV for taking down the channels early. "At approximately 11:50 p.m ... DirecTV dropped the channels without giving Viacom advanced warning". Pleez.
> 
> 3. They claim that "DirecTV dropped 26 Viacom channels". Didn't Viacom order DirecTV to take down the channels via a legal letter.
> 
> 4. As described above, 2 pennies per day per subscriber is $1B over 7 years. They make it sound like it's a rounding error.
> 
> I'm sure that there's two sides to every story, but as I read the Viacom story, it just really smells.


Since people pay for the east and west feeds + pay seperate for HD feeds they are seperate channels actually.


----------



## Alan Gordon

tulanejosh said:


> Alan - i've read your comments from afar for a long time. I think you are nice guy, so Im going to take this as helpful input.


It was neither a helpful comment or a criticism, but thank you for knowing that no insult was meant... 



tulanejosh said:


> He's not reliant on TV. He plays outside a ton. But it's really really hot here. Like 109 hot. He can't play outside all day. It's not safe. And if you had small kids, you'd know that sometimes mom, dad, grandma whoever - need a mental health break, need a chance to clean up the spilled milk, make lunch, whatever, and access to said programming is extremely helpful in those instances.


I live in South Georgia, so I completely understand about the heat (notice I didn't say anything about being outside?).

I completely understand the rest...



tulanejosh said:


> If you don't have kids or are cranky old coot living in snowbird heaven, it's really tough to put yourself in the position of a parent of young children. It's far easier to tell people what they should do - then it is to actually live it.


I don't have kids, but I do try to spend as much time as I can with my cousins' sons... one is six, the other is three!

My point was that while a kid will obviously be disappointed by the lack of said programming, reliance on specific programs is a recipe for disaster given the current pay-tv atmosphere... heck, what if it was cancelled?!

There's other children's programming on and other avenues. Something will probably work...

~Alan


----------



## cypherx

Sixto, looking forward to your daily scan. Wonder how they did this with the guide data. Wonder why they made the mike white video on -1 channels. No ones going to see them unless they change off their favorite lists. In fact all the Viacom channels are totally gone from my favorite list. Seems like there would of been a better technical way to achieve this... Or fix favorites lists so they work right in these situations.


----------



## cjrleimer

Im curious to see how many angry customers are threatening to switch right now.


----------



## tulanejosh

RunnerFL said:


> 1. Why more than 24 hours? They just replay the same kids shows all day. You could have been recording all day today. You can also probably find the shows on Netflix.
> 
> 2. And? I grew up in South Florida with high heat, high humidity, fire ants, palmetto bugs that can carry a small car, poisonous snakes and alligators, just to name a few.
> 
> 3. I made a comment about people on Viacom's page, no insult. Those people are clearly using their kids as scapegoats and you can tell from their posts. Not once did I say anything about you at all. I think you just need to take a deep breath, maybe even call it a night and get some sleep.
> 
> I just can't feel sorry for someone who lashes out at me like you did. You're on your own.


I'm not asking for your or anyone else's sympathy. No sweat off my back. I have no respect for your snark.

BTW - i grew up in south florida too, you aren't fulling me with those comments about how hostile the natural environment is. I grew up near the Falls in Miami, and I know darn well there aren't alligators and snakes roaming those streets and the temperature rarely leaves the low 90s.


----------



## Sixto

ffoooo54 said:


> Since people pay for the east and west feeds + pay separate for HD feeds they are separate channels actually.


It's a legal technicality, the same as their other comments, they're playing word games with several details. Hard to trust them when there's several of these examples.

And they have comments on their web-site that DirecTV shouldn't have to raise rates ... then where would the $146M per year come from ... and that's if it's two pennies total. If anything is per channel then it's higher.


----------



## cjrleimer

My sister who watch Hollywood Heights on Nick, was a little upset by this, but she will watch it online. Personally I am a little upset with viacom, and D* for the pissing war, but you know life goes on, and Ill stick with Direct for now. If this goes the way of VS, I may switch, but its a crapshoot. I think we will see a move from one of the sides if ( Direct loses customers), or if ratings on nick and the networks take a crap.


----------



## tulanejosh

Alan Gordon said:


> It was neither a helpful comment or a criticism, but thank you for knowing that no insult was meant...
> 
> I live in South Georgia, so I completely understand about the heat (notice I didn't say anything about being outside?).
> 
> I completely understand the rest...
> 
> I don't have kids, but I do try to spend as much time as I can with my cousins' sons... one is six, the other is three!
> 
> My point was that while a kid will obviously be disappointed by the lack of said programming, reliance on specific programs is a recipe for disaster given the current pay-tv atmosphere... heck, what if it was cancelled?!
> 
> There's other children's programming on and other avenues. Something will probably work...
> 
> ~Alan


I'm sure that it will - generally speaking he prefers Disney anyway, and grandma insists on Sprout whenever she watches him because she thinks its some how better for education purposes.


----------



## Davenlr

If you read between the lines in Mike Whites message, it sounds like they want Palladia in the basic package like our cable company has it, and wants ALL the MTV channels to be carried (again, like our cable company has it). Apparently Xfinity signed on for the arrangement DirecTv is trying to avoid.


----------



## john262

I hope that Directv sticks to it's guns and refuses to offer Viacom even one more penny. I also support Dish in it's dispute with AMC. Yes, some children might miss Nick but there are plenty of other children's' channels such as the Disney Channel. And besides, most kids watch too much TV anyway.


----------



## jfntwo

If you would like to tell Viacom what you think of their shutdown of programming:

www.viacom.com/Contact/Pages/complete.aspx

It would be fun to crash their email servers!


----------



## Ira Lacher

Just a few 2c-worth comments before I call it a night.


It's useless to complain. This is the world of television as we know it. Someone earlier said perceptively that the only way to avoid it is to go antenna and streaming. And frankly, unless you stream directly from the source, there will be carriage issues with Netflix and Hulu as well.

The one annoyance I have with all of this is that we are bound to sign contracts with satcos, locking us in without any knowledge of the state of carriage agreements. Thus, we are caught short, with no way to switch providers without incurring a hefty penalty. If content providers and satellite services are going to get into these disputes with increasing regularity, we poor subscribers should have some recourse. This is not without precedent: As an example, you can switch your auto or home insurance without having to wait for your present policy to expire.

While this may be a long dispute, at least we can feel pretty assured that the disagreements are over business issues and not the result of a p***ing contest between two rich men with an overblown sense of self-importance. This will be settled. Whenever.

And when it is settled, surprise! DirecTV will pay more than they have been paying for the Viacom channels, Viacom will not get as much as they have been demanding, and our bills will go up. So find something else to watch, read a book, play with your dogs and kids, and quit fretting about this.


----------



## Lucid504

i love the idiots on facebook who are all pissed off being like i paid for these channels and i want them just pay them already....guess these guys dont realize if they did that all the time you would be charged more.


----------



## inkahauts

"ffoooo54" said:


> Direct already got our increase this year to cover this known channel cost increase, this "dispute" is just to rip the consumer


Your assuming they planned on the same increase that Viacom is demanding. Im guessing they did not.


----------



## APB101

Davenlr said:


> If you read between the lines in Mike Whites message, it sounds like they want Palladia in the basic package like our cable company has it, and wants ALL the MTV channels to be carried (again, like our cable company has it). Apparently Xfinity signed on for the arrangement DirecTv is trying to avoid.


_Viacom HD Not Carried By DirecTV:_
01. MTV2 HD
02. Nick Jr. HD
03. TV Land HD

_Music-video Suites Not Carried By DirecTV:_
01. MTV Jams
02. MTV Hits
03. MTVU
04. BET Hip-Hop
05. BET Gospel
06. VH1 Soul
07. CMT Pure Country

I wouldn't be surprised if DirecTV wants not to add any of the suites. And with DirecTV having brought in AMC HD (without IFC HD, We TV HD, and Fuse HD), truTV HD (without Headline News HD; we're awaiting Turner Classic Movies HD), and E! Entertainment Television HD (without Style Network HD), the company may be feeling frugal.


----------



## ffoooo54

Sixto said:


> It's a legal technicality, the same as their other comments, they're playing word games with several details. Hard to trust them when there's several of these examples.
> 
> And they have comments on their web-site that DirecTV shouldn't have to raise rates ... then where would the $146M per year come from ... and that's if it's two pennies total. If anything is per channel then it's higher.


WRONG FANBOY - People with DIRECTV pay 1 charge for SD and 1 for HD - thoe are 2 diffferent channels

Now if DIRECTV (and every othe rprovider did the rigtht thing) and would elimanate the SD counterpart channels (only the one that show the same exact programming as HD ones do + stop the aspect ratio rape content providers do + charge for just 1 channel per + have set-top boxes that down convert HD to SD for those who do not have HD) then you be correct and saying they would be only 1 channel + we would have alot more bandwidth too.

But the goofballs running the providers + content providers are too dumb and ignorant to do that.


----------



## csgo

Since this is a "DirecTV can't do anything wrong forum" I'm sure my comments won't be popular with most. None of this should be public. DirecTV service is not viable without Viacom and vice versa. 

Here's what I can say... I won't pay DirecTV any more money. The next increase will get my service cancellation. PERIOD. They over charge already. I pay over $200 per month for TV and I could go elsewhere and pay up to 50% less. 

Good luck DirecTV but I'm not on your side. You and the people you send here to perpetrate your lies are nothing but vile to me.


----------



## Jacob Braun

"Ira Lacher" said:


> Just a few 2c-worth comments before I call it a night.
> 
> [*]It's useless to complain. This is the world of television as we know it. Someone earlier said perceptively that the only way to avoid it is to go antenna and streaming. And frankly, unless you stream directly from the source, there will be carriage issues with Netflix and Hulu as well.
> 
> [*]The one annoyance I have with all of this is that we are bound to sign contracts with satcos, locking us in without any knowledge of the state of carriage agreements. Thus, we are caught short, with no way to switch providers without incurring a hefty penalty. If content providers and satellite services are going to get into these disputes with increasing regularity, we poor subscribers should have some recourse. This is not without precedent: As an example, you can switch your auto or home insurance without having to wait for your present policy to expire.
> 
> [*]While this may be a long dispute, at least we can feel pretty assured that the disagreements are over business issues and not the result of a p***ing contest between two rich men with an overblown sense of self-importance. This will be settled. Whenever.
> 
> [*]And when it is settled, surprise! DirecTV will pay more than they have been paying for the Viacom channels, Viacom will not get as much as they have been demanding, and our bills will go up. So find something else to watch, read a book, play with your dogs and kids, and quit fretting about this.


I think this is the best post I've read on this subject. *slow clap*


----------



## Lucid504

csgo said:


> Since this is a "DirecTV can't do anything wrong forum" I'm sure my comments won't be popular with most. None of this should be public. DirecTV service is not viable without Viacom and vice versa.
> 
> Here's what I can say... I won't pay DirecTV any more money. The next increase will get my service cancellation. PERIOD. They over charge already. I pay over $200 per month for TV and I could go elsewhere and pay up to 50% less.
> 
> Good luck DirecTV but I'm not on your side. You and the people you send here to perpetrate your lies are nothing but vile to me.


have you ever called up and tried to negotiate a better price.....dont understand how you would pay over $200....for directv


----------



## Lucid504

ffoooo54 said:


> + THe below list of non-VIACOM channels DIRECTV rips consumers on and does not carry
> 
> ARTS
> CLASSIC ARTS SHOWCASE
> 
> ANIMATION
> FUNIMATION
> 
> ETC
> G4
> LIFETIME REAL WOMEN
> MILITARY HISTORY CHANNEL
> RURAL TV
> WEALTH TV
> YOUTOO SOCIAL TV
> 
> MOVIE
> CINEMAX
> OUTER MAX
> EPIX
> 1
> 2
> 3
> FEARNET
> PIXL
> SHOWTIME
> FAMILY ZONE
> STARZ
> INDIEPLEX
> MOVIEPLEX
> RETROPLEX
> 
> MUSIC
> BLUE HIGHWAYS TV
> SOUNDTRACK CHANNEL
> 
> NEWS
> ABC NEWS NOW
> BBC WORLD NEWS
> CNNI
> 
> PUBLIC INTEREST
> CSPAN 3
> PENTAGON CHANNEL
> 
> SPORTS
> BLACKBELT TV
> FIGHT NOW TV
> HRTV
> MAVTV
> WORLD FISHING NETWORK
> WWE


How do they rip customers off......not every provider has every channel out there.....


----------



## tulanejosh

Lucid504 said:


> have you ever called up and tried to negotiate a better price.....dont understand how you would pay over $200....for directv


it's pretty darn easy.

Premier package + HD Extras + DVR + Whole Home + NFL ST + NBA League Pass + 4 Receivers

My bill approaches and exceeds $200 a certain points of the year.

This doesn't even factor in UFC and Boxing Fights I sometimes order.


----------



## mnassour

ffoooo54 said:


> Young pup, I would not laugh if I was you. That is the way cable was - we paid for it and there was no ads.


Actually.....

The very first Community Antenna TV systems (CATV) were placed in communities where not all networks could be had (such as here in Austin). Their job was to pickup OTA signals from other markets, including, yes, the commercials, so that all of us in television-deprived markets could see all networks.

The first commercial-free channel (outside of PBS, then NET) was HBO. Yea, we paid for it, or more likely stole it, by compromising the primitive signal traps of the day.

It was only in recent years due to federal regs, that redistributors such as cable and satellite companies had to pay for these signals, and therefore, pass along those costs to the customer.

And don't be calling people "young pup". You haven't been on this board that long yourself and it makes you sound like a schmuck.

----------------------------------------

Why is it we suddenly have a flood of newbs that think they need to piss on everyone?

Oh well, it's late. Goodnight, Viacom...Sweet dreams of clients demanding make-goods.


----------



## tulanejosh

i think he may have meant age and not necessarily time on board.


----------



## Lucid504

tulanejosh said:


> it's pretty darn easy.
> 
> Premier package + HD Extras + DVR + Whole Home + NFL ST + NBA League Pass + 4 Receivers
> 
> My bill approaches and exceeds $200 a certain points of the year.
> 
> This doesn't even factor in UFC and Boxing Fights I sometimes order.


ok well i didnt think of the sports packages and such as i consider that an extra thing and not a basic price. If you call up you can most likely get some credits or something id suggest you call up or write a letter to the Customer Service Advocate Team and they will call you back up and negotiate a better deal usually: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageIFnorail.jsp?assetId=P4960016#h:558.982


----------



## maartena

ffoooo54 said:


> WRONG FANBOY


Oh boy. You best learn a little more about DBSTalk before you go calling Sixto a "FANBOY"


----------



## ffoooo54

mnassour said:


> Actually.....
> 
> The very first Community Antenna TV systems (CATV) were placed in communities where not all networks could be had (such as here in Austin). Their job was to pickup OTA signals from other markets, including, yes, the commercials, so that all of us in television-deprived markets could see all networks.
> 
> The first commercial-free channel (outside of PBS, then NET) was HBO. Yea, we paid for it, or more likely stole it, by compromising the primitive signal traps of the day.
> 
> It was only in recent years due to federal regs, that redistributors such as cable and satellite companies had to pay for these signals, and therefore, pass along those costs to the customer.
> 
> And don't be calling people "young pup". You haven't been on this board that long yourself and it makes you sound like a schmuck.
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> Why is it we suddenly have a flood of newbs that think they need to piss on everyone?
> 
> Oh well, it's late. Goodnight, Viacom...Sweet dreams of clients demanding make-goods.


No actually it was not, do a lil more research


----------



## ffoooo54

Lucid504 said:


> How do they rip customers off......not every provider has every channel out there.....


pretty pathetic when local IPTV outfits have cheaper prices and better channel lineups then national companies do


----------



## ffoooo54

APB101 said:


> _Viacom HD Not Carried By DirecTV:_
> 01. MTV2 HD
> 02. Nick Jr. HD
> 03. TV Land HD
> 
> _Music-video Suites Not Carried By DirecTV:_
> 01. MTV Jams
> 02. MTV Hits
> 03. MTVU
> 04. BET Hip-Hop
> 05. BET Gospel
> 06. VH1 Soul
> 07. CMT Pure Country
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if DirecTV wants not to add any of the suites. And with DirecTV having brought in AMC HD (without IFC HD, We TV HD, and Fuse HD), truTV HD (without Headline News HD; we're awaiting Turner Classic Movies HD), and E! Entertainment Television HD (without Style Network HD), the company may be feeling frugal.


+ THe below list of non-VIACOM channels DIRECTV rips consumers on and does not carry

ALSO DIRECTV could carry in non-local markets - ANTENNA TV + ME TV + MY RETRO TV + MY FAMILY TV + THIS TV

--ARTS
CLASSIC ARTS SHOWCASE

--ANIMATION
FUNIMATION

--ETC
G4
LIFETIME REAL WOMEN
MILITARY HISTORY CHANNEL
RURAL TV
WEALTH TV
YOUTOO SOCIAL TV

---MOVIE
CINEMAX - OUTER MAX
EPIX - 1 + 2 + 3
FEARNET
PIXL
SHOWTIME - FAMILY ZONE
STARZ - INDIEPLEX + MOVIEPLEX + RETROPLEX

--MUSIC
BLUE HIGHWAYS TV
SOUNDTRACK CHANNEL

--NEWS
ABC NEWS NOW
BBC WORLD NEWS
CNNI

--PUBLIC INTEREST
CSPAN 3
PENTAGON CHANNEL

--SPORTS
BLACKBELT TV
FIGHT NOW TV
HRTV
MAVTV
WORLD FISHING NETWORK
WWE

My providers carries all DIECTV does + ones listed in this post (except WWE not aunches yet) and my bill is way cheaper then DIRECTV's ++ My bill doesnt subsidize sports packages + TV everywhere and all that other crap -- If people want that extra - they pay for it - stop screwing customers and make them pay for services not using (not saying channels - i am talking services)


----------



## tulanejosh

i know, i do it pretty regularly, always have some credit or another going... still, have had $200+ bills on occasion. 

You are correct though, without the sports packages, its about $150ish including tax.


----------



## KAL

From the direct promise website comments section...

"My 4 yr old daughter thought SpongeBob was dying. Really, Viacom?!!!!"

:lol:


----------



## kuhars5

I guess they added encore just showed up.


----------



## Medwynd

I personally dont watch any of these channels. If DirecTv is willing to lower my bill I'd be happy to never have them back.


----------



## Lucid504

ffoooo54 said:


> pretty pathetic when local IPTV outfits have cheaper prices and better channel lineups then national companies do


.....yeah typically fios sucks ass on hd quality especially verizon


----------



## dualsub2006

"ffoooo54" said:


> + THe below list of non-VIACOM channels DIRECTV rips consumers on and does not carry
> 
> --ETC
> MILITARY HISTORY CHANNEL
> 
> ---MOVIE
> EPIX - 1 2 3
> 
> --NEWS
> BBC WORLD NEWS
> 
> --PUBLIC INTEREST
> CSPAN 3
> PENTAGON CHANNEL


That's all that I'd like to see D* add, but I can live without them. Hell, I've survived for years without having them.

And D* isn't ripping me off by not providing these channels, as they never offered them to me and don't include them in my bill.

All I know is that my daughter watched Yo Gabba Gabba this afternoon on Nick Jr. Tomorrow? She's still going to see the older repeats on Netflix, but not the newer episodes and I'm not happy about that.

I don't care who is to blame, I just want Nick Jr. back soon.

At least the SD versions on Netflix look better than Nick Jr on D*.


----------



## tulanejosh

who do you use exactly?


----------



## Lucid504

tulanejosh said:


> i know, i do it pretty regularly, always have some credit or another going... still, have had $200+ bills on occasion.
> 
> You are correct though, without the sports packages, its about $150ish including tax.


Ok cool was just trying to help.


----------



## Alan Gordon

cjrleimer said:


> My sister who watch Hollywood Heights on Nick, was a little upset by this, but she will watch it online. Personally I am a little upset with viacom, and D* for the pissing war, but you know life goes on, and Ill stick with Direct for now. If this goes the way of VS, I may switch, but its a crapshoot. I think we will see a move from one of the sides if ( Direct loses customers), or if ratings on nick and the networks take a crap.


iTunes offers "Hollywood Heights" for free...

~Alan


----------



## KAL

Wow! People are really getting hysterical on Facebook :flaiming


----------



## Sea bass

*WRONG FANBOY -*

Learn some manners...Sixto is highly respected in this community!


----------



## Lucid504

KAL said:


> Wow! People are really getting hysterical on Face book :flaiming


Yeah i know people are crazy on facebook.


----------



## danpeters

kuhars5 said:


> I guess they added encore just showed up.


Nice gesture by DirecTV. They probably could have thrown Starz in with it but, eh, don't rock the boat I guess..

Dan


----------



## carl6

Yawn...

That pretty well sums up my feelings about this.

Wake me up if/when this is resolved. I certainly won't notice otherwise.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Lucid504 said:


> have you ever called up and tried to negotiate a better price.....dont understand how you would pay over $200....for directv


I just want to know where he can get it for 50% less?!?! 

~Alan


----------



## xmguy

I know this won't last long. DirecTV or Viacom don't want to loose each others benefit. Either Viacom will deal or DirecTV will give in and go up on costs. I wish the FCC could ban this he providers from pulling out when they want to get more money than needed to provide programming.

I'll use Netflix, Hulu or the channels website for the shows I watch (for free)

I watch Comedy Central (Futurama), MTV (Teen Wolf), CMT (music videos).

My mother is more worried than I am as she watches Hot in Cleveland on TV Land. 

But as of 12:21 am CDT Viacom channels no longer appear in the channel guide, tuning directly provides a message with background music stating why this is happening. I foresee Viacom probably giving in since they are the ones asking more revenue. Probably by this time tomorrow Viacom channels will be back on. Viacom is just trying to flex their muscles and show they can do what they want. I often wonder if Viacom is run by professional adults or children of the networks they run.


----------



## cypherx

I can still get the Viacom standard def in ClearQAM through my cable line. I just checked and MTV is on CATV CH 36.5602 here in SD. Also can get CMT, Comedy, VH1. Always good to have a backup. It came in handy during Hurricane Irene too when the rain was so bad and the Sat signal was real low.


----------



## KAL

Lucid504 said:


> Yeah i know people are crazy on facebook.


Thats where I actually found out about this whole situation literally 10 minutes ago. Of course I had to come here to check out the chatter.


----------



## xmguy

cypherx said:


> I can still get the Viacom standard def in ClearQAM through my cable line. I just checked and MTV is on CATV CH 36.5602 here in SD. Also can get CMT, Comedy, VH1. Always good to have a backup. It came in handy during Hurricane Irene too when the rain was so bad and the Sat signal was real low.


(off topic) I too can still get the Viacom channels on my cable (Charter) too. Not on ClearQAM. Charter isn't that giving. I have no doubt Viacom will try this with the Cable Co.s later when their contracts are up too.


----------



## Alan Gordon

KAL said:


> From the direct promise website comments section...
> 
> "My 4 yr old daughter thought SpongeBob was dying. Really, Viacom?!!!!"
> 
> :lol:


ROTFLMAO!!! :lol:

~Alan


----------



## onan38

danpeters said:


> Nice gesture by DirecTV. They probably could have thrown Starz in with it but, eh, don't rock the boat I guess..
> 
> Dan


Encore channels 535-542 must be on for everyone during the dispute.


----------



## Darth Malgus

ffoooo54 said:


> WRONG FANBOY - People with DIRECTV pay 1 charge for SD and 1 for HD - thoe are 2 diffferent channels
> 
> Now if DIRECTV (and every othe rprovider did the rigtht thing) and would elimanate the SD counterpart channels (only the one that show the same exact programming as HD ones do + stop the aspect ratio rape content providers do + charge for just 1 channel per + have set-top boxes that down convert HD to SD for those who do not have HD) then you be correct and saying they would be only 1 channel + we would have alot more bandwidth too.
> 
> But the goofballs running the providers + content providers are too dumb and ignorant to do that.


People pay an HD Access fee for HD duplicates of the SD channels and HD only channels. They pay this once a month and it covers all the receivers in the home, not per channel. Nor per parent company (Viacom HD/SD). There are Distant Network channels available for those of us who do not have locals available in our area, or travel regularly in an RV. These are not part of the regular line up. MTV HD and SD show the same exact show at the same exact time, making it the same channel, just different quality. Furthermore what you are proposing will be more costly and therefore not the "right thing", as this will raise prices as well...... The force is not strong with this one.


----------



## Alan Gordon

inkahauts said:


> Actually, my point was do they actually have more programming on now that is more valuable to all the Viacom channel's overall viewers than they did a few years ago?
> 
> I actually watch more TVLand now then ever before, but that doesn't mean all their programs overall for Viacom have increased in value. I am looking at it from a package standpoint.
> 
> Everything I have read is that overall their view ship is down, so even if they have a few good shows, they may have more shows that are bad in the ratings now that more than offset the new shows, vs a more solid top to bottom lineup in the past.


It all comes down to personal tastes... I've seen several channels become more popular to me.

A couple of years ago, I had MTV in my favorites list, but I never tuned to it... last year, I watched two hours worth of programming on it during the year, and for the last week or so this year, an hour and thirty minutes of programming.

By that same token, TV Land was a channel I only watched from time to time, but now it's turned into a channel I usually watch at least an hour of almost every week of the year.

Comedy Central gets my viewing of new "Futurama" episodes, and I'll occasionally catch a minute or two of Stewart and Colbert, and I may watch a couple of the other channels from time to time (particularly Palladia), but I'm not all that interested in them.

However, I don't know of any of these channels losing any insanely popular programming that would result in them experiencing ratings woes other than people moving on to other things...

~Alan


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

ffoooo54 said:


> pretty pathetic when local IPTV outfits have cheaper prices and better channel lineups then national companies do


Better? :lol:


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

Hmm...maybe it's because Viacom "makes it rain" for their execs:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ent...utives-again-among-americas-highest-paid.html



> Billionaire Sumner Redstone got a 39% boost in compensation last year in his role as executive chairman of Viacom Inc. The 88-year-old media mogul and his top two lieutenants together collected compensation packages in 2011 totaling nearly $100 million.
> 
> Viacom Chief Executive Philippe Dauman was awarded $43 million in salary, stock and other benefits, according to the company's proxy filed late Friday with the Securities & Exchange Commission. While still sizable, Dauman's compensation was considerably less (a 49% decrease) than in the previous year when he earned the distinction of being the highest-paid executive in corporate America with a package totaling $84.5 million.
> 
> Viacom's second in command, Chief Operating Officer Thomas Dooley, collected $34 million -- an amount that exceeds the pay package of Robert Iger, chief executive of the much larger Walt Disney Co. Iger received a total package of $33.4 million in 2011.
> 
> Executives of Viacom, which owns MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central and Paramount Pictures, have long been among the highest paid in the media industry. The compensation awarded to Dauman and Dooley spiked in 2010 when the two executives signed new employment agreements and received generous one-time stock awards. Dooley's 2010 package was $64.7 million.
> 
> Redstone was awarded $21 million in 2011. That was nearly $6 million more than in the previous year when his Viacom compensation was $15 million. Viacom included 12 months in the compensation calculation last year, whereas 2010 was based on a nine-month period.


----------



## acostapimps

Snoooooze oh,oh i'm sorry i'm up didn't even notice the channels were missing till i came to this site, but i do want Comedy Central and Spike TV back i was enjoying Colbert, i do hope this gets resolve quickly.


----------



## kevinturcotte

tulanejosh said:


> it's pretty darn easy.
> 
> Premier package + HD Extras + DVR + Whole Home + NFL ST + NBA League Pass + 4 Receivers
> 
> My bill approaches and exceeds $200 a certain points of the year.
> 
> This doesn't even factor in UFC and Boxing Fights I sometimes order.


And if the programmers (Like Viacom) had THEIR way, and Directv just went along with them, you'd be paying $300 a month.


----------



## tulanejosh

"kevinturcotte" said:


> And if the programmers (Like Viacom) had THEIR way, and Directv just went along with them, you'd be paying $300 a month.


Directv is not your friend. Don't forget that.


----------



## inkahauts

"tulanejosh" said:


> Directv is not your friend. Don't forget that.


They really aren't anyone's friend or anyone's enemy.


----------



## darkpowrjd

tulanejosh said:


> Directv is not your friend. Don't forget that.


I personally don't really care WHOSE fault it is. I just want these companies to stop acting like children and come to some consensus to make all of us happy (sad thing is that some of us are also at a loss as to what we really want out of this). I would love for the two to try to come up with a good deal.

Hopefully this is resolved soon. Don't want this to be like the G4 thing where no side is willing to even get into the same room with each other anymore.


----------



## tulanejosh

"inkahauts" said:


> They really aren't anyone's friend or anyone's enemy.


I would agree with that. Same with Viacom. Which is why I object to demonizing them. It's not viacoms fault any more than it is directvs. And they are both to blame at the same time.


----------



## xmguy

I did forget about Spike TV. I watch the Powerblock weekend car/truck shows. I hope those are on their website. With a big of a hit this is to DirecTV. Sadly I feel they will have to give in. Because (as I said in a previous post) the networks have WAY too much control. If Viacom was struggling asking more from DirecTV or any other provider might be one thing. But they are not Viacom wants more because of 2 reasons. 1 they are big enough, in the since they own Nick, MTV and Spike, etc. 2 they realize they have the edge over DirecTV. DirecTV can't force Viacom to continue service and DirecTV can't keep it up without legal prosecution from Viacom's lawyer dogs. Viacom has the ball in their court. They can force DirecTV's hand because of the pull those channels and shows those channels carry have on the overall impact to customers. Viacom and DirecTV both know something will have to be settled soon or DirecTV will start loosing customers fast. If they aren't already. So in the end Viacom will win.


----------



## maartena

ffoooo54 said:


> pretty pathetic when local IPTV outfits have cheaper prices and better channel lineups then national companies do


Tell me.... which local IPTV outfit carries:

- NFL Sunday Ticket.
- NASCAR Hotpass.
- All major golf and tennis tournaments on 5 to 7 seven channels.
- All UEFA Cup soccer games.

That's right NO ONE carries those except for DirecTV. They are known for their excellent Football, NASCAR, Golf, Tennis, and International Soccer coverage.

U-Verse doesn't even carry MLS Extra Innings or NBA League Pass, and no IPTV outfit carries MLS Direct Kick.

DirecTV has one of the best sports lineups available in this country, and THAT is their bread and butter. They can miss Viacom just as much I can miss them.


----------



## xmguy

"maartena" said:


> Tell me.... which local IPTV outfit carries:
> 
> - NFL Sunday Ticket.
> - NASCAR Hotpass.
> - All major golf and tennis tournaments on 5 to 7 seven channels.
> - All UEFA Cup soccer games.
> 
> That's right NO ONE carries those except for DirecTV. They are known for their excellent Football, NASCAR, Golf, Tennis, and International Soccer coverage.
> 
> U-Verse doesn't even carry MLS Extra Innings or NBA League Pass, and no IPTV outfit carries MLS Direct Kick.
> 
> DirecTV has one of the best sports lineups available in this country, and THAT is their bread and butter. They can miss Viacom just as much I can miss them.


Don't forget not only do local IPTV providers not carry what DirecTV has, they also (in most cases) charge more. Their customer base is usually very small. So even basic channels cost double what the big boys like DirecTV charge. Not saying DirecTV is perfect and cheap. But usually the benefit of a local cable or IPTV provider isn't worth it. I have a local IPTV provider in my area myself. Although they offer HD and DVRs and good channel lineup. It often goes out and the tech is not the best and the cost is high. Even the company admits they are high.


----------



## Lucid504

lol i love how some people are never happy.....they give encore for free because of this......and you get people going this is bs they are giving us encore for free....they should give us every channel for free right now.......some people are just super greedy....This is idiots on facebook


----------



## thomas317us

They gave encore for free? that helps me, since I already pay for it because it is part of my package.


----------



## Lucid504

thomas317us said:


> They gave encore for free? that helps me, since I already pay for it because it is part of my package.


Yeah not really a big deal to me......Encore sucks IMO


----------



## gio12

mnassour said:


> Actually.....
> 
> The first commercial-free channel (outside of PBS, then NET) was HBO. Yea, we paid for it, or more likely stole it, by compromising the primitive signal traps of the day.


OnTV was first I think. Just one channel.


----------



## Lucid504

OMG the people on Facebook are too funny for how crazy they are.....people are bringing up that they want to start a class action lawsuit for not providing the channels lol


----------



## coolman302003

Suddenlink was in a dispute with Viacom back in December of 2010 and one of the reasons was forcing them to offer EPIX and also a overall 20% increase (which included significant payment for a new network (Epix) with R-rated programming, which there customers had not requested and many did not want). Suddenlink did end up reaching a long term agreement without the channels going down but was forced to make EPIX available.

Viacom Negotiations: Share Your Views

Viacom Negotiations: Latest Information

Suddenlink, Viacom Reach Agreement


----------



## Lucid504

I love people on facebook commenting that they are contacting a lawyer to sue directv.


----------



## noahproblem

Lucid504 said:


> OMG the people on Facebook are too funny for how crazy they are.....people are bringing up that they want to start a class action lawsuit for not providing the channels lol


If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, then surely the class action lawsuit is the last refuge of the clueless...


----------



## Darth Malgus

tulanejosh said:


> I would agree with that. Same with Viacom. Which is why I object to demonizing them. It's not viacoms fault any more than it is directvs. And they are both to blame at the same time.


If you are a D* subscriber then you do not want Viacom to ask for 30% more over the span of the next contract, as this will be passed to the consumer, D* may not be your friend, but they are your partner in this negotiation. They tried to offer a compromise in which they can allow the customers to choose which channels they wish to have, or to only continue the use of most watched channels Viacom has to offer, but Viacom will not allow this, they are taking an all or nothing approach to this negotiation. D* does not want their base package prices to increase as drastically as this would cause them to. It will make them less competitive in the marketplace, and force them to price themselves out of the reach of lower income subscribers. In a recession no less. In the case of this negotiation, what is good for D*, is good for the customer.


----------



## wingrider01

tulanejosh said:


> Directv is not your friend. Don't forget that.


Neither is Viacom, remember that also


----------



## wingrider01

tulanejosh said:


> I would agree with that. Same with Viacom. Which is why I object to demonizing them. It's not viacoms fault any more than it is directvs. And they are both to blame at the same time.


Bull.... if it is not "viacoms fault" then who;s fault is it - don't recall directv ttrying to get viacom to deal with them for 30 percent less in cost, viacom is the one trying to hit the dole pipleine and get the 30 percent increase in price.

The is 100 percent the fault of viacom, no matter what Viacom's employees say or post.


----------



## Billzebub

gio12 said:


> OnTV was first I think. Just one channel.


I think Hollywood Home Theater was before HBO also, but I could be wrong.


----------



## SteveHas

Wrong, Viacom is the one asking for an unwarranted, and unrealistic 30% increase.
D* IS my friend for trying to keep MY costs down.


----------



## SteveHas

wingrider01 said:


> Bull.... if it is not "viacoms fault" then who;s fault is it - don't recall directv ttrying to get viacom to deal with them for 30 percent less in cost, viacom is the one trying to hit the dole pipleine and get the 30 percent increase in price.
> 
> The is 100 percent the fault of viacom, no matter what Viacom's employees say or post.


+1!


----------



## fsquid

> - All UEFA Cup soccer games.


not to nitpick, but they lost this to FSC this year.


----------



## facerw

What a forking joke. This is greed at its worse. I don't mind losing VH1 or MTV (which are junk in my opinion) but Comedy Central? No futurama.....


----------



## bearcat250

Good job DirecTV. Don't give in. I appreciate them trying to hold costs down.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

This is so "high school", but at the corporate level.


----------



## Earguy

Lucid504 said:


> I love people on facebook commenting that they are contacting a lawyer to sue directv.


Well, I can understand the frustration. My bill's not going down upon the loss of these channels, many of which I watch (Daily Show, Colbert, UFC on Spike, Hot In Cleveland, for example).

Add on:
* the fact that I don't get my local NBC affiliate - even though they told me I would (I get NBC from another affiliate nearby), 
* I discovered after I switched to DirecTV that the majority of local sports is blacked out in my area (anything on Comcast Sports net - Phillies, Sixers, Flyers)
* I was told that signal loss from weather is "extremely rare, and only during severe weather" - which is simply false, I experience rain fade with nearly every rain storm in spite of a clear line of sight
* the on-demand download system is almost unusable due to so many skips and problems - and their response is "we're aware of the problem, and we're working on it."

So, yeah, while I'm really pleased with some of the DTV features, I feel like I was sold a bill of goods with DTV, and losing channels just adds to the frustration. It's pretty sad when I'm seriously considering getting a Comcast back with a lower-tier package just to get back some of the things DTV doesn't deliver - including just getting a signal.


----------



## -Draino-

I am begging DTV to NOT GIVE in. I could care less about any of those channes. Viacom wants to bundle because if they don't they would lose millions of dollars. No one care about Viacoms crappy channels.

With that said Viacom does realize that almost everyone cares about at least one channel and with 20 million people all caring about a different (1) channel they are hoping the DTV customers will pressure them into paying that extra money.

I say hold out for at least 30 days and let the advertisers have their say in the fact that their ads are reaching 20 million LESS people but having to pay the same money to advertise!!!!!!!!


----------



## sticketfan

Does our bill go down in the interim...for losing this many channels


----------



## afulkerson

It is after all just TV not the end of the world.


----------



## tj218

I'm torn, we are on the Family Pack which is basically locals + Nat Geo + Nick channels. I like DTV trying to keep costs down, although I realize that only helps DTV's profit margin but...my daughter loves the shows on Nickelodeon but we are able to supplement for now via Netflix. Without these channels it feels like I am paying quite a bit just for local channels (which due to terrain we can not get OTA).


----------



## zimm7778

"tj218" said:


> I'm torn, we are on the Family Pack which is basically locals + Nat Geo + Nick channels. I like DTV trying to keep costs down, although I realize that only helps DTV's profit margin but...my daughter loves the shows on Nickelodeon but we are able to supplement for now via Netflix. Without these channels it feels like I am paying quite a bit just for local channels (which due to terrain we can not get OTA).


Can you get cable? They usually offer a locals only service.


----------



## zimm7778

I didn't read all through this thread so I don't know if it's here already or not, but I read on Directv's fb page we apparently are getting all the encores now because of this.


----------



## tj218

zimm7778 said:


> Can you get cable? They usually offer a locals only service.


Yeah, it's $28 /mo. DTV is $30 with some extra channels. Plus I do the MLB Extra Innings package through DTV.

I could switch but not till after the season.


----------



## zimm7778

"tj218" said:


> Yeah, it's $28 /mo. DTV is $30 with some extra channels. Plus I do the MLB Extra Innings package through DTV.
> 
> I could switch but not till after the season.


$28???? Wow! I've seen $8 and even $17 but not $30! You must have some awesome locals


----------



## mobandit

zimm7778 said:


> Can you get cable? They usually offer a locals only service.


Except here in KCMO, Time Warner Cable has dropped one local affiliate...imagine that...a dispute that results in dropping a channel!


----------



## revm1m

I support Directv 100%.


----------



## garn9173

No big loss, the Viacom channels are not even close to being what they once were.


----------



## JMCecil

The one thing I find interesting is that D* is proposing that THEY get to BUY a la carte. And that it would only be fair to do it that way. I think that sauce would be good for us too. How nice if they would allow US to purchase that way!!!


----------



## n3vino

zimm7778 said:


> $28???? Wow! I've seen $8 and even $17 but not $30! You must have some awesome locals


 Maybe the cost is low for connecting the tv straight to coax. But if yoo want HD, you have to have the boxes and pay rent on them.


----------



## mark40511

I support Directv too!


----------



## tvropro

sticketfan said:


> Does our bill go down in the interim...for losing this many channels


Of course not, Mike White needs another house in the hills :lol:


----------



## n3vino

JMCecil said:


> The one thing I find interesting is that D* is proposing that THEY get to BUY a la carte. And that it would only be fair to do it that way. I think that sauce would be good for us too. How nice if they would allow US to purchase that way!!!


 Based on what's showing up on the guide, I only have about 8 of their channels on my favorites list. I have no use for BET, VHI, MTV, Paladiam, and whatever else I have tuned out.


----------



## JMCecil

garn9173 said:


> No big loss, the Viacom channels are not even close to being what they once were.


As a home with no small children anymore, the only channel we watch is Comedy Central. And, for us, it's only 2 shows. Futurama and The Daily Show. Both are easily lived without. So, the idea that I have to pay for 12ish channels to watch two shows, one of which only has a hand full of new episodes annually and both are available through other outlets, is ridiculous.

GOGO D*!!! I'm on your side. But, remember to pass that a la carte option on to me ...


----------



## Santi360HD

while the issue of the channel pull is largely favored (myself included) by so many on this blog..being the lack of real quality of stuff on these array of channels (in my opinion Spike & Nick are top of the other crap of channels) makes it easier to swallow that they were pulled and we can back the stance of fighting for whats right.

just a word of advice to D*.....*sell it a little better next time, put the Mike White video up the in the morning.*. To have the Mike White pre-recorded standing your ground video already queued up so quickly quite frankly indicates to one that this channel pull was inevitable and likely there were no midnight at the table deadlines, both parties WERE NOT on the phone at zero hour or any realistic extra effort to avoid the pull on both sides just wasn't there.

I support the stance...just milk it & sell it better next time...

and with D* let alone any other provider whether it be cable or another satellite company. There *always* will be a next time for channel negotiations and channel pulls, last minute indications, threats, re-assurances, lies with someone else.


----------



## spartanstew

Went to bed last night with the big message screen on Nik.

This morning I explained things to my kids and switched over the Nik to show them.

Now, there's a very cool Kid Mix station there instead, with a little blurb at the top and thumbnails of what's going on on other kid channels.

My kids LOVE IT. They'd much rather have that than Nik.

They can select any program via the thumbnail and go right to it.

Stroke of genius by D*.

Would be great if they kept it all the time.


----------



## gator1234

sticketfan said:


> Does our bill go down in the interim...for losing this many channels


Well Directv no longer has to pay for these channels so their costs have now gone down. So Directv should either lower our costs or add additional channels to replace them and I don't mean channels we already have available.

However since Directv indicates they are still negotiating, then I am sure they will not be lowering our bill.


----------



## TravelFan1

Earguy said:


> Well, I can understand the frustration. My bill's not going down upon the loss of these channels, many of which I watch (Daily Show, Colbert, UFC on Spike, Hot In Cleveland, for example).
> ...


UFC on Spike? UFC is now on Fuel, Fx and Fox.

Re your bill not going down, I'd recommend you to read the contract you signed with Directv - which, by the way, is similar to the contracts with Dish, cable cos, etc: They can change programming at any time. That said, if those channels are that important to you and that much of an inconvenience, should these channels were still unavailable later on tonight, I"d recommend you to call Directv and politely ask them if they could work with you to cut your bill, since you are losing these channels.


----------



## DodgerKing

Jammasterd said:


> I don't want to pay $5 for the HD Extra pack, but I like Palladia.
> 
> If Palladia is pulled tonight, I could save $5!


You don't have to. It is free for 3 months every time you sign up for it.


----------



## lola521

tj218 said:


> I'm torn, we are on the Family Pack which is basically locals + Nat Geo + Nick channels. I like DTV trying to keep costs down, although I realize that only helps DTV's profit margin but...my daughter loves the shows on Nickelodeon but we are able to supplement for now via Netflix. Without these channels it feels like I am paying quite a bit just for local channels (which due to terrain we can not get OTA).


 Makes me see how in different ways we are effected by this. No it's not the end of the world, but Dtv and V will work it out, they will not loose, it's the customers that will, with higher bills at the end of it all, and probably with poorer service.

Like I said before, I'm so fed up with it I'm ready to give up on TV altogether.


----------



## DodgerKing

skaman74 said:


> I could care less in they drop those channels. All they play is absolute TV trash. MTV is illiterate, VH1 is just as retarded and the list goes on. GOOD BY TRASH TV...YOU WILL NOT BE MISSED!


What about Spike, aka "The Star Wars channel"? They have good shows, such as the PowerBlock series.

VH1 classic and Palladia are good. They both show a lot of documentaries and concerts.


----------



## VARTV

Are there more Viacom channels out there that DirecTV hasn't/doesn't carry? If so, they'll probably be added when this gets settled... maybe more HD counterparts too...


----------



## DodgerKing

Drew2k said:


> DIRECTV has a grammatical error in their scrolling banner: "Viacom, who owns this channel, wants you to pay 30% more ..."
> 
> Viacom is not a person, so it should be "Viacom, which owns this channel, wants you to pay 30% more ..."
> 
> That is all.


Of course he is. He is the evil Sith Lord residing in TV Land.


----------



## garn9173

VARTV said:


> Are there more Viacom channels out there that DirecTV hasn't/doesn't carry? If so, they'll probably be added when this gets settled... maybe more HD counterparts too...


Yes, several music channels like CMT Pure Country, MTV Hits, VH-1 Soul, etc.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

"Davenlr" said:


> If you read between the lines in Mike Whites message, it sounds like they want Palladia in the basic package like our cable company has it, and wants ALL the MTV channels to be carried (again, like our cable company has it). Apparently Xfinity signed on for the arrangement DirecTv is trying to avoid.





"coolman302003" said:


> Suddenlink was in a dispute with Viacom back in December of 2010 and one of the reasons was forcing them to offer EPIX and also a overall 20% increase (which included significant payment for a new network (Epix) with R-rated programming, which there customers had not requested and many did not want). Suddenlink did end up reaching a long term agreement without the channels going down but was forced to make EPIX available.
> 
> Viacom Negotiations: Share Your Views
> 
> Viacom Negotiations: Latest Information
> 
> Suddenlink, Viacom Reach Agreement


Thats probably exactly what's happening here, Viacom wants D* to carry all of its channels now, and D* doesn't want to. I bet this will happen more and more in the future with the other providers as well, Comcast, Scripps, Discovery, etc etc.

I wonder how many are going to jump providers because of this? I bet Dish is waiting with some free Hopper offers.

It'll be interesting to see how long this one lasts.


----------



## Lucid504

im hoping this was just a typo or something but ive seen multiple people upset that directv removed TNT on facebook i dont know what idiot thought this and started a stupid rumor.....TNTS owned by Turner not Viacom lol


----------



## lola521

Anyone want a satellite dish? I love how I'll be stuck with the thing on my roof forever, so attractive.


----------



## Lucid504

lola521 said:


> Anyone want a satellite dish? I love how I'll be stuck with the thing on my roof forever, so attractive.


you can remove a satellite dish.....dont know what your talking about.....you just have to know what your doing and patch it right. Also why come in the thread just to troll.


----------



## dualsub2006

I'm sure both sides are to blame here. I'm positive that the channels came down because of VIACOM and not D*, I just know it. 

I'm also certain that when D* says that VIACOM wants 30% more for >>the same channels<< that they are being disingenuous. 

I'd bet a lot of what I have that most of that increase would be for the Epix movie channels. 

If it weren't for Dexter I'd be willing to trade Showtime for Epix, but I'm not going to be happy when I get rammed for Epix on top of every other channel that I get.


----------



## heisman6183

Here's a guess on the resolution. No new channels, no new HD, higher price, passed on to customers. Awesome.


----------



## tuff bob

Maybe DirecTV is as cheesed off as I am about the lack of HD programming on their HD channels, that's a lot of bandwidth tied up right there so MTV can run their stupid programming letterboxed with a HD scroll at the bottom. :nono2:


----------



## lola521

Lucid504 said:


> you can remove a satellite dish.....dont know what your talking about.....you just have to know what your doing and patch it right. Also why come in the thread just to troll.


I'm joking not trolling. I do know what I'm talking about. Don't get a hair crosswise. Perhaps as an older female I can't get up on a ladder and take it down and patch the hole, hence the offer of the satellite dish. Lighten up!


----------



## JcT21

heisman6183 said:


> Here's a guess on the resolution. No new channels, no new HD, higher price, passed on to customers. Awesome.


i would say you are prob right. however i hope when it is settled we get more hd and other viacom channels. i might be one of the few, but id like to have epix


----------



## PK6301

revm1m said:


> I support Directv 100%.


+3


----------



## Zimmy

Me? I don't care about Viacom.

Comedy Central is the only channel of theirs that I will miss and I can watch the Daily Show on my iPad.

Luckily my daughter has switched from iCarly/Victorious to the Disney Channel (Good Luck Charlie, etc).

So, no big loss there.

But I am getting tired of prices going up and getting less content.

A complete loss of a 3D channel (I know content is sparse but to pull everything?)
No new HD channels except AMC and that took forever to get. (where are HLN, IFC?)
I have to call and threaten to cancel every year to get NFL at a decent price.

Dish is starting look good to me.


----------



## TaeOh

I did not even know the channels went dark till I saw in on the news. Nick is the only thing we care about, but honestly this will probably just push me to internet streaming only. D* is already too expensive and eventually this spat will result in it being more expensive.


----------



## captaink5217

Well if this goes unresolved for a long time that would make me move to my cable co they never had any channels go off air over disputes, of course I have a new 2 year commitment with D but I'll just take it down to the minimum family pack and keep 1 receiver so I don't get hit with the ETF.


----------



## Lucid504

Zimmy said:


> Me? I don't care about Viacom.
> 
> Comedy Central is the only channel of theirs that I will miss and I can watch the Daily Show on my iPad.
> 
> Luckily my daughter has switched from iCarly/Victorious to the Disney Channel (Good Luck Charlie, etc).
> 
> So, no big loss there.
> 
> But I am getting tired of prices going up and getting less content.
> 
> A complete loss of a 3D channel (I know content is sparse but to pull everything?)
> No new HD channels except AMC and that took forever to get. (where are HLN, IFC?)
> I have to call and threaten to cancel every year to get NFL at a decent price.
> 
> Dish is starting look good to me.


Well if you care about AMC,IFC,Sundance,WE then Dish isnt looking better since those are gone from dish.


----------



## VARTV

garn9173 said:


> Yes, several music channels like CMT Pure Country, MTV Hits, VH-1 Soul, etc.


I figured there were...


----------



## MysteryMan

Zimmy said:


> Me? I don't care about Viacom.
> 
> Comedy Central is the only channel of theirs that I will miss and I can watch the Daily Show on my iPad.
> 
> Luckily my daughter has switched from iCarly/Victorious to the Disney Channel (Good Luck Charlie, etc).
> 
> So, no big loss there.
> 
> But I am getting tired of prices going up and getting less content.
> 
> A complete loss of a 3D channel (I know content is sparse but to pull everything?)
> No new HD channels except AMC and that took forever to get. (where are HLN, IFC?)
> I have to call and threaten to cancel every year to get NFL at a decent price.
> 
> Dish is starting look good to me.


You do have the option of switching to DISH. I assume you realize you'll be inheriting their situation with AMC, WeTV, IFC, and Sundance.


----------



## dxtrfn80

We watch Spike for Repo Games, barely watch MTV, VH1 stations, watch BET some times and watch Cenetric on occasion, being watching the new Figure It Out on Nick. Watch Disney much more than Nick, Disney has Good Luck Charlie (only show current that involves the parents and kids alike) and Phineas and Ferb. (much better than SpongeBob) If you really want to watch SpongeBob, your parents probably have many DVD's to play.


----------



## tonyd79

"Sixto" said:


> "DirecTV is throwing around some big numbers that are misleading. Here's the truth: Viacom is asking DirecTV for an increase of a couple of pennies per day per subscriber. That's far less than DirecTV pays other programmers with fewer viewers than Viacom. We have always been open to negotiating and hope to get a deal done."
> 
> Isn't a couple of pennies ... two pennies a day.
> 
> And 2 times 365 days is $7.30.
> 
> And $7.30 times 20M subscribers is $146M per year.
> 
> And for a new 7 year contact ... $1B.
> 
> Is that maybe where the $1B comes from.


I can't imagine it is 2 cents for all the channels. More like 2 cents per channel. I dont think dirctv would dispute $146 million a year. For 17 channels that us chump change.


----------



## electrober6

DodgerKing said:


> VH1 classic and Palladia are good. They both show a lot of documentaries and concerts.


+1


----------



## tvropro

I called DirecTV they gave me a $5.00 off a month credit for the next 3 months. Better than nothing.


----------



## Whipl50

Ira Lacher said:


> [*]The one annoyance I have with all of this is that we are bound to sign contracts with satcos, locking us in without any knowledge of the state of carriage agreements. Thus, we are caught short, with no way to switch providers without incurring a hefty penalty. If content providers and satellite services are going to get into these disputes with increasing regularity, we poor subscribers should have some recourse. This is not without precedent: As an example, you can switch your auto or home insurance without having to wait for your present policy to expire.


This is the big rub for me. It seems that DirecTV will extend you for another two years whenever they can, and you have little recourse other than pay the penalty if you need/want to break your contract. I used to be a Dish customer. DirecTV never shutdown channels in disputes, where Dish was known for it and crowed that they were doing it for the customers.

Between DirecTV's slow-ass HD DVR's and being just as bad at negotiating without channel loss as Dish, I'm ready to move on. Unfortunately I added another DVR a few months ago and have at least the better part of 2 years to go on my contract. When my contract is done I think I'm done with DirecTV for a while. Unfortunately I can't get Uverse so my choices are limited to OTA, Comcast, and Dish. :nono: OTA is looking better and better.


----------



## studechip

Earguy said:


> Well, I can understand the frustration. My bill's not going down upon the loss of these channels, many of which I watch (Daily Show, Colbert, UFC on Spike, Hot In Cleveland, for example).
> 
> Add on:
> * the fact that I don't get my local NBC affiliate - even though they told me I would (I get NBC from another affiliate nearby),
> * I discovered after I switched to DirecTV that the majority of local sports is blacked out in my area (anything on Comcast Sports net - Phillies, Sixers, Flyers)
> ** I was told that signal loss from weather is "extremely rare, and only during severe weather" - which is simply false, I experience rain fade with nearly every rain storm in spite of a clear line of sight*
> * the on-demand download system is almost unusable due to so many skips and problems - and their response is "we're aware of the problem, and we're working on it."
> 
> So, yeah, while I'm really pleased with some of the DTV features, I feel like I was sold a bill of goods with DTV, and losing channels just adds to the frustration. It's pretty sad when I'm seriously considering getting a Comcast back with a lower-tier package just to get back some of the things DTV doesn't deliver - including just getting a signal.


You should get a service call to find the source of the problem. You shouldn't lose signal except in heavy storms.


----------



## Lucid504

I love that people are throwing a fit saying that they are going to form a class action lawsuit to sue them for the ETF for them cancelling because of the removal.....in the contract theres nothing that says that they cant remove programming....and its not like direct just decided to remove it they was ordered to remove it.....These facebook comments are out there id hate to work for customer support at directv


----------



## ssandhoops

Seems to me that pulling their channels is a pretty radical move on Viacom's part. Not only do they lose whatever revenue they were getting from D, the loss of viewers is also bound to impact their advertising rates. With D being the largest satellite provider, I would think this could effect Viacom's bottom line pretty quickly. I get the sense they are kind of gambling on irate viewer complaints convincing D to cave on the negotiations.


----------



## 1995hoo

What I find frustrating is not the specific channels per se, although in past disputes (Versus; FOX dispute that almost led to SPEED being dropped) the programming in question has been a major factor in my irritation. This time the only show I watch regularly on the channels in question is South Park, and I can get that from the show's website if I must. What frustrates me more is the way these disputes seem to happen over and over again lately. Every year it's a different set of channels and it's the same propaganda warring back and forth (honestly, sometimes they sound like politicians who spend all their time telling you why you shouldn't vote for the other guy instead of trying to convince you to vote for them). Last year when SPEED was in danger of vanishing I looked into Verizon as a TV provider-I refuse to deal with Cocks Cable in Northern Virginia-but then it occurred to me that there's no guarantee the same thing won't happen with them. Plus Verizon's fee structure involves very high fees for basic things like HD DVR service. I suppose the only major benefit to switching would be no more issues with rain fade during summer thunderstorms.



Whipl50 said:


> .... OTA is looking better and better.


We have rabbit-ears on the bedroom TVs because we don't watch them enough to warrant DirecTV service on them-typically on the bedroom TV we watch only the 11 PM news and the beginning of Leno (the monologue and Headlines), and sometimes on the weekend we might have a ballgame on while cleaning the house. I have to say it's really astonishing just how good the picture we get is with a $13 pair of RCA rabbit-ears purchased at Best Buy. Of course a lot of that depends on where you live and what stations are available and how powerful their signal is, and we do have some problems with a couple of channels. But I'd go nuts without the various sports channels that aren't available via OTA. I feel lost this week as it is with the MLB all-star break and that's just four days!


----------



## rrdirectsr

Even if you call Viacom's phone number they immediately offer an IVR prompt to voice your concerns with DirecTV but when you choose option number 2 they send you straight to voicemail. They are trying to make more call volume for DirecTV in hopes that paying $1 bill extra dollars is better than dealing with canceled accounts and more money for staffing phones. 

Viacom also makes plenty of money on other things such as T-Shirts, PJs, backpacks, etc. It's not just advertising and getting money from Sat and Cable providers.


----------



## Sixto

tonyd79 said:


> I can't imagine it is 2 cents for all the channels. More like 2 cents per channel. I dont think dirctv would dispute $146 million a year. For 17 channels that us chump change.


Yep, wasn't sure, the numbers just happened to match if it's the same 7 year deal, so figured worth some math.

It is misleading when they mention pennies per day because whatever the number is, the multiplier is huge at 51.1B if you were looking at 7 years again.


----------



## maartena

tvropro said:


> I called DirecTV they gave me a $5.00 off a month credit for the next 3 months. Better than nothing.


And that seems fair. People who have lost the viacom channels have been complaining about lowering their bills with the viacom amount, and $5 is probably (guesstimated) a little more than that.

I personally expect this to be resolved in 3 months, it will probably be resolved within a week, maybe even days.

Just hoping DirecTV won't give in too much, I can live without viacom channels for a while.


----------



## tonyd79

"Sixto" said:


> Yep, wasn't sure, the numbers just happened to match if it's the same 7 year deal, so figured worth some math.
> 
> It is misleading when they mention pennies per day because whatever the number is, the multiplier is huge at 51.1B if you were looking at 7 years again.


That's the idea. Both sides will spin to their argument. The numbers are probably mostly true from both sides. The only one I'm having a problem with is the 20% viewership thiwn around by Viacom. Maybe if they throw out networks, sports and premiums....


----------



## Sixto

spartanstew said:


> Went to bed last night with the big message screen on Nik.
> 
> This morning I explained things to my kids and switched over the Nik to show them.
> 
> Now, there's a very cool Kid Mix station there instead, with a little blurb at the top and thumbnails of what's going on on other kid channels.
> 
> My kids LOVE IT. They'd much rather have that than Nik.
> 
> They can select any program via the thumbnail and go right to it.
> 
> Stroke of genius by D*.
> 
> Would be great if they kept it all the time.


I just checked that out.

Very cool.

If I had small kids, several of those channels looked like good replacements.

Kids will be fine.


----------



## paulman182

So the 30% raise would amount to about $1.50 per month per subscriber?

I don't see why DirecTV would mind eating that until they made up the difference with the spring price increase.

And I don't see why any subscriber would mind paying that if he wanted the channels.

I think one of the two satellite services should be able to be depended upon to keep your channels, and until now (with a few smaller exceptions) DirecTV has been such a service.


----------



## maartena

TheRatPatrol said:


> I wonder how many are going to jump providers because of this? I bet Dish is waiting with some free Hopper offers.


Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead...... or Jersey Shore, Snooki&Jwoww, 16 & Pregnant.

Tough choice between two sets of quality programming. Ahem, well at least the "quality" thing is true for one of the sets of programming.


----------



## maartena

paulman182 said:


> So the 30% raise would amount to about $1.50 per month per subscriber?
> 
> I don't see why DirecTV would mind eating that until they made up the difference with the spring price increase.


They will be eating something till the spring price increase. But with Tribune in May, and Discovery Networks coming up for negotiations, its a lot better to pay a good negotiated price here, a good negotiated price there, etc, than top doller here, top dollar there.

I for one won't mind losing Viacom for a while if they manage to bring that number down to say.... 80 cents per subscriber. If they do the same with other media companies, instead of seeing a $5 increase, we may only see a $2 increase to our bills. And that is what it is all about.

If DirecTV just always caves in to demands, our monthly bill that should be $90-$100 for Ultimate and a few receivers, would easily be about $150 per month.

I'm not saying DirecTV is not in it to rake in as much profits for themselves as well, but in the end well-negotiated contracts are a lot better for us customers then top-dollar contracts.


----------



## inzane

I say drop them and keep them dropped until Viacom comes back with no raise in their contract. All these content provides over price what they think their stuff is worth. I never tune to any of their channels. I so want to be able to choose what I want, I still think I would come out ahead paying $1 a channel. hell even $2 a channel would be cheaper than what I pay now, I only need like 25 channels.


----------



## ATARI

maartena said:


> Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead...... or Jersey Shore, Snooki&Jwoww, 16 & Pregnant.
> 
> Tough choice between two sets of quality programming. Ahem, well at least the "quality" thing is true for one of the sets of programming.


----------



## cptaylor

Zimmy said:


> Me? I don't care about Viacom.
> 
> Comedy Central is the only channel of theirs that I will miss and I can watch the Daily Show on my iPad.
> 
> Luckily my daughter has switched from iCarly/Victorious to the Disney Channel (Good Luck Charlie, etc).
> 
> So, no big loss there.
> 
> But I am getting tired of prices going up and getting less content.
> 
> A complete loss of a 3D channel (I know content is sparse but to pull everything?)
> No new HD channels except AMC and that took forever to get. (where are HLN, IFC?)
> I have to call and threaten to cancel every year to get NFL at a decent price.
> 
> Dish is starting look good to me.





MysteryMan said:


> You do have the option of switching to DISH. I assume you realize you'll be inheriting their situation with AMC, WeTV, IFC, and Sundance.


Not to mention that Dish doesn't carry NFL at all so you won't have much luck when threatening to cancel every year with them just to get it at a decent price.


----------



## snappjay

90s Nick I would have fought for, but not today.

90s Nick:
Pete and Pete, Salute your Shorts, Double Dare, Nick Arcade, Doug, Rocko, Wild and Crazy Kids, Legends of the Hidden Temple, Guts!, SNICK (Clarissa, Ren and Stimpy, Roundhouse, Are you Afraid of the Dark). I'm sure there are a ton I'm forgetting.

Modern Nick:
Spongebob.... anything else???

don't even get me started comparing 80s/90s MTV to today.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

paulman182 said:


> So the 30% raise would amount to about $1.50 per month per subscriber?
> 
> I don't see why DirecTV would mind eating that until they made up the difference with the spring price increase.
> 
> And I don't see why any subscriber would mind paying that if he wanted the channels.
> 
> I think one of the two satellite services should be able to be depended upon to keep your channels, and until now (with a few smaller exceptions) DirecTV has been such a service.


part of that 30% has got to be EPIX


----------



## Rtm

JoeTheDragon said:


> part of that 30% has got to be EPIX


Is directv getting epix?


----------



## tvropro

maartena said:


> And that seems fair. People who have lost the viacom channels have been complaining about lowering their bills with the viacom amount, and $5 is probably (guesstimated) a little more than that.


At a wholesale level Nick is worth around $ .75 to .80 a month per sub IIRC, the rest of the channels are worth less. So at $5.00 off Direct may actually be loosing a penny or two if you add it all up.


----------



## tvropro

snappjay said:


> 90s Nick I would have fought for, but not today.
> 
> 90s Nick:
> Pete and Pete, Salute your Shorts, Double Dare, Nick Arcade, Doug, Rocko, Wild and Crazy Kids, Legends of the Hidden Temple, Guts!, SNICK (Clarissa, Ren and Stimpy, Roundhouse, Are you Afraid of the Dark). I'm sure there are a ton I'm forgetting.


Some of the 90's shows they show on Teennick at midnight each night.


----------



## TANK

I hope D* just drops the Viacom channels until Viacom agrees to allow D* to sell the channels in package separately .


----------



## susanandmark

Oh please, there is no good or bad guy in any of these disputes. The ONLY loser is the consumer. 17 channels?!? This is frigging ridiculous! 

And the excuses and "go for it" comments here (as if you're watching a sporting event and DirecTV is your "team," no matter what) are simply sad. DirecTV isn't defending anyone's honor ... They're selling you TV. And they're trying, like any company does, to get the components that go into the product they're offering at the lowest cost possible and passing it on with the highest markup the market will allow. There's nothing inherently wrong about that, but don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. Though I guess you could argue: woe to those who actually believe they're caught in a thunderstorm.

I'm so sick of the spinning, and name calling and "we're just protecting" you B.S. If you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I can get you a great deal on. If either company threw in the money they are spending on negative marketing, this dispute, and most others, probably wouldn't exist.

Given the current level of political discourse in the country (on every side), I guess I shouldn't be surprised that major corporations not only think so little of their customers that they believe they will buy this load of horse pucky (even more pathetic is that, given the comments here, it's true), but that the best way to solve any issue is by using roughly the same level of discourse as my five-year-old ... In short: "I know you are, but what am I."

The only difference is, that, in the five-year-old's case, no one is delusional enough to pick a side and buy into the "logic" behind their "Na, Na, boo, boo" argument.

Look, it's their fiduciary duty as publicly traded companies to get the best deal for their stockholders, but I don't need to see how the sausage is made. I don't need to be rallied via PR spin bought with wasted cash that every end customer (that's us folks!) will, without a doubt, pay for ... on both sides. I just want to be able to turn on my television and watch (or not) THE CHANNELS I PAY ALMOST $200/MONTH TO DIRECTV FOR.

Is this the end of the world? Not even close. Will my life be unlivable without Comedy Central or Nick? Not at all. (Then again, my life without TV, period, wouldn't be unlivable either.) But it is my hard-earned money. And if I'm paying for something, I better receive it.


----------



## tvropro

Alacart would be nice but honestly none of these companys these days want to allow us to have it like we used to back in C band heydays. That was great.


----------



## bobvick1983

snappjay said:


> 90s Nick I would have fought for, but not today.
> 
> 90s Nick:
> Pete and Pete, Salute your Shorts, Double Dare, Nick Arcade, Doug, Rocko, Wild and Crazy Kids, Legends of the Hidden Temple, Guts!, SNICK (Clarissa, Ren and Stimpy, Roundhouse, Are you Afraid of the Dark). I'm sure there are a ton I'm forgetting.
> 
> Modern Nick:
> Spongebob.... anything else???
> 
> don't even get me started comparing 80s/90s MTV to today.


I remember all of those, and some I had forgot about, that was when Nickelodeon was worth watching. And remember when Nick at Nite was good? And when TV Land first came out. The 90's and early 2000's Nick at Nite and TV Land were great, if they were still that good, I might be upset. Now, there is practically nothing on them but crap.


----------



## Carl Spock

Viacom is not on DirecTV right now ?!? WHAT WILL I DO !?!?!?

I'll have to clear out the backlog on my DVR, or watch a baseball game, or play a DVD, or listen to music, or call a friend, or surf the web, or post on DBSTalk, or pick up a magazine, or take a walk, or go for a swim, or visit with my neighbors, or Heaven Forbid, read a book!


----------



## damondlt

snappjay said:


> 90s Nick I would have fought for, but not today.
> 
> 90s Nick:
> Pete and Pete, Salute your Shorts, Double Dare, Nick Arcade, Doug, Rocko, Wild and Crazy Kids, Legends of the Hidden Temple, Guts!, SNICK (Clarissa, Ren and Stimpy, Roundhouse, Are you Afraid of the Dark). I'm sure there are a ton I'm forgetting.
> 
> Modern Nick:
> Spongebob.... anything else???
> 
> don't even get me started comparing 80s/90s MTV to today.


There are quite a few popular kids shows on Nick, as well as Teen Nick for children.

I would have to say these nick channels were the most upsetting loss in the house. The rest sorry guys but suck! Won't be missed by me, but Directv has to make good on the fact they are no longer carrying these, so customers should be refunded from the month in advanced billing, and there bill should be lowered as a result!


----------



## Lenard

Ok, where is my bill adjustment for the loss channels, we were being charged for them right????


----------



## snappjay

I have a daughter that loves Nick Jr, but this morning while she was eatting her breakfast, we turned it to Disney (during the Jr timeframe) and she loved it! She also enjoyed the HD


----------



## ATARI

Carl Spock said:


> ...read a book!


On a Kindle, sure.


----------



## ATARI

Lenard said:


> Ok, where is my bill adjustment for the loss channels, we were being charged for them right????


"No refund for you!" (in the voice of the soup Nazi)


----------



## mnassour

Lenard said:


> Ok, where is my bill adjustment for the loss channels, we were being charged for them right????


Call them. They'll offer $5/month which is probably close to what you were paying for those channels, anyway.


----------



## snowcat

The Legend of Korra (sequel to Avatar: The Last Airbender) has been an incredible show on Nick. Thankfully, the first season just ended before this dispute, and I have it all on DVR. 

Victorious is another fun show to watch, a good move up for iCarly fans. My kids like Big Time Rush, but I don't really care for it.

I really won't miss any of the other stations. Spike is good for a LOTR or Star Wars marathons, but that's about it.

I doubt this dispute goes on for too long. Nick is still way too popular to stay off the air. I certainly understand why DirecTv is fighting the package deal, though. Out of all the Viacom channels, I would guess that Nick and Comedy Central are watched way more than any of the others.


----------



## wingrider01

SteveHas said:


> Wrong, Viacom is the one asking for an unwarranted, and unrealistic 30% increase.
> D* IS my friend for trying to keep MY costs down.


going to get viacom's number so that my 7 year old, 9 year old and 11 year old call them to let them know how they feel about what viacom is doing


----------



## snappjay

From viacom.com...



> Update on State of Talks with DirecTV
> 
> July 11, 2012 @ 10:17 AM
> 
> by Mark Jafar, Viacom
> 
> DirecTV dropped Viacom's channels at precisely 11:46 p.m. ET last night, replacing most of our networks with a looping video message from their CEO, and replacing Nickelodeon with a mosaic image of non-Viacom kids' programming available on DirecTV.
> 
> After doing so, DirecTV told the press that Viacom ignored attempts to reach a deal. This is not true.
> 
> The following is a statement from Denise Denson, our Executive Vice President of Content Distribution and Marketing, that clarifies the events that led up to DirecTV removing our channels last night:
> 
> _*"The last time we spoke with DirecTV at 11:00 a.m. yesterday morning and there were no new ideas offered for resolution. In fact, the last proposal DirecTV had made was lower than anyone else pays in the industry, and a deal we said we would not do out of fairness to other distributors. It is essentially the same proposal they had been talking about for three weeks, and one we continually said we would not do. DirecTV also refused to engage with us on any issues related to the deal beyond the rate increase. We are ready to talk at any time."*_


----------



## Santi360HD

wingrider01 said:


> going to get viacom's number so that my 7 year old, 9 year old and 11 year old call them to let them know how they feel about what viacom is doing


given their programming you may have a child at the other end of the phone answering and that'll accomplish nothing!


----------



## damondlt

wingrider01 said:


> going to get viacom's number so that my 7 year old, 9 year old and 11 year old call them to let them know how they feel about what viacom is doing


https://www.facebook.com/#!/StopTheViacomLies


----------



## xmguy

"snappjay" said:


> 90s Nick I would have fought for, but not today.
> 
> 90s Nick:
> Pete and Pete, Salute your Shorts, Double Dare, Nick Arcade, Doug, Rocko, Wild and Crazy Kids, Legends of the Hidden Temple, Guts!, SNICK (Clarissa, Ren and Stimpy, Roundhouse, Are you Afraid of the Dark). I'm sure there are a ton I'm forgetting.
> 
> Modern Nick:
> Spongebob.... anything else???
> 
> don't even get me started comparing 80s/90s MTV to today.


I hear you. I'm 27 now, I grew up in the 90s. You forgot the show with the kid with the football head. Can't remember it right now for the life of me. Early to mid 90s Nick programming was great. Today its absolute garbage. If I had a kid he/she wouldn't watch Nick now. The only thing I watch on today's MTV is Teen Wolf. I loved most of those shows on Nick. Back when TV was good.


----------



## damondlt

snappjay said:


> From viacom.com...


 So now who do we trust? Sounds like a Fair statement from Viacom.


----------



## oldschoolecw

paulman182 said:


> So the 30% raise would amount to about $1.50 per month per subscriber?
> 
> I don't see why DirecTV would mind eating that until they made up the difference with the spring price increase.
> 
> And I don't see why any subscriber would mind paying that if he wanted the channels.
> 
> I think one of the two satellite services should be able to be depended upon to keep your channels, and until now (with a few smaller exceptions) DirecTV has been such a service.


Is there actually a law that says price hikes can only happen in the spring?


----------



## Richard

damondlt said:


> So now who do we trust? Sounds like a Fair statement from Viacom.


Viacom should have agreed to allow their channels to remain while negotiations continued, they did not. Viacom is the one asking for more money, for a product with dwindling value. DirecTV has decided on what they are willing to pay and aren't budging from that, I commend them for doing so.


----------



## Carl Spock

damondlt said:


> So now who do we trust? Sounds like a Fair statement from Viacom.


Don't trust either side. Don't believe either side. It's a negotiation. A negotiation starts out with unreasonable demands and expectations. Both sides have them. The process itself strips those away and a reasonable solution emerges.

Viacom isn't good. Viacom isn't bad. DirecTV isn't good. DirecTV isn't bad. Instead, they both are companies intent on maximizing their profits.

You really expect me to trust a company that just wants more money?

No, thank you.

I think I'll turn off the TV instead.


----------



## xmguy

"Richard" said:


> Viacom should have agreed to allow their channels to remain while negotiations continued, they did not. Viacom is the one asking for more money, for a product with dwindling value. DirecTV has decided on what they are willing to pay and aren't budging from that, I commend them for doing so.


Viacom knows if the channels are still on air there is no hurry for DirecTV to cave in to Viacom's demands. However with the channels removed then DirecTV is under pressure from subscribers to get the channels back and Viacom is banking on that. Hoping that DirecTV will give in to Viacom to get the channels restored.


----------



## keith_benedict

I'm with Directv on this one. Those channels, IMO, don't offer enough decent programming to account for a 30% increase in rates. I'll miss Tosh.0, but the rest are throwaway channels that we pay for because Viacom requires Directv to carry them (MTV, VH1, etc).


----------



## zimm7778

"susanandmark" said:


> Oh please, there is no good or bad guy in any of these disputes. The ONLY loser is the consumer. 17 channels?!? This is frigging ridiculous!
> 
> And the excuses and "go for it" comments here (as if you're watching a sporting event and DirecTV is your "team," no matter what) are simply sad. DirecTV isn't defending anyone's honor ... They're selling you TV. And they're trying, like any company does, to get the components that go into the product they're offering at the lowest cost possible and passing it on with the highest markup the market will allow. There's nothing inherently wrong about that, but don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. Though I guess you could argue: woe to those who actually believe they're caught in a thunderstorm.
> 
> I'm so sick of the spinning, and name calling and "we're just protecting" you B.S. If you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I can get you a great deal on. If either company threw in the money they are spending on negative marketing, this dispute, and most others, probably wouldn't exist.
> 
> Given the current level of political discourse in the country (on every side), I guess I shouldn't be surprised that major corporations not only think so little of their customers that they believe they will buy this load of horse pucky (even more pathetic is that, given the comments here, it's true), but that the best way to solve any issue is by using roughly the same level of discourse as my five-year-old ... In short: "I know you are, but what am I."
> 
> The only difference is, that, in the five-year-old's case, no one is delusional enough to pick a side and buy into the "logic" behind their "Na, Na, boo, boo" argument.
> 
> Look, it's their fiduciary duty as publicly traded companies to get the best deal for their stockholders, but I don't need to see how the sausage is made. I don't need to be rallied via PR spin bought with wasted cash that every end customer (that's us folks!) will, without a doubt, pay for ... on both sides. I just want to be able to turn on my television and watch (or not) THE CHANNELS I PAY ALMOST $200/MONTH TO DIRECTV FOR.
> 
> Is this the end of the world? Not even close. Will my life be unlivable without Comedy Central or Nick? Not at all. (Then again, my life without TV, period, wouldn't be unlivable either.) But it is my hard-earned money. And if I'm paying for something, I better receive it.


Most of these 17 channels I have on parental control. Technically I'm already paying without these channels. So, I don't lose. Fight on Directv!


----------



## snappjay

xmguy said:


> You forgot the show with the kid with the football head. Can't remember it right now for the life of me.


----------



## tonyd79

xmguy said:



> Viacom knows if the channels are still on air there is no hurry for DirecTV to cave in to Viacom's demands. However with the channels removed then DirecTV is under pressure from subscribers to get the channels back and Viacom is banking on that. Hoping that DirecTV will give in to Viacom to get the channels restored.


Maybe, maybe not. It could also harden relations. Ask Charlie and the Dish folks (not that I think either side here is as stubborn as Charlie).

They could have always taken the DIrecTV offer for a month (DirecTV did offer them a raise) while working on the long term deal. Right now, they are getting nothing and probably are having to answer to their advertisers. So, the pressure mounts on them as well.


----------



## xmguy

"Carl Spock" said:


> Don't trust either side. Don't believe either side. It's a negotiation. A negotiation starts out with unreasonable demands and expectations. Both sides have them. The process itself strips those away and a reasonable solution emerges.
> 
> Viacom isn't good. Viacom isn't bad. DirecTV isn't good. DirecTV isn't bad. Instead, they both are companies intent on maximizing their profits.
> 
> You really expect me to believe in a company that just wants more money?
> 
> No, thank you.
> 
> I think I'll turn off the TV instead.


Right now Viacom and DirecTV are like politicians. You know the saying, "the only time they are telling the truth is when they are calling each other liars." Same holds true for this. Both DirecTV and Viacom will say what they want to shuffle the blame to the other party. Like I said last night. Maybe both DirecTV and Viacom both have been watching too many kids shows. Because they are acting that way.


----------



## zimm7778

"paulman182" said:


> And I don't see why any subscriber would mind paying that if he wanted the channels.


Fine, tell that to Viacom. Only make those who want them pay for it. See how well that goes over with them. I'm sure Directv would agree to that all day.


----------



## damondlt

Carl Spock said:


> Don't trust either side. Don't believe either side. It's a negotiation. A negotiation starts out with unreasonable demands and expectations. Both sides have them. The process itself strips those away and a reasonable solution emerges.
> 
> Viacom isn't good. Viacom isn't bad. DirecTV isn't good. DirecTV isn't bad. Instead, they both are companies intent on maximizing their profits.
> 
> You really expect me to trust a company that just wants more money?
> 
> No, thank you.
> 
> I think I'll turn off the TV instead.


Yep I hear that, Exactly why I can't understand why they both can't eat the cost since the both companys are in the + proffit by billions!

But nope right away Directv says our cost will increase. Just so they can maintain the same profit. Thats BS!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

This is clearly another deja vu situation of a content provider negotiation process.

In the end...these often come down to price/costs...and what is clear is that the Viacom request was for a 30% price increase for their programming. That much was publicly stated and not refuted by Viacom.

Those kinds of enormous price increases are becoming typical from content providers these days...and discussions on the level of this greed have been common throughout the Internet.

Previous to 2009, new rate increases hovered in the 2-8% ranges....since then...we've seen requests by channel content providers for 10, 20, 30, or more % increases. It's plain and simple greed for their own revenue goals.

The bottom line is that this pattern will end up resulting in higher prices to satellite and cable TV customers....unless....those delivery channels negotiate hard and hold the line on pricing. 

If not, look for higher monthly bills in the future, or a reduced inventory of channels.

This pattern of gouging revenue rate increases every time a content agreement comes up at the expense of the consumer will likely end with one of those results.


----------



## keith_benedict

zimm7778 said:


> Fine, tell that to Viacom. Only make those who want them pay for it. See how well that goes over with them. I'm sure Directv would agree to that all day.


+1

Sounds like Directv would love to offer these channels in a different package--I think they realize that most of the channels are junk. Frankly, Comedy Central is the only one I'll miss and I can live without it easily.


----------



## xmguy

"snappjay" said:


>


That's the one. I'm like "oh yeah". Always thought he had the coolest bedroom. Could remember his black friend Gerald. But not him, strange. But those were good times. I used to watch GAS (Nick channel) to see those late 80s early 90s classic shows like Legends and Wild and crazy kids. Shows like that.


----------



## damondlt

How many Viacom channels are in Directvs $54 base package. 

I feel bad for these customers right now! They just lost a bunch of their line up.


----------



## Nick

Lenard said:


> Ok, where is my bill adjustment for the loss channels, we were being charged for them right????


BAM! BOOM! GONE! Welcome to Charlie's world. Whiners gonna whine. Haters gonna hate.

Welcome to Charlie's world.


----------



## lparsons21

The loss of Viacom channels in my own personal perspective deserves a big 'ho hum'! While I do watch the Daily Show and Colbert and a very few others, I haven't watched any of them on the big screen in ages. None of the shows they offer are of a kind that really requires much attention, so I just stream them to my computer while I'm also doing other things.

And even if I find a show I want to watch because the show is good, it is generally on one of the SD channels and D*'s SD is horrid, so I get them streamed also, because streamed SD isn't anything at all like D*'s SD.

Viacom is in a pickle, a much bigger one that D* imo. Their ad rates are low because for all the 'popularity' of their channels and shows, the advertisers don't see as much value in ad placement on them as they do with other channels. That indicates that not only should Viacom not get an increase, but in reality should be getting a reduction in rates. Of course, that won't happen. 

And unfortunately D* probably won't take this opportunity to bring up some other channels in HD that many of us might well prefer over Viacom's offerings. Instead I think they will eventually make some deal.


----------



## zimm7778

"damondlt" said:


> How many Viacom channels are in Directvs $54 base package.
> 
> I feel bad for these customers right now! They just lost a bunch of their line up.


I have Choice which is the next level up and don't have all the channels I'd like to have, I lost 14 or 15. I don't care. But since I don't I guess my opinion doesn't matter since that's not part of your agenda. See, in all this stuff you keep saying you do not take into account some of us have had to lower our package because we can't afford the higher ones and a large part of that is programming cost and a lot of that is for channels we don't want, like in my case everyone of them from Viacom except Spike. And as I said, the others were all blocked anyway. It's no loss to me whatsoever.


----------



## skaman74

Looks like there offerin free movies till the deal gets done


----------



## lola521

I'm getting all the Encore channels, which I don't have normally.


----------



## susanandmark

zimm7778 said:


> Most of these 17 channels I have on parental control. Technically I'm already paying without these channels. So, I don't lose. Fight on Directv!


If you are not only satisfied but actually HAPPY paying the same amount for fewer options than, congratulations, you're every company's ideal customer! They are currently working on top secret projects to clone you.

Regardless of what happens with this negotiation--and, like all negotiations, of any stripe, both sides will inevitably concede and eventually meet somewhere near the middle and then claim public victory (more PR money spent) by saying the other side "caved" while they "held firm"--DirecTV will raise our rates on the same old product they always offered, bemoaning "increased programming costs," amongst other issues.

Because, you know, they are our buddies and they don't want to charge us more. Poor lil' ol' DirecTV, our staunchest allies in this stagnant economy, just has no other option. Ignore that $28 billion in 2011 revenue, a $3 billion year over year increase, behind the curtain for DirecTV; Viacom's 2011 take was a "mere" $15 billion. Oh yeah, DirecTV definitely "has my back." Please!

DirecTV 2011 Investor Press Release: http://investor.directv.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=649162

New York Times story on Viacom's Record Breaking Year: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/viacom-reports-33-percent-gain-in-profits/


----------



## dxtrfn80

Maybe DirectTV should offer NFL Sunday Ticket for free if the Viacom dispute is not solved by the start of the NFL season. Then almost every man would be proud of that.


----------



## dtv757

skaman74 said:


> Looks like there offerin free movies till the deal gets done
> 
> View attachment 29568


nice


----------



## zimm7778

"susanandmark" said:


> If you are not only satisfied but actually HAPPY paying the same amount for fewer options than, congratulations, you're every company's ideal customer! They are currently working on top secret projects to clone you.
> 
> Regardless of what happens with this negotiation--and, like all negotiations, of any stripe, both sides will inevitably concede and eventually meet somewhere near the middle and then claim public victory (more PR money spent) by saying the other side "caved" while they "held firm"--DirecTV will raise our rates on the same old product they always offered, bemoaning "increased programming costs," amongst other issues.
> 
> Because, you know, they are our buddies and they don't want to charge us more. Poor lil' ol' DirecTV, our staunchest allies in this stagnant economy, just has no other option. (Ignore that $25 billion in 2011 profit behind the curtain.)


They are BLOCKED. I said I don't lose because I'm basically paying the same price for not watching these channels anyway. Do I hope this doesn't ever resolve? Yes. Do I think if it doesn't they should lower the bill? Yes. However, since the Encores are on and I like those I feel like I am now getting more for my money so whatever.


----------



## mridan

I just got NFL Sunday Ticket for free! I called retention to complain about lost channels. Told retention dept. I would go to AT&T unless I received Sun. ticket at no charge. I just saved $199.95!!!


----------



## bkress

I give thumbs up to Direct, as consumers we are being screwed buy these scumbags, all these "cable broadcasters" are flooding us with commericals 
non stop when watching these channels and we are paying for it in or bill, then we see more commericals than on OTA TV, we have to endure the program Logo ( that gets bigger every day) that promotes programing now annoy's us with continous crap - it has to stop!


----------



## susanandmark

skaman74 said:


> Looks like there offerin free movies till the deal gets done
> 
> View attachment 29568





dtv757 said:


> nice


Unless, of course, you're already one of the top tier (highest dollar) customers already paying for all those services ...


----------



## maartena

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Previous to 2009, new rate increases hovered in the 2-8% ranges....since then...we've seen requests by channel content providers for 10, 20, 30, or more % increases. It's plain and simple greed for their own revenue goals.


Exactly. We have seen as many as 600% increases with locals up in washington state, and just a month or so ago another small broadcasting company with several locals asked for a 300% increase.

The economy has killed everyone. But some of these companies.... instead of adjusting to bad times, they are just looking to offset losses in one part of the company with more income in other parts.

In this case, most media companies have lost a tremendous amount of income in advertising between 2007 (when the economy started its slide) to 2011 (when it slowly, VERY slowly started to recover). And now they are trying to offset the loss in advertising income by charging carriers more money. It has been a sign of recent times, and yes, it is indeed company greed at its finest.

Re: Viacom, their chief executive was the "highest paid executive" in 2010, earning just over 84 million dollars. This was MORE than what the CEO's of Ford, GM, and Chrysler made COMBINED.

How can a company justify that in 2010, after just coming off of 2 HORRIFIC economic years in 2008 and 2009?

Yeah yeah.... mumble.... bonus in contracts.... mumble mumble.... already agreed before hand.... mumble..... B-effing-S! The CEO of Viacom is already a billionaire, and could have easily said: I'll take $1 million this year, please put the remaining $83 million back in to the company.

I know there have been a few CEO's that have done that. Even less, they took $1, one dollar, just so they can legally stay on the books as an employee, and gave all of their salary and bonuses back to the company. Of course besides salary and bonus, they get stock options.... but those do depend on the the company doing well. They are worth considerably less if the company does poorly, and although those can run up to many millions as well, at least there is something to work for, as you will simply get stock that is worth less money if the company struggles.

And again, don't get me wrong: DirecTV executives get paid millions as well, and they are also just out to line their pockets. And the less they pay for a carriage contract, the more they can line their pockets. But in the end, it is US that will foot the bill, and to remain competitive against Dish, Cable, and U-Verse/FIOS (and other IPTV outlets) they have to keep the price as low as possible, and any cent-per-subscriber they can take off, the better it is for our wallets in the long run.


----------



## woods_men

Sea bass said:


> *WRONG FANBOY -*
> 
> Learn some manners...Sixto is highly respected in this community!


In my 92 year on the plamet, I have seen and learned that the most respected people are the ones who you have to watch the most.


----------



## Carl Spock

There are some wonderful first time posts in this thread.


----------



## mnassour

woods_men said:


> In my 92 year on the plamet, I have seen and learned that the most respected people are the ones who you have to watch the most.


Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh!

Do NOT step on Sixto around here. You will be ostracized for trashing one of the people who has worked the hardest to make this an outstanding source of information and tarring yourself as ignorant.

I didn't say you DID do that in this post....let's just consider this good information and move on, OK?


----------



## woods_men

ffoooo54 said:


> + THe below list of non-VIACOM channels DIRECTV rips consumers on and does not carry
> 
> 01. MTV2 HD
> 02. Nick Jr. HD
> 03. TV Land HD
> 
> Music-video Suites Not Carried By DirecTV:
> 01. MTV Jams
> 02. MTV Hits
> 03. MTVU
> 04. BET Hip-Hop
> 05. BET Gospel
> 06. VH1 Soul
> 07. CMT Pure Country
> 
> ALSO DIRECTV could carry in non-local markets - ANTENNA TV + ME TV + MY RETRO TV + MY FAMILY TV + THIS TV
> 
> --ARTS
> CLASSIC ARTS SHOWCASE
> 
> --ANIMATION
> FUNIMATION
> 
> --ETC
> G4
> LIFETIME REAL WOMEN
> MILITARY HISTORY CHANNEL
> RURAL TV
> WEALTH TV
> YOUTOO SOCIAL TV
> 
> ---MOVIE
> CINEMAX - OUTER MAX
> EPIX - 1 + 2 + 3
> FEARNET
> PIXL
> SHOWTIME - FAMILY ZONE
> STARZ - INDIEPLEX + MOVIEPLEX + RETROPLEX
> 
> --MUSIC
> BLUE HIGHWAYS TV
> SOUNDTRACK CHANNEL
> 
> --NEWS
> ABC NEWS NOW
> BBC WORLD NEWS
> CNNI
> 
> --PUBLIC INTEREST
> CSPAN 3
> PENTAGON CHANNEL
> 
> --SPORTS
> BLACKBELT TV
> FIGHT NOW TV
> HRTV
> MAVTV
> WORLD FISHING NETWORK
> WWE
> 
> My providers carries all DIECTV does + ones listed in this post (except WWE not aunches yet) and my bill is way cheaper then DIRECTV's ++ My bill doesnt subsidize sports packages + TV everywhere and all that other crap -- If people want that extra - they pay for it - stop screwing customers and make them pay for services not using (not saying channels - i am talking services)


True of mine as well and i bet this sispute is over Viacom wanting Directv to carry ALL of its channels and Directv does not want the consumer to have them.


----------



## woods_men

mnassour said:


> Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh!
> 
> Do NOT step on Sixto around here. You will be ostracized for trashing one of the people who has worked the hardest to make this an outstanding source of information and tarring yourself as ignorant.
> 
> I didn't say you DID do that in this post....let's just consider this good information and move on, OK?


So he may be a bully and people who say something he does not like is pushed away, sounds like a person who can not handle multiple opinions and experience from older folks.


----------



## wingrider01

dxtrfn80 said:


> Maybe DirectTV should offer NFL Sunday Ticket for free if the Viacom dispute is not solved by the start of the NFL season. Then almost every man would be proud of that.


Maybe an incentive to you but for a lot of us this means absolutely nothing, now the equivlant value in pay per view and cinema direct would be more then acceptable


----------



## zimm7778

"maartena" said:


> Exactly. We have seen as many as 600% increases with locals up in washington state, and just a month or so ago another small broadcasting company with several locals asked for a 300% increase.
> 
> The economy has killed everyone. But some of these companies.... instead of adjusting to bad times, they are just looking to offset losses in one part of the company with more income in other parts.
> 
> In this case, most media companies have lost a tremendous amount of income in advertising between 2007 (when the economy started its slide) to 2011 (when it slowly, VERY slowly started to recover). And now they are trying to offset the loss in advertising income by charging carriers more money. It has been a sign of recent times, and yes, it is indeed company greed at its finest.
> 
> Re: Viacom, their chief executive was the "highest paid executive" in 2010, earning just over 84 million dollars. This was MORE than what the CEO's of Ford, GM, and Chrysler made COMBINED.
> 
> How can a company justify that in 2010, after just coming off of 2 HORRIFIC economic years in 2008 and 2009?
> 
> Yeah yeah.... mumble.... bonus in contracts.... mumble mumble.... already agreed before hand.... mumble..... B-effing-S! The CEO of Viacom is already a billionaire, and could have easily said: I'll take $1 million this year, please put the remaining $83 million back in to the company.
> 
> I know there have been a few CEO's that have done that. Even less, they took $1, one dollar, just so they can legally stay on the books as an employee, and gave all of their salary and bonuses back to the company. Of course besides salary and bonus, they get stock options.... but those do depend on the the company doing well. They are worth considerably less if the company does poorly, and although those can run up to many millions as well, at least there is something to work for, as you will simply get stock that is worth less money if the company struggles.
> 
> And again, don't get me wrong: DirecTV executives get paid millions as well, and they are also just out to line their pockets. And the less they pay for a carriage contract, the more they can line their pockets. But in the end, it is US that will foot the bill, and to remain competitive against Dish, Cable, and U-Verse/FIOS (and other IPTV outlets) they have to keep the price as low as possible, and any cent-per-subscriber they can take off, the better it is for our wallets in the long run.


Talking about locals, I really don't understand why at least with cable this is ever an issue. There is or was a mandate from the FCC (yeah I know) that local channels were MUST CARRY by cable. All this money crap was irrelevant they required cable providers to have them whether they wanted to or not. Did this change? Or did the FCC just decide to let this become a free for all also?


----------



## wingrider01

Santi360HD said:


> given their programming you may have a child at the other end of the phone answering and that'll accomplish nothing!


we will see, found it...


----------



## paulman182

zimm7778 said:


> Fine, tell that to Viacom. Only make those who want them pay for it. See how well that goes over with them. I'm sure Directv would agree to that all day.


It's not about Viacom. I watch exactly zero of those channels.

The next channels to go could be your channels. Or my channels.

No, not my channels. I pay for all the premium channels, and that's 99% of what I watch.


----------



## maartena

susanandmark said:


> Because, you know, they are our buddies and they don't want to charge us more. Poor lil' ol' DirecTV, our staunchest allies in this stagnant economy, just has no other option. Ignore that $28 billion in 2011 revenue, a $3 billion year over year increase, behind the curtain for DirecTV; Viacom's 2011 take was a "mere" $15 billion. Oh yeah, DirecTV definitely "has my back." Please!
> 
> http://investor.directv.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=649162
> 
> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/viacom-reports-33-percent-gain-in-profits/


Every company is out to make profits, DirecTV included. They has a HUGE increase in revenue in the South-American market where they have been expanding their services.

Revenue, by the way, is something else than profit. In the last quarter of 2011 profits for DirecTV were about 1.2 billion, where for Viacom they were about 640 million, both being about 4 to 6% of their revenue of 28 and 15 billion. Since both companies have to make investments, that is a reasonable profit margin.

Where it gets sick is how they compensate their CEO's. Mike White of DirecTV made 5.9 Million in 2011 (and 32 Million in 2010, mostly one-time awards counting for multiple years when he took over as CEO), where Viacom's CEO Daumann made 43 Million. (and 84 Million in 2010)

A company that is not even HALF the size of DirecTV, is paying its executives EIGHT TIMES the money? Yeah, they sure are worried about piracy there at Viacom.


----------



## markrubi

I think Viacom should rename nickelodeon to nikelanddime :lol:


----------



## sean67854

susanandmark said:


> If you are not only satisfied but actually HAPPY paying the same amount for fewer options than, congratulations, you're every company's ideal customer! They are currently working on top secret projects to clone you.
> 
> Regardless of what happens with this negotiation--and, like all negotiations, of any stripe, both sides will inevitably concede and eventually meet somewhere near the middle and then claim public victory (more PR money spent) by saying the other side "caved" while they "held firm"--DirecTV will raise our rates on the same old product they always offered, bemoaning "increased programming costs," amongst other issues.
> 
> Because, you know, they are our buddies and they don't want to charge us more. Poor lil' ol' DirecTV, our staunchest allies in this stagnant economy, just has no other option. Ignore that $28 billion in 2011 revenue, a $3 billion year over year increase, behind the curtain for DirecTV; Viacom's 2011 take was a "mere" $15 billion. Oh yeah, DirecTV definitely "has my back." Please!
> 
> DirecTV 2011 Investor Press Release: http://investor.directv.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=649162
> 
> New York Times story on Viacom's Record Breaking Year: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/viacom-reports-33-percent-gain-in-profits/


I think what I'm paying for my DirecTV service is fine with or without those crap channels. Capitalism. DirecTV is allowed to make money, and we are not allowed to say when it's too much, except by taking our business elsewhere. You don't like it? Adios.

DirecTV does a lot of R&D that most people don't take into consideration, but would piss and moan about if it didn't exist, like oh, i don't know, HD recievers, off air tuner boxes, website guide, etc.

I want DirecTV to make a little extra money to work on things to keep making things better. I just got a new 3D tv and when I hooked it up, holy moly, there are 3D channels on DirecTV, for no extra charge. Granted the programming is pretty much crap, but they are there.


----------



## Sea bass

mridan said:


> I just got NFL Sunday Ticket for free! I called retention to complain about lost channels. Told retention dept. I would go to AT&T unless I received Sun. ticket at no charge. I just saved $199.95!!!


Wow!....:nono2:


----------



## sean67854

maartena said:


> Revenue, by the way, is something else than profit. In the last quarter of 2011 profits for DirecTV were about 1.2 billion, where for Viacom they were about 640 million, both being about 4 to 6% of their revenue of 28 and 15 billion. Since both companies have to make investments, that is a reasonable profit margin.


This exactly. When you have a company that has to spend the money to launch freakin' SATELLITES into SPACE, I think profit is a more appropriate number to look at. It's not exactly the same as the cable company digging a ditch to bury cable or fiber.


----------



## susanandmark

paulman182 said:


> It's not about Viacom. I watch exactly zero of those channels.
> 
> The next channels to go could be your channels. Or my channels.
> 
> No, not my channels. I pay for all the premium channels, and that's 99% of what I watch.


Ding, ding, ding!



sean67854 said:


> I think what I'm paying for my DirecTV service is fine with or without those crap channels. Capitalism. DirecTV is allowed to make money, and we are not allowed to say when it's too much, except by taking our business elsewhere. You don't like it? Adios. ...


If only it were so easy. DirecTV locks customers into ironclad "contracts" (without even gaining physical signatures in 90 percent of the cases), demanding payment if you desire to leave FOR ANY REASON, with no reciprocal promises made to the consumer's they're locking down. In essence, they could reduce your channel count to one and charge you the same price, or even more, and you'd have no recourse, legal or otherwise.

For everyone that argues "but they'd never do that," due to bad PR, corporate suicide and the like, you may be correct (certainly hope you are!) but what sucks, and feels so very, VERY wrong to me is that THEY COULD. And we, the customers, could do little about it. Contracts that maintain early termination fees are, in general (beyond DirecTV), wildly consumer UNfriendly. At least with cell phones you actually have to physically sign something and they've had enough class action suits and the like that they highlight the ETF fees and force you to acknowledge you know the drill ... With DirecTV they just send you a post card weeks later, IF they even bother to do that.

A substantial change in programming or pricing SHOULD come with a "you can leave any time you're not happy" out. If DirecTV really "had our backs" this would be a given (any company with faith in the quality of their product doesn't need a two-year contract to keep consumers on board) and, honestly, would actually make me feel better about NOT leaving ... Just knowing I could if I needed/wanted to.


----------



## zimm7778

"paulman182" said:


> It's not about Viacom. I watch exactly zero of those channels.
> 
> The next channels to go could be your channels. Or my channels.
> 
> No, not my channels. I pay for all the premium channels, and that's 99% of what I watch.


This argument is one a lot of people like to make but it doesn't work with me. Btw, you said you were sure the ones who WANT them would be glad to pay it. I agree. Let them and don't make me do it. Anyway, back to what I was saying. There isn't a single channel I watch Directv could drop that I would raise cane over as long as if it was gone permanently they either lowered the bill or gave me something in return. I'll do something else or watch something else. And oh by the way, it almost was channels i watch recently when they had the dispute with Fox over the RSNs. I watch those. However, i felt the same way I do now. The only 3 channels I feel are a must I can get OTA: CBS, Fox, and NBC. Now before I'm misinterpreted, I did not say those are all I WANT. I want more and thus why I have pay tv service. But programming costs are out of control and I wish the FCC would require all channels be negotiated separately and tv providers do an a la carte. People think this is horrible because the bill would increase. That's true for some at first. See, the network owners tell you most everyone can't live without their stuff. In truth, they know if people had to pay individually for their channels the veil on that lie would be exposed. So, for example under my system, ESPN works out a deal to make up for the number of customers it knows it's going to lose and winds up with $10 for just their channel. They'll be far less people subbing to it. However, they can't raise the price for the duration of the contract to make up for even that because the deal is for x number of years. When they lose way too much money on advertising they'll come back to the table to do something more reasonable and get more subs. This would be the same thing for every channel. That's why I advocate for a la carte service.


----------



## keith_benedict

susanandmark said:


> For everyone that argues "but they'd never do that," due to bad PR, corporate suicide and the like, you may be correct (certainly hope you are!) but what sucks, and feels so very, VERY wrong to me is that THEY COULD. And we, the customers, could do little about it. Contracts that maintain early termination fees are, in general (beyond DirecTV), wildly consumer UNfriendly. At least with cell phones you actually have to physically sign something and they've had enough class action suits and the like that they highlight the ETF fees and force you to acknowledge you know the drill ... With DirecTV they just send you a post card weeks later, IF they even bother to do that.


Yeah, it sucks, but...

To be fair, you had a choice to sign or NOT sign their 2 year contract. Nobody forced you to contract with Directv for their services. If you didn't like the terms, you shouldn't have signed.


----------



## zimm7778

"susanandmark" said:


> Ding, ding, ding!
> 
> DirecTV locks customers into ironclad "contracts" (without even gaining physical signatures in 90 percent of the cases), demanding payment if you desire to leave FOR ANY REASON, with no reciprocal promises made to the consumer's they're locking down. In essence, they could reduce your channel count to one and charge you the same price, or even more, and you'd have no recourse, legal or otherwise.
> 
> For everyone that argues "but they'd never do that," due to bad PR, corporate suicide and the like, you may be correct (certainly hope you are!) but what sucks, and feels so very, VERY wrong to me is that THEY COULD. And we, the customers, could do little about it. Contracts that maintain early termination fees are, in general (beyond DirecTV), wildly consumer UNfriendly. At least with cell phones you actually have to physically sign something and they've had enough class action suits and the like that they highlight the ETF fees and force you to acknowledge you know the drill ... With DirecTV they just send you a post card weeks later, IF they even bother to do that.
> 
> A substantial change in programming or pricing SHOULD come with a "you can leave any time you're not happy" out. If DirecTV really "had our backs" this would be a given (any company with faith in the quality of their product doesn't need a two-year contract to keep consumers on board) and, honestly, would actually make me feel better about NOT leaving ... Just knowing I could if I needed/wanted to.


I totally agree with the contract issue and is something else I think the FCC should look into. You obviously sign up because you like the channels they offer, not because you like their logo. There was also a recent thread about the terms of service changing and someone saying they called and didn't agree to them. They canceled their service because of it but charged him an ETF. I think that should be changed as well. If they changed their agreement you should no longer be bound to it.


----------



## susanandmark

keith_benedict said:


> Yeah, it sucks, but...
> 
> To be fair, you had a choice to sign or NOT sign their 2 year contract. Nobody forced you to contract with Directv for their services. If you didn't like the terms, you shouldn't have signed.


I've never signed a single document from DirecTV and I've been a continuous customer since, I believe, 1996 or '97, always at their highest level of service.


----------



## scott72

Interesting stuff. My family is in the middle of building a new house, so our D* sub is suspended right now. Feels like a good time to have that status. I won't be re-activating until at least November, so I'm sure this will be resolved by then. I could care less about the channels in question, but the kids like Nick..


----------



## scott72

susanandmark said:


> Ding, ding, ding!
> 
> If only it were so easy. DirecTV locks customers into ironclad "contracts" (without even gaining physical signatures in 90 percent of the cases), demanding payment if you desire to leave FOR ANY REASON, with no reciprocal promises made to the consumer's they're locking down. In essence, they could reduce your channel count to one and charge you the same price, or even more, and you'd have no recourse, legal or otherwise.
> 
> For everyone that argues "but they'd never do that," due to bad PR, corporate suicide and the like, you may be correct (certainly hope you are!) but what sucks, and feels so very, VERY wrong to me is that THEY COULD. And we, the customers, could do little about it. Contracts that maintain early termination fees are, in general (beyond DirecTV), wildly consumer UNfriendly. At least with cell phones you actually have to physically sign something and they've had enough class action suits and the like that they highlight the ETF fees and force you to acknowledge you know the drill ... With DirecTV they just send you a post card weeks later, IF they even bother to do that.
> 
> A substantial change in programming or pricing SHOULD come with a "you can leave any time you're not happy" out. If DirecTV really "had our backs" this would be a given (any company with faith in the quality of their product doesn't need a two-year contract to keep consumers on board) and, honestly, would actually make me feel better about NOT leaving ... Just knowing I could if I needed/wanted to.


Who doesn't require contracts these days? The Cable Co's are doing it, cell phone co's do it, and on and on..It's the norm now..Only thing I don't like about D*'s contract practices, is they're so sneaky about it if you upgrade your equipment. Upgrading equipment should not renew your contract, and you should know ahead of time that it does.


----------



## Sea bass

woods_men said:


> So he may be a bully and people who say something he does not like is pushed away, sounds like a person who can not handle multiple opinions and experience from older folks.


Please stop...seriously. Spend some time here, you will see why Sixto is so highly regarded.


----------



## sean67854

susanandmark said:


> Ding, ding, ding!
> 
> If only it were so easy. DirecTV locks customers into ironclad "contracts" (without even gaining physical signatures in 90 percent of the cases), demanding payment if you desire to leave FOR ANY REASON, with no reciprocal promises made to the consumer's they're locking down. In essence, they could reduce your channel count to one and charge you the same price, or even more, and you'd have no recourse, legal or otherwise.
> 
> For everyone that argues "but they'd never do that," due to bad PR, corporate suicide and the like, you may be correct (certainly hope you are!) but what sucks, and feels so very, VERY wrong to me is that THEY COULD. And we, the customers, could do little about it. Contracts that maintain early termination fees are, in general (beyond DirecTV), wildly consumer UNfriendly. At least with cell phones you actually have to physically sign something and they've had enough class action suits and the like that they highlight the ETF fees and force you to acknowledge you know the drill ... With DirecTV they just send you a post card weeks later, IF they even bother to do that.
> 
> A substantial change in programming or pricing SHOULD come with a "you can leave any time you're not happy" out. If DirecTV really "had our backs" this would be a given (any company with faith in the quality of their product doesn't need a two-year contract to keep consumers on board) and, honestly, would actually make me feel better about NOT leaving ... Just knowing I could if I needed/wanted to.


If you were really so upset, the ETF wouldn't stop you from leaving. it's prorated and I'm willing to bet that if you switched over to Dish or something they'd give you a sweet deal to offset your ETF.

Also, I've had DTV for something like 9 years now, and every equipment change or anything else that put me on a new 2yr agreement required me to sign a paper before it took effect.


----------



## iceman2a

woods_men said:


> In my 92 year on the plamet, I have seen and learned that the most respected people are the ones who you have to watch the most.





woods_men said:


> So he may be a bully and people who say something he does not like is pushed away, sounds like a person who can not handle multiple opinions and experience from older folks.


ALL RIGHT! I have been reading thru this thread the last 2 days and getting a good laugh at all the people posting in it for the first time, but this pisses me off
I don't care if you are 92, you don't come here and give your oppions about someone who is a "quality" member of this community especialy on an issue as meaningless as this! :nono: So call your care taker and have them help you away from the computer and get back in your rocking chair and let the discussion continue among the people that have been here long enough to have their oppions rspected!

I am sorry but I could not let it go! :nono:


----------



## Lucid504

sean67854 said:


> If you were really so upset, the ETF wouldn't stop you from leaving. it's prorated and I'm willing to bet that if you switched over to Dish or something they'd give you a sweet deal to offset your ETF.
> 
> Also, I've had DTV for something like 9 years now, and every equipment change or anything else that put me on a new 2yr agreement required me to sign a paper before it took effect.


Must be a state law where you live, as ive changed equipment and everything and ive never signed anything for directv


----------



## maartena

sean67854 said:


> This exactly. When you have a company that has to spend the money to launch freakin' SATELLITES into SPACE, I think profit is a more appropriate number to look at. It's not exactly the same as the cable company digging a ditch to bury cable or fiber.


Well... there is pro/cons to both types of investments. A satellite costs an ENORMOUS amount of money, is HIGH RISK with the launch, but once it is up and running..... you cover the entire country in one go.

Cable.... can go town by town, city by city, neighborhood by neighborhood, and decide which areas are financially viable to upgrade, and which are not. Not every city is upgraded to the highest level of technology, and their cost of upgrading can be spread among many years.


----------



## susanandmark

maartena said:


> ...Revenue, by the way, is something else than profit. In the last quarter of 2011 profits for DirecTV were about 1.2 billion, where for Viacom they were about 640 million, both being about 4 to 6% of their revenue of 28 and 15 billion. Since both companies have to make investments, that is a reasonable profit margin. ...


I quoted revenue, because I couldn't find a quick tally of Viacom's year-total profit (just a single quarter), unlike with DirecTV. I linked to both documents, including DirecTV's which state just under $7 billion in 2011 total profit (why would you quote just one quarter against the total?), which is more like 25% profit, NOT "4 to 6%". Pretty big difference.

Did you get a 25% raise last year? Or, more comparatively, sell your house for 25% more than its worth? Or do ANYTHING that gained you 25% returns in any way? I know we sure didn't!

Anyone who believes either of these companies "need" to raise prices, increase profits to "survive" are kidding themselves. Do they want to do those things? Absolutely! Do they "need" to stay afloat? Umm, no.


----------



## skierbri10

I just deleted all my series recordings for all Viacom channels. If they come back I will make it a point not to watch any of their channels. The only series I had recording were on Nick Jr, with no commercials anyway. Lol.


----------



## woods_men

iceman2a said:


> ALL RIGHT! I have been reading thru this thread the last 2 days and getting a good laugh at all the people posting in it for the first time, but this pisses me off
> I don't care if you are 92, you don't come here and give your oppions about someone who is a "quality" member of this community especialy on an issue as meaningless as this! :nono: So call your care taker and have them help you away from the computer and get back in your rocking chair and let the discussion continue among the people that have been here long enough to have their oppions rspected!
> 
> I am sorry but I could not let it go! :nono:


Typical disrepectful young snot nose type you are. I have no care taker. I chop wood 3 hours a day still, tell me if you can still do that at 92.

Also as much as people like you and many other not want it to be, we have free speech in this country and it is allowed everywhere, despite you youngsters thinking it has restrictions and should be ended.

Amount of time means nothing about how much respect some gets, it is about what is said and if its true.


----------



## mridan

mridan said:


> I just got NFL Sunday Ticket for free! I called retention to complain about lost channels. Told retention dept. I would go to AT&T unless I received Sun. ticket at no charge. I just saved $199.95!!!





Sea bass said:


> Wow!....:nono2:


 They didn't even flinch.


----------



## maartena

Lucid504 said:


> Must be a state law where you live, as ive changed equipment and everything and ive never signed anything for directv


You don't need to sign anything. When you first signed up for DirecTV you agreed to their TOS, and one of those terms is that when you get new equipment, it automatically triggers a new contract of 2 years.

This is for everyone nationwide. You can verify your current status re: contract by calling DirecTV.

There are a few ways of getting out of it without a ETF, such as moving to a new location that has a line-of-sight issue. If the installer determines this is the case, you can leave DirecTV without paying the ETF.


----------



## susanandmark

maartena said:


> You don't need to sign anything. When you first signed up for DirecTV you agreed to their TOS, and one of those terms is that when you get new equipment, it automatically triggers a new contract of 2 years.
> 
> This is for everyone nationwide. You can verify your current status re: contract by calling DirecTV.
> 
> There are a few ways of getting out of it without a ETF, such as moving to a new location that has a line-of-sight issue. If the installer determines this is the case, you can leave DirecTV without paying the ETF.


Again we have never signed a single DirecTV document and the very idea that I "agreed to their TOS" [Terms of Service] when we signed up over a decade ago is laughable, since I bet their current TOS document is unrecognizable as the same one that existed back then ... When they didn't even have contracts and you bought, paid for and kept every piece of equipment you needed.

Look, as long as consumers not only accept, but DEFEND this type of "service" from companies, they will continue to attempt to enact ever more Draconian restrictions and clauses. I'm always amazed (and not in a good way) when people are not flabbergasted, but actually excited by something that protects nothing but the corporation's bottom line, and absolutely serves no purpose other than profit.

I'm all for company's making money, but how about doing it by providing a good product, at a reasonable cost with adequate customer service? Allowing people to ACTUALLY choose whether or not to consume their goods/services by their own accord. But, hey, that's just crazy talk!



sean67854 said:


> I think what I'm paying for my DirecTV service is fine with or without those crap channels. Capitalism.


Oh and, PS, locking people into paying for something no matter what it is because you say so, is the farthest thing on earth from capitalism.


----------



## carl6

A polite reminder to everyone: It is okay to discuss things, policies, issues, etc. It is NOT okay to discuss each other. Please keep personal attacks OUT OF THIS THREAD.


----------



## snappjay

woods_men said:


> Typical disrepectful young snot nose type you are. I have no care taker. I chop wood 3 hours a day still, tell me if you can still do that at 92.
> 
> Also as much as people like you and many other not want it to be, we have free speech in this country and it is allowed everywhere, despite you youngsters thinking it has restrictions and should be ended.
> 
> Amount of time means nothing about how much respect some gets, it is about what is said and if its true.


Don't feed the troll guys


----------



## RunnerFL

woods_men said:


> In my 92 year on the plamet, I have seen and learned that the most respected people are the ones who you have to watch the most.


Yay, another troll! Nice first post, flame one of the best attributes this site has.


----------



## Tonedeaf

woods_men said:


> I chop wood 3 hours a day still, tell me if you can still do that at 92.


Sure if you have a hydraulic log splitter. Nothing to it and is done by my 97 year old grandfather. :sure: :lol:


----------



## Santi360HD

swanni is to blame for all these NOOB's here !!


----------



## RunnerFL

woods_men said:


> So he may be a bully and people who say something he does not like is pushed away, sounds like a person who can not handle multiple opinions and experience from older folks.


One would think "older folks" would have better grammar.


----------



## RunnerFL

susanandmark said:


> I've never signed a single document from DirecTV and I've been a continuous customer since, I believe, 1996 or '97, always at their highest level of service.


When they ask you over the phone if you agree to the contract, which you have to do to get service, you are "signing" a contract.


----------



## Tubaman-Z

After catching up on the 12 or so new pages of posts since I last read this thread yesterday, a couple of thoughts:

1. The mix channels, in particular the Kids Mix, was a brilliant move on D*'s part. They make clear what alternatives are available. They should keep the mix channels regardless of the outcome.
2. Providing free Encore through the end of the month is a nice touch.
3. When my wife realized this morning that the Viacom channels were off (she was looking for "Murder, She Wrote" on TVLand) I reminded her that we also get that on the Hallmark channel (in HD). I setup a season pass and voila.
4. Depending on how long this goes on I will re-evaluate our programming package and possibly lower it.
5. I noted this on the Directvpromise.com website: "DIRECTV stated that if Viacom believes all of its networks are worth so much extra money, DIRECTV customers should have the right to choose which Viacom channels they want to pay to keep and which ones they don’t." I look forward to having this option as DirecTV thinks that I, as a customer, should have that right. Of the 17 taken down, I would like to pay for only 2 please.


----------



## RunnerFL

woods_men said:


> Amount of time means nothing about how much respect some gets, it is about what is said and if its true.


And if you were an actual user here, not just a troll, you'd find that Sixto's information is true.


----------



## wingrider01

susanandmark said:


> I've never signed a single document from DirecTV and I've been a continuous customer since, I believe, 1996 or '97, always at their highest level of service.


physical signatures are a thing of the past in most cases, you electronicly agree to the terms, works in binding arbitration.

As far as back in 1996, that would have been primestar and if you signed or initialed the installers paperwork you agreed to it.

Given any disagrements, companies can pull up your electronic agreement.


----------



## susanandmark

wingrider01 said:


> physical signatures are a thing of the past in most cases, you electronicly agree to the terms, works in binding arbitration.
> 
> As far as back in 1996, that would have been primestar and if you signed or initialed the installers paperwork you agreed to it.
> 
> Given any disagrements, companies can pull up your electronic agreement.


I have also, in the past, asked DirecTV to show me any agreement I signed and/or agreed to verbally. I have been referenced to a generic web link that states DirecTV's current, and ever changing, contract. Never once have they been able to, or even tried to, produce a single document or phone call that showed I had even acknowledged, let alone agreed to anything. In fact, each and every time I've questioned my "contract status" (which has happened twice) DirecTV has sent me multiple DIFFERENT reasons, in writing (email) and via phone, WHY they believe I am "under contract."



RunnerFL said:


> When they ask you over the phone if you agree to the contract, which you have to do to get service, you are "signing" a contract.


I've never been asked verbally if I "agreed to the contract" either. The fact that DirecTV equipment has a lifespan of 2-3 years, give or take, means it is literally impossible to stay with this company "out of contract." Sure, I've got one DVR that are still going strong after five years ... But they are rare and unless I am willing to never upgrade or replace failed equipment (meaning losing service at one or more outlets), I will never, ever free myself from the contract loop.

... Which is EXACTLY what DirecTV wants.


----------



## RunnerFL

susanandmark said:


> Again we have never signed a single DirecTV document and the very idea that I "agreed to their TOS [Terms of Service]" when we signed up over a decade ago is laughable, since I bet their current TOS document is unrecognizable as the same one that existed back then ... When they didn't even have contracts and you bought, paid for and kept every piece of equipment you needed.


About a month ago they sent all customers an email with their new TOS. That email clearly stated that if you had a problem with the TOS you needed to contact them. If you didn't contact them then you agreed to the TOS.


----------



## RunnerFL

susanandmark said:


> I've never been asked verbally if I "agreed to the contract" either. The fact that DirecTV equipment has a lifespan of 2-3 years, give or take, means it is literally impossible to stay with this company "out of contract." Sure, I've got one DVR that are still going strong after five years ... But they are rare and unless I am willing to never upgrade or replace failed equipment (meaning losing service at one or more outlets), I will never, ever free myself from the contract loop.


So then you did sign a contract. If you hadn't you wouldn't have just confirmed that you are in a "contract loop". You wouldn't be in one if you hadn't signed one.

Now let's move on.


----------



## maartena

susanandmark said:


> I quoted revenue, because I couldn't find a quick tally of Viacom's year-total profit (just a single quarter), unlike with DirecTV. I linked to both documents, including DirecTV's which state just under $7 billion in 2011 total profit (why would you quote just one quarter against the total?), which is more like 25% profit, NOT "4 to 6%". Pretty big difference.


Okay, so looking at the numbers again.... and confusing the yearly and quarterly earnings, BOTH companies seems to be around the 22-23% level as far as profits go. Still, that is the goal of a company, to make profit.



> Did you get a 25% raise last year? Or, more comparatively, sell your house for 25% more than its worth? Or do ANYTHING that gained you 25% returns in any way? I know we sure didn't!


Glad you made my point for me. First off, 25% profit does not mean a 25% raise. 25% profit means that if you make $125, and you spend $100, you have an income of $25 left for your savings account. Raise means you are asking for more money than you did last year. Which DirecTV did, in February they raised their prices by about 3%. Somehow you got the words "raise" and "profit" confused.

But you are making a point: The company really asking for a BIG RAISE here, is Viacom. They are asking for a 30% increase in pay, and you are right.... I didn't get a 30% raise last year, nor did my house value go up 30%. And really I did not do anything that got me 30% more than previous years.

Why is Viacom entitled to a 30% raise? Their stocks have plummeted, their ratings for their stations have gone down, not to speak of the dismal quality of their programming..... what entitles THEM to a 30% raise?



> Anyone who believes either of these companies "need" to raise prices, increase profits to "survive" are kidding themselves. Do they want to do those things? Absolutely! Do they "need" to stay afloat? Umm, no.


Any company needs a savings account. I don't know how you are doing financially, but I got laid off in January. But because I had SAVINGS (in other words, I spend less then I had coming in in previous years), I was able to get through almost 4 months of unemployment without missing a mortgage payment. A company works the same way.... if they don't have money in the bank, they can't plan for disasters. What do you think will happen when a satellite fails in space? There are commercial satellites they can lease, which can be moved to their orbit..... but at a VERY STEEP price. But if say... D12 would completely fail, and they need a quick solution to re-launch 60+ HD channels, they will dip into their savings and pay a commercial feed company to lease space on one of their satellites until they can replace the satellites.

If they DO NOT have that kind of money in stock, they simply would not be able to survive a hit like that. ANY company that wants to remain in business needs to make sufficient profits. But there is quite a difference between asking for a 3% raise from your customers, and a 30% raise.


----------



## dxtrfn80

DirectTV use to have a Kids mix channel years ago and it is back.


----------



## vobguy

studechip said:


> You should get a service call to find the source of the problem. You shouldn't lose signal except in heavy storms.


Ditto on this. I used to have a similar problem, but they were able to fix it once I complained.

Granted, it still does go out in heavy weather, but that was rare even in the past few weeks of heavy weather in Virginia.


----------



## yosoyellobo

It is hard for me to get work up about losing one channel that I watch sometime,Comedy Central for The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report. For the record if I ever had to leave Directv I would just drop pay tv altogether.


----------



## susanandmark

RunnerFL said:


> So then you did sign a contract. If you hadn't you wouldn't have just confirmed that you are in a "contract loop". You wouldn't be in one if you hadn't signed one.


Nope. Sorry. Still never signed a dang thing, or have been asked anything when activating a receiver other than "is it working now?" ... And, trust me, I listen for such things. DirecTV is shockingly and egregiously deceptive about NOT mentioning the contract extension to its customers until they wish to cancel and then, surprise, you can't (or if you do, it will cost you) because you're under contract.

But I'm not even talking about upgrades or other additions I've KNOWINGLY made since, by virtue of reading here and being generally better informed than your average consumer, I know that results in a "contract". There have also been two separate times when I've either made NO changes to my status for more than two years or done nothing that SHOULD HAVE put me under contract, yet DirecTV insists I am none-the-less.


----------



## vobguy

zimm7778 said:


> Most of these 17 channels I have on parental control. Technically I'm already paying without these channels. So, I don't lose. Fight on Directv!


I agree, though of course I am sure there are many people who do watch them so I have some sympathy with them.


----------



## maartena

susanandmark said:


> I have also, in the past, asked DirecTV to show me any agreement I signed and/or agreed to verbally. I have been referenced to a generic web link that states DirecTV's current, and ever changing, contract. Never once have they been able to, or even tried to, produce a single document or phone call that showed I had even acknowledged, let alone agreed to anything. In fact, each and every time I've questioned my "contract status" (which has happened twice) DirecTV has sent me multiple DIFFERENT reasons, in writing (email) and via phone, WHY they believe I am "under contract."
> 
> I've never been asked verbally if I "agreed to the contract" either. The fact that DirecTV equipment has a lifespan of 2-3 years, give or take, means it is literally impossible to stay with this company "out of contract." Sure, I've got one DVR that are still going strong after five years ... But they are rare and unless I am willing to never upgrade or replace failed equipment (meaning losing service at one or more outlets), I will never, ever free myself from the contract loop.
> 
> ... Which is EXACTLY what DirecTV wants.


The term is attached to your equipment lease, and you AGREE to those terms when the box is activated, either by yourself, or by the installer. When done by yourself on the phone, you should have been told that these terms apply. If done by an installer, I am 100% certain you signed the work sheet he had with him which included the leased equipment.

This is what it says:

_"PROGRAMMING AGREEMENT AND TERM. To keep costs down for you, we provide dishes and standard installation at reduced or no cost. In exchange, we ask that you remain a customer for a specified period of time. Specifically, you agree that within 30 days of getting DIRECTV equipment (either provided to you or installed professionally), you will activate your boxes and subscribe to a base level of programming valued at $29.99/mo or above, which may consist of a DIRECTV base programming package (English or Spanish language); Jadeworld; OR, a qualifying international-language a la carte service bundled with either BASIC CHOICE or PREFERRED CHOICE. If you do not activate each box, you agree that DIRECTV or the authorized retailer from whom you obtained the equipment may charge you $150 per box as liquidated damages. You agree to continuously maintain the minimum level of programming with us as follows: New customers: 24 consecutive months. Existing customers: 24 consecutive months for DVR, HD and/or HD DVR boxes, or 12 consecutive months for standard boxes. If you selected an HD DVR, you agree to pay a monthly Advanced Receiver fee ($20/mo.). If you selected an HD receiver, you agree to pay a monthly Advanced Receiver-HD fee ($10/mo). If you selected a DVR receiver, you agree to pay a monthly Advanced Receiver- DVR fee ($8/mo). If you selected a TiVo® HD DVR from DIRECTV (except for model HR10-250), you agree to pay a monthly Advanced Receiver-TiVo fee ($20/mo) and a monthly TiVo fee ($5/mo.).
THIS AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN PROGRAMMING IS SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER YOU MAY HAVE MADE WITH DIRECTV AND IS FULLY ENFORCEABLE UNDER THESE TERMS."_

The "signing" in this case is really just the "activating" of a box, which triggers a new term of 24 months.


----------



## Sea bass

mridan said:


> They didn't even flinch.


Not sure why, but that made me laugh! Thanks I needed that!


----------



## RunnerFL

susanandmark said:


> Nope. Sorry. Still never signed a dang thing,


Yeah, you have.


----------



## keith_benedict

Tubaman-Z said:


> 4. Depending on how long this goes on I will re-evaluate our programming package and possibly lower it.


We're going to do the same. We'll be lowering out plan to the $55/month plan as soon as the Tour de France is over. When football season starts, we *might* jump back up to the one that includes NFL HD, but we might not.

Losing these channels has been a good exercise for me to determine that I can easily live without the programming on those channels. I watch one show on Comedy Central, Tosh.0. I can live without that show, especially if they keep the Encore channels.


----------



## BlackCoffee

If the internet (offered as an option by some) is an indicator of the future, people want choice. DirecTV is our only agent for controlling cost and I hope they negotiate all media contracts by playing hardball. Embedded in those contracts is bundling to ensure Viacom can get revenue from people that don't even want their channels. How about an option where we can choose the stations we want. Bundling would be a way to get more for less, but only on top of choice.

I am willing to stand behind DirecTV on this one since VIACOM is trying to use my kids to force me to pay for something I really don't want. Except for a few kids program, they have little to offer. I do not stay awake at night because I missed an episode of Spongebob or iCarly. Entertaining, sometimes. Required, no. Told my 9 year to get use to disappointments in life. Thanks VIACOM, now my kids are getting a life lesson in self control.


----------



## gio12

"RunnerFL" said:


> About a month ago they sent all customers an email with their new TOS. That email clearly stated that if you had a problem with the TOS you needed to contact them. If you didn't contact them then you agreed to the TOS.


Sorry, sending an email is NOT valid. Only a certified letter is. If someone wants to push the issue with directv in a court of law, tHEY will WIN.
Saying yes over a phone call in NOT a value contract or electric signature.

Like other said, Cellular Companies actually make you sign on PAPER or signature capture.


----------



## chicagojim

When are people going to realize that spell check is not enough?

Maybe they could hire some better editors with the money they are saving.

I'm sure_ I_ won't see any reduction in rates.

"That's over $1B on top of what you were already pay for not only MTV ..."

:sure:


----------



## rmmccann

woods_men said:


> Also as much as people like you and many other not want it to be, we have free speech in this country and it is allowed everywhere, despite you youngsters thinking it has restrictions and should be ended.


92 or not, you need to re-educate yourself on the internet. Yes, we have free speech in the USA - IN PUBLIC in the PHYSICAL WORLD. You're on a private forum on a private website, therefore you play by the rules set forth by the mods and community.

Think of it this way - if I walked into your house and started calling you names and all around being stupid, you'd have every right to kick me out. It's the same concept here. It's OK to have a difference of opinion, but you better be able to do so respectfully.


----------



## BlackCoffee

Tubaman-Z said:


> 4. Depending on how long this goes on I will re-evaluate our programming package and possibly lower it.


I took a look at the channel line up in DirecTV packages. VIACOM is in every package. Whatever happens in terms of an operating expense increase to DirecTV gets passed on to everyone.

Viacom bundling-They claim to be 20% of DirecTV's audience, but we are all paying the bill.


----------



## zimm7778

"vobguy" said:


> I agree, though of course I am sure there are many people who do watch them so I have some sympathy with them.


I have no problem with those people wanting their channels. Then let Viacom return and let people only pay for what they want just as I wish all channel providers would be forced to do.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

I suspect if 50% of the folks upset about losing "their" channels wrote letters with certified confirmation to the President of Viacom (or any other content provider) complaining about the huge increments of their price increases, with a CC: copy to the FCC....that would get exponentially more traction to accomplish something of value in the long run than simply posting frustration on a message board about it.

A paper-based letter is often more powerful than 1000 e-mails.

DirecTV is just one of many delivery services. The primary source and driver behind rate increases is the content providers (local and national).

Many times when these situations come up...the venting is misdirected toward the wrong place.


----------



## RunnerFL

gio12 said:


> Sorry, sending an email is NOT valid.


Yes, it is. It's legally binding too.


----------



## wingrider01

susanandmark said:


> I have also, in the past, asked DirecTV to show me any agreement I signed and/or agreed to verbally. I have been referenced to a generic web link that states DirecTV's current, and ever changing, contract. Never once have they been able to, or even tried to, produce a single document or phone call that showed I had even acknowledged, let alone agreed to anything. In fact, each and every time I've questioned my "contract status" (which has happened twice) DirecTV has sent me multiple DIFFERENT reasons, in writing (email) and via phone, WHY they believe I am "under contract."
> 
> I've never been asked verbally if I "agreed to the contract" either. The fact that DirecTV equipment has a lifespan of 2-3 years, give or take, means it is literally impossible to stay with this company "out of contract." Sure, I've got one DVR that are still going strong after five years ... But they are rare and unless I am willing to never upgrade or replace failed equipment (meaning losing service at one or more outlets), I will never, ever free myself from the contract loop.
> 
> ... Which is EXACTLY what DirecTV wants.


Does not matter if you are physically asked to "agree to the contract" The document they refer you to is it. The proof you agreed to it is you have their service, equipment and pay for it, if you did not then you would be correct. A lifespan of 2-3 years, dang tell that to the SD dvr that I have had running for about 7 years now that is just no being retired becasue of the obsolete equipment - you will be giving it a complex


----------



## susanandmark

maartena said:


> The term is attached to your equipment lease, and you AGREE to those terms when the box is activated, either by yourself, or by the installer. When done by yourself on the phone, you should have been told that these terms apply. If done by an installer, I am 100% certain you signed the work sheet he had with him which included the leased equipment.
> 
> This is what it says:
> 
> _"PROGRAMMING AGREEMENT AND TERM. To keep costs down for you, we provide dishes and standard installation at reduced or no cost. In exchange, we ask that you remain a customer for a specified period of time. Specifically, you agree that within 30 days of getting DIRECTV equipment (either provided to you or installed professionally), you will activate your boxes and subscribe to a base level of programming valued at $29.99/mo or above, which may consist of a DIRECTV base programming package (English or Spanish language); Jadeworld; OR, a qualifying international-language a la carte service bundled with either BASIC CHOICE or PREFERRED CHOICE. If you do not activate each box, you agree that DIRECTV or the authorized retailer from whom you obtained the equipment may charge you $150 per box as liquidated damages. You agree to continuously maintain the minimum level of programming with us as follows: New customers: 24 consecutive months. Existing customers: 24 consecutive months for DVR, HD and/or HD DVR boxes, or 12 consecutive months for standard boxes. If you selected an HD DVR, you agree to pay a monthly Advanced Receiver fee ($20/mo.). If you selected an HD receiver, you agree to pay a monthly Advanced Receiver-HD fee ($10/mo). If you selected a DVR receiver, you agree to pay a monthly Advanced Receiver- DVR fee ($8/mo). If you selected a TiVo® HD DVR from DIRECTV (except for model HR10-250), you agree to pay a monthly Advanced Receiver-TiVo fee ($20/mo) and a monthly TiVo fee ($5/mo.).
> THIS AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN PROGRAMMING IS SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER YOU MAY HAVE MADE WITH DIRECTV AND IS FULLY ENFORCEABLE UNDER THESE TERMS."_
> 
> The "signing" in this case is really just the "activating" of a box, which triggers a new term of 24 months.


Thanks for linking to the DirecTV boilerplate. Now my mind is changed. Clearly, DirecTV is doing customers an incredible service by tying a "contract signature" to doing simple things that they quite likely have no idea is locking them into such a commitment. That is WAAAY better than actually making people sign, real or electronically, an actual paper that says they understand that by doing this they are unable to leave for TWO FULL YEARS without paying a high fee ... And that this will continue to occur (and restart from scratch) each and every time they upgrade, switch or slightly modify their set-up, FOR LIFE.

By the way, I don't have to legally point this out, but I'm a really good person, so I'll tell you that by reading this post you agreed to pay me $10 every time you tie your shoes. This is my "tripage protection" insurance, and I think you'll be very pleased with the results. I mean, you TOTALLY had a choice not to read this (or just leave your shoes untied for the rest of your life), so you should have known what you were getting into. After all, I've posted all the info in 4 pt. type on an obscure portion of my website, accessible via just 27 short clicks. Since I am a very reasonable person, if you prefer, you can pay me a $1 per shoe, per month ETF fee if you disagree with my Terms of Service which, of course, I can change at any time. I'll be looking for your check in the mail.


----------



## vobguy

maartena said:


> Why is Viacom entitled to a 30% raise? Their stocks have plummeted, their ratings for their stations have gone down, not to speak of the dismal quality of their programming..... what entitles THEM to a 30% raise?


Not to mention that they have also diluted the value of said programing to the providers by allowing it also to be seen online via Netflix and Hulu.


----------



## shendley

Of all the channels lost, I only care about Comedy Central and really only two shows there: The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. As a practical matter, what would you guys recommend as the best way to view it online? I've never used Hulu and the like. How much of a delay is there between when the episolde airs live and when you can get it online?


----------



## RunnerFL

susanandmark said:


> By the way, I don't have to legally point this out, but I'm a really good person, so I'll tell you that by reading this post you agreed to pay me $10 every time you tie your shoes. This is my "tripage protection" insurance, and I think you'll be very pleased with the results. I mean, you TOTALLY had a choice not to read this (or just leave your shoes untied for the rest of your life), so you should have known what you were getting into. After all, I've posted all the info in 4 pt. type on an obscure portion of my website, accessible via just 27 short clicks. Since I am a very reasonable person, if you prefer, you can pay me a $1 per shoe, per month ETF fee if you disagree with my Terms of Service which, of course, I can change at any time. I'll be looking for your check in the mail.


Whew, it's a good thing my shoes stay tied and I slip them on and off. :lol:


----------



## wingrider01

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I suspect if 50% of the folks upset about losing "their" channels wrote letters with certified confirmation to the President of Viacom (or any other content provider) complaining about the huge increments of their price increases, with a CC: copy to the FCC....that would get exponentially more traction to accomplish something of value in the long run than simply posting frustration on a message board about it.
> 
> A paper-based letter is often more powerful than 1000 e-mails.
> 
> DirecTV is just one of many delivery services. The primary source and driver behind rate increases is the content providers (local and national).
> 
> Many times when these situations come up...the venting is misdirected toward the wrong place.


/grin my oldest daughter is talking to her friends about a leter writing campaign, she tends ot be an organizer and is already a strong proponent of a couple of movements that interest her. Told her I will donate 100.00 for the postage, paper and ink


----------



## tulanejosh

zimm7778 said:


> I have no problem with those people wanting their channels. Then let Viacom return and let people only pay for what they want just as I wish all channel providers would be forced to do.


unbundling is not necessarily the answer to a cheaper bill. You're assuming that the price per channel charged in a bundle would be the price charged unbundled. That's not necessarily true - they only charge those rates becuase of the scale of distribution. If they were unbundled, you'd pay a lot more per channel than you do now.

As an example - i read somewhere - probably this forum that ESPN is somehting like $4 - $5 per subscriber bundled and put in the basic tier, but unbundled would be in the $30 or $40 range becuase they have to hit the same revenue targets to pay for production of the channel across fewer subscribers. You do this with 10 or 20 unbundled channels (not all would be as pricey as espn certainly) and you quickly approach the average bill people pay now with reduced access to stations that customers currently enjoy under the current model.


----------



## snappjay

Pop up video makes a return! :nono2::nono2::nono2:

http://blog.viacom.com/2012/07/a-truthified-message-from-directvs-ceo-courtesy-of-pop-up-video/


----------



## keith_benedict

gio12 said:


> Sorry, sending an email is NOT valid. Only a certified letter is. If someone wants to push the issue with directv in a court of law, tHEY will WIN.
> Saying yes over a phone call in NOT a value contract or electric signature.
> 
> Like other said, Cellular Companies actually make you sign on PAPER or signature capture.


You're wrong.

You don't have to sign a contract for it to be valid--I can tell you from personal experience in an actual court case.


----------



## RunnerFL

snappjay said:


> Pop up video makes a return! :nono2::nono2::nono2:
> 
> http://blog.viacom.com/2012/07/a-truthified-message-from-directvs-ceo-courtesy-of-pop-up-video/


Man, Viacom is getting dirtier than they have in the past or anyone else has for that matter.


----------



## susanandmark

RunnerFL said:


> Whew, it's a good thing my shoes stay tied and I slip them on and off. :lol:


Oh darn, and I'm just SOOOO sorry to have to tell you this, but it says so very clearly in the TOS that slip on shoes require a $15 per application surcharge. Perhaps you should have read more carefully? Velcro, I'm afraid, will run you another $3/rip. If I can be of any further help, please let me know. Have a great day and, remember, #I'vegotyour(laces)back.


----------



## wingrider01

zimm7778 said:


> I have no problem with those people wanting their channels. Then let Viacom return and let people only pay for what they want just as I wish all channel providers would be forced to do.


be careful what you ask for - mobile data is the perfect example - people wanted lower prices for data - they got them but they also lost unlimited data availabilty, people wanted a shared data plan, they got them but not what they expected in shared amounts for what they pay.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

wingrider01 said:


> /grin my oldest daughter is talking to her friends about a letter writing campaign, she tends to be an organizer and is already a strong proponent of a couple of movements that interest her. Told her I will donate 100.00 for the postage, paper and ink


I have firsthand seen that written letters, especially those well-constructed (and sent via delivery confirmation) get results.

The problem is that this "old school" method is often avoided in lieu of the more convenient and easier way out - the e-mail or rant post.

Let's get real - it's an ongoing contract negotiation process, with the current status of hostage tactics causing a service outage.

Content provider pricing...and the results of disputes based on them...is a big issue in the TV industry as a whole. This latest Viacom situation is just a pimple on the face of the overall problem (provider greed). Anyone expecting changes to the situation without any kind of serious communications to the source of the issue is fooling themselves.


----------



## RunnerFL

susanandmark said:


> Oh darn, and I'm just SOOOO sorry to have to tell you this, but it says so very clearly in the TOS that slip on shoes require a $15 per application surcharge. Perhaps you should have read more carefully? Velcro, I'm afraid, will run you another $3/rip. If I can be of any further help, please let me know. Have a great day and, remember, #I'vegotyour(laces)back.


Hah, shows what you know. They aren't "Slip on" shoes. They are shoes you have to tie but I've only had to tie them once and just slip them on and off since my feet aren't that fat. :lol:

No Velcro either.


----------



## crawdad62

This whole thing is funny. Pitchforks! Pitchforks! These channels have been off the air less than a day and you've got two camps... well after reading through you've got some moderates too. One camp is "This is an outrage! I'm taking my ball and going home!" Seemingly within hours of the stations going black they've decided it is a much easier route to go to another service. Even if I were PO'ed I'd second guess removing (and sending back equipment), having another provider schedule installation, etc. just to find weeks or months down the road they too will be in negotiations and have the possibility of losing a channel(s). Then you've got the D* apologist that typically look down upon anyone that has a negative opinion or experience with Directv. Just because everything is to their liking anyone else is way off base and they'll be more than happy to tell you you're just stupid.

Right now as it stands. I can wait one way or the other. Right now no one outside of the principles knows anything. Right now both said principles are playing the blame game and it's he said she said. It'll get resolved. Viacom needs D's viewers and D* needs Viacom's programming. If it didn't get worked out it would be a lose lose for both of them. 

Would I like not to have my programming interrupted? Of course. I watch TVLand, Comedy Central and Palladia a lot and to a lesser extent VH1/Classic. But I'm an adult. I can live with it for awhile. I'm getting Encore which is pretty nice. 

I don't see this lasting very long.


----------



## BlackCoffee

susanandmark said:


> That is WAAAY better than actually making people sign, real or electronically, an actual paper that says they understand that by doing this they are unable to leave for TWO FULL YEARS without paying a high fee ... And that this will continue to occur (and restart from scratch) each and every time they upgrade, switch or slightly modify their set-up, FOR LIFE.


Whether you check a box or sign a piece of paper, it all begins with reading and comprehending. I am a little tired of the "I didn't know" whining. It reminds me of all the people with variable rate mortgages that couldn't pay their bills. With all the Federal and State laws about being informed and sitting in closure, a lot of time with lawyers that charge you a fee, people still claim they didn't understand. This is after they initial each page, sign each clause, and take out a loan for more than they can afford.

Simple rule of thumb-Buyer beware. If you didn't understand what you were signing, cancel the service and live in a cave.


----------



## tuff bob

RunnerFL said:


> Man, Viacom is getting dirtier than they have in the past or anyone else has for that matter.


and it being the current fad of Viacom, its not music videos but reality programming they stick the pop-ups on.


----------



## maartena

gio12 said:


> Sorry, sending an email is NOT valid. Only a certified letter is. If someone wants to push the issue with directv in a court of law, tHEY will WIN.
> Saying yes over a phone call in NOT a value contract or electric signature.
> 
> Like other said, Cellular Companies actually make you sign on PAPER or signature capture.


There is a bit of a difference here..... First off, a CHANGE in the contract is different then agreeing to the INITIAL contract. (The initial contract contains a provision stating that you will be notified of changes to said contract). Cellular companies are also allowed to notify you by email, or by an insert in your paper bill, that the terms of the service have changed, and that by paying your next bill you automatically agree to the new terms.

I had to sign the agreement when I got the DirecTV installer over. It included the statement of work, but it also stated that this would be the start of the DirecTV agreement, and that the installer would activate the boxes - which in turn triggered the start of the lease agreement I quoted a few posts earlier. I'm pretty sure that anyone that had an installer in their house to setup your dish, has signed a similar type of paper. Maybe you don't remember, or you thought it was just the work order for the installer, but I would check the carbon copy you were given at the time.

Any changes after that can be done by email, bill insert, or otherwise. The only requirement is that you be notified, and usually this notification is done the exact same way you receive your bill each month. You also get the right to cancel without ETF if you don't agree to the terms. And this can be done over the phone.


----------



## Eksynyt

As long as DirecTV is the sports leader I could care less if they never add the Viacom channels again.


----------



## charlie460

This is probably the most back and forth i've seen during a contract dispute with DirecTV. It's almost disgusting. 

Viacom's ad campaigns are a bit much, honestly it makes them look like more of a "bad guy" in this situation if you ask me.


----------



## hclarkjr

the only channel i miss is comedy central, but it is not the end of the world for me. hopefully they iron it out soon


----------



## tonyd79

charlie460 said:


> This is probably the most back and forth i've seen during a contract dispute with DirecTV. It's almost disgusting.
> 
> Viacom's ad campaigns are a bit much, honestly it makes them look like more of a "bad guy" in this situation if you ask me.


They gave me that vibe from the beginning. They are trying to wage a PR war by doing bad PR. Guess they have been watching too much of their own programming.


----------



## Paul Secic

Medwynd said:


> I personally dont watch any of these channels. If DirecTv is willing to lower my bill I'd be happy to never have them back.


Is CBS Sports Channel impacted?


----------



## susanandmark

crawdad62 said:


> This whole thing is funny. Pitchforks! Pitchforks! These channels have been off the air less than a day and you've got two camps... well after reading through you've got some moderates too. One camp is "This is an outrage! I'm taking my ball and going home!" Seemingly within hours of the stations going black they've decided it is a much easier route to go to another service. Even if I were PO'ed I'd second guess removing (and sending back equipment), having another provider schedule installation, etc. just to find weeks or months down the road they too will be in negotiations and have the possibility of losing a channel(s). Then you've got the D* apologist that typically look down upon anyone that has a negative opinion or experience with Directv. Just because everything is to their liking anyone else is way off base and they'll be more than happy to tell you you're just stupid.


Actually, to be clear, I'm not arguing I would leave over this, just that customers SHOULD be able to leave when significant changes in programming occur. If that threat was over provider's heads, said major changes, temporary or not, would probably happen a LOT less often.

And, yeah, I'm getting sick of this becoming such a regular thing with DirecTV since I remember in the "good old days" when we'd read about Dish doing things just like this and everyone here (often the same people still cheering DirecTV on) would crow about DirecTV would NEVER do that to its customers.



BlackCoffee said:


> Whether you check a box or sign a piece of paper, it all begins with reading and comprehending. I am a little tired of the "I didn't know" whining. It reminds me of all the people with variable rate mortgages that couldn't pay their bills. With all the Federal and State laws about being informed and sitting in closure, a lot of time with lawyers that charge you a fee, people still claim they didn't understand. This is after they initial each page, sign each clause, and take out a loan for more than they can afford.
> 
> Simple rule of thumb-Buyer beware. If you didn't understand what you were signing, cancel the service and live in a cave.


First of all, I've signed several mortgages. It is VERY CLEAR, as it should be, what you are signing and what your obligations are in terms of payment, interest, etc. In fact, there's a whole page just for that purpose that simplifies it into a single, easy to read document and even lists out exactly how much in interest you'll pay over the lifetime of the loan. (The wish-I-was-independantly-wealthy-and-could-buy-a-house-with-cash page, I like to call it.)

And the reason that page exists is because banks did, routinely, try and deceive people with arcane clauses or legalese. Now they can't. That's a good thing, in my book

And no matter what DirecTV apologists would like to believe there are plenty of customers who have never had an installer in their home, or have been with the company for a decade-plus, long before contracts ever existed, just like me. We installed our own initial equipment--signed nothing--with dish and box bought online, of all things (edgy in '97). We used one installer, ever, to upgrade dish prior to move (so >2000) and he put a hole in our roof that ended up costing thousands in damage. So, yeah, no DirecTV installers EVER at the new house.

No mention in calls of receiver activation about leased equipment or contract renewal. Yeah, *I* know about all those things, mostly because I found out the hard way and then read here, "well you should have known better," but certainly not because DirecTV ever advised me what I was getting into. (And, as a former professional writer/editor turned stay-at-home mom, I think my "reading comprehension skills" are just fine, thanks.) I didn't sign, initial or verbally confirm anything, DirecTV just did it anyways.

We owned all our own equipment, including purchasing equipment via Best Buy for a home theatre expansion that got delayed so that activation (not purchase) occurred after the switchover in classification and the PURCHASED equipment got entered as LEASED, with all our other owned boxes being turned to leased as well. Sure, I'm not the only that happened to either. PAID "lifetime" DVR service repeatedly dropped. Equipment activation dates mysteriously changed to later ones (now I keep records of all people I talk to with time, date, names and ID #).

I could go on, but my point is that it's a truly crappy way to do business and they will hide said crap-tastic elements as much as they can, for as long as they can, from as many customers as possible.

So, if you meant "buyer beware" in the sense that basically any company will almost certainly try to screw you up to and just past the point you'll allow them than, yeah, I agree with you.

In short, full disclosure=good, fine print and entering into contracts simply by breathing=bad.



maartena said:


> You also get the right to cancel without ETF if you don't agree to the terms. And this can be done over the phone.


Ah, you'd think so, right? But, sorry, if you try and cancel when new terms come out, they will still charge you an ETF, because the "contract" says they can change the terms any time, for any reason, and you have no say. "All we have to do is inform you, mam. Have a nice day and thanks for 'choosing' DirecTV!"


----------



## gregftlaud

Shendley:

If your has tv has apps on it and has amazon instant video or if u have a Roku player The Daily Show and The Colbert Report can be found on there. 

I believe the new shows are added to amazon the day after they air. 

I recently moved and was about a week without DTV and that's where i watched them.


----------



## TheDaddy

susanandmark said:


> I've never been asked verbally if I "agreed to the contract" either. The fact that DirecTV equipment has a lifespan of 2-3 years, give or take, means it is literally impossible to stay with this company "out of contract." Sure, I've got one DVR that are still going strong after five years ... But they are rare and unless I am willing to never upgrade or replace failed equipment (meaning losing service at one or more outlets), I will never, ever free myself from the contract loop.
> 
> ... Which is EXACTLY what DirecTV wants.


Not to be adversarial but I've been month to month since 2008. I got two HR20-700 HD + DVRs back in 2006 w/ a 2 year commit. They both worked great until this year, 6 years later.

Because we have the Monthly Protection Plan both HR20-700 HD + DVRs were replaced with HR21-200s and I'm still in month to month. And in both instances it was that the internal hard drives had just had it from all the recording and erasing of shows. Pretty good lifespan imo.


----------



## RunnerFL

Paul Secic said:


> Is CBS Sports Channel impacted?


No, CBS and Viacom split years ago.


----------



## sean67854

susanandmark said:


> Again we have never signed a single DirecTV document and the very idea that I "agreed to their TOS" [Terms of Service] when we signed up over a decade ago is laughable, since I bet their current TOS document is unrecognizable as the same one that existed back then ... When they didn't even have contracts and you bought, paid for and kept every piece of equipment you needed.
> 
> Look, as long as consumers not only accept, but DEFEND this type of "service" from companies, they will continue to attempt to enact ever more Draconian restrictions and clauses. I'm always amazed (and not in a good way) when people are not flabbergasted, but actually excited by something that protects nothing but the corporation's bottom line, and absolutely serves no purpose other than profit.
> 
> I'm all for company's making money, but how about doing it by providing a good product, at a reasonable cost with adequate customer service? Allowing people to ACTUALLY choose whether or not to consume their goods/services by their own accord. But, hey, that's just crazy talk!
> 
> Oh and, PS, locking people into paying for something no matter what it is because you say so, is the farthest thing on earth from capitalism.


How is it not? You know about the ETF up front. If you don't like it, vote with your dollars somewhere else?


----------



## 1995hoo

gio12 said:


> Sorry, sending an email is NOT valid. Only a certified letter is. If someone wants to push the issue with directv in a court of law, tHEY will WIN.
> Saying yes over a phone call in NOT a value contract or electric signature.
> 
> Like other said, Cellular Companies actually make you sign on PAPER or signature capture.


As an attorney, posts like this one always amuse the heck out of me. As a general rule, whenever anyone says "in a court of law" it's a pretty good indicator that he has no legal background and doesn't know what he's talking about.


----------



## woods_men

Sea bass said:


> Please stop...seriously. Spend some time here, you will see why Sixto is so highly regarded.


Because people are delusional and love people who do them wrong.


----------



## maartena

susanandmark said:


> Ah, you'd think so, right? But, sorry, if you try and cancel when new terms come out, they will still charge you an ETF, because the "contract" says they can change the terms any time, for any reason, and you have no say. "All we have to do is inform you, mam. Have a nice day and thanks for 'choosing' DirecTV!"


Have you actually tried this? Because this IS legally binding. If you do not agree to new terms, you can decide to not agree to them, but you only have a short amount of time to do so, and when you paid the next bill already you automatically agree to the new terms.

I used this myself on a 3-month old contract with Sprint once. When they took over Nextel I signed up for a new service, and had bad coverage, bad service, dropped calls.... Then, probably as part of the merger, they came out with new terms, and I had the option to refuse the new terms. I called Sprint, told them I did not agree to the new terms, and would be declining them, and they let me go without the $175 ETF I had to pay for breaking contract within the first year.

I got to keep the phone. Only thing I could not do is port the number, as they retained the number at the precise moment I cancelled the service. That wasn't a big loss, I signed up with AT&T, got a new number, and was happy.


----------



## Lucid504

woods_men said:


> Because people are delusional and love people who do them wrong.


If you want to act like this just go back to 4chan where you probably came from and troll there.


----------



## Visman

What ever deal DirecTV make with Viacom our bill will go up sometime in the future do to this dispute because DirecTV will have to pay some kind of increase to Viacom (5% to 15%) to get those channels back to us. So just get on with it.


----------



## woods_men

susanandmark said:


> Again we have never signed a single DirecTV document and the very idea that I "agreed to their TOS" [Terms of Service] when we signed up over a decade ago is laughable, since I bet their current TOS document is unrecognizable as the same one that existed back then ... When they didn't even have contracts and you bought, paid for and kept every piece of equipment you needed.
> 
> Look, as long as consumers not only accept, but DEFEND this type of "service" from companies, they will continue to attempt to enact ever more Draconian restrictions and clauses. I'm always amazed (and not in a good way) when people are not flabbergasted, but actually excited by something that protects nothing but the corporation's bottom line, and absolutely serves no purpose other than profit.
> 
> I'm all for company's making money, but how about doing it by providing a good product, at a reasonable cost with adequate customer service? Allowing people to ACTUALLY choose whether or not to consume their goods/services by their own accord. But, hey, that's just crazy talk!
> 
> Oh and, PS, locking people into paying for something no matter what it is because you say so, is the farthest thing on earth from capitalism.


BINGO


----------



## dpeters11

gio12 said:


> Sorry, sending an email is NOT valid. Only a certified letter is. If someone wants to push the issue with directv in a court of law, tHEY will WIN.
> Saying yes over a phone call in NOT a value contract or electric signature.
> 
> Like other said, Cellular Companies actually make you sign on PAPER or signature capture.


Verizon doesn't. I've gotten new phones in the mail and when I go to activate, the automated system tells me that by activating I'm entering into a two year contract. I press 1 or whatever, bam. Contract and activated phone. No signature anywhere.


----------



## bobcamp1

susanandmark said:


> A substantial change in programming or pricing SHOULD come with a "you can leave any time you're not happy" out. If DirecTV really "had our backs" this would be a given (any company with faith in the quality of their product doesn't need a two-year contract to keep consumers on board) and, honestly, would actually make me feel better about NOT leaving ... Just knowing I could if I needed/wanted to.


There is a previous lawsuit against D* (which was settled) where people claimed the channels in their package changed too much. It is not clear legally what happens if the programming substantially changes. That clause in the contract is only meant to cover an occasional lineup change of one or two channels. If they permanently drop a good chunk of channels, you can argue that D* is no longer providing the service it agreed to and has broken the contract. If the contract is broken, there's no ETF anymore.

Hence, when you call D* to complain about this situation, I'm pretty sure you'll either get something free or a discount. They're already offering Encore for free in an attempt to dissuade people from demanding a partial refund of this month's service. They're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, they're trying to stem future lawsuits.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Official Comment:
I know a lot of you are looking around for answers on this topic...

We have been told internally, that all of DIRECTV's official information can be found at:
www.directvpromise.com, The official Twitter and the Offical Facebook pages.

As things update and change, those three places are your best part to get the latest information.

There have been some updated facts on the page today, (namly the count of channels).
Also there is a FACT on the page, that DIRECTV does share the responsiblity for putting the customer first.


----------



## woods_men

Tonedeaf said:


> Sure if you have a hydraulic log splitter. Nothing to it and is done by my 97 year old grandfather. :sure: :lol:


 nope, using an ax and good old elbow grease on the trees - no wussy method for me.


----------



## woods_men

Earl Bonovich said:


> Official Comment:
> I know a lot of you are looking around for answers on this topic...
> 
> We have been told internally, that all of DIRECTV's official information can be found at:
> www.directvpromise.com, The official Twitter and the Offical Facebook pages.
> 
> As things update and change, those three places are your best part to get the latest information.
> 
> There have been some updated facts on the page today, (namly the count of channels).
> Also there is a FACT on the page, that DIRECTV does share the responsiblity for putting the customer first.


more baloney, if they put customers 1st, then the channel lineup would be superior to IPTV


----------



## woods_men

RunnerFL said:


> When they ask you over the phone if you agree to the contract, which you have to do to get service, you are "signing" a contract.


yea, it is called a verbal contract, the way things were done in the past, that works 2 ways, when they make promises and break them (directv) then they are breaking contracts as well - its a 2 way street


----------



## woods_men

RunnerFL said:


> About a month ago they sent all customers an email with their new TOS. That email clearly stated that if you had a problem with the TOS you needed to contact them. If you didn't contact them then you agreed to the TOS.


That is not legal, it has to be in written form and sent by US mail and slo their saying if you disagree you do not get service is not legal as well.


----------



## zimm7778

"tulanejosh" said:


> unbundling is not necessarily the answer to a cheaper bill. You're assuming that the price per channel charged in a bundle would be the price charged unbundled. That's not necessarily true - they only charge those rates becuase of the scale of distribution. If they were unbundled, you'd pay a lot more per channel than you do now.
> 
> As an example - i read somewhere - probably this forum that ESPN is somehting like $4 - $5 per subscriber bundled and put in the basic tier, but unbundled would be in the $30 or $40 range becuase they have to hit the same revenue targets to pay for production of the channel across fewer subscribers. You do this with 10 or 20 unbundled channels (not all would be as pricey as espn certainly) and you quickly approach the average bill people pay now with reduced access to stations that customers currently enjoy under the current model.


Everything you are saying is wonderful but I already talked about how that would work earlier in this thread. Those prices wouldn't last long or those networks would go out of business.


----------



## susanandmark

maartena said:


> Have you actually tried this? Because this IS legally binding. If you do not agree to new terms, you can decide to not agree to them, but you only have a short amount of time to do so, and when you paid the next bill already you automatically agree to the new terms.
> 
> I used this myself on a 3-month old contract with Sprint once. When they took over Nextel I signed up for a new service, and had bad coverage, bad service, dropped calls.... Then, probably as part of the merger, they came out with new terms, and I had the option to refuse the new terms. I called Sprint, told them I did not agree to the new terms, and would be declining them, and they let me go without the $175 ETF I had to pay for breaking contract within the first year.
> 
> I got to keep the phone. Only thing I could not do is port the number, as they retained the number at the precise moment I cancelled the service. That wasn't a big loss, I signed up with AT&T, got a new number, and was happy.


Oh, I agree, should DirecTV ever attempt to enforce this up to and through legal dispute, they'd likely lose, but until they do (just like the cell companies they did) they'll still charge people every penny they can, knowing it's unlikely they'll be taken to court over $250-$500. And, yeah, that includes not allowing people out of contracts (without an ETF) when they change services or terms ... Because the change of service and terms is already stipulated as acceptable in said contract.

Cell phone companies were forced to allow people out, due to lawsuits, who couldn't receive service at their primary residence. Did they want to do that? No, but legal precedent made it "law" (and by law, I mean if they continue to do it, they'll continue to get sued, and lose, and they know it).

Cell phone companies were also forced to make their contract terms viable up front AND once you pay the ETF, which is supposedly to cover equipment costs they "subsidized" (i.e. the phone), you get to keep the phone. Even if you pay DirecTV an ETF, they still want all your equipment back ... Or they charge you for that, too. (Not that I'd need it without DirecTV, but the principal is the same.)


----------



## zimm7778

"wingrider01" said:


> be careful what you ask for - mobile data is the perfect example - people wanted lower prices for data - they got them but they also lost unlimited data availabilty, people wanted a shared data plan, they got them but not what they expected in shared amounts for what they pay.


I have unlimited for $30 so I have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## bobcamp1

dpeters11 said:


> Verizon doesn't. I've gotten new phones in the mail and when I go to activate, the automated system tells me that by activating I'm entering into a two year contract. I press 1 or whatever, bam. Contract and activated phone. No signature anywhere.


Correct, this is an oral agreement and is valid. Some people, however, were neither notified of the D* contract nor signed anything. Lately D* has done a much better job of telling you when you're about to do something that locks into a 2-year contract with an ETF penalty. But that hasn't always been the case.


----------



## Elephanthead

I can't believe Directv killed spongebob. :nono: I guess I will pay per episode on the ipad. When is Apple TV kicking in? We will finally get alcarte channels when it does.


----------



## dpeters11

woods_men said:


> more baloney, if they put customers 1st, then the channel lineup would be superior to IPTV


Isn't this subjective? To some IPTV may have a better lineup in their city, for others, they don't.

The fact of the matter is, there is no perfect provider for everyone. Fortunately, there are more choices now.


----------



## WestDC

dpeters11 said:


> Isn't this subjective? To some IPTV may have a better lineup in their city, for others, they don't.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, there is no perfect provider for everyone. Fortunately, there are more choices now.


If you have an Xbox or Blu-Ray you can download all the sponge bob you want from Amazon prime


----------



## lparsons21

Elephanthead said:


> I can't believe Directv killed spongebob. :nono: I guess I will pay per episode on the ipad. When is Apple TV kicking in? We will finally get alcarte channels when it does.


Well, that is one way I suppose.

Why not get it free instead?

http://spongebob.nick.com/


----------



## Riverpilot

Earl Bonovich said:


> Official Comment:
> I know a lot of you are looking around for answers on this topic...
> 
> We have been told internally, that all of DIRECTV's official information can be found at:
> www.directvpromise.com, The official Twitter and the Offical Facebook pages.
> 
> As things update and change, those three places are your best part to get the latest information.
> 
> There have been some updated facts on the page today, (namly the count of channels).
> Also there is a FACT on the page, that DIRECTV does share the responsiblity for putting the customer first.


I also see they have a survey for people to choose what channels you like/want on viacom, and whether you should be paying less, the same or more for these :ahem: "channels"... :lol:

I filled out the survey, I suggest everyone do as well.


----------



## woodsmen539

rmmccann said:


> 92 or not, you need to re-educate yourself on the internet. Yes, we have free speech in the USA - IN PUBLIC in the PHYSICAL WORLD. You're on a private forum on a private website, therefore you play by the rules set forth by the mods and community.
> 
> Think of it this way - if I walked into your house and started calling you names and all around being stupid, you'd have every right to kick me out. It's the same concept here. It's OK to have a difference of opinion, but you better be able to do so respectfully.


My friend lives in reality, you obviously do not, the Internet pipe, is public domain, therefore it is ours, so by you claiming its private is wrong, what it is hosted on is private, but the pipes to get there are public and therefore free speech is allowed


----------



## woodsmen539

chicagojim said:


> When are people going to realize that spell check is not enough?
> 
> Maybe they could hire some better editors with the money they are saving.
> 
> I'm sure_ I_ won't see any reduction in rates.
> 
> "That's over $1B on top of what you were already pay for not only MTV ..."
> 
> :sure:


My friend got insulted for it, so if you people are real, you will slam Directv for their typos too.


----------



## Lucid504

[email protected] said:


> My friend lives in reality, you obviously do not, the Internet pipe, is public domain, therefore it is ours, so by you claiming its private is wrong, what it is hosted on is private, but the pipes to get there are public and therefore free speech is allowed


Ahhhh more trolls please go back to 4chan


----------



## renbutler

maartena said:


> (message since deleted)


Keep the political bull---- out of this forum, mkay?

(Thanks, mods.)


----------



## rmmccann

[email protected] said:


> My friend lives in reality, you obviously do not, the Internet pipe, is public domain, therefore it is ours, so by you claiming its private is wrong, what it is hosted on is private, but the pipes to get there are public and therefore free speech is allowed


The internet itself as a whole may be public domain, but the servers on it that display content are not. They are owned by corporations, governments, individuals, etc. You play by the rules set forth by the website owner or the server owner. This website is not Main Street in Some Town, USA therefore your argument is completely moot.

And sorry all, I'll stop here. I just wanted to make a point that I think EVERYONE that uses a website run by someone else should understand. /RANT

As for the dispute, I could care less about most of the channels, but I do like Comedy Central for the occasional standup comedy special or for South Park and similar shows. I watch Spike from time to time, but it's a channel I kind of forget we have (or had).


----------



## Sixto

After reviewing the two websites, and browsing around a little ...

Viacom would like DirecTV to pay more for the same content. That may be fair, the question is always how much more, and what else do they want.

DirecTV's view is that the content (ratings, online availability) may not deserve paying as much as Viacom wants. It seems like ratings may have actually gone down in some cases.

I'd guess, reading between the lines, that Viacom probably also wants DirecTV to add additional channels that DirecTV may not want to add, or may be too expensive to add.

DirecTV's web-site seems to present the issues clearly and professionally. (others may have a different view).

Viacom's web-site seems to take a bully approach. As an example, trying to convince people that it's 26 channels instead of 17 is stretching the truth (It's 17 channels of content, with some having two quality levels). And claiming that DirecTV dropped channels without notice is stretching the truth (they dropped at 11:45p vs midnight). And claiming that DirecTV took the channels away is stretching the truth (Viacom pushed them legally to do so).

There's always too sides to every story, but this seems real nasty, especially when you view it from the Viacom side.


----------



## BlackCoffee

susanandmark said:


> And no matter what DirecTV apologists would like to believe there are plenty of customers who have never had an installer in their home, or have been with the company for a decade-plus, long before contracts ever existed, just like me. We installed our own initial equipment--signed nothing--with dish and box bought online, of all things (edgy in '97).


I have been with DTV longer than you and understand that before the latest leasing business model, everything was done by the customer. However, at some point your own equipment was inadequate. The old HD receivers, I had a Panasonic that I installed myself, used a different antenna. When the installer came out with the new antenna and HR-XX receiver, the leasing agreement and new business model should have been explained. You should have signed something at that time. As DTV grew and expanded, they were answer more phone calls from the technologically challenge and stopped selling equipment through BestBuy. Even if you got the HR-XX from BestBuy, the antenna and switch were only available from DTV.

If DTV were committing fraud or taking advantage of their customers, I am sure some class action lawyer would be in court trying to collect money. Afterall, class action suits for the "I didn't know" crowd is the new white-collar ambulance chasing.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

So many of you are missing the big picture.

I went through the last 175 comments, and only three of you cited ESPN. ESPN is distorting the market, and AMC, Viacom and the History Channel will continue asking for substantial hikes in carriage fees until ESPN is reined in.

After all, AMC management asks itself, why shouldn't we get 75 cents a sub for premium content when ESPN is getting 5+? When every non-sports AMC fan is subsidizing the sports fanatic to the tune of at least 20 dollars a month? (analysts have estimated that a stand-alone ESPN would need 25 to 30 dollars a month per sub).

I agree with AMC and Viacom. I don't balme either.

I blame the PayTv distributors who have acquiesced to ESPN's demands.

My recommendation? Tell ESPN management, when the contract is up for renewal, we'll pay you 2 dollars a month, take it or leave it.


----------



## iceman2a

woods_men said:


> Typical disrepectful young snot nose type you are. I have no care taker. I chop wood 3 hours a day still, tell me if you can still do that at 92.
> 
> Also as much as people like you and many other not want it to be, we have free speech in this country and it is allowed everywhere, despite you youngsters thinking it has restrictions and should be ended.
> 
> _Amount of time means nothing about how much respect some gets, *it is about what is said and if its true*_.


Amount of time means everything because you earn respect! and because "what he says" on topics that matter he has earned it!
Evidently your failed to learn that in your 92 years in the woods with your ax!

Free speach is a right, but I have learned that sometimes it might be better not to exercise that right (and I probably should have in this case) and keep my mouth shut!


----------



## tulanejosh

zimm7778 said:


> Everything you are saying is wonderful but I already talked about how that would work earlier in this thread. Those prices wouldn't last long or those networks would go out of business.


sorry, didn't realize i was talking to the authority on bundling.

they would go out of business. content costs money, and they can't sell it to your for less than it costs to produce. If you truly believe that networks studios really enjoy such inflated profit margins - i encourage you to buy their stock because it's the stock deal of the century. and if they go out of business - how do you win? have a little more money in your pocket, but nothing to watch. sound spectacular.


----------



## mnassour

Sixto said:


> There's always too sides to every story, but this seems real nasty, especially when you view it from the Viacom side.


Indeed...I have to think that there's more to this particular disagreement than other disputes we've suffered through in the past. Methinks that they may have been close to an agreement the other day, before the storm broke. Then it fell apart at the last minute, causing the Viacom name calling that started all the crap.

To have kept a dispute this deep out of the public eye until the last second speaks well of the professionalism of both companies. Given that it was Viacom that elected to go thermonuclear first, I might even think that the two sides were close to a deal...but that there was an aggressive group in Viacom that wanted to scuttle it and go for the big bucks. Perhaps it was vice versa.

But what has happened here just doesn't make much sense.

Pure speculation on my part, of course.


----------



## RML81

mnassour said:


> Indeed...I have to think that there's more to this particular disagreement than other disputes we've suffered through in the past. Methinks that they may have been close to an agreement the other day, before the storm broke. Then it fell apart at the last minute, causing the Viacom name calling that started all the crap.
> 
> To have kept a dispute this deep out of the public eye until the last second speaks well of the professionalism of both companies. Given that it was Viacom that elected to go thermonuclear first, I might even think that the two sides were close to a deal...but that there was an aggressive group in Viacom that wanted to scuttle it and go for the big bucks. Perhaps it was vice versa.
> 
> But what has happened here just doesn't make much sense.


Yeah, you really have to wonder why this went from zero to crazy in so short a time. I remember the Tribune and Fox contract discussions were public knowledge for weeks before the deadlines.


----------



## WestDC

mnassour said:


> Indeed...I have to think that there's more to this particular disagreement than other disputes we've suffered through in the past. Methinks that they may have been close to an agreement the other day, before the storm broke. Then it fell apart at the last minute, causing the Viacom name calling that started all the crap.
> 
> To have kept a dispute this deep out of the public eye until the last second speaks well of the professionalism of both companies. Given that it was Viacom that elected to go thermonuclear first, I might even think that the two sides were close to a deal...but that there was an aggressive group in Viacom that wanted to scuttle it and go for the big bucks. Perhaps it was vice versa.
> 
> But what has happened here just doesn't make much sense.
> 
> Pure speculation on my part, of course.


That may be the creditors :nono: or investors looking to pump up the value to cash out :eek2:

Whatever it is ?? I have no skin in the game :grin: The one that are skinned are the folks the ad folks that have bought time based on eyeballs-that no longer see


----------



## Sixto

As I was browsing through the FAQ:"Viacom has many networks, and some are popular with very specific audiences like kids or teens. But even their best channels have been losing audience, in some cases by very significant numbers. There's a direct correlation between the number of people leaving those networks and the ones who are watching the exact same shows on Netflix, AppleTV and other streaming services. Since Viacom is selling this content to other companies, we feel it's unfair for them to charge our customers more-they should actually be charging them less. To be clear, we have offered Viacom increased fees for their networks going forward; we just can't afford the extreme increases they are asking for."​


----------



## tonyd79

Gloria_Chavez said:


> So many of you are missing the big picture.
> 
> I went through the last 175 comments, and only three of you cited ESPN. ESPN is distorting the market, and AMC, Viacom and the History Channel will continue asking for substantial hikes in carriage fees until ESPN is reined in.
> 
> After all, AMC management asks itself, why shouldn't we get 75 cents a sub for premium content when ESPN is getting 5+? When every non-sports AMC fan is subsidizing the sports fanatic to the tune of at least 20 dollars a month? (analysts have estimated that a stand-alone ESPN would need 25 to 30 dollars a month per sub).
> 
> I agree with AMC and Viacom. I don't balme either.
> 
> I blame the PayTv distributors who have acquiesced to ESPN's demands.
> 
> My recommendation? Tell ESPN management, when the contract is up for renewal, we'll pay you 2 dollars a month, take it or leave it.


Uh, no.

I guess you think that to drop prices on Burger King, you need to get Ruth's Chris to drop their prices.


----------



## renbutler

RML81 said:


> Ha! 'Don't talk about politics. They don't belong here, even though you're wrong.' Did I translate that correctly?


I have no idea how proactive the mods will be in deleting the original comment. If they do, I will delete mine. Simple enough.


----------



## gio12

RunnerFL said:


> Yes, it is. It's legally binding too.


No its not. DIRECTV has ZERO conformation that you read or accepted their email.
Some states are starting makes laws about this as well. DIRECTV has ZERO proof you saw it, accepted it or even proof that they sent it really.

It could be caught up in a SPAM filter and someone would NEVER even see it.

Sorry.


----------



## zimm7778

"renbutler" said:


> Keep the political bull---- out of this forum, mkay?
> 
> (Not to mention the blatant inaccuracy...)


I believe the telecommunications act deregulating a lot was signed into law to begin in 96. Who was the President who had to sign it in again? What party is he from? Both are to blame. Thank you.

I just realized I quoted the wrong thing. This wasn't directed at Renbutler.


----------



## RunnerFL

woods_men said:


> That is not legal, it has to be in written form and sent by US mail and slo their saying if you disagree you do not get service is not legal as well.


It's completely legal.


----------



## zimm7778

"tulanejosh" said:


> sorry, didn't realize i was talking to the authority on bundling.
> 
> they would go out of business. content costs money, and they can't sell it to your for less than it costs to produce. If you truly believe that networks studios really enjoy such inflated profit margins - i encourage you to buy their stock because it's the stock deal of the century. and if they go out of business - how do you win? have a little more money in your pocket, but nothing to watch. sound spectacular.


Never said I was an authority. Basically all I meant by that was I had responded to that line before and didn't want to retype it. Again, I fail to see how any of what you say is bad. Say a bunch of these channels go out of business. You really think the good shows that attract an audience won't be on another? You think sports programming and live events won't end up somewhere else? Hey, maybe it would finally mean the return of pro sports to local tv because even they couldn't charge the outrageous fees they do to be broadcasted since the network has to in turn make it up which in turn means our a la carte cost would be higher than we are willing to pay. Sorry, I don't see the downside.


----------



## RunnerFL

Lucid504 said:


> Ahhhh more trolls please go back to 4chan


I'm starting to see a pattern. It may be the same person using different accounts. Real creative. :lol:


----------



## Sixto

If you really step back and unemotionally look at the DirecTV Q&A, it does seem like a decent status of the situation, while Viacom seems to take more of an approach that DirecTV is screwing you and your family and you should call them.

Interesting negotiating styles. I could never imagine allowing an employee to put on my corporate website a video making fun of one of my distributor's CEO's. Man, they have some nasty people running this.


----------



## gio12

1995hoo said:


> As an attorney, posts like this one always amuse the heck out of me. As a general rule, whenever anyone says "in a court of law" it's a pretty good indicator that he has no legal background and doesn't know what he's talking about.


Ok. No I don't but my neighbor who does and works for one of the largest firms in the country. Just because your "attorney" does mean your know SQUAT or that you even practice law, maybe your another Cousin Vinny? What your credentials and what arguments have you argued and to what court?

thanks for you post though :sure:


----------



## gio12

dpeters11 said:


> Verizon doesn't. I've gotten new phones in the mail and when I go to activate, the automated system tells me that by activating I'm entering into a two year contract. I press 1 or whatever, bam. Contract and activated phone. No signature anywhere.


Ok. But you physically pressing 1 acts as your digital signature.


----------



## mnassour

Sixto said:


> As I was browsing through the FAQ:"Viacom has many networks, and some are popular with very specific audiences like kids or teens. But even their best channels have been losing audience, in some cases by very significant numbers. There's a direct correlation between the number of people leaving those networks and the ones who are watching the exact same shows on Netflix, AppleTV and other streaming services. Since Viacom is selling this content to other companies, we feel it's unfair for them to charge our customers more-they should actually be charging them less. To be clear, we have offered Viacom increased fees for their networks going forward; we just can't afford the extreme increases they are asking for."​


It wouldn't surprise me that Viacom is facing the same situation that AM/FM radio is in this country. Basically, we have an entire generation growing up that, for the first time since the 1930s, does not listen to radio on a daily basis. Given my own college-age daughter's experience, perhaps we are looking at a generation that also does not watch near the television that we who came of age in the 70s did.

Indeed, with the rise of Hulu and such services, we can see that their programming is delivered to them only on demand, when they want it, where they want it. They will not sit still for advertisers filling their minds with desires they didn't know they had, at least, not from the pictures from a glowing box in the corner of the living room. I will certainly accept that fact that part of the huge drop in ratings for the Viacom channels are due to their incompetent program decisions (Who did take the _music_ out of MTV, anyway?). But programs can be changed. Neither Viacom nor anyone else can change the attitudes of a culture that has begun to reject the commercial television formula.

I get the feeling that we are watching an economic tsunami appear on the horizon, at least for the media giants. If indeed those who control the economy are refusing to accept the concept of television and/or radio with stand-alone commercial announcements, then we are witnessing a change of historical events in the American economy.

Perhaps....just perhaps...we are watching the water on the beach recede, before the following wave washes away what we know today as the mass media.

Frankly, I hope I'm wrong, for TV is how I put bread and butter on the table. But if I'm right....oh, brother.


----------



## RunnerFL

gio12 said:


> No its not.


Uhh, yeah it is. Any lawyer will tell you that. Go ahead, call one.


----------



## BlackCoffee

Gloria_Chavez said:


> So many of you are missing the big picture.
> 
> I went through the last 175 comments, and only three of you cited ESPN. ESPN is distorting the market, and AMC, Viacom and the History Channel will continue asking for substantial hikes in carriage fees until ESPN is reined in.


I agree with you whole-heartedly. I think you are also siding with DTV, since thier position is to move VIACOM to a customer choice model. I don't know where contract negotiations are with ESPN, but you have to start somewhere.

For the most part, I think DTV is looking to move to a customer choice model across the board. They realize that other forms of On-Demad entertainment they are competing with, not just cable, make bundling costs above the $99 point less attractive.

If VIACOM channel selection is made to respond to customer demands, it sets the stage for other providers to follow.


----------



## maartena

[email protected] said:


> My friend lives in reality, you obviously do not, the Internet pipe, is public domain, therefore it is ours, so by you claiming its private is wrong, what it is hosted on is private, but the pipes to get there are public and therefore free speech is allowed


You are very wrong. Free speech is not a right on the Internet. The moderator of this forum can ban you for any reason, at any time, maybe simply because he/she does not like you, and you have no rights, no legal recourse on that matter.

Why? Because this forum is privately owned, and not public. As far as the "pipe" goes, it too is owned by private companies, and they get to decide what traffic they want across it. Any attempt to introduce "net neutrality" in to the United States laws, has been blocked by congress. And as such, it is totally in the right of any provider to control what goes across it, and what is published using their services.

A current example is efforts to control the spread of copyright infringements using online tools. Of course there are actual laws being broken there, so it might not be a great example of free speech, but it is the ISP's right for instance to try and throttle or block services such as torrents, if they so feel like it.

As far as free speech is concerned, a hosting company is also completely in their right to refuse to publish what you want to publish. Try and publish a racist opinion on this forum for instance, and you can be assured - although perfectly legal otherwise as your 1st amendment right - that the owners of this forum will remove it. You are after all, on THEIR property.

So don't be fooled into thinking your right of free speech is allowed "on the internet", because it most certainly is not.


----------



## Carl Spock

woods_men said:


> That is not legal, it has to be in written form and sent by US mail and slo their saying if you disagree you do not get service is not legal as well.


 Where do you get this stuff? Is this off the top of your head?

Of course it's legal. When your home's electrical service raised their rates, did you get a chance to disagree? How about changes on a phone land line? Ever have a chance to object to your long distance phone rates after you signed up?

You certainly can change any of these services. You can switch providers if you don't like the changes they have made. Nobody is forcing you to use a specific telephone system. You can even go off the grid. But once you're on board, you're on board.

And I'm betting you're 26 years old. But that's OK. My real name isn't Carl Spock.


----------



## gio12

RunnerFL said:


> Uhh, yeah it is. Any lawyer will tell you that. Go ahead, call one.


 Spoke to 3- or 4 this morning. Unless the conversation was REORDERED with YOUR consent and they can conform you said yes, not its not. they have PROVE you said yes.


----------



## tonyd79

Carl Spock said:


> My real name isn't Carl Spock.


It isn't? I am shattered.


----------



## wingrider01

zimm7778 said:


> I have unlimited for $30 so I have no idea what you are talking about.


unlimited data for att and verizon is long gone. Effective 06/28 for verizon everyone goes to shared data, if you wish to retain the grandfathered unlimited data you pay full retail for the phone


----------



## RunnerFL

gio12 said:


> Spoke to 3- or 4 this morning. Unless the conversation was REORDERED with YOUR consent and they can conform you said yes, not its not. they have PROVE you said yes.


Not true. That only comes in to play when it's a conversation. An email regarding the changes to the TOS is NOT a conversation.


----------



## cjrleimer

BlackCoffee said:


> I agree with you whole-heartedly. I think you are also siding with DTV, since thier position is to move VIACOM to a customer choice model. I don't know where contract negotiations are with ESPN, but you have to start somewhere.
> 
> For the most part, I think DTV is looking to move to a customer choice model across the board. They realize that other forms of On-Demad entertainment they are competing with, not just cable, make bundling costs above the $99 point less attractive.
> 
> If VIACOM channel selection is made to respond to customer demands, it sets the stage for other providers to follow.


If DTV does a canadian style a la a carte model, I would be ok with it as you have in a way groups of channels e.g. as see here with telus http://www.telus.com/content/tv/sat/programming/index.jsp. I think this may be the model that other providers will be looking at down the road. Of course the owners e.g. Viacom, NBC Universal etc etc will lobby hard for this not to occur.


----------



## Carl Spock

gio12 said:


> Spoke to 3- or 4 this morning. Unless the conversation was REORDERED with YOUR consent and they can conform you said yes, not its not. they have PROVE you said yes.


 This doesn't even pass the smell test. :nono2:


----------



## gio12

DIRECTV has you back, until the put a knife into by raising rates. This is the cold hard facts. they MIGHT have to raise our rates if they get the Viacom channels back. They have to maintain their profits and cost of doing business. Do I blame them? No. But maybe that CAN get them back on and keeps rates the same, but I doubt it and understand.

if this is long term, I will look to others ways to get a certain channels or a different provider. But I have been there, done that and prefer to stick with DIRECTV, as its best best option and proffered choice.

Now, if they knife in the back comes, I will find a way to reduce my bill if I can. If I can't or the rate increase is too high, I have to think about things.

Sorry folks, we the consumer have to have our OWN backs.


----------



## JMCecil

tulanejosh said:


> unbundling is not necessarily the answer to a cheaper bill. You're assuming that the price per channel charged in a bundle would be the price charged unbundled. That's not necessarily true - they only charge those rates becuase of the scale of distribution. If they were unbundled, you'd pay a lot more per channel than you do now.
> 
> As an example - i read somewhere - probably this forum that ESPN is somehting like $4 - $5 per subscriber bundled and put in the basic tier, but unbundled would be in the $30 or $40 range becuase they have to hit the same revenue targets to pay for production of the channel across fewer subscribers. You do this with 10 or 20 unbundled channels (not all would be as pricey as espn certainly) and you quickly approach the average bill people pay now with reduced access to stations that customers currently enjoy under the current model.


that is only partially correct. What would happen is that very few would pay $30 to $40 for ESPN, so ESPN would be forced to eliminate the costs of maintaining a large number of distribution points that currently don't have content, but get commercial support based on "subscriber" data.


----------



## wingrider01

woods_men said:


> That is not legal, it has to be in written form and sent by US mail and slo their saying if you disagree you do not get service is not legal as well.


you are about 10 years out of date on this comment


----------



## gio12

RunnerFL said:


> Not true. That only comes in to play when it's a conversation. An email regarding the changes to the TOS is NOT a conversation.


Ok, you win :sure::joy::nono2:


----------



## smitmor

gio12 said:


> maybe your another Cousin Vinny?


Didn't Vinny win?


----------



## abooch

Quick question. I had to upgrade my package online because I had the old HD DVR choice package. Does this automatically put me in a new two-year agreement with D*? The reason I ask is because I've been a customer for almost 5 years, have 7 receivers multiple premiums and sports packages and have always paid the bill every month and have never called retention for any "deals." I want to call to see if there is anything they can do for me because I am upset about the channel loss.


----------



## gio12

wingrider01 said:


> unlimited data for att and verizon is long gone. Effective 06/28 for verizon everyone goes to shared data, if you wish to retain the grandfathered unlimited data you pay full retail for the phone


Huh? I still have my unlimited date with AT&T as does my wife. I can upgrade my phone and keep it too.


----------



## maartena

gio12 said:


> Spoke to 3- or 4 this morning. Unless the conversation was REORDERED with YOUR consent and they can conform you said yes, not its not. they have PROVE you said yes.


Remind me to never hire THOSE lawyers when I need one....


----------



## TheDaddy

gio12 said:


> Spoke to 3- or 4 this morning. Unless the conversation was REORDERED with YOUR consent and they can conform you said yes, not its not. they have PROVE you said yes.





Carl Spock said:


> This doesn't even pass the smell test. :nono2:


You're right. In some states no notification is required to legally record a call in the remaining states that do require notification all that is necessary is an intermittent tone to be played for the duration of the call. And all sales calls are recorded and third party verified or run through some form of QC.

I'm in telecom, the call center arena etc...


----------



## Richard

why are we discussing mobile phone plans in a thread about DirecTV/Viacom's contract disupute?


----------



## gio12

smitmor said:


> Didn't Vinny win?


true, LOL! But you get/know what I mean.

oh, one layer I asked graduated top of her class harvard law. So i would believe her or a shill here for DIRECTV.

Some people her feel that DIRECTV can do absolute know wrong in ANY situation. They could eat their children and they would support them. Its friggin TV man!


----------



## tonyd79

gio12 said:


> Huh? I still have my unlimited date with AT&T as does my wife. I can upgrade my phone and keep it too.


Unlimited data is not really unlimited with AT&T. They changed their policy (and didn't even update the TOS that I know of).

If you are among the top 5% of all data users in any particular month, your data rate will be throttled from 3G to EDGE levels and perhaps worse.

The 5% is not the top 5% of all unlimited data users but of all data users. So, that means that you get throttled right around the most common (read that lowest) data bundle available today.

As for upgrading the phone....Verizon used that to change the unlimited folks to limited. AT&T is making noises about that happening soon.


----------



## TheDaddy

gio12 said:


> Huh? I still have my unlimited date with AT&T as does my wife. I can upgrade my phone and keep it too.


Me too. Have had unlimited data since June 2007, on my 3rd iPhone now, able to change phones and keep unlimited data.


----------



## gio12

TheDaddy said:


> You're right. In some states no notification is required to legally record a call in the remaining states that do require notification all that is necessary is an intermittent tone to be played for the duration of the call. And all sales calls are recorded and third party verified or run through some form of QC.
> 
> I'm in telecom, the call center arena etc...


I know I am. My sister works for AT&T call center as well. She wired landline and cell. Its the same thing. DIRECTV needs PROOF that you said less. or they could just make crap up and get people stuck in contacts they did NOT want.

Sadly, the consumer is screwed here, because if you TRY to fight it, they will screw your credit for 7 years. So most will give up and just deal wit it and leave when the penalty is within their means.


----------



## maartena

gio12 said:


> Huh? I still have my unlimited date with AT&T as does my wife. I can upgrade my phone and keep it too.


That's true. My wife is still on unlimited, and when I added a second iPhone to our account for me, they said she would be able to keep it, and I would be on the 3 Gb plan.

However.... she had the 1500 text plan, and that has been eliminated. You get to keep it if you don't make changes, but as soon as you do (such as adding a phone in my case) they force you to choose between NO texting, or UNLIMITED texting. For us, we send maybe 500 texts a month combined.... the 1500 plan (which was $5 less than the unlimited) would have been perfect.

So one change to an account (in this case adding a phone) had the effect of triggering the other phone on the account, we could no longer use the 1500 plan for 2 phones, but had to upgrade to unlimited texting, where in the past when I did have a phone on that account, we shared those 1500 texts.


----------



## wingrider01

gio12 said:


> Huh? I still have my unlimited date with AT&T as does my wife. I can upgrade my phone and keep it too.


If you have it you can keep it, just throttled at 3GB, upgrade you can keep it at this time - and that is going to change, you cannot add another line and get unlimited smartphone data anymore, been like this for over a year. Unlimite QMD device dataplans are still available, smartphone unlimited data is no longer available for new smartphone's


----------



## Shades228

Richard said:


> why are we discussing mobile phone plans in a thread about DirecTV/Viacom's contract disupute?


Because after so long you can't keep saying the same thing over and over again until someone new shows up and stirs the pot again. Threads this long usually have the same pattern and about every 10 or so pages just repeat itself. It's the thread of day so people will be burning out their f5 key and replying to everything.


----------



## maartena

Richard said:


> why are we discussing mobile phone plans in a thread about DirecTV/Viacom's contract disupute?


It sorta moved from "I want to cancel DirecTV because of Viacom but I can't because of contract" ----> "I never signed a contract, but I have one" ----> "lets compare it to cell phone contracts, shall we?", etc.

Yes, this conversation has gotten a little derailed. Let's get back to Viacom/DirecTV dispute talk.


----------



## damondlt

Does Anyone give 2 [email protected]%s about this mobile talk? Has nothing to do with Directv and Viacom!!!!!

Start a new thread if you want to talk about this nonsence!


----------



## gio12

tonyd79 said:


> Unlimited data is not really unlimited with AT&T. They changed their policy (and didn't even update the TOS that I know of).
> 
> If you are among the top 5% of all data users in any particular month, your data rate will be throttled from 3G to EDGE levels and perhaps worse.
> 
> The 5% is not the top 5% of all unlimited data users but of all data users. So, that means that you get throttled right around the most common (read that lowest) data bundle available today.


 Nope, sorry and thanks for playing. This IS NOT for every customer. Its very, very are to get this trigger, You have to abuse the "unlimited data before getting hit." Guess what? They do this, you MAY get out of your contract. Little known fact. 

Also you will be throttled if you in the top 5% of the total traffic in a month. Again, this is for habitual abusers, not every day folks. I tried it.

Oh, and AT&T has LOST in court on this as well.

EDIT: ATT&T page now say if you go over 3GB of data, you will be trotted. So thing have changed. I hit 3.7GB last month to yes the level, before know this and I never received a message, nor were my speed reduced.


----------



## BlackCoffee

gio12 said:


> Some people her feel that DIRECTV can do absolute know wrong in ANY situation.


Maybe I am simple minded, but DTV is looking to contain the cost of a supplier. How is that not good business and good for DTV customers?

Anything they do to get customer choice and cheaper channels is OK with me. I have to suspect any "customer" siding with VIACOM.

Let's all call DTV and tell them to give in to VIACOM. In a few months we will get a letter saying the media providers have increased costs and now we have a rate increase. How is that good?

There is the naive "get something for nothing crowd" that says DTV should just eat the increase in costs. That works until they can't cover cost and go out of business.


----------



## damondlt

Shades228 said:


> Because after so long you can't keep saying the same thing over and over again until someone new shows up and stirs the pot again. Threads this long usually have the same pattern and about every 10 or so pages just repeat itself. It's the thread of day so people will be burning out their f5 key and replying to everything.


 Still off topic! Thats against the rules everyother day of the week!

If you wanted a Status update, you would never find one here!


----------



## Shades228

gio12 said:


> I know I am. My sister works for AT&T call center as well. She wired landline and cell. Its the same thing. DIRECTV needs PROOF that you said less. or they could just make crap up and get people stuck in contacts they did NOT want.
> 
> Sadly, the consumer is screwed here, because if you TRY to fight it, they will screw your credit for 7 years. So most will give up and just deal wit it and leave when the penalty is within their means.


Phone regulations are completely different than DBS and are subject to different laws. I have worked in both industries and know them well.


----------



## TheDaddy

gio12 said:


> Spoke to 3- or 4 this morning. Unless the conversation was REORDERED with YOUR consent and they can conform you said yes, not its not. they have PROVE you said yes.





Carl Spock said:


> This doesn't even pass the smell test. :nono2:





TheDaddy said:


> You're right. In some states no notification is required to legally record a call in the remaining states that do require notification all that is necessary is an intermittent tone to be played for the duration of the call. And all sales calls are recorded and third party verified or run through some form of QC.
> 
> I'm in telecom, the call center arena etc...





gio12 said:


> I know I am. My sister works for AT&T call center as well. She wired landline and cell. Its the same thing. DIRECTV needs PROOF that you said less. or they could just make crap up and get people stuck in contacts they did NOT want.
> 
> Sadly, the consumer is screwed here, because if you TRY to fight it, they will screw your credit for 7 years. So most will give up and just deal wit it and leave when the penalty is within their means.


No bro, Spock was right on the smell test. They don't have to have your consent to record you or even verbally make you aware you're being recorded in some states. In states that do require notification all they have to do is play an audible intermittent tone for the duration of the call.


----------



## zimm7778

"wingrider01" said:


> unlimited data for att and verizon is long gone. Effective 06/28 for verizon everyone goes to shared data, if you wish to retain the grandfathered unlimited data you pay full retail for the phone


Oh, didn't know the part about the full price for the phone. Fine if that's the case I'll be gone when I next have to buy a phone. I'm not going to stick with one just because I like their name or something. If everyone ends up this way I'll either get a regular phone or go without. I use the iPod and apps more than I use the actual phone portion of it anyway.


----------



## gio12

BlackCoffee said:


> Maybe I am simple minded, but DTV is looking to contain the cost of a supplier. How is that not good business and good for DTV customers?
> 
> Anything they do to get customer choice and cheaper channels is OK with me. I have to suspect any "customer" siding with VIACOM.
> 
> Let's all call DTV and tell them to give in to VIACOM. In a few months we will get a letter saying the media providers have increased costs and now we have a rate increase. How is that good?
> 
> There is the naive "get something for nothing crowd" that says DTV should just eat the increase in costs. That works until they can't cover cost and go out of business.


Not what i said. I HOPE DIRECTV does contain cost and gets our channels back.But don't be surprised when they are back and your bill goes UP!


----------



## APB101

Anyone guessing how long this will last?
One day?
A few days?
One week?
Two weeks?
Beyond two weeks?​
Anyone guessing if we'll get more channels from Viacom?
MTV2 HD?
Nick Jr. HD?
TV Land HD?
BET Hip-Hop?
BET Gospel?
CMT Pure Country?
MTV Hits?
MTV Jams?
MTVU?
VH1 Soul?​


----------



## vertex11

If they solve this in a few days, great. But if this extends -- especially if D* drops these channels permanently, what should I do? Nick East and West are pretty much all we watch (excepting my sports and my wife's Heresy -- I mean History -- channels). You could throw overboard all premium channels, all local channels, and all non-Nick Viacom, and every other D* channel excepting those above, and we would not mind.

As far as we are concerned, television "is" iCarly, Victorious, Big Time Rush, and SpongeBob. We enjoy them that much. I mean we go to Victoria Justice and BTR concerts thanks to these shows. Elizabeth Gillies and Ariana Grande and the others are our versions of old time Hollywood stars. Dan Schneider should basically win "all" the Emmys, as far as we are concerned.

So, how can we find a way to watch these shows, in the long run, if D* cuts them off permanently?


----------



## cjrleimer

APB101 said:


> Anyone guessing how long this will last?
> One day?
> A few days?
> One week?
> Two weeks?
> Beyond two weeks?​
> Anyone guessing if we'll get more channels from Viacom?
> MTV2 HD?
> Nick Jr. HD?
> TV Land HD?
> BET Hip-Hop?
> BET Gospel?
> CMT Pure Country?
> MTV Hits?
> MTV Jams?
> MTVU?
> VH1 Soul?​


Question 1, I think beyond two weeks. The pissing war between the two reminds me of the VS dispute a few years ago, and once a deal is done we will get some new channels e.g. EPIX and some of the MTV ones along with viewing on Ipads.


----------



## tonyd79

gio12 said:


> Nope, sorry and thanks for playing. This IS NOT for every customer. Its very, very are to get this trigger, You have to abuse the "unlimited data before getting hit." Guess what? They do this, you MAY get out of your contract. Little known fact.
> 
> Also you will be throttled if you in the top 5% of the total traffic in a month. Again, this is for habitual abusers, not every day folks. I tried it.
> 
> Oh, and AT&T has LOST in court on this as well.
> 
> EDIT: ATT&T page now say if you go over 3GB of data, you will be trotted. So thing have changed. I hit 3.7GB last month to yes the level, before know this and I never received a message, nor were my speed reduced.


Dude. Do NOT post what you do not know. It happened to me. And my usage that month, according to the AT&T page was just over 2GBytes. It happened last December when I was visiting friends who did not have wifi so I had to use my 3G more than usual. I typically come nowhere near the limit.


----------



## TheDaddy

APB101 said:


> Anyone guessing how long this will last?
> One day?
> A few days?
> One week?
> Two weeks?
> Beyond two weeks?​
> Anyone guessing if we'll get more channels from Viacom?
> MTV2 HD?
> Nick Jr. HD?
> TV Land HD?
> BET Hip-Hop?
> BET Gospel?
> CMT Pure Country?
> MTV Hits?
> MTV Jams?
> MTVU?
> VH1 Soul?​


Depends on how fast Viacom's stock drops...if it goes into a free fall the channels will be back in no time.


----------



## maartena

APB101 said:


> Anyone guessing how long this will last?
> One day?
> A few days?
> One week?
> Two weeks?
> Beyond two weeks?​
> Anyone guessing if we'll get more channels from Viacom?
> MTV2 HD?
> Nick Jr. HD?
> TV Land HD?
> BET Hip-Hop?
> BET Gospel?
> CMT Pure Country?
> MTV Hits?
> MTV Jams?
> MTVU?
> VH1 Soul?​


I was still with Time Warner Cable when they had the dispute with Viacom back on Jan. 1st 2010, and all Viacom channels went black on Jan. 2nd. (I guess they had the day off on New Years day). If I remember correctly, it lasted no more than about 3 or 4 days before an agreement was reached.

I think will take till no more than Friday, they will all want to go home for the weekend. 

So... "a few days" to "one week" would be my answer to your question. I doubt it will take longer.

As far as getting the other channels.... I really don't know. I know they can easily add all of those in SD format on older satellites, plenty of bandwidth for SD channels still..... I don't think that is the big issue however.

I think ViaCom is trying to force DirecTV to carry EPIX. And that makes the whole Jim Norton comedian-made remarks a little more interesting, as he has being doing work for EPIX, and therefore Viacom, and has heard something about negotiations with DirecTV....

And that may be the hot point at this moment. Does DirecTV really want to provide bandwidth right now to 4 EPIX channels they previously have said had no interest in carrying?


----------



## Chuck W

Are the channels back? Someone posted elsewhere that on Directv's Facebook page, they said it has been resolved and the channels are back. 

I can't check Facebook from work.


----------



## BlackCoffee

vertex11 said:


> As far as we are concerned, television "is" iCarly, Victorious, Big Time Rush, and SpongeBob. We enjoy them that much.


If you wait, in a few years these shows will be off the air. I am surpised they aren't already gone. The stars are getting just too old to play kids.

20 year olds acting like high schoolers gets worse every year.


----------



## Chuck W

BlackCoffee said:


> If you wait, in a few years these shows will be off the air. I am surpised they aren't already gone. The stars are getting just too old to play kids.
> 
> 20 year olds acting like high schoolers gets worse every year.


iCarly is done in November(they filmed their last show in June).


----------



## maartena

Chuck W said:


> Are the channels back? Someone posted elsewhere that on Directv's Facebook page, they said it has been resolved and the channels are back.
> 
> I can't check Facebook from work.


Nope.


----------



## vinhmen

Funny how D* dings Viacom for double-counting SD and HD channels when they do and have done the same in charging extra for the HD equivalent channels.

http://www.directvpromise.com/#2



> Viacom's temporarily suspended a total of 17 different channels and not the 26 that it reports. Viacom's double-counting both high definition and standard definition versions of the same service to overly inflate its totals and add more unnecessary drama to what should have always remained private business discussions.


----------



## tonyd79

Chuck W said:


> Are the channels back? Someone posted elsewhere that on Directv's Facebook page, they said it has been resolved and the channels are back.
> 
> I can't check Facebook from work.


Typically when it gets settled, the headline on DBSTalk changes, as does the title of this thread (if it is not closed and a new one opened).


----------



## Carl Spock

TheDaddy said:


> No bro, Spock was right on the smell test.


Thanks, Daddy. It's not good when I fail a smell test.


----------



## Shades228

vinhmen said:


> Funny how D* dings Viacom for double-counting SD and HD channels when they do and have done the same in charging extra for the HD equivalent channels.
> 
> http://www.directvpromise.com/#2


Charging for and counting are differernt. If you can provide a link where DIRECTV counts HD channels and SD channels seperately in a channel count you would have a valid argument.


----------



## Chuck W

tonyd79 said:


> Typically when it gets settled, the headline on DBSTalk changes, as does the title of this thread (if it is not closed and a new one opened).


Depends on how quick to the draw the mods are here  It was at broadbandreports someone posted that it was settles a few minutes ago. Needless to say he's now got plenty of responses that it's not settled.


----------



## gio12

"tonyd79" said:


> Dude. Do NOT post what you do not know. It happened to me. And my usage that month, according to the AT&T page was just over 2GBytes. It happened last December when I was visiting friends who did not have wifi so I had to use my 3G more than usual. I typically come nowhere near the limit.


I am! Hit over 3GB last month and nothing happened. Back to original topic!


----------



## SledgeHammer

Not gonna miss ANY of these channels. Occasionally watch That 70s Show repeats on TVLand or [email protected] or whatever. Regardless, channels will be back in a few days.


----------



## tonyd79

gio12 said:


> I am! Hit over 3GB last month and nothing happened. Back to original topic!


As far as I know, it is moving target. It is top 5% of users for that month. The 3GB is not in force yet that I have heard.

BTW, when I was throttled, other than getting a notice (text message), it was hard to tell that I was throttled. I had to run speed tests to find it.

Plus, what I can tell is that they are not enforcing consistently. But it is coming. Do not assume you are home free.


----------



## maartena

Can we move the talk about cell phones and data plans to a separate topic in e.g. the "The OT" or "Tech Talk" forum? If you want to discuss that further, please create a topic there.


----------



## scott72

Gloria_Chavez said:


> My recommendation? Tell ESPN management, when the contract is up for renewal, we'll pay you 2 dollars a month, take it or leave it.


And how many subs do you think D* will lose when all the ESPN's go dark? I'd be one of them..


----------



## mhking

cjrleimer said:


> Question 1, I think beyond two weeks. The pissing war between the two reminds me of the VS dispute a few years ago, and once a deal is done we will get some new channels e.g. EPIX and some of the MTV ones along with viewing on Ipads.


+1

Of course, before we get to that point, my 10-year-old will drive me up the proverbial wall....


----------



## maartena

I remember the dispute between Viacom and TWC was the nastiest to date in January 2010.... I had TWC for 8 years before that, and not ONCE before there was mudslinging going on. It really seems that these continued disputes are a result of the economy crash in 2008 or so, and media companies wanting to recoup their losses.


----------



## scott72

This thread has given me many laughs and made my work day zip by. Thanks for that..


----------



## jahgreen

For those wondering if they should read the last 10-20 pages of this thread, I will summarize the discussion:

Is too!

Is not!

Am too!

Are not!


----------



## jason williams

Will dtv be offering a credit for this loss of channels and how will they do it. Suppose I claim that these channels are the only ones I watch. will they offer me a credit on my whole bill? Anyway I am getting fed up with dtv and there screwed up method of doing things since they restored my $10 hd access fee. I will now consider going to ROKU..dish or comcast.


----------



## JMCecil

scott72 said:


> And how many subs do you think D* will lose when all the ESPN's go dark? I'd be one of them..


Well, just like the Viacom issue, the viewership for ESPN is plummeting. As far as I can tell, the only thing holding them together are their live sport ratings. They are using single instance numbers to justify hundreds of hours of nothing.

I used to be a sports center junkey. I can't stand it now. ESPN has become E! for sports personalities. There is very little sports coverage, but thousands of hours of "Analysis by Experts". It's nothing but talking heads and "Insiders" with a vacuous blonde moderator. Their entire lineup starts the day with two irrelevant topics and each show chews the same gristle endlessly. It is even more frustrating when there is actual sports happening and they ignore it.


----------



## maartena

jason williams said:


> Will dtv be offering a credit for this loss of channels and how will they do it. Suppose I claim that these channels are the only ones I watch. will they offer me a credit on my whole bill? Anyway I am getting fed up with dtv and there screwed up method of doing things since they restored my $10 hd access fee. I will now consider going to ROKU..dish or comcast.


They are offering credits.

Several people called and were offered a $5 discount for 3 months. Regardless of whether these channels are restored or not, the discount will remain in place for those 3 months.

One person even managed to get NFL Sunday Ticket for FREE this year, a $199 value.

You just need to call yourself, that is all.


----------



## Chris Blount

Haven't looked if this was posted yet (my connection is slow so I'm lucky to get this post done).

This is the latest from DTV on their Facebook page:



> To thank you for your patience until Viacom channels are returned, all eight Encore Channels (including Encore Family) will be made available to all customers thru July 31st. Tune to Channels 535 to 542 to start watching.
> 
> Remember that Viacom forced us to remove Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central and 14 other networks or face legal action. We expect the channels to return soon and are doing everything we can to get them back on air without an unfair increase to your bill.


----------



## raott

"jahgreen" said:


> For those wondering if they should read the last 10-20 pages of this thread, I will summarize the discussion:
> 
> Is too!
> 
> Is not!
> 
> Am too!
> 
> Are not!


That and a whole lotta outhouse lawyering from people on both sides who have obviously never set foot in a law class.


----------



## dod1450

I was wondering if the two CEOs from Directv and Viacom will be meeting at Allen & Co's media and technology conference in Sun Valley, Idaho?


----------



## Herdfan

Viacom has more to lose that DirecTV. They most likely will have to adjust advertising rates if the channels are not returned soon. After all, that is 20M household that no longer have access to those shows and the advertisers will want a refund. 

DirecTV on the other hand has no obligation to provide refunds to customers. They might give credit to customers who complain, but they are not going to lower everyone rate. And potential customers regardless of what Viacom may say know they channels are going to come back, so it won't hurt them in attracting new customers.

Viacom will blink first.


----------



## dod1450

scott72 said:


> And how many subs do you think D* will lose when all the ESPN's go dark? I'd be one of them..


 Isn't ESPN own by ABC? If so will we loose ABC local if their is a contract issue?


----------



## scott72

JMCecil said:


> Well, just like the Viacom issue, the viewership for ESPN is plummeting. As far as I can tell, the only thing holding them together are their live sport ratings. They are using single instance numbers to justify hundreds of hours of nothing.
> 
> I used to be a sports center junkey. I can't stand it now. ESPN has become E! for sports personalities. There is very little sports coverage, but thousands of hours of "Analysis by Experts". It's nothing but talking heads and "Insiders" with a vacuous blonde moderator. Their entire lineup starts the day with two irrelevant topics and each show chews the same gristle endlessly. It is even more frustrating when there is actual sports happening and they ignore it.


I will agree with you that Sportscenter is overrated anymore as it's catered to the big markets anyway, but there are shows I do enjoy such as The Herd, and their coverage of the NFL, and college sports.


----------



## gio12

"jason williams" said:


> Will dtv be offering a credit for this loss of channels and how will they do it. Suppose I claim that these channels are the only ones I watch. will they offer me a credit on my whole bill? Anyway I am getting fed up with dtv and there screwed up method of doing things since they restored my $10 hd access fee. I will now consider going to ROKU..dish or comcast.


I got $5 for 3 months like others. If they drop and don't replace, I would expect a new bill if "DIRECTV has my back."


----------



## sunking

maartena said:


> They are offering credits.
> 
> Several people called and were offered a $5 discount for 3 months. Regardless of whether these channels are restored or not, the discount will remain in place for those 3 months.
> 
> One person even managed to get NFL Sunday Ticket for FREE this year, a $199 value.
> 
> You just need to call yourself, that is all.


This is most annoying. Why should I have to call? Last Fall when much of N.E. lost power for a week + the electric company gave everyone money off ( at least ours did, not all did). So not only were they not billing us as we had no power but they gave a rebate on top of it. And there was no need to call. Pretty sad when a power company that has practically zero competition in a given area treats their customers better than a company that is in competition with at least 2 other providers in most areas.

Directv knows the cost per subscriber for Viacom. They certainly aren't paying money to Viacom while they aren't transmitting. It's only logical everyone should get that money back.


----------



## scott72

dod1450 said:


> Isn't ESPN own by ABC? If so will we loose ABC local if their is a contract issue?


ESPN actually owns ABC, so yes I would assume it would affect that as well..


----------



## Joe Diver

While I feel for those affected.....I'm not affected in any way with this one. I don't watch any of the channels.

I do hope it gets resolved favorably though for the folks affected by this squabble...really I do.


----------



## Beerstalker

scott72 said:


> ESPN actually owns ABC, so yes I would assume it would affect that as well..


I believe only the local stations owned and operated by ABC would be lost. If your local ABC is an affiliate owned by another company it shouldn't go anywhere.


----------



## NewView

As far as I'm concerned, DirecTV can drop ALL Viacom channels and lower my monthly bill.
It's way past time for cable & satellite providers to tell these greedy networks to go pack sand.


----------



## tonyd79

scott72 said:


> ESPN actually owns ABC, so yes I would assume it would affect that as well..


Local channels are contracted with the owners of those stations. ABC owns their affiliates in Fresno, LA, SF-Oakland, Chicago, NYC, Raleigh-Durham, Philadelphia and Houston.

Those would be the ones at risk.


----------



## davring

ESPN is not a subsidiary of ABC, or visa versa, Disney owns both.


----------



## tulanejosh

BlackCoffee said:


> Maybe I am simple minded, but DTV is looking to contain the cost of a supplier. How is that not good business and good for DTV customers?
> 
> Anything they do to get customer choice and cheaper channels is OK with me. I have to suspect any "customer" siding with VIACOM.
> 
> Let's all call DTV and tell them to give in to VIACOM. In a few months we will get a letter saying the media providers have increased costs and now we have a rate increase. How is that good?
> 
> There is the naive "get something for nothing crowd" that says DTV should just eat the increase in costs. That works until they can't cover cost and go out of business.


Thing is... D* is also a supplier in this equation - a supplier to me. I agree to pay them a fee, they agree to supply me something. When i entered into that agreement with them, it was done so with the expectation that I'd get what I paid for - not we'll still charge you the same, but we may or may not actually make good on our end of the deal depending on how our negotiations go. There's literally zero chance that they decrease my bill even if these channels never come back. You can't apply supplier logic only to viacom and then ignore your conclusions when it comes time to examine directv's role in this. It doesn't matter whether i watch these channels all the time or never - they agreed - implied or otherwise - to provide them to me, and now they aren't. Yet come the 15th every month, I'm still expected to pay the same regardless of their service level.

And on the topic of something for nothing... how do you know that directv didn't ask for something incremental - new channels, more hd, digital rights, on demand rights, tv everywhere rights - to the last agreement that spurred a price increase? Wouldn't that be directv expecting something for nothing?


----------



## Chris Blount

I called and they only gave me $5 off my next bill.


----------



## tonyd79

tulanejosh said:


> Thing is... D* is also a supplier in this equation - a supplier to me. I agree to pay them a fee, they agree to supply me something. When i entered into that agreement with them, it was done so with the expectation that I'd get what I paid for - not we'll still charge you the same, but we may or may not actually make good on our end of the deal depending on how our negotiations go. There's literally zero chance that they decrease my bill even if these channels never come back. You can't apply supplier logic only to viacom and then ignore your conclusions when it comes time to examine directv's role in this. It doesn't matter whether i watch these channels all the time or never - they agreed - implied or otherwise - to provide them to me, and now they aren't yet come the 15th, I'm still expected to pay.


Yes, you are. Because you did not contract for specific channels like DirecTV did with Viacom. You agreed to a service that provided you with TV.

The question is...when does the product change enough to not be what you bought. A single channel does not live up to that standard, except if you bought HBO and HBO went dark (but then we know you would not be charged). A handful still does not live up to that standard. Does 17? Maybe. maybe not.


----------



## Shades228

sunking said:


> This is most annoying. Why should I have to call? Last Fall when much of N.E. lost power for a week + the electric company gave everyone money off ( at least ours did, not all did). So not only were they not billing us as we had no power but they gave a rebate on top of it. And there was no need to call. Pretty sad when a power company that has practically zero competition in a given area treats their customers better than a company that is in competition with at least 2 other providers in most areas.
> 
> Directv knows the cost per subscriber for Viacom. They certainly aren't paying money to Viacom while they aren't transmitting. It's only logical everyone should get that money back.


They turned on Encore stations for everyone and you don't have to call. I have a feeling if they offered the actual credit of how much they pay people would become irate with "how little they think of us". This doesn't impact everyone so really if you're not impacted why should thet give you credit?


----------



## tonyd79

sunking said:


> This is most annoying. Why should I have to call? Last Fall when much of N.E. lost power for a week + the electric company gave everyone money off ( at least ours did, not all did). So not only were they not billing us as we had no power but they gave a rebate on top of it. And there was no need to call. Pretty sad when a power company that has practically zero competition in a given area treats their customers better than a company that is in competition with at least 2 other providers in most areas.
> 
> Directv knows the cost per subscriber for Viacom. They certainly aren't paying money to Viacom while they aren't transmitting. It's only logical everyone should get that money back.


Must've been a government thing. I have never had a utility give me money back on top of not charging for service when there was an outage. In fact, ours tries to get more money from us because they had to pay for repairs!


----------



## Billzebub

vertex11 said:


> If they solve this in a few days, great. But if this extends -- especially if D* drops these channels permanently, what should I do? Nick East and West are pretty much all we watch (excepting my sports and my wife's Heresy -- I mean History -- channels). You could throw overboard all premium channels, all local channels, and all non-Nick Viacom, and every other D* channel excepting those above, and we would not mind.
> 
> As far as we are concerned, television "is" iCarly, Victorious, Big Time Rush, and SpongeBob. We enjoy them that much. I mean we go to Victoria Justice and BTR concerts thanks to these shows. Elizabeth Gillies and Ariana Grande and the others are our versions of old time Hollywood stars. Dan Schneider should basically win "all" the Emmys, as far as we are concerned.
> 
> So, how can we find a way to watch these shows, in the long run, if D* cuts them off permanently?


I'd find a different carrier


----------



## tonyd79

Chris Blount said:


> I called and they only gave me $5 off my next bill.


Didn't they know who you are? 

It should be automated. Like opting into or out of a class action suit. Call the number, hit a button and get 5 bucks a month for the next X number of months that the channels are out.


----------



## tulanejosh

tonyd79 said:


> Yes, you are. Because you did not contract for specific channels like DirecTV did with Viacom. You agreed to a service that provided you with TV.
> 
> The question is...when does the product change enough to not be what you bought. A single channel does not live up to that standard, except if you bought HBO and HBO went dark (but then we know you would not be charged). A handful still does not live up to that standard. Does 17? Maybe. maybe not.


Unfortunately - I do not agree with you. It's deceptive advertising - and it's generally frowned upon by alphabet soup government agencies. Every commercial they run that talks about the channels they offer vs dish, any website content they display talking up its channel lineup, the inserts that fall out of my newspaper containing channel logos - it's all an implied commitment that says, "hey sign up with us, and look at all this stuff you get!". The implied commitment incented you to enter into an agreement - and then they changed the rules on you. That's the definition of bait and switch.


----------



## sunking

Shades228 said:


> They turned on Encore stations for everyone and you don't have to call. I have a feeling if they offered the actual credit of how much they pay people would become irate with "how little they think of us". This doesn't impact everyone so really if you're not impacted why should thet give you credit?


I disagree that it doesn't impact everyone. You pay Directv for viewing choices. Whether you choose to watch them or not the service is reduced. After all, isn't the number of channels choices one of Directv's primary marketing campaigns?

So are those who pay for Encore getting that money back as it's now free for everyone?


----------



## JMCecil

scott72 said:


> I will agree with you that Sportscenter is overrated anymore as it's catered to the big markets anyway, but there are shows I do enjoy such as The Herd, and their coverage of the NFL, and college sports.


At certain points of the year the sport focused shows are still good. I'm 50/50 on The Herd. But, that is more of a radio talking head show if you ask me. Taking up hours of TV time with Mike & Mike + The Herd etc... is weird to me.

But, I think shows like around the horn and sports nation are truly dreadful. They don't cover sports at all. They cover one persons opinion about another persons opinion about some subjective non-issue that might have some tangential sports connection.

But, just to throw myself under the bus ... I actually do watch/enjoy PTI. I know it is a ridiculous, self important, opinionated, prejudiced excessive celebration of ego. I almost always disagree with both Tony's "if they aren't a tabloid superstar in one of the three sports I've heard of, they don't matter" angle and Wilbon's endless name dropping and "The players can do no wrong everything is the greedy owners fault" (while somewhere not realizing how hypocritical it is for him to hate the owners for being greedy, while telling the players that they should shake down the leagues for all they can". But, for some reason I continue to watch.

However, I wouldn't lose sleep if every show but the actual sporting events + their lead in shows suddently went dark.


----------



## mrfatboy

Just called and got my $5/month off for 3 months discount for the Viacom issue.


----------



## tonyd79

tulanejosh said:


> Unfortunately - I do not agree with you. It's deceptive advertising - and it's generally frowned upon by alphabet soup government agencies. Every commercial they run that talks about the channels they offer vs dish, any website content they display talking up its channel lineup, the inserts that fall out of my newspaper containing channel logos - it's all an implied commitment that says, "hey sign up with us, and look at all this stuff you get!". The implied commitment incented you to enter into an agreement - and then they changed the rules on you. That's the definition of bait and switch.


So every time they make a channel change, you can cancel your contract? Try living in the real world sometime.


----------



## abooch

Is Encore part of Showtime and Starz?


----------



## RunnerFL

tulanejosh said:


> Unfortunately - I do not agree with you. It's deceptive advertising - and it's generally frowned upon by alphabet soup government agencies. Every commercial they run that talks about the channels they offer vs dish, any website content they display talking up its channel lineup, the inserts that fall out of my newspaper containing channel logos - it's all an implied commitment that says, "hey sign up with us, and look at all this stuff you get!". The implied commitment incented you to enter into an agreement - and then they changed the rules on you. That's the definition of bait and switch.


Have you ever actually read the agreement you agreed to when you signed up?

The rules haven't changed. The agreement specifically states they have the right to make programming changes at any time.

"Accordingly, we must reserve the unrestricted right to change, rearrange, add or delete our programming packages, the selections in those packages, our prices, and any other Service we offer, at any time."

Nothing implied there, it's in plain old black and white.


----------



## tonyd79

scott72 said:


> I will agree with you that Sportscenter is overrated anymore as it's catered to the big markets anyway, but there are shows I do enjoy such as The Herd, and their coverage of the NFL, and college sports.


The Herd? That shrill, lying sack of excrement who would rather rabble rouse than actually talk about facts? The guy who freely admits that he only talks about things (and teams) that he *thinks* will bring him ratings?

YUCK!


----------



## tonyd79

abooch said:


> Is Encore part of Showtime and Starz?


Encore is owned by Starz!

Showtime is a different entity.


----------



## RunnerFL

tonyd79 said:


> So every time they make a channel change, you can cancel your contract? Try living in the real world sometime.


Actually yeah, you can.

Right from the customer agreement:

"Accordingly, we must reserve the unrestricted right to change, rearrange, add or delete our programming packages, the selections in those packages, our prices, and any other Service we offer, at any time. We will endeavor to notify you of any change that is within our reasonable control and its effective date. In most cases this notice will be about one month in advance. *You always have the right to cancel your Service, in whole or in part, if you do not accept the change (see Section 5).* If you cancel your Service, a deactivation fee (described in Sections 2 & 5(b)) or other charges may apply. Credits, if any, to your account will be posted as described in Section 5. If you do not cancel, your continued receipt of our Service will constitute acceptance."


----------



## cjrleimer

http://www.multichannel.com/article...ee_TV_Shows_From_Web_Amid_DirecTV_Impasse.php another bit of the war.


----------



## scott72

tonyd79 said:


> So every time they make a channel change, you can cancel your contract? Try living in the real world sometime.


Yep, just like having a variable rate mortgage. When the rates go up I can cancel my mortgage..Oh wait..:sure:


----------



## RunnerFL

cjrleimer said:


> http://www.multichannel.com/article...ee_TV_Shows_From_Web_Amid_DirecTV_Impasse.php another bit of the war.


hah, now Viacom is screwing all of their customers, not just the ones they get from DirecTV.


----------



## scott72

tonyd79 said:


> The Herd? That shrill, lying sack of excrement who would rather rabble rouse than actually talk about facts? The guy who freely admits that he only talks about things (and teams) that he *thinks* will bring him ratings?
> 
> YUCK!


Everything on TV and radio is driven by ratings. How long do you think he'd be on if he talked about the WNBA?


----------



## JMCecil

tonyd79 said:


> The Herd? That shrill, lying sack of excrement who would rather rabble rouse than actually talk about facts? The guy who freely admits that he only talks about things (and teams) that he *thinks* will bring him ratings?
> 
> YUCK!


Man, have you seen Steven A Smith yap with that other guy? Holy crap on a taco shell. That is the worst case of making **** up for ratings I've ever seen. Herd has nothing on those two.


----------



## tonyd79

RunnerFL said:


> Actually yeah, you can.
> 
> Right from the customer agreement:
> 
> "Accordingly, we must reserve the unrestricted right to change, rearrange, add or delete our programming packages, the selections in those packages, our prices, and any other Service we offer, at any time. We will endeavor to notify you of any change that is within our reasonable control and its effective date. In most cases this notice will be about one month in advance. *You always have the right to cancel your Service, in whole or in part, if you do not accept the change (see Section 5).* If you cancel your Service, a deactivation fee (described in Sections 2 & 5(b)) or other charges may apply. Credits, if any, to your account will be posted as described in Section 5. If you do not cancel, your continued receipt of our Service will constitute acceptance."


That is not what I meant and you know it. That includes the EFT. You can do that at any time at all without reason. You will be charged for it. I meant get off scott free because of a channel change.


----------



## RunnerFL

tonyd79 said:


> That is not what I meant and you know it. That includes the EFT. You can do that at any time at all without reason. You will be charged for it. I meant get off scott free because of a channel change.


No, I don't know that's not what you meant because that's not what you said. How am I, or anyone on here, to know you typed one thing and meant another?


----------



## tonyd79

cjrleimer said:


> http://www.multichannel.com/article...ee_TV_Shows_From_Web_Amid_DirecTV_Impasse.php another bit of the war.


Wow. Just wow.

This is a company out of control.


----------



## scott72

JMCecil said:


> Man, have you seen Steven A Smith yap with that other guy? Holy crap on a taco shell. That is the worst case of making **** up for ratings I've ever seen. Herd has nothing on those two.


Skip Bayless is a toolbag, but I digress...Back to the dispute..


----------



## tonyd79

RunnerFL said:


> No, I don't know that's not what you meant because that's not what you said. How am I, or anyone on here, to know you typed one thing and meant another?


Context, my man, context. He was talking about breaking a contract. Or do I have to repeat every previous post and statement in the conversation for you to understand?

I have no time for explaining context to people. Keep up or don't comment, okay?


----------



## tonyd79

scott72 said:


> Skip Bayless is a toolbag, but I digress...Back to the dispute..


And I won't watch Cowherd, Bayless or Steven A. Smith. ESPN has become a completely classless organization.


----------



## bobcamp1

sunking said:


> I disagree that it doesn't impact everyone. You pay Directv for viewing choices. Whether you choose to watch them or not the service is reduced. After all, isn't the number of channels choices one of Directv's primary marketing campaigns?
> 
> So are those who pay for Encore getting that money back as it's now free for everyone?


They should call D* and get the $5/month/3 months credit too. Of course, D* should do this automatically for everyone if they really had our backs.... 

(Every time I hear that phrase, I think, "of course they have our backs, where else are they going to stab us?")


----------



## cjrleimer

tonyd79 said:


> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> This is a company out of control.


Yep, and I bet with that people are going to side with their tv provider once they get into a dispute with viacom.


----------



## RunnerFL

tonyd79 said:


> Context, my man, context. He was talking about breaking a contract. Or do I have to repeat every previous post and statement in the conversation for you to understand?
> 
> I have no time for explaining context to people. Keep up or don't comment, okay?


There was no "context" you flat out said:



tonyd79 said:


> So every time they make a channel change, you can cancel your contract? Try living in the real world sometime.


Perhaps you should have said: "So every time they make a channel change, you can cancel your contract *without having to pay an ETF*? Try living in the real world sometime."

See the difference?

Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to flame others.


----------



## gio12

"tonyd79" said:


> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> This is a company out of control.


I agree, but do you blame them? Especially after DIRECTV told us to go there? But his will not build goodwill with others!


----------



## tonyd79

scott72 said:


> Everything on TV and radio is driven by ratings. How long do you think he'd be on if he talked about the WNBA?


I don't know. If he found something interesting to talk about on it.

But that would be beyond his capacity. Instead, he just panders. All Red Sox, Yankees and Ohio State. And yet sports industries THRIVE without just repeating the same crap over and over and over again.

The ESPNs of the world have driven many of us away by their lack of quality, depth and variety. Try to watch anything on ESPN Super Bowl week. It is all about the Super Bowl over and over and over again. Guess what? The rest of the sports world still exists. But not in the hyper-driven world of ESPN. There is always only one story and they hammer it to death on all their outlets.

I watch ESPN for the live programing and NOTHING else.


----------



## bobcamp1

cjrleimer said:


> http://www.multichannel.com/article...ee_TV_Shows_From_Web_Amid_DirecTV_Impasse.php another bit of the war.


You knew THAT was going to happen, right? Everyone keeps saying how they're going to quit cable/DBS, because they can get all that content for free online. You can for now. Once you get addicted, they'll either stop doing that or start charging for it.


----------



## tonyd79

gio12 said:


> I agree, but do you blame them? Especially after DIRECTV told us to go there? But his will not build goodwill with others!


Yes, I do. They have now screwed people who had no skin in the game. They screwed Comcast customers, fios customers, Dish customers. Everyone.

So, pay Viacom and still lose services. Nice.


----------



## gio12

"tonyd79" said:


> I don't know. If he found something interesting to talk about on it.
> 
> But that would be beyond his capacity. Instead, he just panders. All Red Sox, Yankees and Ohio State. And yet sports industries THRIVE without just repeating the same crap over and over and over again.
> 
> The ESPNs of the world have driven many of us away by their lack of quality, depth and variety. Try to watch anything on ESPN Super Bowl week. It is all about the Super Bowl over and over and over again. Guess what? The rest of the sports world still exists. But not in the hyper-driven world of ESPN. There is always only one story and they hammer it to death on all their outlets.
> 
> I watch ESPN for the live programing and NOTHING else.


I agree. ESPN sucks for everything but live coverage. Although I like College Game Day and sometimes the NFL pre-game stuff


----------



## tulanejosh

tonyd79 said:


> So every time they make a channel change, you can cancel your contract? Try living in the real world sometime.


or... perhaps they shouldn't require a contract if they have such difficulty maintaining their programming. maybe it should just be a month to month service by default... so many of you are in the "#directvhasmyback camp, surely you can't find fault with a pro-consumer policy like doing away with contracts.


----------



## tonyd79

RunnerFL said:


> There was no "context" you flat out said:
> 
> Perhaps you should have said: "So every time they make a channel change, you can cancel your contract *without having to pay an ETF*? Try living in the real world sometime."
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to flame others.


I see. You only look at one post at a time. Guess you do not understand the context. The context was within the entire conversation, not just the explicit sentence. I guess I need to write that everytime I write something. Ooops, I mean I guess I need to write that everytime I write something to a forum that has multiple posts in a thread and someone jumps into a single sentence and takes it out of context.


----------



## gio12

"tulanejosh" said:


> or... perhaps they shouldn't require a contract if they have such difficulty maintaining their programming. maybe it should just be a month to month service by default... so many of you are in the "#directvhasmyback camp, surely you can't find fault with a pro-consumer policy like doing away with contracts.


Certain posters here, who get extra benefits from DIRECTV. So D* has there back, like dual HR 34s ;-)


----------



## cjrleimer

bobcamp1 said:


> You knew THAT was going to happen, right? Everyone keeps saying how they're going to quit cable/DBS, because they can get all that content for free online. You can for now. Once you get addicted, they'll either stop doing that or start charging for it.


+1, or require you to be authenticated e.g. Turner to watch full episodes.


----------



## RunnerFL

tulanejosh said:


> or... perhaps they shouldn't require a contract if they have such difficulty maintaining their programming. maybe it should just be a month to month service by default... so many of you are in the "#directvhasmyback camp, surely you can't find fault with a pro-consumer policy like doing away with contracts.


I'd like to see month to month, that would be great, however with that would come higher "upfront lease fees", or whatever that $200 is called to get a new DVR. It would be like buying an iPhone without contract, that will set you back around $700 vs $200 with a contract.

The 2 year contract, to me, is the "lesser of 2 evils".


----------



## JoeTheDragon

we should all try to get in the Futurama live chat

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/futurama


and ask question like what is the plan to move to a other network as the lost of directv will lead to a big ratings drop.


----------



## RunnerFL

tonyd79 said:


> I see. You only look at one post at a time. Guess you do not understand the context. The context was within the entire conversation, not just the explicit sentence. I guess I need to write that everytime I write something. Ooops, I mean I guess I need to write that everytime I write something to a forum that has multiple posts in a thread and someone jumps into a single sentence and takes it out of context.


You're just... nevermind... back on ignore you go.


----------



## tonyd79

tulanejosh said:


> or... perhaps they shouldn't require a contract if they have such difficulty maintaining their programming. maybe it should just be a month to month service by default... so many of you are in the "#directvhasmyback camp, surely you can't find fault with a pro-consumer policy like doing away with contracts.


Fine, then we pay full price for the hardware.

Again, join the real world. The only reason why you get a discount on the hardware is because you agree to a contract.

Or increase your fees because you have not agreed to a contract.

You really live in an odd world. One that is starting to look like trolling with your sideways "camp" comment.


----------



## mnassour

tonyd79 said:


> Yes, I do. They have now screwed people who had no skin in the game. They screwed Comcast customers, fios customers, Dish customers. Everyone.
> 
> So, pay Viacom and still lose services. Nice.


I don't ever, ever, EVER want to see anyone here defend Viacom ever again. This alone will tell you what it thinks of customers.

DirecTV...we stand completely and absolutely behind you.

Go for blood. CUT what you're willing to pay.


----------



## tonyd79

mnassour said:


> I don't ever, ever, EVER want to see anyone here defend Viacom ever again. This alone will tell you what it thinks of customers.
> 
> DirecTV...we stand completely and absolutely behind you.
> 
> Go for blood. CUT what you're willing to pay.


Does this show who the villian in this piece is or not?


----------



## maartena

RunnerFL said:


> hah, now Viacom is screwing all of their customers, not just the ones they get from DirecTV.


What a class act this company is. Dish, Cable, U-Verse and FIOS customers have nothing to do with this dispute, but get screwed by Viacom anyways.

This just goes to show how low a company can stoop. Viacom is garbage.


----------



## tulanejosh

RunnerFL said:


> I'd like to see month to month, that would be great, however with that would come higher "upfront lease fees", or whatever that $200 is called to get a new DVR. It would be like buying an iPhone without contract, that will set you back around $700 vs $200 with a contract.
> 
> The 2 year contract, to me, is the "lesser of 2 evils".


I dont know about that. I've had cable before. I don't recall paying $200 for their HD DVR, and when it broke i could take it to the cable office down the street and get a new one. I'm not saying i want to go back to cable, im saying there are other companies out there that don't require contracts or high upfront lease fees.


----------



## JMCecil

gio12 said:


> I agree. ESPN sucks for everything but live coverage. Although I like College Game Day and sometimes the NFL pre-game stuff


Funny you bring that up. NFL pre-game used to be awesome. It is now no different than The Herd. They talk endlessly about nothing, then give each game about 20 seconds. We get a bunch of mouthy prema donas talking ****. Cover the damn game. I DON'T GIVE A **** WHAT YOU THINK! I can think for myself, thank you.

Fortunately, the College show hasn't totally gone E! on us. But, with Lou (how do I get him off my TV) Holtz, it's getting harder and harder to watch.


----------



## tonyd79

tulanejosh said:


> I dont know about that. I've had cable before. I don't recall paying $200 for their HD DVR, and when it broke i could take it to the cable office down the street and get a new one. I'm not saying i want to go back to cable, im saying there are other companies out there that don't require contracts or high upfront lease fees.


Yes, and there are cell phone non-contracts too. But they usually cost more in the long run.

fios, for example, charges higher fees for each box. And offers better bundles and prices if you sign a contract. You pay the higher fees if you do not have a contract.

Also, there are a ton of deals for DirecTV boxes for new customers and even customers who renew their contracts. You quote retail price of the box, which almost no one pays.


----------



## BlackCoffee

tulanejosh said:


> Thing is... D* is also a supplier in this equation - a supplier to me. ... When i entered into that agreement with them, it was done so with the expectation that I'd get what I paid for - not we'll still charge you the same, but we may or may not actually make good on our end of the deal depending on how our negotiations go. There's literally zero chance that they decrease my bill even if these channels never come back. You can't apply supplier logic only to viacom and then ignore your conclusions when it comes time to examine directv's role in this. It doesn't matter whether i watch these channels all the time or never - they agreed - implied or otherwise - to provide them to me, and now they aren't. Yet come the 15th every month, I'm still expected to pay the same regardless of their service level.
> 
> And on the topic of something for nothing... how do you know that directv didn't ask for something incremental - new channels, more hd, digital rights, on demand rights, tv everywhere rights - to the last agreement that spurred a price increase? Wouldn't that be directv expecting something for nothing?


You agreed to pay a fee and get a level of service. DTV's going in arguement is that they are asking for no more than is currently delivered, but VIACOM wants 30% more. To me this means that if VIACOM stuck with the existing rate schedule, we wouldn't be having this argue.

DTV is already offering credits for three months, even if the channels come back tomorrow. (See other posts) Sounds like they are acting in good faith to their customers. So, if these channels disappear, I am sure our monthly bill will decrease.


----------



## RunnerFL

tulanejosh said:


> I dont know about that. I've had cable before. I don't recall paying $200 for their HD DVR, and when it broke i could take it to the cable office down the street and get a new one. I'm not saying i want to go back to cable, im saying there are other companies out there that don't require contracts or high upfront lease fees.


Sure, but how much did you pay a month for that DVR?

Cable also doesn't give you thousands of dollars on a new install either. Satellite dish, switches, splitters, DECA units, etc. Those aren't cheap.


----------



## tulanejosh

tonyd79 said:


> Fine, then we pay full price for the hardware.
> 
> Again, join the real world. The only reason why you get a discount on the hardware is because you agree to a contract.
> 
> Or increase your fees because you have not agreed to a contract.
> 
> You really live in an odd world. One that is starting to look like trolling with your sideways "camp" comment.


dude chillout. I've had my issues with RunnerFL but when he snapped back at me - i knew why. Neigher of us said peep to you.

Personally - I choose to not to prostrate myself at d* feet. You like the taste of their designer shoe.. That's cool, whatever floats your boat. But maybe you should join the real world and stop pretending like either of these companies care even the slightest bit about you or your money beyond your ability to make money for them.

Just so you know... Cable companies don't require contracts or for me to pay full price for hardware. In fact - i dont think ive ever paid anything for one of their boxes (well im sure it was bundled into a price, but neither time warner or comcast charted me $99 for the right to pay a $7/month fee in perpetuity for a crappy dvr).


----------



## gio12

"tonyd79" said:


> Oh my. The name calling has commenced.
> 
> I am not a shill. I get nothing from DirecTV free. In fact, I don't even get discounts because I do not spend my time on the phone begging for them. Not worth it to me.
> 
> But go ahead, when sane argument starts to make sense, just claim people are fanboys or shills.


Not talking about you!


----------



## jgriffin7

I called and got $360 credit ($30/month for 12 months) and no contract/commitment.


----------



## tulanejosh

RunnerFL said:


> Sure, but how much did you pay a month for that DVR?
> 
> Cable also doesn't give you thousands of dollars on a new install either. Satellite dish, switches, splitters, DECA units, etc. Those aren't cheap.


Honestly can't recall but it wasn't a ton. $10, $15?

Oh cmon now... That fiber, coax, network backbone etc didn't magically appear in the ground by itself. It costs billions and billions and billions of dollars. And you know that.


----------



## RunnerFL

jgriffin7 said:


> I called and got $360 credit ($30/month for 12 months) and no contract/commitment.


Wow, sweet. That's even better than the guy who got Sunday Ticket for free.


----------



## BlackCoffee

tulanejosh said:


> Unfortunately - I do not agree with you. It's deceptive advertising - and it's generally frowned upon by alphabet soup government agencies. Every commercial they run that talks about the channels they offer vs dish, any website content they display talking up its channel lineup, the inserts that fall out of my newspaper containing channel logos - it's all an implied commitment that says, "hey sign up with us, and look at all this stuff you get!". The implied commitment incented you to enter into an agreement - and then they changed the rules on you. That's the definition of bait and switch.


You need to stop assuming that some government agency is going to come down on DTV for losing the broadcast signal for an hour or even losing a station. Read the agreement, signal disruptions, changes in programming, all kinds of alterations are well within your agreement. What you think you should get is not what you think, but what the agreement says.

Threaten to go anywhere else and you will have the same terms of service from cable, broadcast TV, or your internet provider. I find DTV to be response and concerned. That may not be everyone's opinion, but a lot of times expectations are higher than reality.


----------



## tonyd79

gio12 said:


> Not talking about you!


Sorry. Misunderstood. I will remove my post.


----------



## gio12

"RunnerFL" said:


> Sure, but how much did you pay a month for that DVR?
> 
> Cable also doesn't give you thousands of dollars on a new install either. Satellite dish, switches, splitters, DECA units, etc. Those aren't cheap.


Thousands of dollars? Really? LMFAO!


----------



## RunnerFL

tulanejosh said:


> Honestly can't recall but it wasn't a ton. $10, $15?


That's twice as much as the monthly lease fee on a secondary DVR. And if you only have one DVR well that's $10, $15 more.



tulanejosh said:


> Oh cmon now... That fiber, coax, network backbone etc didn't magically appear in the ground by itself. It costs billions and billions and billions of dollars. And you know that.


Sure, but that fiber, network backbone, etc, can be re-used by more than one customer and is certainly used by more than one customer at a time in the neighborhood.


----------



## inkahauts

"RunnerFL" said:


> No, I don't know that's not what you meant because that's not what you said. How am I, or anyone on here, to know you typed one thing and meant another?


!rolling


----------



## tulanejosh

BlackCoffee said:


> You agreed to pay a fee and get a level of service. DTV's going in arguement is that they are asking for no more than is currently delivered, but VIACOM wants 30% more. To me this means that if VIACOM stuck with the existing rate schedule, we wouldn't be having this argue.
> 
> DTV is already offering credits for three months, even if the channels come back tomorrow. (See other posts) Sounds like they are acting in good faith to their customers. So, if these channels disappear, I am sure our monthly bill will decrease.


Spin spin spin my man. Directv is spinning facts just like viacom is spinning facts. Both are probably be mostly truthful. But its that mostly part you have to take with a grain of salt. How reasonable does it sound to you for someone to just blanketly demand 30% more - in this economy - without giving anything additional? Sounds like stupid business to me, and say what you want, but you dont get to be Viacom or Directv, or any of the rest of the Fortune 500 on the back of stupid business decisions.


----------



## rmmccann

RunnerFL said:


> Sure, but that fiber, network backbone, etc, can be re-used by more than one customer and is certainly used by more than one customer at a time in the neighborhood.


Not to mention a lot of that infrastructure was subsidized by government programs aiming to expand services. I don't know (but I assume someone here would) if DirecTV has received any government grants for launching their satellites?


----------



## arkenhill

A quick question to all the people saying that they never signed a contract with DirecTV and therefore they have on contract with DirecTV. If you have no contract, what exactly is DirecTV doing wrong to you? If there is no contract they have zero obligations to you, right? On things like this that have gone on for years and years, I tend to side with the business for the simple reason that they most likely have lawyers for customers and man do lawyers like to sue when they think they have been wronged (and more power to 'em for doing that).


----------



## tonyd79

tulanejosh said:


> dude chillout. I've had my issues with RunnerFL but when he snapped back at me - i knew why. Neigher of us said peep to you.
> 
> Personally - I choose to not to prostrate myself at d* feet. You like the taste of their designer shoe.. That's cool, whatever floats your boat. But maybe you should join the real world and stop pretending like either of these companies care even the slightest bit about you or your money beyond your ability to make money for them.


Where once did I say they cared about me? I am talking about business and contracts. Without emotion. The only time I posted about them caring was that I said they did not want to drive customers away so they care that much. Wow. That is so much licking their boots. You are the one who started the emotional nonsense.


tulanejosh said:


> Just so you know... Cable companies don't require contracts or for me to pay full price for hardware. In fact - i dont think ive ever paid anything for one of their boxes (well im sure it was bundled into a price, but neither time warner or comcast charted me $99 for the right to pay a $7/month fee in perpetuity for a crappy dvr).


That all depends on the cable company. I have Fios so I know what they do. But also, cable companies are locally regulated AND benefit from local infrastructure which DirecTV and Dish do not. But no matter, they get their money. It is bundled into the price. Or they charge you for a truck roll or some other mechanism.


----------



## RunnerFL

rmmccann said:


> Not to mention a lot of that infrastructure was subsidized by government programs aiming to expand services.


Good point.



rmmccann said:


> I don't know (but I assume someone here would) if DirecTV has received any government grants for launching their satellites?


Good question and I totally overlooked the Sats themselves in my earlier post. Those cost a few billion each not to mention the launch costs. Cable doesn't have those costs.


----------



## gio12

jgriffin7 said:


> I called and got $360 credit ($30/month for 12 months) and no contract/commitment.


Holy cow! That's crazy!


----------



## texasmoose

I'd hate to be a front-line D* CSR working the phones today. What is the hold time to speak with someone?


----------



## oldengineer

I know it's illegal for sellers of goods/services to form a cartel to set prices, but I don't see anything illegal for buyers to partner up to negotiate prices. It's too bad that D*, E*, and TWC can't get together and form a buyer's group to negotiate with providers.


----------



## gio12

texasmoose said:


> I'd hate to be a front-line D* CSR working the phones today. What is the hold time to speak with someone?


35-45 min when I called about my HR22 locking up.


----------



## SParker

I would assume people getting large credits are talking to retention CSR's?


----------



## BlackCoffee

tulanejosh said:


> Spin spin spin my man. Directv is spinning facts just like viacom is spinning facts. Both are probably be mostly truthful. But its that mostly part you have to take with a grain of salt. How reasonable does it sound to you for someone to just blanketly demand 30% more - in this economy - without giving anything additional? Sounds like stupid business to me, and say what you want, but you dont get to be Viacom or Directv, or any of the rest of the Fortune 500 on the back of stupid business decisions.


I am sure that being a conspiracy theorist is attractive to you. Spoken like someone who has never had to run a business, provide a service, or control costs. There has got to be a government agency out there that will make DTV give you free entertainment and tax somebody in the 1% that actually has a business to pay for it. Keep looking behind you, they are out to get us all.


----------



## rmmccann

RunnerFL said:


> Good question and I totally overlooked the Sats themselves in my earlier post. Those cost a few billion each not to mention the launch costs. Cable doesn't have those costs.


Let's also not forget how much easier it is to maintain and repair terrestrial infrastructure. If DirecTV lost a satellite, it's not going to be something that can be fixed in a matter of hours/days.


----------



## tonyd79

tulanejosh said:


> Spin spin spin my man. Directv is spinning facts just like viacom is spinning facts. Both are probably be mostly truthful. But its that mostly part you have to take with a grain of salt. How reasonable does it sound to you for someone to just blanketly demand 30% more - in this economy - without giving anything additional? Sounds like stupid business to me, and say what you want, but you dont get to be Viacom or Directv, or any of the rest of the Fortune 500 on the back of stupid business decisions.


Do you get to be a Fortune 500 company by cutting off your paying customers from your one line offerings? Cause they just did that. Do you get to be a Fortune 500 company by making commercials and videos mocking your erstwhile partner? Cause they did that, even before the channels were yanked.

Being a Fortune 500 company does not shield you from having bad management take over. It does not shield you from bad business practices (ever hear of "Too Big to Fail?") nor does it shield you from being greedy, stupid or dishonorable (ever hear of the banking industry?).


----------



## texasmoose

This thread has some serious wings on it, under 48 hours since inception & almost 70k views!


----------



## darkpowrjd

You know, I really, REALLY hate that they don't say anything about how the talks are going to actually resolve this. Are they even talking? How long until we can get these channels back so we can stop talking about this?

The whole thing of taking down the streams and punishing everyone is a dick move, though! Why should those sites even matter, and why alienate your audience over this? This is between DTV and Viacom, not Viacom and DTV's customers. It's as if Viacom is thinking that it's the customer's fault. CAN Viacom get in trouble for doing that to people? I know they have been douchebags in the past, but c'mon guys. Enough with punishing the little guys. You want us to choose the "real deal"! GET SOMETHING DONE AND GIVE US OUR DAMN CHANNELS BACK!



texasmoose said:


> This thread has some serious wings on it, under 48 hours since inception & almost 70k views!


I know, right? And not any real new news about the dispute other than that idiotic move of Viacom's streaming video!


----------



## RunnerFL

darkpowrjd said:


> You know, I really, REALLY hate that they don't say anything about how the talks are going to actually resolve this. Are they even talking? How long until we can get these channels back so we can stop talking about this?


What do you want, live CSPAN coverage?

They update us when there is an update at directvpromise.com.


----------



## dbstv

with lost of AMC dish gave me for free a Ruko box hdmi cable and up 30 off my bill for next few months

Wonder what I will get with DTV

and yes I sub to both services I like way too much TV


----------



## darkpowrjd

RunnerFL said:


> What do you want, live CSPAN coverage?
> 
> They update us when there is an update at directvpromise.com.


Wow, man. I just gave my opinion and you got all offended about it. Not sure WHY, but....yeah!


----------



## sigma1914

texasmoose said:


> I'd hate to be a front-line D* CSR working the phones today. What is the hold time to speak with someone?


I have to call this week for things totally unrelated and am dreading it. :lol:


----------



## tonyd79

dbstv said:


> with lost of AMC dish gave me for free a Ruko box hdmi cable and up 30 off my bill for next few months
> 
> Wonder what I will get with DTV
> 
> and yes I sub to both services I like way too much TV


Not as much.

The big difference, as I see it, is that Dish has zero intention of putting AMC and the others back on. That is why they gave you an alternative. Because they don't want to lose you as a customer.

DirecTV intends to settle with Viacom eventually. If they ever give up, maybe there will be other remedies, but as of now, the most you will get is a discount.


----------



## damondlt

RunnerFL said:


> What do you want, live CSPAN coverage?
> 
> .


 Yes I do!


----------



## RunnerFL

darkpowrjd said:


> Wow, man. I just gave my opinion and you got all offended about it. Not sure WHY, but....yeah!


Opinions don't end with question marks. You were demanding answers and demanding them right now.


----------



## tonyd79

sigma1914 said:


> I have to call this week for things totally unrelated and am dreading it. :lol:


I was finally going to call about upgrading my old DVRs into something new, maybe with official whole home. But YIKES!

An automated system would be a good way to handle this. Press "1" if you hate Viacom and want a rebate.


----------



## RunnerFL

sigma1914 said:


> I have to call this week for things totally unrelated and am dreading it. :lol:


Email Ellen and get one of those express support PIN codes. :lol:


----------



## dbstv

susanandmark said:


> Unless, of course, you're already one of the top tier (highest dollar) customers already paying for all those services ...


OH Darn I have these channels will call see what I can get contract is way pass up


----------



## skaman74

just called directv and I didnt get any deals, not even a cent less!


----------



## cjrleimer

jgriffin7 said:


> I called and got $360 credit ($30/month for 12 months) and no contract/commitment.


Did you have to go through retention? or did you threaten to switch.


----------



## sigma1914

RunnerFL said:


> Email Ellen and get one of those express support PIN codes. :lol:


:lol:

Dear Ellen,

Deactivate my owned receiver and switch my NFLST subscription to the regular $199 w/o Max. Do this or I'm switching to Dish ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## LMckin

Look like Viacom has block some of it web access shows

from WSJ.com
As the dispute continues, Viacom has slimmed its offering of content available to all viewers for free online, including "Jersey Shore," "Teen Mom" and "The Daily Show." Interestingly, DirecTV had suggested the Web as an alternative viewing venue for Viacom shows during the blackout.

http://goo.gl/ZSVYC


----------



## RunnerFL

sigma1914 said:


> :lol:
> 
> Dear Ellen,
> 
> Deactivate my owned receiver and switch my NFLST subscription to the regular $199 w/o Max. Do this or I'm switching to Dish ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


hahaha, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have to be that harsh.


----------



## darkpowrjd

RunnerFL said:


> Opinions don't end with question marks. You were demanding answers and demanding them right now.


I didn't mean for them to sound like demands for answers. I was just saying those questions as rhetorical ones because I was trying to make a point about how I don't particularly like how secretive these things can be. I can understand WHY they can be secretive, but for someone anxiously awaiting some sort of answer as to what the hell is going on, it can be frustrating to go even a day without even a bit of development.

Especially when you're someone who wanted to tune into one of the shows that was on one of the axed channels (TNA Impact on Spike, since I've heard they've been getting better and I was getting curious as to if they have). I'm not sure how TNA is taking this news (they need all the exposure they can get right now, and they can't seem to cut a break), but I'm assuming it can't be good for them. I'm sure they will have a backup plan (Viacom can't tell them to not do something online or something like that since they don't have any real control over what TNA does with their programming), but this mess doesn't make it easier on the number two wrestling promotion.


----------



## mdavej

It sucks to have channels go dark (I've had a lot of experience with this at Dish), but I'm glad to see DirecTV push back against price increases. Some draw comparisons to Dish and AMC, some of which apply, like rate increases and streaming being to blame. But Dish had the additional element of revenge, which made negotiation impossible in their case. The AMC blackout will likely last for years, whereas the Viacom blackout will likely only last a few days or weeks.

The main problem, as I see it, is that we're in a state of transition, where more people are dropping subscription TV service in favor of streaming. So the networks make their content available via streaming, ultimately causing more cord cutting. But they don't make enough money at that, so they try to extort the shortfall from the middle man (DirecTV) who is also suffering from low subscriber growth. It's a bad situation that's only going to get worse for consumers until a better revenue model comes along. Ultimately someone has to pay, or the content will go away.


----------



## RunnerFL

darkpowrjd said:


> I didn't mean for them to sound like demands for answers.


Well that's how your post came across. 



darkpowrjd said:


> I was just saying those questions as rhetorical ones because I was trying to make a point about how I don't particularly like how secretive these things can be. I can understand WHY they can be secretive, but for someone anxiously awaiting some sort of answer as to what the hell is going on, it can be frustrating to go even a day without even a bit of development.


We've never been privy to the meeting minutes for a contract negotiation. In fact the only time we know for sure they are taking place is in times like this when channels are blocked. Most of the time they take place and work out and we never know.



darkpowrjd said:


> Especially when you're someone who wanted to tune into one of the shows that was on one of the axed channels (TNA Impact on Spike, since I've heard they've been getting better and I was getting curious as to if they have). I'm not sure how TNA is taking this news (they need all the exposure they can get right now, and they can't seem to cut a break), but I'm assuming it can't be good for them. I'm sure they will have a backup plan (Viacom can't tell them to not do something online or something like that since they don't have any real control over what TNA does with their programming), but this mess doesn't make it easier on the number two wrestling promotion.


From what I understand they put some video of Hulk Hogan on YouTube saying something about not having the channels but the article said it only had something like 3k views. Doesn't sound like anyone is too concerned with wrestling on Spike.


----------



## jleupen

Just switched from DirecTv to the local IPTV option on Monday. (DirecTv doesn't even know this yet.)

Had no idea this was coming, but my kids think I am a genius now so it's all good.


----------



## vobguy

Sixto said:


> As I was browsing through the FAQ:"Viacom has many networks, and some are popular with very specific audiences like kids or teens. But even their best channels have been losing audience, in some cases by very significant numbers. There's a direct correlation between the number of people leaving those networks and the ones who are watching the exact same shows on Netflix, AppleTV and other streaming services. Since Viacom is selling this content to other companies, we feel it's unfair for them to charge our customers more-they should actually be charging them less. To be clear, we have offered Viacom increased fees for their networks going forward; we just can't afford the extreme increases they are asking for."​


Oh sure.. come on now, out with it, WHY do you HATE poor little SPONGEBOB?


----------



## Jungle Jim

Like many others, the only channel our household will miss is Nick Jr, which all three of our kids watch ALL THE TIME. PBS Sprout is comparable, but not included in my package. It would be a nice gesture for Directv to activate Sprout for us while the blackout is in place. On the other hand, I guess people would be lining up to get their free substitute channels, huh.

If Nick Jr never comes back, we'll have to consider moving up to a package that includes PBS Sprout.


----------



## bmlocal175

I searched on the web and see talks of 17 and some say 26 channels. Is there a list somewhere that I missed of every channel that has been cut? Most articles talk only of the big channels but that is only 4 or 5 in most lists that I can find.


----------



## Regw3

Just called retention dept.
Offered me $10 off for 12 months and free sunday ticket!!!


----------



## damondlt

CNBC said they went back to the table this afternoon. 
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000102259&play=1


----------



## SParker

Got $5 off a month for 3 months plus she gave me the free HD access for 24 months again plus said I could get another HD DVR for free but it would add a new 24 month contract.


----------



## Nick

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I suspect if 50% of the folks upset about losing "their" channels wrote letters with certified confirmation to the President of Viacom (or any other content provider) complaining about the huge increments of their price increases, with a CC: copy to the FCC....that would get exponentially more traction to accomplish something of value in the long run than simply posting frustration on a message board about it.
> 
> A paper-based letter is often more powerful than 1000 e-mails.
> 
> DirecTV is just one of many delivery services. The primary source and driver behind rate increases is the content providers (local and national).
> 
> Many times when these situations come up...the venting is misdirected toward the wrong place.


Sorry, but that is a bad strategy. If you tell Viacom you want your MTV, Viacom will use that as leverage against the providers (D*, E* or cables). Instead, act like you don't care (you really shouldn't anyway - Viacom programming targets the sub-100 IQ crowd) If no one "demands" Viacom channels, no leverage and Directv and their subs win.

_"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."_


----------



## vobguy

maartena said:


> You are very wrong. Free speech is not a right on the Internet. The moderator of this forum can ban you for any reason, at any time, maybe simply because he/she does not like you, and you have no rights, no legal recourse on that matter.
> 
> Why? Because this forum is privately owned, and not public. As far as the "pipe" goes, it too is owned by private companies, and they get to decide what traffic they want across it. Any attempt to introduce "net neutrality" in to the United States laws, has been blocked by congress. And as such, it is totally in the right of any provider to control what goes across it, and what is published using their services.
> 
> A current example is efforts to control the spread of copyright infringements using online tools. Of course there are actual laws being broken there, so it might not be a great example of free speech, but it is the ISP's right for instance to try and throttle or block services such as torrents, if they so feel like it.
> 
> As far as free speech is concerned, a hosting company is also completely in their right to refuse to publish what you want to publish. Try and publish a racist opinion on this forum for instance, and you can be assured - although perfectly legal otherwise as your 1st amendment right - that the owners of this forum will remove it. You are after all, on THEIR property.
> 
> So don't be fooled into thinking your right of free speech is allowed "on the internet", because it most certainly is not.


Ditto. If one wants absolute free speech on a forum, one is free to find one's own provider and start their own forum.

At the very least, when you post on someone else's forum, you are using their diskspace. I am pretty sure woody wouldn't think that everyone has a right to store things on his disk just because his computer is connected to the internet.


----------



## vobguy

Carl Spock said:


> Where do you get this stuff? Is this off the top of your head?


I am guessing it is the other end...


----------



## EddyScott

Chris Blount said:


> I called and they only gave me $5 off my next bill.


Yes but the FREE Encore is priceless.


----------



## RunnerFL

Jungle Jim said:


> Like many others, the only channel our household will miss is Nick Jr, which all three of our kids watch ALL THE TIME. PBS Sprout is comparable, but not included in my package. It would be a nice gesture for Directv to activate Sprout for us while the blackout is in place. On the other hand, I guess people would be lining up to get their free substitute channels, huh.
> 
> If Nick Jr never comes back, we'll have to consider moving up to a package that includes PBS Sprout.


If you go to 299 there's a "Kid's Mix" channel up with Sprout, Cartoon Network, Boomerang, Disney, etc. Plenty of kids programming.


----------



## cjrleimer

I have noticed alot of Charter trucks go by my neighborhood today. I dont know how many people have Direct, but I wouldnt be suprised to see people do a quick switch over due to the crisis.


----------



## jburns

Regw3 said:


> Just called retention dept.
> Offered me $10 off for 12 months and free sunday ticket!!!


Oh Yeah?? Well I just called and they are paying off my mortgage, paying full tuition and fees for both my kids to the Ivy League school of their choice, replacing my wife's entire wardrobe and even sending out a tech and allowing my dog to gnaw on his leg. Now that's commitment to their customers!!!


----------



## darkpowrjd

cjrleimer said:


> I have noticed alot of Charter trucks go by my neighborhood today. I dont know how many people have Direct, but I wouldnt be suprised to see people do a quick switch over due to the crisis.


You know what would really suck? If Viacom did the ultimate screw job and suspended the channels for EVERYONE because of this.

I don't think they would think of doing that, but after the low blow they did with the stream thing...


----------



## Mark Holtz

Viacom, DirecTV still 'far apart' in talks
Companies trying to resolve 26-channel blackout on DirecTV


----------



## racermd

I'm missing out on The Daily Show and Colbert Report on their respective websites during this "outage." I'm getting a message saying the following at both websites when I click on Full Episodes:

"Full episodes are currently unavailable. We apologize for the inconvenience."

Both shows are staples to my evening. Not entirely sure who to be more mad at - D* or Viacom. On one hand D* refuses to agree to the price increase to carry Viacom content (that I want) and Viacom is well within their rights to distribute content as they see fit. On the other hand, Viacom KNOWS the web content is distributed without charge to the consumer and is likely blocking it during negotiations to spite who would otherwise be paying customers of D*. By disabling online access, Viacom is affecting D* customers and everyone else alike. Even if I weren't a D* subscriber, I would be missing out on content that would otherwise be available to me. That seems overly-aggressive even though Viacom is well within their rights to do so.

I guess that puts me in the "Viacom is more wrong" camp. But only just.


----------



## cjrleimer

darkpowrjd said:


> You know what would really suck? If Viacom did the ultimate screw job and suspended the channels for EVERYONE because of this.
> 
> I don't think they would think of doing that, but after the low blow they did with the stream thing...


I agree, I mean the suspending of streams shows why Direct is winning the war so far. Mind you Direct had a faux paus of not bringing this out in the open a couple of weeks ago when the original contract expired on June 30th, but Viacom seems to take evil to another level.


----------



## gio12

EddyScott said:


> Yes but the FREE Encore is priceless.


Really? Just checked. 5 days of GARBAGE so far. DIRECTV can keep it!


----------



## Carl Spock

cjrleimer said:


> I have noticed alot of Charter trucks go by my neighborhood today. I dont know how many people have Direct, but I wouldnt be suprised to see people do a quick switch over due to the crisis.


I think a more likely answer would be the "everyone owns my car" syndrome. Have you ever noticed that just after you buy a car, it suddenly seems like everyone on the road now owns the same car? Before nobody drove that model. Now you see them all the time.

cjrleimer, I'd bet just as many Charter trucks drove by yesterday. You just weren't conscious of them. Today you are.


----------



## smolenski

"RunnerFL" said:


> No, I don't know that's not what you meant because that's not what you said. How am I, or anyone on here, to know you typed one thing and meant another?


I know what he meant.


----------



## DodgerKing

"Mark Holtz" said:


> Viacom, DirecTV still 'far apart' in talks
> Companies trying to resolve 26-channel blackout on DirecTV


I wish the writers would check their facts before the write an article. 26 channels? Really?


----------



## damondlt

Mark Holtz said:


> Viacom, DirecTV still 'far apart' in talks
> Companies trying to resolve 26-channel blackout on DirecTV


This is before the Meeting .So we don't know how the talks are going.

CNBC interviewed both CEOs on the way to the table this afternoon!


----------



## abooch

Spoke to a CSR in retention who said all companies are in dispute with Viacom and they all will lose Viacom channels soon.. lol


----------



## RunnerFL

smolenski said:


> I know what he meant.


Congrats Kreskin.


----------



## Carl Spock

Chris Blount said:


> I called and they only gave me $5 off my next bill.





tonyd79 said:


> Didn't they know who you are?


"Hello, DirecTV Retention? This is Sumner Redstone. I want a credit on my next bill because you nimrods dropped twenty-five Viacom channels with all their great programs. Yes, I can hold. _<dial tone>_ Hello? Hello?"


----------



## felickz

Kids were pissed this morning when there was no sponge bob!!! 

Google TV's in my house are getting a workout now! How convenient, my 2 year commitment to D* is up this month, time to cut the cordsatellite up-link?


----------



## cjrleimer

abooch said:


> Spoke to a CSR in retention who said all companies are in dispute with Viacom and they all will lose Viacom channels soon.. lol


I hope it wasnt someone in India.


----------



## maartena

racermd said:


> I'm missing out on The Daily Show and Colbert Report on their respective websites during this "outage." I'm getting a message saying the following at both websites when I click on Full Episodes:
> 
> "Full episodes are currently unavailable. We apologize for the inconvenience."


Yeah, it shows how low Viacom is willing to stoop. They pulled them for everyone, so because of a dispute between Viacom and DirecTV, (which has 20 million customers), the other 100 million customers of companies like Comcast, Dish, Time Warner, Cox, Comcast, U-verse, Brighthouse, FIOS, Charter, and many smaller cable/iptv companies get screwed as well.

And of course everyone that has "cut the cord" only has OTA, and is relying on this content.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

maartena said:


> Yeah, it shows how low Viacom is willing to stoop. They pulled them for everyone, so because of a dispute between Viacom and DirecTV, (which has 20 million customers), the other 100 million customers of companies like Comcast, Dish, Time Warner, Cox, Comcast, U-verse, Brighthouse, FIOS, Charter, and many smaller cable/iptv companies get screwed as well.
> 
> And of course everyone that has "cut the cord" only has OTA, and is relying on this content.


likely this all a poly to epix on more systems so any system with out epix is at risk.


----------



## wmb

racermd said:


> I'm missing out on The Daily Show and Colbert Report on their respective websites during this "outage." I'm getting a message saying the following at both websites when I click on Full Episodes:
> 
> "Full episodes are currently unavailable. We apologize for the inconvenience."


Good thing both shows are on hiatus until Monday then. It will be interesting to see what happens next week. Viacom could try streaming them and see if "cutting the cord" could work both ways - viewers and content providers cut the distributers out of the loop.


----------



## hasan

gio12 said:


> Really? Just checked. 5 days of GARBAGE so far. DIRECTV can keep it!


Re: free encore until the 31st of July as consideration for the inconvenience of the current peeing contest.

In just a four days, I set the following to record (all HD):

Madhouse
Live and Let Die
Rachel Getting Married
Man of the House
Just Go With It

While none of these are Oscar material, I think we will enjoy seeing them (even the Bond retread).

With 15 more days to follow, if I get another 10 movies to record, that will be 15 movies that I didn't have and paid essentially nothing for.

There is no accounting for people's taste, to be sure, but I do appreciate and will take advantage of the offer of Encore until the 31st. Smart move by D*!

I wonder if Viacom is doing anything (or if they even can) for their "customers"?


----------



## Shades228

Jungle Jim said:


> Like many others, the only channel our household will miss is Nick Jr, which all three of our kids watch ALL THE TIME. PBS Sprout is comparable, but not included in my package. It would be a nice gesture for Directv to activate Sprout for us while the blackout is in place. On the other hand, I guess people would be lining up to get their free substitute channels, huh.
> 
> If Nick Jr never comes back, we'll have to consider moving up to a package that includes PBS Sprout.


If you go to Nick, Jick Jr or Nick toons there is a mix which has Sprout on it. Just not fullscreen unless you have the package.


----------



## MartyS

"jason williams" said:


> Will dtv be offering a credit for this loss of channels and how will they do it. Suppose I claim that these channels are the only ones I watch. will they offer me a credit on my whole bill? Anyway I am getting fed up with dtv and there screwed up method of doing things since they restored my $10 hd access fee. I will now consider going to ROKU..dish or comcast.


Bye bye. If you think they're any better,.. Well you'll find out they're all the same bunch of greedy bastards. It's just in how hey charge you, but they all get the same thing.


----------



## cjrleimer

The one thing we can all agree on, is the fact that after awhile the ads from viacom get annoying on sites like nick at nite.com and others.


----------



## Jungle Jim

RunnerFL said:


> If you go to 299 there's a "Kid's Mix" channel up with Sprout, Cartoon Network, Boomerang, Disney, etc. Plenty of kids programming.


All "kids programming" is not the same.

Sprout and Boomerang are not included in our package, and I just checked and it would cost us an additional $10/month to get them. Cartoon Network and Disney focus on tweens, not toddlers and 6-8 year olds. Baby first is for infants.

We have no viable substitute for Nick Jr. May have to start streaming, but that's a pain in the butt when your kids don't know how to do it.


----------



## cjrleimer

JoeTheDragon said:


> likely this all a poly to epix on more systems so any system with out epix is at risk.


110 percent agree with you. Of course I have netflix, and charter internet so I get Epix movies online anyway :grin:


----------



## RunnerFL

Jungle Jim said:


> All "kids programming" is not the same.
> 
> Sprout and Boomerang are not included in our package, and I just checked and it would cost us an additional $10/month to get them. Cartoon Network and Disney focus on tweens, not toddlers and 6-8 year olds. Baby first is for infants.
> 
> We have no viable substitute for Nick Jr. May have to start streaming, but that's a pain in the butt when your kids don't know how to do it.


You could probably call DirecTV and get them to give you the package with boomerang and sprout at no extra cost for a few months. It's worth a shot.


----------



## mikeh14

Jungle Jim said:


> All "kids programming" is not the same.
> 
> Sprout and Boomerang are not included in our package, and I just checked and it would cost us an additional $10/month to get them. Cartoon Network and Disney focus on tweens, not toddlers and 6-8 year olds. Baby first is for infants.
> 
> We have no viable substitute for Nick Jr. May have to start streaming, but that's a pain in the butt when your kids don't know how to do it.


I'm willing to bet if you call in, you'll get them for free


----------



## zimm7778

"Jungle Jim" said:


> All "kids programming" is not the same.
> 
> Sprout and Boomerang are not included in our package, and I just checked and it would cost us an additional $10/month to get them. Cartoon Network and Disney focus on tweens, not toddlers and 6-8 year olds. Baby first is for infants.
> 
> We have no viable substitute for Nick Jr. May have to start streaming, but that's a pain in the butt when your kids don't know how to do it.


Teach them. We didn't come out of the womb knowing how to handle vcrs but by 6 I knew how.


----------



## MartyS

"tulanejosh" said:


> I dont know about that. I've had cable before. I don't recall paying $200 for their HD DVR, and when it broke i could take it to the cable office down the street and get a new one. I'm not saying i want to go back to cable, im saying there are other companies out there that don't require contracts or high upfront lease fees.


Comcast here charges 18 per month for a crappy scientific Atlanta DVR and $10 per month for a plain old receiver. Work out those numbers with multiple DVRs.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

Have any of the competitors run ads yet that say something like "If you want to see _x_, switch from Directv?' Does anyone even know what the other providers contract situation is? I think it's still way to early for those scare tactics, but I wouldn't put it past some of these companies to vulture off customers that way.


----------



## zimm7778

"JcT21" said:


> just seen this on facebook said it was " a few seconds ago"
> 
> Share this: Viacom is now taking away online programming from everyone. Less than 12 hours after disconnecting DIRECTV's television viewers, Viacom is at it again by blocking all Americans who want to see their shows on the Internet.
> 
> DIRECTV developed an "Other Ways To Watch" section on its DIRECTVPromise.com site to help fans find Viacom's shows online. Unfortunately, Viacom shut off access for all users at approx 3 pm EDT. Immediately after, Viacom began a systematic network-by-network black out of most of its sites' online streaming. Viacom is now not only holding DIRECTV customers hostage, but all online viewers as well. Is this just another underhanded negotiating tactic, or does this mean that Viacom will no longer offer its content free online? #DIRECTVHasMyBack


So the Internet just became a more intelligent place to be. Cool.


----------



## zimm7778

"Pepe Sylvia" said:


> Have any of the competitors run ads yet that say something like "If you want to see x, switch from Directv?' Does anyone even know what the other providers contract situation is? I think it's still way to early for those scare tactics, but I wouldn't put it past some of these companies to vulture off customers that way.


With the way a lot of others have had issues with Viacom it would be something if they all said nothing and secretly were all rooting for Directv here to finally put them in their place.


----------



## cjrleimer

zimm7778 said:


> With the way a lot of others have had issues with Viacom it would be something if they all said nothing and secretly were all rooting for Directv here to finally put them in their place.


I agree, but since tv providers compete with each other, I doubt it.


----------



## MartyS

"Pepe Sylvia" said:


> Have any of the competitors run ads yet that say something like "If you want to see x, switch from Directv?' Does anyone even know what the other providers contract situation is? I think it's still way to early for those scare tactics, but I wouldn't put it past some of these companies to vulture off customers that way.


I suspect that everyone else is watching this closely to see how it ultimately will affect then. If Directv "wins" great. If not they're going to brave themselves for their next negotiation.


----------



## Skyboss

This is awesome. Finally sticking it to clowns who try to force useless drivel on us. Dear God what will we do without snookey?

List of programs I watch on Viacomm channels:

.....


----------



## dorfd1

maartena said:


> Yeah, it shows how low Viacom is willing to stoop. They pulled them for everyone, so because of a dispute between Viacom and DirecTV, (which has 20 million customers), the other 100 million customers of companies like Comcast, Dish, Time Warner, Cox, Comcast, U-verse, Brighthouse, FIOS, Charter, and many smaller cable/iptv companies get screwed as well.
> 
> And of course everyone that has "cut the cord" only has OTA, and is relying on this content.


What your saying is, the other providers lost the viacom stations?


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

felickz said:


> Kids were pissed this morning when there was no sponge bob!!!
> 
> Google TV's in my house are getting a workout now! How convenient, *my 2 year commitment to D* is up this month*, time to cut the cordsatellite up-link?


Really? This post is from you in 2006:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=680126#post680126



> To all former Directv TIVO owners..
> *I am almost certian i am dropping D* as soon as my contract is up..
> *
> What will you do.
> 
> My wife and I were thoroughly happy with D* when we had our D*/Tivo unit.
> 
> Now i own the H20 and R15... I dont think i could be more UNHAPPY! D* really seemed like they were taking things in the right direction.... but lately i just dont know... Did they fire all their programmers ??? How long does it take to release software fixes??? COME ON!!!
> 
> AND WHEN DO I GET MY DUAL TUNER WATCHING BACK (misses TIVO)


That's a mighty long two year agreement. :lol:


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

dorfd1 said:


> What your saying is, the other providers lost the viacom stations?


Internet streaming is unavailable.


----------



## ajcoll5

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> Really? This post is from you in 2006:
> 
> That's a mighty long two year agreement. :lol:


Well that was back in 2006. He could have since then canceled his service, went with a different provider (or waited six months), canceled that provider after that contract was up and went back to DiecTV with all the discounts and deals they offer new subscribers but fail to offer long term customers. This is what I'll typically do to get the latest equipment and deals.


----------



## camo

danpeters said:


> I really don't think DirecTV carries 26 of their channels..
> 
> I am coming up with: MTV, Nick, Comedy Central, BET, VH1, Spike, TV Land, CMT, Logo, MTV 2, VH1 Classic, Centric, Palladia, Nick Jr, Nicktoons, TeenNick.
> 
> It looks like they are starting to put Alert channels under each channel in the guide so I'll scroll through and see if I missed any.
> 
> Dan
> 
> Edit: Missed MTV t3es


With the exception of Palladia I won't miss any of them. i understand families with young children, Nick will be missed but for the most part they provide junk TV.


----------



## dorfd1

does the station removal affect playback of recorded viacom shows ?


----------



## mikeh14

dorfd1 said:


> does the station removal affect playback of recorded viacom shows ?


No, unless they were recorded today. Any programs recorded previously will be recorded as if you watched them that day


----------



## Davenlr

Pepe Sylvia said:


> Internet streaming is unavailable.


Ill bet the torrents are going to by flying tho  I just checked, and Comedy Central's stuff is still streaming ok via Hulu on my HTPC. Dont know for how long tho.


----------



## crashHD

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> That's a mighty long two year agreement. :lol:


It's not that unbelievable. I've been on the verge of ditching my cell service for 3 years...some companies know how to push right up to, but not over, the edge of frustration.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

ajcoll5 said:


> Well that was back in 2006. He could have since then canceled his service, went with a different provider (or waited six months), canceled that provider after that contract was up and went back to DiecTV with all the discounts and deals they offer new subscribers but fail to offer long term customers. This is what I'll typically do to get the latest equipment and deals.





crashHD said:


> It's not that unbelievable. I've been on the verge of ditching my cell service for 3 years...some companies know how to push right up to, but not over, the edge of frustration.


Look up his posts. He's made 11 since 2006. Most of those have the "when my 2 years is up" tone.


----------



## zimm7778

When this is all over, Viacom needs to write a book titled "How to resoundingly lose a carriage agreement dispute and be put in your place once and for all." They didn't have public sentiment judging by everything I read here and on Directv's fb wall (which when it was Fox earlier this year was largely anti-Directv). They run ads that only the type of audience that they pretty much serve would find funny and "really showing Directv who's boss." Now apparently Hulk Hogan has said he's "gonna run wild" on Directv if they don't agree which is always good for perception when he's involved. And now this pulling the online streams to everyone. Yeah, great move guys. I could't have written a better gameplan for Directv to win this. Stay classy Viacom.


----------



## Jungle Jim

RunnerFL said:


> You could probably call DirecTV and get them to give you the package with boomerang and sprout at no extra cost for a few months. It's worth a shot.


If this isn't resolved in a few days, I'll do just that. Thanks for the idea.


----------



## tj218

cjrleimer said:


> I agree, but since tv providers compete with each other, I doubt it.


The more I think about it I think DTV may be just as bad here. I actually think this is more of a pissing match between DTV and Netlflix, with Viacom providing the means.

Here's why:
DTV is trying to protect the old model (c'mon the ala carte language is just being used because they know consumers want it DTV has no intention of offering these channels ala carte), they are seemingly upset that Viacom makes the content available on other providers (Netflix) which means Viacom gets there take but DTV loses out.

This fight is more about slowing down Netflix and other providers that strike deals with Netflix.

Short-term everyone is rooting for DTV in this fight, but if what I described above is what is going on, we may want Viacom to win.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Dominic26

kevinturcotte said:



> I say dump the channels for awhile. Let Viacom explain to their advertisers how they're suddenly 20 million viewers less. Watch their stock drop. Then renegotiate next week.


+1


----------



## rjsimmons

Wow. I watch comedy central once a month or so...the other channels even more rarely. D*, please drop these channels into a package I do not have to pay for. Thanks.


----------



## zimm7778

tj218 said:


> The more I think about it I think DTV may be just as bad here. I actually think this is more of a pissing match between DTV and Netlflix, with Viacom providing the means.
> 
> Here's why:
> DTV is trying to protect the old model (c'mon the ala carte language is just being used because they know consumers want it DTV has no intention of offering these channels ala carte), they are seemingly upset that Viacom makes the content available on other providers (Netflix) which means Viacom gets there take but DTV loses out.
> 
> This fight is more about slowing down Netflix and other providers that strike deals with Netflix.
> 
> Short-term everyone is rooting for DTV in this fight, but if what I described above is what is going on, we may want Viacom to win.
> 
> Just my two cents.


Except Viacom has a long and illustrious history of this type of thing the last several years I understand. So, if many are having trouble with you then maybe it's you. There are other networks that have their stuff on Netflix, it isn't like Viacom's the only one.


----------



## ffemtreed

"Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? I don't know. I have DirecTV."

Viacom wins -- 

Best line yet I seen in a carriage dispute. I am just going to sit back and enjoy the fireworks.


----------



## spartanstew

Why does this thread have so many posts?

What does it keep going?


----------



## DCSholtis

"Davenlr" said:


> Ill bet the torrents are going to by flying tho  I just checked, and Comedy Central's stuff is still streaming ok via Hulu on my HTPC. Dont know for how long tho.


Not sure if it's been mentioned earlier or not but according to @DirectvService all Encore channels are free for all until July 31st. I know it's not SpongeBob or Snooki . AND here is the kicker they are directing ppl over to Pirate Bay to get their missing programs.


----------



## dpeters11

"abooch" said:


> Spoke to a CSR in retention who said all companies are in dispute with Viacom and they all will lose Viacom channels soon.. lol


Maybe not that far, but Cox seems to be essentially on DirecTVs side

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-cox-20120711,0,6434127.story


----------



## tonyd79

"Carl Spock" said:


> "Hello, DirecTV Retention? This is Sumner Redstone. I want a credit on my next bill because you nimrods dropped twenty-five Viacom channels with all their great programs. Yes, I can hold. <dial tone> Hello? Hello?"


LOL.


----------



## pogo

loudo said:


> That is a little greedy on behalf of Viacom. They want a 30% increase and people that were lucky to get an increase in their pay, maybe got 3%. Most fixed or retires incomes that have a cost of living clause, might get a 3% increase in their checks. I would be glad to give them 30%, increase, if I got a 30% increase in my pay.


Maybe a little. However, a 3% increase for seven years is total increase of 23%. So not so much. I think the 30% is a going in position. Would you be willing to wait seven years for your next raise? Comparing your last annual raise to the 30% is nonsense. In February D* increased me almost 6%. Over seven years that's a 50% increase.


----------



## tonyd79

"Pepe Sylvia" said:


> Have any of the competitors run ads yet that say something like "If you want to see x, switch from Directv?' Does anyone even know what the other providers contract situation is? I think it's still way to early for those scare tactics, but I wouldn't put it past some of these companies to vulture off customers that way.


I don't think it will happen. Directv laid off dish with the AMC networks. The providers all have skin in the game here. Even though the dish dispute was more personal, it was also about price. Either caves and they set precedent for Viacom contracts and all others. They are all silently rooting for directv just as they did for dish.

Well maybe not Comcast. They are more complicated.


----------



## noahproblem

spartanstew said:


> Why does this thread have so many posts?
> 
> What does it keep going?


Festivus practice?


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

Viacom should pay DirecTv for carrying the channels, they are garbage and I won't miss any of them


----------



## zimm7778

pogo said:


> Maybe a little. However, a 3% increase for seven years is total increase of 23%. So not so much. I think the 30% is a going in position. Would you be willing to wait seven years for your next raise? Comparing your last annual raise to the 30% is nonsense. In February D* increased me almost 6%. Over seven years that's a 50% increase.


Ok, but this is the chicken and egg story here. You are correct, our bills have gone sky high. I got Directv in 2003. I had TC+ which was $42.99, TIVO DVR was like $5.99 I think and an additional reciever was $4.99. Now lets factor in the cost of everything I didn't have then that I have now to eliminate them. Another reciever (4.99) Whole Home ($3) HD ($10) All of this back then would have come to a total before tax of $71.96. Now if I had the same programming my bill would be over $110. Yes, I think we all know prices are high and it sucks. But a large part of that is rising programming costs. If Directv fights these battles and wins, perhaps the bills won't go up as much every year. There's also another issue to think about. They do have employees and all they have to pay and those employees pay the same sky high rates as we do on everything from gas and food to electricity. They want raises to be able to maintain the standard of living they are used to as well. It's a vicious circle in which everything must be considered. Yes, I know Viacom has employees too. It's bad and I really shudder to think what it will be like for TV in 5-10 years.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

dpeters11 said:


> Maybe not that far, but Cox seems to be essentially on DirecTVs side
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-cox-20120711,0,6434127.story


They must be on deck


----------



## adamson

For me this issue is like suddenly losing phone service. I love tvland and this has me quite ticked. Why do I have your service Directv? Because what I want in a tv provider has what I want to watch and need. To be threatened with channel disputes every few months is getting me real angry. Directv may say they are trying to save us money...well really? Our bills will go up again early next year as usual. If this really was to save money and Directv wins...Bill goes up in 2013, then I find these disputes as insulting to all subs.


----------



## HarleyD

adamson said:


> For me this issue is like suddenly losing phone service. I love tvland and this has me quite ticked. Why do I have your service Directv? Because what I want in a tv provider has what I want to watch and need. To be threatened with channel disputes every few months is getting me real angry. Directv may say they are trying to save us money...well really? Our bills will go up again early next year as usual. If this really was to save money and Directv wins...Bill goes up in 2013, then I find these disputes as insulting to all subs.


Everything goes up. Their employees get raises. Literally the cost of the electricity to keep the lights on goes up. New technology is being developed...those guys get paid. New satellites are contracted, built and eventually launched. There are plenty of cost increases to make annual rate increases a necessary evil apart from the cost of the content itself. It's a matter of containing cost growth as much as possible.

The question becomes will it go up $3, or $10 next February.


----------



## cjrleimer

HarleyD said:


> Everything goes up. Their employees get raises. Literally the cost of the electricity to keep the lights on goes up. New technology is being developed...those guys get paid. New satellites are contracted, built and eventually launched. There are plenty of cost increases to make annual reat increases a necessary evil apart from the cost of the content itself. It's a matter of containing cost growth as much as possible.
> 
> The question becomes will it go up $3, or $10 next February.


It depends. I am wondering what other ownership networks will have their contracts up soon, and if this dispute will be a tone setter for that?


----------



## VLaslow

I'm looking forward to the reduction in my monthly charges now that Viacom is off DTV. And, as many have said, "it's only TV!"


----------



## ghontz1

I got news for D. if they cave in to this i will drop D. in a heartbeat i already pay over a 160.00 a month i am not paying another dime for channels i don't watch anyway.


----------



## android.cphone

Need to start a spongebob anonymous group for adults with a closet spongebob addiction


----------



## adamblast

I s'pose I fall more along the lines of "a pox on both your houses" than "go D* go!"

I have to say I'm enjoying the hell out of the propaganda war, and this thread has been great entertainment as well, so thanks, there's that.

I hope both *evil megacorps* realize the brand they're hurting most isn't Viacom or DirecTV but _programmed television_.


----------



## Shades228

adamson said:


> For me this issue is like suddenly losing phone service. I love tvland and this has me quite ticked. Why do I have your service Directv? Because what I want in a tv provider has what I want to watch and need. To be threatened with channel disputes every few months is getting me real angry. Directv may say they are trying to save us money...well really? Our bills will go up again early next year as usual. If this really was to save money and Directv wins...Bill goes up in 2013, then I find these disputes as insulting to all subs.


It's not whether it goes but how much it's going to go up.


----------



## Que

zimm7778 said:


> Ok, but this is the chicken and egg story here. You are correct, our bills have gone sky high. I got Directv in 2003. I had TC+ which was $42.99, TIVO DVR was like $5.99 I think and an additional reciever was $4.99. Now lets factor in the cost of everything I didn't have then that I have now to eliminate them. Another reciever (4.99) Whole Home ($3) HD ($10) All of this back then would have come to a total before tax of $71.96. Now if I had the same programming my bill would be over $110. Yes, I think we all know prices are high and it sucks. But a large part of that is rising programming costs. If Directv fights these battles and wins, perhaps the bills won't go up as much every year. There's also another issue to think about. They do have employees and all they have to pay and those employees pay the same sky high rates as we do on everything from gas and food to electricity. They want raises to be able to maintain the standard of living they are used to as well. It's a vicious circle in which everything must be considered. Yes, I know Viacom has employees too. It's bad and I really shudder to think what it will be like for TV in 5-10 years.


1998 Total choice PLATINUM 47.99
1999 Total Choice $29.99
2000 Total Choice $31.99
2003 Total Choice $33.99 $4.99 DVR service $4.99 Additional Receiver
2004 Total Choice $36.99
2005 Total Choice $41.99
2006 Total Choice $44.99 $5.99 DVR Service
2007 Total Choice $47.99
2008 Total Choice $50.99
2009 Total Choice $53.99 $6.00 DVR Service $5.00 Additional Receiver
2010 Total Choice $57.49 $7.00 DVR Service
2011 Total Choice $60.49 $6.00x2 Additional Receiver
2012 Total Choice $64.49 $8.00 DVR Sevice $6.00x2


----------



## pogo

ghontz1 said:


> I got news for D. if they cave in to this i will drop D. in a heartbeat i already pay over a 160.00 a month i am not paying another dime for channels i don't watch anyway.


Well, then you should drop them. I pay $130 and I've been a loyal subscriber since 1997.
I'll continue to be. I watch some of he channels, and I want to keep them. But this is just a contract P'ing match. It will sort out. D* will end up paying more, and they will pass it along to their subscribers one way or another. I live in the real world, not the one where people just give you what you want because you want it.


----------



## ghontz1

charlie460 said:


> Everything's down for me now, even Palladia. SD channels just say technical difficulties. :lol:
> 
> I have no doubt this will be resolved quickly. I don't care how many of you "don't watch these channels," Comedy Central, Nickelodeon etc are huge and I suspect DirecTV knows that people will switch providers quickly if they don't come back shortly.


 I won't miss none of these channels.And i will stay with D. if they don.t renew anything Viacom has,


----------



## spartanstew

ghontz1 said:


> I won't miss none of these channels.


So, you'll miss them all?


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

Personally, I hope they reallocate the bandwidth to improve PQ on stations I actually watch.

OK - I did watch Palladia, but that was it.


----------



## Ted Sheckler

A bunch of odd 8000 channels were added to my favorite list some with HD what is this?


----------



## adamson

Ted Sheckler said:


> A bunch of odd 8000 channels were added to my favorite list some with HD what is this?


Directv hacked your custom list...how are those apples.


----------



## ghontz1

pogo said:


> Well, then you should drop them. I pay $130 and I've been a loyal subscriber since 1997.
> I'll continue to be. I watch some of he channels, and I want to keep them. But this is just a contract P'ing match. It will sort out. D* will end up paying more, and they will pass it along to their subscribers one way or another. I live in the real world, not the one where people just give you what you want because you want it.


 I been a loyal D.subscriber since the year 2000 and i stuck with them and recommended them to my friends and i never got any of the referral fees because i never ask for them.All i am saying is i cannot pay anymore on tv service.Unlike you i am not made out of money.


----------



## whippage

android.cphone said:


> Need to start a spongebob anonymous group for adults with a closet spongebob addiction


Hilarious, never really watched Spongebob till my 6 year old niece had it on one day. Now a big fan...what to do...


----------



## ghontz1

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Personally, I hope they reallocate the bandwidth to improve PQ on stations I actually watch.
> 
> OK - I did watch Palladia, but that was it.


+1


----------



## speedy4022

Wow it just makes me feel good to know while their companies are fighting both ceos are together at a corporate retreat.


----------



## DViper2399

"Ted Sheckler" said:


> A bunch of odd 8000 channels were added to my favorite list some with HD what is this?


I think they may be just place holders for the viacom stations, I noticed my dvr was recording Futurama & it was on a 8000 station, no actual programing though just the big dtv logo


----------



## treiher

Whatever will I do without another Star Wars Trilogy Weekend on Spike or some other movie I've seen a hundred times with tons of commercials.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

ghontz1 said:


> I won't miss none of these channels.And i will stay with D. if they don.t renew anything Viacom has,





spartanstew said:


> So, you'll miss them all?


----------



## Ted Sheckler

DViper2399 said:


> I think they may be just place holders for the viacom stations, I noticed my dvr was recording Futurama & it was on a 8000 station, no actual programing though just the big dtv logo


Makes sense why it was already in favs then.


----------



## pogo

ghontz1 said:


> I been a loyal D.subscriber since the year 2000 and i stuck with them and recommended them to my friends and i never got any of the referral fees because i never ask for them.All i am saying is i cannot pay anymore on tv service.Unlike you i am not made out of money.


Could be that's a response to what I posted to another poster -- but in context it doesn't really seem like it.


----------



## Shades228

PBS Kids Sprout 295 has been opened up as well now.


----------



## ghontz1

spartanstew said:


> So, you'll miss them all?


 That is exactly what i meant i cannot afford a thirty percent increase in my sat bill.


----------



## mortimer

DCSholtis said:


> AND here is the kicker they are directing ppl over to Pirate Bay to get their missing programs.


Where is this?


----------



## mitchflorida

They can keep this Viacom Channels off for the next 3 months if they want. I won't miss them. But they better not mess with my Fox News Channel!


----------



## Davenlr

ghontz1 said:


> That is exactly what i meant i cannot afford a thirty percent increase in my sat bill.


30% of the PORTION that goes to viacom... So if Viacom gets $5 a month now for all their channels from your bill, it would raise your bill $1.50/mo


----------



## ghontz1

Davenlr said:


> 30% of the PORTION that goes to viacom... So if Viacom gets $5 a month now for all their channels from your bill, it would raise your bill $1.50/mo


That is not how i understood it. The way D. is talking our bill will go up30%. I cannot afford a $50.00 price increase.


----------



## Davenlr

ghontz1 said:


> That is not how i understood it. The way D. is talking our bill will go up30%. I cannot afford a $50.00 price increase.


You have to read between the lines in disputes. The facts are there, but presented in a way to scare you.


----------



## Ted Sheckler

Maybe they will hurry up on Epix because of this.


----------



## loudo

ghontz1 said:


> That is not how i understood it. The way D. is talking our bill will go up30%. I cannot afford a $50.00 price increase.


I understood that to be 30% more for the Viacom channels, not 30% of the entire DirecTV bill.


----------



## jburns

ghontz1 said:


> That is not how i understood it. The way D. is talking our bill will go up30%. I cannot afford a $50.00 price increase.


Not even in the ream of possibility. Reread.


----------



## tulanejosh

ghontz1 said:


> That is not how i understood it. The way D. is talking our bill will go up30%. I cannot afford a $50.00 price increase.


no offense, but your understanding is incorrect. Viacom is asking for a 30% increase in what they receive from Directv. They are not asking for a 30% increase in your bill, nor would you see a 30% increase in your bill if Viacom got everything they wanted.

Currently Viacom represents about 5% of your bill (according to viacom). A 30% increase would mean that they represent 6.5% of your bill going forward. Using $100 base bill as an example - they currently represent $5, and would like to represent $6.50 going forward.


----------



## bjoe

As far as I'm concerned viacom can go suck a$$ on this one. If I recall, when D* last renewed with those clowns in 2005, back when HD was first rolling out, D* was one of the first providers that launched a bunch of their HD feeds on MTV, VH1, BET, CMT, CC - all of which had NO HD programming but black crapy bars on the sides for years. They took up valuable HD bandwidth FOR YEARS before they started even programming in full screen HD. Now they pull this crap. Might as well keep them off and use the HD bandwidth for some quality missing HD.


----------



## Davenlr

jburns said:


> Not even in the ream of possibility. Reread.


And a $50 increase would definitely be a ream. In all realms


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

Pffew, I thought I was going to cough up a billion dollars. No way I could manage that.


----------



## V'ger

tulanejosh said:


> no offense, but your understanding is incorrect. Viacom is asking for a 30% increase in what they receive from Directv. They are not asking for a 30% increase in your bill, nor would you see a 30% increase in your bill if Viacom got everything they wanted.
> 
> Currently Viacom represents about 5% of your bill (according to viacom). A 30% increase would mean that they represent 6.5% of your bill going forward. Using $100 base bill as an example - they currently represent $5, and would like to represent $6.50 going forward.


But it sets precident for the other pigs that just can't wait to get to the trough. Every content provider will want as much or more. In a year or two, the $100 bill will be $200 per month.

If I were DirecTV, I'd put HD shopping on the former Viacom channels just to take this to the next level (brinksmanship) and to defray the costs of this outage.


----------



## tulanejosh

V'ger;3053459 said:


> But it sets precident for the other pigs that just can't wait to get to the trough. Every content provider will want as much or more. In a year or two, the $100 bill will be $200 per month.
> 
> If I were DirecTV, I'd put HD shopping on the former Viacom channels just to take this to the next level (brinksmanship) and to defray the costs of this outage.


uhh.. you misunderstand. I'm explaining to ghontz that his bill won't go up 30% regardless of what happens because he misunderstood a media quote... not commenting on anything else.


----------



## adamblast

Shades228 said:


> PBS Kids Sprout 295 has been opened up as well now.


Is it bad that I don't know if I already had it?

Just another knowledgeable consumer here.


----------



## mitchflorida

CNN has lost 60 percent of its audience, but they are also looking for a rate increase. If anything, DTV should cut their fee by the same 60 percent.


----------



## mkdtv21

I would not mind the 30% increase if we got channels like mtv hits, jams, mtv u and vh1 soul as those are channels cable has had for years and Directv never had. I know they are not hd but but they all have 24/7 music videos. Epix would be a plus too.


----------



## Shades228

adamblast said:


> Is it bad that I don't know if I already had it?
> 
> Just another knowledgeable consumer here.


It's available in Family or Choice Ultimate normally.


----------



## tulanejosh

for those that are interested... you can back into exactly what V* is asking for with the information in this story.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-11/directv-ceo-says-talks-with-viacom-continue

MW says they want $1B more over 5 years.... 200 mil more per year... 16.7M more per month. Split over 20M subscribers, they want 83c more per subscriber per month for the entire bundle. If that represents 30% increase, they must've been paying $2.77 under the old deal. Spread over 26 channels (as they see it) they want an increase of 3c per channel. They are being honest - pennies per month.

This comes down to basically to less than a dollar a month. I understand everyone has different priorities, different financial situations, but all this for 83 cents per month?

Someone check my math.


----------



## highheater

Que said:


> 1998 Total choice PLATINUM 47.99
> 1999 Total Choice $29.99
> 2000 Total Choice $31.99
> 2003 Total Choice $33.99 $4.99 DVR service $4.99 Additional Receiver
> 2004 Total Choice $36.99
> 2005 Total Choice $41.99
> 2006 Total Choice $44.99 $5.99 DVR Service
> 2007 Total Choice $47.99
> 2008 Total Choice $50.99
> 2009 Total Choice $53.99 $6.00 DVR Service $5.00 Additional Receiver
> 2010 Total Choice $57.49 $7.00 DVR Service
> 2011 Total Choice $60.49 $6.00x2 Additional Receiver
> 2012 Total Choice $64.49 $8.00 DVR Sevice $6.00x2


With all these increases from Direct TV doesn't it make sense that Viacom wants their cut from the price increases since the last negotiation?

Streaming is the first nail in the coffin of Direct TV.

The second will be when cable providers can side-step net neutrality and let their downloads be excluded from GB limits.

The third will be cable providers like Comcast who also own the stations (CNBC) themselves.

It will only get harder to compete for the lower tier audience on price, making further increases to support their technology for the rest of us more likley and exponential.


----------



## djanis3

I think Mike White makes a very compelling argument for ala carte pricing. He thinks it is unreasonable for us to have to pay for networks we "don't watch or even care about" and thinks your family should be given the choice to pay for only those channels you watch.

I personally don't see any difference between the way viacom is pricing their content to directv and the way directv prices it to consumers? Using a few good programs to subsidize a bunch of junk nobody wants.

Also, does viacom really stipulate in these deals that we pay for the increase? It is always "viacom wants you to pay xx% more." Isn't the argument between viacom and direct? Direct is then free to price there product accordingly. I wish instead of the PR spin Mike White would come out and say "I need to maintain xx% gross margin for our investors so we have decided to pass the cost through to you, our loyal customers." I'd actually back him if he did that.


----------



## tulanejosh

djanis3 said:


> I think Mike White makes a very compelling argument for ala carte pricing. He thinks it is unreasonable for us to have to pay for networks we "don't watch or even care about" and thinks your family should be given the choice to pay for only those channels you watch.
> 
> I personally don't see any difference between the way viacom is pricing their content to directv and the way directv prices it to consumers? Using a few good programs to subsidize a bunch of junk nobody wants.
> 
> Also, does viacom really stipulate in these deals that we pay for the increase? It is always "viacom wants you to pay xx% more." Isn't the argument between viacom and direct? Direct is then free to price there product accordingly. I wish instead of the PR spin Mike White would come out and say "I need to maintain xx% gross margin for our investors so we have decided to pass the cost through to you, our loyal customers." I'd actually back him if he did that.


He doesn't make any argument of the sort.. Check this bloomberg story out - he specifically says he is not trying to break up their bundle.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-11/directv-ceo-says-talks-with-viacom-continue


----------



## adamblast

djanis3 said:


> I think Mike White makes a very compelling argument for ala carte pricing. He thinks it is unreasonable for us to have to pay for networks we "don't watch or even care about" and thinks your family should be given the choice to pay for only those channels you watch.


I dunno if ala carte pricing would end up being better for me or not, but that's the first thought that came to my mind watching his clip too--

_Hey! I don't want to have to pay for the networks I "don't watch or even care about" either dude. Starting with every single sports channel._

---
Edited to note: we're referring specifically to the minute-and-a-half clip of the D* CEO that's on endless loop if you go to, say, subchannel 299-1.
I don't think I've got a dog in this fight beyond keeping my bills low, but his clip is really so much self-serving hypocritical twaddle.


----------



## mitchflorida

tulanejosh said:


> This comes down to basically to less than a dollar a month. I understand everyone has different priorities, different financial situations, but all this for 83 cents per month?
> 
> Someone check my math.


Since it is only 83 cents a month, why don't you cover it for everyone? Problem solved.


----------



## tulanejosh

adamblast said:


> I dunno if ala carte pricing would end up being better for me or not, but that's the first thought that came to my mind watching his clip too--
> 
> _Hey! I don't want to have to pay for the networks I "don't watch or even care about" either dude. Starting with every single sports channel._


Im personally not interested in unbundling. I want every channel i can possible get. It doesn't matter to me that i don't watch them, what matters is that i have the opportunity to watch them should i so desire. TV is a mindless activity for me after work and family obligations... its the one thing i don't have to think about. And making me choose my channels up front - that takes the spontaneity out of the activity... and it sorta makes me work for it. I do enough working.


----------



## tulanejosh

mitchflorida said:


> Since it is only 83 cents a month, why don't you cover it for everyone? Problem solved.


absolutely.. for everyone but you. i tried to be polite, report some facts, and be respectful of other people's situations and priorities. why do you want to be a ____ about it? my personal opinion is that i don't care about a dollar a month. You do, that's great. Hope it works out for you.


----------



## mitchflorida

tulanejosh said:


> absolutely.. for everyone but you. i tried to be polite - and just report some facts, but you want to be a ____ about it.... so... yeah.


If you look at the trashy kind of programming Viacom puts out, I think it is a waste and not worth 83 cents a month more. I don't think it is worth the money we are paying already. I rarely watch anything on those channels. I used to catch The Daily Show occasionally on their website, but now the greedy suits at Viacom have shut that down. I am supposed to be sad because I can't watch Jersey Shore anymore? DTV is doing us a favor.

I hope it lasts for a few weeks if not months. I won't be affected at all.

Don't forget , we are now getting a lot of Encore Channels now for free.


----------



## darkpowrjd

mitchflorida said:


> I hope it lasts for a few weeks if not months. I won't be affected at all.


And to hell with those that might actually WANT to watch something on some of those channels, right?


----------



## jtbell

Once again, we viewers and ratepayers are pawns in this whole mess. I am getting EXTREMELY tired of this. I know that in the grand scheme of things it is not a big deal, but I think that there really needs to be a law about what these folks can and cannot do. As far as I am concerned, if Viacom wants more money, then they should up the price for their ads. 

Sick and tired of the greed from all parties here.


----------



## chrisexv6

android.cphone said:


> Need to start a spongebob anonymous group for adults with a closet spongebob addiction


"Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?"

"I dont know, I have DirecTV!!"


----------



## tulanejosh

mitchflorida said:


> If you look at the trashy kind of programming Viacom puts out, I think it is all a waste and not worth 83 cents a month more. I don't think it is worth the money we are paying already, and I usually don't watch anything on those channels. I used to catch The Daily Show occasionally on their website, but now the greedy suits at Viacom have shut that down.
> 
> I hope it lasts for a few weeks if not months. I won't be affected at all.
> 
> Don't forget , we are now getting a lot of Encore Channels now for free.


I'm glad you feel that way. Every one is entitled to their opinion. I don't share you viewpoint but its my perogative. Some shows are good, others are bad. I could say that about ANY channel. I think it depends on your age and interests. Just like everything else in life. I think i recall you saying something about fox news further back (i could be wrong). I don't personally think that's really news, and I never watch it. But I'd be pissed if they took it away from me - because they are depriving me of the opportunity to watch it.

It's all about you... So that's good, glad to know you aren't affected.

I'm a Premier customer with the HD Extra pack with 3 sports subscriptions. I already get Encore, free preview does me no good.


----------



## Dude111

smitmor said:


> This is the website Viacom has set up concerning the dispute. So far, not a peep from DirecTV.
> 
> http://whendirectvdrops.com/


Viacom has ALOT OF NERVE trying to get more $$$$$ out of them WHEN ALL THEY SHOW IS GARBAGE!

Programming quality continues to go DOWN yet prices keep going up,why is that?

Im glad DTV is taking a stand and i hope they dont give in!!


----------



## Draconis

Now that’s interesting. 

Yesterday you could go to directvpromise.com then click on “Other Ways to Watch” and there would be web links to where you could watch programs for free online.

For example, if you selected Nickelodeon and SpongeBob it would direct you to spongebob.nick.com

Those free links are gone now, I betting Viacom filed a complaint.


----------



## mitchflorida

Draconis said:


> Now that's interesting.
> 
> Yesterday you could go to directvpromise.com then click on "Other Ways to Watch" and there would be web links to where you could watch programs for free online.
> 
> For example, if you selected Nickelodeon and SpongeBob it would direct you to spongebob.nick.com
> 
> Those free links are gone now, I betting Viacom filed a complaint.


The problem is that Viacom has been double dipping for years. Making the cable and satellite providers pay through the nose and then turning around and giving it away for free on their websites. They also made a side deal with Hulu to play it online. The chickens are coming home to roost.


----------



## adamblast

tulanejosh said:


> I want every channel i can possibly get. It doesn't matter to me that i don't watch them, what matters is that i have the opportunity to watch them should i so desire.


 I know. That's exactly why I have a piano. And all those Rosetta Stone languages.


----------



## RunnerFL

Draconis said:


> Now that's interesting.
> 
> Yesterday you could go to directvpromise.com then click on "Other Ways to Watch" and there would be web links to where you could watch programs for free online.
> 
> For example, if you selected Nickelodeon and SpongeBob it would direct you to spongebob.nick.com
> 
> Those free links are gone now, I betting Viacom filed a complaint.


No, it's because Viacom turned off streaming of all its shows on their sites.


----------



## tulanejosh

adamblast said:


> I know. That's exactly why I have a piano. And all those Rosette Stone versions.


I like the freedom of opportunity, what can i say!


----------



## tulanejosh

RunnerFL said:


> No, it's because Viacom turned off streaming of all its shows on their sites.


Which ironically enough is sort of what Directv wants... one of their complaints is that Viacom devalues the product it sells to distributors by giving distributing it to netflix and hulu and for free on its own websites.


----------



## mitchflorida

tulanejosh said:


> Which ironically enough is sort of what Directv wants... one of their complaints is that Viacom devalues the product it sells to distributors by giving distributing it to netflix and hulu and for free on its own websites.


Viacom will start streaming it again for free as soon as they get DirecTVs money again.


----------



## Draconis

RunnerFL said:


> No, it's because Viacom turned off streaming of all its shows on their sites.


Well, I think that shows who the true "villains" are here. They turned them off for everyone just to prevent DIRECTV customers from viewing them.


----------



## adamblast

Pretty much.

Jerk move, viacom. No soup for you.


----------



## Davenlr

mitchflorida said:


> Viacom will start streaming it again for free as soon as they get DirecTVs money again.


Unless Directv makes it a bullet point in the new contract that disallows Viacom from making it available free


----------



## tulanejosh

mitchflorida said:


> Viacom will start streaming it again for free as soon as they get DirecTVs money again.


they consider it to be a marketing tool for their networks, so i fully expect them to do so.


----------



## RunnerFL

Draconis said:


> Well, I think that shows who the true "villains" are here. They turned them off for everyone just to prevent DIRECTV customers from viewing them.


Agreed


----------



## SPACEMAKER

"Draconis" said:


> Well, I think that shows who the true "villains" are here. They turned them off for everyone just to prevent DIRECTV customers from viewing them.


Exactly. They can't play victim when they pull a stunt like that.

As far as those channels being off, I will miss Tosh.0 and Workahololics and my kid will miss Nick. But it's not a big deal at all. I am firmly in favor of DIRECTV holding out as long as needed.


----------



## slimoli

I'm in favor of using the transponders for better channels.


----------



## antzona

I don't really watch much programming on Viacom networks so this fiasco won't effect me too much. I know my niece and nephew are missing Nick though.

The greatest thing about the entire situation is that Directv offered up Encore to satisfy the angry mob. Who in the world watches Encore? It's like going to eat at Peter Luger in Brooklyn, and being offered a Slim Jim as a substitute because they ran out of steak. Classic stuff. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall at the meeting when they decided to throw us that bone. I guess I shouldn't make fun, since they didn't have to do anything. Still funny. Sorry to any huge Encore fans out there too.


----------



## Fish628

"protecting" me from unjustified cost increases is all well and good... but, if Viacom doesn't come back ever, then I am getting less than I pay for, and therefore, my rate should be reduced...

think that will happen? really?

i have long thought that a la carte pricing would be excellent... a low basic charge for the service, and price each channel and let me pic the ones I want... obviously not the premiere channels... 
the total number of channels in my package means nothing when 20 of them are shopping channels and I don't shop on tv... I'm paying for something I don't use... if I don't use them they should not cost me... 

some monthly cell phone plans charge you a set amount for each day you use certain features... if I don't watch a Viacom channel any day this month, why must I pay for it?


----------



## Dude111

capt14k said:


> Most channels beside the Nickelodeon Networks show nothing but garbage reality shows.


Exactly!!!!! The quality is disgusting and they want MORE???

Make the quality better again than maybe ppl wont mind!!!


----------



## john18

I don't watch a single one of the missing channels so I am not missing anything. That said, even if I did watch any of the channels, I applaud D* for taking a stand against the content providers. This includes ESPN, CNN, Fox, Scripps (Food Network, etc.) and the others. Viacom just happened to be the first up and D* probably felt it was the perfect candidate for making its point that the rate increases from the content providers have to stop.

Like I said I am glad this is happening. My other option is to start going lower tier from Premier, which is something I have already thought about doing.


----------



## Motley

mitchflorida said:


> They can keep this Viacom Channels off for the next 3 months if they want. I won't miss them. But they better not mess with my Fox News Channel!


Oh please let them remove that channel. It would do a great service to everyone.


----------



## B Newt

I got home tonight on my HR20 guide all the viacom stations dont show up anymore. On my RCA receiver the nick channels show Kids Mix on the guide. the rest of the viacom channels show "Mix Channel"


----------



## chevyguy559

does anyone know since the channels were removed from the guide if series recordings were deleted? I have quite a few shows from NickJR on series record for my son....hopefully they are still intact when the channels come back....


----------



## kokishin

I'm digging the Encore Westerns channel! Gonna record Rawhide. Keep them doggies rollin...

Now would be a good time for Directv to offer free promos on all their premier channels to introduce these channels to the customer base and possibly take some of the sting out of the Viacom removal.


----------



## adamblast

It does make me wish I'd kept the whole season of Korra in HD on my DVR.


----------



## android.cphone

Viacom says one thing direct tv says another... the real truth lies somewhere in the middle


----------



## funnyfarm299

"slimoli" said:


> I'm in favor of using the transponders for better channels.


BBC America HD anyone?


----------



## funnyfarm299

"chevyguy559" said:


> does anyone know since the channels were removed from the guide if series recordings were deleted? I have quite a few shows from NickJR on series record for my son....hopefully they are still intact when the channels come back....


Recordings are untouched.


----------



## inkahauts

Guys come on, let's not get this thread closed,let's get back to Viacom channels.

Maybe we need a poll. Who thinks this will last until the end of the Olympics?


----------



## android.cphone

I give it 10 days max


----------



## captaink5217

Personally Directv makes it sound like there the good guys in all of this but all there doing is trying to spend less on content, do you really think that by them spendin less for this package it won't make your bill go up anyway, Of course your bill will keep going up regardless of what happens here, if D wins this they'll just be able to give their CEO a bigger bonus, the savings won't be pushed onto the subscribers. Yeah I know I have a negative attitude about corporate business practices in general. Can't help it I've seen corporate american tear the United States down brick by brick, why should this be any different.


----------



## cekowalski

DirecTV please give me a package that excludes the Viacom stations for less money. 

I now pay more for a few hours of TV each week than for phone and Internet combined. I am looking for an alternative... So I do not want a dime of my money going to Viacom in this situation.

Sure I watch some of their shows, but you know what - I only watched NBC and never CBS 10 years ago. Now its opposite. I can change. I will live, especially where money is Involved.

I know from experience that networks were charging .25 per sub or more, per channel, years ago. I think I am starting to see why my bill has gotten so high. And to add insult to injury, they say if I skip commercials I am stealing their service (while paying a per sub fee through my Sat company).

Let's stop this nonsense and introduce real competition... Give the customers a choice! If they want more money per channel, let the subscribers who want these channels pay. And if there are people who don't think these are worth the 30%... Let them stop buying the product.

Nobody needs 225 channels with nothing on... Especially at $0.50 each channel. I would pay $5 per channel for the ones I want.


----------



## android.cphone

would love to see a few less shopping networks. Keep qvc hsn shop nbc the rest are a waste of space


----------



## captaink5217

Well anyway back to the topic, hopefully this gets resolved my 9 yr old loves winx club, lucky my in laws next door have cable do she can go over there until these companies decide the customers are important.


----------



## boukengreen

i don't think this will be as long as the dispute was with vs a few years ago just because of all the kids and how popular the shows on nick are and dang it i want my Powangers back even if it is a very bad copy of Shinkenger at least i could watch the old reruns and i am also missing Kenen & Kel. this is almost as bad as the vs disptue was during hockey season


----------



## inkahauts

"android.cphone" said:


> would love to see a few less shopping networks. Keep qvc hsn shop nbc the rest are a waste of space


Actually, they need to keep all those and add some more if the bandwidth is there. They generally pay to be carried, so they actually lower your bills, not increase them.


----------



## Draconis

Now this is amusing, Cox Communications is supporting DIRECTV in telling Viacom to kick rocks.

DirecTV gets support from Cox in fight with Viacom



> DirecTV has received a show of support from an unusual source in its feud with Viacom over a new deal to carry the media giant's cable channels including MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon.
> 
> Cox Communications Inc., the nation's fifth-largest cable operator with almost 5 million subscribers and a competitor to DirecTV, says the satellite broadcaster is right to fight Viacom's push to raise the price tag to carry its networks.


----------



## oldengineer

At 5:24 AM this morning, in a sound bite on CNBC, Mike White stated that Viacom is asking for a 1 billion dollar increase in rates over the next 5 years and that D* is currently paying Viacom 500 million dollars a year.


----------



## Shades228

It's easy to say it's only $.03/day or $.90 however historically the past price increases have been about $3 a month for base packages. That means this one increase would be 30% of the normal price increase. Other companies who deserve a price increase as well would add into that. So that means the price increases for the bill would be increased to cover the additional costs. Last rate increase DIRECTV stated that programming costs went up 10% overall but only 3% was passed one. It's not hard to see how quickly these can add up given how many different negotiations happen per year.


----------



## Kevin872

Just a minor suggestion to change the wording of the headline on the main page:



> DIRECTV - Will they lose Viacom programming tonight? Discussion here.
> 
> *EDIT: It's official... Viacom stations are off DIRECTV.*


I am still assuming this is temporary but it seems to me that the edit in the headline could be taken to mean that Viacom stations are off DIRECTV _*for good*_.

Of course I've been up all night working a 12 hour shift so perhaps I am not the best judge of that. 

I know there are those who want the channels back and those who do not. While I agree most of the Viacom programming is garbage, there are definitely shows worth watching (which of course is subject to personal tastes). My kids do like the Nick channels and I like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report on CC. I think the bottom line is that even if this is permanent, I somehow doubt our bills will DROP. May as well get the channels back IMHO. But I do think it should be at a fair price for all involved.

I do agree though that MTV is worthless all around. :lol:


----------



## crashHD

antzona said:


> The greatest thing about the entire situation is that Directv offered up Encore to satisfy the angry mob. Who in the world watches Encore? It's like going to eat at Peter Luger in Brooklyn, and being offered a Slim Jim as a substitute because they ran out of steak.


Seriously? In this metaphor, you're equating viacom's channels to a fine steak? I'd sooner go with swapping cafeteria gruel with a mcdonalds hamburger...the burger sure may be crap, but it's still an improvement.

MTV being gone, I consider it that DirecTV took out the trash for me. for free. Thanks. Now if they'd just let me dig through that trash can and find my comedy central that wasn't supposed to go out...


----------



## Scott Kocourek

Sorry guys and gals but I deleted 15 recent posts from this thread that were all political in nature. Please stay on topic so those that want to participate in this thread may do so.

If you have any questions please PM me and I will explain why I deleted them.


:backtotop :backtotop :backtotop


----------



## ffemtreed

jtbell said:


> Once again, we viewers and ratepayers are pawns in this whole mess. I am getting EXTREMELY tired of this. I know that in the grand scheme of things it is not a big deal, but I think that there really needs to be a law about what these folks can and cannot do. As far as I am concerned, if Viacom wants more money, then they should up the price for their ads.
> 
> Sick and tired of the greed from all parties here.


The last thing we need is congress getting more involved and making even more dumb laws. They need to stay out of the free market and let capitalism rule the day, you know the principle that our great country was founded upon.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

"Draconis" said:


> Now this is amusing, Cox Communications is supporting DIRECTV in telling Viacom to kick rocks.
> 
> DirecTV gets support from Cox in fight with Viacom


I wonder if Cox is up next for negotiations with Viacom?


----------



## mreposter

For parents complaining about the trauma caused by the loss of the Nick channels for their kids, now is the time for you to break the cycle of addiction and end the problem once and for all. It starts with a simple life-lesson conversation with your child(ren):

_SpongeBob is dead. Dead. Dead. Dead.
Flushed down the toilet, dead.
And so are Dora and Bubble Guppies.
Dead, dead, dead.
Dead and gone and never coming back. 
Life's tough, get over it.

Now go upstairs and read this book on particle physics._


----------



## BlackCoffee

jtbell said:


> Once again, we viewers and ratepayers are pawns in this whole mess. I am getting EXTREMELY tired of this. I know that in the grand scheme of things it is not a big deal, but I think that there really needs to be a law about what these folks can and cannot do. As far as I am concerned, if Viacom wants more money, then they should up the price for their ads.
> 
> Sick and tired of the greed from all parties here.


NO MORE LAWS. Why does everyone need the government to write a law so they never have a bad day? If losing a few TV channels for kids invokes the power of 2 branches of government, what is left to the grown-ups to decide. This is life! All this choice and oppurtunity is great, but the people that built this technology grew up on 3 broadcast networks and black and white TV. It didn't seem to stunt their development. This is entertainment not life saving surgery.


----------



## LoweBoy

I for one am glad that all those Trash Channels are off the air. Thanks Directv! Maybe this will get my kids off of the bandwagon. My only cartoon days was on Saturdays.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

jtbell said:


> Once again, we viewers and ratepayers are pawns in this whole mess. I am getting EXTREMELY tired of this. I know that in the grand scheme of things it is not a big deal, but I think that there really needs to be a law about what these folks can and cannot do. As far as I am concerned, if Viacom wants more money, then they should up the price for their ads.
> 
> Sick and tired of the greed from all parties here.


What do you suggest DIRECTV does in the current situation?

Mike


----------



## BlackCoffee

tulanejosh said:


> I'm glad you feel that way. Every one is entitled to their opinion. I don't share you viewpoint but its my perogative. Some shows are good, others are bad. I could say that about ANY channel. I think it depends on your age and interests. Just like everything else in life. I think i recall you saying something about fox news further back (i could be wrong). I don't personally think that's really news, and I never watch it. But I'd be pissed if they took it away from me - because they are depriving me of the opportunity to watch it.
> 
> It's all about you... So that's good, glad to know you aren't affected.
> 
> I'm a Premier customer with the HD Extra pack with 3 sports subscriptions. I already get Encore, free preview does me no good.


Your approach to this problem is "I get everything, I don't care about a dollar, so it doesn't matter to me." However, VIACOM costs are passed in every package. Every other DTV customer has to pay the bill. Even if we buy the VIACOM argument that 20% of viewing is on their stations, 80% of us are supplementing the 20%. The bundling argument is about choice and control of what we buy.

If you don't care and just want everything-fine. But the 80% that don't watch the channels may want something different.


----------



## BlackCoffee

Draconis said:


> Now this is amusing, Cox Communications is supporting DIRECTV in telling Viacom to kick rocks.
> 
> DirecTV gets support from Cox in fight with Viacom


This reminds me of the Auto Workers Unions and car companies. In each 3-5 year renegotiation, one company would be targetted as the lead for the rest of them. If they held strong, it set the stage. The unions would attempt to target the weakest, and the car companies would put forth the best financially to go to battle. Cox knows that if DTV folds, their rate will go up. That is why the threat of switching providers only works to VIACOM's advantage. In the end, the customer will eventually pay.


----------



## mhking

I love how folks are saying, good riddance to the missing channels. Obviously, some folks were watching them. In my household, my wife was a regular viewer of the movies and series on BET/Centric/TVLand; my 10-year-old daughter loves NickToons and Nickelodeon itself, so yes, it's disappointing. Will they be happy once the channels return? Sure they will. 

Now, conversely, will pay another 30 percent on my bill just to get those channels? Nope. I'll pull the plug outta the wall first. 

Yesterday, my daughter went back over to Netflix and Hulu and began rolling through the content there. The Mrs.? She watched a recorded program. 

It sounds like both sides are being proverbial sticks in the mud. Will they get back to the table? Eventually. They may both need to do some blood letting first. And that may not necessarily be a bad thing.


----------



## fleckrj

Davenlr said:


> 30% of the PORTION that goes to viacom... So if Viacom gets $5 a month now for all their channels from your bill, it would raise your bill $1.50/mo





ghontz1 said:


> That is not how i understood it. The way D. is talking our bill will go up30%. I cannot afford a $50.00 price increase.





Davenlr said:


> You have to read between the lines in disputes. The facts are there, but presented in a way to scare you.


For now, Davenir is correct - it is a 30% increase in the portion that goes to Viacom. In the long run, though, ghontz1 is also right. If DirecTV gives in to Viacom, then when Scripts, Disney, et. al. come up for renewal, they will want at lest 30%, too. Eventually, it will end up being 30% of the entire bill. Rate increases need to be held to no more than 5%.


----------



## mhking

BlackCoffee said:


> This reminds me of the Auto Workers Unions and car companies. In each 3-5 year renegotiation, one company would be targetted as the lead for the rest of them. If they held strong, it set the stage. The unions would attempt to target the weakest, and the car companies would put forth the best financially to go to battle. Cox knows that if DTV folds, their rate will go up. That is why the threat of switching providers only works to VIACOM's advantage. In the end, the customer will eventually pay.


Very true. There are folks who will whine and wail and threaten to go to Comcast or Cox or TimeWarner or wherever they can find the channels. And guess what -- those others already have the deals in place so that Viacom will still get the money from those consumers.


----------



## vobguy

funnyfarm299 said:


> BBC America HD anyone?


Hear hear!


----------



## BlackCoffee

mhking said:


> I love how folks are saying, good riddance to the missing channels. Obviously, some folks were watching them. In my household, my wife was a regular viewer of the movies and series on BET/Centric/TVLand; my 10-year-old daughter loves NickToons and Nickelodeon itself, so yes, it's disappointing. Will they be happy once the channels return? Sure they will.
> 
> Now, conversely, will pay another 30 percent on my bill just to get those channels? Nope. I'll pull the plug outta the wall first.
> 
> Yesterday, my daughter went back over to Netflix and Hulu and began rolling through the content there. The Mrs.? She watched a recorded program.
> 
> It sounds like both sides are being proverbial sticks in the mud. Will they get back to the table? Eventually. They may both need to do some blood letting first. And that may not necessarily be a bad thing.


Your kids are a fine example of why VIACOM's tactic to engage children won't work. With all the options kids have today, they will quickly fill the void with something else. VIACOM should worry about them developing new habits for accessing entertainment.

In the end, I think VIACOM will lose customers that find other alternatives. Most of these show are reruns anyway. The burning desire to see the same show 15 times in one week will rapidly disappear.


----------



## vobguy

The Viacom/DirecTV dispute was mentioned on the Steve Czaban show on Yahoo Sports Radio (which is played by my local FSR affiliate OTA).


----------



## vobguy

BlackCoffee said:


> Most of these show are reruns anyway. The burning desire to see the same show 15 times in one week will rapidly disappear.


This. When is the last time there was a new Blue's Clues ep? Max & Ruby rarely have new eps (though I understand there was a new season recently).

My wife picked up a few Blue's Clues DVDs and Max and Ruby DVDs from the used video bin, and those will come in handy if the kids feel the need to watch it.

However, there is one potential pitfall - my son may rediscover the show "Jake and the Neverland Pirates" on Disney. If I hear the phrase "Yay Hey, No Way" once more ...


----------



## BlackCoffee

vobguy said:


> This. When is the last time there was a new Blue's Clues ep? Max & Ruby rarely have new eps (though I understand there was a new season recently).
> 
> My wife picked up a few Blue's Clues DVDs and Max and Ruby DVDs from the used video bin, and those will come in handy if the kids feel the need to watch it.
> 
> However, there is one potential pitfall - my son may rediscover the show "Jake and the Neverland Pirates" on Disney. If I hear the phrase "Yay Hey, No Way" once more ...


I like Phineas and Ferb. Kids with imagination and energy. I think it should be required learning in the schools. Better than most teachers.


----------



## fleckrj

inkahauts said:


> Guys come on, let's not get this thread closed,let's get back to Viacom channels.
> 
> Maybe we need a poll. Who thinks this will last until the end of the Olympics?


It might last until the end of the Olympics, but I feel very confident that the Viacom channels will be back on DirecTV before AMC is back on Dish


----------



## fleckrj

android.cphone said:


> would love to see a few less shopping networks. Keep qvc hsn shop nbc the rest are a waste of space




I would agree if it was not for the fact that these channels *pay* DirecTV to be shown; thus, they are adding to DirecTV's bottom line and help to keep your bill down.


----------



## maartena

TheRatPatrol said:


> I wonder if Cox is up next for negotiations with Viacom?


Likely. Their contract probably expires the end of the year, so they are watching this one like a hawk.


----------



## HDYankee

The only thing that ticks me off on the situation is, DirecTV has added Encore channels to make up for the loss of the Viacom channels but I have Premiere so obviously those that do get nothing. Except I continue to pay over $200 a month for my service.

It is time for the FCC to force arbitration on the parties for these situations.

Also while I am complaining, I am sick and tired of most the channels having infomercials in the mornings while I am paying for content.


----------



## txtommy

It seems that the entertainment industry still has not received word that this country has a stagnant economy. A 30% increase is ridiculous especially when they are providing mostly old content repeated over and over.


----------



## maartena

HDYankee said:


> The only thing that ticks me off on the situation is, DirecTV has added Encore channels to make up for the loss of the Viacom channels but I have Premiere so obviously those that do get nothing. Except I continue to pay over $200 a month for my service.


People left and right have been saying they called and were offered discounts, ranging from $5 a month (which is a little above market value of the channels lost I would imagine) to $30 a month, and even a free NFL Sunday Ticket.

Only thing you have to do, is call them and ask.


----------



## hallrk

I only watch TVland and VH-1 Classic a little bit from these channels. So it really doesn't bother me that they are off. I hope DTV sticks to their guns and doesn't give that type of increase. Also if these channels are off the air for any prolonged period DTV should be giving their subscribers a price reduction for their monthly service.


----------



## raott

"fleckrj" said:


> I would agree if it was not for the fact that these channels pay DirecTV to be shown; thus, they are adding to DirecTV's bottom line and help to keep your bill down.


Yes, they are adding to the bottom line, however they are not keeping your bills down.


----------



## rjf

the BS political views obfuscating what should otherwise be a useful thread is the main reason i stopped posting and coming to DBStalk. i'm not interested in lame commentary drawing parallels between the Viacom issue and someone's bent political view. 2 thirds of this thread is utterly useless and off topic. no wonder this forum took such a nosedive. shame, cuz it used to be a great resource. i'm off to find some real into elsewhere.... :hi:


----------



## smiddy

34 pages, and the clarity is that this dispute between DirecTV and Viacom is a bummer, but if this is hte way it is, then, at some point someone will realize what is most important, make a decision and move on. I know I have so many alternatives that if it is gone for good, bleh, my kids will find something else to occupy their time. Me and Mrs. Smiddy, we don't really watch any Viacom stuff. :shrug: B-Bye!


----------



## maartena

txtommy said:


> It seems that the entertainment industry still has not received word that this country has a stagnant economy. A 30% increase is ridiculous especially when they are providing mostly old content repeated over and over.


Many companies, especially some of the bigger ones, have just been sailing onwards as if nothing happened. Instead of adjusting to the economy by scaling down a little, their financial analysts show a loss in advertising (which is to be expected in a bad economy) and are looking to offset the loss of income elsewhere. So they look at the carriers. Not just DirecTV of course, but all of them.

I recently read (during the Tribune dispute in may) that carriers usually asked for increases of around 5%, basically adjusting their rate to inflation, current market, their programming, etc.... and that it was easy to get to a deal. In the many years I had cable, the first time I heard of a dispute where stations were taken off the air was in 2009, between Time Warner Cable and - yep - Viacom, over the same set of channels (or whatever was available then) they are talking about now. It was also the first time that two companies really started to use mudslinging techniques at each other, at least.... from what I personally have seen. And yep, that was just after a horrible year of 2008. The contracts expired Jan 1st 2009 (not 2010 like I wrote earlier, I was wrong) and I am willing to bet Viacom tried to raise the rates a LOT higher because they lost advertising due to the 2008 crash.

Now, in THAT dispute, Viacom wanted a 12% increase in rates. Now they want 30%. Seems to me they are getting greedier and greedier and greedier, and I for one still support DirecTV.

I watch Spike and TVLand and it sucks to lose them, but these ridiculous fee increases need to stop.


----------



## jasonblair

vobguy said:


> Hear hear!


I hope DirecTV gets BBCAmerica just so I can go through this entire forum without every other post being about DirecTV not carrying a channel that 50 people watch! BBCAmerica guys are like Ron Paul supporters... SUPER high profile, in your face, incessant, and very small in number!


----------



## ramcm7

Time to bring back USSB?


----------



## csgo

I for one wish we could get to a la carte programming. It would solve most of these problems (just set a price per channel) and many of the useless channels we're forced to pay for will go by the wayside.


----------



## jgriffin7

cjrleimer said:


> Did you have to go through retention? or did you threaten to switch.


Retention. After I told them losing the Viacom channels simply made it to where I was paying too much for the service received, they offered $20/mo off my Choice Xtra Classic package, and $10/mo off my HD service. Both for 12 months. I made sure they noted those discounts were given without any contract or commitment. They did, I hung up, and the $30 credit was showing up online.


----------



## lparsons21

Viacom's big problem in all this is they are getting hit from both sides right now. Their ratings are down on much of their programming, which results in lower ad revenue, so as has been noted, they come to the well of paying subscribers to see if they can make it up.

But if the ratings are down and their ad rates are down, which they are, why would anyone want to pay more for it? Answer, they wouldn't and that is the crux of the issue.

In a perfect business world, D* should be offering less than current rates for what Viacom is providing because they have a devalued product line. Of course, that isn't going to happen, but it should make them think about the actual rate increase that makes business sense.

And Viacom doesn't seem to notice that it is because they are doing programming on the cheap, that the product has less value. They could do something about that, but there is no indication that improving the product is part of their plan.

For us as subscribers, we can and will find other things to watch. Yeah we might miss a few things that we now enjoy, but if you have a DVR how far behind are you in watching right now without any of the Viacom stuff? I know I'm so far behind, I could quit recording/watching new stuff right now and it would take at least a couple weeks of hard watching to see everything on my DVR.

For our kids, especially the younger ones, there are a plethora of other kids shows and channels out there. And for that age group, as long as there is plenty of movement, noise and color, they will watch it. In general, they won't even make it a big deal unless we as parents do.


----------



## lparsons21

jasonblair said:


> I hope DirecTV gets BBCAmerica just so I can go through this entire forum without every other post being about DirecTV not carrying a channel that 50 people watch! BBCAmerica guys are like Ron Paul supporters... SUPER high profile, in your face, incessant, and very small in number!


Bite your tongue!! 

Who doesn't watch Doctor Who?


----------



## damondlt

Maybe Directv will give us some new channels during this mess!


----------



## RunnerFL

chevyguy559 said:


> does anyone know since the channels were removed from the guide if series recordings were deleted? I have quite a few shows from NickJR on series record for my son....hopefully they are still intact when the channels come back....


They'll still be intact. In fact they should still be working, my Futurama series link recorded black screen last night.

If you look I'm sure you'll see that they point to channels in the 8000 range. That's where the Viacom channels have been temporarily mapped to so that DirecTV could give us those mix channels. They'll change back when the channels are turned back on just like they changed to the 8000 range.


----------



## Fateswarning

I was going to sign up this week before the current deal ends and I still may but this really sucks. I watch CC.and Palladia a lot and my kids like nick.


----------



## snappjay

It stinks that our family does not have a Nick Jr backup, as DTV does not have Disney Jr yet, but the kids are fine with the Disney Channel Disney Jr block in the morning.

Honestly, I'd say drop Viacom and give Disney more money... 
-Disney Jr
-Longhorn
-Goal Line
-Game Plan HD
-etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Ira Lacher

Somehow I managed to live for 54 years without watching Jon Stewart. I can probably endure for the three or four months or years it takes to resolve this. 

Many of us lived through the days when home NFL games were blacked out, when not every hockey and basketball game was televised, when you could see only one or two college football games per Saturday. We survived.

Many of us lived through the days when we had fewer than five TV stations to choose from and they were available over the air in ghosted, snowy living black and white. We survived.

Before long, these endless carriage disputes and p***ing contests between the very rich and the richer still will burn out the average viewer, who will realize that the $100-plus they are spending on TV (!) a month can be put to far better use.


----------



## tvropro

It's time we hear some real substance and agreement out of both sides not the repeat canned crap. They are going around in a circle and getting us the consumer nowhere. Viacom and Direct both need each other to do business for us the consumer. Time to stop this stalemate and get our channels back!


----------



## georule

Viacom says it was a 7 year contract that expired. Were rates steady that entire time, or was there a built-in COLA? Because if they haven't gone up in 7 years, then 30% is not that unreasonable by D*'s own testimony. D* says rates generally go up 4-5% per year.


----------



## vobguy

georule said:


> Viacom says it was a 7 year contract that expired. Were rates steady that entire time, or was there a built-in COLA? Because if they haven't gone up in 7 years, then 30% is not that unreasonable by D*'s own testimony. D* says rates generally go up 4-5% per year.


It is very unreasonable if you consider that 
A) viewership of Viacom channels is steadily declining, and 
B) Viacom has made an end run around the providers, allowing online access to much of the most popular content, diluting the value of the programming that already had declining viewership.​


----------



## joshjr

cekowalski said:


> DirecTV please give me a package that excludes the Viacom stations for less money.
> 
> I now pay more for a few hours of TV each week than for phone and Internet combined. I am looking for an alternative... So I do not want a dime of my money going to Viacom in this situation.
> 
> Sure I watch some of their shows, but you know what - I only watched NBC and never CBS 10 years ago. Now its opposite. I can change. I will live, especially where money is Involved.
> 
> I know from experience that networks were charging .25 per sub or more, per channel, years ago. I think I am starting to see why my bill has gotten so high. And to add insult to injury, they say if I skip commercials I am stealing their service (while paying a per sub fee through my Sat company).
> 
> Let's stop this nonsense and introduce real competition... Give the customers a choice! If they want more money per channel, let the subscribers who want these channels pay. And if there are people who don't think these are worth the 30%... Let them stop buying the product.
> 
> Nobody needs 225 channels with nothing on... Especially at $0.50 each channel. I would pay $5 per channel for the ones I want.


While you might want to do this and can live with maybe 5 channels, there are people out there like me that would pay for alot more than 5 channels. This is not advisable. You would end up paying more then you think and probably not save really anything but just have the stations you want.


----------



## Carl Spock

Not only are the distribution services like Cox and DirecTV showing a untied front, so are the content providers. Has anybody seen CNN's coverage of the situation? It's like reading a press release for Viacom.

(I am mindful of Scott Kocourek's request that we keep the thread on topic. This post is not designed to renew the ugly discussion over cable news channels that overtook this thread last night. It is to address the issue that other content providers are siding with Viacom in the dispute. Please keep your response to that topic.)

The headline for the story I saw yesterday afternoon was *DirecTV Drops Viacom*. I'm sympathetic here. A headline should be short and to the point, plus this is factually accurate. The problem was the next 15 seconds of reporting, which is all most people will see. In the reporting, the egregious actor was DirecTV. They dropped Viacom. They turned off the channels. While like the headline this is true, it misses the two sided nature of the dispute. Not mentioned was that DirecTV offered to keep the channels up under the old carriage terms. There was no coverage that it was Viacom which fired the first public shot with their on screen crawl. Instead, it was just DirecTV pulled 25 Viacom channels off their service. The anchor then interviewed a reporter and viewers who hung around for the next two minutes got a sense of the back and forth nature of this dispute. The "cents a day" versus "a billion dollars" claims were mentioned, as were Viacom's decreased ratings. I was willing to chalk up the story's opening to a bit of boosterism but I gave CNN a break because they did fill in the facts.

Not today. At 8:52 this morning, CDT, over the text crawl of *Viacom Pulls Online Programming*, I heard the following story. This is a verbatim transcript.

_"The war between Viacom and DirecTV is heating up. Ooh, it's ugly! DirecTV pulls all Viacom channels, including Comedy Central, MTV and Nickelodeon over a dispute over subscriber fees. Now Viacom has pulled much of its online programming and that affects everyone, not just those people who have DirecTV. One of the big complaints from DirecTV is much (sic) of Viacom's shows can be seen online for free."_

The last line makes it sounds like Viacom pulled their online content to appease DirecTV, not because DirecTV had a website advocating their viewers go to Viacom's online site to watch their favorite programs. This story is totally misleading.

I think both sides are marshaling their forces. Ratings are down for many cable networks (Et tu, CNN?) and I think they are fervently hoping Viacom wins concessions from DirecTV.

I'm beginning to think this dispute will not be settled in a day or two but could take weeks or even months. I'm not sure either side can afford to lose.


----------



## tonyd79

Of course the CNN headline could have been "Directv loses Viacom" to be short and more accurate.


----------



## maartena

Carl Spock said:


> Ratings are down for many cable networks (Et tu, CNN?)


Ratings for CNN and Fox News are horrible. (And who can blame people seeing the garbage they put on as "news".)

But on the other hand, the news networks are also cheap. CNN is usually not part of any other Turner owned network carriage contract, nor is Fox News a part of other carriage contracts with Fox. They are dirt cheap, don't have a lot of expensive programming, and just pretend to report the news.

There isn't a lot of copyright infringement/protection discussion going on over CNN shows either, they don't have to worry about DVD sales and syndication sales down the line.


----------



## jpeckinp

My question is how long before Viacom starts yelling collusion?
If you have D* and AT&T or was it Cox that are standing up to Viacom and say one more jumps in like Comcast or Dish will Viacom file a collusion suit against all of them.
Obviously D* and AT&T can go without these channels and operate just fine but at what point does Viacom start losing enough money to cry uncle?


----------



## dpeters11

lparsons21 said:


> Bite your tongue!!
> 
> Who doesn't watch Doctor Who?


I'm probably the last geek that doesn't.


----------



## shendley

Just heard CNN Headline News coverage of Viacom pulling the Daily Show stream from its website. They stressed that they did it so Directv subscribers couldn't see them and admonished Viacom by reminding them that it's not only Directv subscribers that are affected by this. Then went on to mention the 30% increase Viacom wanted and Viacom's response that it would only be pennies per customer. Pretty fair coverage, I thought.



Carl Spock said:


> Not only are the distribution services like Cox and DirecTV showing a untied front, so are the content providers. Has anybody seen CNN's coverage of the situation? It's like reading a press release for Viacom.
> 
> (I am mindful of Scott Kocourek's request that we keep the thread on topic. This post is not designed to renew the ugly discussion over cable news channels that overtook this thread last night. It is to address the issue that other content providers are siding with Viacom in the dispute. Please keep your response to that topic.)
> 
> The headline for the story I saw yesterday afternoon was *DirecTV Drops Viacom*. I'm sympathetic here. A headline should be short and to the point, plus this is factually accurate. The problem was the next 15 seconds of reporting, which is all most people will see. In the reporting, the egregious actor was DirecTV. They dropped Viacom. They turned off the channels. While like the headline this is true, it misses the two sided nature of the dispute. Not mentioned was that DirecTV offered to keep the channels up under the old carriage terms. There was no coverage that it was Viacom which fired the first public shot with their on screen crawl. Instead, it was just DirecTV pulled 25 Viacom channels off their service. The anchor then interviewed a reporter and viewers who hung around for the next two minutes got a sense of the back and forth nature of this dispute. The "cents a day" versus "a billion dollars" claims were mentioned, as were Viacom's decreased ratings. I was willing to chalk up the story's opening to a bit of boosterism but I gave CNN a break because they did fill in the facts.
> 
> Not today. At 8:52 this morning, CDT, over the text crawl of *Viacom Pulls Online Programming*, I heard the following story. This is a verbatim transcript.
> 
> _"The war between Viacom and DirecTV is heating up. Ooh, it's ugly! DirecTV pulls all Viacom channels, including Comedy Central, MTV and Nickelodeon over a dispute over subscriber fees. Now Viacom has pulled much of its online programming and that affects everyone, not just those people who have DirecTV. One of the big complaints from DirecTV is much (sic) of Viacom's shows can be seen online for free."_
> 
> The last line makes it sounds like Viacom pulled their online content to appease DirecTV, not because DirecTV had a website advocating their viewers go to Viacom's online site to watch their favorite programs. This story is totally misleading.
> 
> I think both sides are marshaling their forces. Ratings are down for many cable networks (Et tu, CNN?) and I think they are fervently hoping Viacom wins concessions from DirecTV.
> 
> I'm beginning to think this dispute will not be settled in a day or two but could take weeks or even months. I'm not sure either side can afford to lose.


----------



## maartena

lparsons21 said:


> For us as subscribers, we can and will find other things to watch. Yeah we might miss a few things that we now enjoy, but if you have a DVR how far behind are you in watching right now without any of the Viacom stuff? I know I'm so far behind, I could quit recording/watching new stuff right now and it would take at least a couple weeks of hard watching to see everything on my DVR.


Same here. I have my DVR stuffed to the brim (that is, I am running at 20-25% free space most of the time), and I have plenty to watch for weeks to come.

I watch Spike for the mindless, dumbed down entertainment, cops type shows, tow/repo type shows, that kind of thing.... But I don't follow any of those shows, it is just fun every so often to turn it on while doing other things. And other channels are full of that kind of mindless dumb entertainment.

The only show I really follow is Hot in Cleveland on TVLand. The season is over, won't start till October or so I think, so really.... this summer I can do 100% without anything Viacom.

The loss of Palladia is a bummer. I sometimes record concerts from there. But granted, the last 2 concerts I recorded from it are still sitting, unwatched, on my DVR.

So yeah.... with 200+ other channels, I am not losing anything. It sucks for the snookie fans and those with kids that want to place them in front of the TV every day, but there really is a lot of other stuff to watch. And many of it is a lot more challenging to the brain then the mindless stuff Viacom seems to produce.


----------



## john18

georule said:


> Viacom says it was a 7 year contract that expired. Were rates steady that entire time, or was there a built-in COLA? Because if they haven't gone up in 7 years, then 30% is not that unreasonable by D*'s own testimony. D* says rates generally go up 4-5% per year.


I disagree. 30% is unreasonable, especially with a still-tanked economy, folks out of work, etc.

It would be interesting to know how many folks have left the DBS method of TV in favor of internet based TV and OTA. As those numbers of folks who drop increase, it leaves more of the burden for paying for D*'s infrastructure on us. Also a 30% increase over a smaller customer base equates for higher increases per household.

I hope that D* hold firms against Viacom. Except for Comedy Central, BET and Nickelodeon all of their claimed 20+ networks take up space with little added value to the average customer. I know some of you like TV Land and others, which makes for a great rationale for a la carte pricing. If you had to pay for those channels on an a la carte basis would you actually pay the money to watch them?

I applaud Cox Communications, for whom I usually have nothing nice to say, for their stand in support of D*. Moving to D*'s other DBS competitor just means you will fight the fight there in time. But that is your option. I am staying with D* and, as I have said, applaud them for their stand in this mess.


----------



## fleckrj

raott said:


> Yes, they are adding to the bottom line, however they are not keeping your bills down.


Sure they are. DirecTV has targets for revenue and profit. They do not care how they get it, as long as they meet their targets. If they make a profit from these channels, then they do not demand as much from you as they would have had they not made a profit from these channels. Your bill is not going down, but because of the channels that pay to be broadcast, your bill is not going up as fast as it might have.


----------



## zimm7778

"BlackCoffee" said:


> I like Phineas and Ferb. Kids with imagination and energy. I think it should be required learning in the schools. Better than most teachers.


From the husband of a teacher, you have no idea what you are talking about. Teachers by and large can teach well. The administration prevents it. I've seen it with my own child.


----------



## Max Mike

maartena said:


> Ratings for CNN and Fox News are horrible. (And who can blame people seeing the garbage they put on as "news".)


Huh... yes CNN ratings are at all time lows but Fox News has more viewers that all other news networks combined.

With few exceptions ratings are down across the board for TV cable and broadcast.


----------



## zimm7778

"HDYankee" said:


> The only thing that ticks me off on the situation is, DirecTV has added Encore channels to make up for the loss of the Viacom channels but I have Premiere so obviously those that do get nothing. Except I continue to pay over $200 a month for my service.
> 
> It is time for the FCC to force arbitration on the parties for these situations.
> 
> Also while I am complaining, I am sick and tired of most the channels having infomercials in the mornings while I am paying for content.


Good point. That's one I didn't even think about. So, they get more advertising through commercial time, paid programming so they get paid there without showing anything useful, AND we get an increase? Yeah not right.


----------



## APB101

txtommy said:


> It seems that the entertainment industry still has not received word that this country has a stagnant economy. A 30% increase is ridiculous especially when they are providing mostly old content repeated over and over.


Excellent post!

May also be summed up as follows: "_The entertainment industry_ doesn't give a s***!"


----------



## n3vino

dpeters11 said:


> I'm probably the last geek that doesn't.


I"ve never watched Doctor Who or BBC. I've qued it up on Netflix to see what I might be missing.


----------



## zimm7778

"Ira Lacher" said:


> Somehow I managed to live for 54 years without watching Jon Stewart. I can probably endure for the three or four months or years it takes to resolve this.
> 
> Many of us lived through the days when home NFL games were blacked out, when not every hockey and basketball game was televised, when you could see only one or two college football games per Saturday. We survived.
> 
> .


I've lived in Tampa and Jacksonville, I still do


----------



## zimm7778

"jpeckinp" said:


> My question is how long before Viacom starts yelling collusion?
> If you have D* and AT&T or was it Cox that are standing up to Viacom and say one more jumps in like Comcast or Dish will Viacom file a collusion suit against all of them.
> Obviously D* and AT&T can go without these channels and operate just fine but at what point does Viacom start losing enough money to cry uncle?


There isn't any so far as anyone knows. I'm sure Cox can pull for whoever they want, they just can't conspire with Directv against them.


----------



## n3vino

If Viacom has some looser channels, then they should get rid of them instead of trying to subsidize them with higher fees, or with channels that are actually making money. It makes no sense in throwing good money after bad. Stream line their channel offerings and then they can charge a reasonable fee.

On a side note, even with all those channels available on D*, sometimes there is nothing on that I care to watch. So I watch Judge Judy on DVR, or go to Netflix, or pop in a DVR or BlueRay. Of course other members of my family watch and record some of the channels I don't watch.


----------



## maartena

joshjr said:


> While you might want to do this and can live with maybe 5 channels, there are people out there like me that would pay for alot more than 5 channels. This is not advisable. You would end up paying more then you think and probably not save really anything but just have the stations you want.


Well... there are different approaches. Even in a a-la-carte world, where you can buy/build your own packages, you can still have complete "choice" type packages.

Many companies offer "bundle" deals, and not just phone/internet/tv type bundling, but things like:

Rent a car: $50.
GPS: $15.
Satellite Radio: $15.
Child Seat: $15.

Combo pack: Car + GPS + Sat Radio + ChildSeat: $85.

Now, someone that wants JUST GPS, will pay $65, and the "sweet spot" is when you want to have 2 of the features, you may as well pay $5 more and get it all.

With DirecTV you could do this as well..... E.g. you choose from 3 "standard" Choice type packages, or you "build your own" based on the various media company packages. And since right now channels from the same media company can be split up between packages (e.g. MTV is in "Choice Extra" but not in "Choice"), I am sure that DirecTV can take on a "Lego" approach, and provide you with a number of "building bricks", such as sports, kids, music, entertainment, news, etc....

The biggest hurdle with such a approach is that they probably both would not want it. Media companies will want to have the chance you will tune in to their channels, and DirecTV wants to maximize their profits, and not allow people to kill off half their package because they don't watch the channels.


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN

does anyone think tht viacom is also trying to make directv to add all of the epix channels


----------



## maartena

Ira Lacher said:


> Somehow I managed to live for 54 years without watching Jon Stewart. I can probably endure for the three or four months or years it takes to resolve this.
> 
> Many of us lived through the days when home NFL games were blacked out, when not every hockey and basketball game was televised, when you could see only one or two college football games per Saturday. We survived.
> 
> Many of us lived through the days when we had fewer than five TV stations to choose from and they were available over the air in ghosted, snowy living black and white. We survived.


**THIS!!**

Some people are acting as if their entire family lives will be completely uprooted because of missing television channels, as if the entertainment provided by television really is the only way entertainment can be had.

The world is not ending because your kid can't watch Spongebob.

I remember a time when our only television, which carried 5 channels, was broken. My dad brought it to the repair man who had to wait for a part for three weeks, so we just didn't have TV. Oh well, we found other things to do.

Granted, after the TV was repaired my dad went and bought a NEW TV, and the old one was to be used for us kids and was the one I eventually used to hook up a Commodore 64 so we had 2 spots of entertainment in the house.... but really, if there was nothing worth watching on, there was nothing on and the TV was turned off.

Losing Viacom is not the end of the world. If you really can't live without it, well.... switch. But the contract disputes with Dish, Cox, Comcast, and others.... are just around the corner. This year, next year, 2014.... but they will have to renegotiate. And just like with Time Warner in 2009, chances are your networks will go black.

So, as a favor to yourself and your kids.... make sure you raise them so that they can utilize other forms of entertainment when they aren't entertained by the box in the living room anymore.


----------



## maartena

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> does anyone think tht viacom is also trying to make directv to add all of the epix channels


I think this is a possibility. Jim Norton, the comedian, has probably been walking around in the Viacom buildings in preparation for his show on EPIX, and might have heard something in the halls about "negotiations with DirecTV" and "carriage of EPIX", or something like that, and drew a few conclusions, and as such made a comment about EPIX coming to DirecTV, probably without knowing that DirecTV had no interest and without knowing these negotiations can be really tough.

I see it as a possibility that EPIX is on the table as one of MANY points of discussion.


----------



## txtommy

maartena said:


> People left and right have been saying they called and were offered discounts, ranging from $5 a month (which is a little above market value of the channels lost I would imagine) to $30 a month, and even a free NFL Sunday Ticket.
> 
> Only thing you have to do, is call them and ask.


Directv should just automatically cut everyone's rate by $5 or whatever they charged for carrying the package. I will not spend 20 - 30 minutes of my time on the phone to beg for a $5 discount. My time is more valuable than that.


----------



## lparsons21

I for one, would be tickled pink if Epix came to D*. Ideally it could bring the 3 (or is it 4?) HD channels in and replace 3 or 4 of the drek that makes up most of the rest of Viacom's package.


----------



## lparsons21

txtommy said:


> Directv should just automatically cut everyone's rate by $5 or whatever they charged for carrying the package. I will not spend 20 - 30 minutes of my time on the phone to beg for a $5 discount. My time is more valuable than that.


OK, that's fair. Don't call! problem solved! 

I just called this morning on a different issue. I wanted to drop Showtime and ended up with a very nice 6 month discount essentially giving me both HBO and SHO for just a smidgen more than HBO alone.

Took all of about 5 minutes.


----------



## patmurphey

Consider this:

DirecTV is enjoying the "windfall summer of 2012". They are not paying $1.3 million a day to Viacom. Their customers are blaming Viacom, and all they have to do is throw a few credits at the squeaky wheels. 

Maybe not just kidding?

Anyway, as a Dish customer I applaud DirecTV for fighting the increases as Charlie has been doing over at Dish.


----------



## n3vino

maartena said:


> **THIS!!**
> I remember a time when our only television, which carried 5 channels, was broken. My dad brought it to the repair man who had to wait for a part for three weeks, so we just didn't have TV. Oh well, we found other things to do.


 Heck I remember when we didn't have a TV. The only stations available were 130 miles north (San Antonio) or 120 miles south (Rio Grande Valley). The only TV in our neighborhood was at a friend's house and the signal would crap out starting at 10:00am. At night the signal also had problems.

Then we got one 40 miles east (Corpus Christi)and my dad bought a tv. That was 1955. Then we got a 2nd station, than a 3rd. No 24 hour TV back then. That was it until in the 70's, cable came in with just a few stations.

We played a lot of baseball, basketball, and football and hung out with friends a lot just having good clean fun.


----------



## Carl Spock

shendley said:


> Just heard CNN Headline News coverage of Viacom pulling the Daily Show stream from its website. They stressed that they did it so Directv subscribers couldn't see them and admonished Viacom by reminding them that it's not only Directv subscribers that are affected by this. Then went on to mention the 30% increase Viacom wanted and Viacom's response that it would only be pennies per customer. Pretty fair coverage, I thought.


I agree that's a fair appraisal of the situation. Nice to see that. Good going to the copywriters and reporters on HLN. :righton:

I'm not cynical enough to think that higher ups at CNN would tell the news staff how to write their stories, ordering them to favor Viacom in their reporting. The fallout from such a dumb decision if it was to be made public would be devastating to CNN's credibility. It's more the lunchroom and hallway talk that can flavor how a story is reported that concerns me. The reporters and producers are human. They want to keep their jobs. They know CNN's ratings have taken a nosedive and that will affect carriage rates. It's those concerns which can affect the tone of their reporting. I'm glad to see Headline News' staff is resisting the temptation.


----------



## djrobx

maartena said:


> I see it as a possibility that EPIX is on the table as one of MANY points of discussion.


Yeah, I'm curious if EPIX has something to do with Mike White's comments regarding customers "being able to choose which channels they want to pay for". Most of the Viacom lineup is decidedly "basic cable" fare.

As for "pennies per subscriber". Pennis per day, per "26" channels, adds up to quite a bit. It adds up even more when all the other networks want *their* 30% increase when those contracts come up.


----------



## lparsons21

patmurphey said:


> Consider this:
> 
> DirecTV is enjoying the "windfall summer of 2012". They are not paying $1.3 million a day to Viacom. Their customers are blaming Viacom, and all they have to do is throw a few credits at the squeaky wheels.
> 
> Maybe not just kidding?
> 
> Anyway, as a Dish customer I applaud DirecTV for fighting the increases as Charlie has been doing over at Dish.


Don't forget that they are also giving us Encore channels until the end of the month. I doubt that is free to them.


----------



## tonyd79

"patmurphey" said:


> Consider this:
> 
> DirecTV is enjoying the "windfall summer of 2012". They are not paying $1.3 million a day to Viacom. Their customers are blaming Viacom, and all they have to do is throw a few credits at the squeaky wheels.
> 
> Maybe not just kidding?
> 
> Anyway, as a Dish customer I applaud DirecTV for fighting the increases as Charlie has been doing over at Dish.


Consider this. If it is 1.3 million and directv is given 5 buck credits to everyone that calls, all it takes is 260,000 calls (out of 20 million, or about 1%) to blow that 1.3 million.

Although as directv says they spend 100s of millions on Viacom per year, your 1.3 million is low by at least a factor of ten.

Edit Sorry. Missed the per day part. Reading on iPhone.


----------



## Ira Lacher

maartena said:


> But the contract disputes with Dish, Cox, Comcast, and others.... are just around the corner. This year, next year, 2014.... but they will have to renegotiate. And just like with Time Warner in 2009, chances are your networks will go black.
> 
> So, as a favor to yourself and your kids.... make sure you raise them so that they can utilize other forms of entertainment when they aren't entertained by the box in the living room anymore.


+ 1


----------



## Sea bass

djrobx said:


> Yeah, I'm curious if EPIX has something to do with Mike White's comments regarding customers "being able to choose which channels they want to pay for". Most of the Viacom lineup is decidedly "basic cable" fare.
> 
> As for "pennies per subscriber". Pennis per day, per "26" channels, adds up to quite a bit. It adds up even more when all the other networks want *their* 30% increase when those contracts come up.


How would "a la carte" impact Viacom or Directv if we the viewer/consumer were able to pick only the channels we wanted? I'm not being a smart ass, I have been thinking about this for a bit now...


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

djrobx said:


> Yeah, I'm curious if EPIX has something to do with Mike White's comments regarding customers "being able to choose which channels they want to pay for". Most of the Viacom lineup is decidedly "basic cable" fare.
> 
> As for "pennies per subscriber". Pennis per day, per "26" channels, adds up to quite a bit. It adds up even more when all the other networks want *their* 30% increase when those contracts come up.


Does anyone know how Epix is sold via the other carriers? Is it a separate premium like HBO and Showtime, or is it in one of the tiers?


----------



## tonyd79

"Pepe Sylvia" said:


> Does anyone know how Epix is sold via the other carriers? Is it a separate premium like HBO and Showtime, or is it in one of the tiers?


Varies. Fios sells it as a premium. Dish does not, if I recall correctly.


----------



## Lucid504

tvtime604 said:


> THIS is what is wrong with DIRECTV. Their bigwigs deciding what channels THEY want on the lineup INSTEAD of listening to ALL the subscribers on what THEY WANT.


Well in the first place,websites like this is just a small percentage of directv subscribers so if they judged on what they should add off this site than they are doing what the minority wants.....the channels they have added in hd or whatever is what gets viewers. Also why do we need another freaking movie channel package....really dont want that just something i wont subscribe to taking up transponders on the satellites.


----------



## ApeRan

Hi, first time poster, long time lurker....

I just saw this while googling....
This would seem to add a new layer to this whole D*/Viacom debacle.



> *AMC Sets Special "Breaking Bad" Feed for Dish Subscribers*
> By Rich Heldenfels Published: July 12, 2012
> 
> As you know, there's a lot of contractual wrangling right now between satellite services and program providers; DirecTV and Viacom are in a nasty fight, and the owner of AMC and other channels is battling with Dish Network. While Viacom has created collateral damage by pulling online replays of its shows for all viewers (so DirecTV subscribers can't see them another way), AMC is making Sunday's season premiere of "Breaking Bad" available to Dish subscribers. The official word:
> 
> *In response to DISH's recent drop of AMC to gain leverage in an unrelated lawsuit, the network will provide DISH customers access to the highly anticipated return of the Emmy® Award-winning drama "Breaking Bad" on Sunday, July 15, at 10PM EST. AMC is offering a special live stream of "Breaking Bad's" season five premiere to all DISH subscribers on amctv.com.*
> 
> Beginning at 3 PM ET on Friday, July 13, DISH subscribers can register for access to the live stream at w ww.amctv.com/breakingbad4dish
> 
> AMC stated: "Every cable, phone and satellite company other than DISH carries AMC and its popular programming, including "Breaking Bad," "The Walking Dead," and "Mad Men," in their basic package. AMC wants its loyal DISH viewers to experience the excitement of the "Breaking Bad" premiere at the same time as their friends and neighbors, and we want to give DISH customers an extra week to switch providers so they can enjoy the rest of the season."
> 
> The explosive drama series that Variety calls "simply one of TV's great addictions," stars three-time Emmy® winner for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series, Bryan Cranston (Walt White) leading an unforgettable ensemble cast including 2010 Emmy® winner for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series Aaron Paul (Jesse Pinkman), Anna Gunn (Skyler White), Dean Norris (Hank Schrader), Betsy Brandt (Marie Schrader), RJ Mitte (Walter, Jr.), Bob Odenkirk (Saul Goodman), and Jonathan Banks (Mike).


----------



## Paul Secic

tuff bob said:


> wow, every other commercial on MTV is the DirecTV dispute, even one copying the "frustation with cable" style of ad DirecTV has been using. sure seems bitter from the viacom side. quite fascinating indeed and very childish indeed, though I've already had one of my kids tell me to call DirecTV to save Nick. That way crosses the line Viacom.


Let your kids outside, it's summer!


----------



## hoopsbwc34

ApeRan said:


> Hi, first time poster, long time lurker....
> 
> I just saw this while googling....
> This would seem to add a new layer to this whole D*/Viacom debacle.


The exact opposite of what Viacom is doing! Much smarter if you want to get consumers on your side I say.


----------



## ApeRan

hoopsbwc34 said:


> The exact opposite of what Viacom is doing! Much smarter if you want to get consumers on your side I say.


unless this issue is resolved in the next few days, how much you wanna bet Viacom tries something similar by next week (when The Daily Show/Colbert come back from vacation)


----------



## jburns

ApeRan said:


> Hi, first time poster, long time lurker....
> 
> I just saw this while googling....
> This would seem to add a new layer to this whole D*/Viacom debacle.


Nah. It's still all about applying pressure. Here is the key statement in what you quoted:

"we want to give DISH customers an extra week to switch providers"


----------



## t_h

Couple of 5 year olds if you ask me. Also a lot of wrangling around trying to place the blame.

Here's who owns the blame: directv for not resolving this without these sorts of customer-involved shenanigans. Guess what Directv and Viacom...I don't care whose fault it is or the specifics of who did what.

I have a house full of kids and here's how I deal with it. They have to work things out among themselves. If they have to bring it to me, I take away whatever they couldn't agree on. They quickly learned to work things out on their own and not involve me.

Since I have old slow HD DVR's that I cant replace without paying cash out of pocket and don't care much for the service in the first place, yanking all of my kids shows off the air over a contract dispute was just too much.

I spoke with the retention people at length, but all they could offer was a $15/six month credit and if I wanted to pony up $100+, they'd get me an HR34.

So I took the credit, downgraded my package to choice xtra, and canceled the NFL sunday ticket.

See what I did there? I took away what they couldn't agree on...money.

And now its time to start cutting the cord. Apparently these large content providers and content distributors cant get along and neither one realizes that they aren't necessary any more.

Going to send the obligatory "You're doing it wrong" letter to the customer service vp first.

See ya later Directv, it was a lot of fun in 1995 hanging my own dish and seeing tv from space. But unless I'm a new customer I'm not getting any decent gear or the best prices, and thats just ridiculous.


----------



## mitchflorida

t_h said:


> Couple of 5 year olds if you ask me. Also a lot of wrangling around trying to place the blame.
> 
> Here's who owns the blame: directv for not resolving this without these sorts of customer-involved shenanigans. Guess what Directv and Viacom...I don't care whose fault it is or the specifics of who did what.
> 
> I have a house full of kids and here's how I deal with it. They have to work things out among themselves. If they have to bring it to me, I take away whatever they couldn't agree on. They quickly learned to work things out on their own and not involve me.
> 
> Since I have old slow HD DVR's that I cant replace without paying cash out of pocket and don't care much for the service in the first place, yanking all of my kids shows off the air over a contract dispute was just too much.
> 
> I spoke with the retention people at length, but all they could offer was a $15/six month credit and if I wanted to pony up $100+, they'd get me an HR34.
> 
> So I took the credit, downgraded my package to choice xtra, and canceled the NFL sunday ticket.
> 
> See what I did there? I took away what they couldn't agree on...money.
> 
> And now its time to start cutting the cord. Apparently these large content providers and content distributors cant get along and neither one realizes that they aren't necessary any more.
> 
> Going to send the obligatory "You're doing it wrong" letter to the customer service vp first.


They should give you a new HDTV DVR for free in exchange for a two year contract. A letter to the VP should get you that.


----------



## Shades228

t_h said:


> Couple of 5 year olds if you ask me. Also a lot of wrangling around trying to place the blame.
> 
> Here's who owns the blame: directv for not resolving this without these sorts of customer-involved shenanigans. Guess what Directv and Viacom...I don't care whose fault it is or the specifics of who did what.
> 
> I have a house full of kids and here's how I deal with it. They have to work things out among themselves. If they have to bring it to me, I take away whatever they couldn't agree on. They quickly learned to work things out on their own and not involve me.
> 
> Since I have old slow HD DVR's that I cant replace without paying cash out of pocket and don't care much for the service in the first place, yanking all of my kids shows off the air over a contract dispute was just too much.
> 
> *I spoke with the retention people at length, but all they could offer was a $15/six month credit and if I wanted to pony up $100+, they'd get me an HR34.*
> 
> So I took the credit, downgraded my package to choice xtra, and canceled the NFL sunday ticket.
> 
> See what I did there? I took away what they couldn't agree on...money.
> 
> And now its time to start cutting the cord. Apparently these large content providers and content distributors cant get along and neither one realizes that they aren't necessary any more.
> 
> Going to send the obligatory "You're doing it wrong" letter to the customer service vp first.
> 
> *See ya later Directv, it was a lot of fun in 1995 hanging my own dish and seeing tv from space. But unless I'm a new customer I'm not getting any decent gear or the best prices, and thats just ridiculous*.


So the same cost a new customer has to pay for a HR34 is not good enough with a 6 month discount as a kicker.


----------



## t_h

Shades228 said:


> So the same cost a new customer has to pay for a HR34 is not good enough with a 6 month discount as a kicker.


When I'm paying more than a new customer, have to deal with channel disputes on a regular basis, have my HD credit yanked because I supposedly changed my autopay (which never happened), and have been dealing with extremely slow equipment for years...no, thats not good enough.

Why should I pay anything at all for it? It costs a couple of hundred bucks to make, they'll charge me ~$280-380 in lease fees during its lifetime, then they'll get it back to refurbish and send to someone else. I should pay up front as well? :lol:

Directv is simply not customer friendly, untrustworthy and either poorly informed or not particularly truthful. When I have to deal with that as a customer, you have to pay me.


----------



## Shades228

t_h said:


> When I'm paying more than a new customer, have to deal with channel disputes on a regular basis, have my HD credit yanked because I supposedly changed my autopay (which never happened), and have been dealing with extremely slow equipment for years...no, thats not good enough.
> 
> Why should I pay anything at all for it? It costs a couple of hundred bucks to make, they'll charge me ~$280-380 in lease fees during its lifetime, then they'll get it back to refurbish and send to someone else. I should pay up front as well? :lol:
> 
> Directv is simply not customer friendly, untrustworthy and either poorly informed or not particularly truthful. When I have to deal with that as a customer, you have to pay me.


Good luck with whoever you choose then.


----------



## jasonblair

maartena said:


> Ratings for CNN and Fox News are horrible. (And who can blame people seeing the garbage they put on as "news".)


Don't you mean CNN and MSNBC? Fox News has pretty good ratings, actually.


----------



## jasonblair

dpeters11 said:


> I'm probably the last geek that doesn't.


No you are not. I've never seen a second of Dr. Who... And this is coming from a guy who can tell you that the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field are approximately 3,720 to 1!


----------



## abooch

There is so much "entitlement" on this board..


----------



## Athlon646464

Shades228 said:


> Good luck with whoever you choose then.


Exactly.

Channel 5, owned by Hearst here in Boston is about to pull the plug from Time Warner Cable. I'm afraid we're not seeing the last of these wars, regardless of who your provider is.

I'm sure both sides are exaggerating the numbers, but it stands to reason if D* can keep their costs down, our costs will also stay lower in the long run.

It's an interesting game of chicken. In my view, Viacom has the slightly weaker stance given their ratings lately. To ask for more when they have fewer viewers is nuts.


----------



## komondor

I feel that part of the issue is we don't really know what 30% actually is in dollars is Direct TV paying 1.00 per customer for all the channels in which case a 30 cents a month increase is not too much to swallow, I can't imagine it being more than 5.00 since it is part of the basic package so we are talking 1.50? What I would like to see is a stop to the bundling that they do, they should pay a certain amount for each person that subscribes to the channels, I for one would like to pay only for the channels I watch.

I did find this
Neither side would specify the costs of carrying each channel. But according to industry consulting firm SNL Kagan the price tag for Viacom's channels ranges from about 50 cents per subscriber per month for Nickelodeon to 16 cents per month per subscriber for Comedy Central. The most expensive cable channels are ESPN, which costs more than $5 per subscriber per month, and TNT, which runs about $1 per subscriber per month.


I can't find a list of all the Viacom channels but probably half I could do without including mtv and bet.


----------



## Maximus0111

Lucid504 said:


> OMG the people on Facebook are too funny for how crazy they are.....people are bringing up that they want to start a class action lawsuit for not providing the channels lol


It's so funny that people are paying for channels that they are not getting and they are mad about it. We lost 20% of our channels over night with no compensation for that. DirecTV could get into trouble because they are advertising that you get the Viacom channels with your package.

They are offering Encore for free, but a lot of customers already pay for these channels.

This is the third time in the past year that this has happened with DirecTV and customers are getting tired of it.


----------



## adamblast

n3vino said:


> Heck I remember when we didn't have a TV. [...]
> We played a lot of baseball, basketball, and football and hung out with friends a lot just having good clean fun.


Sounds like torture! We need to get this resolved right away! :lol:


----------



## maartena

jasonblair said:


> Don't you mean CNN and MSNBC? Fox News has pretty good ratings, actually.


Actually, just CNN is losing viewers: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304746604577380153431531964.html

MSNBC is also gaining viewers. Although Fox News is probably the most entertaining, seeing the laughable content they put forward as "news" 

But that is a different story. News networks, or "My-Political-View-Is-Better-Than-Yours" networks, are cheap compared to networks like those of viacom that produce shows.


----------



## Sea bass

maartena said:


> Actually, just CNN is losing viewers: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304746604577380153431531964.html
> 
> MSNBC is also gaining viewers. Although Fox News is probably the most entertaining, seeing the laughable content they put forward as "news"
> 
> But that is a different story. News networks, or "My-Political-View-Is-Better-Than-Yours" networks, are cheap compared to networks like those of viacom that produce shows.


CNN viewers down must be due to Piers Morgan. Yeesh, have you seen that show?


----------



## Athlon646464

komondor said:


> I feel that part of the issue is we don't really know what 30% actually is in dollars


Doesn't matter.

Think of *anything* you purchase on a regular basis.

Let's say that for that item it is suddenly less popular in the marketplace, but you still like/enjoy it.

Now, the next time you go to buy more of it, the price has gone up by 30%. Would you be happy?


----------



## t_h

adamblast said:


> Sounds like torture! We need to get this resolved right away! :lol:


I can tell you that when its 107 degrees out, like it was yesterday and will be again today, and you dont have a pool...it can be somewhat torturous. :lol:


----------



## maartena

Maximus0111 said:


> It's so funny that people are paying for channels that they are not getting and they are mad about it. We lost 20% of our channels over night with no compensation for that. DirecTV could get into trouble because they are advertising that you get the Viacom channels with your package.
> 
> They are offering Encore for free, but a lot of customers already pay for these channels.
> 
> This is the third time in the past year that this has happened with DirecTV and customers are getting tired of it.


1) Its not 20%. The package with the FEWEST channels is the "Entertainment" package with 140+ channels, and you lost 17 channels. And actually, the "Entertainment" package does not even carry all 17, and neither does "Choice" with 150+ channels. So you really lost less than 8% of your channels if you do the numbers right.

2) You can get compensation. Virtually everyone that has complained to DirecTV, has gotten a discount on their bill. All you have to do is call.

3) They are not obligated to offer you ANYTHING for free. The Terms of Service clearly state that programming can change without notice, and it can both be reduced or increased.

4) As far as advertising goes.... you lost the channels for 2 days so far. There is no agreement as of yet, but if they really cannot get to an agreement, those channels WILL be removed from their advertising campaigns, just like Dish did with AMC.

5) This happens WITH ALL carriers, satellite, cable, or otherwise, so you really can't escape it. Of course we live in a free world with a free market, so you have the choice to switch to a different provider.


----------



## Lucid504

Maximus0111 said:


> It's so funny that people are paying for channels that they are not getting and they are mad about it. We lost 20% of our channels over night with no compensation for that. DirecTV could get into trouble because they are advertising that you get the Viacom channels with your package.
> 
> They are offering Encore for free, but a lot of customers already pay for these channels.
> 
> This is the third time in the past year that this has happened with DirecTV and customers are getting tired of it.


No i think its funny because......obviously they have no sense of the terms of service and always resort to lawsuits everyone resorts to suing people now days.


----------



## t_h

Athlon646464 said:


> Doesn't matter.
> 
> Think of *anything* you purchase on a regular basis.
> 
> Let's say that for that item it is suddenly less popular in the marketplace, but you still like/enjoy it.
> 
> Now, the next time you go to buy more of it, the price has gone up by 30%. Would you be happy?


The 30% isnt relevant. Since every time directv comes up for renegotiation, it turns into a public display of dual paw urination that involves the customer...that they want the customer to help beat up the supplier. Because as you're on your way to pointing out, nobody likes a price increase.

Whats relevant here is:

1) Why directv cant resolve these BEFORE they become a customer issue
2) Why directv thinks its a nice idea to use us as battering rams against their suppliers
3) Why directv thinks they can do that and not have to adequately compensate customers

Nothing to do with 'entitlement'. They did something to irritate me, hoping I'd take it out on viacom so they could get away with a smaller contract. They're still going to raise my rates in the next year by more than the channel cost increases.

Isn't it funny that technology has made it supremely cheaper to make and distribute incredible quality video, yet content keeps getting more expensive?

Answers:

1) Because they wanted to
2) Because they wanted to
3) Because they dont consider the customer an asset


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

komondor said:


> I did find this
> Neither side would specify the costs of carrying each channel. But according to industry consulting firm SNL Kagan the price tag for Viacom's channels ranges from about 50 cents per subscriber per month for Nickelodeon to 16 cents per month per subscriber for Comedy Central. The most expensive cable channels are ESPN, which costs more than $5 per subscriber per month, and TNT, which runs about $1 per subscriber per month.


My understanding. Viacom gets about 2.60 a sub from D*, and is looking for about 3.00, meaning an increase of 16%, plus annual hikes each year of the new contract. Problem is, right now Viacom is getting 3.00 from select PayTv distributors, some of which have most-favorite-carrier agreements with Viacom. So, if Viacom reups with D* at anything below 3.00, it would have to cut the rate it charges to other carriers.

Who's at fault?

ESPN.

Until carriers tell ESPN, we'll give you 2 dollars a month, take it or leave it, all the other content providers will continue to price themselves off the sports network. As they should.


----------



## Athlon646464

t_h said:


> The 30% isnt relevant. Since every time directv comes up for renegotiation, it turns into a public display of dual paw urination that involves the customer...that they want the customer to help beat up the supplier. Because as you're on your way to pointing out, nobody likes a price increase.
> 
> Whats relevant here is:
> 
> 1) Why directv cant resolve these BEFORE they become a customer issue
> 2) Why directv thinks its a nice idea to use us as battering rams against their suppliers
> 3) Why directv thinks they can do that and not have to adequately compensate customers
> 
> Nothing to do with 'entitlement'. They did something to irritate me, hoping I'd take it out on viacom so they could get away with a smaller contract. They're still going to raise my rates in the next year by more than the channel cost increases.
> 
> Isn't it funny that technology has made it supremely cheaper to make and distribute incredible quality video, yet content keeps getting more expensive?
> 
> Answers:
> 
> 1) Because they wanted to
> 2) Because they wanted to
> 3) Because they dont consider the customer an asset


You completely missed my point, and then went on and on about something else while never stating why you thought my point was incorrect.

You took my quote out of context. You failed to mention I was replying to someone else's post.


----------



## Billzebub

rjf said:


> the BS political views obfuscating what should otherwise be a useful thread is the main reason i stopped posting and coming to DBStalk. i'm not interested in lame commentary drawing parallels between the Viacom issue and someone's bent political view. 2 thirds of this thread is utterly useless and off topic. no wonder this forum took such a nosedive. shame, cuz it used to be a great resource. i'm off to find some real into elsewhere.... :hi:


This is an internet message board. How useful do you think it can be.

Here's the useful info:
They are fighting and the channels have been removed. They'll be back when the fighting is over.


----------



## electrober6

adamblast said:


> Sounds like torture! We need to get this resolved right away! :lol:


+


----------



## renbutler

maartena said:


> Ratings for CNN and Fox News are horrible. (And who can blame people seeing the garbage they put on as "news".)


Your command of the "facts" are still quite subpar, and your agenda in this thread is transparent.

Please, stick with the germane information and save the nonsense for a board that already sucks.


----------



## Carl Spock

t_h said:


> 1) Why directv cant resolve these BEFORE they become a customer issue


If you aren't willing to play a totally committed, "absolutely-won't-swerve" game of chicken, then don't get involved with high stakes negotiations. And this doesn't just apply to DirecTV. It's true with an star athlete holding out for a new contract, a television star wanting a better deal, or when I was negotiating advertising agreements with TV and radio stations for my stereo store. The only time this isn't true is when the stakes aren't high. Right now, with DirecTV and Viacom, the stakes are very high.



> 2) Why directv thinks its a nice idea to use us as battering rams against their suppliers


I doubt they think this is a nice idea at all. We don't hear about all the contracts that are quietly renewed behind the scenes. The current situation isn't good for DirecTV's image and I'm sure they wish it had never gotten to this point, but once it did, see answer (1)



> 3) Why directv thinks they can do that and not have to adequately compensate customers


They seem to be pretty responsive to me, with credits for those who request them and the Encore channels being made available. But then, one man's adequate compensation is another man's snotty offer, so you may not agree.

Beyond that, I have no problem with you leaving. I have no problem with anybody leaving. Again and again, the fact that DirecTV is only a TV service provider gets lost in the conversation on DBSTalk. In a list of a hundred important things in my life, my television service provider is in the bottom half. DirecTV happens to be the best solution for me in my semi-rural home, given the fact I also like sports. But if the company was to vanish tomorrow, it wouldn't affect the important portions of my life in any significant way. I frankly worry a bit about people for which this isn't also true.


----------



## Shades228

t_h said:


> The 30% isnt relevant. Since every time directv comes up for renegotiation, it turns into a public display of dual paw urination that involves the customer...that they want the customer to help beat up the supplier. Because as you're on your way to pointing out, nobody likes a price increase.
> 
> Whats relevant here is:
> 
> 1) Why directv cant resolve these BEFORE they become a customer issue
> 2) Why directv thinks its a nice idea to use us as battering rams against their suppliers
> 3) Why directv thinks they can do that and not have to adequately compensate customers
> 
> Nothing to do with 'entitlement'. They did something to irritate me, hoping I'd take it out on viacom so they could get away with a smaller contract. They're still going to raise my rates in the next year by more than the channel cost increases.
> 
> Isn't it funny that technology has made it supremely cheaper to make and distribute incredible quality video, yet content keeps getting more expensive?
> 
> Answers:
> 
> 1) Because they wanted to
> 2) Because they wanted to
> 3) Because they dont consider the customer an asset


You're right they should have just paid the cost and then the next price increase would just reflect that so you could complain about it then.

Viacom pulled your channels. It's in DIRECTV's best interest to keep them lit up and Viacom knows it. That's why they do this so you have the reaction you're having.

People feel they have been and people feel they haven't You're using this as an excuse to complain about other things as well that don't have anything to do with this dispute. You want free equipment and bigger monthly discounts. This may add something to your frustration but again you have the option to leave which seems to me a much less frustrating situation for you since you seem completely unhappy with a company you've had for 17 years and they apparently can't do anything right.

As for content costs. Let's use some good examples

Star Wars 1977 cost 11,000,000 to produce esimated 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/

Ghostbusters 1984 cost 32,000,000 to produce estimated
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087332/

True Lies 1994 cost 115,000,000 to produce estimated
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111503/

Spiderman 2 2004 cost 200,000,000 to produce esitmated
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316654/

The Amazing Spiderman 2012 cost 230,000,000 to produce estimated
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0948470/

The same holds true with TV. It costs more to produce and create due to our demands as consumers. It's not rocket science that things cost more today than they did in the past.


----------



## Drew2k

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


>


This response made my day.

Thank you.


----------



## BlackCoffee

t_h said:


> ... Whats relevant here is:
> 
> 1) Why directv cant resolve these BEFORE they become a customer issue
> 2) Why directv thinks its a nice idea to use us as battering rams against their suppliers
> 3) Why directv thinks they can do that and not have to adequately compensate customers
> 
> ... They did something to irritate me, hoping I'd take it out on viacom so they could get away with a smaller contract. They're still going to raise my rates in the next year by more than the channel cost increases.


You are wrong on a couple of points. VIACOM pulled the channels, not DTV. VIACOM could have allowed the channels to run while negotiations were on-going.

It is VIACOM that brought the customer in as leverage. Hoping you would complain to DTV (as you are) to get the channels back. DTV did not pull the channels to get the customer as leverage against VIACOM. It was the other way around. The only way for DTV to make you happy was to agreed to VIACOM terms (you get channels) and then lose money (not pass the cost on to you). If you want to complain about continually increasing costs, they have to be controlled at the source-VIACOM.


----------



## Tubaman-Z

t_h said:


> I can tell you that when its 107 degrees out, like it was yesterday and will be again today, and you dont have a pool...it can be somewhat torturous. :lol:


<off_topic>
My wife and I were discussing the local temp recently (we had a week of 95+ - not your 107, but still hot for MN). When I was a kid in northern IN we had no A/C. I spent many, many summer hours at the local public library. No TV, but lots of books, drinking fountains, A/C, and planned summer activities for kids. Good for me, good break for my mom.
</off_topic>


----------



## BAHitman

I find it interesting that looking at the below 2 facebook pages how different the conversations are

http://www.facebook.com/viacom - filled with "viacom sucks" messages with virtually no response from Viacom

http://www.facebook.com/directv - filled with both "viacom sucks" and "directv sucks" messages as well as directv commenting and responding to comments


----------



## azelesko

Shades228 said:


> Viacom pulled your channels. It's in DIRECTV's best interest to keep them lit up and Viacom knows it. That's why they do this so you have the reaction you're having.


This is what makes me the angriest. Directv can make their chicken and egg argument all they want. The problem is the honest answer to a paying customer is "We are sorry but you no longer have Viacom channels because we were unable to come to an agreement that we felt was fair to us and our customers". Quit pointing fingers at the other guy. To counter your argument, yes Viacom knows it is in Directv's best interest to keep the channels...but I'm going to guess that Directv is also aware that it is in Viacom's best interest to have their channels carried on Directv and they are doing this so they get this reaction from their own customers.


----------



## keith_benedict

Carl Spock said:


> If you aren't willing to play a totally committed, "absolutely-won't-swerve" game of chicken, then don't get involved with high stakes negotiations. And this doesn't just apply to DirecTV. It's true with an star athlete holding out for a new contract, a television star wanting a better deal, or when I was negotiating advertising agreements with TV and radio stations for my stereo store. The only time this isn't true is when the stakes aren't high. Right now, with DirecTV and Viacom, the stakes are very high.
> 
> I doubt they think this is a nice idea at all. We don't hear about all the contracts that are quietly renewed behind the scenes. The current situation isn't good for DirecTV's image and I'm sure they wish it had never gotten to this point, but once it did, see answer (1)
> 
> They seem to be pretty responsive to me, with credits for those who request them and the Encore channels being made available. But then, one man's adequate compensation is another man's snotty offer, so you may not agree.
> 
> Beyond that, I have no problem with you leaving. I have no problem with anybody leaving. Again and again, the fact that DirecTV is only a TV service provider gets lost in the conversation on DBSTalk. In a list of a hundred important things in my life, my television service provider is in the bottom half. DirecTV happens to be the best solution for me in my semi-rural home, given the fact I also like sports. But if the company was to vanish tomorrow, it wouldn't affect the important portions of my life in any significant way. I frankly worry a bit about people for which this isn't also true.


Well, I'd say the stakes are higher for Viacom. Directv is no longer paying $2+ per month for their 20 million subscribers. That's $40M per month Viacom is missing out on at a minimum.

The numbers really aren't in Viacom's favor in this battle. Their programming just isn't compelling enough for the loss of those channels to be the really big hammer they need to prevail in the negotiations.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Shades228 said:


> As for content costs. *Let's use some good examples*
> 
> Star Wars 1977 cost 11,000,000 to produce esimated
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/
> 
> Ghostbusters 1984 cost 32,000,000 to produce estimated
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087332/
> 
> True Lies 1994 cost 115,000,000 to produce estimated
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111503/
> 
> Spiderman 2 2004 cost 200,000,000 to produce esitmated
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316654/
> 
> The Amazing Spiderman 2012 cost 230,000,000 to produce estimated
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0948470/
> 
> The same holds true with TV. It costs more to produce and create due to our demands as consumers. It's not rocket science that things cost more today than they did in the past.


It would have been nice if you had used some good examples . Comparing movies to the stuff thats on these channels is apples and oranges. Heck, its not even that. Its closer to apples and lug nuts. Completely irrelevant. All the viacom channels pulled air low budget original programming or syndicated re-runs.

Do you think it costs Viacom $230M a year to make Ridiculousness? It probably costs them closer to $25,000 an ep or less.

There is really nothing on these channels that justify anything close to a 30% increase.

I guess it may cost them more to air re-runs once those contracts expire and have to be renewed, but you can't really charge 30% more to air repeats of That 70's Show.


----------



## APB101

tvtime604 said:


> THIS is what is wrong with DIRECTV. Their bigwigs deciding what channels THEY want on the lineup INSTEAD of listening to ALL the subscribers on what THEY WANT.


Correct.

If DirecTV was listening, Turner Classic Movies HD would have been in the lineup rather than finally arriving next week. If DirecTV was listening, AMC HD would have been in the lineup well before last September (especially given that programmer's original, Emmy-nominated and -winning series). If DirecTV was listening, we already would have BBC America HD.

I side with DirecTV over Viacom on this issue. But I won't pretend DirecTV is routinely listening to its subscribers.


----------



## Shades228

SledgeHammer said:


> It would have been nice if you had used some good examples . Comparing movies to the stuff thats on these channels is apples and oranges. Heck, its not even that. Its closer to apples and lug nuts. Completely irrelevant. All the viacom channels pulled air low budget original programming or syndicated re-runs.
> 
> Do you think it costs Viacom $230M a year to make Ridiculousness? It probably costs them closer to $25,000 an ep or less.
> 
> There is really nothing on these channels that justify anything close to a 30% increase.
> 
> I guess it may cost them more to air re-runs once those contracts expire and have to be renewed, but you can't really charge 30% more to air repeats of That 70's Show.


These are examples from the same industry to show that even though technology "is getting cheaper" (which I don't blelieve) it doesn't change the costs of production and final products. TV shows don't list budgetts like that so I can only use the examples provided. Do I think that all shows use those production values? No but I'm betting that if you took a show like America's funnies home videos and compared the production cost to Ridiculousness you would have the same scenario.


----------



## keith_benedict

APB101 said:


> Correct.
> 
> If DirecTV was listening, Turner Classic Movies HD would have been in the lineup rather than finally arriving next week. If DirecTV was listening, AMC HD would have been in the lineup well before last September (especially given that programmer's original, Emmy-nominated and -winning series). If DirecTV was listening, we already would have BBC America HD.
> 
> I side with DirecTV over Viacom on this issue. But I won't pretend DirecTV is routinely listening to its subscribers.


Wait, what? TMC HD is coming next week?


----------



## tonyd79

azelesko said:


> This is what makes me the angriest. Directv can make their chicken and egg argument all they want. The problem is the honest answer to a paying customer is "We are sorry but you no longer have Viacom channels because we were unable to come to an agreement that we felt was fair to us and our customers". Quit pointing fingers at the other guy. To counter your argument, yes Viacom knows it is in Directv's best interest to keep the channels...but I'm going to guess that Directv is also aware that it is in Viacom's best interest to have their channels carried on Directv and they are doing this so they get this reaction from their own customers.


Huh?

You do realize that Viacom started this as a PR war even before they sent the turnoff notice to DirecTV?

Go read the DirecTV stuff. They are pretty reasonable on what they are saying and trying to do. Should they just sit back and let Viacom throw stones? Viacom decided to take this public and make it an issue. Not DirecTV.

What if they have offered a reasonable offer (they say they offered an increase, just not 30%) and Viacom insisted on turning off the channels. Is it then DirecTV's fault for not reaching an agreement?

I don't know who is exactly "at fault" for the agreement not being reached but Viacom sure is acting like a bunch of  spoiled brats, so I am not going to think they are in the "right" here.


----------



## tonyd79

keith_benedict said:


> Wait, what? TMC HD is coming next week?


July 19.


----------



## Dude111

georule said:


> Viacom says it was a 7 year contract that expired. Were rates steady that entire time, or was there a built-in COLA? Because if they haven't gone up in 7 years, then 30% is not that unreasonable by D*'s own testimony.


Yes but quality has goen WAY DOWN the last 7 years..... THE PRICE THEY AGREEED TO 7 YEARS AGO IS NOT GOOD NOW!!



oldengineer said:


> At 5:24 AM this morning, in a sound bite on CNBC, Mike White stated that Viacom is asking for a 1 billion dollar increase in rates over the next 5 years and that D* is currently paying Viacom 500 million dollars a year.


Dont ya feel bad for them??

Nothing but trash just about on all Viacom channels YET directv has to pay that much??


----------



## oldengineer

I've seen lots of numbers like 30% increase, etc on this thread.

Here's what I calculate, based on the fact that Mike White, on CNBC, stated that D* is paying Viacom $500M this year in fees and that Viacom wants an additional $1B over the next 5 years.

20M subs paying $500M annually = $25.00/yr/sub (assuming equal subscriptions)
Over 5 years that's $125 assuming no increases.

To get $1B extra from 20M subs = $50/sub for the 5 years
Over 5 years that's $175 total.

Doing a quick compound annual growth calculation says that this really a 16.9% compound annual rate increase that Viacom is asking for and that D* is resisting. That sounds a lot more scary to me than saying that they are asking for 30-40% over the 5 year contract even though the money may be the same.


----------



## F1 Fan

keith_benedict said:


> Wait, what? TMC HD is coming next week?


Yup

I already have recordings set for Thursday next week.

Just go to the current TCM. Pick a movie and then View Upcoming and you will see the list from next week in TCM and TCMHD. And you can schedule that to record.

As Directv usually adds channels on a Wednesday I would guess next Wednesday it will turn on, but I know I have one for Thursday 19th scheduled (Errol Flynn in Robin Hood)


----------



## Athlon646464

30% more when they have declining ratings in a bad economy? :eek2:


----------



## SledgeHammer

Shades228 said:


> These are examples from the same industry to show that even though technology "is getting cheaper" (which I don't blelieve) it doesn't change the costs of production and final products. TV shows don't list budgetts like that so I can only use the examples provided. Do I think that all shows use those production values? No but I'm betting that if you took a show like America's funnies home videos and compared the production cost to Ridiculousness you would have the same scenario.


a) Technology is becoming cheaper. HD broadcast equipment was very expensive at first. Now its very "affordable".

b) I'm willing to bet Ridiculousness is cheaper to produce then Americas Funniest Home Videos. All content is provided to them for free. Studio audience is un-paid. Big difference is gonna be the salary of the host. Bob Saggest definitely pulled in $$$ vs. some random "bro" they pulled off the street for Ridiculousness.

c) Will agree production costs of TV shows are higher then they used to be. Stars salaries have POTENTIAL to be much more. Gary Coleman was pulling like $250k an ep at his peak while the Frasier dude was getting $2M an ep. However, even on a huge hit show like The Big Bang Theory, the stars aren't pulling in that much cash at this point. I remember reading the 3 main actors got upped to like $300k to $400k or something.


----------



## Shades228

oldengineer said:


> I've seen lots of numbers like 30% increase, etc on this thread.
> 
> Here's what I calculate, based on the fact that Mike White, on CNBC, stated that D* is paying Viacom $500M this year in fees and that Viacom wants an additional $1B over the next 5 years.
> 
> 20M subs paying $500M annually = $25.00/yr/sub (assuming equal subscriptions)
> Over 5 years that's $125 assuming no increases.
> 
> To get $1B extra from 20M subs = $50/sub for the 5 years
> Over 5 years that's $175 total.
> 
> Doing a quick compound annual growth calculation says that this really a 16.9% compound annual rate increase that Viacom is asking for and that D* is resisting. That sounds a lot more scary to me than saying that they are asking for 30-40% over the 5 year contract even though the money may be the same.


You however have a higher understanding of money that most people today.


----------



## BAHitman

APB101 said:


> Correct.
> 
> If DirecTV was listening, Turner Classic Movies HD would have been in the lineup rather than finally arriving next week. If DirecTV was listening, AMC HD would have been in the lineup well before last September (especially given that programmer's original, Emmy-nominated and -winning series). If DirecTV was listening, we already would have BBC America HD.
> 
> I side with DirecTV over Viacom on this issue. But I won't pretend DirecTV is routinely listening to its subscribers.


You can't say that they are not listening... that carriage has more to do with what's in the carriage contract... if they have a 7 year carriage with AMC that does not include the HD feed, then guess what... unless DirecTV can get AMC to modify the contract then they can't carry it...

Some people act as if DirecTV is the only decider as to whether they can have the HD feed or not. There are often other considerations written into contracts that maybe DirecTV can't or doesn't want to meet... We will never know the real reason why AMC is not in HD or why BBCA is not in HD. but I would bet it is not soley on DirecTV why they aren't


----------



## Mark Holtz

I just called DirecTV and spoke with the CSR there.... thanking them for pulling the Viacom channels. That CSR certainly did a double-take. Nice guy too.


----------



## sigma1914

Dude111 said:


> Yes but quality has goen WAY DOWN the last 7 years..... THE PRICE THEY AGREEED TO 7 YEARS AGO IS NOT GOOD NOW!!
> 
> Dont ya feel bad for them??
> 
> Nothing but trash just about on all Viacom channels YET directv has to pay that much??


Who are you to determine what's quality programming? I'm sure there's shows you enjoy that others may deem as horrible crap.

I wish some of you would get off your high horses. One man's trash is another man's treasure.


----------



## sigma1914

Mark Holtz said:


> I just called DirecTV and spoke with the CSR there.... thanking them for pulling the Viacom channels. That CSR certainly did a double-take. Nice guy too.


I'll be sure to thank them when it's channels you enjoy.


----------



## APB101

keith_benedict said:


> Wait, what? *TMC HD *is coming next week?


You have the last two letters mixed up.

_TMC_ is The Movie Channel.

_TCM_ is Turner Classic Movies.


----------



## satx04

Called in about the Viacom, as kid watches Nick Jr. Well, got the 5$ off for 3 months. And free upgrade to ST MAX.


----------



## BAHitman

Mark Holtz said:


> I just called DirecTV and spoke with the CSR there.... thanking them for pulling the Viacom channels. That CSR certainly did a double-take. Nice guy too.


I have actually considered doing that as well... :lol:


----------



## WestDC

BAHitman said:


> I have actually considered doing that as well... :lol:


Don't get shut out


----------



## APB101

Mark Holtz said:


> I just called DirecTV and spoke with the CSR there.... thanking them for pulling the Viacom channels. That CSR certainly did a double-take. Nice guy too.


Call again when DirecTV pulls Shorts HD and Fuel HD. :lol:


----------



## satx04

sigma1914 said:


> Who are you to determine what's quality programming? I'm sure there's shows you enjoy that others may deem as horrible crap.
> 
> I wish some of you would get off your high horses. One man's trash is another man's treasure.


I agree w/ Sigma. The folks with kids who watch Nick Jr, would probably disagree with the "horrible crap" statement.

And Comedy central is solely worth it for Jon Stewart.


----------



## azelesko

tonyd79 said:


> Huh?
> 
> You do realize that Viacom started this as a PR war even before they sent the turnoff notice to DirecTV?
> 
> Go read the DirecTV stuff. They are pretty reasonable on what they are saying and trying to do. Should they just sit back and let Viacom throw stones? Viacom decided to take this public and make it an issue. Not DirecTV.
> 
> What if they have offered a reasonable offer (they say they offered an increase, just not 30%) and Viacom insisted on turning off the channels. Is it then DirecTV's fault for not reaching an agreement?
> 
> I don't know who is exactly "at fault" for the agreement not being reached but Viacom sure is acting like a bunch of spoiled brats, so I am not going to think they are in the "right" here.


Yes I do realize that but I don't agree with how Directv has handled it. In my opinion there is something to be said for the company that takes the higher road and takes responsibility by apologizing to their customers for their failure to meet expectations. They have lowered themselves to Viacom's tactics, so again how does that make them better by throwing rocks back? If I understand correctly Viacom pulled channels that the contract had expired for, correct? So you are telling me that if Directv licensed content to other carriers they would allow them to continue broadcasting it after the contract expired because they "got my back"?

It is a shared responsibility that they haven't reached an agreement. What is reasonable to Viacom clearly isn't reasonable to Directv, so why is the assumption that what is reasonable to Directv needs to be reasonable to Viacom.

Blame is in the eye of the beholder. I agree Viacom is acting like a spoiled brat, but Directv is acting like the brat's younger brother and crying while pointing their finger at Viacom.


----------



## sigma1914

Worthless channels? Crap programming? Etc? Let's look at ratings for 2011.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76679201/Cable-Time-Period-Rank-2011

For all day total viewers, we lost the #1 & #3 channels, as well as, 8 of the top 30 channels.

Doesn't seem like the "crap" no one watches like a lot of you claim.


----------



## tonyd79

"Dude111" said:


> Yes but quality has goen WAY DOWN the last 7 years..... THE PRICE THEY AGREEED TO 7 YEARS AGO IS NOT GOOD NOW!!
> 
> Dont ya feel bad for them??
> 
> Nothing but trash just about on all Viacom channels YET directv has to pay that much??


500 mil a year is really $25 per subscriber a year for 17 channels. So really about $1.47 per channel per year per sub or a bit over 10 cents per channel per month per sub. . Not really a lot per se. Scale does remarkable things.


----------



## zimm7778

"Carl Spock" said:


> If you aren't willing to play a totally committed, "absolutely-won't-swerve" game of chicken, then don't get involved with high stakes negotiations. And this doesn't just apply to DirecTV. It's true with an star athlete holding out for a new contract, a television star wanting a better deal, or when I was negotiating advertising agreements with TV and radio stations for my stereo store. The only time this isn't true is when the stakes aren't high. Right now, with DirecTV and Viacom, the stakes are very high.
> 
> I doubt they think this is a nice idea at all. We don't hear about all the contracts that are quietly renewed behind the scenes. The current situation isn't good for DirecTV's image and I'm sure they wish it had never gotten to this point, but once it did, see answer (1)
> 
> They seem to be pretty responsive to me, with credits for those who request them and the Encore channels being made available. But then, one man's adequate compensation is another man's snotty offer, so you may not agree.
> 
> Beyond that, I have no problem with you leaving. I have no problem with anybody leaving. Again and again, the fact that DirecTV is only a TV service provider gets lost in the conversation on DBSTalk. In a list of a hundred important things in my life, my television service provider is in the bottom half. DirecTV happens to be the best solution for me in my semi-rural home, given the fact I also like sports. But if the company was to vanish tomorrow, it wouldn't affect the important portions of my life in any significant way. I frankly worry a bit about people for which this isn't also true.


Exactly. It's TV. It keeps going up and up and up. If it gets much more expensive and I don't make more to compensate I'm done. I won't be able to afford it. Part of that is rising cost of programming. And in this case more than others I don't care whether I ever see any of these channels again since all but maybe 2 were parental control blocked anyway. So, if they stay off for a year and Directv either decreases the bill OR sends a notice saying "programming costs warranted a rate increase this year but as we are not paying Viacom anything we can therefore not increase your rate this year" I'm good.


----------



## Draconis

tonyd79 said:


> Huh?
> 
> You do realize that *Viacom started this as a PR war* even before they sent the turnoff notice to DirecTV?
> 
> Go read the DirecTV stuff. They are pretty reasonable on what they are saying and trying to do. Should they just sit back and let Viacom throw stones? *Viacom decided to take this public and make it an issue.* Not DirecTV.
> 
> What if they have offered a reasonable offer (they say they offered an increase, just not 30%) and Viacom insisted on turning off the channels. Is it then DirecTV's fault for not reaching an agreement?
> 
> I don't know who is exactly "at fault" for the agreement not being reached but *Viacom sure is acting like a bunch of spoiled brats*, so I am not going to think they are in the "right" here.


Agreed, and when they removed all online streaming they proved it to me without a doubt.

DIRECTV has absolutely no control over Viacom's websites, it was purely Viacom's decision to stop online streaming.


----------



## SPACEMAKER

sigma1914 said:


> Worthless channels? Crap programming? Etc? Let's look at ratings for 2011.
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/76679201/Cable-Time-Period-Rank-2011
> 
> For all day total viewers, we lost the #1 & #3 channels, as well as, 8 of the top 30 channels.
> 
> Doesn't seem like the "crap" no one watches like a lot of you claim.


This board has a bunch of IT and IT help desk people. When it comes to programming I just assume that the what the masses want is pretty much the opposite of what they want.

Remember,"cool" on a message board like this tends to translate into the opposite in real life. haha


----------



## joshjr

sigma1914 said:


> Who are you to determine what's quality programming? I'm sure there's shows you enjoy that others may deem as horrible crap.
> 
> I wish some of you would get off your high horses. One man's trash is another man's treasure.


+1


----------



## Ira Lacher

APB101 said:


> I won't pretend DirecTV is routinely listening to its subscribers.


Few corporations listen to their customers anymore. And if they do listen, they listen to their investors and their shareholders more.


----------



## sigma1914

SPACEMAKER said:


> This board has a bunch of IT and IT help desk people. When it comes to programming I just assume that the what the masses want is pretty much the opposite of what they want.
> 
> Remember,"cool" on a message board like this tends to translate into the opposite in real life. haha


Imagine if Dr. Who was canceled? This place would need support groups. :lol:


----------



## mdavej

Mark Holtz said:


> I just called DirecTV and spoke with the CSR there.... thanking them for pulling the Viacom channels. That CSR certainly did a double-take. Nice guy too.


I'm sure they're thanking you as well for paying them the same amount of money for 26 less channels than you had yesterday. You're a really nice guy, and generous too.


----------



## dpeters11

SPACEMAKER said:


> This board has a bunch of IT and IT help desk people. When it comes to programming I just assume that the what the masses want is pretty much the opposite of what they want.
> 
> Remember,"cool" on a message board like this tends to translate into the opposite in real life. haha


Well, geeks in general. It's a major reason why there's the BBC America issue. Our member base is skewed. BBCA was number one on our wanted HD list. It isn't if you poll the general subscriber base.


----------



## maartena

sigma1914 said:


> Worthless channels? Crap programming? Etc? Let's look at ratings for 2011.
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/76679201/Cable-Time-Period-Rank-2011
> 
> For all day total viewers, we lost the #1 & #3 channels, as well as, 8 of the top 30 channels.
> 
> Doesn't seem like the "crap" no one watches like a lot of you claim.


"Crap" cannot be defined by the amount of individuals that watch it, but rather is defined by the actual quality of the program. McDonald's sells billions of hamburgers, but the stuff they put in it is close to actual.... crap.  - Still, it sells like hotcakes.

It's a matter of opinion, some people think they have mostly worthless programming, others think it is the best thing since sliced bread.

My PERSONAL opinion is that most of the programming on the Viacom channels is dumb television designed for people that do not have a lot of brain capacity. But again, this is a PERSONAL opinion, not a fact. Notable exceptions to me are some of the programming on TVLand and Paladia. The first has some nice classic sitcoms, the latter has some great music programs.

And yes.... every so often it is fun to watch how dumb people are on Spike, with the world worst tenants, repo games, etc..... But (and again, PERSONAL opinion) I can't believe that people really can't go without that trash for a few weeks until they resolve this dispute.

And yes, I still believe it will get resolved. But I am not going to cry over the programming I will miss if it isn't.


----------



## sigma1914

mdavej said:


> I'm sure they're thanking you as well for paying them the same amount of money for 26 less channels than you had yesterday. You're a really nice guy, and generous too.


Good point. :lol:


----------



## susanandmark

sigma1914 said:


> Worthless channels? Crap programming? Etc? Let's look at ratings for 2011.
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/76679201/Cable-Time-Period-Rank-2011
> 
> For all day total viewers, we lost the #1 & #3 channels, as well as, 8 of the top 30 channels.
> 
> Doesn't seem like the "crap" no one watches like a lot of you claim.


Great point. The whole "I don't care, so I'm all for it" comments are, basically, worthless. Not because they're wrong (or right), but because if you're amongst the group who could care less, and losing these channels doesn't bother you one bit, guess what, since you're NOT upset, DirecTV doesn't have to (and won't) worry about you. Hence your happiness isn't an issue for them ... It's those that are UNhappy, that they need to worry about.

I happen to live in a semi-rural area of a major metro where, by virtue of topography, sat is the only TV option. OTA is impossible. Ditto for Internet beyond basic (relatively slow) DSL, so cord-cutting is out and cable doesn't exist. Everyone that lives in my neighborhood has either DirecTV or DISH. Everyone.

This morning there's a DISH truck in my neighbor's driveway. She's switching from DirecTV, because of the Viacom issue. She's the type of person who would never, ever in a million years, go to an Internet forum to talk about TV or service providers. She just wants to turn the TV on and have it work. Yesterday morning it didn't. When she called, and waited on hold for 35 minutes, and was told about the dispute (poorly, from what she related) by a customer service rep she fished out the DISH flier we all had in our mailboxes on a regular basis from the junk drawer and called them up. They gave her a great deal on a new install for the very next day, she said yes and she's really happy.

She doesn't see it as a holy war. Or think years into the future about possible issues with DISH channel disputes. As far as she's concerned she can always change again if she needs to. In fact, most of my neighbors have had both at one time or another, and many actually still have both dishes on their roofs with the idea that they are likely to switch back and forth again in the future. It's not a big deal. It's just TV.

I think that view is much, MUCH more common than the passion displayed here, on any side.

For me, personally, THE DAILY SHOW (Comedy Central) is one of the very, VERY few programs that my husband and I watch together on a regular basis. It's a pleasant and fun part of our daily routine and we will absolutely miss it. AWKWARD (MTV) is, bar none, one of the very best shows on television right now. Whip smart, funny, absolute must-see TV in our household. A new season just started and I don't want to miss out.

Will we live without seeing these or anything else we watch on Viacom-owned networks? Of course we will! But we're not talking about survival. Obviously, we can live very well indeed with no TV at all. Ever.

What I'm talking about is money. MY money. Just like DirecTV and Viacom are worried about their bottom lines, I'm worried about mine. If I'm gonna pay for TV, in the end, just like my neighbor, I want what I want when I want it. That's not "entitlement," it's common sense. I'm paying for something, and I should receive it.

One of the things that has kept me with DirecTV for so long is, frankly, laziness. I don't want to switch out my rather complex system and get a new one up and running (always bugs). I don't want to learn a new operating system. It's all just a big ole' hassle and, despite some less than warm and fuzzy feelings about DirecTV as a company, the service has always been just good enough that it's not worth leaving them. If this matter isn't resolved in the next few days that feeling may change. For me, this feels like it could be the thing that would push me over the edge. I know I took a card from the DISH installer working next door today.


----------



## Mark Holtz

sigma1914 said:


> Imagine if Dr. Who was canceled? This place would need support groups. :lol:


Uh, that occurred in 1990.


----------



## RunnerFL

sigma1914 said:


> Imagine if Dr. Who was canceled? This place would need support groups. :lol:


Oh, don't even joke about that.


----------



## JMCecil

susanandmark said:


> This morning there's a DISH truck in my neighbor's driveway. She's switching from DirecTV, because of the Viacom issue. She's the type of person who would never, ever in a million years, go to an Internet forum to talk about TV or service providers. She just wants to turn the TV on and have it work. Yesterday morning it didn't. When she called, and waited on hold for 35 minutes, and was told about the dispute (poorly, from what she related) by a customer service rep she fished out the DISH flier we all had in our mailboxes on a regular basis from the junk drawer and called them up. They gave her a great deal on a new install for the very next day, she said yes and she's really happy.


And hopefully she doesn't watch any AMC because that won't "just work".


----------



## RunnerFL

dpeters11 said:


> Well, geeks in general. It's a major reason why there's the BBC America issue. Our member base is skewed. BBCA was number one on our wanted HD list. It isn't if you poll the general subscriber base.


I really don't get where people equate BBCA with "geeks", it's not all SciFi you know, but whatever floats your boat.

Maybe because shows on BBCA are more cerebral and require more thought and imagination than US shows? *shrug*


----------



## sigma1914

maartena said:


> ...
> 
> My PERSONAL opinion is that most of the programming on the Viacom channels is dumb television designed for people that do not have a lot of brain capacity. But again, this is a PERSONAL opinion, not a fact. Notable exceptions to me are some of the programming on TVLand and Paladia. The first has some nice classic sitcoms, the latter has some great music programs.
> 
> ...


What type of person watches BBCA & shows like Top Gear? I'm sure only sophisticated people with extremely high IQ scores? 

It's pathetic how prejudice and stereotyping some people here are based on what they watch.


----------



## Mark Holtz

mdavej said:


> I'm sure they're thanking you as well for paying them the same amount of money for 26 less channels than you had yesterday. You're a really nice guy, and generous too.


I was paying for them when they were on, and I wasn't watching them anyways.

I also wrote to my representatives how I am required to pay for channels that I don't watch. You can also shut off E$PN and the Regional $ports Networks, and I wouldn't care. I'm mainly a Discovery and History Channel guy now. You may not care for Discovery or History though. Why should you pay for channels you don't watch.


----------



## susanandmark

JMCecil said:


> And hopefully she doesn't watch any AMC because that won't "just work".


I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that, to the general public, one channel "missing" is better than 17 (or 25). But, hey, if it makes you feel better to think my neighbor is an idiot and the only person on Earth who will leave DirecTV because of this, have at it.

I, personally, watch multiple programs on AMC but with MAD MEN (which is amongst my top 5 favorite shows) not on for another year and BREAKING BAD readily available on iTunes or via DVD/Bluray, that's still far less of an issue for me and my family's viewing habits than the loss of Comedy Central, MTV (even if only for a single show) and the various Nick iterations.


----------



## maartena

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Who's at fault?
> 
> ESPN.
> 
> Until carriers tell ESPN, we'll give you 2 dollars a month, take it or leave it, all the other content providers will continue to price themselves off the sports network. As they should.


Never going to happen. ESPN is a "must have" network, and every carrier that loses it, will lose clients at an incredibly fast rate. No one is going to tell ESPN to stick it with $2.


----------



## davidatl14

susanandmark said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that, to the general public, one channel "missing" is better than 17 (or 25). But, hey, if it makes you feel better to think my neighbor is an idiot and the only person on Earth who will leave DirecTV because of this, have at it.
> 
> I, personally, watch multiple programs on AMC but with MAD MEN (which is amongst my top 5 favorite shows) not on for another year and BREAKING BAD readily available on iTunes or via DVD/Bluray, that's still far less of an issue for me and my family's viewing habits than the loss of Comedy Central, MTV (even if only for a single show) and the various Nick iterations.


Sounds like you should follow suit with your neighbor and make the move to DISH.

Looking forward to peeking into the DISH forums from time to and seeing the instantly recognizable "Missives of Withering Bitterness" about DISH.

Hopefully DISH will brighten your mood in regards to your DBS provider of Choice.


----------



## kulps19

I can't believe or fathom that some people on here try to acknowledge what is a "crap" program or channel and wonder why people would want to watch any of the Viacom channels. Comedy Central is one of my favorite channels to watch on DirecTV, mainly due to my love (and I will admit they are both mindless television) of Tosh.0 and especially Workaholics, which has quickly turned into one of my favorite shows on television. Stupid show? Who would watch that and why? Does this require less intelligence to have enjoyment watching this show? Well, I do have a doctoral degree in education, so let's not throw out stereotypes on people. I don't judge what anyone else watches and no one should on here as well. The beauty of DirecTV is that there are many channels for everyone, and some have been negatively impacted by this situation (in particular, I feel very badly for children and parents about Nick). It just makes me cringe to no end when people discuss the "crap" channels or wonder how anyone could watch that garbage.


----------



## keith_benedict

susanandmark said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that, to the general public, one channel "missing" is better than 17 (or 25). But, hey, if it makes you feel better to think my neighbor is an idiot and the only person on Earth who will leave DirecTV because of this, have at it.
> 
> I, personally, watch multiple programs on AMC but with MAD MEN (which is amongst my top 5 favorite shows) not on for another year and BREAKING BAD readily available on iTunes or via DVD/Bluray, that's still far less of an issue for me and my family's viewing habits than the loss of Comedy Central, MTV (even if only for a single show) and the various Nick iterations.


You are probably in the minority on that one.

We're watching Mad Men and Breaking Bad on Blu ray, since we missed out on them when they first aired. But I'd sooner give up every Viacom channel for AMC HD so that I can watch Walking Dead.

I do admit that I'll miss Tosh.0, but I'll get over it.

This dispute has made me realize just how little I need TV. I'm planning on lowering our plan to the lowest at the end of the month to save $15/month. I'll also be getting rid of the HD Extra Pack as soon as the Olympics are over to save another $5/month. We're not hurting for the $20, but it's ridiculous to waste $240/year for the crap that's on the channels I'll be giving up.


----------



## Draconis

Hunh, if you look in the lower right-hand corner of the DIRECTVpromise website there is a form where you can subscribe for email updates; I wonder when that was added.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Gloria_Chavez said:


> My understanding. Viacom gets about 2.60 a sub from D*, and is looking for about 3.00, meaning an increase of 16%, plus annual hikes each year of the new contract. Problem is, right now Viacom is getting 3.00 from select PayTv distributors, some of which have most-favorite-carrier agreements with Viacom. So, if Viacom reups with D* at anything below 3.00, it would have to cut the rate it charges to other carriers.
> 
> Who's at fault?
> 
> ESPN.
> 
> Until carriers tell ESPN, we'll give you 2 dollars a month, take it or leave it, all the other content providers will continue to price themselves off the sports network. As they should.


I completely utterly agree and I've read other articles by people who agree with you.


----------



## inkahauts

"oldengineer" said:


> At 5:24 AM this morning, in a sound bite on CNBC, Mike White stated that Viacom is asking for a 1 billion dollar increase in rates over the next 5 years and that D* is currently paying Viacom 500 million dollars a year.


An, some possible real numbers to look at... That's ridiculous...


----------



## keith_benedict

kulps19 said:


> I can't believe or fathom that some people on here try to acknowledge what is a "crap" program or channel and wonder why people would want to watch any of the Viacom channels. Comedy Central is one of my favorite channels to watch on DirecTV, mainly due to my love (and I will admit they are both mindless television) of Tosh.0 and especially Workaholics, which has quickly turned into one of my favorite shows on television. Stupid show? Who would watch that and why? Does this require less intelligence to have enjoyment watching this show? Well, I do have a doctoral degree in education, so let's not throw out stereotypes on people. I don't judge what anyone else watches and no one should on here as well. The beauty of DirecTV is that there are many channels for everyone, and some have been negatively impacted by this situation (in particular, I feel very badly for children and parents about Nick). It just makes me cringe to no end when people discuss the "crap" channels or wonder how anyone could watch that garbage.


I'll miss Tosh.0, but there isn't a single program on all of the other channels that I'll miss. Frankly, the idea the 20 million people will no longer be able to watch The Colbert Report or the Daily Report makes me happy.

Parents with kids can let their children watch any number of other channels aimed at children. The world won't end if they can't watch Dora.


----------



## susanandmark

keith_benedict said:


> You are probably in the minority on that one.
> 
> We're watching Mad Men and Breaking Bad on Blu ray, since we missed out on them when they first aired. But I'd sooner give up every Viacom channel for AMC HD so that I can watch Walking Dead.


So, I assume you're a brand new (in the last six months) DirecTV customer and fan then? Because DirecTV didn't have AMC HD long, LOOONG after just about every other provider, including DISH, did.

And it was often pointed out on these forums how foolish and feeble those who said they'd switch to get it must be. After all who cares so much about one channel?

As for being in the minority ... Give 100 random people two choices for anything (TV programming, food shopping, etc.), one of which is missing 17 things they might need and another missing only 1. Which do you think they will select? Get to back to me when you find the "majority" that picks the store with the 17 missing items over the store with just 1.


----------



## inkahauts

"TheRatPatrol" said:


> I wonder if Cox is up next for negotiations with Viacom?


Viacom is screwed if DIRECTV holds the line, because all the other cable companies will have no worries doing the same because their customers won't have as many choices of competitors. andif dish where to come up soon as well and also hold the line, then their would be no alternatives. The first company to loose carriage by several major providers at the same time is screwed, and will hopefully send a message to the rest of the broadcasters they are getting out of hand.


----------



## Mark Holtz

zimm7778 said:


> Exactly. It's TV. It keeps going up and up and up. If it gets much more expensive and I don't make more to compensate I'm done. I won't be able to afford it.


Same here. The cost-benefit ratio isn't there anymore. The only reason why I still have DirecTV is that it is a requirement of part of my rent (along with DSL internet) for the house I share. I discussed the issue with my landlord this morning, and she does not want to miss her History and Discovery channel programming. So $90 per month is what I continue to pay.


----------



## keith_benedict

susanandmark said:


> So, I assume you're a brand new (in the last six months) DirecTV customer and fan then? Because DirecTV didn't have AMC HD long, LOOONG after just about every other provider, including DISH, did.
> 
> And it was often pointed out on these forums how foolish and feeble those who said they'd switch to get it must be. After all who cares so much about one channel?
> 
> As for being in the minority ... Ask 100 random people if they have two choices for anything (TV programming, food shopping, etc.), one of which is missing 17 things they might need and another missing only 1. Which do you think they will select? Get to back to me when you find the majority that picks the store with the 17 missing items over the store with just 1.


I've been with Directv since 2001. I was one of the people screaming because they didn't have AMC HD. I didn't leave or threaten to leave (as least as far as I can remember I didn't). If I did, then I was foolish.

If you ask 100 random people your question, I'd expect the smart ones to say that it depends on what the 17 are and one the 1 is. The ones that didn't ask that, I really don't care what their opinion is.

I'm actually more happy than sad that the Viacom channels are gone. As I've already stated, I'll miss Tosh.0. It's one of my favorite shows, but the fact that the Daily Show, Colber Report, and Jersey Shore can no longer be seen by 20 million people makes me happy.


----------



## TBlazer07

keith_benedict said:


> Frankly, *the idea the 20 million people will no longer be able to watch The Colbert Report or the Daily Report makes me happy*.





keith_benedict said:


> I'm actually more happy than sad that the Viacom channels are gone. As I've already stated, I'll miss Tosh.0. It's one of my favorite shows, but *the fact that the Daily Show, Colber Report, and Jersey Shore can no longer be seen by 20 million people makes me happy.*


"Frankly" that was a pretty rude comment. Why should it make YOU *HAPPY* if others can't enjoy the programming they enjoy? Does it also make you happy when your neighbor's kitten gets hit by a car?

I don't want to turn this thread into a political discussion but I can only guess at the absurd reason for your comment............ or maybe it isn't for political reasons but maybe people laughing upsets you. :nono2:


----------



## BlackCoffee

azelesko said:


> Yes I do realize that but I don't agree with how Directv has handled it. In my opinion there is something to be said for the company that takes the higher road and takes responsibility by apologizing to their customers for their failure to meet expectations. They have lowered themselves to Viacom's tactics, so again how does that make them better by throwing rocks back? ...
> 
> It is a shared responsibility that they haven't reached an agreement. What is reasonable to Viacom clearly isn't reasonable to Directv, so why is the assumption that what is reasonable to Directv needs to be reasonable to Viacom.
> 
> Blame is in the eye of the beholder. I agree Viacom is acting like a spoiled brat, but Directv is acting like the brat's younger brother and crying while pointing their finger at Viacom.


You are absolutely wrong. It is not DTV that didn't want an agreement, it is VIACOM. All you want is an agreement so you can watch your channels.

Facts:

1. VIACOM pulled the channels not DTV.
2. VIACOM is offering less than the last contract.
- Channel ratings have declined
- No offer to unbundle
- No additional channels
3. DTV has invested to improve VIACOMS Brand
- Satellites, DVR recievers and software upgrades, HD delivery, etc.
4. VIACOM requires their channels in all packages.
- 20% of viewing, 100% funding

You are hearing from the 80% that think VIACOM is junk and don't want them in the package, especially at a higher cost.

Sorry you are inconvenienced, but if you are really are a VIACOM fan ask them why they didn't keep the channels up. I think DTV is being more than fair, they should have asked for a price reduction for faultering ratings.


----------



## sigma1914

keith_benedict said:


> ...
> 
> I'm actually more happy than sad that the Viacom channels are gone. As I've already stated, I'll miss Tosh.0. It's one of my favorite shows, but the fact that the Daily Show, Colber Report, and Jersey Shore can no longer be seen by 20 million people makes me happy.


What is it about others not seeing a show that gets you off? Seriously, that's weird you're enjoying others missing out on entertainment they like.

What did Colbert and Stewart ever do to you? :lol:


----------



## kulps19

keith_benedict said:


> I'll miss Tosh.0, but there isn't a single program on all of the other channels that I'll miss. Frankly, the idea the 20 million people will no longer be able to watch The Colbert Report or the Daily Report makes me happy.
> 
> Parents with kids can let their children watch any number of other channels aimed at children. The world won't end if they can't watch Dora.


Were you trying to reinforce my point? Big deal, I'm sure there are shows or channels that you watch that people would be more then happy to let go or not watch as well. It makes no sense to try to examine what is a valuable channel or program as it greatly varies between different individuals.


----------



## inkahauts

"maartena" said:


> Ratings for CNN and Fox News are horrible. (And who can blame people seeing the garbage they put on as "news".)
> 
> But on the other hand, the news networks are also cheap. CNN is usually not part of any other Turner owned network carriage contract, nor is Fox News a part of other carriage contracts with Fox. They are dirt cheap, don't have a lot of expensive programming, and just pretend to report the news.
> 
> There isn't a lot of copyright infringement/protection discussion going on over CNN shows either, they don't have to worry about DVD sales and syndication sales down the line.


FOX news was the crux of the deal in last years fight between FOX and DIRECTV.

And that's probably part of the issue with Viacom. It sounded to me like at one point DIRECTV wanted to keep the same channels or lower the number of channels from Viacom to lower costs, and Viacom possibly wants to keep the same or increase the number of channels they carry, and have a all or nothing approach to carrying its channels.


----------



## keith_benedict

TBlazer07 said:


> "Frankly" that was a pretty rude comment. Why should it make YOU *HAPPY* if others can't enjoy the programming they enjoy? Does it also make you happy when your neighbor's kitten gets hit by a car?
> 
> I don't want to turn this thread into a political discussion but I can only guess at the absurd reason for your comment............ or maybe it isn't for political reasons but maybe people laughing upsets you. :nono2:


Yes, it has a lot to do with my political beliefs. I'd love to see Bill Maher gone too.

I don't have anything against kittens.


----------



## keith_benedict

keith_benedict said:


> Yes, it has a lot to do with my political beliefs. I'd love to see Bill Maher gone too.
> 
> I don't have anything against kittens.


For that matter, I'd love to see all political shows kicked off the air. Including Hannity, Chris Matthews, O'Reilly, etc.


----------



## usnret

Stay the course DTV please.


----------



## sigma1914

keith_benedict said:


> Yes, it has a lot to do with my political beliefs. I'd love to see Bill Maher gone too.
> 
> I don't have anything against kittens.





keith_benedict said:


> For that matter, I'd love to see all political shows kicked off the air. Including Hannity, Chris Matthews, O'Reilly, etc.


At least you're fair.


----------



## TBlazer07

keith_benedict said:


> Yes, it has a lot to do with my political beliefs. I'd love to see Bill Maher gone too.
> 
> I don't have anything against kittens.


 Do you think they are a lefty conspiracy to brainwash the public?

No one seems to understand, the vast majority of people who watch all those types of shows (on both sides) have already made up their mind.


----------



## lparsons21

sigma1914 said:


> I'll be sure to thank them when it's channels you enjoy.


I also called D* today, not to thank them for the Viacom drop, but ended up doing that anyway.

I was calling to drop Showtime and they made me a great deal, so I didn't. And in the follow-on conversation I told them I was happy that D* was holding the line.

Not because I don't miss Comedy Central (nor because others miss whichever ones they do), but because I'm tired of all the content providers coming in with ridiculous rate increase requests. And if they happen to do the same with some channel I really care about, I'll feel the same way. I may very well ***** 'cause whichever is missing, but I'll appreciate the attempt to keep my costs down.

I'd say the vast majority of us here are not seeing our income increase at the percentages these content providers are asking for, nor are most of us even getting increases as big as D*'s increases.

All in all, I'm tired of the 'less for more' corporate mentality that is so prevalent today. If Viacom wants a nice fat increase, then bring something to the table that is worth it. It certainly isn't anything they are currently offering!


----------



## keith_benedict

TBlazer07 said:


> Do you think they are a lefty conspiracy to brainwash the public?
> 
> No one seems to understand, the vast majority of people who watch all those types of shows (on both sides) have already made up their mind.


I think it's a general media conspiracy (both lefty and righty and outey and inney) to lock people into inflexible mindsets that prevent them from seeing things differently.


----------



## inkahauts

"Maximus0111" said:


> It's so funny that people are paying for channels that they are not getting and they are mad about it. We lost 20% of our channels over night with no compensation for that. DirecTV could get into trouble because they are advertising that you get the Viacom channels with your package.
> 
> They are offering Encore for free, but a lot of customers already pay for these channels.
> 
> This is the third time in the past year that this has happened with DirecTV and customers are getting tired of it.


I'm sorry,I thought we lost "26" ( really only 17) channels, how does that equate to anything near 20% of our channels, much less 20% of actual new hours of programing per week? I'd bet that Viacom doesn't make up more than 4% of all new programing in a week that is available on DIRECTV. And that's being generous.

I'm not saying some people don't have the right to complain About losing shows they watch, but don't go quoting the ridiculous numbers that Viacom is providing, or DIRECTV for that matter. They are both very good at spin.

If the channels remain gone for good, then I would expect some sort of compensation in time, by either adding a significant amount of new channels' or by not raising my rates next year, using the money saved from losing viacom to pay for the normal yearly rate increases they will be paying to the broadcasters they do still carry. Maybe even for the next two years.


----------



## keith_benedict

inkahauts said:


> I'm sorry,I thought we lost "26" ( really only 17) channels, how does that equate to anything near 20% of our channels, much less 20% of actual new hours of programing per week? I'd bet that Viacom doesn't make up more than 4% of all new programing in a week that is available on DIRECTV. And that's being generous.
> 
> I'm not saying some people don't have the right to complain About losing shows they watch, but don't go quoting the ridiculous numbers that Viacom is providing, or DIRECTV for that matter. They are both very good at spin.
> 
> If the channels remain gone for good, then I would expect some sort of compensation in time, by either adding a significant amount of new channels' or by not raising my rates next year, using the money saved from losing viacom to pay for the normal yearly rate increases they will be paying to the broadcasters they do still carry. Maybe even for the next two years.


It could be this person was just talking about HD channels and perhaps they're on a plan with fewer channels.


----------



## maartena

sigma1914 said:


> What type of person watches BBCA & shows like Top Gear? I'm sure only sophisticated people with extremely high IQ scores?


Nerds that like Science Fiction and Cars. Also people that have lived in Europe, and like British television.



> It's pathetic how prejudice and stereotyping some people here are based on what they watch.


I have no problems being labeled a nerd. I know what I am.

And you don't have to feel offended. I am sure there are professors and rocket scientists who watch Jersey Shore in anticipation of snooki's boobs. 

Let's just say that I am not Viacom's target market. I'm still a dumb, stupid idiot, but not of the type Viacom is looking for.


----------



## kulps19

A CSR representative actually promised me that these channels would be back on by Friday. Truth be told, I could not believe that she said it. I even questioned her about it (tried to give her an out) and she stood true to that statement. She didn't say "I think" they should be back or "we are trying" to get them back. She actually said they will be back by Friday. Obviously, this probably wasn't a good statement by her. If they aren't think I have a good reason to call in and get discounts??!


----------



## tonyd79

keith_benedict said:


> I think it's a general media conspiracy (both lefty and righty and outey and inney) to lock people into inflexible mindsets that prevent them from seeing things differently.


Not really a conspiracy so much as pandering to a demographic to get ratings. Different animals, same result.


----------



## n3ntj

Something needs to be done when providers and networks are going to fight like this.. it's only the viewers that lose. Too bad the sides can't agree to allow carriage for a set amount of time the carriage agreement as a sign of good will to their viewers and customers. This sort of non-sense is happening all too often now between network owners and the various cable, satellite, and telco providers.

The various cable, satellite, and telco providers will lose customers yet the networks will loose $$$ in the form of lower ratings since fewer people can view their networks and their advertisers know this. Too bad this isn't happening during a sweeps period or else Viacom would be more likely to cave, I would think.


----------



## inkahauts

"Gloria_Chavez" said:


> My understanding. Viacom gets about 2.60 a sub from D*, and is looking for about 3.00, meaning an increase of 16%, plus annual hikes each year of the new contract. Problem is, right now Viacom is getting 3.00 from select PayTv distributors, some of which have most-favorite-carrier agreements with Viacom. So, if Viacom reups with D* at anything below 3.00, it would have to cut the rate it charges to other carriers.
> 
> Who's at fault?
> 
> ESPN.
> 
> Until carriers tell ESPN, we'll give you 2 dollars a month, take it or leave it, all the other content providers will continue to price themselves off the sports network. As they should.


Actually, if they base their pricing off espn, they would be worth less, not more. Add up how many new hours of programing espn does per channel, and then add up how much new programing per hour viacoms stations have, and then look at each channels view ship. Then add up the exclusivity of eons programing vs that of viacoms, where half their stuff or more is available for free or cheap though many outlets. Viacom is overvalued.

That's not to say that I don't think espn is getting to much money too, it's just in comparison, viacoms is farther behind than the actual pricing difference, if the numbers we hear are anywhere close to correct, IMHO.


----------



## keith_benedict

tonyd79 said:


> Not really a conspiracy so much as pandering to a demographic to get ratings. Different animals, same result.


A rose by any other name...


----------



## underlord2

Less political stuff more thread topic please? :whatdidid This thread is migraine inducing. :grrr:


----------



## djrobx

> As far as she's concerned she can always change again if she needs to


She can't change cheaply while she's under contract. Dish is notorious for getting into contract disputes, the probability that she will go through something like this again under Dish over the course of her 2 year contract is very high.


----------



## keith_benedict

djrobx said:


> [bquote] As far as she's concerned she can always change again if she needs to[/bquote]She can't change cheaply while she's under contract. Dish is notorious for getting into contract disputes, the probability that she will go through something like this again under Dish over the course of her 2 year contract is very high.


Absolutely!

Chances are pretty high just over the next 6 months! It doesn't seem like we can go more than a few months between carrier disputes.


----------



## scott72

abooch said:


> There is so much "entitlement" on this board..


Welcome to the United States..


----------



## Tygh

Without having to slog thru 61 pages of posts, is there an "average" deal DTV is giving to those that have called in? I have an unhappy teenager at home this summer who is missing her trash tv fix!!! 

Some sort of deal from DTV to help me would be great. Anyone want a teenager on the cheap?????


----------



## zimm7778

"Mark Holtz" said:


> Same here. The cost-benefit ratio isn't there anymore. The only reason why I still have DirecTV is that it is a requirement of part of my rent (along with DSL internet) for the house I share. I discussed the issue with my landlord this morning, and she does not want to miss her History and Discovery channel programming. So $90 per month is what I continue to pay.


Why do you have to pay the landlords satellite bill? I don't quite understand this. If they want it and you dont watch it why do you have to pay it? Btw you can tell her a lot of those shows are available on Netflix I think. We have that service and a lot that stuff appears to be on it.


----------



## keith_benedict

Tygh said:


> Without having to slog thru 61 pages of posts, is there an "average" deal DTV is giving to those that have called in? I have an unhappy teenager at home this summer who is missing her trash tv fix!!!
> 
> Some sort of deal from DTV to help me would be great. Anyone want a teenager on the cheap?????


Tell her to read a book!

That's what we told our son!


----------



## zimm7778

"keith_benedict" said:


> For that matter, I'd love to see all political shows kicked off the air. Including Hannity, Chris Matthews, O'Reilly, etc.


Amen!


----------



## FlyinV

Directv and Comcast Sportsnet NW were reported to be very close to reaching an agreement to get that channel on the satellite.

2+ years ago.. Channel still not here.

So maybe these viacom channels will never come back.


----------



## Carl Spock

Tygh said:


> Without having to slog thru 61 pages of posts, is there an "average" deal DTV is giving to those that have called in? I have an unhappy teenager at home this summer who is missing her trash tv fix!!!
> 
> Some sort of deal from DTV to help me would be great. Anyone want a teenager on the cheap?????


$5 a month credit for a few months seems doable.


----------



## inkahauts

"F1 Fan" said:


> Yup
> 
> I already have recordings set for Thursday next week.
> 
> Just go to the current TCM. Pick a movie and then View Upcoming and you will see the list from next week in TCM and TCMHD. And you can schedule that to record.
> 
> As Directv usually adds channels on a Wednesday I would guess next Wednesday it will turn on, but I know I have one for Thursday 19th scheduled (Errol Flynn in Robin Hood)


Ah, you can't yet set recordings for the Hi Definition channel, it's not in the guide yet. Your setting recordings for the sd channel.

Edit, I see they have something weird going on with the view upcoming, but I wouldn't trust it. I'd wait till the channel actually shows in the regular guide. Your safer that way.


----------



## inkahauts

"azelesko" said:


> Yes I do realize that but I don't agree with how Directv has handled it. In my opinion there is something to be said for the company that takes the higher road and takes responsibility by apologizing to their customers for their failure to meet expectations. They have lowered themselves to Viacom's tactics, so again how does that make them better by throwing rocks back? If I understand correctly Viacom pulled channels that the contract had expired for, correct? So you are telling me that if Directv licensed content to other carriers they would allow them to continue broadcasting it after the contract expired because they "got my back"?
> 
> It is a shared responsibility that they haven't reached an agreement. What is reasonable to Viacom clearly isn't reasonable to Directv, so why is the assumption that what is reasonable to Directv needs to be reasonable to Viacom.
> 
> Blame is in the eye of the beholder. I agree Viacom is acting like a spoiled brat, but Directv is acting like the brat's younger brother and crying while pointing their finger at Viacom.


HBO was on DIRECTV for a long time, years by some reports without a contract as the two companies worked on getting a new contract. DIRECTV said they offered to do the same here. I think it's unreasonable to say that after that they shouldn't say anything, they have the right and I expect them to respond, and their responses in public to what Viacom has said is a lot more dignified than what Viacom has been openly doing in public. I haven't seen anything underhanded, wether you like the or not, from DIRECTV. From Viacom, has any of it not been underhanded?


----------



## F1 Fan

inkahauts said:


> Ah, you can't yet set recordings for the Hi Definition channel, it's not in the guide yet. Your setting recordings for the sd channel.
> 
> Edit, I see they have something weird going on with the view upcoming, but I wouldn't trust it. I'd wait till the channel actually shows in the regular guide. Your safer that way.


Its only a 1933 Errol Flynn movie - I can live if it doesnt record


----------



## inkahauts

"keith_benedict" said:


> It could be this person was just talking about HD channels and perhaps they're on a plan with fewer channels.


I'd put my math up against any package, unless you don't get your locals. If you don't get you're locals, then maybe... I did forget about that.


----------



## gio12

never mind....


----------



## tulanejosh

kulps19 said:


> I can't believe or fathom that some people on here try to acknowledge what is a "crap" program or channel and wonder why people would want to watch any of the Viacom channels. Comedy Central is one of my favorite channels to watch on DirecTV, mainly due to my love (and I will admit they are both mindless television) of Tosh.0 and especially Workaholics, which has quickly turned into one of my favorite shows on television. Stupid show? Who would watch that and why? Does this require less intelligence to have enjoyment watching this show? Well, I do have a doctoral degree in education, so let's not throw out stereotypes on people. I don't judge what anyone else watches and no one should on here as well. The beauty of DirecTV is that there are many channels for everyone, and some have been negatively impacted by this situation (in particular, I feel very badly for children and parents about Nick). It just makes me cringe to no end when people discuss the "crap" channels or wonder how anyone could watch that garbage.


Workaholics is the bomb.com. I'm exceptionally butt hurt over potentially not getting a Ders fix next week.


----------



## susanandmark

djrobx said:


> She can't change cheaply while she's under contract. Dish is notorious for getting into contract disputes, the probability that she will go through something like this again under Dish over the course of her 2 year contract is very high.





keith_benedict said:


> Absolutely! Chances are pretty high just over the next 6 months! It doesn't seem like we can go more than a few months between carrier disputes.


So, let me get this straight. She shouldn't change to DISH due to the fact that DISH has two-year contracts (just like DirecTV) and because of the CHANCE that DISH may have more carrier disputes (just like the one DirecTV is embroiled in right now)?

Pot, have you met Kettle?

Look, a couple years back DISH solicited our neighborhood (and I'm sure many others) with fliers saying they'd pay your ETF fee to switch to them. I hadn't seen that before and was intrigued enough to take the time to ask DirecTV if they'd match that offer for a customer of another service. They immediately said yes, up to the value of their own ETF charges.

I certainly couldn't guarantee it, but I'm sure if DISH does do the same thing in six months and she calls up DirecTV and says she'd be happy to return EXCEPT for this pesky ETF from DISH, something would be worked out. This is my speculation, not hers, but playing the maybe/might-happen card to parry an actual ongoing situation is silly.

Like I said earlier, mostly what keeps me with DirecTV is inertia. I don't want to have to go through all the hassle and up front expense of a switch. But I'm also not the typical customer. I think my neighbor (whom I am solely using as an example since she could care less what any of you think; not that I plan to discuss it again with her) is more typical. They've got three or four HDTVs in the house. Each with its own sat box, a couple (or maybe just one) of which are DVRs. They use multiple remotes to control their various components and don't stress too much over the provider, or settings. Having DISH come in and swap out their stuff was no big deal to her. She let the guy do it all and, when I talked to her as he was leaving, said she was happy and that it looked exactly the same as DirecTV to her.

So, she's got the channels back she noticed were missing. All new equipment, a groovy new customer deal and, overall, feels she really lucked out. She actually said she was GLAD this happened so she could do this, since she wouldn't have bothered to otherwise (that same inertia, I feel).

For me, personally, it feels like a bigger deal because we have a lot more equipment (expanded DVRs on every TV, lots of time consuming series recordings set-up, a great deal of recorded content we'd lose) and I'm super-particular about our home theater set-ups in general (indivdually programed remotes, etc.). Switching is not a two-hour, no-up-front cost proposition and that, far more than a contract is what's keeping me with DirecTV, for now.

When I start to actually really miss the shows I like to watch, like in the next week or so, that equation might start to shift in favor of another provider for me.


----------



## BK89

tulanejosh said:


> Workaholics is the bomb.com. I'm exceptionally butt hurt over potentially not getting a Ders fix next week.


HAHA! Great post!! I am sure they will get this figured out soon. Until then, what would Der's do? Torrent. Screw Viacom.


----------



## APB101

FlyinV said:


> Directv and Comcast Sportsnet NW were reported to be very close to reaching an agreement to get that channel on the satellite.
> 
> 2+ years ago.. Channel still not here.
> 
> So maybe these viacom channels will never come back.


Viacom channels will come back because it has enough brands with identity. MTV. VH1. CMT. BET. Comedy Central. Spike TV. Nickelodeon. TV Land.

_Perhaps we should place our bets on the following:_

*Which provider will be the first to reach a new deal and return recently lost programming?*
A. Dish Network: AMC Networks 
B. DirecTV: Viacom​


----------



## wingrider01

keith_benedict said:


> Tell her to read a book!
> 
> That's what we told our son!


My 16 year old DOES read books, she helps with the house work and she gets to watch 2 hours of tv a day - she is not happy that the channels she enjoys are gone.

Neither am I, for those of you that keep saying that the channels are not worth anything, reverse the senario, in my case espn, rsn's are not worht the waste of tranponder space - wonder how you would be reactiing if it was your "prefered viewing habit" channels....

Could care less about internet availability of the channels - my provider has caps and enforce them religiously so those are not an option.


----------



## oldengineer

APB101 said:


> Viacom channels will come back because it has enough brands with identity. MTV. VH1. CMT. BET. Comedy Central. Spike TV. Nickelodeon. TV Land.
> 
> _Perhaps we should place our bets on the following:_
> 
> *Which provider will be the first to reach a new deal and return recently lost programming?*
> A. Dish Network: AMC Networks
> B. DirecTV: Viacom​


B, and it won't be close. Dish has given out a lot of free Roku boxes and credits to subs to compensate for losing AMC. Since they are also involved in a legal dispute with Rainbow it looks like it's gonna be a long wait.


----------



## susanandmark

keith_benedict said:


> Tell her to read a book!
> 
> That's what we told our son!


This and other comments like "go outside" or the back in my day we walked two miles in the snow to school uphill, both ways stories are so non-analogous to the situation that it's not even funny.

We're not talking about people saying, 'Woe is me I can't afford pay TV.' I think everyone (every sane person, anyway) can agree that cable and/or satellite service or, heck, even TV at all, is a want, not a need.

The issue is that we are paying for a service that said they would provide such-and-such content, and they are not providing it. Yes, you can say that their contracts allows them to drop programming at will, or call and you'll be compensated, but the bottom line here is not getting something you expected, and paid for. Not entitlement. Not laziness. Not the downfall of America and all that is holy.

DirecTV is a company that sells television services. It's not a religion. Or a political party. Though one would be hard pressed to ascertain that based on the ferver via which it is defended here on a daily basis.

And speaking of which ... All the "it's crap and there's no quality programming so I hope it never comes back" stuff is also just nonsensical. There's lots of stuff people eat, read, watch and enjoy that I think is stupid, vile or just downright obnoxious, but I can't imagine wasting five seconds of my life telling strangers. And, frankly, I care just as much about what they think about my leisure time activity choices (i.e. not at all). C'mon people, you (and I) are on an Internet message board posting about a television service ... Judgement regarding what other people do for entertainment is probably best withheld.


----------



## Mark Holtz

zimm7778 said:


> Why do you have to pay the landlords satellite bill? I don't quite understand this.


It's called a rental agreement. Rent + Internet + DirecTV.


----------



## dpeters11

"RunnerFL" said:


> I really don't get where people equate BBCA with "geeks", it's not all SciFi you know, but whatever floats your boat.
> 
> Maybe because shows on BBCA are more cerebral and require more thought and imagination than US shows? *shrug*


of course it's not just Sci fi. But there are different kinds of geeks to me. And I use that term in a positive sense, not derogatory. I'm a geek myself.

But yeah, they do tend to be. In the non Sci fi realm, there are quite a few Americans that don't get some of the British humor that I find hilarious. Gordon Ramsay on BBC is much different than the Fox Ramsay on Hell's Kitchen or even Ktchen Nightmares.


----------



## dpeters11

"keith_benedict" said:


> For that matter, I'd love to see all political shows kicked off the air. Including Hannity, Chris Matthews, O'Reilly, etc.


Maybe just go with "Talking Heads"


----------



## opfreak

I wonder how many of the people defending DTV here, also attack users for feeling 'entitled' to discounts when their contract ends.


----------



## Davenlr

Viacom's Facebook page is suggesting DirecTv customers call to get free stuff....

How tacky is that?


----------



## dpeters11

"Davenlr" said:


> Viacom's Facebook page is suggesting DirecTv customers call to get free stuff....
> 
> How tacky is that?


I think what's worse than that is that CNN considers that Tech News. But they've had a bad week with that, so at least it's accurate unlike one earlier this week.


----------



## john18

I never really thought about it before but it is a valid question. Why should D* be paying Viacom and then Viacom gives the same programming away for free over the internet? That is outrageous.


----------



## Lucid504

Thankfully i have another way to watch TNA Impact tonight or id be pissed about the only thing i watch on the channels removed i enjoy ******* Island also but thats about it.


----------



## keith_benedict

wingrider01 said:


> My 16 year old DOES read books, she helps with the house work and she gets to watch 2 hours of tv a day - she is not happy that the channels she enjoys are gone.
> 
> Neither am I, for those of you that keep saying that the channels are not worth anything, reverse the senario, in my case espn, rsn's are not worht the waste of tranponder space - wonder how you would be reactiing if it was your "prefered viewing habit" channels....
> 
> Could care less about internet availability of the channels - my provider has caps and enforce them religiously so those are not an option.


I watch Monday Night Football religiously. If ESPN went away, I'd get over it. And if you said that ESPN was a waste of transponder space, I wouldn't disagree with you.

My position on these carrier disputes has softened quite a bit over the years. I used to take it personally when one of my channels went away--Versus HD and FX, for example. Now? Not so much.

I've discovered for myself that most of these channels have only one or two shows worth watching out of hours and hours of programming. It really makes me wonder if all the money I spend is worth it; if I'm any better off.

I've come the conclusion that I am not better off and it's not worth it. I'm downgrading my plan to the cheapest one they have. I'll take the money I save and buy a book or a movie. Maybe I'll up my Netflix plan to 3 movies a month instead of the two I get right now.

So, for those of you up in arms about not being able to watch Colbert, Jersey Shores, Tosh.0 (this one actually hurts a bit), Teen Mom and all the other crap on TV, pull the trigger and switch carriers.

Just remember that, when you do, you score points for the providers who are, in part, directly responsible for the cost of your bill each month.


----------



## keith_benedict

john18 said:


> I never really thought about it before but it is a valid question. Why should D* be paying Viacom and then Viacom gives the same programming away for free over the internet? That is outrageous.


Because there's a HUGE difference between watching it on your computer screen and watching it on your TV. Oh wait, no there's not.


----------



## mortimer

Stuart Sweet said:


> I completely utterly agree and I've read other articles by people who agree with you.


Are you serious? It's ESPN's fault that other providers signed a contract with Viacom with stipulations that mean DirecTV must pay more for Viacom than these other providers?

I'd love to see the justification for this position. It makes absolute zero sense.


----------



## David MacLeod

i've already posted last nights futurama in streamable area for few friends of mine, come next week if no agreement made or no progress made I cancel.
will use OTA and internet.
is no cable here so D or E was only option.
this is second dispute in 30 days for me and I am done being caught in the middle. I will go w/o or steal the shows and watch them.


----------



## SPACEMAKER

"tulanejosh" said:


> Workaholics is the bomb.com. I'm exceptionally butt hurt over potentially not getting a Ders fix next week.


LOL
Love that show!


----------



## ThomasM

In my recollection of 12 years with DirecTV, I think this is the first time channels were actually pulled because of a negotiation impasse.

While I do miss some of the Viacom shows, I support DirecTV and especially their president/CEO for playing hard ball. How many of these ridiculous increases can happen before most people drop subscription TV all together?

And it's not just DirecTV that is playing hard ball. DISH dropped AMC and I read that the local cable system (Time-Warner) is dropping the local ABC affiliate today at midnight due to a dispute with Hearst!!

You may want your MTV but imagine if you lost your ABC programming!!!


----------



## shendley

Still trying to deal with the practical matter of how to get my Stewart/Colbert fix next week (yes, I confess, I am an addict!). I was considering getting a Roku to stream them off Hulu. It appears that Hulu still has access to them online, which is curious since I thought Viacom had pulled them from streaming services. I know that when you click on The Daily Show at Amazon's Instant Videos you now get a message saying they're no longer available. Anyone know what's up with the Hulu exception? Or am I wrong that it's an exception, making it a waste of money to get a Roku for just Stewart and Colbert?


----------



## keith_benedict

ThomasM said:


> In my recollection of 12 years with DirecTV, I think this is the first time channels were actually pulled because of a negotiation impasse.
> 
> While I do miss some of the Viacom shows, I support DirecTV and especially their president/CEO for playing hard ball. How many of these ridiculous increases can happen before most people drop subscription TV all together?
> 
> And it's not just DirecTV that is playing hard ball. DISH dropped AMC and I read that the local cable system (Time-Warner) is dropping the local ABC affiliate today at midnight due to a dispute with Hearst!!
> 
> You may want your MTV but imagine if you lost your ABC programming!!!


Your recollection isn't correct. We lost Versus a few years ago for several months. A couple months ago, I lost one of my locals in the Sacramento DMA due to a dispute.

The majority of the time, it does not come to losing channels.


----------



## David MacLeod

shendley said:


> Still trying to deal with the practical matter of how to get my Stewart/Colbert fix next week (yes, I confess, I am an addict!). I was considering getting a Roku to stream them off Hulu. It appears that Hulu still has access to them online, which is curious since I thought Viacom had pulled them from streaming services. I know that when you click on The Daily Show at Amazon's Instant Videos you now get a message saying they're no longer available. Anyone know what's up with the Hulu exception? Or am I wrong that it's an exception, making it a waste of money to get a Roku for just Stewart and Colbert?


iirc there is contract issue if they were to pull them off hulu.
sucks that futurama is not on it.



ThomasM said:



> In my recollection of 12 years with DirecTV, I think this is the first time channels were actually pulled because of a negotiation impasse.


and I've had channels pulled few weeks back over the Diversified Communication issue. second time in 30 days for me.
then there was versus last year or so.


----------



## spartanstew

dpeters11 said:


> there are quite a few Americans that don't get some of the British humor that I find hilarious.


And there's many more that just don't think it's funny. I "get" what Monty Python is doing (for example), I just don't think it's funny - on the contrary, I think it's predictable and stupid.


----------



## gregftlaud

Yah Workaholics is a funny show. Comedy Central is a must for me. Along with Workaholics, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Tosh.0, South Park. 

Lucily if this dispute doesnt get resolved by next week I can get my Comedy Central fix with my Roku Player/Amazon on demand. 

I wonder at this point how much push advertisers are putting on Viacom to get the channels back up on DTV? Missing out on potential millions of viewers cant be good for the Viacom-Advertiser relationship.


----------



## Draconis

Davenlr said:


> Viacom's Facebook page is suggesting DirecTv customers call to get free stuff....
> 
> How tacky is that?


*Very. *

I wonder if DIRECTV can sue Viacom for damages once this is all over...


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Clear Channel sold all their TV Properties years ago....they only own radio so there certainly was no Clear Channel dispute in the past few weeks.


----------



## David MacLeod

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Clear Channel sold all their TV Properties years ago....they only own radio so there certainly was no Clear Channel dispute in the past few weeks.


yeah I got them mixed up with Diversified Communication
will correct post.
CC still owns the radio station here associated with WABI


----------



## zimm7778

"ThomasM" said:


> In my recollection of 12 years with DirecTV, I think this is the first time channels were actually pulled because of a negotiation impasse.
> 
> While I do miss some of the Viacom shows, I support DirecTV and especially their president/CEO for playing hard ball. How many of these ridiculous increases can happen before most people drop subscription TV all together?
> 
> And it's not just DirecTV that is playing hard ball. DISH dropped AMC and I read that the local cable system (Time-Warner) is dropping the local ABC affiliate today at midnight due to a dispute with Hearst!!
> 
> You may want your MTV but imagine if you lost your ABC programming!!!


They axed G4 altogether also.


----------



## kokishin

Viacom has acted extremely immature from the time they put their crawl screen up to this. Must be difficult for Directv to negotiate with SpongeBob Squarepants.



Davenlr said:


> Viacom's Facebook page is suggesting DirecTv customers call to get free stuff....
> 
> How tacky is that?


----------



## pogo

ghontz1 said:


> I been a loyal D.subscriber since the year 2000 and i stuck with them and recommended them to my friends and i never got any of the referral fees because i never ask for them.All i am saying is i cannot pay anymore on tv service..


You might be saying that, but it's not something I responded to?


----------



## Fraaaak

Isn't there a provision in the DirecTV customer agreement that allows one to cancel without an early termination penalty if programming changes substantially affect you?


----------



## spartanstew

No


----------



## pdicamillo

I watch the Viacom channels, and consider them worthwhile to have on DirecTV. Most of them I'd rate as mediocre quality as far as cable channels go, but Comedy Central I consider much better. I make a point of watching the first-run Futurama and South Park shows. I like those enough that I'll make a significant effort to watch them, even if I can't do so on DirecTV.

I think that suggests a risk to DirecTV and Viacom if they can't resolve this quickly. I've known for some time that the internet provides alternative ways to watch TV shows. However, I've never seriously investigate that due to the convenience and picture quality of DirecTV. But now I am very motivated to investigate alternatives, and I may very well find that the alternative are much better than I expected. The loss of Viacom channels on DirecTV may accelerate people switching to internet viewing. I think in many cases that's a more likely scenario than people switching to DISH, particularly for people who realize this could just as well happen on DISH at some point.


----------



## tulanejosh

Draconis said:


> *Very. *
> 
> I wonder if DIRECTV can sue Viacom for damages once this is all over...


no different than directv reminding its customer they can go to a variety of other sources to get free viacom programming.


----------



## Araxen

My niece who is 8 years old didn't even know Nickelodeon was off the air and she likes Spongebob too! I had to tell her today. lol


----------



## PK6301

I do not know if this was posted in the previous 63 pages, but this is not the first time that Viacom has pulled this stunt. I looked up Brighthouse vs. Viacom and they used the same tactics in late 2008 early 2009 in Orlando Florida.
Pull down the channels and use scare tactics against little kids.

VIACOM:raspberry:blackeye:


----------



## dpeters11

But as we see, Internet viewing can be taken away at any time as well. So far, this is is going worse for Viacom. A lot of people posting on their Facebook page that aren't on their side. With their popup video of Mike White, messages before the contract ended that the kids wouldn't be ale to watch Dora or Spongebob anymore etc, they aren't gaining many fans.


----------



## tulanejosh

susanandmark said:


> This and other comments like "go outside" or the back in my day we walked two miles in the snow to school uphill, both ways stories are so non-analogous to the situation that it's not even funny.
> 
> We're not talking about people saying, 'Woe is me I can't afford pay TV.' I think everyone (every sane person, anyway) can agree that cable and/or satellite service or, heck, even TV at all, is a want, not a need.
> 
> The issue is that we are paying for a service that said they would provide such-and-such content, and they are not providing it. Yes, you can say that their contracts allows them to drop programming at will, or call and you'll be compensated, but the bottom line here is not getting something you expected, and paid for. Not entitlement. Not laziness. Not the downfall of America and all that is holy.
> 
> DirecTV is a company that sells television services. It's not a religion. Or a political party. Though one would be hard pressed to ascertain that based on the ferver via which it is defended here on a daily basis.
> 
> And speaking of which ... All the "it's crap and there's no quality programming so I hope it never comes back" stuff is also just nonsensical. There's lots of stuff people eat, read, watch and enjoy that I think is stupid, vile or just downright obnoxious, but I can't imagine wasting five seconds of my life telling strangers. And, frankly, I care just as much about what they think about my leisure time activity choices (i.e. not at all). C'mon people, you (and I) are on an Internet message board posting about a television service ... Judgement regarding what other people do for entertainment is probably best withheld.


will you marry me? I dont even care that you are probably a man. I think i love you.


----------



## john18

For those worried about no resolution of this ever think of this. If there is no resolution ever do you really think that Viacom will leave all their channels off of the internet forever?

I am not suggesting that you lose Viacom forever and resort to the internet for Viacom. I am suggesting that their tactics are untenable in anything other than the very short term.


----------



## vbush

"tulanejosh" said:


> will you marry me? I dont even care that you are probably a man. I think i love you.


lmao


----------



## Fraaaak

spartanstew said:


> No


are you sure? This is section 1 (d) of the customer agreement:

(d) Our Programming Changes. Many factors affect the availability, cost and quality of programming and may influence the decision to raise prices and the amount of any increase. These include, among others, programming and other costs, consumer demand, market and shareholder expectations, and changing business conditions. Accordingly, we must reserve the unrestricted right to change, rearrange, add or delete our programming packages, the selections in those packages, our prices, and any other Service we offer, at any time. We will endeavor to notify you of any change that is within our reasonable control and its effective date. In most cases this notice will be about one month in advance. You always have the right to cancel your Service, in whole or in part, if you do not accept the change (see Section 5). If you cancel your Service, a deactivation fee (described in Sections 2 & 5(b)) or other charges may apply. Credits, if any, to your account will be posted as described in Section 5. If you do not cancel, your continued receipt of our Service will constitute acceptance.

The reason I'm asking is because for 3 years I've been throwing out the "Add FIOS TV" letter from Verizon, but this recent stuff totally blindsided me. I'm sure Verizon has it's issues from time to time with content providers, but I didn't get ANY notice from D* about this squabble, and I'm sick and tired of watching entertainment/media industry members argue like a bunch of 3 year olds - and it's ALWAYS the entertainment/media industry that does this kind of crap - "if you don't do this, we're going to hurt our customers, that'll show you"...


----------



## dpeters11

"Fraaaak" said:


> are you sure? This is section 1 (d) of the customer agreement:
> 
> (d) Our Programming Changes. Many factors affect the availability, cost and quality of programming and may influence the decision to raise prices and the amount of any increase. These include, among others, programming and other costs, consumer demand, market and shareholder expectations, and changing business conditions. Accordingly, we must reserve the unrestricted right to change, rearrange, add or delete our programming packages, the selections in those packages, our prices, and any other Service we offer, at any time. We will endeavor to notify you of any change that is within our reasonable control and its effective date. In most cases this notice will be about one month in advance. You always have the right to cancel your Service, in whole or in part, if you do not accept the change (see Section 5). If you cancel your Service, a deactivation fee (described in Sections 2 & 5(b)) or other charges may apply. Credits, if any, to your account will be posted as described in Section 5. If you do not cancel, your continued receipt of our Service will constitute acceptance.


You can cancel, but you may be subject to a deactivation fee and other charges. Meaning whatever is left on your ETF.


----------



## Davenlr

Read what you posted Fraaaak. The OP asked if he could cancel without an early termination fee. The section of the TOS you just posted specifically says "a deactivation fee or other charges may apply"... i.e. early termination fees.


----------



## spartanstew

Fraaaak said:


> are you sure?


Yes


----------



## Carl Spock

Fraaaak, you ask if there is a change in DirecTV's package, can you cancel early without penalty? The answer is no and the answer is in the paragraph you posted. I have deconstructed the paragraph a bit to make the relevant passages stand out but I haven't changed a word:



Fraaaak said:


> (d) Our Programming Changes. Many factors affect the availability, cost and quality of programming and may influence the decision to raise prices and the amount of any increase. These include, among others, programming and other costs, consumer demand, market and shareholder expectations, and changing business conditions.
> 
> *Accordingly, we must reserve the unrestricted right to change, rearrange, add or delete our programming packages, the selections in those packages,*
> 
> our prices, and any other Service we offer, at any time. We will endeavor to notify you of any change that is within our reasonable control and its effective date. In most cases this notice will be about one month in advance.
> 
> *You always have the right to cancel your Service, in whole or in part, if you do not accept the change*
> 
> (see Section 5).
> 
> *If you cancel your Service, a deactivation fee *
> 
> (described in Sections 2 & 5(b))
> 
> *or other charges may apply.*
> 
> Credits, if any, to your account will be posted as described in Section 5. If you do not cancel, your continued receipt of our Service will constitute acceptance.


Seems pretty clear to me. Yes, you can cancel but you will be charged for doing that.


----------



## crashHD

maartena said:


> Never going to happen. ESPN is a "must have" network, and every carrier that loses it, will lose clients at an incredibly fast rate. No one is going to tell ESPN to stick it with $2.


I don't watch ESPN. If ESPN is really costing DirecTV $5/month/sub, that means it's costing me even more. I know it's wishful thinking, but I would jump at the chance to drop it to save $5+ a month. An ala carte option would be fantastic.

I hope DirecTV fights cost increases this hard every time a contract comes up for renegotiation. Any cost they incur is going to be passed on to customers. There is no reason these costs have to increase, but so many people are just blindly accepting of this. There's no reason that which costs $x today has to cost $x+1 tomorrow.

I pay less money, for more service, on my cell phone, than I ever have before.

I pay less money, for more service, for my landline phone, than I ever have before.

I pay less money, for more bandwidth, for my internet, than I ever have before.

There are three examples, where delivering more product, for less money, has proven to be a viable business model in a comparable telecom industry.

Earlier, someone quoted movie production costs over the last 30 years, showing the rising trend in production costs. The fault with that is that they didn't spend that much because they had to, they spent it because they could. If their revenue drops, they'll just have to spend less. So John Q. Moviestar only makes $10 million instead of $20. My heart breaks for him. Seriously.

The argument has been made, and it is valid, that DirecTV is not doing this for us(the customers). There not out there fighting to lower our costs out of the kindness of their hearts. The fact remains, the costs DirecTV incurs are passed on to the customers. The less their cost goes up, the less ours goes up. I'm glad they're fighting it this hard, and I hope they do it every time.


----------



## boufa

dpeters11 said:


> You can cancel, but you may be subject to a deactivation fee and other charges. Meaning whatever is left on your ETF.


Also I doubt directv would consider this a change in programming. This is nothing more than if there was a temporary weather outage. I am sure that they would tell you that comedy central was in whatever package.... just as I am sure that Viacom would not admit that they don't have channels on directv to their advertisers. They both would say that this is a temporary pause, not a breakup.


----------



## dpeters11

"Carl Spock" said:


> Fraaaak, you ask if there is a change in DirecTV's package, can you cancel early without penalty? The answer is no and the answer is in the paragraph you posted. I have deconstructed the paragraph a bit to make the relevant passages stand out but I haven't changed a word:
> 
> Seems pretty clear to me. Yes, you can cancel but you will be charged for doing that.


Right, and frankly if they did have that, it would potentially really hurt DirecTV. there would be people using that clause just to get out of the contract. You dropped GEMTV(or whatever shopping channel), I want to cancel. Of course it would have to be worded so that Fox Reality going away wouldn't be considered a change, channel changing format or allowing someone to cancel wilt ETF due to a channel addition.


----------



## Draconis

tulanejosh said:


> no different than directv reminding its customer they can go to a variety of other sources to get free viacom programming.


Those services were already there; of course Viacom pulled them when DIRECTV made folks aware of them.

No, I'm thinking about how they are purposely aggravating DIRECTV customers with deliberately misleading claims, like when they included the HD duplicate channels in the total count of channels that were going offline.

Don't get me started with all the folks they are encouraging to call in and demand credits and what they are putting on Facebook.

It's juvenile and childish how they are conducting their end of the negotiation. One thing is very firm in my mind. Viacom should NEVER be rewarded for that type of behavior.


----------



## dpeters11

"boufa" said:


> Also I doubt directv would consider this a change in programming. This is nothing more than if there was a temporary weather outage. I am sure that they would tell you that comedy central was in whatever package.... just as I am sure that Viacom would not admit that they don't have channels on directv to their advertisers. They both would say that this is a temporary pause, not a breakup.


Right. I do think we'll get Viacom back before Dish gets AMC.


----------



## Fraaaak

Carl Spock said:


> Fraaaak, you ask if there is a change in DirecTV's package, can you cancel early without penalty? The answer is no and the answer is in the paragraph you posted. I have deconstructed the paragraph a bit to make the relevant passages stand out but I haven't changed a word:
> 
> Seems pretty clear to me. Yes, you can cancel but you will be charged for doing that.


Yes, I see that, but it refers to a $15 disconnection fee - I'm wondering about the early termination fee. Where can I find my contract end date and what the early termination fee would be?


----------



## studechip

Fraaaak said:


> Yes, I see that, but it refers to a $15 disconnection fee - I'm wondering about the early termination fee. Where can I find my contract end date and what the early termination fee would be?


You have to call or email customer service to find out.


----------



## Fraaaak

oh, pleez - both Viacom and DirecTV are using us, the consumers, as leverage - there is no good guy/bad guy thing going on here, they both suck.


----------



## RunnerFL

Fraaaak said:


> Isn't there a provision in the DirecTV customer agreement that allows one to cancel without an early termination penalty if programming changes substantially affect you?


No. I quoted the TOS earlier in the thread. You're free to cancel because of dropped channels but you're still charged an ETF.


----------



## Shades228

dpeters11 said:


> Right. I do think we'll get Viacom back before Dish gets AMC.


DISH was the company that chose not to negotiate with AMC so it's different,



Fraaaak said:


> Yes, I see that, but it refers to a $15 disconnection fee - I'm wondering about the early termination fee. Where can I find my contract end date and what the early termination fee would be?


If you have an agreement you will be subject to a cancelation fee.



Fraaaak said:


> oh, pleez - both Viacom and DirecTV are using us, the consumers, as leverage - there is no good guy/bad guy thing going on here, they both suck.


DIRECTV wasn't the company that chose to pull the stations to attempt to prove a point which brought the consumers into it.


----------



## RunnerFL

Fraaaak said:


> are you sure? This is section 1 (d) of the customer agreement:
> 
> (d) Our Programming Changes. Many factors affect the availability, cost and quality of programming and may influence the decision to raise prices and the amount of any increase. These include, among others, programming and other costs, consumer demand, market and shareholder expectations, and changing business conditions. Accordingly, we must reserve the unrestricted right to change, rearrange, add or delete our programming packages, the selections in those packages, our prices, and any other Service we offer, at any time. We will endeavor to notify you of any change that is within our reasonable control and its effective date. In most cases this notice will be about one month in advance. *You always have the right to cancel your Service, in whole or in part, if you do not accept the change (see Section 5). If you cancel your Service, a deactivation fee (described in Sections 2 & 5(b)) or other charges may apply.* Credits, if any, to your account will be posted as described in Section 5. If you do not cancel, your continued receipt of our Service will constitute acceptance.


I bolded the part you missed.


----------



## RunnerFL

Fraaaak said:


> Yes, I see that, but it refers to a $15 disconnection fee - I'm wondering about the early termination fee. Where can I find my contract end date and what the early termination fee would be?


The fee is the ETF.

You need to call to find out your contract end date.


----------



## Fraaaak

RunnerFL said:


> I bolded the part you missed.


Yeah, that's the $15. Just spoke with D* they say they would also go after the ETF, so oh well. Put on my sad customer voice with the rep and got $20 off for the next 12 months.. 

still a little miffed about being under contract though, it's because in 3/2011 our H23-700 died and when they replaced it with a H24-700 it's another 2 year agreement - that ain't right...


----------



## RunnerFL

Fraaaak said:


> Yeah, that's the $15. Just spoke with D* they say they would also go after the ETF, so oh well. Put on my sad customer voice with the rep and got $20 off for the next 12 months..


And that would be the "other charges" part.


----------



## Fraaaak

Shades228 said:


> DIRECTV wasn't the company that chose to pull the stations to attempt to prove a point which brought the consumers into it.


No, that was the Versus "negotiations" in 2009 when DirecTV did that. If it would've been advantageous for D* to do it this time, they would have.


----------



## john18

Fraaaak said:


> No, that was the Versus "negotiations" in 2009 when DirecTV did that. If it would've been advantageous for D* to do it this time, they would have.


Wasn't Versus in the Fall of 2010? Hockey was wiped out for awhile.


----------



## boukengreen

john18 said:


> Wasn't Versus in the Fall of 2010? Hockey was wiped out for awhile.


fall 2009


----------



## tulanejosh

Draconis said:


> Those services were already there; of course Viacom pulled them when DIRECTV made folks aware of them.
> 
> No, I'm thinking about how they are purposely aggravating DIRECTV customers with deliberately misleading claims, like when they included the HD duplicate channels in the total count of channels that were going offline.
> 
> Don't get me started with all the folks they are encouraging to call in and demand credits and what they are putting on Facebook.
> 
> It's juvenile and childish how they are conducting their end of the negotiation. One thing is very firm in my mind. Viacom should NEVER be rewarded for that type of behavior.


you could always call up and get free stuff - i do it all the time. i have had some credit or another on my account for the last 4 years.


----------



## Shades228

Fraaaak said:


> No, that was the Versus "negotiations" in 2009 when DirecTV did that. If it would've been advantageous for D* to do it this time, they would have.


Versus requested the channel to go dark on that one as well. Pulling a channel does nothing to help DIRECTV at all. There is no incentive for DIRECTV to make a channel go dark unless they no longer plan on carrying it like G4.


----------



## zeus

Davenlr said:


> Viacom's Facebook page is suggesting DirecTv customers call to get free stuff....
> 
> How tacky is that?


Tacky? Probably.

Effective? Absolutely. That CNN article alone will probably generate more calls to DirecTV today than they do in a month. The call centers are being overwhelmed. Viacom is just being absolutely brutal.

Do I agree with the tactics? Why does it matter. I don't have a proportional say in the matter.

It is totally about which side flinches first as they are both paying a steep price for this war. In the end, one side will be signing a treaty in a rail car and dejectedly claiming victory while the other side tries to return to normalcy after so many were killed and wounded.


----------



## Whogaman

john18 said:


> Wasn't Versus in the Fall of 2010? Hockey was wiped out for awhile.


And D* says that they are 99% successful when it comes to negotiating with program providers. The 1% that they lost was G4.

If Viacom continues to play hardball, they might loose D* altogether. Then let's see if some channels like MTV and Spike do with 20,000,000 less viewers in the Nielsen ratings. As my Mother wonce said, 'that's when their guts starts pinching them.' :nono2:

Peace Whoga


----------



## djrobx

> So, let me get this straight. She shouldn't change to DISH due to the fact that DISH has two-year contracts (just like DirecTV) and because of the CHANCE that DISH may have more carrier disputes (just like the one DirecTV is embroiled in right now)?


Yes. If she upset with DirecTV because of the Viacom dispute, getting into a new two year contract with a company notorious for similar behavior is bananas.


----------



## susanandmark

tulanejosh said:


> will you marry me? I dont even care that you are probably a man. I think i love you.


Not a man but, alas, already married ... Occasionally even happily so. Of course that could all change if we have to start actually, you know, talking to one another in the evening instead of just watching TV <shudder of horror>. I'm sure a lot of marriages will be in jeopardy if Jon Stewart is withheld for too long. What else do you in bed if not watch the _Daily Show_?


----------



## zeus

Whogaman said:


> If Viacom continues to play hardball, they might loose D* altogether.


That would be grounds for switching providers. It is one thing now while we deal with this squabble. Most people will wait it out. It is another if DirecTV will no longer be broadcasting any Viacom channels ever again.

That would cause a major exodus.

It doesn't really affect me, but I could see people leaving over losing those 17 channels and not saving a penny on their bills.


----------



## Darth Malgus

tulanejosh said:


> dude chillout. I've had my issues with RunnerFL but when he snapped back at me - i knew why. Neigher of us said peep to you.
> 
> Personally - I choose to not to prostrate myself at d* feet. You like the taste of their designer shoe.. That's cool, whatever floats your boat. But maybe you should join the real world and stop pretending like either of these companies care even the slightest bit about you or your money beyond your ability to make money for them.
> 
> Just so you know... Cable companies don't require contracts or for me to pay full price for hardware. In fact - i dont think ive ever paid anything for one of their boxes (well im sure it was bundled into a price, but neither time warner or comcast charted me $99 for the right to pay a $7/month fee in perpetuity for a crappy dvr).


1. No company goes into business hoping to earn your "good feelings" or positive opinion, they are in it for the money just like any other free market company would be. If you want someone to care about your feelings, find a non-profit organization to patronize.

2. Cable companies charge higher fees, and make a cheaper product, which makes up the difference for things that D* charges for, such as the lease start up fee you mention.

3. Your "designer shoe" comment pushed you right past anal, and into troll land. You don't like this "make believe" world that everybody but you lives in? Find your self a "real world" forum to troll.

May your hatred strengthen you!


----------



## ricksterinps

I'm all for D standing their ground on the whole Viacom issue, even though my family did watch many of their channels. I think it was awesome and shows that D does care about it's customers by turning on the Encore channels for all their subscribers. 

I was wondering about those of us that are on the Premier package, as we already get most of the channels. I'm not going to call and complain or anything, but has anyone heard about the Premium subscribers? I use a custom guide, so I wouldn't know if they had turned something on.


----------



## tulanejosh

"Darth Malgus" said:


> 1. No company goes into business hoping to earn your "good feelings" or positive opinion, they are in it for the money just like any other free market company would be. If you want someone to care about your feelings, find a non-profit organization to patronize.
> 
> 2. Cable companies charge higher fees, and make a cheaper product, which makes up the difference for things that D* charges for, such as the lease start up fee you mention.
> 
> 3. Your "designer shoe" comment pushed you right past anal, and into troll land. You don't like this "make believe" world that everybody but you lives in? Find your self a "real world" forum to troll.
> 
> May your hatred strengthen you!


You misunderstand the point of my post.

1) I don't want directv to care. I want them to admit that they don't. Reading comprehension.

2) product quality is irrelevant. There are other business models. That was the point. Again - reading comprehension.

3) designer shoes was targeted at the corporation not the poster - as in they claim to be "of the people" yet their profit margin says otherwise. But that's cool. I love money. Big fan. And I spend a very very large amount with directv - over $200 every month - I do not begrudge them their profits as I willingly contribute heavily to them. I simply want honesty about their motives.

Thanks for playing guy who has 3 posts and who will disappear from this forum to visit a star wars convention once this issue is resolved.


----------



## Brubear

Any company that would use a image of a small child's loved cartoon character crying in an effort to manipulate that child by exploiting their emotional attachment to the character, and by extension, the parent, into acting on that company's behalf in a contractual dispute has hit the lowest low that corporate America can reach in my opinion.
You would seriously use those images to upset and frighten small children as a tool to reach your goal? I hope that DirecTv doesn't reach an agreement with Viacom and drops the channels. Any company that would stoop to that level of exploitation is a symbiotic cross between a cockroach and a cash register. Of course, that would also explain "Jersey Shore"...


----------



## tulanejosh

"Brubear" said:


> Any company that would use a image of a small child's loved cartoon character crying in an effort to manipulate that child by exploiting their emotional attachment to the character, and by extension, the parent, into acting on that company's behalf in a contractual dispute has hit the lowest low that corporate America can reach in my opinion.
> You would seriously use those images to upset and frighten small children as a tool to reach your goal? I hope that DirecTv doesn't reach an agreement with Viacom and drops the channels. Any company that would stoop to that level of exploitation is a symbiotic cross between a cockroach and a cash register. Of course, that would also explain "Jersey Shore"...


Scaring people by implying massive rate increases is not quite as bad but it's sure sensationalist too. I've done the math as have others - they are asking for less than $10 year. Not saying you should pay a single cent more but merely pointing out that many people on this forum have been confused and thought a 30% increase in their total bill is what was at stake. Children though should be left out of this. No disagreement there.


----------



## carl6

My wife records one show on Spike. Tonight for the first time since this began, she went to watch an episode and discovered it wasn't there. She wasn't very happy about it, but after a couple of minutes of griping, she shut the tv off and picked up a good book and started reading it (she is a rather voracious reader).

I don't record or watch any shows off of the Viacom group of channels.

So that takes care of our concern, other than the principle of paying for a programming package that we're not getting. If this turns into a protracted affair, I may call and seek some compensation.


----------



## Davenlr

Facebook is cookin...


----------



## PK6301

I was reminded of this clip this evening I think it is appropriate for Viacom.






:lol:


----------



## bcrab

Darth Malgus said:


> 1.* No company goes into business hoping to earn your "good feelings" or positive opinion,* they are in it for the money just like any other free market company would be. If you want someone to care about your feelings, find a non-profit organization to patronize.
> 
> 2. Cable companies charge higher fees, and make a cheaper product, which makes up the difference for things that D* charges for, such as the lease start up fee you mention.
> 
> 3. Your "designer shoe" comment pushed you right past anal, and into troll land. You don't like this "make believe" world that everybody but you lives in? Find your self a "real world" forum to troll.
> 
> May your hatred strengthen you!


Really? I did and do!

If I didn't I'd be out of business in a heartbeat.


----------



## cmasia

I have no dog in this fight, as I don't watch any of the affected channels, but I recognize we all help each other pay for the channels we want.

I'm Premier and watch about 40 channels a month excluding sports, but I know you help pay for mine and I help pay for yours...

But I'm laughing like crazy now, as I'm in Chicago at The River Hotel for the weekend. And of the 40 or so channels in my room, I'm watching Mike White on 5 of them!

By Sunday, I think I'd be willing to pay anything to get him off my screen! )


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

Davenlr said:


> Facebook is cookin...


Well, now you just KNOW that someone is going to mash up a graphic to make the head of Viacom look like Mr. Crab. :lol:


----------



## Darth Malgus

tulanejosh said:


> You misunderstand the point of my post.
> 
> 1) I don't want directv to care. I want them to admit that they don't. Reading comprehension.
> 
> 2) product quality is irrelevant. There are other business models. That was the point. Again - reading comprehension.
> 
> 3) designer shoes was targeted at the corporation not the poster - as in they claim to be "of the people" yet their profit margin says otherwise. But that's cool. I love money. Big fan. And I spend a very very large amount with directv - over $200 every month - I do not begrudge them their profits as I willingly contribute heavily to them. I simply want honesty about their motives.
> 
> Thanks for playing guy who has 3 posts and who will disappear from this forum to visit a star wars convention once this issue is resolved.


Funny, coming from a guy who looks at posting in forums as some kind of game. Life comprehension. Furthermore, you complain about people not living in the real word, and then demand for things to happen that just don't occur in realty, i.e. D* coming out with a commercial starring The Rock that goes something like this....

Dwayne Johnson : So Tulanejosh, do you think we care about you? *brief silence* IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK JABRONI!!!!!

Now that I think about it, that would be kind of awesome. You're on to something there!!

Oh and thank you for counting my posts for me I lost count. See you trolling around these forums for the foreseeable future.

P.S. - I now have 4 posts Padawan


----------



## Darth Malgus

bcrab said:


> Really? I did and do!
> 
> If I didn't I'd be out of business in a heartbeat.


So how is trying to pay your bills with those working out?


----------



## mark40511

I'm trying to think of the shows I watch on all those channels that are now off the air. I do know there are a couple of shows on Spike "Repo Games" and some other show (I can't remember), at least I think Repo Games is on Spike? Maybe it's TrueTV, I don't even remember. I have it DVR'd.

TVLand Hot in Cleveland & the Ex's, that's it.

MTV - I do watch Jersey Shore (LOL), but just to LAUGH (that's it)

MTV 2 - Pranked (that's it)

Sometimes I watch the Comedy Central Presents stand up, but I think that's it for that channel.

So my viewing habits of those channels are very sporadic and I could live without them...............

I hope Directv wins this battle...............but ultimately these channels will all be back. I can't imagine them not coming back on sooner or later.


----------



## n3vino

tulanejosh said:


> You misunderstand the point of my post.
> 
> 1) I don't want directv to care. I want them to admit that they don't. Reading comprehension.


 No company is going to admit that they don't care because, they do care that you are happy with their product. They have to have happy customers or they would lose business. Sometimes, it's better to lose a customer then losing money on them. That's the way business works.

In this case, I'm sure they have to choose the lesser of the two evils. Lose subscribers because they lost some channels, or lose customers because they had to raise our rates?

They have a lot of subs on contract, so that gives them time to work something out. They also have a lot of subs that care more about sports than these channels, so they are not going anywhere. But they also have a lot of subs, not on contract that like those channels and care less about sports.

But then you also have a lot of subs that prefer losing the channels and keeping their bills down. These subs also have to choose the lesser of the two evils. I'm sure that many of them know that if they switch providers, they are going to have to go through this again when those contracts come up again.


----------



## WebTraveler

What's funny is that with the channels off, our bills stay the same, and Directv makes even MORE money off of us.....

Although it's not really funny.....basically as consumers we're getting screwed. Now I support Directv in this action, but to some degree should they become wealthier for it? I don't think so.....


----------



## BlackCoffee

Darth Malgus said:


> P.S. - I now have 4 posts Padawan


Just so you know, this forum has a lot more to offer than tulanejosh. In other threads we work problems and provide information that helps DTV find and resolve software bugs. The number of posts in not a badge of honor, it is the quality of your comments we care about.

t* has been whining ever since he lost Jersey Shore-worse than my kids. I just don't spend that much of my life depending on DTV to take it that personnally.

They have a problem with VIACOM, I don't really care about VIACOMs channels, and I would rather see a decent price from VIACOM since they are in my package whether I want them or not. More power to DTV in this battle.


----------



## BlackCoffee

I have noticed that except for the politically slant of some people, there are basically two arguements.

tulanejosh and susanandmark champion the position that they spend a lot of money to buy everything DTV offers, I may not like it or even watch it, but I want to have the "choice" to watch it so they need to rollover, pay higher acquisition costs, and who cares if they pass it on.

The second camp, which include most normal people like me, say VIACOM programming isn't that good, it's declined, why do I have to pay for it no matter what package I buy-So DTV, stand your ground and control cost.

I have asked the first camp a number of times, why do you feel it is OK to make every DTV customer pay more just because you buy it all and think you want it now. Still unanswered question. If VIACOM is only 20% of DTV (VIACOM's own words), why can't VIACOM just agree to being unbundled, allow those of us that don't want their channels to opt out, and the rest can pay more. The answer is that they want money from people that don't want their product.

It seems like the ability to have a "choice" only applies to tulanejosh and susanandmark. They expect the rest of us to pay for their choice.


----------



## BlackCoffee

cmasia said:


> I have no dog in this fight, as I don't watch any of the affected channels, but I recognize we all help each other pay for the channels we want.
> 
> By Sunday, I think I'd be willing to pay anything to get him off my screen! )


Actually you do. Since these channels are in Premier your costs are directly related to VIACOMs rate. That is the problem. Everyone will be facing an increase no matter what package they have or whether they watch the channels or not. The only way around this is for VIACOM to agree to be unbundled.


----------



## SHS

Man this really start to piss me off now I'm get email with Attention DIRECTV Customers: DIRECTV dropped 26 of your channels! coming from mtv-newsletter


----------



## ATARI

carl6 said:


> My wife records one show on Spike. Tonight for the first time since this began, she went to watch an episode and discovered it wasn't there. She wasn't very happy about it, but after a couple of minutes of griping, she shut the tv off and picked up a good book and started reading it (she is a rather voracious reader).
> 
> I don't record or watch any shows off of the Viacom group of channels.
> 
> So that takes care of our concern, other than the principle of paying for a programming package that we're not getting. If this turns into a protracted affair, I may call and seek some compensation.


Why wait? Call today and get $5 off your monthly bill.


----------



## n3vino

WebTraveler said:


> What's funny is that with the channels off, our bills stay the same, and Directv makes even MORE money off of us.....
> 
> Although it's not really funny.....basically as consumers we're getting screwed. Now I support Directv in this action, but to some degree should they become wealthier for it? I don't think so.....


Give them time and let's see what they are going to do. Work it out, replace them, or issue some kind of credit. In the meantime, they did open up Encore til the end of the month.

If none of the above, then each one of us can cross that bridge when we come to it.


----------



## Gar102

My favorite thing is how Viacom has gotten the actors on their channels to use their own Twitter feeds to tweet about how Directv is wrong and they want their show back. Plus I think they are paying other "stars" to tweet about it. 
Khloe Kasdansians (sp?) tweeted how expensive Directv was and she wanted all her channels she pays for. I bet she couldnt even tell you how much her Directv bill is per month.


----------



## Captain Spaulding

This article does a good job of pointing out the bigger issues involved:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/0712/Biggest-loser-in-DirecTV-Viacom-feud-Both.-video


----------



## zeus

BlackCoffee said:


> The second camp, *which include most normal people like me*, say VIACOM programming isn't that good, it's declined, why do I have to pay for it no matter what package I buy-So DTV, stand your ground and control cost.


So you are saying that if people do not agree with you they are not normal. Great way to make a compelling argument...

The reality is no matter how you feel about Viacom programming, it is a powerhouse and those 17 networks are some of the most watched cable networks on TV. Whether you personally watch those channels is meaningless in the big picture. It comes down to the raw total numbers and Viacom is holding unprecedented leverage. We are not talking about a single boutique channel, but rather a portfolio of major networks.

People can whine and complain about the shows on MTV all they want, but that channel has seen double digit prime time ratings growth in consecutive years. Comedy central regulatory boasts top ten shows with tosh, Colbert, and The Daily Show among others. Nickelodeon, the #1 brand in kids, is the aggregate most daily watched cable network, period.

Just like a service provider can't survive without ESPN, they also can not survive without the Viacom portfolio. Losing one of those channels would be bad. Losing all of them? A total disaster.

As an individual, you might be fine and dandy without Viacom, but that actually puts you outside the norm. If you really think that Viacom does not have the leverage in these negotiations, think again.

While I personally stand on the side of DirecTV for holding the line, that is not a consensus view outside the realm of demographically challenged satellite internet forums.

In the end DirecTV will pay more. Hopefully, just not 30% more.


----------



## susanandmark

BlackCoffee said:


> I have noticed that except for the politically slant of some people, there are basically two arguements.
> 
> tulanejosh and susanandmark champion the position that they spend a lot of money to buy everything DTV offers, I may not like it or even watch it, but I want to have the "choice" to watch it so they need to rollover, pay higher acquisition costs, and who cares if they pass it on.
> 
> The second camp, which include most normal people like me, say VIACOM programming isn't that good, it's declined, why do I have to pay for it no matter what package I buy-So DTV, stand your ground and control cost.


I certainly won't debate whether you are accurately stating your own "normal people" position but as for my "argument," you couldn't be more getting it more wrong ... Whether that's obfuscation or denseness on your part I have no idea. (Cause, you know, I'm not as "normal" as you.)

My "position" is that there are no right and wrong parties in a corporate pissing match and the ONLY loser, no matter what the eventual resolution may be, will be the consumer.

That if we, as customers, actually stood up for ourselves and stopped buying into the corporate PR spin and accepting such egregious treatment, it would stop. Not because corporations are evil, or good (or people, for that matter), but because they will do what's best for their bottom line. So, if we make these stupid lose-lose situations bad for their profit margin, they'll learn to play nice with one another and stop using customers as pawns.

You know the old saying about how one ant is powerless, but a million ants can move a picnic basket? (I'm paraphrasing.) Well, we (customers) are the ants and DirecTV and Viacom are the picnic baskets. If we got together, we could move them. If we all just run around arguing with each other about what end should be lifted, we just end up getting squished.

If you choose to be sheep and say, "Thanks DirecTV for taking away part of the product I pay for, I know you 'have my back'," what do you think will happen the next time, and the time after that? We are training them how to treat us.

In the Dilbert cartoon version of what is happening, I picture a room full of executives saying: I can't believe they bought it?! We take away their product, toss a measly few hundred grand at PR and they actually buy that it's THEIR best interests we are looking out for. Genius! From now on we're doing every negotiation this way!. Wake up folks, the only part of us that DirecTV (and Viacom) actually has, or wants to have, are our wallets.

I also think that this article (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/0712/Biggest-loser-in-DirecTV-Viacom-feud-Both.-video), which compares the current pay TV model to the Titanic, with DirecTV and Viacom fighting over the last sushi roll as the ship sinks, makes some very cogent points. [NOTE: I posted this at the same time, apparently, a poster on the previous page did. Still think it's a solid piece.]

As of last night, the news articles (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-viadirect-20120712,0,4033378.story) I've seen say that DirecTV and Viacom are still "far apart" from a deal. As we enter day three of this mine-is-bigger-than-yours contest, I'm not really seeing an end in sight. I hope I'm wrong. I really do. Because this is just ridiculous!

So, feel free to resume misconstruing, misrepresenting and defending DirecTV like they're Bambi's mom and, by daring to question their motives and business practices, I'm the heartless hunter.


----------



## BlackCoffee

zeus said:


> So you are saying that if people do not agree with you they are not normal. Great way to make a compelling argument...


Glad you caught that. So, I will give you all your arguements, all though I don't watch or find any of the shows you mentioned compelling.

My point was about choice and bundling. More power to the people that want to watch VIACOM. However, according to VIACOMs propaganda they are in the minority-20% of DTV viewing. So, with VIACOM in every package, the 80% that will be stuck with a rate increase that don't watch their stations want DTV to hold the line. Why should the 80% bend to the 20%?

The majority of people standing by DTV in the forum are not DTV apologiests. They are the 80% that don't want a rate increase. One point-VIACOM unbundle so that costs trace to customers, not innocent by-standers.


----------



## opfreak

Davenlr said:


> Facebook is cookin...


Because the DTV bosses aren't greedy?

This is a pissing match between two companies that both make millions to billions in profits, and they are both are arguing about who should get a chunk of those billions.

The only thing either of these companies care about is how much money per customer they can get.

In the words of the DTV brownosers - Why does DTV feel entitled to a discount? There contract expired they should pay whatever they are asked to.

(This is the typical response to any user here that posts about asking for credits/discounts when their contract is up)


----------



## camo

zeus said:


> So you are saying that if people do not agree with you they are not normal. Great way to make a compelling argument...
> 
> The reality is no matter how you feel about Viacom programming, it is a powerhouse and those 17 networks are some of the most watched cable networks on TV. Whether you personally watch those channels is meaningless in the big picture. It comes down to the raw total numbers and Viacom is holding unprecedented leverage. We are not talking about a single boutique channel, but rather a portfolio of major networks.
> 
> People can whine and complain about the shows on MTV all they want, but that channel has seen double digit prime time ratings growth in consecutive years. Comedy central regulatory boasts top ten shows with tosh, Colbert, and The Daily Show among others. Nickelodeon, the #1 brand in kids, is the aggregate most daily watched cable network, period.
> 
> Just like a service provider can't survive without ESPN, they also can not survive without the Viacom portfolio. Losing one of those channels would be bad. Losing all of them? A total disaster.
> 
> As an individual, you might be fine and dandy without Viacom, but that actually puts you outside the norm. If you really think that Viacom does not have the leverage in these negotiations, think again.
> 
> While I personally stand on the side of DirecTV for holding the line, that is not a consensus view outside the realm of demographically challenged satellite internet forums.
> 
> In the end DirecTV will pay more. Hopefully, just not 30% more.


I hope your wrong..And yes my opinion holds zero weight but I still have one. I personally don't want to pay a dime for the garbage programming. Everyone would be better off without it including the kids.


----------



## sigma1914

camo said:


> I hope your wrong..And yes my opinion holds zero weight but I still have one. I personally don't want to pay a dime for the garbage programming. Everyone would be better off without it including the kids.


I'm sure the same can be said about what you watch. 

What's non garbage programming in the all-mighty camo house?


----------



## BlackCoffee

susanandmark said:


> Now, feel free to resume misconstruing, misrepresenting and defending DirecTV like they're Bambi's mom and by daring to question their motives and business practices, I'm the heartless hunter.


So, you're not in negotiations and just take the position that all corporations are bad. We consumers are getting harmed.

All I hear you saying is "DTV-fold. Pass some portion of a rate increase onto the customers." I want DTV to win only one arguement-bundling. If you want to pay more for VIACOM channels-fine. However, your position of just comprimise and pass it on, doesn't meet my needs.

Maybe this business model is unsustainable. Maybe it will all be internet streaming. I can't predict the future, I see pros and cons. I do not think the future is watching all entertainment on a 9" iPAD delivered wireless, but that is just me.

I still do not understand what you would recommend for DTV, other than pass on costs to everyone. However, you are going out of business anyway.


----------



## maartena

opfreak said:


> Because the DTV bosses aren't greedy?
> 
> This is a pissing match between two companies that both make millions to billions in profits, and they are both are arguing about who should get a chunk of those billions.
> 
> The only thing either of these companies care about is how much money per customer they can get.
> 
> In the words of the DTV brownosers - Why does DTV feel entitled to a discount? There contract expired they should pay whatever they are asked to.
> 
> (This is the typical response to any user here that posts about asking for credits/discounts when their contract is up)


Thing is.... there is a pretty good chance it isn't all about money. Sure, that is the primary reason, and both companies will want to line their pockets as much as they can.

But what DirecTV pays Viacom, will directly affect out bill.

With the Tribune dispute, this Viacom dispute (assuming it will come to an end at some point), upcoming contract negotiations with Discovery networks at the end of this year, and whatever contracts we don't know about.... prices will once again increase next year. And the less DirecTV pays for a station, the less our increase is going to be.

And you are wrong about the "typical response". Most people will tell others to call retention and discuss the situation, and give them some tips on how to get the best deal from DirecTV.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between "contract is up" which can happen to a customer of 10+ years that hasn't made any changes for 2 years, and "promotional discount is ending", which I think you are meaning with people complaining about DirecTV pricing at the end of the promotional pricing.

Additionally, this dispute is about more than money. Yes, it is the primary reason, but there is a good chance (although we won't know for sure) that channel lineups are being discussed, such as adding the missing MTV/VH1 channels, and adding EPIX.

As far as maturity goes, sure both companies are in a pissing match.... but Viacom is playing most of the dirty tricks.


----------



## susanandmark

BlackCoffee said:


> More power to the people that want to watch VIACOM. However, according to VIACOMs propaganda they are in the minority-20% of DTV viewing. So, with VIACOM in every package, the 80% that will be stuck with a rate increase that don't watch their stations want DTV to hold the line. Why should the 80% bend to the 20%?


That makes as much numerical sense as DirecTV and their "Viacom wants YOU to pay 30% more" nonsense and "a billion dollars" spin. Intentionally misleading or just math-challenged? You decide.

Viacom states that 20% of total DirecTV VIEWING, not viewers, is done on their channels. That means that, at any given point in the day, of the 100% of DirecTV customers watching TV, 20% of them will be watching Viacom products. At another point in the day, different people will be watching other things, and, roughly 20% of them, probably a different 20% percent than at that other point in the day, will still be watching Viacom.

You know, like when I'm watching _The Daily Show_, I'm amongst the 20%. And when I'm watching _Mad Men_, I'm not, but someone else watching a Nick show, who was watching _Sportscenter_ while I viewed _The Daily Show_, is. And when the TV is turned off, I'm not amongst the 100% at all.

What it absolutely does NOT mean is that 80% of DirecTV households never watch Viacom and are supporting the "minority" 20% that do. In fact, to even pretend to think it does takes some mind-bending misconstruing. So, bravo, for that nugget. (Which you've also tried to pass off as a "fact" several previous times in this thread and which also sounds a lot like the "facts" that DirecTV and Viacom are pushing in the press.)

I don't know about you, but when I sit down to watch TV, I watch individual programs that are of personal interest, which I find entertaining. I'm not loyal to corporate holdings. Heck, I wouldn't even know (or care) what Viacom is and which channels they own/products they produce if it weren't for disputes like this.

Just as I don't know anyone who heads to the theater and asks, "Do you have any Sony pictures playing? Cause I only watch Sony-distrubuted movies," there's no TV watcher who aligns themselves via corporate overlords. Or, if there is, they're gonna have a whole lotta' trouble doing it with the wildly incestous nature of entertainment producers and programming providers. Disney, which owns, ABC produces programming that then airs on NBC, and FOX makes things that air on CBS ... And on and on.

This is a little old (http://soma.sbcc.edu/users/davega/F.../GENERALHISTORY/TheBig6EntertainmentCorps.pdf), but other than even more consolidation, little has changed today. (Yes, I know, DirecTV is no longer owned by NewsCorp.) There are really only five or six companies out there that own, control and produce 90% of the television, movies, newspapers, books, magazines and radios the ENTIRE WORLD consumes.


----------



## RunnerFL

Gang, we all have our preferences and opinions. Let's debate those, and the "facts", instead of insulting each others tv preferences or math skills.


----------



## BlackCoffee

susanandmark said:


> That makes as much numerical sense as DirecTV and their "Viacom wants YOU to pay 30% more" nonsense and "a billion dollars" spin. Intentionally misleading or just math-challenged? You decide.
> 
> Viacom states that 20% of total DirecTV VIEWING, not viewers, is done on their channels. That means that, at any given point in the day, of the 100% of DirecTV customers watching TV, 20% of them will be watching Viacom products.
> 
> It does not mean that 80% of people never watch Viacom and are supporting the "minority" 20% that do. In fact, to even pretend to think it does takes some major misconstruing. So, bravo, for that nugget. (Which you've also tried to pass off as a "fact" several previous times in this thread and which also sounds a lot like the "facts" that DirecTV and Viacom are pushing in the press.)
> 
> I don't know about you but when I sit down to watch TV, I watch individual programs that catch my interest, which I find entertaining. I'm not loyal to corporate holdings. Heck, I wouldn't even know (or care) what Viacom is and which products they own/produce if it weren't for disputes like this.


OK. Your complaint is that you feel you are being mistreated as a consumer and those of us that want DTV to hold the line are contributing to your unhappiness. There are a lot of packages below the "I buy everything" level you feel is part of your consumer lifestyle.

Don't overinflate your role as a consumer. Don't end up calling the police when McDonalds shorts you a french fry. If you don't like DTV, entertainment distribution industry, satellite, cable, studios, then don't participate. You don't like any corporate entity, but then complain that as a consumer you want free and timely access to everything.

Stop using the "I want what I paid for" arguement. Read your contract, you ARE getting what you paid for. Start living up to your end of the contract. Until you produce and deliver entertainment yourself, live within your contracted delivery service or walk.

You seem frustrated that you can't build a coalition in the forum that agrees with your premise that DTV should just accept an increase. You presented the ants argument, the ants, at least in this forum, are headed in another direction.


----------



## opfreak

maartena said:


> Thing is.... there is a pretty good chance it isn't all about money. Sure, that is the primary reason, and both companies will want to line their pockets as much as they can.
> 
> But what DirecTV pays Viacom, will directly affect out bill.
> 
> With the Tribune dispute, this Viacom dispute (assuming it will come to an end at some point), upcoming contract negotiations with Discovery networks at the end of this year, and whatever contracts we don't know about.... prices will once again increase next year. And the less DirecTV pays for a station, the less our increase is going to be.
> 
> And you are wrong about the "typical response". Most people will tell others to call retention and discuss the situation, and give them some tips on how to get the best deal from DirecTV.
> 
> Also, there is a HUGE difference between "contract is up" which can happen to a customer of 10+ years that hasn't made any changes for 2 years, and "promotional discount is ending", which I think you are meaning with people complaining about DirecTV pricing at the end of the promotional pricing.
> 
> Additionally, this dispute is about more than money. Yes, it is the primary reason, but there is a good chance (although we won't know for sure) that channel lineups are being discussed, such as adding the missing MTV/VH1 channels, and adding EPIX.
> 
> As far as maturity goes, sure both companies are in a pissing match.... but Viacom is playing most of the dirty tricks.


Nope, that typical response is given whenever someone wants to talk about getting a discount.

If DTV cares about its customers it could just lower its profits and not pass increases on to us.

But you know that wont happen. Because DTV isn't fighting for you, just like Viacom isn't ethier. They both want fatter bottom lines.


----------



## DaveC27

If the Direct/Viacom dispute isn't resolved it'd put Viacom in an awful negotiating position when next they come to Dish again. Dish can offer them anything knowing that Viacom can't afford to lose the other Sat Provider


----------



## susanandmark

DaveC27 said:


> If the Direct/Viacom dispute isn't resolved it'd put Viacom in an awful negotiating position when next they come to Dish again. Dish can offer them anything knowing that Viacom can't afford to lose the other Sat Provider


Yes, just like the NFL is in an "awful negotiating position" when it does its deal with DirecTV. Exclusivity tends to INCREASE, not decrease, value.

Not that I think DirecTV would ever let Dish have long-term access to 17 channels, among which include some of the most-watched on cable, they don't carry.


----------



## john18

opfreak said:


> In the words of the DTV brownosers - Why does DTV feel entitled to a discount? There contract expired they should pay whatever they are asked to.


Why should D* pay anything for something that Viacom routinely gives away for free?


----------



## tulanejosh

maartena said:


> But what DirecTV pays Viacom, will directly affect out bill.


As will just about everything... gas prices, salary increases, technology upgrades... Seems a bit cherry picking to me - not specifically directed at you - for all of us to focus our ire and frustration on programmers while ignoring the larger context of why are bills are what they are.


----------



## RunnerFL

john18 said:


> Why should D* pay anything for something that Viacom routinely gives away for free?


I think that's the point that some are overlooking. Maybe by choice, maybe not.


----------



## Tubaman-Z

zeus said:


> ...those 17 networks are some of the most watched cable networks on TV.


According to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...primetime-for-week-ending-july-8-2012/140800/ :

Prime-time Average Viewers (Live+7D) Week Ending July 8, 2012:

BET (20/25)
Nick, Jr (21/25)
Spike (22/25)
Comedy Central (23/25)
TV Land (25/25)

Prime-time Adults 18-49 (Live+7D)

Comedy Central (11/25)
BET (14/25)
VH1 (16/25)
Spike (21/25)
MTV (24/25)

Total Day Average Viewers (Live+7D)

Nick (2/25)
[email protected] (12/25)
Nick, Jr (16/25)
TV Land (17/25)
Spike (24/25)

Not making the top 25 with any of the above 3 demographics:

Palladia
Centric
Tr3s
CMT
Logo
NickToons
VH1 Classic
Teen Nick

8/17 not making the top 25, only 1 (Nick) cracking the top 10.


----------



## tulanejosh

BlackCoffee said:


> Stop using the "I want what I paid for" arguement. Read your contract, you ARE getting what you paid for. Start living up to your end of the contract. Until you produce and deliver entertainment yourself, live within your contracted delivery service or walk.


Where'd you go to law school? Do you realize that just because something is in writing and signed off on - a court can throw out any provision of a contract is wants? Please tell me you realize that.

Regardless - Directv is doing what it said it would/could do in its TOS. Great. However - when they sold the service they advertise those services with the strong implications that they'll be available to you - and they charge you accordingly. I dont recall any of their marketing materials or commercials telling me "sometimes you'll get them, sometimes you won't". It'd be like going to heavily advertised "family night" at the ballpark, getting the sh*t kicked out of you in the parking lot and the team taking no responsibillity for it becuase their TOS says they aren't responsible for security. Then why'd you advertise it as a family night if you weren't going to create an environment that lived up to your marketing promises? Maybe Directv has the freedom to do whatever they want - but maybe they also should not heavily advertise what channels they will provide you either. It's misleading.

I await your political filled response.


----------



## bobcamp1

maartena said:


> Thing is.... there is a pretty good chance it isn't all about money. Sure, that is the primary reason, and both companies will want to line their pockets as much as they can.
> 
> But what DirecTV pays Viacom, will directly affect out bill.
> 
> ...
> 
> As far as maturity goes, sure both companies are in a pissing match.... but Viacom is playing most of the dirty tricks.


It's all about money. D* could just absorb or partially absorb the price increase, after all they've been very profitable and this isn't going to ruin them by any means. Then it wouldn't affect your bill at all.

But D*'s not going to do that. They'll raise their price regardless of the settlement. And the price increase will be whatever the new agreement is with another 20% on top of that. And they'll blame it *ALL* on Viacom. Viacom may have the majority of the dirty tricks so far, but D* has yet to play their dirtiest trick.


----------



## sigma1914

Tubaman-Z said:


> According to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...primetime-for-week-ending-july-8-2012/140800/ :
> 
> Prime-time Average Viewers (Live+7D) Week Ending July 8, 2012:
> 
> BET (20/25)
> Nick, Jr (21/25)
> Spike (22/25)
> Comedy Central (23/25)
> TV Land (25/25)
> 
> Prime-time Adults 18-49 (Live+7D)
> 
> Comedy Central (11/25)
> BET (14/25)
> VH1 (16/25)
> Spike (21/25)
> MTV (24/25)
> 
> Total Day Average Viewers (Live+7D)
> 
> Nick (2/25)
> [email protected] (12/25)
> Nick, Jr (16/25)
> TV Land (17/25)
> Spike (24/25)
> 
> Not making the top 25 with any of the above 3 demographics:
> 
> Palladia
> Centric
> Tr3s
> CMT
> Logo
> NickToons
> VH1 Classic
> Teen Nick
> 
> 8/17 not making the top 25, only 1 (Nick) cracking the top 10.


You're picking 1 week in the summer. Look at the year of 2011: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76679201/Cable-Time-Period-Rank-2011

For all day total viewers, we lost the #1 & #3 channels, as well as, 8 of the top 30 channels.


----------



## BlackCoffee

RunnerFL said:


> Gang, we all have our preferences and opinions. Let's debate those, and the "facts", instead of insulting each others tv preferences or math skills.


I really don't mind the challenge to my math skills. I am secure enough to not get offended. Her arguement is correct and I did take some liberties to make a point.

I only do that so I don't respond to hidden male bashing, anti-conservative innuendo that continually crops up in her posts. It is pretty obvious that this is just the susan side of susanandmark.

Thanks for looking out for me. Comsumption of entertainment will be based on personnality. Some people hate FOX, some hate MSNBC. That is naturally going to creep into this discussion. VIACOM probably appeals more to liberals than conservatives. All I care about is only paying for what I choose. If DTV unbundles VIACOM, I don't care what they charge. I guess I also understand that sometime business is nasty and we just need to get through it. If we declare VIACOM entertainment a public service, maybe the government can force them to provide channels even without a contract. Remember Reagan and the FAA.


----------



## susanandmark

RunnerFL said:


> Gang, we all have our preferences and opinions. Let's debate those, and the "facts", instead of insulting each others tv preferences or math skills.


I'm not actually insulting anyone's math skills. I'm calling someone on manipulating numbers and calling it a hard fact, when it's anything but. Wildly different thing.

In the end, throwing around numbers like "30% percent increase" and "a billion dollars" and "subsidizing the 80% who don't watch Viacom at all" is simply misleading B.S.

Would DirecTV gain as much traction with the general public saying, "Viacom wants us to pay them about 80 cents more per month per subscriber, which amounts to about $10/year for you?" Doubtful. While some people may very well fight to the death over that $10 year over year, most would be more in the "you took away my channels for that?!?" camp. (And, for the record, I firmly believe that DirecTV AND Viacom are equally complicit in the removal of those channels.)

Heck, when DirecTV does their annual increase--and they will, regardless of economy, inflation and how these negations go--I guarantee it will be a lot more than $1/month per customer. And the general consensus here will undoubtably be that it's very, very fair and that DirecTV had no choice. No one is going to bite at an inflammatory headline that says "DirecTV demands their customers to pay more $1 billion more a YEAR for same product!!!" Even if you can do the math (20 million customers with an average increase of $5/month) to make that argument.

And, by the way, I have never once argued that DirecTV should "just pay whatever to maintain my consumer lifestyle" (whatever that means, if you're a DirecTV, or any other pay TV subscriber, you are, by definition, a consumer), just that these tactics are customer unfriendly.



BlackCoffee said:


> You seem frustrated that you can't build a coalition in the forum that agrees with your premise that DTV should just accept an increase. You presented the ants argument, the ants, *at least in this forum*, are headed in another direction.


And that and a $5.50 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. This forum represents a minuscule percentage of all DirecTV customers and is way, WAY skewed from the average consumer's point of view.

As for viewing preferences ... If someone wants to watch a 24-hour/day marathon of the _Real Housewives of Des Moines_ seven days a week, while I'd prefer to gauge my eyes without a soup spoon, good on them! I could care less. Your likes/dislikes have just as much value and/or ridiculouslness as mine.


----------



## rahlquist

I vote for D* removing the cost of the V* channels from all standing packages. Then put all V* into their own package. Then sell V* at the rates require by Viacom. Settle all disputes with programming groups this way. Then the groups will have to openly be competitive with pricing. 

If you want it bad enough you will pay. Out of all their channels the only one I watch it Comedy central and thats rare.


----------



## BlackCoffee

tulanejosh said:


> Where'd you go to law school? Do you realize that just because something is in writing and signed off on - a court can throw out any provision of a contract is wants? Please tell me you realize that.


OK, so even though the contract says there will be disruptions, DTV is offering compensation, and they appear to be acting in good faith, you can take them to court.

No problem with that, start a class action lawsuit. When you send me the info, I will opt out.


----------



## djrobx

> Maybe this business model is unsustainable. Maybe it will all be internet streaming. I can't predict the future, I see pros and cons. I do not think the future is watching all entertainment on a 9" iPAD delivered wireless, but that is just me.


Cord cutters still use a TV. They just stream video through a Boxee, Roku, AppleTV, XBox 360, or PlayStation 3. Or even just a PC attached to the TV. Most TV series available on bluray (rentable through Netflix), or through streaming services like Hulu, etc. This works well for people who don't mind waiting a bit to see a series.

It doesn't work for live sports though. I'm quickly seeing why DirecTV focuses so much energy on that side of their business.

Competition from this and other forms if Internet entertainment are devaluing Viacom's product. They're losing ratings and advertising dollars because of it. They're trying to make up for it by raising DirecTV's price, but DirecTV is facing the very same pressure to keep prices low. Relentless rate hikes are not sustainable. I wouldn't go as far as to say the whole business model is not sustainable, but it needs to learn how to get more efficient and adapt instead of demanding more and more money that consumers don't have.


----------



## bobcamp1

john18 said:


> Why should D* pay anything for something that Viacom routinely gives away for free?


LOL, 35% of people in the U.S. have no broadband service. Those people are paying the correct amount for Viacom's streaming services -- nothing.

LOL #2 -- you're right. "I demand you start charging me for the stuff you've been giving away for free. It's not fair those people have to pay yet I don't."


----------



## BlackCoffee

susanandmark said:


> And that and a $5.50 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. This forum represents a minuscule percentage of all DirecTV customers and is way, WAY skewed from the average consumer's point of view.


I am just saying that it appears most in this forum disagree. If you need some love, VIACOM has a blog going.


----------



## tulanejosh

BlackCoffee said:


> OK, so even though the contract says there will be disruptions, DTV is offering compensation, and they appear to be acting in good faith, you can take them to court.
> 
> No problem with that, start a class action lawsuit. When you send me the info, I will opt out.


You take things way too literally. I'll break it down. You continue to refer to the contract as if its some holy document, inscribed in stone, irrefutable and beyond question. You agreed to it and so it shall be. I'm pointing out to you that that's not the case. Contracts, generally speaking, are guiding documents about what happens if one party doesn't live up to its end, and even then, a judge (with justification) has the authority to throw out portions that she doesn't agree with.

Im not saying Im taking them to court, or that i want to take them to court, or that you should take them to court. Im just tired of reading your preachy posts that afford the "contract" greater importance than it actually enjoys and felt compelled to correct your limited legal knowledge. And yes... I do have a JD.


----------



## tonyd79

BlackCoffee said:


> I am just saying that it appears most in this forum disagree. If you need some love, VIACOM has a blog going.


It is not that Susan love Viacom. She thinks she is doing a service to us by pointing out that DirecTV is not a good bunch of folks.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Interesting article

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffber...ght-but-directv-is-righter/?partner=yahoofeed


----------



## Tubaman-Z

sigma1914 said:


> You're picking 1 week in the summer. Look at the year of 2011: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76679201/Cable-Time-Period-Rank-2011
> 
> For all day total viewers, we lost the #1 & #3 channels, as well as, 8 of the top 30 channels.


Fair enough - I should have done more homework - thanks for the link. I wonder what the 2012 YTD rankings look like?

The full-year 2011 rankings list was interesting as it confirmed that as a participant in this "WAY skewed" (highly skewed?) forum I don't watch much that is attractive to the general populace. The channels that I watch the most (History - Pawn Stars, American Pickers, American Restoration, SyFy - silly B movies) are ranked 9 and 25 respectively.


----------



## tulanejosh

tonyd79 said:


> It is not that Susan love Viacom. She thinks she is doing a service to us by pointing out that DirecTV is not a good bunch of folks.


You can guide a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

rahlquist said:


> I vote for D* removing the cost of the V* channels from all standing packages. Then put all V* into their own package. Then sell V* at the rates require by Viacom. Settle all disputes with programming groups this way. Then the groups will have to openly be competitive with pricing.
> 
> If you want it bad enough you will pay. Out of all their channels the only one I watch it Comedy central and thats rare.


Viacom then tells Directv to jam it. Then what?

People have no idea how carriage contracts work. :nono2:


----------



## tulanejosh

Satelliteracer said:


> Interesting article
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffber...ght-but-directv-is-righter/?partner=yahoofeed


oh cmon now SR. I've seen many posts in which you've engaged that weren't hugely supportive of unbunding. Why the organizational championing of it now? We all know that if channels go unbunndled that we're not paying $5 for 26 channels.


----------



## BlackCoffee

tulanejosh said:


> You take things way too literally. I'll break it down. You continue to refer to the contract as if its some holy document, inscribed in stone, irrefutable and beyond question. You agreed to it and so it shall be. I'm pointing out to you that that's not the case. Contracts, generally speaking, are guiding documents about what happens if one party doesn't live up to its end, and even then, a judge (with justification) have the authority to throw out portions that she doesn't agree with.
> 
> Im not saying Im taking them to court, or that i want to take them to court, or that you should take them to court. Im just tired of reading your preachy posts that afford the "contract" greater importance than it actually enjoys and felt compelled to correct your limited legal knowledge. And yes... I do have a JD.


Never claimed to be a lawyer. I am looking at both parties as being equal. My point is that she does have remedies for her dissatisfaction and they are not, as she claims, in the contract which is what she paid for (her words not mine). 
If you are a lawyer, you know exactly why the disruption clause is in almost all consumer service contracts. If the argument is that poor customer service will cause people to walk, I am fine with that. However, DTV is not a public utility that demands intervention. Anyone who has lived in the real world for the pass 50 years and had electricity, water, phone (cell or land), bought gasoline (remember the 70's) knows that sometime business has service disruptions.


----------



## Satelliteracer

"john18" said:


> For those worried about no resolution of this ever think of this. If there is no resolution ever do you really think that Viacom will leave all their channels off of the internet forever?
> 
> I am not suggesting that you lose Viacom forever and resort to the internet for Viacom. I am suggesting that their tactics are untenable in anything other than the very short term.


The reality is that Viacom and others offer "free" content on the Internet because they are hitting tv distributors for huge fees. If tv distributors no longer pay those fees, the days of free Internet content will end. This is the issue AMC is facing with DISH as well.

On one hand these media companies want huge increases from telco, satellite, cable and at the same time giving their programming away for free or pennies on the dollar to Hulu, Netflix, etc. you can imagine that the companies paying billions for that content are asking why if the company they are buying it from gives it away for free. Imagine you filling up your tank for $80 and the next three customers into the gas station get it for free. Maybe a bad analogy, but you understand.

The media companies need the money to create shows, produce sports, buy sports fees, pay employees, etc. At the same time, demanding one side of the model pay billions to fund all that stuff and then give it away for free at the same time is ultimately a killing proposition for them long term. They trade dollars for pennies.


----------



## susanandmark

BlackCoffee said:


> I am just saying that it appears most in this forum disagree. If you need some love, VIACOM has a blog going.


There are three sides here: Viacom's, DirecTV's and the consumer's. I am firmly in the last camp, and think the other two are both being belligerent, shortsighted and intractable.

If I want to buy someone's house and they're asking, say, $250k and I make them an offer for $10,000, I should not get indigent, set up camp on their lawn and spend $20,000 to put up a billboard stating all the reasons why they're wrong and I'm right ("it's a crappy house," "no one else wants to buy it," "they should be happy I even made them an offer at all, the ingrates," etc.) when they refuse it.

Compromise is NOT a dirty word, contrary to the latest TV news talking head spin. It's the only way that the economy, and society as a whole, actually, works. If I get everything I want and you're unhappy, that's not sustainable. Ditto if you get everything you want, and I'm unhappy. The definition of a "good" negotiation in financial or court-of-law terms is when both parties leave the table feeling a bit put upon.

And, by the way, I have zero, zilch, nada invested in you, or anyone else, agreeing with me. In large part, this forum, which when I joined I felt was mostly about helping customers with DirecTV technical issues (and it can still be quite good at that), has morphed into a FoxNews/Huffington Post-like echo chamber of people reenforcing their own belief that they are better, smarter and more in-the-know based on picking DirecTV as their television provider, and therefore are heavily emotionally invested (for some unknown reason) in defending it.



BlackCoffee said:


> Read your contract, you ARE getting what you paid for. Start living up to your end of the contract. Until you produce and deliver entertainment yourself, live within your contracted delivery service or walk.


"Start living up to your end of the contract?" Isn't that just a tad bit hyperbolic? I mean, I live up to my end of the contract by sending them a check every month that pays for my service. I missed the part in even DirecTV's Draconican terms where I also swore undying fidelity and promised to never question, complain, utter a harsh word and genuflect daily to their logo.

And, say what, only producers and distributors of entertainment programming are allowed to have an opinion? Really?!

The only thing I've said about DirecTV's "contract" is that it stinks. It gives ALL the power to DirecTV and none to the consumer. I owe them everything, and they can give me nothing in return. Sounds like a great deal ... For DirecTV.

I'm just consistently amazed/amused/saddened by the amount of people willing to vote or argue against their own best interests (in all areas, either literally or figuratively) based on misleading and skewed "facts" and what I strongly feel is a largely misplaced sense of brand/party/provider loyalty.

Well, it's been fun pushing my "male-bashing" (huh?) "anti-conservative agenda," but I need to stop procrastinating ... It's almost time for my shift in the DirecTV salt mines. Just gotta "live up to my end of the contract." (What? You didn't see that clause?)


----------



## tonyd79

tulanejosh said:


> oh cmon now SR. I've seen many posts in which you've engaged that weren't hugely supportive of unbunding. Why the organizational championing of it now? We all know that if channels go unbunndled that we're not paying $5 for 26 channels.


I don't think a la carte means the same in that article as we think of it, or the guy writing it got it a bit wrong.

I get the impression that Viacom and DirecTV are having issues about what goes on what tier and what it is paid for. I don't think DirecTV is talking pure a la carte (unless they are talking about the possible addition of Epix as a premium) but more about where Palladia and some of the kids channels go.

While DirecTV is not a la carte for much, it does have various package levels and add on groups. I think that is where they are talking about.


----------



## tonyd79

susanandmark said:


> Compromise is NOT a dirty word, contrary to the latest TV news talking head spin.


Okay, so maybe you missed the part where DirecTV offered an increase. Sounds like an attempt at compromise to me. And DirecTV has been publically saying they will get it settled and find a middle ground. Viacom has not.

No one is saying DirecTV are angels. What we are saying is that DirecTV is more right here than Viacom, who are proving themselves with nasty tactics and tantrums.


----------



## Satelliteracer

"tulanejosh" said:


> oh cmon now SR. I've seen many posts in which you've engaged that weren't hugely supportive of unbunding. Why the organizational championing of it now? We all know that if channels go unbunndled that we're not paying $5 for 26 channels.


Number one, I am not championing anything, I said it was an interesting article. Nothing more and nothing less. Secondly, you would be surprised how many people do not know that...many people think the cost would actually go down if they only paid for a few channels. It's shocking how many people believe this.

Third, go back and read my posts to say why it won't work or if you go down that path of unbundling you will lose choices. This is reality. Viacom offers 17 channels on the backs of 4 or 5 successful ones. This is no different than any other major media company...I should know, I have worked for a few in my lifetime before going to D*. I'm not championing anything, just putting the factual realties out there for those interested. I've worked for both sides, the article I found interesting. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## tulanejosh

BlackCoffee said:


> Never claimed to be a lawyer. I am looking at both parties as being equal. My point is that she does have remedies for her dissatisfaction and they are not, as she claims, in the contract which is what she paid for (her words not mine).
> If you are a lawyer, you know exactly why the disruption clause is in almost all consumer service contracts. If the argument is that poor customer service will cause people to walk, I am fine with that. However, DTV is not a public utility that demands intervention. Anyone who has lived in the real world for the pass 50 years and had electricity, water, phone (cell or land), bought gasoline (remember the 70's) knows that sometime business has service disruptions.


You are correct. Which is why I'm not taking them to court, and doubt anyone else will either.

That said - there's a very real concern here regarding bait and switch. I'm not saying it wins in court. But the ingredients are there. In the marketing, they make claims about their service - definitive claims. Buy this, get this. Those claims incent you to enter into a contract, but they don't really prominently disclose that it could change. And very often its just not enough to say "well it's in the contract", truthful claims need to be made at the point of sale. That is - im not saying they need to say these channels will be always available, but make honest claims about potential disruptions.

I have a JD. From the school in my screename. I however do not practice anymore. It's a dreadful life.


----------



## tonyd79

susanandmark said:


> I'm just consistently amazed/amused/saddened by the amount of people willing to vote against their own best interests


Aren't you doing that in not criticizing Viacom for a 30% increase attempt? You poo-poo it by saying it is only $10 a year (I think your math is off), which is Viacom's hook, line and sinker yet neglect to understand that if Viacom gets 30% then so does everyone else. Maybe more. And YOUR bill goes through the roof.

Neither company is perfect, but you had better side with the one who is trying to keep costs down or you will pay even more in the long run.

But that would not fit your agenda, which is well established here.


----------



## SHS

djrobx said:


> Cord cutters still use a TV. They just stream video through a Boxee, Roku, AppleTV, XBox 360, or PlayStation 3. Or even just a PC attached to the TV. Most TV series available on bluray (rentable through Netflix), or through streaming services like Hulu, etc. This works well for people who don't mind waiting a bit to see a series.


For lot people that will never work becuase we can't get High Speed Internet
Woste of all most Cable ISP now days are starting adding Data Caps
And you may as well forget Satellite Internet


----------



## APB101

Satelliteracer said:


> Interesting article
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffber...ght-but-directv-is-righter/?partner=yahoofeed


I caught it yesterday (_Thanks!_), and this part interests me most:



> Viacom just has too much leverage. It claims its programming accounts for 20% of the viewing on DirecTV. A Dish Network subscriber who loses access to AMC can find a way to watch "Breaking Bad" - the network has promised to stream the season premiere online for subscribers - but a parent whose child is throwing a tantrum because "Dora the Explorer" and "SpongeBob SquarePants" have just vanished can't be expected to show the same level of patience. DirecTV will end up gritting its teeth and meeting Viacom more than halfway on price, and sooner than later.


I hope this means more HD: MTV2 HD, Nick Jr. HD, and TV Land HD. Add to that the MTV, CMT, VH1, and BET suites. It could also mean EPiX.

Another consideration: Status quo with specific channels but DirecTV pays extra for not going for the full suite. ("All or nothing.")


----------



## tonyd79

tulanejosh said:


> That said - there's a very real concern here regarding bait and switch.


Hahaha! That is way too funny.

DirecTV is advertising Viacom channels now? That is the only way bait and switch happens. Advertise something they don't have.

You really like to throw things around without basis, don't you?


----------



## tulanejosh

Satelliteracer said:


> Number one, I am not championing anything, I said it was an interesting article. Nothing more and nothing less. Secondly, you would be surprised how many people do not know that...many people think the cost would actually go down if they only paid for a few channels. It's shocking how many people believe this.
> 
> Third, go back and read my posts to say why it won't work or if you go down that path of unbundling you will lose choices. This is reality. Viacom offers 17 channels on the backs of 4 or 5 successful ones. This is no different than any other major media company...I should know, I have worked for a few in my lifetime before going to D*. I'm not championing anything, just putting the factual realties out there for those interested. I've worked for both sides, the article I found interesting. Nothing more, nothing less.


wasn't saying you... was asking about Directv as a whole. I keep seeing media reports talking about the un-bundling option.

I believe you. Ive seen evidence of that belief here. I over-generalized a bit.

Was an interesting article.


----------



## BlackCoffee

susanandmark said:


> Compromise is NOT a dirty word, contrary to the latest TV news talking head spin. ....
> 
> See "live up to my end of the contract?" Isn't that just a tad bit hyperbolic?


It is not hyperbolic to say that even though you send your check in, all services experience disruption. Sending your check does not guarentee 100%service all the time.

Comprimise can be a dirty word if it continually walks up costs and threatens DTV's future. That is for them to say. Even you point to lower cost alternatives that DTV is fighting.

I am in the consumer camp too, and I am not a sheep blindling following cable news talking heads or corporate bigshots. You like to talk about playing nice, but routinely sprinkle subtle insults throughout your posts.

This disagreement is not a conservative plot, a "comparison of who's is bigger," or any other subtle implication that characterizes an attempt to provide choice or control cost as some male ego exercise.


----------



## gully_foyle

tulanejosh said:


> Do you realize that just because something is in writing and signed off on - a court can throw out any provision of a contract is wants?


Certainly. It's just not the way to bet.


----------



## tulanejosh

tonyd79 said:


> Hahaha! That is way too funny.
> 
> DirecTV is advertising Viacom channels now? That is the only way bait and switch happens. Advertise something they don't have.
> 
> You really like to throw things around without basis, don't you?


My "throwing" of things around is based on actual legal definitions whereas yours are just based on what you think it should be or what you feel personally is right. You only seem to understand one portion of bait/switch. If there marketing materials show or list a certain channel(s), and that material - either the availability of an individual channel or the lineup in its entirety - entices you to do something - whether that's investigate service or actually sign up, it's false advertising unless you disclose prominently that said channel(s) are extremely subject to change. It's not enough to say - well the contract allows that. You might not like that, but it is what it is.

Again - not saying that wins in court of that you should take it to court or that its malicious in any way. Pretty sure Directv would like to put these channels back on all things being equal. More than anything - this is more of a request for better disclosure at the point of sale.


----------



## tulanejosh

gully_foyle said:


> Certainly. It's just not the way to bet.


Agreed. Full context was - stop pointing to the contract as though it resolves something because there are many cases in which that's not true, even if this isn't one of them.


----------



## tulanejosh

BlackCoffee said:


> It is not hyperbolic to say that even though you send your check in, all services experience disruption. Sending your check does not guarentee 100%service all the time.
> 
> .


I dont think electric water and gas are a fair comparison. Yes they can experience disruption - but the water company disruption is because a pipe broke, not because they decided that the owner of the lake was asking for too much money. The electricity goes out because a tree fell on a line, not because the power company is having a disagreement with the coal mine over the cost of fuel.


----------



## fleckrj

susanandmark said:


> I'm not actually insulting anyone's math skills. I'm calling someone on manipulating numbers and calling it a hard fact, when it's anything but. Wildly different thing.
> 
> In the end, throwing around numbers like "30% percent increase" and "a billion dollars" and "subsidizing the 80% who don't watch Viacom at all" is simply misleading B.S.
> 
> Would DirecTV gain as much traction with the general public saying, "Viacom wants us to pay them about 80 cents more per month per subscriber, which amounts to about $10/year for you?" Doubtful. While some people may very well fight to the death over that $10 year over year, most would be more in the "you took away my channels for that?!?" camp. (And, for the record, I firmly believe that DirecTV AND Viacom are equally complicit in the removal of those channels.)
> 
> Heck, when DirecTV does their annual increase--and they will, regardless of economy, inflation and how these negations go--I guarantee it will be a lot more than $1/month per customer. And the general consensus here will undoubtably be that it's very, very fair and that DirecTV had no choice. No one is going to bite at an inflammatory headline that says "DirecTV demands their customers pay $1 billion more A MONTH for same product!!!" Even if you can do the math (20 million customers with an average increase of $5/month) to make that argument.
> 
> And, by the way, I have never once argued that DirecTV should "just pay whatever to maintain my consumer lifestyle" (whatever that means, if you're a DirecTV, or any other pay TV subscriber, you are, by definition, a consumer), just that these tactics are customer unfriendly.
> 
> And that and a $5.50 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. This forum represents a minuscule percentage of all DirecTV customers and is way, WAY skewed from the average consumer's point of view.
> 
> As for viewing preferences ... If someone wants to watch a 24-hour/day marathon of the _Real Housewives of Des Moines_ seven days a week, while I'd prefer to gauge my eyes without a soup spoon, good on them! I could care less. Your likes/dislikes have just as much value and/or ridiculouslness as mine.


The point you are missing is that if DirecTV agrees to pay Viacom 30% more (because after all, it is only 3 cents per subscriber per day), then when Disney, Hearst, Scripts, Discovery, Turner, Rainbow, Comcast, NBC Universal, et. al. all come up for renewal, they are also going to want at least a 30% increase, because that is what DirecTV gave to Viacom.

If it was only Viacom, you are correct, it is only $10.96 per year per subscriber, but when all of the other providers contracts end, it will end up being 30% of the total bill. Only if DiercTV can keep each individual contract to a 3% to 5% increase, would it be reasonable to expect that your bill will only go up by 3% to 5%.


----------



## zimm7778

"Satelliteracer" said:


> Number one, I am not championing anything, I said it was an interesting article. Nothing more and nothing less. Secondly, you would be surprised how many people do not know that...many people think the cost would actually go down if they only paid for a few channels. It's shocking how many people believe this.
> 
> Third, go back and read my posts to say why it won't work or if you go down that path of unbundling you will lose choices. This is reality. Viacom offers 17 channels on the backs of 4 or 5 successful ones. This is no different than any other major media company...I should know, I have worked for a few in my lifetime before going to D*. I'm not championing anything, just putting the factual realties out there for those interested. I've worked for both sides, the article I found interesting. Nothing more, nothing less.


Oh no, in the short term it'd skyrocket but in the long term it would be affordable. I don't know if you saw my example and I may off on numbers so forgive me. Take ESPN. A la carte they work out a deal with you for 5 years that winds up with their channel being $10 a month for that alone. Well, a lot of people, even larger numbers than those probably think, will not order because they are going to feel that's entirely too much for 1 channel. ESPN is going to lose revenue from you and advertisers because less viewers less $$. Now they can either try to ride it out, and think raising the price the next agreement will solve it even though raising it will only drive more people away, or they can be smart renegotiate for a smaller price so more subscribe. As I also said this might end the billions being paid to sports leagues too which in turn could mean local teams in many markets will wind up back on local TV because the bids will be lower. That's just one example. I'm not stupid (not that I am saying you think I am) I know that these program providers while they may tell everyone you can't live without me know deep down many can. That's why they don't want their channels moved to higher packages. The higher the package, the fewer customers they get paid for and the veil is off to everyone just how "valuable" they really are which will make future negotiations with others much more painful for them. Yes, I know people would leave and go somewhere else which is why everyone would need to start this model at around the same time. It might take a year or few for all the agreements to be dealt with when current ones ran out but if everyone decided to do this or politicians get involved and force it then ENFORCE IT. I think things would in a few years be way, way different.

Seriously, I like you and I appreciate your info and love Directv. But if the bill keeps getting higher like it has been I'm not gonna be able to justify keeping it. That's not your fault but something other than "we are trying to hold down costs" has to be done or no one is going to be able to afford it. Again, it's not you and I mean no offense.


----------



## susanandmark

fleckrj said:


> The point you are missing is that if DirecTV agrees to pay Viacom 30% more (because after all, it is only 3 cents per subscriber per day), then when Disney, Hearst, Scripts, Discovery, Turner, Rainbow, Comcast, NBC Universal, et. al. all come up for renewal, they are also going to want at least a 30% increase, because that is what DirecTV gave to Viacom.
> 
> If it was only Viacom, you are correct, it is only $10.96 per year per subscriber, but when all of the other providers contracts end, it will end up being 30% of the total bill. Only if DiercTV can keep each individual contract to a 3% to 5% increase, would it be reasonable to expect that your bill will only go up by 3% to 5%.


The point YOU'RE missing is that DirecTV will raise our rates as high as their extensive market research says consumers will bear (with an acceptable level of complaining and "churn") at the moment they announce it. They will do that regardless of the outcome of this, or any other, negotiation.

That's how businesses work. Do you think Apple just magically landed on the $499 iPad price point? No. They did bucket loads of research into how much consumers would pay for such a device and how much it would cost them to build it and, when the numbers worked for maximum profit, they built it. If their market research told them customers would pay only $499 but it would cost them $450 to build each one, I guarantee you the project would have been scrapped, or at the least delayed until the numbers were better. (Some argue this is exactly what occurred.) They would not have put out a $699 iPad just because.

If, after release, their cost for a certain component then drops from 10 cents per piece, to 5 cents, that just means their profit increases. Yay for them. If a certain component has a shortage, etc. and suddenly rises in cost from 10 cents to 15 cents, they don't raise the price of the iPad to cover it--because they know they are already charging the maximum amount the market will bear. Their profit margins just shrink. That, by the way, is why Apple, one of the most successful companies on the planet, is notorious for locking up entire supply chains of key components, literally buying (or pre-ordering) every single one on earth ... To prevent even the CHANCE of shrinking profit margins. (And they have, bar none, the highest profit margins per unit in tech AND an incredibly high customer satisfaction rate.)

This negotiation is 98% about DirecTV's profit margins and 2% about the amount of those eventual, and inevitable, cost increases to customers.


----------



## BlackCoffee

tulanejosh said:


> I dont think electric water and gas are a fair comparison. Yes they can experience disruption - but the water company disruption is because a pipe broke, not because they decided that the owner of the lake was asking for too much money. The electricity goes out because a tree fell on a line, not because the power company is having a disagreement with the coal mine over the cost of fuel.


I think you misunderstood my point on electric water and gas. I was saying that, for a non-essential service like entertainment, should we hold them to a higher standard of no service interruptions. Clearly they indicate there will be interruptions, people understand there are interruptions with essential services, so why is it not reasonable to assume that a contract dispute will lead to problems.

How about the old days when broadcast networks, fighting to survive, would not provide, put up restrictions, or just plain stonewalled DTV providing their programs. I remember writing Congress on those disruptions. Didn't blame DTV, I went to the source of the problem.


----------



## GreatPig

susanandmark said:


> The point YOU'RE missing is that DirecTV will raise our rates as high as their extensive market research says consumers will bear (with an acceptable level of complaining and "churn") at the moment they announce it. They will do that regardless of this, or any other, negotiation. This negotiation is 98% about DirecTV's profit margins and 2% about the amount of those eventual, and inevitable, cost increases to customers.


All businesses are going to charge as much as the market will bear. That's Business 101 and it is why Viacom wants more. Both sides are doing the same thing. It is risk vs reward.


----------



## maartena

fleckrj said:


> The point you are missing is that if DirecTV agrees to pay Viacom 30% more (because after all, it is only 3 cents per subscriber per day), then when Disney, Hearst, Scripts, Discovery, Turner, Rainbow, Comcast, NBC Universal, et. al. all come up for renewal, they are also going to want at least a 30% increase, because that is what DirecTV gave to Viacom.
> 
> If it was only Viacom, you are correct, it is only $10.96 per year per subscriber, but when all of the other providers contracts end, it will end up being 30% of the total bill. Only if DiercTV can keep each individual contract to a 3% to 5% increase, would it be reasonable to expect that your bill will only go up by 3% to 5%.


Exactly. Susan doesn't quite realize how these kinds of negotiations affect the market. DirecTV will renegotiate with Discovery Networks at the end of the year, and there is a good chance (I can't find anything definite on this, but based on a 2003 dispute) that Disney signed a 10 year contract that is due 2013.... and with those two behemots coming up, you know they are watching this closely.

And indeed, if they start demanding 30%, and DirecTV pays a 30% increase of fees to Viacom, Discovery Networks (which is also about 15 channels) and Disney (who owns another 15 or so), we are starting to talk about a big chunk of channels costing 30% more. And 30% is just a number, there have been a few locals asking for 300, and 600% increases.

If DirecTV just rolls over and pays every time a carriage dispute comes along, I would estimate our bills would be about 50% higher than they are now.

We all know they are going to pay a higher price than before. But I would much rather DirecTV take the channels offline for a month and get that number down to 15% more instead of 30% more. Comparing the salaries and bonuses of DirecTV and Viacom it becomes clear to me that Viacom just wants to stuff their CEO's pockets, and while the DirecTV CEO makes a pretty penny at about 6 million a year, he is well below many other CEO's, and not receiving bonuses to the extreme. So any extra money saved here will not go to Mike White buying an island somewhere, but will actually flow back in to the company, which means better technologies, more research, more channels going to HD eventually, and POTENTIALLY not as high of an increase of the price next year. Either way, it is a LOT better for us than just simply rolling over and succumb to media company demands.


----------



## maartena

susanandmark said:


> The point YOU'RE missing is that DirecTV will raise our rates as high as their extensive market research says consumers will bear (with an acceptable level of complaining and "churn") at the moment they announce it. They will do that regardless of this, or any other, negotiation. This negotiation is 98% about DirecTV's profit margins and 2% about the amount of those eventual, and inevitable, cost increases to customers.


There is more than raising rates. As I said, it has become pretty clear by now that any more profit that DirecTV makes isn't lining the pockets of its CEO like it does with Viacom, so even though DirecTV might raise the rates as high as their market research will say the customers can handle, saving more money on contracts like these means that there is more money to go around to develop new technologies, offer customers better retention deals, offer customers cheaper equipment, upgrade HD/encryption/encoding technology, etc, etc.

In the end.... regardless of the standard raise of pricing come February, a lower negotiated price is going to be better for us customers.


----------



## fleckrj

bobcamp1 said:


> It's all about money. D* could just absorb or partially absorb the price increase, after all they've been very profitable and this isn't going to ruin them by any means. Then it wouldn't affect your bill at all.
> 
> But D*'s not going to do that. They'll raise their price regardless of the settlement. And the price increase will be whatever the new agreement is with another 20% on top of that. And they'll blame it *ALL* on Viacom. Viacom may have the majority of the dirty tricks so far, but D* has yet to play their dirtiest trick.


You are correct that DirecTV is not going to absorb the cost. They cannot do that. If they were privately owned, they might be able to absorb the cost, but unfortunately, the primary responsibility of the board of directors of a publicly held company (i.e., a company that issues stock) is to the shareholder - not to the customer. The only leverage the customer has is that at some price point, enough customers will leave that it will adversly affect the shareholder. Until it reaches that point, no publicly held company is going to absorb any cost.


----------



## vobguy

Gar102 said:


> My favorite thing is how Viacom has gotten the actors on their channels to use their own Twitter feeds to tweet about how Directv is wrong and they want their show back. Plus I think they are paying other "stars" to tweet about it.
> Khloe Kasdansians (sp?) tweeted how expensive Directv was and she wanted all her channels she pays for. *I bet she couldnt even tell you how much her Directv bill is per month*.


 :lol::lol: (bolded for emphasis)


----------



## john18

Satelliteracer said:


> Interesting article
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffber...ght-but-directv-is-righter/?partner=yahoofeed


I, for one, hopes that D* doesn't cave in. Why? Because caving continues to set a bad precedent and D* still has expensive infrastructure to pay off and if the net bill to customers gets too high then they will leave and further cut the number of subscribers that help pay for that infrastructure. The same argument goes for that other DBS provider.


----------



## Ira Lacher

Got this from Reuters news. Scroll down to the section called The Conversation.


----------



## BattleScott

The future is direct IP access to content (either free or subscription) and it is only the providers standing in the way of that. The sooner they are driven out of the picture, the better off we consumers will be.


----------



## bobcamp1

maartena said:


> Exactly. Susan doesn't quite realize how these kinds of negotiations affect the market. DirecTV will renegotiate with Discovery Networks at the end of the year, and there is a good chance (I can't find anything definite on this, but based on a 2003 dispute) that Disney signed a 10 year contract that is due 2013.... and with those two behemots coming up, you know they are watching this closely.
> 
> And indeed, if they start demanding 30%, and DirecTV pays a 30% increase of fees to Viacom, Discovery Networks (which is also about 15 channels) and Disney (who owns another 15 or so), we are starting to talk about a big chunk of channels costing 30% more. And 30% is just a number, there have been a few locals asking for 300, and 600% increases.
> 
> If DirecTV just rolls over and pays every time a carriage dispute comes along, I would estimate our bills would be about 50% higher than they are now.


The bills wouldn't be 50% higher. You didn't understand part of it. People are only going to pay so much for their cable bill, then they're going to start cutting services and channels. Neither party wants that. There's a cap as to how much D* and Viacom can charge.

D* gives feedback to the content providers as to how much people will pay for their channels. This feedback is tainted with built-in profit for D*, so Viacom doesn't believe the numbers that D* gives them. So there is a game to find out what the numbers really are.

Also, each content provider wants to charge as much as possible. They don't care how much the other guys get. They know the pie is only so big, but they want the biggest slice for themselves.

I think in the past the pie could get bigger, but in the past two years we've reached that point where people are starting to cut services to keep their bills down. The pie cannot get bigger anymore. I expect most contract negotiations to look like this in the future.

As far as "holding out", nothing is preventing them from coming up with a short term solution while a long term deal is reached. But greed is making both sides use their customers/viewers as leverage in their negotiations. Between pulling the channels, those silly advertising stunts on both sides, and the numbers spin on both sides, people are feeling used and abused. And they don't like it.


----------



## Paul Secic

Chris Blount said:


> Haven't looked if this was posted yet (my connection is slow so I'm lucky to get this post done).
> 
> This is the latest from DTV on their Facebook page:


HD?


----------



## mitchflorida

People don't mind paying for cable channels that they watch. I would pay $2.00 a month for TCM alone. It is just constantly being forced to pay for channels that we never watch. And that for the most part is Viacom. This never ending gimmick of "bundling" the lousy channels with the good ones and making us pay for the whole mess of them is getting tiresome. I would put ESPN in that category too, but I think there would be a civil war if ESPN was cut off. Viacom just doesn't have that kind of leverage, as they are starting to realize.


----------



## Paul Secic

davring said:


> ESPN is not a subsidiary of ABC, or visa versa, Disney owns both.


You're correct!


----------



## rahlquist

Pepe Sylvia said:


> Viacom then tells Directv to jam it. Then what?
> 
> People have no idea how carriage contracts work. :nono2:


True, I don't have that level of insight, closest I ever came was my company was owned by the same parent company who owned TWC up till a few years back.

That said there is the simple fact that Viacom just lost HOW MANY eyes watching commercials on their networks? And just how much does that devalue that commercial airtime and their networks? Are they willing to write that off forever? I highly doubt that. Every minute they are off air with D* is another minute that their commercials become immediately less valuable and over the long haul hurts them as a advertising entity.


----------



## tulanejosh

rahlquist said:


> True, I don't have that level of insight, closest I ever came was my company was owned by the same parent company who owned TWC up till a few years back.
> 
> That said there is the simple fact that Viacom just lost HOW MANY eyes watching commercials on their networks? And just how much does that devalue that commercial airtime and their networks? Are they willing to write that off forever? I highly doubt that. Every minute they are off air with D* is another minute that their commercials become immediately less valuable and over the long haul hurts them as a advertising entity.


There are two sides to that coin - Directv just lost HOW MANY channels that everyone else offers and still charges HOW MUCH more than other providers? How long do people continue to pay more for less?


----------



## maartena

BattleScott said:


> The future is direct IP access to content (either free or subscription) and it is only the providers standing in the way of that. The sooner they are driven out of the picture, the better off we consumers will be.


I think content over IP will be an additional service, to add on to existing television service, but won't replace it any time soon. For starters, 30% of the United States can't get more than about a 3 Mbps connection through DSL, and it doesn't look like there are much initiatives to change that. About 10% of the United States live so rural, it would cost a fortune to wire up those small towns for any type of decent internet connection.

You can't push a single HD stream through that, let alone turning on 2 or 3 TV's in your house. Those people will always have a satellite service of some sort. Right now DirecTV has 20 million customers, Dish about 14 Million. Given the average of 2.1 persons per household, one could conclude that about 70 million Americans receive their television through a satellite dish, either because they choose to (which is most) or because they have no other alternative.

I don't believe this is going to change.

What I do believe will happen is that DirecTV and Dish at some point (and I do believe Dish already does something along these lines with some form of international channel package) will ADD IPTV services to their boxes, for those that have a capable internet connection. This way, DirecTV could actually deliver sub channels to each market, international (news) channels, independent channels, internet-only channels, etc, etc.... and place them on a channel number on your receiver, where it will just tune in to a internet supplied stream when you hit that channel instead of a satellite feed.

I, for one, would be quite happy with a selection of international news channels (e.g. BBC, Al Jazeera, RT, etc, etc) provided via IP, so they show up on my receivers without having to use a separate device to tune in to them.

I believe that DirecTV and Dish will transform in to a hybrid service. With the upcoming 4kHD technology, for which DirecTV says they will be ready, and first Quad/Ultra/4k (however you want to call it) HD services launching around 2016, IPTV is going to have a bit of a harder time, as for a clear 4kHD picture, CURRENTLY a 160 Mbps connection is required, but with advances in encoding/compression, they can probably knock that down to about 40-50 Mbps, which is not the type of connection most Americans will have, not in 2016, not even in 2020. (Of course the internet connection might be there, but will it be able to deliver more than 1 stream? And it will certainly not be there for everyone in the U.S.) So there is future in satellites for quite some time. But DirecTV will probably at some point start to offer IPTV services over the internet as a "add on" package, for channels not worth carrying on satellites.

We'll see how this develops.


----------



## rahlquist

tulanejosh said:


> There are two sides to that coin - Directv just lost HOW MANY channels that everyone else offers and still charges HOW MUCH more than other providers? How long do people continue to pay more for less?


Well lets face it my original suggestion is very self serving, I would rather see my bill go down than Viacom back


----------



## tulanejosh

mitchflorida said:


> People don't mind paying for cable channels that they watch. I would pay $2.00 a month for TCM alone. It is just constantly being forced to pay for channels that we never watch. And that for the most part is Viacom. This never ending gimmick of "bundling" the lousy channels with the good ones and making us pay for the whole mess of them is getting tiresome. I would put ESPN in that category too, but I think there would be a civil war if ESPN was cut off. Viacom just doesn't have that kind of leverage, as they are starting to realize.


Viacom has more leverage than you realize. They used to just get their revenue from advertisers and distrubuters. Now - they have amazon, netflix, hulu, itunes, etc in addition to advertiser and distributers. They're not as much in need of directv money as they once were. Meanwhile - directv still only has about 20MM customers from which to make money - customers which as of right now they charge the same money for less service to.


----------



## tulanejosh

rahlquist said:


> Well lets face it my original suggestion is very self serving, I would rather see my bill go down than Viacom back


You'll be waiting a long time. D* isn't going to lower your bill one way or another.


----------



## susanandmark

I can't believe how much time I wasted posting in this thread (time suck extraordinare), I should have just copied this and replaced the name "Tribune" with "Viacom," same childish ploy, different month.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2988076#post2988076


----------



## HarleyD

Obviously if the cost per subscriber to keep Viacom went up by $10.96 per annum, we would see a rate increase at the beginning of 2013 of no less than $10.96...just to break even on the cost of continuing the existing content. If you factor in other increases in DirecTV's CODB I would guess a $15 hike would be a more realistinc expectation.

With the wailing and gnashing of the teeth that goes on around here when we get the normal $3 annual increase I can only imagine the pandemic apoplexy that would accompany a $15 rate increase. Armageddon would ensue.


----------



## rahlquist

tulanejosh said:


> You'll be waiting a long time. D* isn't going to lower your bill one way or another.


Yeah I know, I just happen to be lucky enough to be out of contract at the moment too


----------



## tulanejosh

HarleyD said:


> Obviously if the cost per subscriber to keep Viacom went up by $10.96 per annum, we would see a rate increase at the beginning of 2013 of no less than $10.96...just to break even on the cost of continuing the existing content. If you factor in other increases in DirecTV's CODB I would guess a $15 hike would be a more realistinc expectation.
> 
> With the wailing and gnashing of the teeth that goes on around here when we get the normal $3 annual increase I can only imagine the pandemic apoplexy that would accompany a $15 rate increase. Armageddon would ensue.


why 10.96 per month if the rate increase from viacom is only 10.96 per year. Viacom's piece of any increase would be 91 cents per month. Of course, they have other carriage agreements to renew, etc. But viacom alone would not result in anything close to an $11/month increase.


----------



## susanandmark

HarleyD said:


> Obviously if the cost per subscriber to keep Viacom went up by $10.96 per annum, we would see a rate increase at the beginning of 2013 of no less than $10.96...just to break even on the cost of continuing the existing content. If you factor in other increases in DirecTV's CODB I would guess a $15 hike would be a more realistinc expectation.
> 
> With the wailing and gnashing of the teeth that goes on around here when we get the normal $3 annual increase I can only imagine the pandemic apoplexy that would accompany a $15 rate increase. Armageddon would ensue.


$10 per YEAR, works out to >$1 month. The "$3 annual increase" you quote (thought it's usually closer to $5) is $3 EVERY MONTH, which works out to $36/year... You're confusing your time periods.

And the funniest part of all this is the exact same people saying they'd rather lose the channels forever than have DirecTV give Viacom one more cent, are the same folks who argue that if you can't afford a $36/year increase you shouldn't be spending your money pay TV anyway.


----------



## BlackCoffee

maartena said:


> I think content over IP will be an additional service, to add on to existing television service, but won't replace it any time soon. ...
> I believe that DirecTV and Dish will transform in to a hybrid service. ..
> 
> We'll see how this develops.


I agree. In essence, DTV is a hybrid getting some of it's content over the internet. This includes the internet APPs that provide a portal to YouTube, etc.

We will see what choices people make in the future. I for one, like some level of redundancy. The new flashy technology of "Cloud" was the solution to everything until recently. Those of us old enough to have started with client-server (the old version of cloud) know why people moved to locally stored data and apps. As broadband connectivity moves away from unlimited free data, as exhibited by wireless companies, and the true cost of cloud storage and reliability is passed on, price points will get closer together. Cost models take time to get defined and marginal utility curves eventually develop a decreasing slope with useage growth.

At least for the near term, DTV will be around and probably evolve.


----------



## mitchflorida

tulanejosh said:


> Viacom has more leverage than you realize. They used to just get their revenue from advertisers and distrubuters. Now - they have amazon, netflix, hulu, itunes, etc in addition to advertiser and distributers. They're not as much in need of directv money as they once were.


With all due respect, I think you are mistaken. What Viacom gets from Netflix, Hulu and their own website advertising is chump change compared to what they get from the Cable/Satellite providers in fees and advertising.

Viacom just got a little greedy and decided to add some "icing to the cake" by shopping it on the internet sites. Looks like it has blown up in their face. That's why they took all of their content on their websites down. Couldn't happen to a nicer group of corporate suits


----------



## HarleyD

susanandmark said:


> I can't believe how much time I wasted posting in this thread (time suck extraordinare), I should have just copied this and replaced the name "Tribune" with "Viacom," same childish ploy, different month.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2988076#post2988076


Can you accept the notion that protecting our costs IS protecting their bottom line.

I don't think anyone realistically sees DirecTV as particularly charitable, but sometimes our best interests are their best interests as well. If they just grab their ankles and accept whatever and then expect us to do likewise when they pass those costs along, they lose customers and it hurts their bottom line.

Standing up for themselves equates to standing up for us as well in this case. Those are inseparable objectives in this matter. They need to contain the cost of doing business in order to contain the cost of their product to us, the subscriber so we contiue to subscribe and pay into their bottom line.

They are absolutely standing up for us...it's just not motivated by anything chivalrous.


----------



## HarleyD

susanandmark said:


> $10 per YEAR, works out to >$1 month. The "$3 annual increase" you quote (thought it's usually closer to $5) is $3 EVERY MONTH, which works out to $36/year... You're confusing your time periods.
> 
> And the funniest part of all this is the exact same people saying they'd rather lose the channels forever than have DirecTV give Viacom one more cent, are the same folks who argue that if you can't afford a $36/year increase you shouldn't be spending your money pay TV anyway.


I stand corrected. You're absolutely right. :eek2:

But my package rate is normally a $3 per year hike.

This year, with the adjustements to the other charges like mirroring fees and DVR charges and my package actually went up by $4 the end result was admittedly more than $3


----------



## F1 Fan

HarleyD said:


> Obviously if the cost per subscriber to keep Viacom went up by $10.96 per annum, we would see a rate increase at the beginning of 2013 of no less than $10.96...just to break even on the cost of continuing the existing content. If you factor in other increases in DirecTV's CODB I would guess a $15 hike would be a more realistinc expectation.
> 
> With the wailing and gnashing of the teeth that goes on around here when we get the normal $3 annual increase I can only imagine the pandemic apoplexy that would accompany a $15 rate increase. Armageddon would ensue.


Fuzzy math there....

The $3 increase (usually slightly more than that) is a monthly increase = $36 per year so covers your $10 or $15 cost.

But I dont disagree with your point (just your math  ). As has been said on here, if Viacom get their 30% (and dont forget Directv offered an increase - and am reading between the lines of about 5%) then all will and our bills will go up by 30% just to keep the status quo.

So for a $100 a month bill the potential is to go up by $30 a month once Viacom, Disney, et al (and I bet ESPN would try something just because) get their way.

I am still for a form of a la carte. And while most people say it will be more expensive I disagree.

There can be bundles such as the current packages which would offset the costs for those people spread across their package. But for those who want true a la carte then pay the price. Supply and Demand. If you say to me that ESPN is going to run me $20 per month a la carte then I have to decide if it is worth it. If it is then I pay, if not then I wont.

If enough people wont pay the demanded price then that has a direct affect on the vendor (ESPN). Either they find ways to cut costs and so deliver at fair market value (see the Apple analogy earlier in the thread). Or raise revenue else where (ads, etc.).

And there comes a tipping point where my a la carte becomes more than a package and I go for the package but am locked in for xx months.

We do the same in my business. I provide IT support. My all you can eat monthly rate is 67% of my hourly rate. I can do that because I know my metrics to the $0.01 and have reduced costs without loss of quality (automation etc.) and be proactive, plus I have a large customer base to offset any glitches.

But I still have people who pay the hourly instead. Some pay less than they would for the monthly. Others pay more each month - yet try telling them to change!

So a mix of packages and a la carte would work. I couldnt double my hourly rate as the customers would not choose it. And I would lose more than would switch to the monthly package. So I find other ways to save and still deliver what they need.


----------



## tulanejosh

mitchflorida said:


> With all due respect, I think you are mistaken. What Viacom gets from Netflix, Hulu and their own website advertising is chump change compared to what they get from the Cable/Satellite providers in fees and advertising.
> 
> Viacom just got a little greedy and decided to add some "icing to the cake" by shopping it on the internet sites. Looks like it has blown up in their face. That's why they took all of their content on their websites down. Couldn't happen to a nicer group of corporate suits


Historically you are correct. Online streaming agreements have been low. However - that's no longer the case. Netflix is a legitimate distributor on its own now and programmers are demanding very large fee increases to keep their digital content on the NF pipes. The starz agreement that starz walked away from was in excess of $300MM per year. The days of low programming fees for streaming providers are over. So my point is in fact valid. Viacom and other providers now have other sources of revenue that they didn't have 5 - 7 years ago that allows them to play hard ball with traditional video distributors.


----------



## tonyd79

"tulanejosh" said:


> Historically you are correct. Online streaming agreements have been low. However - that's no longer the case. Netflix is a legitimate distributor on its own now and programmers are demanding very large fee increases to keep their digital content on the NF pipes. The starz agreement that starz walked away from was in excess of $300MM per year. The days of low programming fees for streaming providers are over. So my point is in fact valid. Viacom and other providers now have other sources of revenue that they didn't have 5 - 7 years ago that allows them to play hard ball with traditional video distributors.


And none of them want directv to give Viacom a 30% increase because everything will go up across the board.

Everyone should be rooting for directv in this. Even you.


----------



## maartena

susanandmark said:


> I can't believe how much time I wasted posting in this thread (time suck extraordinare), I should have just copied this and replaced the name "Tribune" with "Viacom," same childish ploy, different month.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2988076#post2988076


Yup.

Up Next this year: (or possibly moving in to Q1 2013 if expires Dec 31st)
- Discovery Communications. (14 channels)
- CBS Corp. (28 Locals CBS/CW/MyNetwork, Showtime, TMC, a few other channels)

Expected some time soon, maybe 2013:
- Disney/ABC (16 channels, plus 8 Locals, including the 3 biggest DMA's NY, LA, Chi)

Fox was recently renewed (2010 I think) so they won't be bugging DirecTV any time soon I think. There is Ted Turner as well with his networks, and NBC/Comcast with plenty of channels.

In short, we'll see some sort of dispute once a year. This is never ending.


----------



## BlackCoffee

At some level, we are all working with questionable facts. Any attempt to say a 30% increase in the contract between DTV and VIACOM is a direct 30% increase in the pass through of VIACOM to the customer doesn't recognize overhead burdens and profit which normally would multiply a 30% supply cost into a 40% or more pass through cost. 

A lot of the settle now arguments attempt to portray this a isolate and pennies on the dollar. I am not sure that is true.

I can say that the average DTV package is moving above the $99 per month price point that most services like. Strategically, I think DTV needs to contain all cost, I don't think they will be attactive to investors if they allow profit margins to decline.


----------



## lparsons21

maartena said:


> Yup.
> 
> Up Next this year: (or possibly moving in to Q1 2013 if expires Dec 31st)
> - Discovery Communications. (14 channels)
> - CBS Corp. (28 Locals CBS/CW/MyNetwork, Showtime, TMC, a few other channels)
> 
> Expected some time soon, maybe 2013:
> - Disney/ABC (16 channels, plus 8 Locals, including the 3 biggest DMA's NY, LA, Chi)
> 
> Fox was recently renewed (2010 I think) so they won't be bugging DirecTV any time soon I think. There is Ted Turner as well with his networks, and NBC/Comcast with plenty of channels.
> 
> In short, we'll see some sort of dispute once a year. This is never ending.


Yep, we certainly will. And how this current one is being done and its final outcome will determine in no small part just how those negotiations will proceed.

Personally I think this is a battle that has been coming for a long time, I'm actually surprised it didn't happen sooner. And I also think that we can expect more of this over-the-brinkmanship type of actions in upcoming rate negotiations.

As our incomes are not increasing even at a cost of living rate, we as consumers are, or should be, much more demanding in what we get for our dollars. If someone wants more than a cost-of-living rate increase, then they better be ready to provide that extra that makes it worthwhile.


----------



## dxtrfn80

Over/under amount of pages in this thread 1000 pages then another thread with how do I get those channels in my favorites again.


----------



## maartena

BlackCoffee said:


> At least for the near term, DTV will be around and probably evolve.


I don't think they will ever go away. Even in the "IPTV best case scenario", where most Americans can enjoy a 1 Gbps fiberoptic connection to their homes, get QuadHD to 4 or 5 TV's, there will still be a large portion of the United States where it won't be financially feasible to get fast internet connections out to them. At some point, Dish and DirecTV might merge, and perhaps due to IPTV dwindle all the way down to about 5 million customers in total (instead of 20 million and 14 million), they will still be able to run a viable, healthy company with that number, and serve people that can't get ultra high speed internet connections, or are mobile such as RV's, boats. (Including commercial services like TV on board JetBlue flights)

Additionally, even with a 1 Gbps connection you still can't serve a hotel with 300 rooms of all the channels you might want. DirecTV has a solution for that, and many hotels fall outside of city boundaries and aren't served by cable. And at least at this moment, is a hell of a lot cheaper than a 1 Gbps internet connection PLUS whatever a IPTV company charges.

No, satellite based TV services won't be going anywhere. Not for a LONG LONG time, not just for the "near term".


----------



## jburns

This will go like all the rest.

V-30% more
D-No
V-Go dark
D- Big deal
V-Mud
D-Mud
V-More Mud
D-Even more mud
V-Muddier still
D-Muddiest of the muddy
V-We are pleased to be able to announce an agreement with DTV that will allow our faithful viewers to once again watch their favorite programs.
D-We are pleased to announce an agreement that allows us to once again carry V programming at a price our customers can afford.


Next Company- It starts all over again.


----------



## RunnerFL

jburns said:


> This will go like all the rest.
> 
> V-30% more
> D-No
> V-Go dark
> D- Big deal
> V-Mud
> D-Mud
> V-More Mud
> D-Even more mud
> V-Muddier still
> D-Muddiest of the muddy
> V-We are pleased to be able to announce an agreement with DTV that will allow our faithful viewers to once again watch their favorite programs.
> D-We are pleased to announce an agreement that allows us to once again carry V programming at a price our customers can afford.
> 
> Next Company- It starts all over again.


Yup, lather, rinse, repeat...


----------



## crkeehn

F1 Fan said:


> Its only a 1933 Errol Flynn movie - I can live if it doesnt record


:eek2::nono2:

Only a 1933 Errol Flynn movie???? For shame. It is a cinematic masterpiece (IMDB says 1938) and features that great character actor and father of the Skipper, Alan Hale Sr as Little John. :lol:


----------



## HuskerHarley

RunnerFL said:


> Yup, lather, rinse, repeat...


*+1*

This thread is hard to keep up with, I left my house a couple hrs ago and now, two more pages of mostly pissing contest's continuing.

HH


----------



## tonyd79

"HuskerHarley" said:


> +1
> 
> This thread is hard to keep up with, I left house a couple hrs ago and now two more pages of mostly pissing contest's continuing.
> 
> HH


Ah but worth the entertainment. Gotta do something without comedy central.


----------



## Ira Lacher

maartena said:


> (Of course the internet connection might be there, but will it be able to deliver more than 1 stream? And it will certainly not be there for everyone in the U.S.)


One factor to consider is that unlimited data for a single price may be nearing its end. Several IPOs have said they are considering converting to metered internet usage, similar to the way most mobile carriers charge for data use. And if this comes to pass _en masse, _watching TV thru streaming, with its vast amounts of data usage, will be quite unaffordable.


----------



## SteveHas

jburns said:


> This will go like all the rest.
> 
> V-30% more
> D-No
> V-Go dark
> D- Big deal
> V-Mud
> D-Mud
> V-More Mud
> D-Even more mud
> V-Muddier still
> D-Muddiest of the muddy
> V-We are pleased to be able to announce an agreement with DTV that will allow our faithful viewers to once again watch their favorite programs.
> D-We are pleased to announce an agreement that allows us to once again carry V programming at a price our customers can afford.
> 
> Next Company- It starts all over again.


Outstanding. 
This is in fact the apparent SOP for negotiations.
:icon_stup


----------



## tonyd79

Hmm. When dish cut AMC, hardly a peep from directv. Dish is hammering spongebob and the rest on their website. Nice.

Adding: Cable gets it.

http://www.americancable.org/node/3652


----------



## damondlt

Both companys just decided to go on vacation! I doubt half of what they claim they are doing is even taking place.


----------



## TBoneit

oldengineer said:


> Here's what I calculate, based on the fact that Mike White, on CNBC, stated that D* is paying Viacom $500M this year in fees and that Viacom wants an additional $1B over the next 5 years.


Viacom is really lucky I'm not involved in those negotiations.

My theory with regard to rate increases is quite simple.

DirecTV to Viacom. You want an additional 1 Billion dollars, no problem. Just write the contract to start in 2 years so that the savings from us not paying you for those two years equal the increase in price over the life of the contract.

Done, DirecTV gets to save the $1 billion ahead of when they have to start paying the increase. Viacom gets their price increase.

Everybody's happy! !Devil_lol


----------



## adamblast

I cut the cord several years ago. I hate sports, and sports is one of the few advantages left for cable/sat. This really does feel like fighting over the last sushi roll on the Titanic, as someone said... :lol:

Then my parents came for a visit and Dad signed me up again. He said it's in exchange for me looking after Mom (ALZ) whenever he needs a caretaker vacation, so cool, I have D*.

As entertaining as this thread has been, some of you are needlessly arguing over things that aren't either/or, yaknow.

Both *evil megacorps* can be out to screw us over without necessarily being co-equal dicks in this negotiation set.


----------



## susanandmark

TBoneit said:


> Viacom is really lucky I'm not involved in those negotiations.
> 
> My theory with regard to rate increases is quite simple.
> 
> DirecTV to Viacom. You want an additional 1 Billion dollars, no problem. Just write the contract to start in 2 years so that the savings from us not paying you for those two years equal the increase in price over the life of the contract.
> 
> Done, DirecTV gets to save the $1 billion ahead of when they have to start paying the increase. Viacom gets their price increase.
> 
> Everybody's happy! !Devil_lol


Yes! That would be an amazing strategy that would bring great joy to all involved. I mean, sure, the downside is that DirecTV would likely no longer exist. Because, you know, after two years as the sole provider without some of the most watched and popular basic cable channels in existence, a great many of their subscribers will have fled and new acquisitions would have dwindled to a trickle, sending profit percentages plunging into an abyss and making them ripe for, at best, a buyout, and, at worst, being sold off in parts. But, you know, other than being total corporate suicide, it's a really great plan.

Everyone who believes that DirecTV doesn't need Viacom is simply delusional. It's a parasitic relationship, neither can survive without the other but, at least in the near term, Viacom is more independently viable than DirecTV. If DirecTV doesn't have channels it has nothing to sell. It's like how if I'm running a bakery, I gotta get the eggs and butter from the store to make my wares. Now, long term, the grocer will go out of business if EVERYONE (not just my shop) stops buying his goods but, short term, without those eggs, I'm the one who has no cakes to sell. Who do you think goes out of business first?


----------



## Montel

Probably already mentioned before - but how about a Viacom package:

For $3 per month you get all Viacom channels?

I would think that would be cool - sort of a back door to ala carte?


----------



## kulps19

I decided to cancel my Sunday Ticket over this situation. I do love the NFL but I see my favorite team in their home market anyway so I figured I could save a couple bucks and express my displeasure with one of my favorite channels (comedy central) being off the air. The CSR agent told me of course they are coming back soon and let me cancel it. Kinda glad this situation occurred and i got to save a few bucks from it honestly.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Montel said:


> Probably already mentioned before - but how about a Viacom package:
> 
> For $3 per month you get all Viacom channels?
> 
> I would think that would be cool - sort of a back door to ala carte?


maybe with epix being part of that.


----------



## damondlt

Montel said:


> Probably already mentioned before - but how about a Viacom package:
> 
> For $3 per month you get all Viacom channels?
> 
> I would think that would be cool - sort of a back door to ala carte?


No way would they only Charge $3 for the Viacom suite. It would be more like 2-3$ per Viacom Channel.

Your not going to get Directv's rates or any other providers rates for that matter!


----------



## lparsons21

susanandmark said:


> Yes! That would be an amazing strategy that would bring great joy to all involved. I mean, sure, the downside is that DirecTV would likely no longer exist. Because, you know, after two years as the sole provider without some of the most watched and popular basic cable channels in existence, a great many of their subscribers will have fled and new acquisitions would have dwindled to a trickle, sending profit percentages plunging into an abyss and making them ripe for, at best, a buyout, and, at worst, being sold off in parts. But, you know, other than being total corporate suicide, it's a really great plan.


You keep saying how popular all the Viacom channels are, and I suppose the ratings are high. But then with such high ratings, why are their ad rates so low? Maybe because the demo watching isn't buying enough of whatever the advertisers are selling? And of course, there has been a decline in viewership by quite a bit too.

So it isn't that Viacom isn't worth having, it is that it is a very devalued product and the advertisers have seen that and won't buy high priced ad space on their channels. And that tells me that Viacom doesn't deserve any rate increase at all. But give them some pittance increase as an act of charity might be in order...


----------



## lparsons21

damondlt said:


> No way would they only Charge $3 for the Viacom suite. It would be more like 2-3$ per Viacom Channel.
> 
> Your not going to get Directv's rates or any other providers rates for that matter!


I'm sure Viacom would like to get 2-3$ per Viacom channel, but I doubt they'd get many interested in any of those channels at that price.


----------



## tvropro

damondlt said:


> No way would they only Charge $3 for the Viacom suite. It would be more like 2-3$ per Viacom Channel.
> 
> Your not going to get Directv's rates or any other providers rates for that matter!


Here is the Viacom MTV pack on C band:
http://skyvision.com/programming/index.html#mtv

Mini packs do exist and could on Direct too if they wanted it. The Viacom channels are working fine on my C band sub.


----------



## yosoyellobo

damondlt said:


> No way would they only Charge $3 for the Viacom suite. It would be more like 2-3$ per Viacom Channel.
> 
> Your not going to get Directv's rates or any other providers rates for that matter!


Sounds kind of high to me. I would not even pay 2-3$.


----------



## maartena

Montel said:


> Probably already mentioned before - but how about a Viacom package:
> 
> For $3 per month you get all Viacom channels?
> 
> I would think that would be cool - sort of a back door to ala carte?


Would be cool for us customers.

Not cool for Viacom: They want people to channel browse, en up on their channels, and thus watch their advertising.

Not cool for DirecTV: They make more money selling "Choice" type packages with a large amount of channels.

So.... not very likely to happen.

And as others have mentioned: You won't be paying the price Viacom wants, you will be paying the price viacom wants + the amount DirecTV needs to distribute the channel + the amount DirecTV wants as profit.

Seeing as their are many channels people don't want, for a-la-carte to be profitable in any way, you are probably looking at $0.50 per unpopular/hardly watched channel, $1 per average channel, and anywhere from $2 to $5 per popular channel.


----------



## susanandmark

lparsons21 said:


> You keep saying how popular all the Viacom channels are, and I suppose the ratings are high. But then with such high ratings, why are their ad rates so low? Maybe because the demo watching isn't buying enough of whatever the advertisers are selling? And of course, there has been a decline in viewership by quite a bit too.
> 
> So it isn't that Viacom isn't worth having, it is that it is a very devalued product and the advertisers have seen that and won't buy high priced ad space on their channels. And that tells me that Viacom doesn't deserve any rate increase at all. But give them some pittance increase as an act of charity might be in order...


Ad revenue for television advertising across the board is down, sharply, in the past five years. In part due to the economy (companies are spending less on advertising) and in part due to the shift in how we watch television (DVRs). Traditional commercials now earn less. Period.

Also down over all? Pay TV subscriptions.

Both sides are trying to maintain profits on the back's of customers instead of rethinking and reworking their business models to something that works better with the current television watching reality. That is unsustainable, on all sides, long term.

Neither business model is dead, yet, but, just like newspapers and magazines, the ad-sponsored television model of the 1950s is most definitely in serious decline.


----------



## damondlt

tvropro said:


> Here is the Viacom MTV pack on C band:
> http://skyvision.com/programming/index.html#mtv
> 
> Mini packs do exist and could on Direct too if they wanted it. The Viacom channels are working fine on my C band sub.


 Yea you proved my point, its $10 per month for only some of the Viacom channels!

If you want the other's you have to buy another seperate pack!
I didn't see Spike in that line up either.

I would rather do without the Viacoms then have a 10 foot Dish in my back yard! Hows the channel surfing with that thing?:hurah::lol:


----------



## Starchild

Well at least directv stepped up for the kids. According to Bloomberg Disney junior will be added to basic programming as a 24 hour channel tomorrow.


----------



## Sixto

Starchild said:


> Well at least directv stepped up for the kids. According to Bloomberg Disney junior will be added to basic programming as a 24 hour channel tomorrow.


Yep. Tomorrow.


----------



## Ronmort

Honestly, I just found out late yesterday that those channels were off DTV. I hardly ever watch any of them. I hope all is settled soon anyway. If others like those channels, I would hope they become available again. However all channels and packages seem to be way overpriced these days.


----------



## tvropro

damondlt said:


> Yea you proved my point, its $10 per month for only some of the Viacom channels!
> 
> If you want the other's you have to buy another seperate pack!


Yes it is done and can be done. Even in Canada on Shaw (there equivalent to DirecTV) You can buy mini packs of nitch channels over the basics.

Direct and Dish Network follow the US cable model, charge as much as they can and offer very limited options. :nono:

Edited to answer your other questions.

All the subscription channels you pay for on c band are on one satellite so surfing is the same as Direct. Then there are many other satellites with all kind of stuff up there for free. I don't have a 10 foot dish I have a 12 foot


----------



## damondlt

tvropro said:


> Yes it is done and can be done. Even in Canada on Shaw (there equivalent to DirecTV) You can buy mini packs of nitch channels over the basics.
> 
> Direct and Dish Network follow the US cable model, charge as much as they can and offer very limited options. :nono:


 OK sign me up.

I need something like or close to the HR34, plus HR23, and 2 H25s so I can do whole home DVR, and I want NFL sunday ticket and of course something close to the Premier pack!

VOD is a must, as well as the protection plan. And I need someone to install it for free.

Whats the Bill?


----------



## Old_School

latest statement from Directv VIA facebook :



No Drama, Let’s Deal: Viacom can’t get anyone to believe they’re not the ones responsible for cutting off DIRECTV customers’ channels Tuesday night, and then less than 12 hours later, denying everyone in America from getting their top hits for free online. Rather than listen, Viacom’s turning up the volume on a planned radio blitz across top US cities to interrupt everyone’s weekend. Moms and dads are already fed up with Viacom using SpongeBob and Dora to frighten their children. Viacom’s full-page newspaper ads featuring Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert talking about ‘people’s freedom’ fell completely flat when Viacom themselves shut down both TV and Internet access to those very same shows. Consumer protection and free speech advocate Public Knowledge decried their “overreaction as unprecedented.”

Rather than ramp up the propaganda in newspaper ads and radio spots, all we want is to get the channels back on air without an unfair increase to customer bills. We want to enable our customers to enjoy programming, not deny it, so we’ve added 8 new Encore services and opened up PBS Sprout, The Hub, TV One, Fuse and other programming to hopefully help offset some of the inconvenience this has caused.

Viacom just needs to grow up and stop with the misleading propaganda, no one is buying it, and focus their efforts at the negotiating table.


----------



## tvropro

damondlt said:


> OK sign me up.
> 
> I need something like or close to the HR34, plus HR23, and 2 H25s so I can do whole home DVR, and I want NFL sunday ticket and of course something close to the Premier pack!
> 
> VOD is a must, as well as the protection plan. And I need someone to install it for free.
> 
> Whats the Bill?


C band is for the hobbyist that wants to do things himself. If you need the cable model, free install etc why you drink a cold one you need the small dish, cable or IPTV.


----------



## Fraaaak

Davenlr said:


> Read what you posted Fraaaak. The OP asked if he could cancel without an early termination fee. The section of the TOS you just posted specifically says "a deactivation fee or other charges may apply"... i.e. early termination fees.


I am the OP


----------



## damondlt

tvropro said:


> C band is for the hobbyist that wants to do things himself. If you need the cable model, free install etc why you drink a cold one you need the small dish, cable or IPTV.


 Yea I know!:lol:

I have a Skyvision Catalog.


----------



## dxtrfn80

I am so glad that I don't live at a neighbors house because she has 4 kids and they love SpongeBob. Wednesday Morning when they turn the channel to 299 it had the Kids Mix, they were mad at the channel not showing SpongeBob. They did not pay attention to the crawls and ads Tuesday at all just watching SpongeBob. The alternates they did not like Phineas and Ferb, etc. They tuned out of Phineas and Ferb 2 minutes in and wanted SpongeBob instead. Mom told them it is a money issue that the channel was not there. Mom called Direct TV and got a 5 dollar credit but the kids were still not happy as they could not watch SpongeBob. Mom said "Mommy can't fix the problem" and the kids got very upset. Mom did not have any DVD's or recordings in her DVR to fix the problem. All of her friends also have Direct TV and in the same boat as her. Yesterday, they still tune to the channel waiting for SpongeBob to come back but still the same options Phineas and Ferb, etc. The kids still were upset by this situation and began screaming SpongeBob now not later. The kids demanded her switch companies but she said it would cost too much to get out of her contract. She ordered some SpongeBob DVD's yesterday and chose the standard option but the kids wanted next day delivery but she could not afford next day delivery. Today, she had to leave her kids with one of her friends to go out for the day.


----------



## bcrab

Darth Malgus said:


> So how is trying to pay your bills with those working out?


Good, I have repeat long term customers. I also have a waiting list, can't keep up.

You need to remember word of mouth goes a very long way.

Last thing you want to do is piss off the customers.


----------



## tulanejosh

tonyd79 said:


> And none of them want directv to give Viacom a 30% increase because everything will go up across the board.
> 
> Everyone should be rooting for directv in this. Even you.


I dont know why you refuse to see context. The context here is that the the poster made a statement that said viacom has no leverage and can't withstand the loss of D* revenue for very long. And I'm refuting that by pointing out that they have revenue streams that previously didn't exist that enable them not only withstand that loss of revenue but also inflict some pain in turn on D*. The longer and more channels that go dark on the traditional video provider networks, the less reason people have to continue patronizing directv. Unlike D*, Viacom can distribute online to see out new audiences. Directv on the other hand will have trouble gaining back lost customers if their product is inferior.


----------



## Darth Malgus

BlackCoffee said:


> Just so you know, this forum has a lot more to offer than tulanejosh. In other threads we work problems and provide information that helps DTV find and resolve software bugs. The number of posts in not a badge of honor, it is the quality of your comments we care about.
> 
> t* has been whining ever since he lost Jersey Shore-worse than my kids. I just don't spend that much of my life depending on DTV to take it that personnally.
> 
> They have a problem with VIACOM, I don't really care about VIACOMs channels, and I would rather see a decent price from VIACOM since they are in my package whether I want them or not. More power to DTV in this battle.


I can tell he is probably the king of trolls around here, I just pointed out the number of posts in such a manner because I found it ridiculous that he try and use my number of posts to somehow belittle or demean me. So that was just my way of throwing it back his way, and helping him keep a running count.


----------



## zimm7778

dxtrfn80 said:


> I am so glad that I don't live at a neighbors house because she has 4 kids and they love SpongeBob. Wednesday Morning when they turn the channel to 299 it had the Kids Mix, they were mad at the channel not showing SpongeBob. They did not pay attention to the crawls and ads Tuesday at all just watching SpongeBob. The alternates they did not like Phineas and Ferb, etc. They tuned out of Phineas and Ferb 2 minutes in and wanted SpongeBob instead. Mom told them it is a money issue that the channel was not there. Mom called Direct TV and got a 5 dollar credit but the kids were still not happy as they could not watch SpongeBob. Mom said "Mommy can't fix the problem" and the kids got very upset. Mom did not have any DVD's or recordings in her DVR to fix the problem. All of her friends also have Direct TV and in the same boat as her. Yesterday, they still tune to the channel waiting for SpongeBob to come back but still the same options Phineas and Ferb, etc. The kids still were upset by this situation and began screaming SpongeBob now not later. The kids demanded her switch companies but she said it would cost too much to get out of her contract. She ordered some SpongeBob DVD's yesterday and chose the standard option but the kids wanted next day delivery but she could not afford next day delivery. Today, she had to leave her kids with one of her friends to go out for the day.


So, what you are saying is the kids run that household. Ok. Mines 7 and doesn't. He is happy as can be playing in his room right now.


----------



## Darth Malgus

susanandmark said:


> That if we, as customers, actually stood up for ourselves and stopped buying into the corporate PR spin and accepting such egregious treatment, it would stop. Not because corporations are evil, or good (or people, for that matter), but because they will do what's best for their bottom line. So, if we make these stupid lose-lose situations bad for their profit margin, they'll learn to play nice with one another and stop using customers as pawns.


So how exactly do you propose we stand up to D* and Viacom in such away that it affects both of them equally, and leaves customers with a positive outcome on the other side of said action?


----------



## tulanejosh

Darth Malgus said:


> I can tell he is probably the king of trolls around here, I just pointed out the number of posts in such a manner because I found it ridiculous that he try and use my number of posts to somehow belittle or demean me. So that was just my way of throwing it back his way, and helping him keep a running count.


I didn't even see what post you are talking about that you through back my way. Im far from the king of trolls. I just refuse to blindly accept that directv is doing me any favors. That tweaks some people for whatever reason, and they all want to be bmoc's behind anoymous screennames. That said - I've never said Viacom was right, that we should accept a fee increase, that their channels are good/bad, that the programming on them is crap/great or that anyone is stupid for liking/not liking. I'm going to defend my view point, and will not back down when attacked. I'm sorry if you that offends you, I've got nothing against you personally. I felt you attacked me, I pointed out your small number of posts as a veiled attempt to say "hey man, you're new here, don't treat me like a rube on the street corner, ive been posting on this forum for 5 years and know a thing or two". I'll admit the stars swipe was a low blow. You caught me in a frustrated moment.


----------



## Darth Malgus

opfreak said:


> Nope, that typical response is given whenever someone wants to talk about getting a discount.
> 
> If DTV cares about its customers it could just lower its profits and not pass increases on to us.
> 
> But you know that wont happen. Because DTV isn't fighting for you, just like Viacom isn't ethier. They both want fatter bottom lines.


Think beyond the pricing when you talk about D* lowering its own profits to absorb the large increase. They will have less money to bring in new technology, less money to afford the rights for new programming, less money to hire employees (decreased customer service when you have an issue). Less profits will also hurt the company's stock, which will also compound these issues.


----------



## tulanejosh

Darth Malgus said:


> Funny, coming from a guy who looks at posting in forums as some kind of game. Life comprehension. Furthermore, you complain about people not living in the real word, and then demand for things to happen that just don't occur in realty, i.e. D* coming out with a commercial starring The Rock that goes something like this....
> 
> Dwayne Johnson : So Tulanejosh, do you think we care about you? *brief silence* IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK JABRONI!!!!!
> 
> Now that I think about it, that would be kind of awesome. You're on to something there!!
> 
> Oh and thank you for counting my posts for me I lost count. See you trolling around these forums for the foreseeable future.
> 
> P.S. - I now have 4 posts Padawan


That's kinda funny. I'll admit that.

But let's make sure you understand truly what i am saying. I dont want them to care - or rather, i don't care that they don't. I'm good with that. I just want them to stop pretending that that do. Viacom is a scuzzy company, but they are honest with me about their intentions. They'd like for me to watching their channels, but its going to cost me (or in this case - Directv). Does that mean i agree with what they say? Certainly not. Does it mean that directv should bend over? Never said that either. I'm merely pointing out to people that somehow want to personalize this and represent directv as their personal advocate that their allegiance is misguided.

Also with the real world comments - you gotta go back a lot of pages, but i was responding to someone else that made a comment about the real world. I hate that phrase personally. Real is subjective.


----------



## Darth Malgus

susanandmark said:


> In the end, throwing around numbers like "30% percent increase" and "a billion dollars" and "subsidizing the 80% who don't watch Viacom at all" is simply misleading B.S.
> 
> Would DirecTV gain as much traction with the general public saying, "Viacom wants us to pay them about 80 cents more per month per subscriber, which amounts to about $10/year for you?" Doubtful. While some people may very well fight to the death over that $10 year over year, most would be more in the "you took away my channels for that?!?" camp. (And, for the record, I firmly believe that DirecTV AND Viacom are equally complicit in the removal of those channels.)
> 
> Heck, when DirecTV does their annual increase--and they will, regardless of economy, inflation and how these negations go--I guarantee it will be a lot more than $1/month per customer. And the general consensus here will undoubtably be that it's very, very fair and that DirecTV had no choice. No one is going to bite at an inflammatory headline that says "DirecTV demands their customers pay $1 billion more A MONTH for same product!!!" Even if you can do the math (20 million customers with an average increase of $5/month) to make that argument.


If you can throw out anyone's statistics to help your argument, you should not be able to claim your are the authority on what the "majority will think" (ex. While some people may very well fight to the death over that $10 year over year, most would be more in the "you took away my channels for that?!?" camp.). This is the same as using a made up stat.

And not to disparage anyone's math but 20 million x 5 = 100 million a month, we are missing a zero in there to make up that [sic] $1 billion more A MONTH for same product!!!". A theoretical $50 increase across all customers would be a game changer.


----------



## hilmar2k

dxtrfn80 said:


> I am so glad that I don't live at a neighbors house because she has 4 kids and they love SpongeBob. Wednesday Morning when they turn the channel to 299 it had the Kids Mix, they were mad at the channel not showing SpongeBob. They did not pay attention to the crawls and ads Tuesday at all just watching SpongeBob. The alternates they did not like Phineas and Ferb, etc. They tuned out of Phineas and Ferb 2 minutes in and wanted SpongeBob instead. Mom told them it is a money issue that the channel was not there. Mom called Direct TV and got a 5 dollar credit but the kids were still not happy as they could not watch SpongeBob. Mom said "Mommy can't fix the problem" and the kids got very upset. Mom did not have any DVD's or recordings in her DVR to fix the problem. All of her friends also have Direct TV and in the same boat as her. Yesterday, they still tune to the channel waiting for SpongeBob to come back but still the same options Phineas and Ferb, etc. The kids still were upset by this situation and began screaming SpongeBob now not later. The kids demanded her switch companies but she said it would cost too much to get out of her contract. She ordered some SpongeBob DVD's yesterday and chose the standard option but the kids wanted next day delivery but she could not afford next day delivery. Today, she had to leave her kids with one of her friends to go out for the day.


Her kids will be better off for it.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/is-spongebob-squarepants-bad-for-children/


----------



## RunnerFL

Starchild said:


> Well at least directv stepped up for the kids. According to Bloomberg Disney junior will be added to basic programming as a 24 hour channel tomorrow.


Yup, channel 289. That should help out some of the parents who lost Nick.


----------



## tulanejosh

Darth Malgus said:


> If you can throw out anyone's statistics to help your argument, you should not be able to claim your are the authority on what the "majority will think" (ex. While some people may very well fight to the death over that $10 year over year, most would be more in the "you took away my channels for that?!?" camp.). This is the same as using a made up stat.
> 
> And not to disparage anyone's math but 20 million x 5 = 100 million a month, we are missing a zero in there to make up that [sic] $1 billion more A MONTH for same product!!!". A theoretical $50 increase across all customers would be a game changer.


you got that wrong - it's $1B more over the life of a 5 year agreement, so approximately $200M more per year.


----------



## Button Pusher

My 18 year old is upset. She lost all her favorite shows and channels! lol I told her maybe it was time to grow up and watch some adult shows! :lol: That didn't go over to well! :nono2:


----------



## dxtrfn80

zimm7778 said:


> So, what you are saying is the kids run that household. Ok. Mines 7 and doesn't. He is happy as can be playing in his room right now.


She told the kids to try Phineas and Ferb again tomorrow morning and they may like it as was fun for her to watch when she watched it one day while the kids were outside with their friends and their dad. Sometimes not having one show can lead to some new shows and activities. Get out and play it is nice in the mornings before the heat starts in the afternoon.


----------



## Shades228

tulanejosh said:


> That's kinda funny. I'll admit that.
> 
> But let's make sure you understand truly what i am saying. I dont want them to care - or rather, i don't care that they don't. I'm good with that. I just want them to stop pretending that that do. Viacom is a scuzzy company, but they are honest with me about their intentions. They'd like for me to watching their channels, but its going to cost me (or in this case - Directv). Does that mean i agree with what they say? Certainly not. Does it mean that directv should bend over? Never said that either. I'm merely pointing out to people that somehow want to personalize this and represent directv as their personal advocate that their allegiance is misguided.
> 
> Also with the real world comments - you gotta go back a lot of pages, but i was responding to someone else that made a comment about the real world. I hate that phrase personally. Real is subjective.


I think the statement that they don't care is false. I know most people care about it. Now different people might care for different reasons. So I would say that DIRECTV does care and VIACOM does care. However the reasons for caring might be different. DIRECTV cares because at the end of the day having happy customers generates them capital and having unhappy customers doesn't. So this is a long term goal knowing that in the mean time there will be unhappy customer's but not as many as if they had to have a larger price increase. VIACOM cares because they want eyes on their programs and don't want people to learn to stop looking for it. They know that happy viewers remain viewers.

Now you could say that not everyone cares for the same reason or the same level as people because that would be true.


----------



## jdskycaster

tulanejosh said:


> Netflix is a legitimate distributor on its own now and programmers are demanding very large fee increases to keep their digital content on the NF pipes. The starz agreement that starz walked away from was in excess of $300MM per year. The days of low programming fees for streaming providers are over. So my point is in fact valid. Viacom and other providers now have other sources of revenue that they didn't have 5 - 7 years ago that allows them to play hard ball with traditional video distributors.


How is your point still valid? In one sentence you say Viacom has other options. On the other hand you say those same options are not viable because these outlets are successful due to their low prices?

Netflix could not afford a major increase in rates anymore than DTV can and would be and are in the same boat. They already tried to increase rates a year ago and that worked out really well for them.


----------



## Darth Malgus

susanandmark said:


> There are three sides here: Viacom's, DirecTV's and the consumer's. I am firmly in the last camp, and think the other two are both being belligerent, shortsighted and intractable.
> 
> If I want to buy someone's house and they're asking, say, $250k and I make them an offer for $10,000, I should not get indigent, set up camp on their lawn and spend $20,000 to put up a billboard stating all the reasons why they're wrong and I'm right ("it's a crappy house," "no one else wants to buy it," "they should be happy I even made them an offer at all, the ingrates," etc.) when they refuse it.


This example is not even close to what is going on here. Viacom is not listing its channels at a set price for all to purchase. A better example would be if you were instead renting a home and subleasing it at a certain price. Then when your lease expires the owner of the property says you can stay if you pay me %30 more of the term of the next lease for the same home you currently live in, without any improvements or maintenance on my part. You then have some choices.

1. Move on to a place with better rent, leaving your tenant who is sub-leasing out of luck.

2. Pass the expense of the increase on to your tenant if your lease allows you to.

3. Absorb the increase yourself putting yourself at a financial disadvantage, and hurting any future plans you had for the profits you were making with this arrangement.

4. Negotiate with the owner of the property. "I am already here, if I move you will have a span of time in which you are not collecting my rent for your empty property, which you still must pay taxes on at the end of the year. It is more beneficial for both of us if we can come to an agreement that will allow you to keep your income, and save me the cost of moving, and finding a new place. I'm sure we can work out a deal". Which is what D* tried to do, and basically the property owner evicted them while the negotiations were going on.

See the difference?


----------



## Shades228

damondlt said:


> Both companys just decided to go on vacation! I doubt half of what they claim they are doing is even taking place.


Damn I missed that memo.


----------



## Shades228

jdskycaster said:


> How is your point still valid? In one sentence you say Viacom has other options. On the other hand you say those same options are not viable because these outlets are successful due to their low prices?
> 
> Netflix could not afford a major increase in rates anymore than DTV can and would be and are in the same boat. They already tried to increase rates a year ago and that worked out really well for them.


Correct and look how much content they have lost in their streaming compared to what they have added. I sign up for Netflix about once a year for a couple of months but I always end up canceling it after a couple of months because after the initial jonesing of a show is over there's not much content for me to care about worth paying for.


----------



## tulanejosh

Shades228 said:


> I think the statement that they don't care is false. I know most people care about it. Now different people might care for different reasons. So I would say that DIRECTV does care and VIACOM does care. However the reasons for caring might be different. DIRECTV cares because at the end of the day having happy customers generates them capital and having unhappy customers doesn't. So this is a long term goal knowing that in the mean time there will be unhappy customer's but not as many as if they had to have a larger price increase. VIACOM cares because they want eyes on their programs and don't want people to learn to stop looking for it. They know that happy viewers remain viewers.
> 
> Now you could say that not everyone cares for the same reason or the same level as people because that would be true.


We're essentially saying the same thing. I feel directv cares only in so far as keeping me happy keeps me spending money with them. Hash tags like #directvhasmyback are misrepresenting their intentions. If said - hey we can't support this increase becuase its too much burden to place on our customers. They already spend more with us than they would with our competitors, if we pass this on, they'll leave us and that hurts our bottom line. Maybe its a slight different, but i respect it a heck of a lot more than falsely pretending to be my buddy.


----------



## tulanejosh

Shades228 said:


> Correct and look how much content they have lost in their streaming compared to what they have added. I sign up for Netflix about once a year for a couple of months but I always end up canceling it after a couple of months because after the initial jonesing of a show is over there's not much content for me to care about worth paying for.


You need to look at NF as a competiting video distribution provider becuase that's what it is. Its a 20MM strong online streaming video distribution network. That's how directv sees it - that's how Viacom sees it.

Your usage of the service - while perfect for you - probably isn't representative for the whole.

NF isn't going away - they are willing to pay for their content, and they look ever more appealing to the Viacoms of the world when the Directvs of the world start shutting them out. Directv is the harbinger of its own doom if it takes this too far.


----------



## tulanejosh

jdskycaster said:


> How is your point still valid? In one sentence you say Viacom has other options. On the other hand you say those same options are not viable because these outlets are successful due to their low prices?
> 
> Netflix could not afford a major increase in rates anymore than DTV can and would be and are in the same boat. They already tried to increase rates a year ago and that worked out really well for them.


I said viacom has other options to withstand mid term revenue loss. And they do. Netflix streaming wasn't around 5 years ago. neither was hulu. Neither was Amazon Video prime. All of those companies are willing to put up major cash to Viacom and other programmers. NF alone said it was willing to pay out nearly $2B in programming costs this year to bolster is streaming library. That's not chump change.

I never made the other statement.


----------



## tonyd79

"tulanejosh" said:


> You need to look at NF as a competiting video distribution provider becuase that's what it is. Its a 20MM strong online streaming video distribution network. That's how directv sees it - that's how Viacom sees it.
> 
> Your usage of the service - while perfect for you - probably isn't representative for the whole.
> 
> NF isn't going away - they are willing to pay for their content, and they look ever more appealing to the Viacoms of the world when the Directvs of the world start shutting them out. Directv is the harbinger of its own doom if it takes this too far.


Right. Because Viacom will not start raising prices on Netflix which does what he does because it is a cheap service. If they become a real player vis a vis cable and satellite, then the prices go up as does the price of Netflix. As does the price of Internet.

I see the Netflix model as even less viable down the road than satellite or cable. They are living in the moment.


----------



## tulanejosh

tonyd79 said:


> Right. Because Viacom will not start raising prices on Netflix which does what he does because it is a cheap service. If they become a real player vis a vis cable and satellite, then the prices go up as does the price of Netflix. As does the price of Internet.
> 
> I see the Netflix model as even less viable down the road than satellite or cable. They are living in the moment.


That's not true - fees have already started to get raised on them. Starz for example got 30M a year in their first deal, and demanded more than $500 for their next. It's why Starz content is no longer on NF.

And as far as their model - they are just a different version of Cable and Sat. A non-telco on demand IPTV service is the most apt comparison. Its equally as valid if they can figure out how to get more content. And they'll figure that out quickly if Viacom and the like are no longer feeling beholden to their Cable/Sat partners. The only reason they stay away from netflix now if their traditional bed fellows prefer that they do so. But that changes if D* is no longer in the picture.


----------



## BattleScott

Darth Malgus said:


> So how exactly do you propose we stand up to D* and Viacom in such away that it affects both of them equally, and leaves customers with a positive outcome on the other side of said action?


If you want to watch Viacom programming, then DirecTV is the one you need to stand up to. Switch providers to someone who is carrying Viacom.

If you don't think Viacom programming is worth any additional money, then you are already standing up to them by staying with DirecTV.

Viacom is hoping you will go the first route, DirecTV is hoping for the second. So, the only way to truly stand up to BOTH of them is to take your ball and go home.


----------



## jdskycaster

tulanejosh said:


> That's not true - fees have already started to get raised on them. Starz for example got 30M a year in their first deal, and demanded more than $500 for their next. It's why Starz content is no longer on NF.


Correct, and furthermore let's see how viable the NF model is when they have to double or even triple their subcriber fees.

I dropped physical media from my NF subscription when they raised rates on me last year (as did hundreds of thousands of other subs). I recently dumped my streaming service as I had not watched anything of value in the last 6 months. I do however maintain Amazon Prime because I like the express shipping options and I purchase a ton of goods from Amazon. Their streaming video service is merely a bonus but would not come close to replacing my sat provider.


----------



## Bradman

dxtrfn80 said:


> I am so glad that I don't live at a neighbors house because she has 4 kids and they love SpongeBob. Wednesday Morning when they turn the channel to 299 it had the Kids Mix, they were mad at the channel not showing SpongeBob. They did not pay attention to the crawls and ads Tuesday at all just watching SpongeBob. The alternates they did not like Phineas and Ferb, etc. They tuned out of Phineas and Ferb 2 minutes in and wanted SpongeBob instead. Mom told them it is a money issue that the channel was not there. Mom called Direct TV and got a 5 dollar credit but the kids were still not happy as they could not watch SpongeBob. Mom said "Mommy can't fix the problem" and the kids got very upset. Mom did not have any DVD's or recordings in her DVR to fix the problem. All of her friends also have Direct TV and in the same boat as her. Yesterday, they still tune to the channel waiting for SpongeBob to come back but still the same options Phineas and Ferb, etc. The kids still were upset by this situation and began screaming SpongeBob now not later. The kids demanded her switch companies but she said it would cost too much to get out of her contract. She ordered some SpongeBob DVD's yesterday and chose the standard option but the kids wanted next day delivery but she could not afford next day delivery. Today, she had to leave her kids with one of her friends to go out for the day.


Cool story, bro.


----------



## tonyd79

"tulanejosh" said:


> That's not true - fees have already started to get raised on them. Starz for example got 30M a year in their first deal, and demanded more than $500 for their next. It's why Starz content is no longer on NF.
> 
> And as far as their model - they are just a different version of Cable and Sat. A non-telco on demand IPTV service is the most apt comparison. Its equally as valid if they can figure out how to get more content. And they'll figure that out quickly if Viacom and the like are no longer feeling beholden to their Cable/Sat partners. The only reason they stay away from netflix now if their traditional bed fellows prefer that they do so. But that changes if D* is no longer in the picture.


You just made my point. They fail quickly when the prices go up. And, no, they are not the same model. They do not own the pipeline which cable and satellite do. Huge difference.


----------



## tulanejosh

"jdskycaster" said:


> Correct, and furthermore let's see how viable the NF model is when they have to double or even triple their subcriber fees.
> 
> I dropped physical media from my NF subscription when they raised rates on me last year (as did hundreds of thousands of other subs). I recently dumped my streaming service as I had not watched anything of value in the last 6 months. I do however maintain Amazon Prime because I like the express shipping options and I purchase a ton of goods from Amazon. Their streaming video service is merely a bonus but would not come close to replacing my sat provider.


People are already comfortable paying sat and cable $150 month. $25 - $75 for NF is a relative steal.

Cost won't be NF problem. Bandwidth caps are another story.


----------



## jdskycaster

I personally applaud DTV for standing up to Viacom just as I did Dish standing up to AMC. Something has to change and no change has ever been affected by maintaining status quo. I will live without AMC on Dish - I can get it elsewhere if I feel it is worth the price they are asking per show. Although I think losing 17 channels is a bit tougher to swallow I can honestly say if Dish were in the same situation I would want them to react the same way as DTV.


----------



## MartyS

I'm simply amazed at the number of lawyers and accountants we have on DBSTalk.


----------



## tulanejosh

"tonyd79" said:


> You just made my point. They fail quickly when the prices go up. And, no, they are not the same model. They do not own the pipeline which cable and satellite do. Huge difference.


That's a fair point on the pipes. You are correct there.

But i think it's more an issue of not wanting to maintain two $100 services not a reluctance to pay NF $100 if the content is there.


----------



## lparsons21

Button Pusher said:


> My 18 year old is upset. She lost all her favorite shows and channels! lol I told her maybe it was time to grow up and watch some adult shows! :lol: That didn't go over to well! :nono2:


I can imagine having raised one myself and fostering probably another 30 or so teenage girls.

If you're real lucky she'll go in her room and pout!! 

Or write some drivelly poetry, or tweet until her thumbs go numb!


----------



## Darth Malgus

bcrab said:


> Good, I have repeat long term customers. I also have a waiting list, can't keep up.
> 
> You need to remember word of mouth goes a very long way.
> 
> Last thing you want to do is piss off the customers.


I think your missing the point, you can't use "good feelings" as currency, at some point you have to make money.


----------



## tonyd79

"tulanejosh" said:


> People are already comfortable paying sat and cable $150 month. $25 - $75 for NF is a relative steal.
> 
> Cost won't be NF problem. Bandwidth caps are another story.


Another bad parallel. NF is nowhere near delivering the same content and never will be. They will not be delivering sports or news. They are only the On Demand part of the equation and in your price analysis remember that you have to pay for high(er) bandwidth to support them especially of you do multiple TVs.

Bring realism into the equation.


----------



## Darth Malgus

tulanejosh said:


> That's kinda funny. I'll admit that.
> 
> Also with the real world comments - you gotta go back a lot of pages, but i was responding to someone else that made a comment about the real world. I hate that phrase personally. Real is subjective.


Two points on which we can agree


----------



## Darth Malgus

tulanejosh said:


> you got that wrong - it's $1B more over the life of a 5 year agreement, so approximately $200M more per year.


I was not referring to the actual numbers going on in the real life negotiations, I was referring to the numbers thrown out as an extreme example. If you look at the posts, the example made states 1 bil a month for 20 mil subs = $5 per sub.


----------



## APB101

MartyS said:


> I'm simply amazed at the number of lawyers and accountants we have on DBSTalk.


:blush: :lol: :goodjob: :glasses: :icon_da:​


----------



## darkpowrjd

From what I gather, we have:

- People who don't ever want to see a Viacom owned channel again, and will stop at nothing to drive that point home, going so far as to insult and troll those that dare to disagree with them.
- People who just want DTV and Via to come to an agreement already so people will shut up about it.
- People who are upset at Via for going as far as they are about this, but wouldn't mind having the channels back.
- People who want DTV to at least consider the possible thing Via wants: their other channels on the service. They might think of DTV as a sort of channel nazi that is deciding what viewers value, as they did with G4, and they see the G4 issue as the stumbling block in DTV's way.

In all of these, it seems the opinions are pretty much set in stone, and good luck trying to get any of them to have an open mind (or to even stop trolling the thread constantly).

One common denominator seems to be present, though: Via and DTV seem to not believe in happy mediums, middle of the road agreements. It's all "my way or the highway" and childish games that makes us wonder how the people that own these companies passed high school!


----------



## TheRatPatrol

"tvropro" said:


> Here is the Viacom MTV pack on C band:
> http://skyvision.com/programming/index.html#mtv
> 
> Mini packs do exist and could on Direct too if they wanted it. The Viacom channels are working fine on my C band sub.


I say bring back a C Band type of distribution, cut out the middle man, and let the consumer pick the channels they want.


----------



## lparsons21

While much of your post is right on, you miss the really big picture.

Both D* and E* know that at some dollar level, they will reach the tipping point when people will just say screw it to pay tv, or reduce their subscription level to some very low package. And they know that with the economy the way it is with prices of practically everything going up and getting less for it, and the paychecks/retirement checks of the consumer not even coming close to keeping up, that tipping point is coming too close.

So that's where we're at. Both sides of the table think they are being totally reasonable in their positions. But both D* and E* know that if they give in to these outlandish rate hikes, then the next content producer will want hikes in that same general range. And that is certainly not what any of us want!


----------



## lparsons21

TheRatPatrol said:


> I say bring back a C Band type of distribution, cut out the middle man, and let the consumer pick the channels they want.


LOL! C-Band has always been with middle men. You never bought the package/channel from the actual content provider.


----------



## tulanejosh

"tonyd79" said:


> Another bad parallel. NF is nowhere near delivering the same content and never will be. They will not be delivering sports or news. They are only the On Demand part of the equation and in your price analysis remember that you have to pay for high(er) bandwidth to support them especially of you do multiple TVs.
> 
> Bring realism into the equation.


It was also once probably said that there will never be satellites in space Beaming down tv for you to watch. Never is a strong word and you have no way to really truly prove never.


----------



## georule

Well, it's probably not in HD, but D* adding Disney, Jr (noted to be a permanent addition in the PR, tho probably what they really mean is "not just until Viacom settles") is certainly a serious development. That's a long-term committment, unlike (probably) what Viacom had in mind in taking down online access.


----------



## bobcamp1

georule said:


> Well, it's probably not in HD, but D* adding Disney, Jr (noted to be a permanent addition in the PR, tho probably what they really mean is "not just until Viacom settles") is certainly a serious development. That's a long-term committment, unlike (probably) what Viacom had in mind in taking down online access.


Well, it's long term until the Disney/ESPN/ABC contract is up. Then it goes off the air while the contract is negotiated.

When exactly is that? I have to plan on not having those channels for a couple of weeks.


----------



## jasonblair

MartyS said:


> I'm simply amazed at the number of lawyers and accountants we have on DBSTalk.


The real intellectual property and communications industry lawyers (like myself) remain silent on the issue...


----------



## Davenlr

Now that they added Disney Jr... all that is left is to switch FUSE to HD, Contract with John Stewart and Stephen Colbert to do their shows on the AUDIENCE network, and use the remaining recovered HD space and money to obtain BBCA, H2, NatGeoWild, and a few other requested channels. Then call it a day and watch Viacom stock drop


----------



## carl6

jasonblair said:


> The real intellectual property and communications industry lawyers (like myself) remain silent on the issue...


Good. Why would we want to confuse an emotional argument with facts :lol:


----------



## APB101

Davenlr said:


> Now that they added Disney Jr... all that is left is to switch FUSE to HD, Contract with John Stewart and Stephen Colbert to do their shows on the AUDIENCE network, and use the remaining recovered HD space and money to obtain BBCA, H2, NatGeoWild, *and a few other requested channels*. Then call it a day and watch Viacom stock drop


At least 20 HDs in addition to what you had mentioned (including the HD for Disney Junior).


----------



## susanandmark

Darth Malgus said:


> And not to disparage anyone's math but 20 million x 5 = 100 million a month, we are missing a zero in there to make up that [sic] $1 billion more A MONTH for same product!!!".


I apologize for the typo. It should have stated "year" not "month." I corrected it. Of course, typo or not, you are also taking it out of context, I was using it as an example of an unnecessarily inflammatory statement--a "cheat" of the facts--of the type that is being used by DirecTV and Viacom to rile up their bases, not as a statement of belief or accuracy or "statistic to make my point."

My point was that both sides the "pennies a day" and "Viacom wants to increase your bill 30%" talking points are bogus. Viacom is not Oliver Twist ("please sir, can I have some more") and DirecTV is not Dudley Do Right.

A good article about the level of discourse and debate and likely eventual outcome despite all this hype: http://money.cnn.com//2012/07/13/te...paign=Feed:+rss/money_technology+(Technology)

So they are going to take away our channels for goodness knows how long and save a lousy, what 30 cents PER YEAR per customer? (Difference between the 30% increase Viacom reports that it requested and the 27% the quoted industry analysts think they'll eventually get.) I'm sure DirecTV is spending that, and then some, on the negative PR campaign, incentives to customers and other nonsense. Just frustrating! So they've "got my back" how again????


----------



## David MacLeod

MartyS said:


> I'm simply amazed at the number of lawyers and accountants we have on DBSTalk.


I would have used a different description......


----------



## Billzebub

HarleyD said:


> Obviously if the cost per subscriber to keep Viacom went up by $10.96 per annum, we would see a rate increase at the beginning of 2013 of no less than $10.96...just to break even on the cost of continuing the existing content. If you factor in other increases in DirecTV's CODB I would guess a $15 hike would be a more realistinc expectation.
> 
> With the wailing and gnashing of the teeth that goes on around here when we get the normal $3 annual increase I can only imagine the pandemic apoplexy that would accompany a $15 rate increase. Armageddon would ensue.


I wasn't a math major, but how does $10.96 per year translate to $15 per month?


----------



## tvropro

lparsons21 said:


> LOL! C-Band has always been with middle men. You never bought the package/channel from the actual content provider.


I beg to differ. When I started with C band back in 1987 you dealt with the programmers themselves. I dealt with HBO, Showtime/Viacom, Disney etc directly. In the early 90's 3rd party packagers came on the scene and was the ones tied into the GI/Motorola computer for authorization and took your money and gave it to the programmers.

I actually could get a commercial receiver now then call Viacom and get it subscribed (just like Direct does) if I was willing to pay the fees of being a provider with subscribers and the minimum amount needed to be a distributer of services.


----------



## maartena

Davenlr said:


> Now that they added Disney Jr... all that is left is to switch FUSE to HD, Contract with John Stewart and Stephen Colbert to do their shows on the AUDIENCE network, and use the remaining recovered HD space and money to obtain BBCA, H2, NatGeoWild, and a few other requested channels. Then call it a day and watch Viacom stock drop


It is not sure at all whether Disney Jr. is going to be HD. More likely it will be SD.


----------



## maartena

Darth Malgus said:


> So how exactly do you propose we stand up to D* and Viacom in such away that it affects both of them equally, and leaves customers with a positive outcome on the other side of said action?


Well.... you could cancel DirecTV and sign up with Dish, and that would help with affecting DirecTV.

Then, you could make yourself a promise to NEVER EVER tune into any of the Viacom channels. Maybe create a favorite list that omits them, or put parental blocking in place so you never accidentally watch them.

That might affect Viacom, but only so much that you won't see their commercials, you are still helping to pay for them.

You could also cancel TV service altogether.


----------



## Billzebub

At the risk of sounding rational let's look at what is really going on here.

1. Viacom has made a decision concerning what they need from DIRECTV to continue selling them their product. That's their right, it's their product.

2. DIRECTV has made a decision that they don't think the increase is warrented and therefor has not agreed to buy that product at the new price. That's their right, it's their money.

3. Viacom has rejected DIRECTV's offer to leave the channels up while they continue to negotiate. That's not only their right, it's the only sensible position to take if you feel you need an increase. The status quo does not serve their purpose and puts no preasure on DIRECTV.

4. Customers will have to decide if the loss of these channels (either long or short term) is in their best interests. If not, they are free to choose a different provider. That's their right, it's their money.

5. Of course, those customers may have contracts that aren't expired. That is the price for choosing sat tv and getting free equipment. If they weren't aware of it they weren't paying attention. The lesson is now learned and they can either pay the ETF or live without the channels for up to 24 months.

6. The point is, no matter what anyone says on twitter, there are no good guys or bad guys here. It's just business. I know everyone likes to choose sides, but this is not a holy war, it's a business deal.

In any case, it might make sense to look at this as an opportunity rather than a problem. 

I've negotiated a few contracts in my life and the money will work out eventually. The opportunity arises when the possibilty of additional channels (I'm really thinking about Epix here) is added to the equation. It's entirely possible that when this dispute is over there will be some new additions to the channel lineup.

Of course, the cost of the service will rise (it always does) and some people will complain about the increase. As I said in #4 above, it's their money and they can choose to find a different provider.

Ok, I've gotten that off my chest. Now let's get back to threatening lawsuits and asking for congressional action.


----------



## BattleScott

susanandmark said:


> I apologize for the typo. It should have stated "year" not "month." I corrected it. Of course, typo or not, you are also taking it out of context, I was using it as an example of an unnecessarily inflammatory statement--a "cheat" of the facts--of the type that is being used by DirecTV and Viacom to rile up their bases, not as a statement of belief or accuracy or "statistic to make my point."
> 
> My point was that both sides the "pennies a day" and "Viacom wants to increase your bill 30%" talking points are bogus. Viacom is not Oliver Twist ("please sir, can I have some more") and DirecTV is not Dudley Do Right.
> 
> A good article about the level of discourse and debate and likely eventual outcome despite all this hype: http://money.cnn.com//2012/07/13/te...paign=Feed:+rss/money_technology+(Technology)
> 
> So they are going to take away our channels for goodness knows how long and save a lousy, what 30 cents PER YEAR per customer? (Difference between the 30% increase Viacom reports that it requested and the 27% the quoted industry analysts think they'll eventually get.) I'm sure DirecTV is spending that, and then some, on the negative PR campaign, incentives to customers and other nonsense. Just frustrating! So they've "got my back" how again????


It is not ground-breaking info but it does point out very well how twisted DirecTV is when it comes to this stuff. The math shows the Viacom increase would cost DirecTV another 144M per year. If DirecTV increased our rates by 30% (using a 90 ARPU figure) that would generate another 540M. The reality is they could offset the 144M with an 8% increase.

But, if you remember, they used the very same "creative math" in February when "they only raised our rates by 4% while they expect their costs to go up by as much as 10%", so we are already funding around 1B in increased programming costs for this year. So even if they give Viacom the whole 30%, we still have another 700-800M to go.

Bottom line, they raised our rates this year "in anticipation of ever-increasing programming costs", now that they are coming, they instead drop the channels. Nice double dip on thier part.


----------



## rainydave

I'm missing some fine entertainment!


----------



## damondlt

Shades228 said:


> Damn I missed that memo.


Only Millionares got that memo!


----------



## Davenlr

Rainydave hahaha


----------



## Laxguy

Davenlr said:


> Now that they added Disney Jr... all that is left is to switch FUSE to HD, Contract with John Stewart and Stephen Colbert to do their shows on the AUDIENCE network, and use the remaining recovered HD space and money to obtain BBCA, H2, NatGeoWild, and a few other requested channels. Then call it a day and watch Viacom stock drop


Kinda like that scenario! :righton:


----------



## Laxguy

Billzebub said:


> At the risk of sounding rational let's look at what is really going on here.
> 
> 1. Viacom has made a decision concerning what they need from DIRECTV to continue selling them their product. That's their right, it's their product.


Want, not "need".


----------



## felickz

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> Really? This post is from you in 2006:
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=680126#post680126
> 
> That's a mighty long two year agreement. :lol:


Damn you and your detective skills. Is it that hard to believe they left a bad taste in my mouth after forcing the directv dvr's on us after we were all in love with tivo? I felt like a beta tester, not getting paid for it.

I have joined directv under some different name whilst moving ( wife FTW ... knew she was good for something). Unfortunately i am out of names if i need to be a new subscriber to directv again.


----------



## felickz

Que said:


> 1998 Total choice PLATINUM 47.99
> 1999 Total Choice $29.99
> 2000 Total Choice $31.99
> 2003 Total Choice $33.99 $4.99 DVR service $4.99 Additional Receiver
> 2004 Total Choice $36.99
> 2005 Total Choice $41.99
> 2006 Total Choice $44.99 $5.99 DVR Service
> 2007 Total Choice $47.99
> 2008 Total Choice $50.99
> 2009 Total Choice $53.99 $6.00 DVR Service $5.00 Additional Receiver
> 2010 Total Choice $57.49 $7.00 DVR Service
> 2011 Total Choice $60.49 $6.00x2 Additional Receiver
> 2012 Total Choice $64.49 $8.00 DVR Sevice $6.00x2


 Wow ... first time seeing that in perspective!


----------



## don s

Billzebub said:


> At the risk of sounding rational let's look at what is really going on here.
> 
> ........
> 
> 3. Viacom has rejected DIRECTV's offer to leave the channels up while they continue to negotiate. That's not only their right, *it's the only sensible position to take if you feel you need an increase.* The status quo does not serve their purpose and puts no preasure on DIRECTV.


There are 100 different ways to do business. Taking the action that pisses the customers off in the worst way is most definitely NOT the "only sensible" position to take. Don't you think every single other negotiation between content owners and providers has the content folks "feeling they need an increase"? I bet they all go in with that position. Rarely has it come to this (though more frequently lately). Unless all the previous, successful negotiations (where we customers kept channels during bargaining) were done in a non-sensible manner?



Billzebub said:


> 6. The point is, no matter what anyone says on twitter, *there are no good guys or bad guys here*. It's just business. I know everyone likes to choose sides, but this is not a holy war, it's a business deal.
> 
> ...


That's just a copout. Again there are 100 ways to "do business". Most of the time companies "do business" without depriving customers of content. If you somehow feel that DTV in this case actually wanted the channels to be turned off, I guess you could then argue the "no good guys, no bad guys" line. But that is clearly not the case. So to just about any reasonable observer (with limited the facts of the negotiation that we know), it's seems quite hard to not see Viacom as the "bad guys" here. They are, we all know it. There's no care, not the slightest compassion for the end customer in Viacom's actions.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Billzebub said:


> Ok, I've gotten that off my chest. Now let's get back to threatening lawsuits and asking for congressional action.


Or we could not have the government intervene and have the laissez-faire we see in Mexico.

Televisa has 70% and 55% of the broadcast and PayTv market, respectively. Azteca has 25% of the broadcast TV market.

When D* tried to go into the Mexican market about a decade ago, it failed because Televisa refused to offer its very popular broadcast TV channels to D*. When D* appealed to the government for help, the government responded, it's a private matter.

When Carlos Slim began to criticize the TV duopoly, Televisa refused to allow him to advertise any of his brands on any of its TV stations. He appealed to the government, and it responded that Televisa can do as it wants with its frequencies. So, Slim Helu went from spending hundreds of millions in TV advertising to 0 within months, negatively impacting his companies.

How's that for laissez-faire capitalism.


----------



## tonyd79

Latest Facebook update sounded pretty positive. 

Included the line "This isn't your business. It is ours. And we mean to do it."


----------



## TheRatPatrol

"tonyd79" said:


> Latest Facebook update sounded pretty positive.
> 
> Included the line "This isn't your business. It is ours. And we mean to do it."


Wow. Interesting.

Again I hope whatever happens they are offered and take every available HD feed.


----------



## tulanejosh

kokishin said:


> Why don't you provide the english translation of what you said in Japanese and see how long you last on this board. I dare you!
> 
> Guess I struck a nerve without using foul, nasty language unlike you.


Let's take our words outside as it were. You have a PM waiting for you and i eagerly await your response.


----------



## tonyd79

"tulanejosh" said:


> Let's take our words outside as it were. You have a PM waiting for you and i eagerly await your response.


Hey. I wanna hear what you said. No fair! LOL!!!


----------



## tonyd79

"TheRatPatrol" said:


> Wow. Interesting.
> 
> Again I hope whatever happens they are offered and take every available HD feed.


Maybe something good can come out of all this. We will see. The only hd from viacom that we don't have that I'd watch at all would be tvland.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

From the closed Viacom Solutions thread



adkinsjm said:


> A la carte means higher bills for most customers.





JoeTheDragon said:


> really I only really want comedy and maybe spike


People don't seem to understand the issue with the bundling. Viacom wants all these different channels so they can sell advertising. Do they really have enough original programming for 2 MTV channels, 2 VH1 channels, Bet and Centric. Point being, they could consolidate the channels themselves if they wanted to raise the value of each individual channel.


----------



## Shades228

I think you both need to go to the User CP and just ignore eachother:


----------



## tulanejosh

Shades228 said:


> I think you both need to go to the User CP and just ignore eachother:


Done. Didn't know how to do that, had been searching for the last 15 minutes. Ty.


----------



## MONSTERMAN

I'm really getting fed up with DIRECTV's GREED!!!

DIRECTV makes $5 Billion in PROFIT and is expected to have a record year in 2012. DIRECTV has the choice of pocketing your dollars and they clearly do - they have raised their rates *52% in the past seven years*, tripling their profitability in that time. Our channels represent 20% of DIRECTV viewing but only 5% of their programming budget so yes, we absolutely think an increase is fair, but clearly this does not need to be passed onto you. DIRECTV can afford a couple pennies a day for its loyal, hardworking customers.

Disgusting the way these DIRECTV corporate CEO's are sooo GODDAMN greedy. I'm seriously thinking about making the switch to ATT UVERSE now after being with Directv since 1996, b/c I think this will just keep happening every few months from now on with other companies. Doesn't anybody remember that other fiasco months ago with FX. I think this will just keep happening, DIRECTV needs to really clean their house of these corporate greedy bastards...


----------



## cariera

BattleScott said:


> It is not ground-breaking info but it does point out very well how twisted DirecTV is when it comes to this stuff. The math shows the Viacom increase would cost DirecTV another 144M per year. If DirecTV increased our rates by 30% (using a 90 ARPU figure) that would generate another 540M. The reality is they could offset the 144M with an 8% increase.
> 
> But, if you remember, they used the very same "creative math" in February when "they only raised our rates by 4% while they expect their costs to go up by as much as 10%", so we are already funding around 1B in increased programming costs for this year. So even if they give Viacom the whole 30%, we still have another 700-800M to go.
> 
> Bottom line, they raised our rates this year "in anticipation of ever-increasing programming costs", now that they are coming, they instead drop the channels. Nice double dip on thier part.


Your math seems a little fuzzy. $144M/yr divided among 20M subs is $7.20 per sub per year. That means 60 cents/month. Assuming ARPU is $90 and Directv wanted to cover the entire Viacom increase that would amount to a .67% increase in the monthly bill... not 30%.

As far as the "creative math" that Directv may have used in February if they expected to have their programming costs increase by 10% and those programming cost consume let's say 50% of their income, then with the increase those costs become 55%. So while the programming costs increased by 10%, the business expense increased by 5%. So Directv had the customer pick up 4% of the increased expense and they absorb the other 1%.

So to keep it simple if ARPU is $100 and programming costs are 50% ($50), Directv would be making $50/month off every sub (we know this is not true because there are other expenses). Now programming costs increase 10% to $55 with no price increase to subs, Directv's "profit' decreases to $45/month. By raising prices by 4% (to $104) their "profit" is $49/month. Very close to where it started. It's not "creative math", it's just math.

Now 2 trains leave Chicago heading in opposite directions............


----------



## Guitar Hero

Wait, not too fast... I need to fire up my calculator.


----------



## boufa

MONSTERMAN said:


> I'm really getting fed up with DIRECTV's GREED!!!
> 
> DIRECTV makes $5 Billion in PROFIT and is expected to have a record year in 2012. DIRECTV has the choice of pocketing your dollars and they clearly do - they have raised their rates *52% in the past seven years*, tripling their profitability in that time. Our channels represent 20% of DIRECTV viewing but only 5% of their programming budget so yes, we absolutely think an increase is fair, but clearly this does not need to be passed onto you. DIRECTV can afford a couple pennies a day for its loyal, hardworking customers.
> 
> Disgusting the way these DIRECTV corporate CEO's are sooo GODDAMN greedy. I'm seriously thinking about making the switch to ATT UVERSE now after being with Directv since 1996, b/c I think this will just keep happening every few months from now on with other companies. Doesn't anybody remember that other fiasco months ago with FX. I think this will just keep happening, DIRECTV needs to really clean their house of these corporate greedy bastards...


Your joking right? DirecTV is in business to make money....lots of it. In fact it is required by law to protect its investors.. aka make lots of money... Guess what ATT is also in business to make lots of money. To the best of my knowledge, no churches, or other charity groups operate tv distribution companies. Nor should they. It should also be pointed out to you anti corperation fools, that they employ a lot of people. They spend a lot of money on other companies.. building sats, installers, etc. Many of them in your own home town. That ceo is doing his job, and from what I have seen, doing it well.
Them "eating a few pennies" would set a precident that they could never keep up with.

Btw...look at viacom's profit margins. They are doing pretty ok too.


----------



## tonyd79

Someone remind me about the "fiasco with FX.". How long was it off?


----------



## boufa

cariera said:


> Your math seems a little fuzzy. $144M/yr divided among 20M subs is $7.20 per sub per year. That means 60 cents/month. Assuming ARPU is $90 and Directv wanted to cover the entire Viacom increase that would amount to a .67% increase in the monthly bill... not 30%.
> 
> As far as the "creative math" that Directv may have used in February if they expected to have their programming costs increase by 10% and those programming cost consume let's say 50% of their income, then with the increase those costs become 55%. So while the programming costs increased by 10%, the business expense increased by 5%. So Directv had the customer pick up 4% of the increased expense and they absorb the other 1%.
> 
> So to keep it simple if ARPU is $100 and programming costs are 50% ($50), Directv would be making $50/month off every sub (we know this is not true because there are other expenses). Now programming costs increase 10% to $55 with no price increase to subs, Directv's "profit' decreases to $45/month. By raising prices by 4% (to $104) their "profit" is $49/month. Very close to where it started. It's not "creative math", it's just math.
> 
> Now 2 trains leave Chicago heading in opposite directions............


No,no,no... You need simple math that sounds complicated, reality does not mean anything. Like whne they say that 14,000 people lost their jobs at a factory that only employees 1000. Simple math.

My bill went up, DirecTV is evil, that's all they understand.


----------



## dpeters11

"MONSTERMAN" said:


> I'm really getting fed up with DIRECTV's GREED!!!
> 
> DIRECTV makes $5 Billion in PROFIT and is expected to have a record year in 2012. DIRECTV has the choice of pocketing your dollars and they clearly do - they have raised their rates 52% in the past seven years, tripling their profitability in that time. Our channels represent 20% of DIRECTV viewing but only 5% of their programming budget so yes, we absolutely think an increase is fair, but clearly this does not need to be passed onto you. DIRECTV can afford a couple pennies a day for its loyal, hardworking customers.
> 
> Disgusting the way these DIRECTV corporate CEO's are sooo GODDAMN greedy. I'm seriously thinking about making the switch to ATT UVERSE now after being with Directv since 1996, b/c I think this will just keep happening every few months from now on with other companies. Doesn't anybody remember that other fiasco months ago with FX. I think this will just keep happening, DIRECTV needs to really clean their house of these corporate greedy bastards...


Not that Uverse has ever dropped channels due to a dispute, like Food Network, HGTV, DIY, Fox Sports....


----------



## dpeters11

"boufa" said:


> No,no,no... You need simple math that sounds complicated, reality does not mean anything. Like whne they say that 14,000 people lost their jobs at a factory that only employees 1000. Simple math.
> 
> My bill went up, DirecTV is evil, that's all they understand.


You should watch the TED talk called Copyright Math, from Rob Reid.


----------



## cariera

MONSTERMAN said:


> I'm really getting fed up with DIRECTV's GREED!!!
> 
> DIRECTV makes $5 Billion in PROFIT and is expected to have a record year in 2012. DIRECTV has the choice of pocketing your dollars and they clearly do - they have raised their rates *52% in the past seven years*, tripling their profitability in that time. Our channels represent 20% of DIRECTV viewing but only 5% of their programming budget so yes, we absolutely think an increase is fair, but clearly this does not need to be passed onto you. DIRECTV can afford a couple pennies a day for its loyal, hardworking customers.
> 
> Disgusting the way these DIRECTV corporate CEO's are sooo GODDAMN greedy. I'm seriously thinking about making the switch to ATT UVERSE now after being with Directv since 1996, b/c I think this will just keep happening every few months from now on with other companies. Doesn't anybody remember that other fiasco months ago with FX. I think this will just keep happening, DIRECTV needs to really clean their house of these corporate greedy bastards...


What things cost in 2008/2011 (3 years, not 6 but you get the idea)

Rent $800/ $955.10 19% increase
Gallon of Gas $3.39/ $3.89 15% increase
Loaf of Bread $1.68/$1.98 18% increase
Gallon of Milk $2.65/$3.39 28% increase
Movie Ticket $6.95/$8.20 18% increase
Stamp $0.42/ $0.44 5% increase

Prices tend to go up

Good luck with the switch, hope it goes smoothly but remember all providers have to negotiate and re-negotiate carriage contracts so there is nothing to guarantee that a similar situation won't arise with another company.


----------



## inkahauts

"maartena" said:


> Well.... you could cancel DirecTV and sign up with Dish, and that would help with affecting DirecTV.
> 
> Then, you could make yourself a promise to NEVER EVER tune into any of the Viacom channels. Maybe create a favorite list that omits them, or put parental blocking in place so you never accidentally watch them.
> 
> That might affect Viacom, but only so much that you won't see their commercials, you are still helping to pay for them.
> 
> You could also cancel TV service altogether.


Of course you are still paying Viacom if have dish at all,so that's not really going to do much.


----------



## luckydob

"MONSTERMAN" said:


> I'm really getting fed up with DIRECTV's GREED!!!
> 
> DIRECTV makes $5 Billion in PROFIT and is expected to have a record year in 2012. DIRECTV has the choice of pocketing your dollars and they clearly do - they have raised their rates 52% in the past seven years, tripling their profitability in that time. Our channels represent 20% of DIRECTV viewing but only 5% of their programming budget so yes, we absolutely think an increase is fair, but clearly this does not need to be passed onto you. DIRECTV can afford a couple pennies a day for its loyal, hardworking customers.
> 
> Disgusting the way these DIRECTV corporate CEO's are sooo GODDAMN greedy. I'm seriously thinking about making the switch to ATT UVERSE now after being with Directv since 1996, b/c I think this will just keep happening every few months from now on with other companies. Doesn't anybody remember that other fiasco months ago with FX. I think this will just keep happening, DIRECTV needs to really clean their house of these corporate greedy bastards...


AT&T first qtr 2012 numbers....please note this is for 3 months:

http://www.4ginfo.com/index.php/atat-q1-earning-report-2012.html

For the quarter ended March 31, 2012, AT&T's consolidated revenues totaled $31.8 billion, up $575 million, or 1.8 percent, versus the year-earlier quarter.

Compared with results for the first quarter of 2011, operating expenses were $25.7 billion versus $25.4 billion; operating income was $6.1 billion, up from $5.8 billion; and operating income margin was 19.2 percent, compared to 18.6 percent.

Profit is not evil. Profit leads to expansion of services, investment in employees, etc... Everyone has choices and everyone is entitled to their opinions, but businesses are not non-profit entities. We all are trying to do the same thing in life; make it better by improving our earnings however we can. Profit and businesses are ESSENTIAL to our lives. I do not begrudge either company here...they are doing what we all do every day when we go to work.


----------



## MONSTERMAN

boufa said:


> Your joking right? DirecTV is in business to make money....lots of it. In fact it is required by law to protect its investors.. aka make lots of money... Guess what ATT is also in business to make lots of money. To the best of my knowledge, no churches, or other charity groups operate tv distribution companies. Nor should they. It should also be pointed out to you anti corperation fools, that they employ a lot of people. They spend a lot of money on other companies.. building sats, installers, etc. Many of them in your own home town. That ceo is doing his job, and from what I have seen, doing it well.
> Them "eating a few pennies" would set a precident that they could never keep up with.
> 
> Btw...look at viacom's profit margins. They are doing pretty ok too.


Well, then I hope you continue to enjoy the rate increases imposed by your masters, without any question as to why...


----------



## Scott Kocourek

Please stay on topic and do not discuss each other.

This is my final warning, thread bans and infractions are very close to being handed out.


----------



## inkahauts

"MONSTERMAN" said:


> I'm really getting fed up with DIRECTV's GREED!!!
> 
> DIRECTV makes $5 Billion in PROFIT and is expected to have a record year in 2012. DIRECTV has the choice of pocketing your dollars and they clearly do - they have raised their rates 52% in the past seven years, tripling their profitability in that time. Our channels represent 20% of DIRECTV viewing but only 5% of their programming budget so yes, we absolutely think an increase is fair, but clearly this does not need to be passed onto you. DIRECTV can afford a couple pennies a day for its loyal, hardworking customers.
> 
> Disgusting the way these DIRECTV corporate CEO's are sooo GODDAMN greedy. I'm seriously thinking about making the switch to ATT UVERSE now after being with Directv since 1996, b/c I think this will just keep happening every few months from now on with other companies. Doesn't anybody remember that other fiasco months ago with FX. I think this will just keep happening, DIRECTV needs to really clean their house of these corporate greedy bastards...


Haha. Ask Viacom how much their profits are and how badly they need the raise. Thats the problem I have with that kind of argument, it works both ways, and the CEO of Viacom is making a heck of a lot more than the CEO of DIRECTV last time I saw a while back.


----------



## tonyd79

"inkahauts" said:


> Haha. Ask Viacom how much their profits are and how badly they need the raise. Thats the problem I have with that kind of argument, it works both ways, and the CEO of Viacom is making a heck of a lot more than the CEO of DIRECTV last time I saw a while back.


And he has a cooler name.


----------



## inkahauts

"BattleScott" said:


> It is not ground-breaking info but it does point out very well how twisted DirecTV is when it comes to this stuff. The math shows the Viacom increase would cost DirecTV another 144M per year. If DirecTV increased our rates by 30% (using a 90 ARPU figure) that would generate another 540M. The reality is they could offset the 144M with an 8% increase.
> 
> But, if you remember, they used the very same "creative math" in February when "they only raised our rates by 4% while they expect their costs to go up by as much as 10%", so we are already funding around 1B in increased programming costs for this year. So even if they give Viacom the whole 30%, we still have another 700-800M to go.
> 
> Bottom line, they raised our rates this year "in anticipation of ever-increasing programming costs", now that they are coming, they instead drop the channels. Nice double dip on thier part.


Where is everyone seeing this that DIRECTV has said they'd have to raise rates 30%?

The only thing I have seen is them say that Viacom is trying to raise their rates 30% in total over the new contract.


----------



## loudo

TheRatPatrol said:


> I say bring back a C Band type of distribution, cut out the middle man, and let the consumer pick the channels they want.


We had that with C-Band and most of the time it was cheaper to pick an already designed package, that contained the channels you wanted, rather than select your channels a la carte and make up your own package own package.


----------



## bixler

MONSTERMAN said:


> I'm really getting fed up with DIRECTV's GREED!!!
> 
> DIRECTV makes $5 Billion in PROFIT and is expected to have a record year in 2012. DIRECTV has the choice of pocketing your dollars and they clearly do - they have raised their rates *52% in the past seven years*, tripling their profitability in that time. Our channels represent 20% of DIRECTV viewing but only 5% of their programming budget so yes, we absolutely think an increase is fair, but clearly this does not need to be passed onto you. DIRECTV can afford a couple pennies a day for its loyal, hardworking customers.
> 
> Disgusting the way these DIRECTV corporate CEO's are sooo GODDAMN greedy. I'm seriously thinking about making the switch to ATT UVERSE now after being with Directv since 1996, b/c I think this will just keep happening every few months from now on with other companies. Doesn't anybody remember that other fiasco months ago with FX. I think this will just keep happening, DIRECTV needs to really clean their house of these corporate greedy bastards...


LMAO....Directv is a publicly traded company.....these 'corporate greedy bastards' have ONE job....make their shareholders the most money they can. It's business.....it's life....deal with it or go play somewhere else.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

inkahauts said:


> Haha. Ask Viacom how much their profits are and how badly they need the raise. Thats the problem I have with that kind of argument, it works both ways, and the CEO of Viacom is making a heck of a lot more than the CEO of DIRECTV last time I saw a while back.












They both forgot rule #1, "Don't underestimate the other guys greed!"


----------



## BattleScott

"cariera" said:


> Your math seems a little fuzzy. $144M/yr divided among 20M subs is $7.20 per sub per year. That means 60 cents/month. Assuming ARPU is $90 and Directv wanted to cover the entire Viacom increase that would amount to a .67% increase in the monthly bill... not 30%.
> 
> As far as the "creative math" that Directv may have used in February if they expected to have their programming costs increase by 10% and those programming cost consume let's say 50% of their income, then with the increase those costs become 55%. So while the programming costs increased by 10%, the business expense increased by 5%. So Directv had the customer pick up 4% of the increased expense and they absorb the other 1%.
> 
> So to keep it simple if ARPU is $100 and programming costs are 50% ($50), Directv would be making $50/month off every sub (we know this is not true because there are other expenses). Now programming costs increase 10% to $55 with no price increase to subs, Directv's "profit' decreases to $45/month. By raising prices by 4% (to $104) their "profit" is $49/month. Very close to where it started. It's not "creative math", it's just math.
> 
> Now 2 trains leave Chicago heading in opposite directions............


Not fuzzy, just forgot to divide by 12 (I said 8% not 30). Also, 50% is WAY high. Programming was less than 40%, so take 10% of that and you get 44%. An increase of ? You guessed it 4%!

But thanks for catching the error , it really just shows even further how crazy this is. I am already paying an additional 4% this year because they expected costs to go up 10%, but now that it's their turn to pay they instead drop the channels. So now, I'm not only paying 4% more, I'm getting far fewer channels and Directv's costs are now lower than before!

With friends like that, who needs enemas?


----------



## Old_School

RunnerFL said:


> Yup, channel 289. That should help out some of the parents who lost Nick.


Damn there cutting the NASA channel:lol:


----------



## RunnerFL

Old_School said:


> Damn there cutting the NASA channel:lol:


Nope, NASA will be moved to 346.


----------



## LMckin

Old_School said:


> Damn there cutting the NASA channel:lol:


NASA channel is moving down the line up in between the RFD and IONW to channel 362


----------



## RunnerFL

LMckin said:


> NASA channel is moving down the line up in between the RFD and IONW to channel 362


346


----------



## Davenlr

LMckin said:


> NASA channel is moving down the line up in between the RFD and IONW to channel 362


362 is the weather channel


----------



## Rob

Davenlr said:


> 362 is the weather channel


Weather Channel is part of NBC/Universal/Comcast. Maybe all those channels will be taken off the air too. :lol:


----------



## Lauve92

Sixto said:


> If taking down some channels for a few days gets DirecTV a better price for every subscriber, for several years, then that's fine.
> 
> It seems like that's the only way to a better end result these days.


When was the last time your Direct TV bill went down, "a better price" means I would pay less for the programming than I already am, that's just UNAMERICAN!!:whatdidid


----------



## noahproblem

Rob said:


> Weather Channel is part of NBC/Universal/Comcast. Maybe all those channels will be taken off the air too. :lol:


That's a battle for another time, and, boy will that one be a doozy! :eek2:


----------



## Davenlr

I see they opened up Extra Innings to everyone for a week as well as Encore.


----------



## David Ortiz

Davenlr said:


> I see they opened up Extra Innings to everyone for a week ...


Yes, DIRECTV "freeviews" MLBEI for a week or so to start the season and after the All Star break every year.


----------



## cariera

inkahauts said:


> Haha. Ask Viacom how much their profits are and how badly they need the raise. Thats the problem I have with that kind of argument, it works both ways, and the CEO of Viacom is making a heck of a lot more than the CEO of DIRECTV last time I saw a while back.


Phillipe Dauman (Viacom CEO) 2011 compensation $43.1M.... now don't cry for him, but that was down from $84.5 the previous fiscal year.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/viacom-ceo-philippe-daumans-compensation-sumner-redstone-285366

Mike White (Directv CEO) 2011 compensation $5.9M

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/directv-ceo-mike-white-compensation-package-salary-2011-295769


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

dpeters11 said:


> You should watch the TED talk called Copyright Math, from Rob Reid.


I worked closely with the guy years ago. Too bad Yahoo just pulled the plug on one of his babies, Rhapsody.


----------



## Lauve92

TheRatPatrol said:


> I say bring back a C Band type of distribution, cut out the middle man, and let the consumer pick the channels they want.


The old C-band system was great I never had to worry about reception going out during a storm. At it's peak you could buy programming from 20 - 30 different suppliers, and the programming was reasonable. Now I could not get HD or digital but WTF I never had a complaint with my picture. I could see Direct TV splitting the viacom channels and offering the popular ones in a different package, so they could charge you an extra $10 - $12 out of everyone. White is already suggesting you should be able to purchase them individually on his commercial. They have done this in the past without warning. I remember tuning to ESPN Classic, a popular channel and finding they substituted ESPN University a channel which I would doubt many people watch. I was informed the only way I could get ESPN Classic was to buy a sports Pack for an extra $10. The sports pack gave me ESPN Classic and about 12 other channels which half the time had nothing on them or had nothing of interest to me on them. The only way to prevent this type of highway robbery would be to actually have more than two sat TV providers, COMPETITION IS GOOD FOR THE CONSUMER, NOT SO MUCH FOR THE CORPORATE GIANTS!! With two major players neither have to play it very honest.


----------



## android.cphone

I think im gonna have to pay my neighbor with CableOne to let me run a cableline thru the window so i can watch spongebob,southpark and M.A.S.H.... lol


----------



## SParker

Anyone hear a rumor that Directv might be giving subs 1 year of a premium automatically to make up for this madness? Seems far fetched..


----------



## boukengreen

David Ortiz said:


> Yes, DIRECTV "freeviews" MLBEI for a week or so to start the season and after the All Star break every year.


just like they do for NBA LEAGUE PASS , NHL CENTER ICE, and week 1 of NFLST


----------



## android.cphone

Oh well no big deal if we never get these channels back again the world is gonna end on 12/21/12 anyways so why bother. ROTFLMAO :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Blurayfan

SParker said:


> Anyone hear a rumor that Directv might be giving subs 1 year of a premium automatically to make up for this madness? Seems far fetched..


DirecTV has informed dealers to offer six months FREE of Starz to new subscribers to close the deal for those who balk due to the Viacom dispute. If the Six months doesn't work DirecTV said they could offer the 1 year to finalize the sale.


----------



## android.cphone

Offbtopic a bit.
Question for nascar fans
Who thinks it would be neat if nascar hotpas was interactive? Ie you could choose camera angle.


----------



## Dude111

I see HUB,TV1 and a few others have come back now......

TV1 seems ok (I didnt have it before) -- I watched The jeffersons  (Havent seen that show in along time (The colours werent that good though))

HUB seems better than TVland but its not a dedicated 24hr network to good/older programming


----------



## PrinceLH

So far, I'm not missing Viacom too much. It's summer.....let them stew and take a haircut. Most people watch less T.V. in the summer anyway. Make it up to us, with 3 months of premium T.V. Add MeTV and AntennaTV and get some of those classic old shows, that Nick At Nite and TV Land used to show.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

cariera said:


> Phillipe Dauman (Viacom CEO) 2011 compensation $43.1M.... now don't cry for him, but that was down from $84.5 the previous fiscal year.
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/viacom-ceo-philippe-daumans-compensation-sumner-redstone-285366
> 
> Mike White (Directv CEO) 2011 compensation $5.9M
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/directv-ceo-mike-white-compensation-package-salary-2011-295769


Let's take it down to our pockets.

Consider that Directv USA had just under 20 Million subs at the end of Q1 2012 according to their Q1 SEC filings and we can begin to do some math.

According the DirecTV Statements, Viacom wants about a 30% increase which would pay them $1Billion a year.

That means that DirecTV is currently paying Viacom over 3/4 Billion Dollars per year currently. $770,000,000 with a 30% increase gets you to $1,001,000,000 annually.

Using 20 Million USA Subs (which is slightly high), that means that DirecTV pays Viacom currently a little more than $38.50 a year - or about $3.25 a month. Obviously DirecTV charges you and me more than that each month to make a profit.

Using the same math, that means Viacom wants about $50 a year for each customer - or about $4.25 per sub each month (again, this would be marked up for the customer base).

So thats the reality.

Is Viacom worth a wholesale price of $38.50 a year from you? Is it worth a wholesale price of $50 a year from you?

Now on the otherside, Viacom says DirecTV pays them 5% of their program fees and its programs account for 20% of the viewing (I clearly have problems with that number, especially when looks at ratings, but I digress).

But if the 5% figure is correct - and DirecTV is honest in their statements, then we can figure $775,000,000 * 20 = $15,400,000,000 is what DirecTV pays for Program Rights each year.

$15,400,000,000 / 20 Million Subs = $770 per sub a year in Program Costs (and yes, I realize different people have different packages etc - this is just an average). That translates to around $64 a month wholesale costs for Programming Rights per USA Sub.

Obviously, Sports Programming etc throws that number off.....but its an interesting set of numbers to look at and consider in this whole argument.


----------



## PrinceLH

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Let's take it down to our pockets.
> 
> Consider that Directv USA had just under 20 Million subs at the end of Q1 2012 according to their Q1 SEC filings and we can begin to do some math.
> 
> According the DirecTV Statements, Viacom wants about a 30% increase which would pay them $1Billion a year.
> 
> That means that DirecTV is currently paying Viacom over 3/4 Billion Dollars per year currently. $770,000,000 with a 30% increase gets you to $1,001,000,000 annually.
> 
> Using 20 Million USA Subs (which is slightly high), that means that DirecTV pays Viacom currently a little more than $38.50 a year - or about $3.25 a month. Obviously DirecTV charges you and me more than that each month to make a profit.
> 
> Using the same math, that means Viacom wants about $50 a year for each customer - or about $4.25 per sub each month (again, this would be marked up for the customer base).
> 
> So thats the reality.
> 
> Is Viacom worth a wholesale price of $38.50 a year from you? Is it worth a wholesale price of $50 a year from you?
> 
> Now on the otherside, Viacom says DirecTV pays them 5% of their program fees and its programs account for 20% of the viewing (I clearly have problems with that number, especially when looks at ratings, but I digress).
> 
> But if the 5% figure is correct - and DirecTV is honest in their statements, then we can figure $775,000,000 * 20 = $15,400,000,000 is what DirecTV pays for Program Rights each year.
> 
> $15,400,000,000 / 20 Million Subs = $770 per sub a year in Program Costs (and yes, I realize different people have different packages etc - this is just an average). That translates to around $64 a month wholesale costs for Programming Rights per USA Sub.
> 
> Obviously, Sports Programming etc throws that number off.....but its an interesting set of numbers to look at and consider in this whole argument.


Shows the outright greed, looking at it, in your perspective. I remember the old C Band days and all of the different programming wholesalers out there. It was much cheaper than Directv, back in the old days. It might be the start of something, if people start using C/Ku technology and start cutting out all of the middlemen. I'm betting that people could get away with a 5 foot dish, with all of the high powered satellites in the sky. Make it cheap and they will come.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

PrinceLH said:


> Shows the outright greed, looking at it, in your perspective. I remember the old C Band days and all of the different programming wholesalers out there. It was much cheaper than Directv, back in the old days. It might be the start of something, if people start using C/Ku technology and start cutting out all of the middlemen. I'm betting that people could get away with a 5 foot dish, with all of the high powered satellites in the sky. Make it cheap and they will come.


5ft dish doesn't pass the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor) for most families and is too big for the FCC regulation allowing up to 1 meter dishes to bypass local / deed restrictions.

Regardless, C-Band/Ku-Band HDTV for residential customers went out of business about 2 years ago in the USA.


----------



## Shades228

New drinking game. Anytime someone does the math to prove what they want you have to take a drink.


----------



## wahooq

*shot*


----------



## wahooq

*shank*


----------



## inkahauts

"SomeRandomIdiot" said:


> Let's take it down to our pockets.
> 
> Consider that Directv USA had just under 20 Million subs at the end of Q1 2012 according to their Q1 SEC filings and we can begin to do some math.
> 
> According the DirecTV Statements, Viacom wants about a 30% increase which would pay them $1Billion a year.
> 
> That means that DirecTV is currently paying Viacom over 3/4 Billion Dollars per year currently. $770,000,000 with a 30% increase gets you to $1,001,000,000 annually.
> 
> Using 20 Million USA Subs (which is slightly high), that means that DirecTV pays Viacom currently a little more than $38.50 a year - or about $3.25 a month. Obviously DirecTV charges you and me more than that each month to make a profit.
> 
> Using the same math, that means Viacom wants about $50 a year for each customer - or about $4.25 per sub each month (again, this would be marked up for the customer base).
> 
> So thats the reality.
> 
> Is Viacom worth a wholesale price of $38.50 a year from you? Is it worth a wholesale price of $50 a year from you?
> 
> Now on the otherside, Viacom says DirecTV pays them 5% of their program fees and its programs account for 20% of the viewing (I clearly have problems with that number, especially when looks at ratings, but I digress).
> 
> But if the 5% figure is correct - and DirecTV is honest in their statements, then we can figure $775,000,000 * 20 = $15,400,000,000 is what DirecTV pays for Program Rights each year.
> 
> $15,400,000,000 / 20 Million Subs = $770 per sub a year in Program Costs (and yes, I realize different people have different packages etc - this is just an average). That translates to around $64 a month wholesale costs for Programming Rights per USA Sub.
> 
> Obviously, Sports Programming etc throws that number off.....but its an interesting set of numbers to look at and consider in this whole argument.


If you read some more of the past posts in the thread, you will find that your numbers you are starting with are likely off...

It's a $1 billion increase over five years from what they pay now. Which equates to about 30% in total, or about 16% increase compounded annually.

I think that somewhere someone posted mike white as saying they currently pay around $500 million a year to Viacom.

And I agree, how on earth can anyone possibly believe that Viacom actually knows how much of DIRECTV programing budget viacom gets each year? What a joke that statement is by Viacom. They have no clue how all of it breaks down in the end, none, zero zilch. If they are going by DIRECTV tax filings and such, they might be able to see total spent on programing, but they spend so much more on programing for things like Sunday ticket and yet I am sure they didn't add in that type of view ship for their supposed 20% of viewership line.

I only give dtvs numbers a little bit of chance of being close to real because mike white actually said some fairly specific total dollar amounts rather than just saying pennies more a day, or a % increase.


----------



## Carolina

Who cares? I can easily live without those channels because I don't watch them anyway :lol: I would be happy if Directv gave me a cut in my payment because those channels are gone! And I already have D*'s top package so it can't be offered to me.


----------



## HuskerHarley

Carolina said:


> Who cares? I can easily live without those channels because I don't watch them anyway :lol: I would be happy if Directv gave me a cut in my payment because those channels are gone! And I already have D*'s top package so it can't be offered to me.


They gave me $10.00 off my bill for 3 Months (I also have top package)-->

HH


----------



## tvropro

Lauve92 said:


> The old C-band system was great I never had to worry about reception going out during a storm. At it's peak you could buy programming from 20 - 30 different suppliers, and the programming was reasonable. Now I could not get HD or digital but WTF I never had a complaint with my picture. I could see Direct TV splitting the viacom channels and offering the popular ones in a different package, so they could charge you an extra $10 - $12 out of everyone.


C band still has it's perks. It's receiving the same feed's that Direct, Dish, Comcast, the networks etc use before retransmission. The picture quality on the first generation feeds are next to none. There is no rain or snow fade. With the right equipment you can get many channels for free, even ones you pay for on Direct. The programming still available has no contracts and you can sign up for one month 3,6 or a year. No hidden fees or extra charges. There has been a resurgence with much interest in c band lately. I talk to people all the time that are fed up with high bills and other issues associated with cable and the small dish. There is a new factory opening up in Michigan that will be making big dishes again. New receivers and more programming options are being looked into.

What most people want is a good product and choice at a fair price. We need competition to break down this my way or the highway attitude of the cable/small dish cartel. Maybe C band with its resurgence can be the start of this.

Direct should offer a package that is on c band called pick 10. You can pick and choose 10 channels for your own custom package. Direct could also offer a pick 20 or 30 too for those who required more than 10.


----------



## Tubaman-Z

A thought comes to mind:

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Neither D* or Viacom is inherently good or evil, friend or foe. But at the moment D* is seeking to keep their expenses down which SHOULD translate into lower costs passed along to me. Thus for me, for the moment, I ally myself with D* as I value the V* content less than any potential cost increase. When I do receive the annual increase notification my perspective towards D* will change and I will seek any/all ways to work against them - I.e. lower my bill.


----------



## Sixto

Pretty amazing that Viacom now has radio commercials on this. Heard the first on sports talk radio as I was going to bed last night. These are some very aggressive dudes that DirecTV is dealing with.


----------



## sigma1914

Shades228 said:


> New drinking game. Anytime someone does the math to prove what they want you have to take a drink.


It's amazing how many accounting specialists who are familiar with Fortune 500 companies we have here. :lol:


----------



## mnassour

Sixto said:


> Pretty amazing that Viacom now has radio commercials on this. Heard the first on sports talk radio as I was going to bed last night. These are some very aggressive dudes that DirecTV is dealing with.


To me, that says Viacom is the desperate one.

LATER:

Oh, boy....

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/viacom-directv-fight-quick-resolution-not-likely


----------



## dengland

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> 5ft dish doesn't pass the WAC (Wife Acceptance Factor) for most families and is too big for the FCC regulation allowing up to 1 meter dishes to bypass local / deed restrictions.


Down in Florida it took a 10 foot dish. Had a pole on the back corner of the porch with the bottom of the dish about a foot above the roof edge. All work on the dish was done standing on the roof.


----------



## dengland

RunnerFL said:


> Nope, NASA will be moved to 346.


Still only carrying the SD versus the HD version...


----------



## rta53

Wouldn't know about this at all if I didn't frequent forums like dbstalk. Didn't watch Viacom channels when they were on so I haven't missed anything when its off.:sleeping:


----------



## thelucky1

"rta53" said:


> Wouldn't know about this at all if I didn't frequent forums like dbstalk. Didn't watch Viacom channels when they were on so I haven't missed anything when its off.:sleeping:


Same here! Every once in awhile we watch something on Comedy Central or Palladia. Even then I don't miss any of these channels at all.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

tvropro said:


> C band still has it's perks. It's receiving the same feed's that Direct, Dish, Comcast, the networks etc use before retransmission. The picture quality on the first generation feeds are next to none. There is no rain or snow fade. With the right equipment you can get many channels for free, even ones you pay for on Direct. The programming still available has no contracts and you can sign up for one month 3,6 or a year. No hidden fees or extra charges. There has been a resurgence with much interest in c band lately. I talk to people all the time that are fed up with high bills and other issues associated with cable and the small dish. There is a new factory opening up in Michigan that will be making big dishes again. New receivers and more programming options are being looked into.
> 
> What most people want is a good product and choice at a fair price. We need competition to break down this my way or the highway attitude of the cable/small dish cartel. Maybe C band with its resurgence can be the start of this.
> 
> Direct should offer a package that is on c band called pick 10. You can pick and choose 10 channels for your own custom package. Direct could also offer a pick 20 or 30 too for those who required more than 10.


You cannot get the HD Programming any longer so the talk of quality when concerning SD product is a joke. Residential C Band will never have a resurgence.

Considering the Cost of C-Band transponder time, DirecTV is never going to offer a C Band Package.


----------



## Davenlr

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Considering the Cost of C-Band transponder time, DirecTV is never going to offer a C Band Package.


He was referring to DirecTv offering the C Band "Pick 10" package as an option on their current system, not starting a whole new company on C Band. Pick 10 channels you want from their current KU/KA lineup for a package price.

Im not sure their computers and authorization system are set up to allow 20 million individual package authorizations though. It might be capable. Not sure. Good idea, however.


----------



## bobvick1983

"SomeRandomIdiot" said:


> You cannot get the HD Programming any longer so the talk of quality when concerning SD product is a joke. Residential C Band will never have a resurgence.
> 
> Considering the Cost of C-Band transponder time, DirecTV is never going to offer a C Band Package.


You can still get some programming in HD that is free (FTA). CBC, RFD, PBS, WeatherNation, NBC, Telemundo, feeds from ABC, CBS, and FOX, NHK. Those are some that I can think of. You are correct that there is no cable type programming that is available in HD.


----------



## tvropro

Davenlr said:


> He was referring to DirecTv offering the C Band "Pick 10" package as an option on their current system, not starting a whole new company on C Band. Pick 10 channels you want from their current KU/KA lineup for a package price.
> 
> Im not sure their computers and authorization system are set up to allow 20 million individual package authorizations though. It might be capable. Not sure. Good idea, however.


Yes I was referring to Direct to look into a pick 10 type of package and the like. Direct I think can authorize single channels. I have seen them turn on one at a time with the dispute going on to try to appease the loss of the Viacom ones. I only have the family pack and ones that are in choice have been popping open one by one.

To the other gentleman, (I'll keep it all in one post) there are HD offerings on C band for free that the picture quality looks as good or better than Blueray. The SD offerings on C band look like DVD. Although C band currently is for the hobbyist that likes to look for things and find free stuff for the most part. I have and still do see cable HD & SD channels open from time to time. The picture quality on those first gens are breathtaking.

The bottom line is competition is good. While not everyone can have a big dish if it creates another avenue that helps all the companies come to there senses concerning the consumer it is a win win situation.


----------



## tvropro

bobvick1983 said:


> You can still get some programming in HD that is free (FTA). CBC, RFD, PBS, WeatherNation, NBC, Telemundo, feeds from ABC, CBS, and FOX, NHK. Those are some that I can think of. You are correct that there is no cable type programming that is available in HD.


Yes those plus the NASA HD feed and others. (I would have to look at my channel lists) Plus we have the added benefit to watch the backhaul feeds for sporting events and see syndicated programming ahead of time.

People think C band is dead since 99% of it is digital now. Actually with digital compression there are more channels on it that ever before. You just need the right receivers (DVB and DC2) to get most that is in the sky.

With the Viacom dispute going on I still get most of the channels through c band, so I'm missing out on very little.


----------



## Jon J

Blurayfan said:


> DirecTV has informed dealers to offer six months FREE of Starz to new subscribers to close the deal for those who balk due to the Viacom dispute. If the Six months doesn't work DirecTV said they could offer the 1 year to finalize the sale.


I received $5 off my Starz sub for 6 months and Sho free for 6 months just for the asking.


----------



## cbearnm

mnassour said:


> http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/viacom-directv-fight-quick-resolution-not-likely


The article brought up something that I had been think about - D* suggesting that people go online to view Viacom programming.

I think that this is risky for D* as well, if enough people go online and look into Roku type devices, they just may lose some subscribers when people realize their are much more economical ways to get a lot (but not anywhere near all) of programming through other ways. Not all free but much cheaper (Hulu, Netflix, etc..)

A pressure point that I see Viacom having as this drags out has not been mentioned much in the thread. Let's say that this continues for months, with the millions of viewers not watching on D*, Viacom would have to make adjustments to the rates they charge for advertising. If I were advertising on MTv and know that the D* audience is not there, is that worth nearly as much?

To a large degree, we (viewers) are the real product of both Viacom and D*. Any *commercial* programming is there primarily to provide an audience for advertisers. They create programs to attract us to their channel to sell advertising time. They are not 'selling' their programming to us, but rather creating a captive audience for ads. So while there is logic to charging D* for the programming (since they are in turn charging for it as well), the relationship is much more symbiotic than it appears. I think that they are both playing this out in the media, they are getting us to argue over who is good or bad, but in the end, *we* will be paying more.

Yes, they are both corporations that are there ONLY to make money, WE are the only entities that are paying for any of it. Through our payments to D* or by purchasing products that we see advertised, we are paying for ALL of it. The corporations are merely redistributing our cash. We need to remind all of them of this fact.


----------



## Directvlover

Jon J said:



> I received $5 off my Starz sub for 6 months and Sho free for 6 months just for the asking.


I called yesterday and very politely asked for the $5/month for 3 months credit that they are offering to offset the viacom dispute. Not only did i receive that but i also received $20 off my bill each month for a year and free showtime for a year. I thanked the agent profusely and she said that the reason she gave me all that, was because i was the first of hundreds she had spoke to yesterday that wasn't rude and yell at her. She said they've been told that they can really give whatever out, it's up to their discretion. So since i wasn't yelling, rude, or negative to her, she thanked me by piling on the savings. Just goes to show you a little kindness to these people who are just doing their jobs goes a long way. Thanks DTV!


----------



## Laxguy

PrinceLH said:


> Shows the outright greed, looking at it, in your perspective. I remember the old C Band days and all of the different programming wholesalers out there. It was much cheaper than Directv, back in the old days. It might be the start of something, if people start using C/Ku technology and start cutting out all of the middlemen. I'm betting that people could get away with a 5 foot dish, with all of the high powered satellites in the sky. Make it cheap and they will come.


Greed? DIRECTV® is a public company, and is in business for the shareholders. Don't forget there's a huge infrastructure in place, from CSRs to installers, programmers, negotiators, supplier management, shipping, handling, not to mention legal!

The 5' self installed dish will be perfect for a few million DIYers, but not the general public. Of those millions, maybe a few hundred thousand will care to do so.


----------



## islesfan

Well, we're only missing Futurama and it has really gone into the toilet this season anyway, so it's a bit of a blessing.


----------



## Paul Secic

keith_benedict said:


> I'll miss Tosh.0, but there isn't a single program on all of the other channels that I'll miss. Frankly, the idea the 20 million people will no longer be able to watch The Colbert Report or the Daily Report makes me happy.
> 
> Parents with kids can let their children watch any number of other channels aimed at children. The world won't end if they can't watch Dora.


Who or what is Dora?


----------



## harsh

Paul Secic said:


> Who or what is Dora?


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


----------



## MattScahum

"Directvlover" said:


> I called yesterday and very politely asked for the $5/month for 3 months credit that they are offering to offset the viacom dispute. Not only did i receive that but i also received $20 off my bill each month for a year and free showtime for a year. I thanked the agent profusely and she said that the reason she gave me all that, was because i was the first of hundreds she had spoke to yesterday that wasn't rude and yell at her. She said they've been told that they can really give whatever out, it's up to their discretion. So since i wasn't yelling, rude, or negative to her, she thanked me by piling on the savings. Just goes to show you a little kindness to these people who are just doing their jobs goes a long way. Thanks DTV!


Agreed. Since im in the bundles department I dont have the same options, nor should I BUT it has been very few and far between with getting a pleasant customer. I had one guy that didnt qualify for much in terms of discount since.he hadnt been installed for more than a month or so. He was extremely pleasant and I felt bad I couldnt do more so I helped him set up a custom guide, hide his sd duplicates and showed him how to access and use hbo go. He was thankful and.happy about all he got and he didnt even call in but for an update on the negotiations


----------



## acostapimps

I just receive $10 discount for 2 months just for calling even though I don't watch any of their channels, so i'm happy to say the least, but still want this resolved and you guys might say it's cheating the system, but I'm paying for these channels even if I don't watch them.


----------



## darkpowrjd

islesfan said:


> Well, we're only missing Futurama and it has really gone into the toilet this season anyway, so it's a bit of a blessing.


I think posts like this are kind of complicating things, too, to get this resolved in a way that makes everyone happy, assuming that either of the two parties frequent this board. If they see that we're choosing sides and aren't willing to see the other's POV, they might think that they are doing the right thing by not giving an inch.

All that does, however, is prolong the situation and frustrates those that DO want the channels back.

To me, if the deal would include new channels on the lineup, and if the hike isn't too steep, then DTV should not be such a channel nazi and let them have some of what they want. It would mean more of a choice for us, we get the channels back, DTV gets compensation in the way of providing new channels, Viacom gets the money they want/need/whatever, people get their channels back, and everyone leaves happy. As long as the hike is reasonable, then yeah, more channels for me.

If it's a price hike for the channels we have now (or had now, however you look at it), then DTV needs to tell Viacom "no, not without us getting something for it". Don't give them the hike, but don't be "we don't see the value of any of your channels you want to add, and we don't see the value of what you have offered." Tell them that they need them and DTV offered 20% of their viewers. 20% is a pretty hefty amount in the TV world, and DTV is right now in the drivers seat right now for satellite TV. Also tell them that people ARE watching how Viacom handles this with nuking the online streams (which was a DUMB move; don't know how they could've even considered doing that and then act like it was the right thing to do), and that the more they drag this on, the more they alienate their remaining viewers, and that time is of the essence.

The more the two sides refuse to budge, the more they risk alienating the customers/viewers. They have to come to a conclusion...NOW! For nothing else, for the people who are reading this thread then wondering where their razor blades are.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

sigma1914 said:


> It's amazing how many accounting specialists who are familiar with Fortune 500 companies we have here. :lol:


LOL. I read some of the drivel here when it comes to the business side and just shake my head.

I'll remind a few folks, last Sunday I posted there was a Viacom DTV dispute coming and sure enough, 24 hours later it arrived. I've been in this business for several decades and I'd say 80% of what I'm reading in this thread when it comes to numbers is flat wrong or mostly wrong, at least everything I'm hearing in the industry which has been spot on so far.

There are a few that really stand out from BattleScott, TulaneJosh, and some others. Really guys, you are way off base on this.

You want to truly know what this is about, I'll tell you. From what I'm hearing, the rate increase ask is above 30%, several points above. You have companies like Viacom giving away their content online for free, sometimes the SAME DAY it airs on their linear channel. At the same time, they want all these distributors to pay huge increases that the distributors are forced then to raise prices on their customers to cover the costs. Of course DTV is pissed, as well they should be. It's crazy what the content providers are doing.

In one breath they are telling all these distributors to give them billions of dollars and in the next breath they are giving it away for free the same day for people online. HELLO.

That's the core issue.

The money issue flows right into it, of course. DTV is offering an increase rate or Viacom, but there is a point where it goes beyond good business sense when at the end of the day the distributor is left with the customer relationship. When those price increases come yearly, customers are angry with DTV, not Viacom, not Disney, not Fox, but with DTV.

DTV is in a tough spot. They don't have broadband which is a 75% margin business, so they take it on the chin when content providers jack them up as they have the last few years. Cable and the phone companies just monetize other aspects of their business and support their video offering by subsidizing those cost increases.

I predict this goes at least another week, maybe longer. The longer is goes, the more DTV wins because people will get further and further away from Viacom's programming and replace it with something else. Their ratings are already down, they are losing more eyeballs daily as a result. One of the dumbest moves I have seen in many years is Viacom taking down all of their free streaming programming, unless they are doing it as a concession to the pay tv providers because they are finally waking up to the fact they are undermining their own business model by going in that direction.

At the end of the day, we are one step closer to being charged online as customers should. The days of the pay tv provider propping up free online content without authentication (the Viacom model) are going away, it's a matter of how quickly.


----------



## inkahauts

"tvropro" said:


> Yes I was referring to Direct to look into a pick 10 type of package and the like. Direct I think can authorize single channels. I have seen them turn on one at a time with the dispute going on to try to appease the loss of the Viacom ones. I only have the family pack and ones that are in choice have been popping open one by one.
> 
> To the other gentleman, (I'll keep it all in one post) there are HD offerings on C band for free that the picture quality looks as good or better than Blueray. The SD offerings on C band look like DVD. Although C band currently is for the hobbyist that likes to look for things and find free stuff for the most part. I have and still do see cable HD & SD channels open from time to time. The picture quality on those first gens are breathtaking.
> 
> The bottom line is competition is good. While not everyone can have a big dish if it creates another avenue that helps all the companies come to there senses concerning the consumer it is a win win situation.


Turning on a channel at a time for an entire package is completely different than turning on different channels for different people. I am sure it could be done, but I'll bet it'd take a massive it effort.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Just got $10 off for 3 months. Free Starz and Showtime for 6 months. I do miss Comedy Central but that's it.


----------



## Oskeewow

Called retention and got 3 months of Showtime free and the red zone channel for free. Didn't really push for more but it probably could have been gotten if I asked.


----------



## mitchflorida

This is a matter of survival for Viacom, not DTV. If they can't charge DTV $3.00 a month they will have to lower all their fees for the other cable/sat providers. This isn't going to be resolved soon.


----------



## TBoneit

Rob said:


> Weather Channel is part of NBC/Universal/Comcast. Maybe all those channels will be taken off the air too. :lol:





noahproblem said:


> That's a battle for another time, and, boy will that one be a doozy! :eek2:


Well the Weather channel may also be easier now that Dishnetwork softened them up on their renewal. If anyone remembers that.

As for the Viacom adverts.........

"Squeaky Wheel Gets the Oil? .... Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets thrown in the trunk and replaced by one that doesn't ..."


----------



## tulanejosh

mitchflorida said:


> This is a matter of survival for Viacom, not DTV. If they can't charge DTV $3.00 a month they will have to lower all their fees for the other cable/sat providers. This isn't going to be resolved soon.


It's a matter of survival for both of them.


----------



## APB101

Sixto said:


> Pretty amazing that Viacom now has radio commercials on this. Heard the first on sports talk radio as I was going to bed last night. These are some very aggressive dudes that DirecTV is dealing with.


I wish we knew the specifics. What Viacom wants. What DirecTV wants. Not what is being claimed in the way of money but info also concerning the programming.


----------



## darkpowrjd

APB101 said:


> I wish we knew the specifics. What Viacom wants. What DirecTV wants. Not what is being claimed in the way of money but info also concerning the programming.


Yeah, I've been wondering that, too, if it's JUST about the money, or if there's something else that Viacom wants that isn't being said. My mind has been more about if they want the other channels they offer, or some of their channels in HD that weren't in HD before the mess began.


----------



## Davenlr

darkpowrjd said:


> My mind has been more about if they want the other channels they offer, or some of their channels in HD that weren't in HD before the mess began.


I am betting Viacom is trying to do to Directv, exactly what Directv does to us.... Pay for all of it (30% more) even if you dont broadcast (watch) it. Bundle baby. "We ALL B U N D L E"


----------



## dogs31

I heard that DIRECTV hired a new negotiator to deal with the joker at Viacom. I wonder how soon Viacom will back down.


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...KCIyXqAGvwKm0DA&sqi=2&ved=0CHIQ9QEwCQ&dur=297

BTW: DIRECTV offered him free service for life at Wayne Enterprises and inside a certain bat cave in Gotham City.


----------



## CarolinaGuy79

So Directv has given me a one time $5 off and Starz/Shotime free for 3 months (Since I already had the Encore Channels) guess something is better then nothing.


----------



## mitchflorida

tulanejosh said:


> It's a matter of survival for both of them.


Do you work for Viacom? I really think you are being paid by them. DTV could get rid of Viacom permanently, just like Dish dumped AMC and several of their no-name channels (Sundance and IFC).

I hope they never come back. But it will be several weeks anyway.


----------



## dod1450

CarolinaGuy79 said:


> So Directv has given me a one time $5 off and Starz/Shotime free for 3 months (Since I already had the Encore Channels) guess something is better then nothing.


 I also received the same. I could not get CSR to budge and I was very very polite,


----------



## mitchflorida

darkpowrjd said:


> Yeah, I've been wondering that, too, if it's JUST about the money, or if there's something else that Viacom wants that isn't being said. My mind has been more about if they want the other channels they offer, or some of their channels in HD that weren't in HD before the mess began.


it's just about money. $3 a month. nothing complicated about it.


----------



## onan38

I think it will be later than sooner before both sides get this worked out. Remember every penny counts for both sides.


----------



## crashHD

I called DirecTV. I said thank you for resisting price increases, I support your efforts. I am not planning to go anywhere else, but while one of my most viewed channels is absent from my lineup, may I have a discount please?

I have Premiere, so there's no premium package they could offer me.
I was offered NFLST, but declined (my only football interest is my local team).
He then offered me -$10/month for 3 months, and $5 off HBO per month for 6 months.

I thought that was more than fair. Generous even.


I did think it was odd they offered NFLST sooner than a total of $60 worth of programming discounts. NFLST is the higher $ value, it's just not worth anything to me without a desire to watch it.


----------



## paulman182

Dish Network has been working hard to gain the reputation as the "cheap" provider.

It's disturbing to see DirecTV play the same penny-pinching games.


----------



## RACJ2

crashHD said:


> I called DirecTV. I said thank you for resisting price increases, I support your efforts. I am not planning to go anywhere else, but while one of my most viewed channels is absent from my lineup, may I have a discount please?...
> 
> ...I did think it was odd they offered NFLST sooner than a total of $60 worth of programming discounts. NFLST is the higher $ value, it's just not worth anything to me without a desire to watch it.


I think its because it doesn't cost them anything to give you free NFL ST, but discounts affect their revenue.

And I'm glad I checked this thread, because I forgot they were removing the Viacom channels. Glad I checked, well actually, I guess it didn't matter.


----------



## Rtm

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/13/technology/directv-viacom-standoff/index.htm

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/13/technology/directv-viacom-standoff/index.htm

~$0.60 a month or ~$0.02 a day

Is this correct?


----------



## JMCecil

paulman182 said:


> Dish Network has been working hard to gain the reputation as the "cheap" provider.
> 
> It's disturbing to see DirecTV play the same penny-pinching games.


I'm not sure I agree with this. I think D* is trying to be responsible. I think D* will pay a premium for service, but when it gets ridiculous they decided they couldn't do it fiscally.

I'm not claiming that the customer was in mind when they made that decision. I'm pretty sure they know what the pain thresholds are for subscribers and how those thresholds impact the bottom line. I would be that the dramatic increase for devalued content was deemed impractical. But, not from a penny pinching standpoint.


----------



## darkpowrjd

mitchflorida said:


> it's just about money. $3 a month. nothing complicated about it.


I would agree with you, but then my mind goes to DTV saying that they see no value in G4 before taking it off without a care as to if anyone else actually wanted to watch it or not.

And let's not forget that the channel Epix has came up in this very thread more than a few times, and that they do have other music channels (other than those that were on DTV pre-blackout) that are not on DTV but ARE on other providers. I'd bet you a lot that Viacom would LOVE to increase its exposure on DTV by getting those other channels on there, too, and I would also bet a lot that it's THAT that could be causing the possible rate hike.

If that's the case, then DTV might not see how those channels constitute a rate hike of any kind, which mirrors what they thought about G4 (which, by the way, I wouldn't mind having back on DTV), and would cause Viacom to wonder what DTV thinks of them as a whole. And Viacom has also, in their web blog, brought up the Newscorp dispute to say that DTV can be very stubborn at times about their bandwidth and could be indeed lying about some things.

Don't get me wrong, I think Viacom became the bad guys here the second they did dumb moves in regard to the blackout, but I'm not pretending that DTV are absolute saints here, either. The two are being way too stubborn.


----------



## mnassour

JMCecil said:


> I'm not sure I agree with this. I think D* is trying to be responsible. I think D* will pay a premium for service, but when it gets ridiculous they decided they couldn't do it fiscally.


I *know* I don't agree with it. What we're looking at here is nothing less than a huge jump by Viacom for channels that are continuing to lose viewers...and value. Unless DirecTV holds the line here, then provider after provider will be lining up with their hands out and not just for DirecTV, but for Dish and the Cable Cos as well.

Penny pinching? Hey, I pinch MY pennies. I'm very glad DirecTV is doing the same.


----------



## wahooq

mnassour said:


> I *know* I don't agree with it. What we're looking at here is nothing less than a huge jump by Viacom for channels that are continuing to lose viewers...and value. Unless DirecTV holds the line here, then provider after provider will be lining up with their hands out and not just for DirecTV, but for Dish and the Cable Cos as well.
> 
> Penny pinching? Hey, I pinch MY pennies. I'm very glad DirecTV is doing the same.


Thats the funny part, everyone that is bellyaching about the missing channels can you imagine if they got a bill next month that increased in cost but contained the same programming....


----------



## Que

Rtm said:


> http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/13/technology/directv-viacom-standoff/index.htm
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/13/technology/directv-viacom-standoff/index.htm
> 
> ~$0.60 a month or ~$0.02 a day
> 
> Is this correct?





> Eventually. For now, the two sides are sniping like kindergartners. On Friday morning, DirecTV sent off a tweet: "We can't believe it's now Day 4."
> 
> Viacom quickly fired back: "It's actually Day 3. More fuzzy numbers from DirecTV!"


Just get a deal done. No need to do it like this.


----------



## gio12

"cbearnm" said:


> The article brought up something that I had been think about - D* suggesting that people go online to view Viacom programming.
> 
> I think that this is risky for D* as well, if enough people go online and look into Roku type devices, they just may lose some subscribers when people realize their are much more economical ways to get a lot (but not anywhere near all) of programming through other ways. Not all free but much cheaper (Hulu, Netflix, etc..)
> 
> A pressure point that I see Viacom having as this drags out has not been mentioned much in the thread. Let's say that this continues for months, with the millions of viewers not watching on D*, Viacom would have to make adjustments to the rates they charge for advertising. If I were advertising on MTv and know that the D* audience is not there, is that worth nearly as much?
> 
> To a large degree, we (viewers) are the real product of both Viacom and D*. Any commercial programming is there primarily to provide an audience for advertisers. They create programs to attract us to their channel to sell advertising time. They are not 'selling' their programming to us, but rather creating a captive audience for ads. So while there is logic to charging D* for the programming (since they are in turn charging for it as well), the relationship is much more symbiotic than it appears. I think that they are both playing this out in the media, they are getting us to argue over who is good or bad, but in the end, we will be paying more.
> 
> Yes, they are both corporations that are there ONLY to make money, WE are the only entities that are paying for any of it. Through our payments to D* or by purchasing products that we see advertised, we are paying for ALL of it. The corporations are merely redistributing our cash. We need to remind all of them of this fact.


God, your do right and people don't want too see/accept this. Are these companies publicly traded? If so, we both about them being greedy, but that greed feeds your 401Ks, pensions, stocks, etc. I always get laugh when I hear about these "Greedy" companies, yet we the people feed and w at these companies to be greedy to feed us money through another channel.

The real works does not get it at times. It's only TV folks, not real necessities like gas, electricity, etc.


----------



## susanandmark

Here's the thing, you may say I don't get it, or I'm in the minority here, or whatever you want. And that's all well and good; you're absolutely entitled to that perspective and, for all I know, the majority here could be correct and DirecTV has such a loyal fan base (instead of just a customer base), that not a single one will leave if they take Viacom off forever and instead will erect shrines to DirecTV's CEO.

There are plenty of people here who think DirecTV's "got my back" incessancy and PR spin is the God's honest truth (usually the same folks who think Viacom are "scumbags" for doing, basically, the same thing on the opposite side) and that they are sincerely fighting the good fight to, "keep our bills low." Again, good on you. Absolutely entitled to that viewpoint.

Here's MY deal ... DirecTV does NOT have _my_ back. If they did, they wouldn't remove channels--or let them be removed, if you prefer. (Semantics.) I'm a high-dollar, high-end customer and what they're telling me, with channel pull after channel pull and these seemingly endless disputes, is that they don't give a hoot about what *I*, as a customer want, which is the availability of as many HD channels as possible without having to spam a provider's Facebook page or gloom onto a Twitter hashtag, sign a petition, or anything else that makes me think and worry way too much about what should be a very simple utility. I want to pay my bill, get the programming I expect for that payment, and be done. I don't need to be a cohort in pitched moral battle with ANY company ... I need a reliable television provider, not a relationship.

Today's add of the Disney Jr. channel in SD only is just another example that DirecTV does seem to be aiming to the low end. Seriously, in 2012 the once-billed "HD leader" is adding NEW HD-available channels in SD?! Why even bother?

Is it because as someone in another thread pointed out (I have no idea if accurately), "most" of DirecTV's receivers in their 20,000,000 customer's homes are SD only? Do they even MAKE SD-only receivers anymore? And, if so, why? They've swapped our far younger technology than that (MPEG-2 vs MPEG-4), why wouldn't it be a priority to remove outdated, I'm-sure-hard-to-program-for boxes ASAP and get all of their customers on the same, HD page?

That they haven't shows it's a service geared VERY much at the low end. I'm far from wealthy, but I haven't had an SD TV in my home for years. Heck, full HD sets can now be had for >$200. And finding a TV that's NOT HD would be the real trick, so why would any truly forward-thinking provider be aiming at the past by boosting their SD channel count? (Up next: exclusive DirecTV logo buggy whips!) Is the pay TV market really that lucrative for folks that can't afford to replace 10-year-old televisions? My guess is if folks are that uninterested in television, or just frugal (not that there's anything at all wrong with either stance), they're not shelling out for satellite.

I have lots of friends who could care less about HD (the classic "you mean what we're watching ISN'T HD, but I thought it was an HDTV?" set), but not a single one that doesn't have all HDTVs in their home, be it one TV or five. And this includes a heck of a lot of college students. (OK, they're guys, and I'm frankly always shocked at the number of 50" flat screens single guys with no jobs manage to own. Giant flat screen + leather couch = 20 year old male.) Honestly, the last tube TV I saw ANYWHERE was the one we had on our porch and turned on about once per year ... And even that was replaced with an older HDTV set in the last few months, just because we'd upgraded our bedroom set so this one was "left over."

And, yeah, it's harder to believe this "keep your bills low" stuff when we started with DirecTV more than a decade ago and our total for the everything package, and receivers on all TV, was well under $75/month, while now they top $200. I can't really think of much else that's more than doubled in price for, essentially, the same level of service, even if you could argue that service has expanded and improved. (Didn't pay double for my laptop in 2012 than I did in 1998--less, actually, in real dollars--and that's for a MUCH improved product with technology that we didn't even dream of 14 years ago.) DirecTV has grown exponentially in that same time frame and growth (larger customer base) + time in technology usually leads to better deals with providers and, thus, lower end user prices, not higher.

To answer the inevitable "then shut up and leave" question, which I've answered so many times before ... My only TV choices are DirecTV and DISH, or no TV at all (IPTV and OTA are not options due to locale). We enjoy relaxing by watching television, so that's not an option for my family, and, so far, the hassle of switching + the generally decent channel count and reliability of DirecTV has made their less-than-impressive (to me) customer service worth overlooking in favor of maintaining the status quo and staying.

And, now, while I'm getting sorely tempted to just walk by this whole mess, contract or no, I am not naive enough to think DISH wouldn't do the same exact thing, and still could. Heck, that's one of the reasons I hadn't left in the past. I thought when it came to things like dropping channels and getting into pissing matches with providers, DirecTV WAS the more reasonable choice. Now, I'm not so sure.

Honestly, my fear is they both suck and I'm just screwed.


----------



## sammy720

FWIW, I got $5 off for 3 months and free Starz and Showtime for 6 months (auto cancels too) due to the Viacom dispute. This is on top of around $40 worth of monthly credits I get right now for miscellaneous things to offset the ridiculously high rates if you are out of contract (which I am). All of that aside, my 2 cents on the dispute is that Viacom is just being greedy, like everyone else in the TV content business nowadays. I fully support DirecTV since they are trying to stop this seemingly industry wide greed. Could I live without these channels? In the short term (maybe a month or two), absolutely. In the long term, absolutely not. This family NEEDS their Legend of Korra on Nick (thankfully the first season just ended a few weeks ago) and to a lesser extent, their Colbert Report. If it ever came down to that we were not going to get new episodes of Korra we would switch to Dish, instantly. Thankfully I don't think that will happen because both sides simply need each other too much. Viacom will lose HUGE market share if this is permanent, and DirecTV just can't be a viable competitor if they don't carry Viacom channels, some of which are basic staples for many. My bet is give it one month, tops, before they are back on DirecTV.


----------



## The Walrus

well, since the channels came down, me and my son have,
gone to the water park, played catch, went to a museum, read books and layed on the floor to draw, and you know what?
he doesn't even know they are gone.
the only one I ever watched was comedy central for Tosh.o, so where can i possibly find a replacement for funny internet videos? maybe on the internet


----------



## tonyd79

"susanandmark" said:


> Here's the thing, you may say I don't get it, or I'm in the minority here, or whatever you want. And that's all well and good; you're absolutely entitled to that perspective and, for all I know, the majority here could be correct and DirecTV has such a loyal fan base (instead of just a customer base), that not a single one will leave if they take Viacom off forever and instead will erect shrines to DirecTV's CEO.
> 
> There are plenty of people here who think DirecTV's "got my back" incessancy and PR spin is the God's honest truth (usually the same folks who think Viacom are "scumbags" for doing, basically, the same thing on the opposite side) and that they are sincerely fighting the good fight to, "keep our bills low." Again, good on you. Absolutely entitled to that viewpoint.
> 
> Here's MY deal ... DirecTV does NOT have my back. If they did, they wouldn't remove channels--or let them be removed, if you prefer. (Semantics.) I'm a high-dollar, high-end customer and what they're telling me, with channel pull after channel pull and these seemingly endless disputes, is that they don't give a hoot about what I, as a customer want, which is the availability of as many HD channels as possible without having to spam a provider's Facebook page or gloom onto a Twitter hashtag, sign a petition, or anything else that makes me think and worry way too much about what should be a very simple utility. I want to pay my bill, get the programming I expect for that payment, and be done. I don't need to be a cohort in pitched moral battle with ANY company ... I need a reliable television provider, not a relationship.
> 
> Today's add of the Disney Jr. channel in SD only is just another example that DirecTV does seem to be aiming to the low end. Seriously, in 2012 the once-billed "HD leader" is adding NEW HD-available channels in SD?! Why even bother?
> 
> Is it because as someone in another thread pointed out (I have no idea if accurately), "most" of DirecTV's receivers in their 20,000,000 customer's homes are SD only? Do they even MAKE SD-only receivers anymore? And, if so, why? They've swapped our far younger technology than that (MPEG-2 vs MPEG-4), why wouldn't it be a priority to remove outdated, I'm-sure-hard-to-program-for boxes ASAP and get all of their customers on the same, HD page?
> 
> That they haven't shows it's a service geared VERY much at the low end. I'm far from wealthy, but I haven't had an SD TV in my home for years. Heck, full HD sets can now be had for >$200. And finding a TV that's NOT HD would be the real trick, so why would any truly forward-thinking provider be aiming at the past by boosting their SD channel count? (Up next: exclusive DirecTV logo buggy whips!) Is the pay TV market really that lucrative for folks that can't afford to replace 10-year-old televisions? My guess is if folks are that uninterested in television, or just frugal (not that there's anything at all wrong with either stance), they're not shelling out for satellite.
> 
> I have lots of friends who could care less about HD (the classic "you mean what we're watching ISN'T HD, but I thought it was an HDTV?" set), but not a single one that doesn't have all HDTVs in their home, be it one TV or five. And this includes a heck of a lot of college students. (OK, they're guys, and I'm frankly always shocked at the number of 50" flat screens single guys with no jobs manage to own. Giant flat screen + leather couch = 20 year old male.) Honestly, the last tube TV I saw ANYWHERE was the one we had on our porch and turned on about once per year ... And even that was replaced with an older HDTV set in the last few months, just because we'd upgraded our bedroom set so this one was "left over."
> 
> And, yeah, it's harder to believe this "keep your bills low" stuff when we started with DirecTV more than a decade ago and our total for the everything package, and receivers on all TV, was well under $75/month, while now they top $200. I can't really think of much else that's more than doubled in price for, essentially, the same level of service, even if you could argue that service has expanded and improved. (Didn't pay double for my laptop in 2012 than I did in 1998--less, actually, in real dollars--and that's for a MUCH improved product with technology that we didn't even dream of 14 years ago.) DirecTV has grown exponentially in that same time frame and growth (larger customer base) + time in technology usually leads to better deals with providers and, thus, lower end user prices, not higher.
> 
> To answer the inevitable "then shut up and leave" question, which I've answered so many times before ... My only TV choices are DirecTV and DISH, or no TV at all (IPTV and OTA are not options due to locale). We enjoy relaxing by watching television, so that's not an option for my family, and, so far, the hassle of switching + the generally decent channel count and reliability of DirecTV has made their less-than-impressive (to me) customer service worth overlooking in favor of maintaining the status quo and staying.
> 
> And, now, while I'm getting sorely tempted to just walk by this whole mess, contract or no, I am not naive enough to think DISH wouldn't do the same exact thing, and still could. Heck, that's one of the reasons I hadn't left in the past. I thought when it came to things like dropping channels and getting into pissing matches with providers, DirecTV WAS the more reasonable choice. Now, I'm not so sure.
> 
> Honestly, my fear is they both suck and I'm just screwed.


Lot of typing to just say "directv bad." maybe if you said something good about these people you give so much money, you'd have more credibility.

Although I am trying to figure out what channel pull after channel pull you are talking about.


----------



## Mariah2014

The problem is sometime they have to put their foot down or our bills would be jumping by 10 to 20 dollars a year. They would be forced to repackage and even take away from the grandfathered packages because of it like cable does. Then you wonder why those companies rename or change and add packages every year well it is those increases they are blindly taking no matter what that cause it. People can only afford so much and then we prioritize what we really want and what we can live with out. A lot of houses still have SD sets and those often are connected to SD receivers. Secondly some of these stations that are in HD actually have no or little HD programing on them. They have no good reason to add every HD station just because it is in HD. Secondly, they have to have a contract to get the HD station and have room for it on a Satellite, while trying to keep the prices down. These stations that are down, I can live without. However, these stations in some cases used to be much better than they are today. 


susanandmark said:


> Here's the thing, you may say I don't get it, or I'm in the minority here, or whatever you want. And that's all well and good; you're absolutely entitled to that perspective and, for all I know, the majority here could be correct and DirecTV has such a loyal fan base (instead of just a customer base), that not a single one will leave if they take Viacom off forever and instead will erect shrines to DirecTV's CEO.
> 
> There are plenty of people here who think DirecTV's "got my back" incessancy and PR spin is the God's honest truth (usually the same folks who think Viacom are "scumbags" for doing, basically, the same thing on the opposite side) and that they are sincerely fighting the good fight to, "keep our bills low." Again, good on you. Absolutely entitled to that viewpoint.
> 
> Here's MY deal ... DirecTV does NOT have _my_ back. If they did, they wouldn't remove channels--or let them be removed, if you prefer. (Semantics.) I'm a high-dollar, high-end customer and what they're telling me, with channel pull after channel pull and these seemingly endless disputes, is that they don't give a hoot about what *I*, as a customer want, which is the availability of as many HD channels as possible without having to spam a provider's Facebook page or gloom onto a Twitter hashtag, sign a petition, or anything else that makes me think and worry way too much about what should be a very simple utility. I want to pay my bill, get the programming I expect for that payment, and be done. I don't need to be a cohort in pitched moral battle with ANY company ... I need a reliable television provider, not a relationship.
> 
> Today's add of the Disney Jr. channel in SD only is just another example that DirecTV does seem to be aiming to the low end. Seriously, in 2012 the once-billed "HD leader" is adding NEW HD-available channels in SD?! Why even bother?
> 
> Is it because as someone in another thread pointed out (I have no idea if accurately), "most" of DirecTV's receivers in their 20,000,000 customer's homes are SD only? Do they even MAKE SD-only receivers anymore? And, if so, why? They've swapped our far younger technology than that (MPEG-2 vs MPEG-4), why wouldn't it be a priority to remove outdated, I'm-sure-hard-to-program-for boxes ASAP and get all of their customers on the same, HD page?
> 
> That they haven't shows it's a service geared VERY much at the low end. I'm far from wealthy, but I haven't had an SD TV in my home for years. Heck, full HD sets can now be had for >$200. And finding a TV that's NOT HD would be the real trick, so why would any truly forward-thinking provider be aiming at the past by boosting their SD channel count? (Up next: exclusive DirecTV logo buggy whips!) Is the pay TV market really that lucrative for folks that can't afford to replace 10-year-old televisions? My guess is if folks are that uninterested in television, or just frugal (not that there's anything at all wrong with either stance), they're not shelling out for satellite.
> 
> I have lots of friends who could care less about HD (the classic "you mean what we're watching ISN'T HD, but I thought it was an HDTV?" set), but not a single one that doesn't have all HDTVs in their home, be it one TV or five. And this includes a heck of a lot of college students. (OK, they're guys, and I'm frankly always shocked at the number of 50" flat screens single guys with no jobs manage to own. Giant flat screen + leather couch = 20 year old male.) Honestly, the last tube TV I saw ANYWHERE was the one we had on our porch and turned on about once per year ... And even that was replaced with an older HDTV set in the last few months, just because we'd upgraded our bedroom set so this one was "left over."
> 
> And, yeah, it's harder to believe this "keep your bills low" stuff when we started with DirecTV more than a decade ago and our total for the everything package, and receivers on all TV, was well under $75/month, while now they top $200. I can't really think of much else that's more than doubled in price for, essentially, the same level of service, even if you could argue that service has expanded and improved. (Didn't pay double for my laptop in 2012 than I did in 1998--less, actually, in real dollars--and that's for a MUCH improved product with technology that we didn't even dream of 14 years ago.) DirecTV has grown exponentially in that same time frame and growth (larger customer base) + time in technology usually leads to better deals with providers and, thus, lower end user prices, not higher.
> 
> To answer the inevitable "then shut up and leave" question, which I've answered so many times before ... My only TV choices are DirecTV and DISH, or no TV at all (IPTV and OTA are not options due to locale). We enjoy relaxing by watching television, so that's not an option for my family, and, so far, the hassle of switching + the generally decent channel count and reliability of DirecTV has made their less-than-impressive (to me) customer service worth overlooking in favor of maintaining the status quo and staying.
> 
> And, now, while I'm getting sorely tempted to just walk by this whole mess, contract or no, I am not naive enough to think DISH wouldn't do the same exact thing, and still could. Heck, that's one of the reasons I hadn't left in the past. I thought when it came to things like dropping channels and getting into pissing matches with providers, DirecTV WAS the more reasonable choice. Now, I'm not so sure.
> 
> Honestly, my fear is they both suck and I'm just screwed.


----------



## BlackCoffee

tonyd79 said:


> Lot of typing to just say "directv bad." maybe if you said something good about these people you give so much money, you'd have more credibility.
> 
> Although I am trying to figure out what channel pull after channel pull you are talking about.


Dont' encourage another rant even though it looks like the last was unsolicited. If you want some entertainment, review her old posts. I personally enjoy one of the early ones when she says DTV told her to stop calling.


----------



## am7crew

dpeters11 said:


> Not that Uverse has ever dropped channels due to a dispute, like Food Network, HGTV, DIY, Fox Sports....


yeah and those channel were down less then 48 hours before returning.


----------



## slinger45

DirecTV has the leverage in the negotiations, it means a lot more for Viacom to get the hike than having an outage on D*. It's smart business to put their foot down and get a better price because theyre in a much better position to wait it out.

I have no problem with it whatsoever.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

Rtm said:


> http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/13/technology/directv-viacom-standoff/index.htm
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/13/technology/directv-viacom-standoff/index.htm
> 
> ~$0.60 a month or ~$0.02 a day
> 
> Is this correct?


Just do the easy math.

$1 billion apart on negotiated price. 5 year term (Viacom doesn't want a 7 year term per Sumner Redstone)

$1 billion divided into about 18.5 million customers (remember that DTV has close to 20 million but that includes Commercial customers and foreign language customers). That comes out to about $54 per customer to cover that $1 billion.

If everyone would just open up their checkbooks and write another $54 check to DTV for these Viacom channels, the gap is closed. Of course that doesn't get into what I'm certain they are also asking for (not only certain, I know based on what I've heard from various sources). They are demanding EPIX just as they demanded EPIX on Cablevision and other outlets. That cost has to be factored in on top of what they want for the 17 channels dropped. Then DTV has to get those up in the air in HD, that's a capacity cost and an infrastructure cost. So all in, let's call it $70 ($54 + $16 for Epix and infrastructure) from every customer, give or take. I suspect 20% couldn't do it even if they wanted to because of their financial shape. Another 40% would say go fly a kite. Another 25% would do it while complaining and the remaining 15% wouldn't even notice it as money isn't an issue.

Doesn't sound like much, but we all know that as soon as that price increase comes next year even if it is only for $4, the howling will be immense like it always is. Like clockwork.

Now factor in all those local broadcast station group increases this year. Disney contract which is probably up next year. I hear the CBS contract is up nationally. One of the premium is up and I'm not sure HBO ever got closed, will need to check that one. Keep adding up those costs. Then a Pac 12 network to launch, a Lakers RSN to launch, and on and on and on and on.


----------



## tampa8

susanandmark said:


> Here's the thing, you may say I don't get it, or I'm in the minority here, or whatever you want..............


(Truncated quote)

Nice for you that you are high end (I mean that, not sarcastically) and you want the carriers like Direct TV and Dish to just accept whatever the providers ask for. Following that sage advice however, you will not only be high end, but one of a few any end still subscribing.


----------



## SteveHas

mnassour said:


> I *know* I don't agree with it. What we're looking at here is nothing less than a huge jump by Viacom for channels that are continuing to lose viewers...and value. Unless DirecTV holds the line here, then provider after provider will be lining up with their hands out and not just for DirecTV, but for Dish and the Cable Cos as well.
> 
> Penny pinching? Hey, I pinch MY pennies. I'm very glad DirecTV is doing the same.


Right on! I agree completely!
I thank D* for thinking of MY budget here, its not their budget that is ultimately at risk if the cave to Viacom, its yours and mine.


----------



## susanandmark

tampa8 said:


> (Truncated quote)
> 
> Nice for you that you are high end (I mean that, not sarcastically) and you want the carriers like Direct TV and Dish to just accept whatever the providers ask for. Following that sage advice however, you will not only be high end, but one of a few any end still subscribing.


I have never, and will never, say that I wanted them to "just accept whatever the providers ask for" ... I said I wanted to not be a pawn in childish corporate spats, fueled by PR campaigns that result in loss of service for customers.

That's the same message how (and I don't mean that sarcastically either)?

I simply do not buy, for a single second, that our rates won't increase (based on history) at the exact same planned rate NO MATTER WHAT Viacom and DirecTV eventually agree on, or even if they never reach a deal at all. Companies base service fee increases more on market research--what customers in their market will bear--than expense projections. They've already projected what they think that increase can be, and how much profit they'd like to make. Now they're working the numbers to make that happen. Again, nothing inherently wrong with any of the above ... Just that our rates WILL go up, regardless of these negotiations, and I'd be shocked if it's even "pennies a day" difference at stake with the outcome of this deal. Yet, the channels are still gone. Customers are still the ones left in a lurch as part of the "negotiating" tactic on both sides.

I also said that I wanted DirecTV to focus on retaining old channels and, if they add new channels they should be in HD, which has been the broadcast standard for at least the past decade and in widespread consumer adopted since at least 2006.

As for "not much HD content," Disney produces all their cartoons, ASFAIK, in HD, and show them as such on the Disney channel. This may have been the case five years ago, but there are now very few HD channels that feature "very few" HD shows.

It doesn't have anything to do with me being "high end," which I'm not (other than in amount I pay), it has to do with the idea of DirecTV being "low cost," which it is definitively not, yet some of the tactics/philosophies seem to be. I mentioned my total to show that their "keeping my bills low" promise has resulted in a more than 125% increase in the total I pay for the same level of service. (DVRs didn't exist when I joined, but I'm not counting purchased equipment costs in that total anyhow, just monthly service fees, and I've never paid a monthly DVR fee, since I originally had TiVos with lifetime service so my per receiver cost is the same as if I was still just using standard receivers. I'm getting "free HD" for autopay, so that's not part of that $200 total either, doing my best to make it an apples-to-apples comparison.)


----------



## JoeTheDragon

crashHD said:


> I did think it was odd they offered NFLST sooner than a total of $60 worth of programming discounts. NFLST is the higher $ value, it's just not worth anything to me without a desire to watch it.


not really NFLST for homes is nothing next to what sports bars pay.


----------



## Mariah2014

1. They need a contract to get the HD feed provided there is an HD feed.
2. They need channel space on the satellites to carry the station in HD.
3. Not every HD station actually has much HD content. Example Hallmark Movie Channel HD has very little HD content.
4. Not everyone has an HD set or more importantly an HD receiver. As a result, they need to add some stations in SD to keep these people happy too.
5. They won't just pay anything to get some of these HD feeds. Some of these HD feeds are not being offered cheaply and take awhile to work a deal out on.



susanandmark said:


> I have never, and will never, say that I wanted them to "just accept whatever the providers ask for" ... I said I wanted to not be a pawn in childish corporate spats, fueled by PR campaigns that result in loss of service for customers.
> 
> That's the same message how (and I don't mean that sarcastically either)?
> 
> I simply do not buy, for a single second, that our rates won't increase (based on history) at the exact same planned rate NO MATTER WHAT Viacom and DirecTV eventually agree on, or even if they never reach a deal at all. Companies base service fee increases more on market research--what customers in their market will bear--than expense projections. They've already projected what they think that increase can be, and how much profit they'd like to make. Now they're working the numbers to make that happen. Again, nothing inherently wrong with any of the above ... Just that our rates WILL go up, regardless of these negotiations, and I'd be shocked if it's even "pennies a day" difference at stake with the outcome of this deal. Yet, the channels are still gone. Customers are still the ones left in a lurch as part of the "negotiating" tactic on both sides.
> 
> I also said that I wanted DirecTV to focus on retaining old channels and, if they add new channels they should be in HD, which has been the broadcast standard for at least the past decade and in widespread consumer adopted since at least 2006.
> 
> As for "not much HD content," Disney produces all their cartoons, ASFAIK, in HD, and show them as such on the Disney channel. This may have been the case five years ago, but there are now very few HD channels that feature "very few" HD shows.
> 
> It doesn't have anything to do with me being "high end," which I'm not (other than in amount I pay), it has to do with the idea of DirecTV being "low cost," which it is definitively not, yet some of the tactics/philosophies seem to be. I mentioned my total to show that their "keeping my bills low" promise has resulted in a more than 125% increase in the total I pay for the same level of service. (DVRs didn't exist when I joined, but I'm not counting purchased equipment costs in that total anyhow, just monthly service fees, and I've never paid a monthly DVR fee, since I originally had TiVos with lifetime service so my per receiver cost is the same as if I was still just using standard receivers. I'm getting "free HD" for autopay, so that's not part of that $200 total either, doing my best to make it an apples-to-apples comparison.)


----------



## tulanejosh

mitchflorida said:


> Do you work for Viacom? I really think you are being paid by them. DTV could get rid of Viacom permanently, just like Dish dumped AMC and several of their no-name channels (Sundance and IFC).
> 
> I hope they never come back. But it will be several weeks anyway.


I think it will be much sooner than that. Probably next week. D* "latest updates" on directvpromise.com makes a very big point of saying they are making progress, they expect this to be over soon. I'm inclined to believe that's just spin, but when I spoke to D* earlier today, they also fell all over themselves to assure me that they were close and this was just temporary. They said it at least 3 times. Admittedly - I'm an exceptionally high dollar customer for them (I order every UFC and major boxing fight, i have all 3 sports subs, premier, yada yada yada), so they could be telling me what they think i want to here, but I sensed sincerity in their voices for whatever it's worth.


----------



## marquitos2

I'm glad that D*took a hard core position towards Viacom. No more holding hostage the customers by channels company. D* understand how bad the economy is at this time. So lets wait for D* to negotiate in the customers best interest.


----------



## Mariah2014

I have often found that many on the phone don't know what is going on. Secondly, I'm inclined to think that they have been told to put a spin on it to try and keep some people content during the period of time left that these stations will be off Directv.


tulanejosh said:


> I think it will be much sooner than that. Probably next week. D* "latest updates" on directvpromise.com makes a very big point of saying they are making progress, they expect this to be over soon. I'm inclined to believe that's just spin, but when I spoke to D* earlier today, they also fell all over themselves to assure me that they were close and this was just temporary. They said it at least 3 times. Admittedly - I'm an exceptionally high dollar customer for them (I order every UFC and major boxing fight, i have all 3 sports subs, premier, yada yada yada), so they could be telling me what they think i want to here, but I sensed sincerity in their voices for whatever it's worth.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

susanandmark said:


> I have never, and will never, say that I wanted them to "just accept whatever the providers ask for" ... I said I wanted to not be a pawn in childish corporate spats, fueled by PR campaigns that result in loss of service for customers.


There is no doublt to me that both parties wanted the channels to go dark to help their negotiation. They could have gotten this done earlier if it was all about nickels and dimes. I think Viacom believes that people will complain and eventually cancel if people can't watch their channels. I think Directv is saying that people won't miss the channels as much as you (Viacom) think.

They had to bring it public to gauge the response. Anyway, that's just my opinion based on the way both parties have acted.


----------



## android.cphone

I have a great way of ending this dispute...
1.tape open the eyes of the ceo of viacom
2.make him watch the customer information channel for 48hrs straight


nothing wrong with a little bit of torture .. Lol


----------



## Mariah2014

I think that is exactly it. They wanted to prove it to Viacom that their channels can be lived without.


Pepe Sylvia said:


> There is no doublt to me that both parties wanted the channels to go dark to help their negotiation. They could have gotten this done earlier if it was all about nickels and dimes. I think Viacom believes that people will complain and eventually cancel if people can't watch their channels. I think Directv is saying that people won't miss the channels as much as you (Viacom) think.
> 
> They had to bring it public to gauge the response. Anyway, that's just my opinion based on the way both parties have acted.


----------



## tulanejosh

mshaw2715 said:


> I think that is exactly it. They wanted to prove it to Viacom that their channels can be lived without.


agree. But i think that's really hard to prove. For all the posturing on both sides - fact is, most of us are under contract. There's enough people saying they can't afford to pay any more than they already do - and directv is saying that as well - that i can't believe that for just 4 days of outage people are willing to pay a several hundred $ etf. The only way to really prove it one way or another is to let this go a year, and see how churn is impacted. And i hope to god that doesn't happen. Personally - i want these channels back.


----------



## Mariah2014

I think it comes down to one big game of chicken
Directv called their bluff and viacom said the channels had to come down.
Directv told people where they could find the programing, viacom said fine and pulled it off their site.
Viacom hopes people can't live without their networks at any cost and Directv is telling them we can unless the price is right. In the end, we will pay more, but Viacom will have to cave from the pressure. If directv was going to cave, I would think it would have happened by now.


tulanejosh said:


> agree. But i think that's really hard to prove. For all the posturing on both sides - fact is, most of us are under contract. There's enough people saying they can't afford to pay any more than they already do - and directv is saying that as well - that i can't believe that for just 4 days of outage people are willing to pay a several hundred $ etf. The only way to really prove it one way or another is to let this go a year, and see how churn is impacted. And i hope to god that doesn't happen. Personally - i want these channels back.


----------



## HuskerHarley

MattScahum said:


> Agreed. Since im in the bundles department I dont have the same options, nor should I BUT it has been very few and far between with getting a *pleasant customer*. I had one guy that didnt qualify for much in terms of discount since.he hadnt been installed for more than a month or so. He was extremely pleasant and I felt bad I couldnt do more so I helped him set up a custom guide, hide his sd duplicates and showed him how to access and use hbo go. He was thankful and.happy about all he got and he didnt even call in but for an update on the negotiations


Do you think when a customer calls in, it's for a friendly chat-->

HH


----------



## Carl Spock

You don't have to be rude to a CSR. A "get more flies with honey" attitude has always worked for me.


----------



## Mariah2014

Very true, but I think his point was that in many cases right now people are so frustrated with the situation that they are less friendly than they may be ordinarily. 


Carl Spock said:


> You don't have to be rude to a CSR. A "get more flies with honey" attitude has always worked for me.


----------



## tulanejosh

mshaw2715 said:


> I have often found that many on the phone don't know what is going on. Secondly, I'm inclined to think that they have been told to put a spin on it to try and keep some people content during the period of time left that these stations will be off Directv.


i tend to agree. you have to take it with a grain of salt. At the same time - all of their official communication channels (directvpromise.com, derek chang in the media, twitter, CSRs,) are saying "we'll get this done", "we're making serious progress", "this won't last much longer". It's one thing to permanently lose the channels, but it's a bit of a PR fiasco if they were publicly making the statements above and then actually can't get this resolved.


----------



## HuskerHarley

Carl Spock said:


> You don't have to be rude to a CSR. A "get more flies with honey" attitude has always worked for me.


When you have to jump through all the hoops to reach a Human (CSR) to get to the bottom of what ever is wrong,,,Well,,,I'm usually not in any mood to have a friendly chat...



mshaw2715 said:


> Very true, but I think his point was that in many cases right now people are so frustrated with the situation that they are less friendly than they may be ordinarily.


Pretty much nailed it-->

HH


----------



## tulanejosh

mshaw2715 said:


> I think it comes down to one big game of chicken
> Directv called their bluff and viacom said the channels had to come down.
> Directv told people where they could find the programing, viacom said fine and pulled it off their site.
> Viacom hopes people can't live without their networks at any cost and Directv is telling them we can unless the price is right. In the end, we will pay more, but Viacom will have to cave from the pressure. If directv was going to cave, I would think it would have happened by now.


Assuming that the issue is as simple as "caving". This is a big contract between 2 big corps. Probably more complicated with more points than any of us realize. Price is very likely only one aspect. The issue of Epix and tiers is probably just as sticky as price.


----------



## wahooq

One reaps what they sow...just sayin


----------



## tulanejosh

Little off topic... but does anyone know the real deal with Disney Junior. I read the press release - says permanent addition to basic tier. But on twitter - they are saying "free while we work this out", which i interpret as this channel is either temporary or it will cost a fee (like Baby First used to) after this is resolved. I'm not sure who to believe.


----------



## Mariah2014

The sad thing is that it still could happen that way. We may see it break down again be a lot longer before things get going again. I hope it doesn't go that way, but you never know. I would think the next week or so should be more than long enough to get a deal done.


tulanejosh said:


> i tend to agree. you have to take it with a grain of salt. At the same time - all of their official communication channels (directvpromise.com, derek chang in the media, twitter, CSRs,) are saying "we'll get this done", "we're making serious progress", "this won't last much longer". It's one thing to permanently lose the channels, but it's a bit of a PR fiasco if they were publicly making the statements above and then actually can't get this resolved.


----------



## Mariah2014

Very true. I think Epix is a big part of the issue being discussed. When KHQ/ KNDU/ KNDO contract came up, they wanted to force directv to pick up SWX. In the end, Directv was able to get the channels renewed without having to add another station.


tulanejosh said:


> Assuming that the issue is as simple as "caving". This is a big contract between 2 big corps. Probably more complicated with more points than any of us realize. Price is very likely only one aspect. The issue of Epix and tiers is probably just as sticky as price.


----------



## Mariah2014

I thought at first it was part of the bottom tier, but I have not seen what the bottom package it will be in named yet. I would guess it would be either choice or choice extra. I doubt any package below that will actually get to keep the station. The preview is apparently through July 27.


tulanejosh said:


> Little off topic... but does anyone know the real deal with Disney Junior. I read the press release - says permanent addition to basic tier. But on twitter - they are saying "free while we work this out", which i interpret as this channel is either temporary or it will cost a fee (like Baby First used to) after this is resolved. I'm not sure who to believe.


----------



## tulanejosh

mshaw2715 said:


> The sad thing is that it still could happen that way. We may see it break down again be a lot longer before things get going again. I hope it doesn't go that way, but you never know. I would think the next week or so should be more than long enough to get a deal done.


Negotiations can always break down, but D* is pretty savvy with PR. I might not necessarily think like the spin they are putting on this, but I don't think they are liars either. If they weren't making progress, i think they would just say we continue to work on this check ... for the latest news. But they are painting a much more specific picture.

Directv and Viacom need each way too much. I cannot possibly imagine those channels permanently going dark.


----------



## mystro

ain't enough profit


----------



## Mariah2014

However, Viacom needs Directv more than Directv needs Viacom.


tulanejosh said:


> Negotiations can always break down, but D* is pretty savvy with PR. I might not necessarily think like the spin they are putting on this, but I don't think they are liars either. If they weren't making progress, i think they would just say we continue to work on this check ... for the latest news. But they are painting a much more specific picture.
> 
> Directv and Viacom need each way too much. I cannot possibly imagine those channels permanently going dark.


----------



## Satelliteracer

susanandmark said:


> I have never, and will never, say that I wanted them to "just accept whatever the providers ask for" ... I said I wanted to not be a pawn in childish corporate spats, fueled by PR campaigns that result in loss of service for customers.
> 
> That's the same message how (and I don't mean that sarcastically either)?
> 
> I simply do not buy, for a single second, that our rates won't increase (based on history) at the exact same planned rate NO MATTER WHAT Viacom and DirecTV eventually agree on, or even if they never reach a deal at all. Companies base service fee increases more on market research--what customers in their market will bear--than expense projections. They've already projected what they think that increase can be, and how much profit they'd like to make. Now they're working the numbers to make that happen. Again, nothing inherently wrong with any of the above ... Just that our rates WILL go up, regardless of these negotiations, and I'd be shocked if it's even "pennies a day" difference at stake with the outcome of this deal. Yet, the channels are still gone. Customers are still the ones left in a lurch as part of the "negotiating" tactic on both sides.
> 
> I also said that I wanted DirecTV to focus on retaining old channels and, if they add new channels they should be in HD, which has been the broadcast standard for at least the past decade and in widespread consumer adopted since at least 2006.
> 
> As for "not much HD content," Disney produces all their cartoons, ASFAIK, in HD, and show them as such on the Disney channel. This may have been the case five years ago, but there are now very few HD channels that feature "very few" HD shows.
> 
> It doesn't have anything to do with me being "high end," which I'm not (other than in amount I pay), it has to do with the idea of DirecTV being "low cost," which it is definitively not, yet some of the tactics/philosophies seem to be. I mentioned my total to show that their "keeping my bills low" promise has resulted in a more than 125% increase in the total I pay for the same level of service. (DVRs didn't exist when I joined, but I'm not counting purchased equipment costs in that total anyhow, just monthly service fees, and I've never paid a monthly DVR fee, since I originally had TiVos with lifetime service so my per receiver cost is the same as if I was still just using standard receivers. I'm getting "free HD" for autopay, so that's not part of that $200 total either, doing my best to make it an apples-to-apples comparison.)


Actually DIRECTV was the first major provider to launch HD in a significant way and those weren't launched until 2007. To say this is the standard broadcast method simply isn't true in the dates you describe.

There are still many SD channels that do not even have a HD equivalent here in 2012. In other words, there are more SD channels than HD.

The fact of the matter is that there are still more SD televisions active in the USA than HD televisions and that will be the case for a few more years before HD televisions become the majority. We are not there yet.


----------



## mystro

Just the quarterly report from 2011:
Revenue in the quarter, ended June 30, rose 15 percent to $3.77 billion.

Just ain't enough


----------



## tulanejosh

mshaw2715 said:


> However, Viacom needs Directv more than Directv needs Viacom.


Probably. Viacom does have the benefit of streaming options that it previously didn't have before though.


----------



## danpeters

tulanejosh said:


> Little off topic... but does anyone know the real deal with Disney Junior. I read the press release - says permanent addition to basic tier. But on twitter - they are saying "free while we work this out", which i interpret as this channel is either temporary or it will cost a fee (like Baby First used to) after this is resolved. I'm not sure who to believe.


I'm guessing they are implying that Disney Jr will probably be in the Choice Xtra package eventually, or even possibly Choice, but right now though it's "free" as in any package can receive it due to the Viacom dispute.


----------



## Mariah2014

I think that only adds to my point. I can get the material elsewhere without having to change tv providers, where as Viacom loses revenue that they get from advertising every day these stations are off Directv.


tulanejosh said:


> Probably. Viacom does have the benefit of streaming options that it previously didn't have before though.


----------



## Satelliteracer

mystro said:


> ain't enough profit


Revenue is not the same as profits. Revenue is BEFORE expenses are calculated. Let's also note that profits are typically measured from quarter to quarter or YOY quarterly. So yes, profits are up, but not at the levels you are talking about. Operating margins are declining, however, because of programming costs.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/08/directv-idUSL1E8G81KO20120508

""We see few alternatives to alleviate cost pressures," he wrote.

DirecTV said its operating margins declined to 31.5 percent from 34.5 percent a year ago partly due to higher programming costs. Media companies are raising their rates faster than operators such as DirecTV can pass them along to customers."


----------



## tulanejosh

mshaw2715 said:


> I think that only adds to my point. I can get the material elsewhere without having to change tv providers, where as Viacom loses revenue that they get from advertising every day these stations are off Directv.


fragmentation isn't good for anyone. Not for viacom. Not for directv.


----------



## DodgerKing

People often have a lack of understanding of the value of profits. They think that if a company makes a few billion in profits in a year that they are not only making a lot, but way more than enough. When operating costs are also a few billion a year and investments are too as well, a few billion in profit is not a whole lot. All of that can easily be lost in a year and that company can go from profits to debt in no time. It is important for them to maintain a certain profit margin by percent. The more you own, the more you invest, the more costs you accumulate, the more money you have to make in order to maintain that minimum margin.

Why doesn't the signature line about posting from a mobile device show up in a post when we use the DBSTalk APP?


----------



## android.cphone

Someone should find the phone# for viacom. Fans of the network could all call and demand they play nice


----------



## Mariah2014

It may not be good, but it is becoming more the norm as the cost of these channels and programing keeps going up.


tulanejosh said:


> fragmentation isn't good for anyone. Not for viacom. Not for directv.


----------



## Mariah2014

Go to the facebook.com viacom page, you will find the phone numbers are listed in some comments in the different posts on their page.


android.cphone said:


> Someone should find the phone# for viacom. Fans of the network could all call and demand they play nice


----------



## boufa

mystro said:


> ain't enough profit


Profit motive is the reason that you have the luxury to complain about profit. Profit has been the driving force behind most of the things you take for granted. DirecTV was createdto generate profit... The roads that you drive on were paid for by corp profits (at least partially). Your job is most likely due to the fact that you can add to your company's profit. The construction company who paved the roads was out to make a profit.

You can chose how you spend your money, but you cannot tell a company that they have enough profit.


----------



## Satelliteracer

tulanejosh said:


> Little off topic... but does anyone know the real deal with Disney Junior. I read the press release - says permanent addition to basic tier. But on twitter - they are saying "free while we work this out", which i interpret as this channel is either temporary or it will cost a fee (like Baby First used to) after this is resolved. I'm not sure who to believe.


Disney Jr. is not a temporary channel, it is part of the service now. For the next two weeks it is free to all customers, regardless of package. Then it will settle into whatever final packaging requirements were agreed to between the two companies.


----------



## john262

> Today's add of the Disney Jr. channel in SD only is just another example that DirecTV does seem to be aiming to the low end. Seriously, in 2012 the once-billed "HD leader" is adding NEW HD-available channels in SD?! Why even bother?


I think the reason they added it in SD is because the channel is aimed at 3-7 year olds. Now tell me, what child in that age group knows what HD is? Could they even tell the difference between a cartoon in SD and one in HD? I doubt it.

So why use up bandwidth on an HD version of that channel? I'd rather that they add an HD channel that caters to adults who can actually tell the difference between SD and HD and appreciate it.


----------



## mystro

boufa said:


> You can chose how you spend your money, but you cannot tell a company that they have enough profit.


Did you make a 15% increase in your wages last year..the vast majority actually lost spending power money. 
Nobody is against a company making profits..but at whose expense, do you think they pay their employees more money or share some of the profit..are you serious, who do you think actually does the work at those companies?

Here's something too ponder:
Executive Profile*
Michael D. White 
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, DIRECTV 
Age 60
Total Calculated Compensation
$5,937,078
As of Fiscal Year 2011

He took a real beating from his 2010 compensation:
DirecTV: Michael White. Last year he ranked fourth on our out-of-whack CEO compensation list as sign-on incentives elevated his 2010 compensation to $32.9M


----------



## Mariah2014

i for one don't want to pay more because of their greed.


mystro said:


> Did you make a 15% increase in your wages last year..the vast majority actually lost spending power money.
> Nobody is against a company making profits..but at whose expense?


----------



## Alan Gordon

Satelliteracer said:


> Actually DIRECTV was the first major provider to launch HD in a significant way and those weren't launched until 2007. To say this is the standard broadcast method simply isn't true in the dates you describe.
> 
> There are still many SD channels that do not even have a HD equivalent here in 2012. In other words, there are more SD channels than HD.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that there are still more SD televisions active in the USA than HD televisions and that will be the case for a few more years before HD televisions become the majority. We are not there yet.


Nothing you said is inheritently wrong... I fully agree with the first and third paragraph, but I have to ask, how are you coming by the second sentence in your third paragraph?

Are you counting local channels?! 
Non-English channels?
Obscure shopping channels?

I ask, because doing a glance of DirecTV's program guide set to ALL channels, I counted around 30 channels without HD feeds, and that was including the religious channels (some of whom I discounted due to HD feeds)... and that may even be on the high end after omitting the three categories mentioned above due to the fact that some of the religious channels may have an HD feed that I'm not aware of.

~Alan


----------



## susanandmark

Satelliteracer said:


> Actually DIRECTV was the first major provider to launch HD in a significant way and those weren't launched until 2007. To say this is the standard broadcast method simply isn't true in the dates you describe.
> 
> There are still many SD channels that do not even have a HD equivalent here in 2012. In other words, there are more SD channels than HD.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that there are still more SD televisions active in the USA than HD televisions and that will be the case for a few more years before HD televisions become the majority. We are not there yet.


There is an HD equivalent of Disney Jr. Why is DirecTV signing contracts for new channels without the HD? (And, YES, MY five-year-old can readily tell the difference. Just like I can. It's even more noticeable with animation than with any other medium.)

We got our first HDTV in 2005. I remember because it was post-Olympic purchase. All the major networks (Dallas) were already in HD (so, you know, about half of what most people watch) as well as ESPN. It was limited for a while, but it was there. By 2007 most everything we watched was in HD. That was FAR from the "first launch."

I also happened to work for NBC at the '04 Olympics and they broadcast a separate HD feed to the cities who had NBC HD. At that time about 85% of the country had it available to them.


----------



## DodgerKing

Regardless if your 5 year old can tell the difference, most cannot. Heck many adults can't tell the difference and even more don't care. I would rather have them save bandwidth for channels where HD is more important to more viewers, even if it is a channel I don't watch myself.


----------



## Whipl50

I'm curious what the percentage of subscribers call in looking for some kind of discount in these situations. 

Someone has run the numbers to calculate what a CSR can give away in order to keep a customer after their contract is up, and still make a profit. 

I'll bet the number of people that call in to complain is less than 20%.


----------



## Mariah2014

The reason is.
1. They need a contract to get the HD feed provided there is an HD feed.
*2. They need channel space on the satellites to carry the station in HD.*
3. Not every HD station actually has much HD content. Example Hallmark Movie Channel HD has very little HD content.
*4. Not everyone has an HD set or more importantly an HD receiver. As a result, they need to add some stations in SD to keep these people happy too.
5. They won't just pay anything to get some of these HD feeds. Some of these HD feeds are not being offered cheaply and take awhile to work a deal out on.
*


susanandmark said:


> There is an HD equivalent of Disney Jr. Why is DirecTV signing contracts for new channels without the HD? (And, YES, MY five-year-old can readily tell the difference. Just like I can. It's even more noticeable with animation than with any other medium.)
> 
> We got our first HDTV in 2005. I remember because it was post-Olympic purchase. All the major networks (Dallas) were already in HD (so, you know, about half of what most people watch) as well as ESPN. It was limited for a while, but it was there. By 2007 most everything we watched was in HD. That was FAR from the "first launch."
> 
> I also happened to work for NBC at the '04 Olympics and they broadcast a separate HD feed to the cities who had NBC HD. At that time about 85% of the country had it available to them.


----------



## Mariah2014

They seem to count on it being a small number, but I wonder if the number isn't bigger than it used to be due to sites like twitter and facebook.


Whipl50 said:


> I'm curious what the percentage of subscribers call in looking for some kind of discount in these situations.
> 
> Someone has run the numbers to calculate what a CSR can give away in order to keep a customer after their contract is up, and still make a profit.
> 
> I'll bet the number of people that call in to complain is less than 20%.


----------



## Alan Gordon

mshaw2715 said:


> 3. Not every HD station actually has much HD content. Example Hallmark Movie Channel HD has very little HD content.


Uhhh.... I think you may be mistaken! 

~Alan


----------



## mark40511

Carl Spock said:


> You don't have to be rude to a CSR. A "get more flies with honey" attitude has always worked for me.


I FULLY agree with you. Never be rude to a CSR, or waitstaff at a restaurant, or anyone. Rarely in my life have I been driven to rudeness 

There have been a few times when I've gotten a CSR, whether D* or some other company, and I just hang up and call back to get a better one because I can tell that this person doesn't want to help or is just having a bad day or something.


----------



## Inkosaurus

> I FULLY agree with you. Never be rude to a CSR, or waitstaff at a restaurant, or anyone. Rarely in my life have I been driven to rudeness


This. You dont screw with the people who handle your food, or in the case of CSR's the people who handle your bill, know your phone number (pizza deliveries anyone?) and know exactly where you live (sociopaths anyone?).

You never know you might be talking to that one guy whos reached his wits end and doesnt care anymore X)



> There is an HD equivalent of Disney Jr. Why is DirecTV signing contracts for new channels without the HD? (And, YES, MY five-year-old can readily tell the difference. Just like I can. It's even more noticeable with animation than with any other medium.)


Just because you and your child can tell the difference doesnt mean others can too, anecdotal evidence holds no value here especially considering the fact that human eyes who are not used to HD yet cant tell the difference.
The reason you can tell the difference is because you've been to greener pastures.

Just because a channel has an HD equivalent doesnt mean its a sure bet to be tossed on. There are alot of varying factors but the two biggest ones are 
1) Cost. 2) Bandwidth.

An HD channel takes up (if i remember correctly) the space of 2 SD channels, DTV is the leader in HD sports so they sacrifice national HD for more sports HD.

Considering Disney Juniors audience its entirely logical to leave the kids with SD :lol:


----------



## inkahauts

"susanandmark" said:


> There is an HD equivalent of Disney Jr. Why is DirecTV signing contracts for new channels without the HD? (And, YES, MY five-year-old can readily tell the difference. Just like I can. It's even more noticeable with animation than with any other medium.)
> 
> We got our first HDTV in 2005. I remember because it was post-Olympic purchase. All the major networks (Dallas) were already in HD (so, you know, about half of what most people watch) as well as ESPN. It was limited for a while, but it was there. By 2007 most everything we watched was in HD. That was FAR from the "first launch."
> 
> I also happened to work for NBC at the '04 Olympics and they broadcast a separate HD feed to the cities who had NBC HD. At that time about 85% of the country had it available to them.


I think he is referring to the first major large launch of cable channels in Hi Definition. There where a few here and the before 2007, but mostly just the top five and a couple oddities (espn, TNT, USA, discovery, hdnet). It wasn't till directv got d10 fired up that suddenly cable Hi Definition channels went from about ten or so on every provider to well over 50. That was the first real launch of Hi Definition for everyone. There are still areas that cant get hdtv ota at all. Most the cable channels didn't even have that much Hi Definition to show when all these channels launched, some taking years to get any decent among of their programing to Hi Definition,Viacom being one of the slowest, coincidentally.

We don't have a clue why jr launched without a Hi Definition version. Not at all out of the realm of reason is that (as others have also posted) this channel may have been set to launch latter in the year, but they launched it early because of the Viacom dispute but don't have the Hi Definition version ready. (infrastructure wise) We just don't know. There is also other things to consider, like the possibility they have other channels set to launch in Hi Definition and they need the space for those until some more upgrades can happen latter on. Now if we don't see it in Hi Definition after d14 is up and running, then I think it will be safe to say its all about a contractual issue, but till then, there are to many variables to simply come out and say that they didn't get the rights to broadcast this channel in Hi Definition.

And I know the winter Olympics in 2002 was all delayed and with different announcers for the Hi Definition feeds, was that the case in 04 as well? I think it was, but can't remember for sure. I think it was the 06 winter games when they finally went to all Hi Definition and sd simulcasts. Just because Hi Definition was available to most areas over the air didn't mean the broadcasters where really with it yet. It took a very long time for everyone to build new studios, and convert equipment so that most the time they could shoot in Hi Definition and show it in both formats without any real trouble. 2007 is around the time frame a lot of stations really started moving to local newscasts in Hi Definition too. Seem cities and channels where a lot faster than others.


----------



## inkahauts

"Inkosaurus" said:


> This. You dont screw with the people who handle your food, or in the case of CSR's the people who handle your bill, know your phone number (pizza deliveries anyone?) and know exactly where you live (sociopaths anyone?).
> 
> You never know you might be talking to that one guy whos reached his wits end and doesnt care anymore X)
> 
> Just because you and your child can tell the difference doesnt mean others can too, anecdotal evidence holds no value here especially considering the fact that human eyes who are not used to HD yet cant tell the difference.
> The reason you can tell the difference is because you've been to greener pastures.
> 
> Just because a channel has an HD equivalent doesnt mean its a sure bet to be tossed on. There are alot of varying factors but the two biggest ones are
> 1) Cost. 2) Bandwidth.
> 
> An HD channel takes up (if i remember correctly) the space of 2 SD channels, DTV is the leader in HD sports so they sacrifice national HD for more sports HD.
> 
> Considering Disney Juniors audience its entirely logical to leave the kids with SD :lol:


I think it's a bit more than just 2. Personally I don't think DIRECTV sacrifices national Hi Definition for sports Hi Definition in terms of bandwidth. I think maybe in terms of cost though, which can have the same net affect.


----------



## Carl Spock

HuskerHarley said:


> Carl Spock said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to be rude to a CSR. A "get more flies with honey" attitude has always worked for me.
> 
> 
> 
> When you have to jump through all the hoops to reach a Human (CSR) to get to the bottom of what ever is wrong,,,Well,,,I'm usually not in any mood to have a friendly chat...
> 
> 
> 
> mshaw2715 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very true, but I think his point was that in many cases right now people are so frustrated with the situation that they are less friendly than they may be ordinarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty much nailed it-->
> 
> HH
Click to expand...

I got the  at the end of your post, HuskerHarley, but please allow me to rant:

Because you lost some TV channels, that gives you the right to yell at someone who has absolutely no control over the situation?

I've always thought one of the functions of DBSTalk was to allow people a place to vent anonymously. Yell, scream and post all the nasty comments you want here. Get it out of your system. Someone with authority to change things at DirecTV might even read it.

This seems a lot more appropriate to me than yelling at some poor schmuck or shmuckette who, outside of giving you a few credits, can't do diddley-squat about the problem.

Sorry, I don't care how frustrated you are. It's just TV. Even if your wife and seventeen kids are yelling at you that they can't get their MTV, there is no excuse to be rude to someone who is just another worker bee in a phone bank.

Since when did acting like an adult become optional in this country?


----------



## MartyS

Carl Spock said:


> I got the  at the end of your post, HuskerHarley, but please allow me to rant:
> 
> Because you lost some TV channels, that gives you the right to yell at someone who has absolutely no control over the situation?
> 
> I've always thought one of the functions of DBSTalk was to allow people a place to vent anonymously. Yell, scream and post all the nasty comments you want here. Get it out of your system. Someone with authority to change things at DirecTV might even read it.
> 
> This seems a lot more appropriate to me than yelling at some poor schmuck or shmuckette who, outside of giving you a few credits, can't do diddley-squat about the problem.
> 
> Sorry, I don't care how frustrated you are. It's just TV. Even if your wife and seventeen kids are yelling at you that they can't get their MTV, there is no excuse to be rude to someone who is just another worker bee in a phone bank.
> 
> Since when did acting like an adult become optional in this country?


Just to add to your rant, anyone out here who believes that you're getting any kind of accurate status from either DirecTV or Viacom is blowing smoke up their own butts.

I don't believe anything that either side is using in their PR war. The real truth is somewhere in the middle and until it's resolved we won't know. and both parities have shareholders and Wall Street to answer to, which oftentimes is WAY more important to the future of the company than any of us are.

Everyone has an opinion about everything. And an opinion is just that... It's not necessarily right or wrong... It's an opinion. Give it up people. No amount of calls to either of the parties will make a difference. A call to directv will get you some kind of discount. The nicer you are the more you'll get. But don't expect the CSR to know anything about negotiations or when channels will be turned on or off. They know less than you do. And be prepared to listen to the PR BS when you do call.

But never EVER treat them like crap, they never did anything to you and they're just trying to make a living


----------



## tampa8

susanandmark said:


> I have never, and will never, say that I wanted them to "just accept whatever the providers ask for" ... I said I wanted to not be a pawn in childish corporate spats, fueled by PR campaigns that result in loss of service for customers.
> 
> That's the same message how (and I don't mean that sarcastically either)?
> 
> It doesn't have anything to do with me being "high end," which I'm not (other than in amount I pay)


My reply was based on your exact words.
"DirecTV does NOT have _my_ back. If they did, they wouldn't remove channels--or let them be removed, if you prefer. (Semantics.) I'm a high-dollar, high-end customer"

How else could I construe and how else could Direct TV not let any channel be dropped, unless they agreed to whatever the provider is asking? Only the provider can set the price, not the carrier (Direct TV) They can negotiate, but in the end, the provider has to agree. Now, that's the facts, so I'm at a loss how there is anyway for Direct TV to keep a channel from being dropped unless they agree to what the provider is asking.

As for high-end, those again are your words, and I meant it sincerely, I don't begrudge anyone who can and wants to spend the money and wants all the channels. You said you are a high-dollar high-end customer. I don't think I misquoted or characterized unfairly. And as such, my post was to point out I don't want the carriers to just keep paying escalating programming costs because so many people can't be high end paying in this economy. Low end is becoming too expensive.


----------



## sigma1914

I called Friday for unrelated issues to this and had great CSRs. My 2nd one was fixing my Sunday Ticket for me and it took a few minutes so we chatted. I mentioned I bet he's tired of calls chewing his ass out about the Viacom situation. He was laughing and said it's been rough. People want everything for free and they can't do it. He got the ST straight and said he gave me the $5 off for 3 months for being cool and joking around. I said, "Are you sure? Because I already get $50/month off." He insisted. :lol:


----------



## HuskerHarley

MartyS said:


> But never EVER treat them like crap, they never did anything to you and they're just trying to make a living


*I Agree.*

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*



Carl Spock said:


> I got the  at the end of your post, HuskerHarley, but please allow me to rant:
> 
> *Because you lost some TV channels, that gives you the right to yell at someone who has absolutely no control over the situation?*
> 
> I've always thought one of the functions of DBSTalk was to allow people a place to vent anonymously. Yell, scream and post all the nasty comments you want here. Get it out of your system. Someone with authority to change things at DirecTV might even read it.
> 
> *This seems a lot more appropriate to me than yelling at some poor schmuck or shmuckette who, outside of giving you a few credits, can't do diddley-squat about the problem.*
> 
> Sorry, I don't care how frustrated you are. It's just TV. Even if your wife and seventeen kids are yelling at you that they can't get their MTV, there is no excuse to be *rude* to someone who is just another worker bee in a phone bank.
> 
> Since when did acting like an adult become optional in this country?


Show me where I posted any thing advocating being "RUDE" or "YELLING" at CSRs?

MY point, when you are frustrated enough to have to call a CSR, because of a problem (I'm assuming people don't call for a "How you doing chat") your not in the best friendly frame of mind. When I call, I use tact and good judgment, along with, friendly communication skills, to get my problem solved instead of attacks or rants to try and strong arm a resolution-->Never the best way to negotiate.

My original reply was in reference to ((BUT it has been very few and far between with getting a pleasant customer)) I know CSRs have to deal with Jerks and to expect them frequently, it's part of the job, I was just giving the other side of the coin perspective. I regret adding the smile--> to the end of my post, Not very adult of me-->:nono:

Do you think CSRs like being called, "schmuck or shmuckette" or "another worker bee"...

HH


----------



## PK6301

sigma1914 said:


> I called Friday for unrelated issues to this and had great CSRs. My 2nd one was fixing my Sunday Ticket for me and it took a few minutes so we chatted. I mentioned I bet he's tired of calls chewing his ass out about the Viacom situation. He was laughing and said it's been rough. People want everything for free and they can't do it. He got the ST straight and said he gave me the $5 off for 3 months for being cool and joking around. I said, "Are you sure? Because I already get $50/month off." He insisted. :lol:


I called last night to inquire about upgrading my viewing package from Extra to Ultimate. The CSR and I chatted about the differences in price and why I was doing it. The main reason was because my son was glued to Sprout channel yesterday.
I know that sprout is free for awhile during this Viacom dispute/or until the end of the month.
But to get back the CSR was very pleasent we chatted for 10 minutes and she helped me greatly.


----------



## djrobx

> There is an HD equivalent of Disney Jr. Why is DirecTV signing contracts for new channels without the HD?


With so many sought-after HD networks for grown ups missing due to lack of DirecTV capacity, I'd find the addition of Disney Jr. in HD somewhat offensive. Kids can certainly tell the difference, but the adults who pay the bills need to come first.


----------



## jdh8668

sigma1914 said:


> I called Friday for unrelated issues to this and had great CSRs. My 2nd one was fixing my Sunday Ticket for me and it took a few minutes so we chatted. I mentioned I bet he's tired of calls chewing his ass out about the Viacom situation. He was laughing and said it's been rough. People want everything for free and they can't do it. He got the ST straight and said he gave me the $5 off for 3 months for being cool and joking around. I said, "Are you sure? Because I already get $50/month off." He insisted. :lol:


You got a better deal than I did...only got $5 off for two months...but I did get 3 months of free sportspack (already had
encore which was offered first.). They have been extremely friendly & chatty the last few weeks.


----------



## Carl Spock

Husker Harley, I'm sorry you took it personally. I regret that you felt I lumped you in with those folks who seemingly like yelling at CSRs. I didn't want that to happen. That's why I acknowledged your smiley in my first line. I realize you didn't take their attitude seriously. I wanted you not to take me too seriously, either. It was a rant, after all. It's supposed to be over-the-top, hyperbolic and sophomoric.

I used your post as a jumping off point for my rant. Nothing more.

I apologize for any offense.


----------



## BattleScott

ChicagoBlue said:


> Doesn't sound like much, but we all know that as soon as that price increase comes next year even if it is only for $4, the howling will be immense like it always is. Like clockwork.


Yeah, just as we know the "it's the content owners fault, those greedy bastards are only out to make a profit. We're just trying to keep your prices down..." garbage will be spewed by the providers every time.

$70 (using your exaggerated figures) over 5 years is around $1.16/Month so I don't think it would have quite the devastating financial impact you suggest. In fact, when there was a $5/Month increase in February, the general comments from your camp were:

- It's only a few bucks a month, 1 less cup of Starbucks for everyone.
- Costs are going up for everything, get used to it and stop *****ing
- It's not as much as others are raising theirs. 
- It's only TV, get over it.

Funny, you guys don't seem so willing to blow it off when the shoe is on the other foot. Maybe if Viacom would list those bullet points on the deal, it would get signed?

I do not begrudge either side their right to negotiate the most favorable contract terms for themselves, which is the way it should be. I'm just sick of the DTV PR machine continually trying to convince us they are just looking out for us and the owners are the ones we need to blame. The day that DirecTV stops passing on the cost increases to us and starts to share a portion of the burden, then they can resume the campaign and I will get behind them. But for now, DirecTV is acting out of exactly the same corporate interests that Viacom and other owners are. At least Viacom has the balls to admit what they are after.

Today, I'll follow suit and act in mine to see what I can get out of the deal.


----------



## usnret

If there is no deal, any idea how much Viacom would lose? Same with D. If they don't get Viacom back, how much would they lose? I understand no one can be sure but just asking.
Respectfully


----------



## mystro

This dispute boils down to mega fat cats fighting over cracktv addicted users to justify the next pricing increases..just like the oil barons,they know you'll ***** but pay.
Until we start returning to OTA reception..they got'ya..besides,OTA is a remarkably better HD signal because its not mp4 compressed.. visually better with a decent antenna.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

Satelliteracer said:


> Actually DIRECTV was the first major provider to launch HD in a significant way and those weren't launched until 2007. To say this is the standard broadcast method simply isn't true in the dates you describe.


Correct. Most HD channels in the USA launched in the fall of 2007 and later. Directv, Comcast and some others had minimal HD channels in the early 2000's but most started in fall of 2007 and continue to be added today. Also correct that there are still SD channels out there that do not have an HD counterpart. In other words, there are more SD channels than HD channels in 2012 and that will remain the case for at least another few years.


----------



## Laxguy

mystro said:


> Until we start returning to OTA reception..they got'ya..besides,OTA is a remarkably better HD signal because its not mp4 compressed.. visually better with a decent antenna.


Really? What equipment are you using? My two year old Sammies show no difference in PQ whether I go OTA or sat., recorded or "live".


----------



## ChicagoBlue

BattleScott said:


> Yeah, just as we know the "it's the content owners fault, those greedy bastards are only out to make a profit. We're just trying to keep your prices down..." garbage will be spewed by the providers every time.
> 
> $70 (using your exaggerated figures) over 5 years is around $1.16/Month so I don't think it would have quite the devastating financial impact you suggest. In fact, when there was a $5/Month increase in February, the general comments from your camp were:
> 
> - It's only a few bucks a month, 1 less cup of Starbucks for everyone.
> - Costs are going up for everything, get used to it and stop *****ing
> - It's not as much as others are raising theirs.
> - It's only TV, get over it.
> 
> Funny, you guys don't seem so willing to blow it off when the shoe is on the other foot. Maybe if Viacom would list those bullet points on the deal, it would get signed?
> 
> I do not begrudge either side their right to negotiate the most favorable contract terms for themselves, which is the way it should be. I'm just sick of the DTV PR machine continually trying to convince us they are just looking out for us and the owners are the ones we need to blame. The day that DirecTV stops passing on the cost increases to us and starts to share a portion of the burden, then they can resume the campaign and I will get behind them. But for now, DirecTV is acting out of exactly the same corporate interests that Viacom and other owners are. At least Viacom has the balls to admit what they are after.
> 
> Today, I'll follow suit and act in mine to see what I can get out of the deal.


Nothing to do with balls. Viacom doesn't have to deal with the customer directly, DTV, Comcast, UVerse, FIOS, does. Viacom's customer is DTV.

This is what you and others CONTINUE to ignore and miss. The business relationship is key. Once Viacom or Fox or Disney does their deal, they are done. They are in the clear and just waiting for checks to be sent every month to them from the distributors. Meanwhile, DTV and all the distributors have to deal with millions of customers daily, millions of phone calls monthly, processing millions of bills monthly, service calls, transactions, data, broadcasting, etc. They have the burden to bear here and most of the costs.

So you can be sick of DTV's PR machine all you like, but they are carrying the risk not Viacom. They are the ones having to deal with you and everyone else out there, not Viacom. DTV and any other provider has every reason to explain why those costs mentioned (and they are not exaggerated, I do this for a living unlike you) are real and have real impacts on customers and their business.

Good day.


----------



## Blurayfan

"usnret" said:


> If there is no deal, any idea how much Viacom would lose? Same with D. If they don't get Viacom back, how much would they lose? I understand no one can be sure but just asking.
> Respectfully


if no deal is done Viacom stands to lose what DirecTV was paying them, estimated at 500 million a year.

DirecTV could lose some due to subscriber churn from the dispute, but they get to use the revenue that would have gone to Viacom anyway they want. Invest in new infrastructure upgrades, offset the loss of income from the churn.


----------



## HuskerHarley

Carl Spock said:


> Husker Harley, I'm sorry you took it personally. I regret that you felt I lumped you in with those folks who seemingly like yelling at CSRs. I didn't want that to happen. That's why I acknowledged your smiley in my first line. I realize you didn't take their attitude seriously. I wanted you not to take me too seriously, either. It was a rant, after all. It's supposed to be over-the-top, hyperbolic and sophomoric.
> 
> I used your post as a jumping off point for my rant. Nothing more.
> 
> I apologize for any offense.


CS-->"We're cool."-->:goodjob:

HH


----------



## dpeters11

"Laxguy" said:


> Really? What equipment are you using? My two year old Sammies show no difference in PQ whether I go OTA or sat., recorded or "live".


I think it's a videophile/audiophile thing. The differences may be there, but not everyone notices them. Either that or it's more noticeable on really big screens.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

susanandmark said:


> There is an HD equivalent of Disney Jr. Why is DirecTV signing contracts for new channels without the HD? (And, YES, MY five-year-old can readily tell the difference. Just like I can. It's even more noticeable with animation than with any other medium.)
> 
> We got our first HDTV in 2005. I remember because it was post-Olympic purchase. All the major networks (Dallas) were already in HD (so, you know, about half of what most people watch) as well as ESPN. It was limited for a while, but it was there. By 2007 most everything we watched was in HD. That was FAR from the "first launch."
> 
> I also happened to work for NBC at the '04 Olympics and they broadcast a separate HD feed to the cities who had NBC HD. At that time about 85% of the country had it available to them.


Did you ever think that it could be a two part process? Launch Disney Jr today in SD and when HD capacity becomes available later in the year or next year they will launch the HD version?

The first MAJOR launch was in 2007. Look, I've been in this business for almost 3 decades, I know what I'm talking about. Look it up, most US based HD channels started launching in 2007 and guess who was the driver in that? DIRECTV was. I know, because at the time we were working with DIRECTV as was everyone else to get those channels launched.

You can talk all you want about the one offs in 2004 and 2005, those were exactly what they were, one offs. I remember DTV having HBO in HD in 2003. DTV had ESPN HD in 2003. So what, that's not when the major push started which was 2007.

A few examples

CNN HD- Sept 2007
Cartoon Network - Oct 2007
Bravo HD - Oct 2007
CBS College Sports Network HD - 2008
Animal Planet HD - Sept 2007
A&E HD- Sept 2006
MSNBC HD- June 2009
National Geographic HD- 2006
USA Network HD - Oct 2007
Weather Channel HD - Sept 2007
Travel Channel HD - Jan 2008
DIY HD - 2010
Disney Channel HD - March 2008
Discovery Channel HD - Aug 2007
ABC Family HD - Jan 2008
Comedy Central HD - Jan 2009
Food Network HD - Mar 2008
HGTV HD - Mar 2008
Golf Channel HD - 2007
Fox News Channel HD - May 2008
Speed HD - Feb 2008
CNBC HD - Oct 2007

I could go on and on, but the evidence is overwhelming. Sure, some launched in the early 2000's, but the vast majority came 2007 and later.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

susanandmark said:


> Here's the thing, you may say I don't get it, or I'm in the minority here, or whatever you want. And that's all well and good; you're absolutely entitled to that perspective and, for all I know, the majority here could be correct and DirecTV has such a loyal fan base (instead of just a customer base), that not a single one will leave if they take Viacom off forever and instead will erect shrines to DirecTV's CEO.
> 
> There are plenty of people here who think DirecTV's "got my back" incessancy and PR spin is the God's honest truth (usually the same folks who think Viacom are "scumbags" for doing, basically, the same thing on the opposite side) and that they are sincerely fighting the good fight to, "keep our bills low." Again, good on you. Absolutely entitled to that viewpoint.
> 
> Here's MY deal ... DirecTV does NOT have _my_ back. If they did, they wouldn't remove channels--or let them be removed, if you prefer. (Semantics.) I'm a high-dollar, high-end customer and what they're telling me, with channel pull after channel pull and these seemingly endless disputes, is that they don't give a hoot about what *I*, as a customer want, which is the availability of as many HD channels as possible without having to spam a provider's Facebook page or gloom onto a Twitter hashtag, sign a petition, or anything else that makes me think and worry way too much about what should be a very simple utility. I want to pay my bill, get the programming I expect for that payment, and be done. I don't need to be a cohort in pitched moral battle with ANY company ... I need a reliable television provider, not a relationship.
> 
> Today's add of the Disney Jr. channel in SD only is just another example that DirecTV does seem to be aiming to the low end. Seriously, in 2012 the once-billed "HD leader" is adding NEW HD-available channels in SD?! Why even bother?
> 
> Is it because as someone in another thread pointed out (I have no idea if accurately), "most" of DirecTV's receivers in their 20,000,000 customer's homes are SD only? Do they even MAKE SD-only receivers anymore? And, if so, why? They've swapped our far younger technology than that (MPEG-2 vs MPEG-4), why wouldn't it be a priority to remove outdated, I'm-sure-hard-to-program-for boxes ASAP and get all of their customers on the same, HD page?
> 
> That they haven't shows it's a service geared VERY much at the low end. I'm far from wealthy, but I haven't had an SD TV in my home for years. Heck, full HD sets can now be had for >$200. And finding a TV that's NOT HD would be the real trick, so why would any truly forward-thinking provider be aiming at the past by boosting their SD channel count? (Up next: exclusive DirecTV logo buggy whips!) Is the pay TV market really that lucrative for folks that can't afford to replace 10-year-old televisions? My guess is if folks are that uninterested in television, or just frugal (not that there's anything at all wrong with either stance), they're not shelling out for satellite.
> 
> I have lots of friends who could care less about HD (the classic "you mean what we're watching ISN'T HD, but I thought it was an HDTV?" set), but not a single one that doesn't have all HDTVs in their home, be it one TV or five. And this includes a heck of a lot of college students. (OK, they're guys, and I'm frankly always shocked at the number of 50" flat screens single guys with no jobs manage to own. Giant flat screen + leather couch = 20 year old male.) Honestly, the last tube TV I saw ANYWHERE was the one we had on our porch and turned on about once per year ... And even that was replaced with an older HDTV set in the last few months, just because we'd upgraded our bedroom set so this one was "left over."
> 
> And, yeah, it's harder to believe this "keep your bills low" stuff when we started with DirecTV more than a decade ago and our total for the everything package, and receivers on all TV, was well under $75/month, while now they top $200. I can't really think of much else that's more than doubled in price for, essentially, the same level of service, even if you could argue that service has expanded and improved. (Didn't pay double for my laptop in 2012 than I did in 1998--less, actually, in real dollars--and that's for a MUCH improved product with technology that we didn't even dream of 14 years ago.) DirecTV has grown exponentially in that same time frame and growth (larger customer base) + time in technology usually leads to better deals with providers and, thus, lower end user prices, not higher.
> 
> To answer the inevitable "then shut up and leave" question, which I've answered so many times before ... My only TV choices are DirecTV and DISH, or no TV at all (IPTV and OTA are not options due to locale). We enjoy relaxing by watching television, so that's not an option for my family, and, so far, the hassle of switching + the generally decent channel count and reliability of DirecTV has made their less-than-impressive (to me) customer service worth overlooking in favor of maintaining the status quo and staying.
> 
> And, now, while I'm getting sorely tempted to just walk by this whole mess, contract or no, I am not naive enough to think DISH wouldn't do the same exact thing, and still could. Heck, that's one of the reasons I hadn't left in the past. I thought when it came to things like dropping channels and getting into pissing matches with providers, DirecTV WAS the more reasonable choice. Now, I'm not so sure.
> 
> Honestly, my fear is they both suck and I'm just screwed.


SusanMark, most new DTV customers come aboard with HD. That isn't the issue, there are still millions of homes in this country with SD televisions. Millions...regardless if you are a cable, Dish, Telco customer, etc. You might have nothing but HD televisions in your home, but you can't believe how many people have SD televisions still. That isn't a DTV customer thing, that is a United States thing. Or the more appropriate comparison is how many have *A* HD television, but still have a SD television(s) in the bedroom or the den, etc.

DTV is very much at the cutting edge in HD...MPEG 4 (many other distributors still using MPEG2 HD), they don't overcompress, 1080P for some HD content, etc. Some have complained about less HD basic channels. Of course, to be fair, DTV has more HD in other areas (sports, premiums, etc) than most providers. That's how DTV has decided to use their bandwidth.

I think if you look through the history of channel dropping there is no comparison. Everyone has dropped some, either be an out in their contract (ATT Uverse with ESPN3D) or through negotiations breaking down (DISH, Comcast, etc, etc, etc).

As far as customer service, DTV is routinely ranked 1 or 2 in the industry. It's a tough job and they do a very good job at it, but certainly no one is perfect and there is always room for improvement. When you get paid $9 an hour you have high turnover and new people coming on board all the time. Nature of the beast.

As for your $75 10 years ago and now $200, kind of funny when the major force in driving that cost up has been programming costs. NFL 10 years ago cost DTV about $250 million a year. Now it's a billion a year. ESPN was about $1.50 a sub, now it's over $4.00 a sub.

You complain that DTV isn't watching your back because the channels came down. Who demanded the channels came down? Viacom, not DTV. Secondly, not everyone is as well off as you are to be paying what you are and they have to answer to all customers, not just the ones on the high end. There isn't a provider you can go to that doesn't run into this.


----------



## tonyd79

"Blurayfan" said:


> if no deal is done Viacom stands to lose what DirecTV was paying them, estimated at 500 million a year.
> 
> DirecTV could lose some due to subscriber churn from the dispute, but they get to use the revenue that would have gone to Viacom anyway they want. Invest in new infrastructure upgrades, offset the loss of income from the churn.


Viacom has the advertiser pressure too.

Right now, directv is losing in rebates and whatever churn happens and potential loss but new customers but that is longer term. Viacom is losing directvs fees and the ratings are plummeting with 20 mil fewer households meaning make goods and rebates to advertisers.

Short term, Viacom hurts more. Long term, directv takes more of a hit potentially. This dispute stays short, pressure is on Viacom. Months or longer, the pressure may begin to shift.


----------



## mystro

Laxguy said:


> Really? What equipment are you using? My two year old Sammies show no difference in PQ whether I go OTA or sat., recorded or "live".


An uncompressed direct OTA signal..I'm using a Clearstream 2 no booster needed at my location but it's a well designed antenna from Costco.


----------



## dpeters11

"ChicagoBlue" said:


> SusanMark, most new DTV customers come aboard with HD.


40% of new customers are SD. Still a pretty big number.


----------



## RunnerFL

Laxguy said:


> Really? What equipment are you using? My two year old Sammies show no difference in PQ whether I go OTA or sat., recorded or "live".


OTA definitely has a better picture than what we get from the satellites. As he pointed out OTA is not compressed whereas satellite is. I notice a definite difference between the two.


----------



## Laxguy

mystro said:


> An uncompressed direct OTA signal..I'm using a Clearstream 2 no booster needed at my location but it's a well designed antenna from Costco.


I was asking about monitor. With digital, if you get the OTA signal, you get it. My antenna is 30 years old, I get a great picture with my SF locals. But it's not discernably better than DIRECTV®.

How do you measure the better picture? How much better would you say? And why? Sharper? More saturation? Fewer artifacts? Fewer ads? 

Again, your TV (monitor) will play a role in what you see.


----------



## Whogaman

I haven't read every response on this thread, and if what I'm about to say has been posted, I apologise.

I have been thinking about why Viacon wants to raise what it charges D* to carry it's channels. My answer is to look at what the "talent" is being paid. (And I use the term 'talent' loosely.) Jersey Shore's "stars" get a million dollars a year each for showing bad behavior. The Walking Dad and Breaking Bad are to popular shows on AMC. Even TNA Wrestling had a large following. 

All this programming doesn't come cheep. Shows on Comedy Central must cost quite a bit to produce seeing that those programs like the Daily Show are so popular. 

Look, I don't like the prospect of paying more for things I have no interest in, but those are the facts of life in this case. If Viacom is to survive, it's going to have to get revenue from viewers that commercials are aimed at, and they most likely can't survive without the 20 million or so subscribers that D* represents. So I guess we are going to have to hitch up our drawers and simply get ready to pay a premium for channels that some do not want to watch. 

Peace Whoga


----------



## BattleScott

ChicagoBlue said:


> Nothing to do with balls. Viacom doesn't have to deal with the customer directly, DTV, Comcast, UVerse, FIOS, does. Viacom's customer is DTV.
> 
> This is what you and others CONTINUE to ignore and miss. The business relationship is key. Once Viacom or Fox or Disney does their deal, they are done. They are in the clear and just waiting for checks to be sent every month to them from the distributors. Meanwhile, DTV and all the distributors have to deal with millions of customers daily, millions of phone calls monthly, processing millions of bills monthly, service calls, transactions, data, broadcasting, etc. They have the burden to bear here and most of the costs.
> 
> So you can be sick of DTV's PR machine all you like, but they are carrying the risk not Viacom. They are the ones having to deal with you and everyone else out there, not Viacom. DTV and any other provider has every reason to explain why those costs mentioned (and they are not exaggerated, I do this for a living unlike you) are real and have real impacts on customers and their business.
> 
> Good day.


Well, you can frame or disguise the duck any way you like I suppose, whatever helps you sleep. Directv doesn't "have" to deal with me, that is their primary function. All of those nuisance tasks you pointed out are an integral part, and cost of the business you have chosen, along with the payment to the content owners that provide the reason for your existence. As I said before, when your financials begin to reflect the despair you project, then I'll start to feel bad for you.


----------



## Laxguy

RunnerFL said:


> OTA definitely has a better picture than what we get from the satellites. As he pointed out OTA is not compressed whereas satellite is. I notice a definite difference between the two.


Some OTA is compressed, but I think you know that.

Same questions of other guy: What TV?


----------



## ChicagoBlue

dpeters11 said:


> 40% of new customers are SD. Still a pretty big number.


Where have you seen that number? That isn't consistent with what I have seen in the industry, closer to 15 to 20% but you may have a different source.


----------



## BattleScott

Whogaman said:


> I haven't read every response on this thread, and if what I'm about to say has been posted, I apologise.
> 
> I have been thinking about why Viacon wants to raise what it charges D* to carry it's channels. My answer is to look at what the "talent" is being paid. (And I use the term 'talent' loosely.) Jersey Shore's "stars" get a million dollars a year each for showing bad behavior. The Walking Dad and Breaking Bad are to popular shows on AMC. Even TNA Wrestling had a large following.
> 
> All this programming doesn't come cheep. Shows on Comedy Central must cost quite a bit to produce seeing that those programs like the Daily Show are so popular.
> 
> Look, I don't like the prospect of paying more for things I have no interest in, but those are the facts of life in this case. If Viacom is to survive, it's going to have to get revenue from viewers that commercials are aimed at, and they most likely can't survive without the 20 million or so subscribers that D* represents. So I guess we are going to have to hitch up our drawers and simply get ready to pay a premium for channels that some do not want to watch.
> 
> Peace Whoga


We are not allowed to consider those points, sorry.
Content owners = villian / DirecTV = hero


----------



## ChicagoBlue

BattleScott said:


> Well, you can frame or disguise the duck any way you like I suppose, whatever helps you sleep. Directv doesn't "have" to deal with me, that is their primary function. All of those nuisance tasks you pointed out are an integral part, and cost of the business you have chosen, along with the payment to the content owners that provide the reason for your existence. As I said before, when your financials begin to reflect the despair you project, then I'll start to feel bad for you.


Programming costs going up double digits each year, can only pass on 4% to 5% increase in costs to subscribers. As a result, margins go down.

You obviously aren't looking at the right financials, the ones that are most important. People tend to look at revenues and get all happy slappy but they don't look at costs or operating margins which is what makes a business go. DTV's operating margins are decreasing, that is the number you should be focusing on. At least in the States, in Latin America they are growing like gangbusters but that comes at a huge cash outlay expense as well. The States are a different story, it is a mature business with costs increasing tremendously.

I am curious as to why you seem to pit DTV as the bad guy in all of this and you have done it consistently n your posts over the months and years. Both are culpable to a point, but as any distributor in any business can tell you, the source cost of the products they are selling is what makes them or breaks them. If costs are going up then that is a problem, a big problem since they own the relationship with the customer.


----------



## Mariah2014

Which means we will have to see them go ala carte or you will see many cut the cord due to the cost. Most people can't afford their cable bill to look like a car or mortgage payment.


Whogaman said:


> I haven't read every response on this thread, and if what I'm about to say has been posted, I apologise.
> 
> I have been thinking about why Viacon wants to raise what it charges D* to carry it's channels. My answer is to look at what the "talent" is being paid. (And I use the term 'talent' loosely.) Jersey Shore's "stars" get a million dollars a year each for showing bad behavior. The Walking Dad and Breaking Bad are to popular shows on AMC. Even TNA Wrestling had a large following.
> 
> All this programming doesn't come cheep. Shows on Comedy Central must cost quite a bit to produce seeing that those programs like the Daily Show are so popular.
> 
> Look, I don't like the prospect of paying more for things I have no interest in, but those are the facts of life in this case. If Viacom is to survive, it's going to have to get revenue from viewers that commercials are aimed at, and they most likely can't survive without the 20 million or so subscribers that D* represents. So I guess we are going to have to hitch up our drawers and simply get ready to pay a premium for channels that some do not want to watch.
> 
> Peace Whoga


----------



## RunnerFL

Laxguy said:


> Some OTA is compressed, but I think you know that.
> 
> Same questions of other guy: What TV?


67" Samsung

Colors are brighter, less artifacts, sharper picture with OTA.

I can use my HR34 to bring up an OTA channel and Sat channel in PIP to compare them and you can clearly see the difference.


----------



## davring

RunnerFL said:


> OTA definitely has a better picture than what we get from the satellites. As he pointed out OTA is not compressed whereas satellite is. I notice a definite difference between the two.


OTA HD uses MPEG2 compression.


----------



## dpeters11

"ChicagoBlue" said:


> Where have you seen that number? That isn't consistent with what I have seen in the industry, closer to 15 to 20% but you may have a different source.


DirecTV FCC filing. Admittedly, it was filed back in May, part of the request to launch DirecTV14.

http://www.dbstalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=29180&d=1337492070

From page 2
"Nearly 60% of new DIRECTV subscribers, and over 50% of the total DIRECTV customer base, subscribe to HD services."

Unless their definition of new customer is over he last seven years or something.


----------



## Mariah2014

It is amazing how much people feel they can not live without certain tv stations anymore. When I was born these tv stations didn't exist and in most cases you only had your local OTA stations to watch. TV programs you feel can't live without know in most cases were not even thought of back then. People need to start realizing their is life beyond TV and that TV or even the internet for that matter shouldn't be the center of all of our attention. The fact is that sooner or later the government is going to have to start making some new rulings to help smooth this process over. I suspect that this is when ala carte will really gain some steam. I do feel for those missing these channels, but it is not the end of the world. Your time would be better spent learning something, reading a book, or even exercising.


----------



## Xsabresx

Whogaman said:


> I haven't read every response on this thread, and if what I'm about to say has been posted, I apologise.
> 
> I have been thinking about why Viacon wants to raise what it charges D* to carry it's channels. My answer is to look at what the "talent" is being paid. (And I use the term 'talent' loosely.) Jersey Shore's "stars" get a million dollars a year each for showing bad behavior. The Walking Dad and Breaking Bad are to popular shows on AMC. Even TNA Wrestling had a large following.
> 
> All this programming doesn't come cheep. Shows on Comedy Central must cost quite a bit to produce seeing that those programs like the Daily Show are so popular.
> 
> Look, I don't like the prospect of paying more for things I have no interest in, but those are the facts of life in this case. If Viacom is to survive, it's going to have to get revenue from viewers that commercials are aimed at, and they most likely can't survive without the 20 million or so subscribers that D* represents. So I guess we are going to have to hitch up our drawers and simply get ready to pay a premium for channels that some do not want to watch.
> 
> Peace Whoga


Actually, reality shows are notoriously cheap to produce. For a show that is as big of a hit as Jersey Shore (regardless of what you think of it, it is a huge hit) is, $175K (Pauly D's salary) per episode is comparatively light. That is why so many reality shows have popped up in the last few years. They are dirt cheap to make.


----------



## Xsabresx

mshaw2715 said:


> It is amazing how much people feel they can not live without certain tv stations anymore. When I was born these tv stations didn't exist and in most cases you only had your local OTA stations to watch. TV programs you feel can't live without know in most cases were not even thought of back then. People need to start realizing their is life beyond TV and that TV or even the internet for that matter shouldn't be the center of all of our attention. The fact is that sooner or later the government is going to have to start making some new rulings to help smooth this process over. I suspect that this is when ala carte will really gain some steam. I do feel for those missing these channels, but it is not the end of the world. Your time would be better spent learning something, reading a book, or even exercising.


Personally, I am tired of this opinion. "when I was born......." Right when many of us were born we only had the big 3 networks plus a single independent. It was also free. Today, many of us are paying upwards of $200/mo for service (because that is what we choose to spend our money on) and when you remove 17 channels suddenly the value drops. Can we live without those channels? Dont be stupid, of course we can. We choose not to and I am sick of people's condescending tone throughout this thread over our choices.


----------



## mystro

Laxguy said:


> I was asking about monitor. With digital, if you get the OTA signal, you get it. My antenna is 30 years old, I get a great picture with my SF locals. But it's not discernably better than DIRECTV®.
> 
> How do you measure the better picture? How much better would you say? And why? Sharper? More saturation? Fewer artifacts? Fewer ads?
> 
> Again, your TV (monitor) will play a role in what you see.


Panasonic Plasma 65 with the OTA Clearstream 2 antenna is a higher resolution picture in HD and SD. Panasonic has a picture quality statistic you can pull up in the menu.
Call a local TV station and talk to one of the broadcast engineers if you want more info.


----------



## davring

mystro said:


> Panasonic Plasma 65 with the OTA Clearstream 2 antenna is a higher resolution picture in HD and SD. Panasonic has a picture quality statistic you can pull up in the menu.
> Call a local TV station and talk to one of the broadcast engineers if you want more info.


DirecTV rebroadcasts your local OTA HD station in exactly the same resolution, but at a lower bit rate.


----------



## Mariah2014

You really won't mind paying around 300 or more for what you get now in the not so distant future then because if things keep up the way they are going that is exactly where it will end up. Secondly, we wouldn't be going through this situation right now if everyone could these types of increases all time from all of the different companies supplying Directv and other TV providers.


Xsabresx said:


> Personally, I am tired of this opinion. "when I was born......." Right when many of us were born we only had the big 3 networks plus a single independent. It was also free. Today, many of us are paying upwards of $200/mo for service (because that is what we choose to spend our money on) and when you remove 17 channels suddenly the value drops. Can we live without those channels? Dont be stupid, of course we can. We choose not to and I am sick of people's condescending tone throughout this thread over our choices.


----------



## RunnerFL

davring said:


> OTA HD uses MPEG2 compression.


Sorry, "not as compressed". Better?


----------



## davring

RunnerFL said:


> Sorry, "not as compressed". Better?


I know you understand, but some folks think broadcast is uncompressed.


----------



## spiketoo

I can chime in just a tad on the initial HD rollout - FWIW.

Got a first-gen Mits HD RPTV back in 2000. Way before they even decided on the HDMI standard - connection was VGA to BNC and DTV offered the only STB initially.

Only fare in 2000 was HDNET (few sports and endless loops of penguins in HD) and a rare ESPN telecast as they were trying to get a grip on the technology. After that, its kinda blurry...


----------



## Mark Holtz

This is where I sit on things....

Television, as a whole, has very little compelling content for me to watch anymore. Does anyone remember the writers strike of 2008? As more and more shows ran out of episodes, I started deleting the season passes off my DVR. That way, I needed to make the effort to put them back on when new episodes came on.

Most did not make the cut.

I am not a sports fan. Yet, I pay for E$PN and the Regional Sports Networks. Those are notoriously the highest per-subscriber cost on the basic tier.

My music interests lie in Big Band, Classical, and Jazz. Thus, MTV, VH1, and CMT aren't even on my radar.

Children's programming? I have no kids. And while I have watched Cartoon Network, the amount of fresh Anime (Japanese Animation) is down to nothing, and all anime is on Saturday nights.

News programming? Don't make me laugh. I get my news from the Internet, not from television.

Movies? Sorry, folks, but the last time I looked at the "premiums", they do not show the movies in their original aspect ratio. I'm what they call a film snob. The only movie channel that I watch is TCM, and even that has been quite a while. While I am comfortable with letterbox and pillarbox, I inevitably zoom in with windowbox, which is what is currently happening with TCM SD on my 16:9 set. Hopefully, this will change with TCM-HD. Watching movies on the other, regular channels results in frustration as the content is further edited for time.

New programming? I am almost hesitant to invest my time in developing an interest in a new show. _Alcatraz_ on Fox sounded interesting, and had one of my favorite actors from _Lost_. Yet, that show promptly tanked, it quickly went to "Certain Cancellation" lists, and no one was surprised when it was cancelled. _On The Fly_ and _Shipping Wars_ were both amusing, but nothing to rush home for.

So, what does that leave me? I watched, this past year, _Mythbusters_, _Ice Road Truckers_, _Storm Chasers_ (believed cancelled), _Top Shot_ (no fifth season ordered), _Undercover Boss_, _Unchained Reaction_ (believed cancelled), and _The Amazing Race_. (Didn't I watch some _Doomsday_ survivor series on National Geographic, and didn't even last the first episode?) Out of all of these, which one has compelling content that should be watching?

Funny how none of the shows listed are on Viacom channels.

My current system setup is 1 SD Receiver +2 HD DVRs. I have a legacy Choice Xtra Classic package. Even after discounts, I still pay $90 per month. If it were just me, I would cancel the service because the cost-benefit ratio is out of whack. However, because I rent a house and share it, my rental agreement (which is slightly unusual) has me paying actual rent, DirecTV, ISP, and cell phone service. The landlord has told me that if I were to cancel DirecTV, then my rent goes up $100. And what does the landlord watch? History channel, Discovery Channel, Travel Channel, HGTV. None of them are Viacom.

Sometimes, I wonder if the quantity of channels was all that great of an idea. It was somewhat better than when we had just five channels, and we had a dedicated channel for more niche programming. It is also great to have two or three opportunities to watch a program within the same week. But, some of the specialty is gone when we have channels that have blended programming. Anyone remember watching BlackAdder on Arts and Entertainment? How about Junkyard Wars on The Learning Channel? As much as I like Ice Road Truckers, how much does that do with History?

This isn't like previous years of television where all you can do is what was is currently being broadcast. People time shift their shows, or even purchase their shows on DVD or BluRay, free from the logos and banners reminding you of the show you are watching, be sure to watch another sure, and join the Twitter channel. I believe that television has gone from entertainment, and starting to resemble work. And, I am one of those people who actually enjoys what they do on a daily basis.

I consider myself in a fortunate situation. I know of friends who are good people who have not received raised in ages, who have had their hours cut or been furloughed without pay for a day or so each month. In terms of economic necessity, the Internet ranks higher than the television not only for entertainment, but also for paying the bills, submitting resumes, and working remotely.


----------



## Xsabresx

mshaw2715 said:


> You really won't mind paying around 300 or more for what you get now in the not so distant future then because if things keep up the way they are going that is exactly where it will end up. Secondly, we wouldn't be going through this situation right now if everyone could these types of increases all time from all of the different companies supplying Directv and other TV providers.


But that wasnt your point. Your point ultimately was "but it is not the end of the world. Your time would be better spent learning something, reading a book, or even exercising."

No one ever said "sign the deal, we dont care the cost". My point was simply that if I am upset over the loss of Viacom - and I am not nearly as upset as some, but that isnt the point - then it is ok to be upset about it and "go read a book" is not an acceptable resolution to the problem. Many of us have books and we read them. We exercise and go outside with our families too. When an MTV The Challenge comes on, damnit I want to watch it and I pay for service to allow me to do such and when that privilege is taken away it is upsetting. I want a deal to be signed where everyone wins (understanding that most liely wont happen). That doesnt mean I want to ultimately pay $300/mo for it


----------



## Mariah2014

I agree and the fact we all get stuck in middle of this, especially the children, is really frustrating especially when we pay to receive something that they can't deliver on right now.


Xsabresx said:


> But that wasnt your point. Your point ultimately was "but it is not the end of the world. Your time would be better spent learning something, reading a book, or even exercising."
> 
> No one ever said "sign the deal, we dont care the cost". My point was simply that if I am upset over the loss of Viacom - and I am not nearly as upset as some, but that isnt the point - then it is ok to be upset about it and "go read a book" is not an acceptable resolution to the problem. Many of us have books and we read them. We exercise and go outside with our families too. When an MTV The Challenge comes on, damnit I want to watch it and I pay for service to allow me to do such and when that privilege is taken away it is upsetting. I want a deal to be signed where everyone wins (understanding that most liely wont happen). That doesnt mean I want to ultimately pay $300/mo for it


----------



## studechip

Xsabresx said:


> Personally, I am tired of this opinion. "when I was born......." Right when many of us were born we only had the big 3 networks plus a single independent. It was also free. Today, many of us are paying upwards of $200/mo for service (because that is what we choose to spend our money on) and when you remove 17 channels suddenly the value drops. Can we live without those channels? Dont be stupid, of course we can. We choose not to and *I am sick of people's condescending tone throughout this thread over our choices*.


I think much of what you perceive as condescending is a reaction to those, not necessarily you, that have an attitude of entitlement. Unfortunately it's a common thing these days. Of course, calling the poster you are quoting stupid may cause some to have an attitude, too.


----------



## kmcnamara

mshaw2715 said:


> I agree and the fact we all get stuck in middle of this, especially the children, is really frustrating especially when we pay to receive something that they can't deliver on right now.


This is my only problem with it. This can actually be great for DirecTV because they're receiving the same amount of $$$ from their subscribers while providing a reduced service level. However, they don't have to pay anything to Viacom during this time. The equitable thing would be for DirecTV subscribers to get some kind of prorated discount on their bills until this dispute is resolved. I'm sure that won't happen (There's probably a clause in our customer agreement about this).

Ultimately, I don't want the programming providers to continue to gouge the service providers thus gouging us. So these disputes are OK with me in general.


----------



## Mariah2014

This is why Directv has been telling people to contact them so they can see what they can do for you. As long as you are not someone who joined lately, they should be able to either discount what you have now give you something else in return for awhile. 


kmcnamara said:


> This is my only problem with it. This can actually be great for DirecTV because they're receiving the same amount of $$$ from their subscribers while providing a reduced service level. However, they don't have to pay anything to Viacom during this time. The equitable thing would be for DirecTV subscribers to get some kind of prorated discount on their bills until this dispute is resolved. I'm sure that won't happen (There's probably a clause in our customer agreement about this).
> 
> Ultimately, I don't want the programming providers to continue to gouge the service providers thus gouging us. So these disputes are OK with me in general.


----------



## richzilla

So is there any movement towards any agreement ? Anyone hearing anything ?


----------



## Mariah2014

Today's update, according to the directvpromise.com website is that they are making progress and that they will keep talking everyday tell they get an agreement.


richzilla said:


> So is there any movement towards any agreement ? Anyone hearing anything ?


----------



## Shades228

richzilla said:


> So is there any movement towards any agreement ? Anyone hearing anything ?


There aren't any insiders that are going to post anything specific. When a deal is done everyone will hear it roughly the same time.

http://www.directvpromise.com/ has been updated consistently through out this. You can also sub to the twitter and facebook pages of both companies.


----------



## Drew2k

I'm honestly amazed that there is no prominent link to the "DIRECTV Promise" page on the DIRECTV home page. You have to scroll down to the "About DIRECTV" section to find a simple bullet for "DIRECTV Viacom Dispute" which goes to the "promise" site.


----------



## richzilla

Thanks for the quick responses....

So what will be the thing that tips the scales to get this deal done ? 

Is there a big event coming up or something of the sorts ? 

Similar to the UFC on VS. that helped get that deal done. 

Maybe if Dana White had the UFC on MTV or if teen mom was sponsored by them...we could get this done


----------



## Mariah2014

It comes down to them getting to a deal they can both live with. I don't think any programing they have would put enough pressure on Directv or Viacom to get it done by itself.


richzilla said:


> Thanks for the quick responses....
> 
> So what will be the thing that tips the scales to get this deal done ?
> 
> Is there a big event coming up or something of the sorts ?
> 
> Similar to the UFC on VS. that helped get that deal done.
> 
> Maybe if Dana White had the UFC on MTV or if teen mom was sponsored by them...we could get this done


----------



## inkahauts

"richzilla" said:


> Thanks for the quick responses....
> 
> So what will be the thing that tips the scales to get this deal done ?
> 
> Is there a big event coming up or something of the sorts ?
> 
> Similar to the UFC on VS. that helped get that deal done.
> 
> Maybe if Dana White had the UFC on MTV or if teen mom was sponsored by them...we could get this done


You think the UFC got the vs deal done? I think it may have had more to do with vs. Not being able to afford to not have all those viewers for the NHL playoffs. I seriously doubt UFC had anything at all to do with it.

The key is viacom has nothing like that at all to put more pressure on the situation.


----------



## richzilla

inkahauts said:


> You think the UFC got the vs deal done? I think it may have had more to do with vs. Not being able to afford to not have all those viewers for the NHL playoffs. I seriously doubt UFC had anything at all to do with it.
> 
> The key is viacom has nothing like that at all to put more pressure on the situation.


That could be with the NHL...the timing with the UFC deal being signed is what made me reference that situation....you do get my key point....what is that high profile programming that will put pressure on to get the deal done....The birth of Snookie's baby is months away


----------



## onan38

Well i finally called in today.Directv has a voice prompt when you call the 1-800 number about the viacom dispute. I called to make sure i was out of commitment.Got a very nice csr. She thanked me for being a customer since 1994 and told me my commitment was up 4 years ago after my HD upgrade. I did not mention the viacom dispute and she went into detail on what was going on and that directv would get it resolved a quickly as possible and sent me a email on the Directv promise website,and told me about the free encore channels. I have the choice extra classic package she gave me $10 off for 12 months,free HD for 12 months and $10 more off my bill for 2 months. She thanked me for being a long term Directv customer and to call anytime i had any issues or questions. People can bash Directv but for me they are the best service/company that i deal with.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

richzilla said:


> That could be with the NHL...the timing with the UFC deal being signed is what made me reference that situation....you do get my key point....what is that high profile programming that will put pressure on to get the deal done....The birth of Snookie's baby is months away


Dam Right it was the NHL I was thinking about makeing video where I get the phone book and start calling sports bars asking if they had VS.


----------



## sigma1914

JoeTheDragon said:


> Dam Right it was the NHL I was thinking about makeing video where I get the phone book and start calling sports bars asking if they had VS.


I'm betting UFC ratings are higher than the lowly NHL. Did anyone even watch the Cup finals? http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-p...stanley-cup-final-ratings-173048694--nhl.html


----------



## willis3

I have thought about calling but haven't, I already have a couple of discounts and
free HD for 2 years.. but I am getting alot of questions from the wife about when Snooki will be back lol... should I call?


----------



## onan38

willis3 said:


> I have thought about calling but haven't, I already have a couple of discounts and
> free HD for 2 years.. but I am getting alot of questions from the wife about when Snooki will be back lol... should I call?


I would call the worse they can say is no.


----------



## maartena

Still not missing TVLand. My wife neither, explained the situation and she - who watches TVLand more than I do - said to "eff" viacom, she has plenty of other channels to watch.


----------



## mystro

I'll have to check exactly how it's measuring..this Panasonic has quite a detailed menu regarding picture quality plus considering what we payed for the set we had a Professional calibration tech come in..it actually was quite accurate out of the box but did need some adjusting considering our room plus I guess the tech needed to justify his bill and his fancy equipment  There was certainly a better picture coming in from the direct broadcast OTA as measured.


----------



## Bradman

davring said:


> I know you understand, but some folks think broadcast is uncompressed.


Also, many stations are compressing(lowering bit-rate) the HD signal to add sub-channels.
The CBS affiliate in my area even down-rezzes the network feed to 720p to accommodate their CW broadcast.


----------



## DLP2008

I watch Comedy central from time to time, but this isn't going to kill me nor the other people that watch the 5 receivers in my house. Really impressed with the way D is handling it's customer concerns with it though. I called this week for something totally unrelated and mentioned it to the csr as an aside. Even though I'm still in commitment for another year and they totally didn't have to, I was given $10 off x 12mo and my hbo will be free on this bill. Kudos to D*.


----------



## richall01

They say it's a "all or nothing deal" is it that DirecTV does not want to carry all the Viacom channels or does Viacom want to add G4 back into the deal?
Don't forget WHO owns Viacom; Comcast. Is there way to get back at DirecTV for not getting Sunday Ticket. Make DirecTV Sub's pay for there lost?


----------



## JoeTheDragon

richall01 said:


> They say it's a "all or nothing deal" is it that DirecTV does not want to carry all the Viacom channels or does Viacom want to add G4 back into the deal?
> Don't forget WHO owns Viacom; Comcast. Is there way to get back at DirecTV for not getting Sunday Ticket. Make DirecTV Sub's pay for there lost?


Viacom wants EPIX on directv


----------



## richzilla

I would love to have G4 back...I miss that channel.


----------



## Satelliteracer

"Alan Gordon" said:


> Nothing you said is inheritently wrong... I fully agree with the first and third paragraph, but I have to ask, how are you coming by the second sentence in your third paragraph?
> 
> Are you counting local channels?!
> Non-English channels?
> Obscure shopping channels?
> 
> I ask, because doing a glance of DirecTV's program guide set to ALL channels, I counted around 30 channels without HD feeds, and that was including the religious channels (some of whom I discounted due to HD feeds)... and that may even be on the high end after omitting the three categories mentioned above due to the fact that some of the religious channels may have an HD feed that I'm not aware of.
> 
> ~Alan


I don't like using Wiki because I find it very bias, but that's all I have at my fingertips right now. Yes, I was talking all channels, but that does include "mainstream" as well as others. At this point, still more SD channels than HD. Eventually there will be a HD equivalent for all the SD and beyond that some day there will be no more SD channels, but for now there are still more SD channels available than HD. See below

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


----------



## Sixto

Heard the Viacom commercial several times today. Those buggers don't give up, and the commercial is so misleading, promoting that everyone should call DirecTV to demand their channels back. Yeah right, why don't you add to the commercial what the $ increase will be, and provide some objective justification for the increase related to ratings per channel and not based on the past. Think I've heard the commercial a dozen times so far.


----------



## compaddict

How about Viacom charge extra and lose the commercials? It bugs me that I pay DTV for watching TV riddled with commercials. Remember when AMC was commercial free? I hate paying twice!
I really do love the access to cable channels and don't mind the commercials. That being said, I think Viacom should pay DTV for the transport and distribution of their content.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Satelliteracer said:


> I don't like using Wiki because I find it very bias, but that's all I have at my fingertips right now. Yes, I was talking all channels, but that does include "mainstream" as well as others. At this point, still more SD channels than HD. Eventually there will be a HD equivalent for all the SD and beyond that some day there will be no more SD channels, but for now there are still more SD channels available than HD. See below
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cable_and_satellite_television_networks


Yeah... the other problem with Wiki is that it's CAN be full of errors. I noticed several channels that said there was NO HD feed, yet there is.

I noticed that several of the religious channels that I counted last night due to not knowing their status has HD listed on that page. Of course, given the other errors on that page, goodness knows whether or not the information is correct...

I personally do not feel that a bunch of obscure channels' SD-only status is really all that indicative of a negative HD status. In fact, I think it's incredibly optimistic that so many of the recognizable names have HD feeds, and so small of an amount still exists without one. I credit DirecTV for being a big part of spurring this on.

That being said, I felt you stated your point well enough with the rest of your statements in your earlier post that it doesn't really matter.

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon

richall01 said:


> They say it's a "all or nothing deal" is it that DirecTV does not want to carry all the Viacom channels or does Viacom want to add G4 back into the deal?
> Don't forget WHO owns Viacom; Comcast. Is there way to get back at DirecTV for not getting Sunday Ticket. Make DirecTV Sub's pay for there lost?


I think you're getting Viacom mixed up with Universal...

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon

Bradman said:


> Also, many stations are compressing(lowering bit-rate) the HD signal to add sub-channels.
> The CBS affiliate in my area even down-rezzes the network feed to 720p to accommodate their CW broadcast.


CRAP!!!

I REALLY hope that's not what my local CBS affiliate has plans to do when they add HD to their CW sub-channel.

On the plus side, I think DirecTV gets my local CBS via fiber, so hopefully it won't affect my PQ, but it'll suck if I'm wrong...

~Alan


----------



## speedy4022

"JoeTheDragon" said:


> Viacom wants EPIX on directv


I am not against this if that is part of it directv needs to add epix.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Alan Gordon said:


> CRAP!!!
> 
> I REALLY hope that's not what my local CBS affiliate has plans to do when they add HD to their CW sub-channel.
> 
> On the plus side, I think DirecTV gets my local CBS via fiber, so hopefully it won't affect my PQ, but it'll suck if I'm wrong...
> 
> ~Alan


Even stations that feed DirecTV via fiber feed the exact same 19.2 Mbps MPEG2 ASI feed that they send to to their transmitter. So if they downrez the main channel, thats what DirecTV will also get. If they add subchannels, those get to fed to DirecTV as well, even though they are not used. They feed all providers the same ASI feed because local cable does run their subchannel programming.


----------



## BattleScott

"ChicagoBlue" said:


> Programming costs going up double digits each year, can only pass on 4% to 5% increase in costs to subscribers. As a result, margins go down.
> 
> You obviously aren't looking at the right financials, the ones that are most important. People tend to look at revenues and get all happy slappy but they don't look at costs or operating margins which is what makes a business go. DTV's operating margins are decreasing, that is the number you should be focusing on. At least in the States, in Latin America they are growing like gangbusters but that comes at a huge cash outlay expense as well. The States are a different story, it is a mature business with costs increasing tremendously.
> 
> I am curious as to why you seem to pit DTV as the bad guy in all of this and you have done it consistently n your posts over the months and years. Both are culpable to a point, but as any distributor in any business can tell you, the source cost of the products they are selling is what makes them or breaks them. If costs are going up then that is a problem, a big problem since they own the relationship with the customer.


I don't pit them as a bad guy, just don't see them as the great hero and defender of our pocketbooks that they profess to be and that many here hold them up to be, that's all.


----------



## sigma1914

richall01 said:


> They say it's a "all or nothing deal" is it that DirecTV does not want to carry all the Viacom channels or does Viacom want to add G4 back into the deal?
> Don't forget WHO owns Viacom; Comcast. Is there way to get back at DirecTV for not getting Sunday Ticket. Make DirecTV Sub's pay for there lost?


:lol:
Comcast doesn't own Viacom.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

ChicagoBlue said:


> As for your $75 10 years ago and now $200, kind of funny when the major force in driving that cost up has been programming costs. NFL 10 years ago cost DTV about $250 million a year. Now it's a billion a year. ESPN was about $1.50 a sub, now it's over $4.00 a sub.


EVERY study has shown that programming cost is between 25% - 33% of a providers total expense.


----------



## mreposter

Drew2k said:


> I'm honestly amazed that there is no prominent link to the "DIRECTV Promise" page on the DIRECTV home page. You have to scroll down to the "About DIRECTV" section to find a simple bullet for "DIRECTV Viacom Dispute" which goes to the "promise" site.


DirectvPromise.com is in the description of all those -1 subchannels they added and if you tune to one of the missing channels and get the mix screen it also tells people to go to DirectvPromise.com. And I believe they did a mail message to all the receivers.

So that should pretty much cover getting the word out.


----------



## tonyd79

"richall01" said:


> They say it's a "all or nothing deal" is it that DirecTV does not want to carry all the Viacom channels or does Viacom want to add G4 back into the deal?
> Don't forget WHO owns Viacom; Comcast. Is there way to get back at DirecTV for not getting Sunday Ticket. Make DirecTV Sub's pay for there lost?


Viacom is not owned by Comcast. Comcast is affiliated with NBC/Universal.


----------



## tonyd79

"Alan Gordon" said:


> CRAP!!!
> 
> I REALLY hope that's not what my local CBS affiliate has plans to do when they add HD to their CW sub-channel.
> 
> On the plus side, I think DirecTV gets my local CBS via fiber, so hopefully it won't affect my PQ, but it'll suck if I'm wrong...
> 
> ~Alan


They will probably have to do something along those lines.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

ChicagoBlue said:


> Programming costs going up double digits each year, can only pass on 4% to 5% increase in costs to subscribers. As a result, margins go down.


Programming costs DO NOT go up by double digits each year. DirecTV states that Viacom wants a 30% increase - and many in this thread have reported that is over 5 years - which averages down to WELL BELOW 6% per year after compounding is applied.


----------



## HoTat2

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Even stations that feed DirecTV via fiber feed the exact same 19.2 Mbps MPEG2 ASI feed that they send to to their transmitter. So if they downrez the main channel, thats what DirecTV will also get. If they add subchannels, those get to fed to DirecTV as well, even though they are not used. They feed all providers the same ASI feed because local cable does run their subchannel programming.


Well, I have a local station here, KDOC-56, that use to broadcast the main sub-channel OTA in 1080i, but recently switched to 720p so they could create bandwidth to add two additional SD sub-channels.

However DIRECTV still has it in 1080i.


----------



## braven

Imagine the *****ing and moaning if DIRECTV paid the extra 30% Viacom is asking and in turn passed the increase on to it's customers.


----------



## Davenlr

braven said:


> Imagine the *****ing and moaning if DIRECTV paid the extra 30% Viacom is asking and in turn passed the increase on to it's customers.


They will anyway, in February.


----------



## d.glen

Not really missing the channels, I hope DirecTV holds their ground!


----------



## mark40511

Bradman said:


> Also, many stations are compressing(lowering bit-rate) the HD signal to add sub-channels.
> The CBS affiliate in my area even down-rezzes the network feed to 720p to accommodate their CW broadcast.


Yeah, you're talking about WKYT. Too bad the CW is a sub channel. In other markets the CW is in HD


----------



## zimm7778

My wife noticed we have Style now. We only have the Choice package. Is this is a free preview? Given because of Viacom's crap? A mistake? Anyone know?


----------



## pandafish

"compaddict" said:


> How about Viacom charge extra and lose the commercials? It bugs me that I pay DTV for watching TV riddled with commercials. Remember when AMC was commercial free? I hate paying twice!
> I really do love the access to cable channels and don't mind the commercials. That being said, I think Viacom should pay DTV for the transport and distribution of their content.


I agree. I was watching The King of Queens on TV Land one night and had to press the skip button 11 times to get through a block of commercials. They also cut out scenes from the episode and they run credits in the corner while the next episode starts to be able to add more commercials. I understand some commercials are necessary but come on.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> EVERY study has shown that programming cost is between 25% - 33% of a providers total expense.


I can tell you flat out at the providers I worked for in the last 20 years it was higher than that. I've also worked for programmers on the other side of the table.

Please, provide links to those studies, especially "every" one of them since there must be so many. 

I can tell you without a doubt the single largest line item on the balance sheet is programming cost, and it was north of 40% back then.

You may want to read this:

In 2011, DTV spent $11.349 billion on programming costs and related programming expenses. Total expenses for DTV in 2011 were $22.752 billion, meaning about* 50% of their expenses were programming costs.*. Care to restate your opinion?
http://www.trinity.edu/smf/inc/reports/sp2011/dtv.pdf

Look at the pro forma statement on page 21.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

Davenlr said:


> They will anyway, in February.


The *****ing and whining, yes. Like clockwork, that will happen here and by customers. The full pass through of costs to customers, hasn't happened in a number of years and that is why DTV and other tv providers are seeing margins hit hard.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Programming costs DO NOT go up by double digits each year. DirecTV states that Viacom wants a 30% increase - and many in this thread have reported that is over 5 years - which averages down to WELL BELOW 6% per year after compounding is applied.


This year DTV programming costs expected to go up more than 8%. Do a Google search, it is your friend.  It was announced in May at their Q1 financial reports. It was about 8% through the first quarter and they expected it to stay, that was before Viacom so it was based on what they budgeted in for Viacom, not what they may actually pay. If they cave into Viacom, that 8% will certainly go up.

Last year, programming costs up 10.1%. Again, do the research.

I realize the 30% is over 5 years, but Viacom isn't the only one they are paying. From what I've heard about the Fox deal signed last year, the increases were huge along with the built in increases for Disney, HBO, Showtime, A&E Networks, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## GiantsFan383

I hate to say this but you guys are right,pay tv as a whole is getting way too expensive. Satellite is also getting expensive for only television,cable is expensive but if you get their triple play it's not that bad. In New Jersey, if you get satellite and get the triple play you only get crappy DSL. Satellite could be losing a big battle here even though it may not be their fault. I see DBS in a whole going down soon maybe I'm wrong but without Sunday ticket directv is over.


----------



## PrinceLH

I still think that satellite has lots of time to be around. Technology keeps progressing forward and with the advent of streaming, it costs a fair amount, to continued downloading of movies, via the internet. Given time, Directv will streamline operations and come up with some innovations, with an all in one, Internet, Directv, one dish solution. Cable had to face these same problems, 10 years ago, and adapted. Directv will do the same.


----------



## cjrleimer

PrinceLH said:


> I still think that satellite has lots of time to be around. Technology keeps progressing forward and with the advent of streaming, it costs a fair amount, to continued downloading of movies, via the internet. Given time, Directv will streamline operations and come up with some innovations, with an all in one, Internet, Directv, one dish solution. Cable had to face these same problems, 10 years ago, and adapted. Directv will do the same.


The question is will we see a canadian style themed type package system in play, or a a la carte possibly in the terms of ownership groups.


----------



## inkahauts

"richall01" said:


> They say it's a "all or nothing deal" is it that DirecTV does not want to carry all the Viacom channels or does Viacom want to add G4 back into the deal?
> Don't forget WHO owns Viacom; Comcast. Is there way to get back at DirecTV for not getting Sunday Ticket. Make DirecTV Sub's pay for there lost?


Viacom is not owned by Comcast.


----------



## Davenlr

cjrleimer said:


> The question is will we see a canadian style themed type package system in play, or a a la carte possibly in the terms of ownership groups.


What would be nice, is if DirecTv were to offer packages by company...
ViaCom package
Rainbow package
NBC/Universal package
ABC/Disney/ESPN package

That way, those that dont want to pay the big bucks for ESPN can opt out of the whole suite. When ABC/Disney part of the company realize they are losing money, they will lower the ESPN part...or enough people will subscribe that they will keep it high, who knows. At least everyone would have the choice.

Ala Carte will never happen.


----------



## inkahauts

"SomeRandomIdiot" said:


> Programming costs DO NOT go up by double digits each year. DirecTV states that Viacom wants a 30% increase - and many in this thread have reported that is over 5 years - which averages down to WELL BELOW 6% per year after compounding is applied.


Actually the numbers I saw in this thread where 16% yearly compounded, and haven't seen anything saying 6%.


----------



## inkahauts

"Davenlr" said:


> What would be nice, is if DirecTv were to offer packages by company...
> ViaCom package
> Rainbow package
> NBC/Universal package
> ABC/Disney/ESPN package
> 
> That way, those that dont want to pay the big bucks for ESPN can opt out of the whole suite. When ABC/Disney part of the company realize they are losing money, they will lower the ESPN part...or enough people will subscribe that they will keep it high, who knows. At least everyone would have the choice.
> 
> Ala Carte will never happen.


Actually, I like that direction, but I'd rather see it done by type. All the kids channels in one, all the news in one, package etc. it might be really nice if they offered things in both those formats. So you could choose to subscribe to say all Disney and all sports.


----------



## Davenlr

True, but if done by company, then DirecTv would not need to negotiate prices at all. If ViaCom wants to raise rates 30%, they raise rates 30%. Dont want to pay, cancel Viacom. DirecTv could then theoretically carry any channel they want with simply a letter of approval from the company who owns the channel.

While I would like your method better (since I could just sub to Sports, News, and Science) and not have to pay for Kids, reality, or movie channels), we would still be in the same boat with negotiations, being held hostage, losing channels, etc. My way we would never lose a channel unless WE decided we didnt want to pay the price for it.


----------



## android.cphone

Poor lil sponge bob i wonder if he has directtv?


----------



## Davenlr

android.cphone said:


> Poor lil sponge bob i wonder if he has directtv?


He has cable. To much rain fade trying to get a satellite signal to the bottom of the sea.


----------



## inkahauts

"Davenlr" said:


> True, but if done by company, then DirecTv would not need to negotiate prices at all. If ViaCom wants to raise rates 30%, they raise rates 30%. Dont want to pay, cancel Viacom. DirecTv could then theoretically carry any channel they want with simply a letter of approval from the company who owns the channel.
> 
> While I would like your method better (since I could just sub to Sports, News, and Science) and not have to pay for Kids, reality, or movie channels), we would still be in the same boat with negotiations, being held hostage, losing channels, etc. My way we would never lose a channel unless WE decided we didnt want to pay the price for it.


The model I am thinking of would work that way too.

I'm thinking you pay dtv x dollars just for their service. Then each package is priced based on whatever the channels wants for their programing. And if one company wants 2more cents a month, then they can raise that rate.

The only thing I think DIRECTV would need to do is limit how often programers could raise their rates to once a year.

Can you imagine if people could actually see how much these companies are increasing rates if they know That when a package goes up in price, that's purely because of the broadcaster, and nothing todo with DIRECTV. You want to talk about complaining!

For all the people who complain about not having real a la cart pricing, I just say, add up all the shows at$2 to $3 a episode that is on any one channel, which is what they charge youif you want a la cart now via the web, and let me know how much think these channels will cost....


----------



## TheRatPatrol

"Davenlr" said:


> What would be nice, is if DirecTv were to offer packages by company...
> ViaCom package
> Rainbow package
> NBC/Universal package
> ABC/Disney/ESPN package
> 
> That way, those that dont want to pay the big bucks for ESPN can opt out of the whole suite. When ABC/Disney part of the company realize they are losing money, they will lower the ESPN part...or enough people will subscribe that they will keep it high, who knows. At least everyone would have the choice.
> 
> Ala Carte will never happen.


Sort of like C-Band huh?


----------



## Davenlr

Yea, Ala Carte would never work. It would be a nightmare to implement, keep track of, authorize 20 million accounts for different combinations of 250 channels. 

One thing is sure. At the rates channels are going dark across the several providers in the past two years, something is going to break in the current system, and I am afraid its going to be the customers patience.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

"Davenlr" said:


> Yea, Ala Carte would never work. It would be a nightmare to implement, keep track of, authorize 20 million accounts for different combinations of 250 channels.
> 
> One thing is sure. At the rates channels are going dark across the several providers in the past two years, something is going to break in the current system, and I am afraid its going to be the customers patience.


Maybe one day instead of having channels we'll just have shows that you'll order, DL/record and watch.


----------



## android.cphone

Speaking of rain fade why in 2012 can they still not develope a signal that can shoot tru a storm?


----------



## Davenlr

TheRatPatrol said:


> Maybe one day instead of having channels we'll just have shows that you'll order, DL/record and watch.


They way the channels run marathons, its pretty close to that now. Does Spike show anything except the Star Wars movies?

Amazon Instant Video (my choice), Netflix, Blockbuster are all like that now pretty much... If they can get the quality up to HD standards, and allow you to view all day without going over an internet cap...it may happen sooner rather than later.

Comcast just suspended my 250GB cap, so now I can stream 24/7 if I want.


----------



## Davenlr

android.cphone said:


> Speaking of rain fade why in 2012 can they still not develope a signal that can shoot tru a storm?


They can, but the dishes to pick up those frequencies are to big for the Direct to home market. 
It could be done with high power C band satellites, mpeg4 compression, and 4' (1.2m) dishes. Its being done now, just not to home viewers.

What they need to do is pack the space station with high power stuff, boost it up to Geosynchronous orbit, and use those big old solar cells to kick out some rain cloud busting signals.


----------



## android.cphone

Davenlr said:


> They can, but the dishes to pick up those frequencies are to big for the Direct to home market.
> It could be done with high power C band satellites, mpeg4 compression, and 4' (1.2m) dishes. Its being done now, just not to home viewers.
> 
> What they need to do is pack the space station with high power stuff, boost it up to Geosynchronous orbit, and use those big old solar cells to kick out some rain cloud busting signals.


Thats kinda my question why cant they get a regular dish to do that? Is it somthing that is basically impossable or somthing that could easily be done at some point in the future?


----------



## Davenlr

android.cphone said:


> Thats kinda my question why cant they get a regular dish to do that? Is it somthing that is basically impossable or somthing that could easily be done at some point in the future?


Well, its pretty much simple math. Satellite puts out power, rain and air attenuate power, dish reflects power, Lnb receives power.

Three ways to overcome the rain attenuation which is set in stone by God....Raise the transmitter power of the satellite, or reflect more power into the lnb using a larger dish, lower the frequency of the transmitter to a point where the wavelength of the signal is larger than the raindrops, so they dont cause as much attenuation (C band or lower).


----------



## Mark Holtz

Davenlr said:


> Yea, Ala Carte would never work. It would be a nightmare to implement, keep track of, authorize 20 million accounts for different combinations of 250 channels.


Funny how they have these things called computers and something called databases...

Look, while I acknowledge that it would be impossible to do it on a per-channel basis, it is not impossible to do it on a per-group basis or per-provider basis.

Does something have to change? Yes. There are other alternatives out there.


----------



## inkahauts

"Mark Holtz" said:


> Funny how they have these things called computers and something called databases...
> 
> Look, while I acknowledge that it would be impossible to do it on a per-channel basis, it is not impossible to do it on a per-group basis or per-provider basis.
> 
> Does something have to change? Yes. There are other alternatives out there.


I would never say its impossible to do anything like this. We sent a man to the moon with an aircraft that had less processing power than a cheap wrist watch has today. It can be done. The probem is at what point is this kind of thing cost effective for everyone. Packages of some sort can continue to keep everything cost effective. Per show will never be cost effective. Imagine if you had to pay $2 for every 30 minutes of tv you watch that isn't sports, and about $10 for every sports program. D you really think that would ever come out more affordable than today's system? Only if you don't watch much tv.


----------



## kevinturcotte

inkahauts said:


> I would never say its impossible to do anything like this. We sent a man to the moon with an aircraft that had less processing power than a cheap wrist watch has today. It can be done. The probem is at what point is this kind of thing cost effective for everyone. Packages of some sort can continue to keep everything cost effective. Per show will never be cost effective. Imagine if you had to pay $2 for every 30 minutes of tv you watch that isn't sports, and about $10 for every sports program. D you really think that would ever come out more affordable than today's system? Only if you don't watch much tv.


Technologically possible? Yes. Humanly possible when there's money to be made? NOT HAPPENING!


----------



## hasan

android.cphone said:


> Speaking of rain fade why in 2012 can they still not develope a signal that can shoot tru a storm?


Because the laws of physics haven't changed.

Required signal strength is a function of power output, antenna gain, transmission line losses, free space path losses, other path losses, receive antenna gain, receive feedline losses, and receiver noise figure.

All of these things have been well understood for decades, and nothing has changed since then (in terms of antenna/propagaion theory.

Greater power is not a practical solution, not only because of cost, but because of the numbers. When enough water is present, in high enough concentration between the sat and the receiver, the attenuation essentially becomes infinite. No amount of increased transmit power or antenna size (that can be put in orbit) will overcome that much loss. Receive antennas could solve a lot of the problem, perhaps 99.999%, if and only if the receive antennas were the size of the valley dish at Arecibo, Puerto Rico.

Given the current frequency assignments, the problem cannot be solved. It was seen by the powers that be, to be relatively infrequent and of such short duration for most customers, that the trade off of available bandwidth and dish size versus reliability was/is worth it.


----------



## tvropro

android.cphone said:


> Speaking of rain fade why in 2012 can they still not develope a signal that can shoot tru a storm?


It's here it's called C band, 3.7- 4.2 ghz. Why do you think the broadcasters use it as the backbone. They cannot afford rain fade at the broadcast level. Direct and Cable use these signals to get the distro feed's. Then cable sends it over a wire (no rain fade) and Direct retransmits it to K bands. Ku and Ka band can have attenuation (loss of signal) as high as 60 db when there is a storm. It has to do with the frequency, wavelength and scatter of the signal at 12 ghz and 18 ghz with moisture.

In theory a k band signal could overcome the loss by cranking up the power of the satellite by megawatts. If that was done besides causing all kind of interference it would be dangerous since those satellite frequencies are microwaves, and can cook you like in a microwave oven.

K band originally was never designed for broadcast as it is being used. It was used for guick links for news, sporting events and teleconferencing. In Europe they started using it for home television. Then it was adopted for that purpose in the U.S. K band has its limitations but is favored over C for Joe couch potato because of the size of the dish and aesthetics.


----------



## BlackCoffee

tvropro said:


> It's here it's called C band. Why do you think the broadcasters use it as the backbone. Ku and Ka band can have attenuation (loss of signal) as high as 60 db when there is a storm. It has to do with the frequency, wavelength and scatter of the signal at 12 ghz and 18 ghz with moisture.
> 
> In theory a k band signal could overcome the loss by cranking up the power of the satellite by megawatts. If that was done besides causing all kind of interference it would be dangerous since those satellite frequencies are microwaves, and can cook you like in a microwave oven.


Not only do you need to consider the attenuation caused by water content, but also the electrical activity disrupts the signal. A lot of time, the frontal cloud to cloud lightening wil degrade the signal well before the storm clouds are raining on your house.

That being said, the current SD signal is very good and survives all but the worst. As long as lightening is not a factor, I get an SD signal in some pretty heavy downpoars. Things are a lot better and keep improving.


----------



## caseyf5

hasan said:


> Because the laws of physics haven't changed.
> 
> Required signal strength is a function of power output, antenna gain, transmission line losses, free space path losses, other path losses, receive antenna gain, receive feedline losses, and receiver noise figure.
> 
> All of these things have been well understood for decades, and nothing has changed since then (in terms of antenna/propagaion theory.
> 
> Greater power is not a practical solution, not only because of cost, but because of the numbers. When enough water is present, in high enough concentration between the sat and the receiver, the attenuation essentially becomes infinite. No amount of increased transmit power or antenna size (that can be put in orbit) will overcome that much loss. Receive antennas could solve a lot of the problem, perhaps 99.999%, if and only if the receive antennas were the size of the valley dish at Arecibo, Puerto Rico.
> 
> Given the current frequency assignments, the problem cannot be solved. It was seen by the powers that be, to be relatively infrequent and of such short duration for most customers, that the trade off of available bandwidth and dish size versus reliability was/is worth it.


Hello hasan,

I am adding a visual to assist with your post for those whom have the land required to install this type of replacement dish. :rotfl: It lists the dimensions needed for the dish at Arecibo, Puerto Rico or anywhere else.

http://www.usra.edu/news/features/2011/arecibo/


----------



## BlackCoffee

Davenlr said:


> Yea, Ala Carte would never work. It would be a nightmare to implement, keep track of, authorize 20 million accounts for different combinations of 250 channels.
> 
> One thing is sure. At the rates channels are going dark across the several providers in the past two years, something is going to break in the current system, and I am afraid its going to be the customers patience.


I think it would be managable. Just as every customer has a package, there could be a way to support ala carte.

Bundling is primarily a marketing tool, not just an accounting problem. Even in an ala carte implementation, bundles will be set up and most people will probably choose the bundles.

The real question is who constructs the packages. Does VIACOM dictate the package based on their business model to include their own underperforming stations. Or, does DTV construct the packages based on user preference in an attempt to maximize the overall user experience. This would be done based on viewing preferences independent of producer. I think when DTV speaks to unbundling VIACOM they are talking about the later option, not a strick customer ala carte option.


----------



## tvropro

BlackCoffee said:


> Not only do you need to consider the attenuation caused by water content, but also the electrical activity disrupts the signal. A lot of time, the frontal cloud to cloud lightening wil degrade the signal well before the storm clouds are raining on your house.
> 
> That being said, the current SD signal is very good and survives all but the worst. As long as lightening is not a factor, I get an SD signal in some pretty heavy downpoars. Things are a lot better and keep improving.


The SD signal goes south all the time here in Chicago due to the direction the storms come through these parts. I have a 90 CM dish on 101 which adds a good amount of headroom above threshold but it still isn't enough. I figure a 15 foot dish may overcome that -60 db barrier. :eek2:

My C band works great in the rain. All I see from cloud to cloud lightning or lightning strikes is a short slight pixelation on digital or static burst on analog.

Direct goes out ahead of time (before the storm) and sometimes takes a while to come back depending on the cloud cover. I learned to shut it off during a storm since no matter what I do to try to increase gain with a bigger dish and super alignment it still isn't enough. My regular FSS ku 11.7 to 12.2 goes out in the rain too. Its the nature of the beast.


----------



## n3vino

Davenlr said:


> Yea, Ala Carte would never work. It would be a nightmare to implement, keep track of, authorize 20 million accounts for different combinations of 250 channels.
> 
> One thing is sure. At the rates channels are going dark across the several providers in the past two years, something is going to break in the current system, and I am afraid its going to be the customers patience.


The only way I think ala carte would work for me is if they charge what they charge per package now, and then give credit for the channels you don't want. Say I don't want BET, MTV, VH1, Food Network, Golf Channel, Opra, etc, give me credit for those. It might not work for D*, but it would certainly work for me.


----------



## crashHD

I went from an 18" dish to a 24" dish. I went from having periods of 5-8 minutes of rain fadeout in the worst of storms to having 10-15 seconds of moderate pixelation. That extra 6" nearly doubles the reflective area of the dish, and if that's not enough, there are 30" dishes available, which is still less than 1m. For some legal red tape reason which I forget at the moment, there is some sort of big reason to keep your dish under 1 meter.

I know the Ku band used for HD is said to be more sensitive. I do not know whether it would respond the same way to an increase in dish size, but it would be tougher to implement a DIY solution. Parts availability for single LNB dishes that look at single orbital slots is much greater.

For a stronger HD signal, one might look at the dish setup they use in Alaska. AFAIK, everything in Alaska is bigger. LOS to the satellites there is low on the horizon, meaning the signal has to pass through much more atmosphere, and generally dish setups with larger reflectors are used to compensate.


----------



## susanandmark

ChicagoBlue said:


> The *****ing and whining, yes. Like clockwork, that will happen here and by customers. The full pass through of costs to customers, hasn't happened in a number of years and that is why DTV and other tv providers are seeing margins hit hard.


Funny how when customers, whose income as a whole has been stagnant, or falling, for the better part of five years now (unlike DirecTV's profits), complain about rising costs it's "*****ing and whining," but when DirecTV resists price increases they're "holding the line" and "fighting the good fight."


----------



## fleckrj

RunnerFL said:


> 67" Samsung
> 
> Colors are brighter, less artifacts, sharper picture with OTA.
> 
> I can use my HR34 to bring up an OTA channel and Sat channel in PIP to compare them and you can clearly see the difference.


I am not disputing what you say, but are you sure you have the settings the same for the two inputs? When I first set up my Pannasonic TC-P55ST30, I noticed that the color was much more vivid and sharper when watching DirecTV than when watching the same local channel OTA. What I discovered was that the settings for brightness, contrast, hue, sharpness, etc, had to be set independantly for each input (antenna, component, HDMI1, HDMI2, etc), and the out-of-the box setting for OTA was not optimal. Once I had the settings the same for the different inputs, my results with OTA versus DirecTV were mixed. On some channels (notably the CBS affiliate), OTA is better. For others (notably the ABC and PBS affiliates) DirecTV is better (probably because of multipath problems with the OTA reception - there are many more artifacts on OTA than DirecTV), and for others, I cannot tell the difference. The quality of the OTA picture depends on the station that is broadcasting the signal.


----------



## ATARI

Davenlr said:


> Yea, Ala Carte would never work. It would be a nightmare to implement, keep track of, authorize 20 million accounts for different combinations of 250 channels.
> 
> One thing is sure. At the rates channels are going dark across the several providers in the past two years, something is going to break in the current system, and I am afraid its going to be the customers patience.


+1


----------



## mnassour

Frankly, I don't think anyone in the business wants a true a la carte model. My gosh, keeping up with the programming choices per subscriber would be a nightmare. However, there's NO reason we can't have theme packs, where you could choose kids programming, drama, sports, etc. In fact, it's being done right now north of the border.

http://www.shawdirect.ca/english/programming_guide_east.asp

This link opens a PDF that shows what I mean. The Shaw bundles are an excellent example of how programming could be sold. You will also notice, please, that the costs are higher than those here in the U.S. once you get to selecting a LOT of them.


----------



## fleckrj

richzilla said:


> Thanks for the quick responses....
> 
> So what will be the thing that tips the scales to get this deal done ?
> 
> Is there a big event coming up or something of the sorts ?
> 
> Similar to the UFC on VS. that helped get that deal done.
> 
> Maybe if Dana White had the UFC on MTV or if teen mom was sponsored by them...we could get this done





inkahauts said:


> You think the UFC got the vs deal done? I think it may have had more to do with vs. Not being able to afford to not have all those viewers for the NHL playoffs. I seriously doubt UFC had anything at all to do with it.
> 
> The key is viacom has nothing like that at all to put more pressure on the situation.


Versus (now NBC Sports) had _le Tour de France_ in addition to the NHL. Versus viewership was up nearly three-fold its annual average during the Tour. If you will recall, the dispute with Versus started after the 2009 Tour and was resolved in time for the Stanley Cup Playoff (and the 2010 Cycling season). While the NHL regular season was lost (although our local NHL team did not have a single game scheduled on Versus that season), DirecTV did step up for cycling fans and carried Universal Sports for the _Vuelta a Espana_ (at a time before Universal Sports was full time on DirecTV) and gave free or discounted NHL Center Ice to those who asked.

This time, DirecTV has added Disney Jr (which as others have already pointed out was already in the works - whether its start days after Nick Jr was pulled was planned or coincidence is a point for discussion) and has opened Sprout, HUB, and Encore to everyone, regardless of the subscribed package. In addition to Sprout, HUB, and Disney Jr, there is plenty of alternative children's programing on Boomerang, the Cartoon Network, and the other Disney channels, and there is enough trailer trash reality programing on We, E!, Style, Bravo, et. al. to replace the other Viacom channels.

The bottom line is that there is nothing unique on the Viacom channels that warrants paying more for them.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

The Change.org petition site (which is supporting DirecTV to hold their ground against Viacom on pricing) now has >10,000 signatures in about a week. 

Looks like they'll hit their 15K target within a 10 day period or so.


----------



## snappjay

fleckrj said:


> The bottom line is that there is nothing unique on the Viacom channels that warrants paying more for them.


+1


----------



## Carl Spock

Snappyjay and fleckrj, you obviously don't watch Comedy Central a lot.

I will definitely miss The Daily Show and The Colbert Report when they come back from vacation this week.


----------



## harsh

fleckrj said:


> This time, DirecTV has added Disney Jr (which as others have already pointed out was already in the works - whether its start days after Nick Jr was pulled was planned or coincidence is a point for discussion) and has opened Sprout, HUB, and Encore to everyone, regardless of the subscribed package. In addition to Sprout, HUB, and Disney Jr, there is plenty of alternative children's programing on Boomerang, the Cartoon Network, and the other Disney channels, and there is enough trailer trash reality programing on We, E!, Style, Bravo, et. al. to replace the other Viacom channels.
> 
> The bottom line is that there is nothing unique on the Viacom channels that warrants paying more for them.


I'm not sure what makes you think that a bunch of children's channels and a small collection of "classic" movie channels equates to a replacement for the Viacom channels. Outside of AXS, I'm not sure where the replacement for Palladia rests. If DIRECTV was given to wide distribution of AntennaTV, MeTV or the other classic TV LIL networks, the loss of TVLand might be more sustainable.


----------



## tonyd79

harsh said:


> I'm not sure what makes you think that a bunch of children's channels and a small collection of "classic" movie channels equates to a replacement for the Viacom channels. Outside of AXS, I'm not sure where the replacement for Palladia rests.


Audience has a lot of concerts.


----------



## loudo

Mark Holtz said:


> Funny how they have these things called computers and something called databases...
> 
> Look, while I acknowledge that it would be impossible to do it on a per-channel basis, it is not impossible to do it on a per-group basis or per-provider basis.
> 
> Does something have to change? Yes. There are other alternatives out there.


Mark, one problem is the cost of programing each receiver or account, versus assigning a preset group of programs to an account. I know when I had C-Band, you could do it, but many times a la carte programing would cost you more than just selecting a package that contained the programing you want.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The Change.org petition site (which is supporting DirecTV to hold their ground against Viacom on pricing) now has >10,000 signatures in about a week.
> 
> Looks like they'll hit their 15K target within a 10 day period or so.


Not surprising given that there are 1300+ times that many who have lost something from their viewing opportunities.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Not surprising given that there are 1300+ times that many who have lost something from their viewing opportunities.


You falsely assume everyone watches those channels, which many folks know is NOT the case. There is plenty of testimony to that fact in this thread already.

Still - losing channels is not a good thing...but neither is content provider greed.


----------



## fleckrj

BlackCoffee said:


> Not only do you need to consider the attenuation caused by water content, but also the electrical activity disrupts the signal. A lot of time, the frontal cloud to cloud lightening wil degrade the signal well before the storm clouds are raining on your house.
> 
> That being said, the current SD signal is very good and survives all but the worst. As long as lightening is not a factor, I get an SD signal in some pretty heavy downpoars. Things are a lot better and keep improving.


I am not sure how much lightening adds to the rainfade problem, but the downpour at your location has little to do with the total water content in the path between the satellite and your dish. I have been through several tropical storms and a few hurricaines with no loss of signal. There was plenty of lightening and rain at the rate of about 10 inches per hour directly overhead, but the bulk of the storm and clouds were to the east or southeast.

I do get loss of signal when a normal thunderstorm cell is approaching from the southwest, though, because the signal has to go through the entire storm. Usually, by the time it is actually raining at my location, the signal has returned, because the bulk of the storm is directly overhead instead of being to southwest.

It is both the direction and severity of the storm that matter. What is happening at your location is only a small part of the entire path from the satellite to your dish.


----------



## harsh

tonyd79 said:


> Audience has a lot of concerts.


There are a few (five today) hour-long "sessions" a day but nowhere near a full schedule of supergroups and classic concerts. Audience's music programming is a good supplement to what Palladia offers, not a replacement. You have to wade through the 10 hours of Dan Patrick to get to it.


----------



## tvropro

mnassour said:


> Frankly, I don't think anyone in the business wants a true a la carte model. My gosh, keeping up with the programming choices per subscriber would be a nightmare. However, there's NO reason we can't have theme packs, where you could choose kids programming, drama, sports, etc. In fact, it's being done right now north of the border.
> 
> http://www.shawdirect.ca/english/programming_guide_east.asp
> 
> This link opens a PDF that shows what I mean. The Shaw bundles are an excellent example of how programming could be sold. You will also notice, please, that the costs are higher than those here in the U.S. once you get to selecting a LOT of them.


The Shaw model would be cool on Direct except Shaw makes you take a basic pack first. I think it would be better for the consumer to do it like on C band with you just pick a small pack without being forced to take a basic pack to qualify.

It will be very hard for the cable/mini dish cartel to accept this since they look at the bottom line in dollars and cents. They will always choose the option that make them the most profit unless laws are put in place to make them do otherwise.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You falsely assume everyone watches those channels, which many folks know is NOT the case. There is plenty of testimony to that fact in this thread already.


I clearly said "opportunities". I'm pretty sure much more than 1 in 1300 will want to watch something on the Viacom networks today and will be denied.


----------



## harsh

tvropro said:


> I think it would be better for the consumer to do it like on C band with you just pick a small pack without being forced to take a basic pack to qualify.


Methinks you doth romanticize C-band too much. C-band pretty much requires a basic pack now too. You probably do have greater latitude in deciding the package's composition but it comes at a substantial cost in equipment and utility in a modern multi-TV setting.


----------



## susanandmark

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You falsely assume everyone watches those channels, which many folks know is NOT the case. There is plenty of testimony to that fact in this thread already.
> 
> Still - losing channels is not a good thing...but neither is content provider greed.


Anyone who thinks that the 100 or so users who have posted in this, or any other, thread on this forum (and that's just a guess, since I didn't count, but even if it's 1,000 my point is the same) make up an accurate representative sample of DirecTV's quoted 20,000,000 customers is REALLY making false assumptions. And I'm talking about using that as a validation for any opinion, including my own.

As for change.org or any other online petition ... You can get 10,000 signatures for or against just about anything on the Internet, and most people know that, making the value of such campaigns nebulous, at best. For instance, here's one that almost 11,000 people signed asking God to stop doing bad things (http://www.petitiononline.com/stopgod/petition.html). Good luck with, that! (Besides, everyone knows that God only allows bad things to happen when he's distracted helping his favorite professional athletes win games.)

Here's a petition with 20,000+ signatures to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/edit-pledge-allegiance-remove-phrase-under-god/v5J2fC6z) and one that wants someone fired for omitting those words on national TV (http://mrcaction.org/action/555). Yep, the people have spoken all right, and their will is as clear as mud.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> I clearly said "opportunities". I'm pretty sure much more than 1 in 1300 will want to watch something on the Viacom networks today and will be denied.


If you quote a number like that...its deceptive unless you mean actual viewers. It's like saying there are millions of shows to watch each year (including repeats, multiple providers, Video on demand, online, etc.). So what.

That reference clearly means basically nothing...based on your amended statement in the context of *this* discussion.

Plus..why does any Dish customer care about any content on DirecTV anyway? - posting on this topic here is disingenuous. It would seem you Dish customers have their hands full dealing with the AMC channels being off the air, not to mention the pattern of losing channels being more common on Dish.


----------



## SPACEMAKER

I love it when people post their opinions as fact.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> I clearly said "opportunities". I'm pretty sure much more than 1 in 1300 will want to watch something on the Viacom networks today and will be denied.





SPACEMAKER said:


> I love it when people post their opinions as fact.


Amen.


----------



## mnassour

Interesting AP article this morning via TVNewsCheck...with one really scary point, and one that make sense.



> The industry's cost pressures mean such fights are likely to continue.
> 
> "I think this is the new normal," says Barton Crockett, an analyst with Lazard Capital. "It's getting to be a little bit more of a battle between life and death for these guys."


http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/...aign=Gannett+2Q+Television+Revenue+Climbs+11%

It's getting to the point where if you want everything, all the time, you're going to have to have two services.

Feh.



> David Jacobs, a 48-year-old social media consultant in Damascus, Ore., says he signed up with Dish just six months ago to pay for upwards of 100 channels for around $50 a month. But now, he's locked into a two-year contract and will have to pay hefty penalties if he cancels. He'll now have to scramble to find a way to watch the premiere of "Breaking Bad," his favorite show, which airs on AMC.
> 
> AMC has offered to stream the episode free online for Dish subscribers. But he's not sure what to do. His options include paying extra for a download from Apple's iTunes or Amazon.com, or resorting to an unauthorized download from a pirate site.
> 
> "These are big multimedia corporations," Jacobs says. "But me - the little guy who's struggling every day to get by and live life - I'm left holding the bag. That's what makes me the most angry."


IIRC, Doesn't Dish, at least, still offer a higher-priced month to month option with no contract?


----------



## tonyd79

"harsh" said:


> There are a few (five today) hour-long "sessions" a day but nowhere near a full schedule of supergroups and classic concerts. Audience's music programming is a good supplement to what Palladia offers, not a replacement. You have to wade through the 10 hours of Dan Patrick to get to it.


Yeah cause Palladia doesn't repeat concerts.


----------



## snowcat

richzilla said:


> Thanks for the quick responses....
> 
> So what will be the thing that tips the scales to get this deal done ?
> 
> Is there a big event coming up or something of the sorts ?


The Republican and Democrat national conventions are Aug 27-30 and the week of September 3 respectively. Those are huge for the Daily Show.

But those are still about 6 weeks away. The summer just isn't a time for new shows.

The only real weakness I see for DirecTv is getting new subscribers to sign up. I would think most people would avoid switching to a provider with such a big programming dispute. They are lucky that Dish has their own dispute to deal with.


----------



## RunnerFL

fleckrj said:


> I am not disputing what you say, but are you sure you have the settings the same for the two inputs?


Considering it's the SAME input, yes.


----------



## tvropro

harsh said:


> Methinks you doth romanticize C-band too much. C-band pretty much requires a basic pack now too. You probably do have greater latitude in deciding the package's composition but it comes at a substantial cost in equipment and utility in a modern multi-TV setting.


C band is not what it once was although it does have some good idea's that seem to work with programming bundling and choice. In fact the pick 10 pack is the most popular pack on C band.

We are coming to a point that possibly all satellite DTH companies may end up being extinct if the newest methods of fiber and the like take precedence. It's very possible that Direct and Dish may be extinct in the future with DTH satellite distribution if the wired and wireless IPTV type models take control.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

tvropro said:


> C band is not what it once was although it does have some good idea's that seem to work with programming bundling and choice. In fact the pick 10 pack is the most popular pack on C band.
> 
> We are coming to a point that possibly all satellite DTH companies may end up being extinct if the newest methods of fiber and the like take precedence. It's very possible that Direct and Dish may be extinct in the future with DTH satellite distribution if the wired and wireless IPTV type models take control.


Highly doubt that.

The costs of expanding fiber have been so severe that Fios had to end their expansion into other states.


----------



## patmurphey

I don't understand all the angst and blame against Viacom over the 30% request. Isn't DirecTV charging a lot more than 30% more than they did 7 years ago?


----------



## Richard

tvropro said:


> We are coming to a point that possibly all satellite DTH companies may end up being extinct if the newest methods of fiber and the like take precedence. It's very possible that Direct and Dish may be extinct in the future with DTH satellite distribution if the wired and wireless IPTV type models take control.


How soon some people forget the original intent of DBS. You really think fiber will be run to every rural area in the country?


----------



## Carl Spock

tvropro, you need to get out of Chicago and come to rural Wisconsin and Minnesota. It will take years for fiber to be run all the Podunk towns out there, forget about all the farms. In many secondary and tertiary markets, you won't find fiber anytime soon.

Or maybe I should qualify that to fiber optic cables that are hooked up. In my town of 275 people, fiber optic cable was run a few years ago by the telephone company, which also provides a television service. The fiber cable is still in the ground without being used. I've asked Ace Telephone, the provider, when they plan to hook up the fiber to make their video offering comparable to DirecTV or even Mediacom, which also services my town, and they don't have an answer beyond it isn't in the budget, now or in the future.


----------



## maartena

mnassour said:


> Frankly, I don't think anyone in the business wants a true a la carte model. My gosh, keeping up with the programming choices per subscriber would be a nightmare. However, there's NO reason we can't have theme packs, where you could choose kids programming, drama, sports, etc. In fact, it's being done right now north of the border.
> 
> http://www.shawdirect.ca/english/programming_guide_east.asp
> 
> This link opens a PDF that shows what I mean. The Shaw bundles are an excellent example of how programming could be sold. You will also notice, please, that the costs are higher than those here in the U.S. once you get to selecting a LOT of them.


Exactly... the cost of implementing a thing like a-la-carte, especially from the side of the carrier who now has to offer 200+ billing options instead of about 20, is going to be a logistical nightmare. How often will people add/remove channels, etc, many people don't have internet to make it easy (or don't feel comfortable enough with a computer to use it as such), and you will have to develop quite a complicated system of billing if you allow people to tick on ESPN for the game on Saturday, and then untick it because there isn't going to be a game on for another 3 weeks that you want to see. What, now you have to prorate ESPN because it was selected as "active" for 2 days?

Never going to work.

I agree with your theme-pack solution though. That could work. You start with a base fee which includes basic set of channels: Either all of your locals, or if no locals the DNS networks, and all of the shopping/religious channels, as they pay DirecTV. (Although it could be nice to have them omitted for a fee). Then you add 1 or more theme packages depending on your preferences. You could split Sports in 2 packages too, 1 containing ESPN channels, your local RSN, and some of the other sport channels currently offered by Choice packages, and 1 containing what is in the current Sports Pack.

As far as pricing up north: Don't forget there is a exchange rate difference in dollars (although as of late the difference is minimal), a difference in taxes, and a difference in cost of doing business up there. Corporations pay more taxes there for instance, and so do consumers.


----------



## MartyS

Carl Spock said:


> Snappyjay and fleckrj, you obviously don't watch Comedy Central a lot.
> 
> I will definitely miss The Daily Show and The Colbert Report when they come back from vacation this week.


Carl... I think it'll still be on Hulu, since I think they have a contract for that. I'm going to watch it on the big screen connected to the computer. That's the only think I watch on their channels that I would miss. So I still have it.


----------



## dpeters11

tvropro said:


> C band is not what it once was although it does have some good idea's that seem to work with programming bundling and choice. In fact the pick 10 pack is the most popular pack on C band.
> 
> We are coming to a point that possibly all satellite DTH companies may end up being extinct if the newest methods of fiber and the like take precedence. It's very possible that Direct and Dish may be extinct in the future with DTH satellite distribution if the wired and wireless IPTV type models take control.


I have fiber service at home, and have absolutely no interest in their offerings, other than Internet. What HDTVfan says is true here as well, the actual fiber to the home rollout has ended. Even sonic.net, home of $70 gigabit (which almost no one in the supported area subscribes to), the actual fiber area is extremely small.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

patmurphey said:


> I don't understand all the angst and blame against Viacom over the 30% request. Isn't DirecTV charging a lot more than 30% more than they did 7 years ago?


 If DIRECTV just pays Viacom whatever they want, then where does it end?

Won't every broadcaster try to do the same if Viacom gets away with it?

I'm not sure how much my bill has gone up over the last seven years but how much will it go up in the next seven if DIRECTV gives every broadcaster this kind of increase?

My 2¢ FWIW.

Mike


----------



## TheRatPatrol

If these networks want you to watch their programming then why don't they allow you to go to their websites and subscribe that way?


----------



## Tubaman-Z

Carl Spock said:


> tvropro, you need to get out of Chicago and come to rural Wisconsin and Minnesota. It will take years for fiber to be run all the Podunk towns out there, forget about all the farms. In many secondary and tertiary markets, you won't find fiber anytime soon.


I live in a rural area in MN (thanks for representing us  ). Not only do we not have fiber, we don't have cable. It's OTA (which I have) and/or DBS (which I also have).


----------



## Alan Gordon

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Alan Gordon said:
> 
> 
> 
> CRAP!!!
> 
> I REALLY hope that's not what my local CBS affiliate has plans to do when they add HD to their CW sub-channel.
> 
> On the plus side, I think DirecTV gets my local CBS via fiber, so hopefully it won't affect my PQ, but it'll suck if I'm wrong...
> 
> 
> 
> Even stations that feed DirecTV via fiber feed the exact same 19.2 Mbps MPEG2 ASI feed that they send to to their transmitter. So if they downrez the main channel, thats what DirecTV will also get. If they add subchannels, those get to fed to DirecTV as well, even though they are not used. They feed all providers the same ASI feed because local cable does run their subchannel programming.
Click to expand...

As HoTat2 already stated, I don't think that's always the case in every market.



tonyd79 said:


> They will probably have to do something along those lines.


As I stated, it may not affect me since I can't receive the channels OTA... just via DirecTV, and I don't even know that they are adding HD to the sub-channel for broadcast... it was just a curious statement made by someone that made me think it was possible.

:backtotop

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon

Davenlr said:


> What would be nice, is if DirecTv were to offer packages by company...
> ViaCom package
> Rainbow package
> NBC/Universal package
> ABC/Disney/ESPN package
> 
> That way, those that dont want to pay the big bucks for ESPN can opt out of the whole suite. When ABC/Disney part of the company realize they are losing money, they will lower the ESPN part...or enough people will subscribe that they will keep it high, who knows. At least everyone would have the choice.


The problem with that is....

Of the 17 channels from Viacom, only 6 are cared about here, and I could really pare that number down.

Rainbow has what? One that I really care about...

NBC/Universal actually has a good percentage of the channels I care about, so that one would make sense for me.

However, the ABC example doesn't work well for me either. While I like having access to ESPN, if I could save money without it, I'd drop it in a hot second, yet ABC Family is a largely watched channel, and I grew up on comics, so I enjoy viewing some of DisneyXD's animated programming. Push comes to shove, I could do without DisneyXD, but ABC Family is a must.



inkahauts said:


> Actually, I like that direction, but I'd rather see it done by type. All the kids channels in one, all the news in one, package etc. it might be really nice if they offered things in both those formats. So you could choose to subscribe to say all Disney and all sports.


Comcast (I believe) is doing trials of theme packages.

I LOVE the idea, but not the implementation.

For instance, the news channels are grouped in with the educational/documentary channels. I don't care for the current state of the 24 hour news networks, but I enjoy watching a good documentary occasionally, so that's kind of a fail for me.

Also... some channels have multiple themes, and should be packaged within multiple packages. TNT and FX have sports as well as general entertainment. MTV rarely has any music, and I only watch it for "Teen Wolf" and "Awkward.", but it's included with the music channels?

The pricing wasn't GREAT for me, and I didn't really start saving any money until I gave up some of the channels that I didn't want to lose, but their placing in themes made it an all or nothing.

I agree that the current bundling/pricing we see will be changing in the future. It cannot continue as is, and I expect themes to be the most likely scenario, but I really hope that someone implements it better than Comcast (or TW... whoever it is).

~Alan


----------



## maartena

tvropro said:


> We are coming to a point that possibly all satellite DTH companies may end up being extinct if the newest methods of fiber and the like take precedence. It's very possible that Direct and Dish may be extinct in the future with DTH satellite distribution if the wired and wireless IPTV type models take control.


Very unlikely. First off, there is not enough business justification to wire up the rural areas of this country. Millions upon millions live in areas that are considered "built up", but where the lot size is 40 acres or something like that, but every 40 acre lot has a house on it. The cost of deploying fiber optic cable needed for high-speed internet connections capable of handling multiple HD channels, plus internet usage itself is too high for it to be profitable.

Many people don't need much beyond the 1.5 Mbps DSL they can get for $19.95 right now, and if DirecTV and Dish continue to supply TV for around $60 for the basics, there is no reason to switch to a IPTV provider, especially if that provider isn't capably to give you a better price for Internet and TV.

Furthermore, you are forgetting a core part of DirecTV's business: Sportsbars, and Hotels. A Sportsbar will often have 30+ TV's and will sometimes be playing 15+ channels on those TV's showing a multitude of games. A Hotel will have many rooms, each with many channels on their TV's. Even with a 1 Gbps fiberoptic line, you will have trouble providing businesses like that with the amount of HD streams they need to be able to provide at the SAME time. People in hotels watch different channels, or just channel flip. IPTV is just not going to work there, let alone the cost of getting fiber lines out to hotels in rural areas. (Think tourism, national parks, truck stops, and hotels are often a mile or 2 outside of town because the land is cheaper there).

And then there is the next generation of HD. DirecTV has already said they will be ready for it with one of their future satellite launches. "Quad HD" or "4k HD" (3840×2160) or "2160p" is the next generation of HD and very likely to become the next broadcast standard, and will take approximately 25-30 Mbps per channel in a best-case compression scenario, more likely it will be 35-40 Mbps for good quality.

The next step after that is UltraHD (7680×4320) and it has been suggested to skip QuadHD altogether and go with this format instead for the next broadcast standard. This standard has been lab-tested at 160 Mbps, but with good compression and new technologies we can probably get a GOOD UltraHD broadcast over 100 Mbps.

We don't know where the next step of broadcast TV will take us. I think it will probably be 2160p or QuadHD for the next standard, but again.... look at a sportsbar in 10 years from now. They aren't going to be able to deliver, even with 1 Gbps fiber, where DirecTV (who, again, has said they are preparing for UltraHD) will be able to.

I think at the very least, this technology will develop a lot faster than fiber optics will be deployed.... and of course satellite has the advantage of blanketing the entire country with whatever new HD standard will prevail as the winner, where fiberoptic ISP's will be limited to larger towns.

And AT&T isn't even thinking about fiber yet, they spent way too much money keeping copper alive, and they'll go on that road for at least another 5 years.


----------



## Alan Gordon

harsh said:


> If DIRECTV was given to wide distribution of AntennaTV, MeTV or the other classic TV LIL networks, the loss of TVLand might be more sustainable.


Just my opinion, but I suspect that a good portion of TVLand's best ratings come from their original programming...

~Alan


----------



## maartena

Alan Gordon said:


> For instance, the news channels are grouped in with the educational/documentary channels. I don't care for the current state of the 24 hour news networks, but I enjoy watching a good documentary occasionally, so that's kind of a fail for me.


I think any company doing any type of themed package structuring will go with a similar approach. Put a few very much wanted channels in with a collection of not-so-much wanted.

E.g. ABC Family, a channel you want, in a "Family" package that also includes Nick stuff, Disney stuff, PBS stuff, etc.

Or indeed.... put Discovery, History Channel and NGC in with CNN/Fox/MSNBC/Bloomberg etc.

And then you will end up with people buying more packages anyways, because all packages have some "must have" channels in them.


----------



## susanandmark

Interesting, and terrifying status update from DirecTV's Twitter ...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/224709135701258240
... Seems to indicate they are thinking about permanently dropping some of the channels we've lost.

Would they be ones I miss? Likely not, but you never know, and I'm sure someone would miss them. Dropping channels to me is, again, NOT having "my back."


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. The message, as I see it, is that they want to put in a more a la carte model for Viacom channels, perhaps put them across different tiers.


----------



## Santi360HD

since when is it cool for any provider to be on the A LA CARTE bandwagon??.. hasn't it been thumbed nosed at any given time??..Now with a channel pull, its in play to suggest it and innuendo it??? so its all of a sudden cool now? Because DirecTV has my back? HAH!!


----------



## RunnerFL

susanandmark said:


> Interesting, and terrifying status update from DirecTV's Twitter ...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/224709135701258240
> ... Seems to indicate they are thinking about permanently dropping some of the channels we've lost.
> 
> Would they be ones I miss? Likely not, but you never know, and I'm sure someone would miss them. Dropping channels to me is, again, NOT having "my back."


That's not how I read that at all. Sounds to me like they are thinking of changing packages and want to make sure the most watched Viacom channels are in the lower packages.


----------



## spiketoo

maartena said:


> Exactly... the cost of implementing a thing like a-la-carte, especially from the side of the carrier who now has to offer 200+ billing options instead of about 20, is going to be a logistical nightmare. How often will people add/remove channels, etc, many people don't have internet to make it easy (or don't feel comfortable enough with a computer to use it as such), and you will have to develop quite a complicated system of billing if you allow people to tick on ESPN for the game on Saturday, and then untick it because there isn't going to be a game on for another 3 weeks that you want to see. What, now you have to prorate ESPN because it was selected as "active" for 2 days?
> 
> Never going to work...


It would be new code but it's just code. From a software development standpoint it doesn't look terribly complicated (and I've seen code developed using fewer specs than this!  ). Prorating is easy - done all the time in a myriad of apps in finance.

Now it probably would take them 10 years or so to debug it so it would be a nightmare for customers.


----------



## Paul Secic

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The Change.org petition site (which is supporting DirecTV to hold their ground against Viacom on pricing) now has >10,000 signatures in about a week.
> 
> Looks like they'll hit their 15K target within a 10 day period or so.


That's a drop in the bucket. I support you.


----------



## Alan Gordon

maartena said:


> I think any company doing any type of themed package structuring will go with a similar approach. Put a few very much wanted channels in with a collection of not-so-much wanted.
> 
> E.g. ABC Family, a channel you want, in a "Family" package that also includes Nick stuff, Disney stuff, PBS stuff, etc.
> 
> Or indeed.... put Discovery, History Channel and NGC in with CNN/Fox/MSNBC/Bloomberg etc.
> 
> And then you will end up with people buying more packages anyways, because all packages have some "must have" channels in them.


Yep!

If done right, it'd be great... BUT the trial version's info I saw, left me very disappointed in the prospect.

If one has a singular interest, it's great, but otherwise, it gets us back into the same territory we're in now.

BTW, for those interested in what we're talking about, here's a thread discussing it.



Stuart Sweet said:


> I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. The message, as I see it, is that they want to put in a more a la carte model for Viacom channels, perhaps put them across different tiers.


Strange wording though... 

I'm always hesitant when someone says "YOU"... as if they know my likes and dislikes. As someone who often likes the less traveled path, it doesn't fill me with hope.

Then again, there's only four Viacom channels I really watch... TV Land, MTV, Comedy Central, and Palladia... and I suspect the first three would most likely be in the popular packages.

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon

I replied to DirecTV's Tweet with my channels. I felt stupid doing the hashtag, as while DirecTV's been good to me in my 17 years with them, I am fully aware that they have their own back... it just happens to be next to mine.

~Alan


----------



## maartena

Santi360HD said:


> since when is it cool for any provider to be on the A LA CARTE bandwagon??.. hasn't it been thumbed nosed at any given time??..Now with a channel pull, its in play to suggest it and innuendo it??? so its all of a sudden cool now? Because DirecTV has my back? HAH!!


They probably want to keep Palladia in the HD Extra pack, possibly not being forced to get EPIX and/or keep it in a separate tier, and they might want keep the existing package structure with Viacom channels as it is. Nickelodeon and MTV channels are available in Entertainment and Choice, but for some of the other Nick* and MTV/VH1 channels you have to get Choice Extra or Ultimate.

I think the twitter comment is regarding that. Viacom might want ALL of their channels in ALL packages, or they want to force DirecTV to carry channels they currently aren't carrying.

And all that, besides the money of course, is also part of these negotiations I think. With previous contract negotiations, we have seen channels move to a higher tier. And perhaps that is how they recoup some of their money. After long and hard negotiations, they might say "we would only pay xx if we can move this and that channel to Choice Ultimate". That way it moves to a package that gets them more money, and it might entice SOME people to get Ultimate. Money.... although the primary reason for a dispute, is not the only reason.


----------



## Jillxz

Alan Gordon said:


> Just my opinion, but I suspect that a good portion of TVLand's best ratings come from their original programming...
> 
> ~Alan


I agree. I care nothing for the new programs.


----------



## Paul Secic

hdtvfan0001 said:


> If you quote a number like that...its deceptive unless you mean actual viewers. It's like saying there are millions of shows to watch each year (including repeats, multiple providers, Video on demand, online, etc.). So what.
> 
> That reference clearly means basically nothing...based on your amended statement in the context of *this* discussion.
> 
> Plus..why does any Dish customer care about any content on DirecTV anyway? - posting on this topic here is disingenuous. It would seem you Dish customers have their hands full dealing with the AMC channels being off the air, not to mention the pattern of losing channels being more common on Dish.


I don't give a fig about AMC, IFC, ETC.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Jillxz said:


> I agree. I care nothing for the new programs.


Uh...

I like most all of them myself... particularly HiC, HD, and TSM. RA35 is not bad, but mainly because I like some of the people in it...

~Alan


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> If you quote a number like that...its deceptive unless you mean actual viewers.


Would you subscribe to a service that didn't offer a smattering of Viacom channels?


> Plus..why does any Dish customer care about any content on DirecTV anyway?


Because our respective providers are fighting the same battle on different fronts. To assume that this pissing match doesn't impact subscribers of other services is not something a thinking person should engage in.

Of course it doesn't hurt that DIRECTV zealots have been so vociferous about this kind of dispute being entirely unique to DISH (or Time Warner if one counts themselves as a cable person).


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

inkahauts said:


> Viacom is not owned by Comcast.


Yet. They have been on quite a shopping spree lately.


----------



## APB101

Alan Gordon said:


> I'm always hesitant when someone says "YOU"... as if they know my likes and dislikes.~Alan


+1

The statement has no substance: "Do you watch EVERY @Viacom channel? We're working so you only have to pay for the channels YOU watch - not all 17."

I am one in however many of millions (whatever exact number) of subscribers. Let us not pretend, DirecTV, that we have a one-on-one relationship with the programming that is being carried.

We are close to a week, now, without the Viacom channels; I hope it gets resolved during this week. I have in mind wanting more programming - including HD - than what he received prior to the disconnect. But, for whichever Viacom programming we would get, I hope DirecTV subscribers on this matter experience a return to normalcy this week.


----------



## snowcat

TheRatPatrol said:


> If these networks want you to watch their programming then why don't they allow you to go to their websites and subscribe that way?


Probably because they make more a lot more money having all the different cable/satellite providers pay for them. If it was available online, even for a price, they won't get nearly the same amount of money.

That is one of Dish's complaints about AMC. If fans of AMC shows can watch the episodes the next day after they are aired, why should Dish pay a lot to show them in the first place.


----------



## harsh

Jillxz said:


> I agree. I care nothing for the new programs.


I suspect that you and Adam aren't on the same page. He's promoting the idea that TVLand is built on its original programming (the stuff that you say that you don't care for).


----------



## Alan Gordon

APB101 said:


> We are close to a week, now, without the Viacom channels; I hope it gets resolved during this week. I have in mind wanting more programming - including HD - than what he received prior to the disconnect. But, for whichever Viacom programming we would get, I hope DirecTV subscribers on this matter experience a return to normalcy this week.


While there is programming I'd like to catch up on, I'm perfectly fine waiting for however long it takes... even if goes into next year.

Not that I want that to happen, but rather that I'd they get the best deal possible.

~Alan


----------



## ep1974

maartena said:


> They probably want to keep Palladia in the HD Extra pack, possibly not being forced to get EPIX and/or keep it in a separate tier, and they might want keep the existing package structure with Viacom channels as it is. Nickelodeon and MTV channels are available in Entertainment and Choice, but for some of the other Nick* and MTV/VH1 channels you have to get Choice Extra or Ultimate.
> 
> I think the twitter comment is regarding that. Viacom might want ALL of their channels in ALL packages, or they want to force DirecTV to carry channels they currently aren't carrying.
> 
> And all that, besides the money of course, is also part of these negotiations I think. With previous contract negotiations, we have seen channels move to a higher tier. And perhaps that is how they recoup some of their money. After long and hard negotiations, they might say "we would only pay xx if we can move this and that channel to Choice Ultimate". That way it moves to a package that gets them more money, and it might entice SOME people to get Ultimate. Money.... although the primary reason for a dispute, is not the only reason.


Just wondering if adding Epix is a stumbling block in these negotiations. Would like to see it added but still hope that Direct holds their ground for a fair resolution.


----------



## darkpowrjd

RunnerFL said:


> That's not how I read that at all. Sounds to me like they are thinking of changing packages and want to make sure the most watched Viacom channels are in the lower packages.


That's what I'm hoping it means, because to have DTV try to say that "they see no value in X or Y channel" like they did with G4, and to ask people who are on the internet (whose fingers type faster than their minds can think) what they want is rather scary. They should be asking their account holders, not random people on the internet, that one way or the other.


----------



## PrinceLH

Yes, they really do need to hold their ground on this one. Directv already had their issues with FOX, so if they buckle this time, it'll be seen as weakness. Since it is summer, and most people tend to not watch as much television, now is the time to make Viacom sweat. Maybe Directv finds alternative programming, like AntennaTV and or MeTV, to fill in some of the SD channels missing, due to Viacom. I'm not sure how many local markets carry these channels, in their locals, but maybe it would be viable, to give every subscriber a chance to pick up these feeds, since they're probably already being uplinked. If Disney was smart, they could allow Directv to free preview their lineup, for the summer, to steal some of Viacom's customers. One of these days, the satellite/cable providers will need to make a stand and cripple one of the media companies. Maybe today is the day, that the buck stops on these increases. Viacom needs to be taught a lesson.


----------



## maartena

PrinceLH said:


> Yes, they really do need to hold their ground on this one. Directv already had their issues with FOX, so if they buckle this time, it'll be seen as weakness.


I do believe that the industry is going to see this, and learn a lesson. The big lesson being learned is that DirecTV isn't going to be bullied in to submission, and will go BLACK on the channels disputed if need be. Other media companies already know, right now, that you don't mess with DirecTV, and they will have to calculate their risk/rewards with channels being offline for some time.

I heard the Viacom radio commercial this weekend by the way.... I took a transistor radio to a family members swimming pool. What a bunch of WHINERS they have become at Viacom.


----------



## txfeinbergs

spiketoo said:


> It would be new code but it's just code. From a software development standpoint it doesn't look terribly complicated (and I've seen code developed using fewer specs than this!  ). Prorating is easy - done all the time in a myriad of apps in finance.
> 
> Now it probably would take them 10 years or so to debug it so it would be a nightmare for customers.


I agree with you, but if they hand it to their crack-jack team of DirecTV programmers - you know, the ones that take almost a year to develope a Nomad app for Android, it would take 20 years to get it done.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Would you subscribe to a service that didn't offer a smattering of Viacom channels?


Yup....sure would.


> Because our respective providers are fighting the same battle on different fronts. Of course it doesn't hurt that DIRECTV zealots have been so vociferous about this kind of dispute being entirely unique to DISH (or Time Warner if one counts themselves as a cable person).


Then again, the approach taken by Charlie "Ebenezer" Ergen at Dish, TWC (mostly getting hit by local provider disputes and 1 other the past year), and DirecTV have been significantly different approaches, while garnering different results over time.

The only common denominator among those providers is not getting into agreements that reflect extreme and greedy pricing models.


----------



## underlord2

maartena said:


> I do believe that the industry is going to see this, and learn a lesson. The big lesson being learned is that DirecTV isn't going to be bullied in to submission, and will go BLACK on the channels disputed if need be. Other media companies already know, right now, that you don't mess with DirecTV, and they will have to calculate their risk/rewards with channels being offline for some time.
> 
> I heard the Viacom radio commercial this weekend by the way.... I took a transistor radio to a family members swimming pool. What a *bunch of WHINERS* they have become at Viacom.


I'd be ashamed if I was Viacom and act like this ON THE RADIO! I thought corporations are supposed to have a level of maturity higher than kindergarteners?


----------



## Alan Gordon

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Yup....sure would.


While I support DirecTV for as long as they need to keep the channels off, I would not! 

~Alan


----------



## Mark Holtz

underlord2 said:


> I'd be ashamed if I was Viacom and act like this ON THE RADIO! I thought corporations are supposed to have a level of maturity higher than kindergarteners?


You forget who their target audience is for Comedy Central, MTV, Spike, and Nick is.


----------



## crashHD

maartena said:


> Exactly... the cost of implementing a thing like a-la-carte, especially from the side of the carrier who now has to offer 200+ billing options instead of about 20, is going to be a logistical nightmare. How often will people add/remove channels, etc, many people don't have internet to make it easy (or don't feel comfortable enough with a computer to use it as such), and you will have to develop quite a complicated system of billing if you allow people to tick on ESPN for the game on Saturday, and then untick it because there isn't going to be a game on for another 3 weeks that you want to see. What, now you have to prorate ESPN because it was selected as "active" for 2 days?


It is very unimaginative to think this would be _technically_ difficult to do.

Prorating is not hard, but a simpler solution would be to refuse to prorate. If it sells a-la-carte, and the channel is $1/month, then when you buy that channel for a dollar, you have it for the whole month. For anything anyone sells, there is a minimum quanity. You can't go to mcdonalds and order half a hamburger, and no one is upset about that. Make the minimum service quantity a month. wasn't that easy?

I would have no problem going through a webpage and picking which channels I want.

For customers who don't use the internet, there are other ways than individually telling the CSR which channels they want over the phone. The capacity to order programming with the remote is something we have had for years.

The argument it would be _technically_ difficult to do this, just doesn't hold water. I better one is that it would be _practically_ difficult to do so. I, and other customers like me, have the premier package, to get all the channels I want. If it were a-la-carte, I'd only have to buy about 25 channels. I would not pay $120/month plus mirror fees for 25 channels. They make more money this way


----------



## Mark Holtz

I personally don't believe in online petitions (especially change.org), but some do, so here goes.... Viacom: Stop strong-arming DirecTV to give you more money and lying about it!


----------



## Barry in Conyers

Some people would support DirecTV if they dropped half the channels and doubled the prices.


----------



## crashHD

There's been a number of posts, where a lot of people are remembering c-band unusually fondly.

Lets not forget, c-band often meant the dish had to move between satellites to get different channels...a setup like that doesn't do well for a house with multiple dvr's, all with 2x tuners each.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Alan Gordon said:


> While I support DirecTV for as long as they need to keep the channels off, I would not!


Honestly....if they lost all those channels permanently, it would nearly 0 impact in this household. That said, some other folks obviously watch those channels...so it comes down to viewing preferences/taste.


Barry in Conyers said:


> Some people would support DirecTV if they dropped half the channels and doubled the prices.


Really? Half the Channels? Double the prices?


----------



## fleckrj

harsh said:


> Would you subscribe to a service that didn't offer a smattering of Viacom channels?Because our respective providers are fighting the same battle on different fronts. To assume that this pissing match doesn't impact subscribers of other services is not something a thinking person should engage in.
> 
> Of course it doesn't hurt that DIRECTV zealots have been so vociferous about this kind of dispute being entirely unique to DISH (or Time Warner if one counts themselves as a cable person).


I might be in the minority (although I doubt it), but I would subscribe to a service that did not offer any of the current Viacom channels.

I would not subscribe to a service that did not offer any of the ABC/Disney. Scripts, NBC Universal, Turner, or Discovery Communications channels, but I can do without Viacom.

The only channels I would miss if they went dark are:

ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU
Fox Sports South
NBC Sports
Universal Sports
USA
TNT
Food Network
HGTV
TVG
DIY
Cooking
TLC
Discovery

There are a few others that are nice to have, but none that would be deal breakers if they were not offered.


----------



## maartena

txfeinbergs said:


> I agree with you, but if they hand it to their crack-jack team of DirecTV programmers - you know, the ones that take almost a year to develope a Nomad app for Android, it would take 20 years to get it done.


Programming aside, dealing with the logistics in general with an "a-la-carte" system is going to be a nightmare. It's not going to be cost-effective for DirecTV (or any carrier), and as such they will have to charge customers a lot more just to get it done.

And quite frankly.... Every so often I still go and sit down, grab the remote, and "see what is on". And I have been finding a lot of channels as of late I never watched before, and/or always forget about that I have. I have been pleasantly surprised by the programming of Destination America (formerly Planet Green) for instance, and I might not have chosen that channel if I was choosing channels.

A-la-carte is a dream that will probably never happen. At least, not as we currently envision it..... there might be some other options.


----------



## underlord2

Mark Holtz said:


> You forget who their target audience is for Comedy Central, MTV, Spike, and Nick is.


Lol I'm not even going to touch that one :wave:

Personally I'd only miss Futurama, but that show should go back to Fox (like what Family Guy did, sorta.)


----------



## Alan Gordon

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Honestly....if they lost all those channels permanently, it would nearly 0 impact in this household. That said, some other folks obviously watch those channels...so it comes down to viewing preferences/taste.


I find that most people I know would be concerned by the lack of TV Land and the Nick channels. A couple of folks would be disappointed by CC, but the rest of the channels probably would go mostly unnoticed.

As I stated, I only have interest in TV Land, MTV, Comedy Central, and Palladia.

I HATE the fact that I actually like two programs on MTV... I was able to go YEARS without watching a single thing on that channel. 

~Alan


----------



## gio12

maartena said:


> And AT&T isn't even thinking about fiber yet, they spent way too much money keeping copper alive, and they'll go on that road for at least another 5 years.


Huh? We have fiber here in Miami and the CG area. Then form the small goes its copper. But we are getting fiber to the house by 2013.
http://www.att.com/u-verse/explore/fiber-technology.jsp

Way off here. Maybe if you live in Timbuktu!

I agree with you when it comes to HD stuff. DIRECTV will be at an advantage. With Quad HD being also most ready in a sense and HD REALLY just catching on, I say skip quad and go UltraHD as the next standard.


----------



## jdspencer

I wonder if Viacom will try to recoup advertising revenue due to this dispute?
I also wonder what their advertisers are saying about this?


----------



## gio12

RunnerFL said:


> That's not how I read that at all. Sounds to me like they are thinking of changing packages and want to make sure the most watched Viacom channels are in the lower packages.


That's what I get. I bet the kids stuff stays in the lower tires and the other stuff in the higher packages.


----------



## Jillxz

Well , when my contract is up , I'm thinking of just cutting the cord. I am on my computer a whole lot more than I watch TV . I's so much cheaper to stream Netflix and Amazon from a Blu-ray Player. or Roku . I can also get an inside digital antenna that will pick up 6 local stations get my internet through my , TV and I won't need any of these providers.


----------



## loudo

harsh said:


> Would you subscribe to a service that didn't offer a smattering of Viacom channels?


I certainly would, I very rarely watch any of them, and wouldn't miss them at all.


----------



## fleckrj

Jillxz said:


> Well , when my contract is up , I'm thinking of just cutting the cord. I am on my computer a whole lot more than I watch TV . I's so much cheaper to stream Netflix and Amazon from a Blu-ray Player. or Roku . I can also get an inside digital antenna that will pick up 6 local stations get my internet through my , TV and I won't need any of these providers.


There is no such thing as a digital antenna  The antenna does not care if the RF signal is digital or analogue. Any antenna that can pick up UHF plus high VHF will get all of the digital stations. Depending on your locals, high VHF might not be necessary.


----------



## TBoneit

underlord2 said:


> I'd be ashamed if I was Viacom and act like this ON THE RADIO! I thought corporations are supposed to have a level of maturity higher than kindergarteners?


Three words: Lowest Common denominator



fleckrj said:


> There is no such thing as a digital antenna  The antenna does not care if the RF signal is digital or analogue. Any antenna that can pick up UHF plus high VHF will get all of the digital stations. Depending on your locals, high VHF might not be necessary.


Hey don't make fun of the marketing and advertising gurus....
BTW I've seen people here refer to SD or HD transponders, No such thing there either.



txfeinbergs said:


> I agree with you, but if they hand it to their crack-jack team of DirecTV programmers - you know, the ones that take almost a year to develope a Nomad app for Android, it would take 20 years to get it done.


What Team? It was probably One person working on it in their spare time.


----------



## wagman

maartena said:


> Programming aside, dealing with the logistics in general with an "a-la-carte" system is going to be a nightmare.
> 
> A-la-carte is a dream that will probably never happen. At least, not as we currently envision it..... there might be some other options.


Programming for a-la-carte is no more tricky or difficult than programming for all the various packages they offer now and all of the add-ons, sports packages, video on demand, different language packs, plus all of the discounts that there is no standard for (you know you called and could not get the same deal you just read someone else got....especially the new subscribers).

The logistics is also as easy, because it is programmed into the system...logistics solved.

When I hear people talk about the difficulties of getting this done, I think they must be trolls or they are just repeating what trolls have spewed...I don't mean to offend anyone, because you may just assume that to be the case.

It will not happen, because they do not want it to happen....and I am not pointing my finger at DirecTV...I am pointing it toward the Viacoms, Foxes and NBCs out there that insist you take MTV2 with Nickelodeon, or CNBC with TNT, etc...They make you take the crap with the cream...look what you get when you order basic cable...you get like ABC, NBC, CBS, ESPN and 20 other channels like CNBC, CNBC2, CNBC3, CNBC4, QVC, QVC2, QVC3, MTV2 (no MTV)...

Wow...what a rant....I just want my channels I pay for, or discount me for what you are not providing...which Directv is doing.


----------



## tulanejosh

Alan Gordon said:


> While I support DirecTV for as long as they need to keep the channels off, I would not!
> 
> ~Alan


I would not either.


----------



## tonyd79

wagman said:


> Programming for a-la-carte is no more tricky or difficult than programming for all the various packages they offer now and all of the add-ons, sports packages, video on demand, different language packs, plus all of the discounts that there is no standard for (you know you called and could not get the same deal you just read someone else got....especially the new subscribers).


No idea why you think that. Right now, I would imagine that customers are assigned to groups. The groups being their package plus any other group like HBO, NFL Sunday Ticket, etc.

The total number of groups is pretty limited.

Assuming that expanding software to just do more groups (you would now need a group for every channel or change the software to build custom arrays of channels) is not always that easy. Scaling software from its original intent to something much larger often leads to problems, slowness, memory issues, etc.

Plus you have to reinvent the GUI and/or system for customers and CSRs to add/remove individual channels. That is a complete re-write of the software.

Nice to be called a troll before I even answer your post but I see this kind of problem in software every day in things my co-workers write and also things we purchase. Things work great for the small case then you try to make it bigger and kablooey!


----------



## tulanejosh

wagman said:


> Programming for a-la-carte is no more tricky or difficult than programming for all the various packages they offer now and all of the add-ons, sports packages, video on demand, different language packs, plus all of the discounts that there is no standard for (you know you called and could not get the same deal you just read someone else got....especially the new subscribers).
> 
> The logistics is also as easy, because it is programmed into the system...logistics solved.
> 
> When I hear people talk about the difficulties of getting this done, I think they must be trolls or they are just repeating what trolls have spewed...I don't mean to offend anyone, because you may just assume that to be the case.
> 
> It will not happen, because they do not want it to happen....and I am not pointing my finger at DirecTV...I am pointing it toward the Viacoms, Foxes and NBCs out there that insist you take MTV2 with Nickelodeon, or CNBC with TNT, etc...They make you take the crap with the cream...look what you get when you order basic cable...you get like ABC, NBC, CBS, ESPN and 20 other channels like CNBC, CNBC2, CNBC3, CNBC4, QVC, QVC2, QVC3, MTV2 (no MTV)...
> 
> Wow...what a rant....I just want my channels I pay for, or discount me for what you are not providing...which Directv is doing.


Everyone assumes that it would be cheaper. I dont believe that'll really significantly be the case. Scale lets bundle of viacom channels cost $3.00. But if you reduce scale, cost goes up.

I know other people have different perspectives on the long term economics of a la carte. Personally - i just dont think the value is there. Look at what apple and amazon charge for an episdoe - $1.99. A entire channel isn't going to cost you less than a single episode.

And you are left with 15 channels that are $5 - $10 a piece, that's about what i pay now only now i get a lot more content. Personally - if I'm going to play close to the same amount, i'd rather get access to the most channels i possible can - even if i don't watch them - because its a better deal that paying $10 less for 90% less channels.

I just don't think there's any reality in which you get to pay significantly less and consume the same amount. It didn't happen in newspaper or print, it didn't happen with music. I dont think video will be any different.


----------



## DaveC27

jdspencer said:


> I wonder if Viacom will try to recoup advertising revenue due to this dispute?
> I also wonder what their advertisers are saying about this?


The main reason for this dispute is that Viacom's advertising rates have plunged due to lack of viewers. Attempting to increase the rates isn't going to work unless they get viewers back, so blacking out 20 million potential viewers seems almost suicidal

And yes Viacom are already having to refund advertising buyers because they're didn't meet the (already low) promised viewing figures for last week.

Early last week Comedy Central were promoting this weeks return of the Daily Show & Colbert Report telling buyers to book early, the rates they're now offering for advertising slots this week are equivalent to things like Logo and OWN


----------



## DaveC27

tulanejosh said:


> Everyone assumes that it would be cheaper. I dont believe that'll really significantly be the case. Scale lets bundle of viacom channels cost $3.00. But if you reduce scale, cost goes up.
> 
> I know other people have different perspectives on the long term economics of a la carte. Personally - i just dont think the value is there. Look at what apple and amazon charge for an episdoe - $1.99. A entire channel isn't going to cost you less than a single episode.
> 
> And you are left with 15 channels that are $5 - $10 a piece, that's about what i pay now only now i get a lot more content. Personally - if I'm going to play close to the same amount, i'd rather get access to the most channels i possible can - even if i don't watch them - because its a better deal that paying $10 less for 90% less channels.
> 
> I just don't think there's any reality in which you get to pay significantly less and consume the same amount. It didn't happen in newspaper or print, it didn't happen with music. I dont think video will be any different.


You are correct, if Viacom gets $1 from every subscriber that means they receive $20,000,000 from D* (20million x $1) now if only 10% of D*'s subscribers choose to subscribe to an a la carte option Viacom would still want to get the $20million to fund their programming and now that 10% would need to pay $10 which is fine if Viacom is all you want to buy, but Discovery would also want there $10, Disney too ...etc.


----------



## zimm7778

"underlord2" said:


> I'd be ashamed if I was Viacom and act like this ON THE RADIO! I thought corporations are supposed to have a level of maturity higher than kindergarteners?


Remember who Viacoms core audience is on ALL fronts. This plays to those crowds.


----------



## lokar

To anyone saying a la carte would be too complicated for D* to implement, that's ridiculous! C-band had a la carte for years and Canada has had a limited form of a la carte for years where you have a cheap base package and then add themed groups of 5-7 channels for around $6 each after that. I don't even care about any Viacom channels but I'm 100% for a la carte! The first provider with the guts to offer this will do very well, they will at least get my business.


----------



## fleckrj

tulanejosh said:


> Everyone assumes that it would be cheaper. I dont believe that'll really significantly be the case. Scale lets bundle of viacom channels cost $3.00. But if you reduce scale, cost goes up.
> 
> I know other people have different perspectives on the long term economics of a la carte. Personally - i just dont think the value is there. Look at what apple and amazon charge for an episdoe - $1.99. A entire channel isn't going to cost you less than a single episode.
> 
> And you are left with 15 channels that are $5 - $10 a piece, that's about what i pay now only now i get a lot more content. Personally - if I'm going to play close to the same amount, i'd rather get access to the most channels i possible can - even if i don't watch them - because its a better deal that paying $10 less for 90% less channels.
> 
> I just don't think there's any reality in which you get to pay significantly less and consume the same amount. It didn't happen in newspaper or print, it didn't happen with music. I dont think video will be any different.


I think you are correct. If we take the current dispute at face value, Viacom wants $0.03 more per day ($10.96 per year) per customer x 20,000,000 customers. DirecTV claims that only 20% of their cutomers even watch Viacom. To get the same revenu from DirecTV in an a la carte package, the increase would be $54.79 per year - and this is just the increase.

If the increase is, as DirecTV claims, 30% over the old rate, then the current rate per customer is on the order of $36.53 per year, and the new price Viacom wants is on the order of $47.49 per customer per year. If only 20% of the DirecTV customers actually want Viacom, then to get the same revenue from DirecTV, Viacom would have to charge $237.41 per customer per year or $19.78 per month.

$19.78 per month is just the portion that goes directly to Viacom for their 17 channels. I have no idea of what the overhead at DirecTV will add to the fee to get the programing to you, but it is not insignificant. When you take into consideration what all of the other providers will expect for their programing, then the total is not going to be any cheaper than it is now.


----------



## zimm7778

"Alan Gordon" said:


> I find that most people I know would be concerned by the lack of TV Land and the Nick channels. A couple of folks would be disappointed by CC, but the rest of the channels probably would go mostly unnoticed.
> 
> As I stated, I only have interest in TV Land, MTV, Comedy Central, and Palladia.
> 
> I HATE the fact that I actually like two programs on MTV... I was able to go YEARS without watching a single thing on that channel.
> 
> ~Alan


I've really been thinking about something. I have no data to back this up but I believe if MTV/VH-1 did what they used to do and show music videos most of the time, they might have more of a shot of getting back on and having not gone dark in the first place. People like music. May not like current pop stuff but they like music. Most young adults that are the crux of those spending $$$ advertisers love grew up with MTV showing videos of the stuff they heard on the radio. We did not grow up with trailer park trash reality tv. Those shows have a stigma attached to them of playing to the lowest common denominator of our society. I don't know what kind of advertisers and ad rates they get, but one would have to imagine it isn't the same level as The Mentalist reruns on TNT. You cannot expect a large chunk of the paying customer base to feel sympathy for them being gone when this is the type of thing these channels (by and large the face of the group along with Nickelodeon) air.


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, al a carte would be more on a per channel basis, that's pretty much a given.

Viacom doesn't want it that way and the numbers bandied about give you the reason.

While they might 'need' or 'want' $19.78/month, I think no one believes that anyone would actually be willing to pay that or anything even close. 

Come on! Viacom has children's shows and trash TV for the adults. Yeah, some enjoy trash TV and I have no problem with that, but it certainly isn't worth much in the way of money out of my pocket.


----------



## jdskycaster

Solving this problem of packaging or not packaging channels boils down to the fact that there are too many channels providing much of the same poor or low quality programming. Why is it that the marketplace cannot determine the success or failure of a channel? Because there is too much money to be made using the monopolistic system in place today. For solving the problem has nothing to do with technology. There would be half as many channels in existence today if it were not for the way we are forced to purchase programming. 

Many argue that they do not want ESPN or other sports channels because of cost. If the cost of delivering sporting events is high then those willing to pay the price will either step and pay or the channel will go dark. Here is an example of why I would be willing to pay if given the chance. My son and I do not have season tickets to our local NFL team because they are not available for purchase. I am on the waiting list and hopefully one of my children or grandchildren will have the option some day. Getting even two decent tickets to a home game runs anywhere from $300 - $600 and that does not include any other costs involved with seeing the game live. The total cost for us to go to just a couple of home games each year is between $1200 and $1500 all in. So for me personally it is no problem to pay $100 per month just to get all of my teams games along with other sporting events. I do think others would step up and pay as well keeping broadcast sporting events available to anyone that wants the programming enough to write the check.

On the flip side I do not care for 90% of the other channels on my dial. I do not have any interest in watching pregnant teens coping with their bad decisions. I do not care to watch old reruns of My Three Sons, The Brady Bunch or the Love Boat. I also do not need to watch endless reruns of Shwartzenegger and Stalone movies extended to 1.5 hours beyond their normal run times due to the barrage of advertising. Even recording these and fast forwarding constantly gets old.

My guess is if the cost to subscribe to this endless list of channels that offer old, stale, stagnant or programming that caters to a specific demographic of society cost $30, $40 or $50 per month then we just might see some quick thinning of the herd. This would free up bandwidth for programming that the consumers want and will vote with their wallets to obtain.


----------



## Bradman

mark40511 said:


> Yeah, you're talking about WKYT. Too bad the CW is a sub channel. In other markets the CW is in HD


Insight cable runs it in HD; WKYT runs their signal direct via fiber to them.


----------



## mitchflorida

DTV should stick it to Viacom by replacing TVLand with metv or antennatv or something similar. Who would notice? They are the same shows.


----------



## tonyd79

zimm7778 said:


> I've really been thinking about something. I have no data to back this up but I believe if MTV/VH-1 did what they used to do and show music videos most of the time, they might have more of a shot of getting back on and having not gone dark in the first place. People like music. May not like current pop stuff but they like music. Most young adults that are the crux of those spending $$$ advertisers love grew up with MTV showing videos of the stuff they heard on the radio. We did not grow up with trailer park trash reality tv. Those shows have a stigma attached to them of playing to the lowest common denominator of our society. I don't know what kind of advertisers and ad rates they get, but one would have to imagine it isn't the same level as The Mentalist reruns on TNT. You cannot expect a large chunk of the paying customer base to feel sympathy for them being gone when this is the type of thing these channels (by and large the face of the group along with Nickelodeon) air.


I actually tuned to VH-1 yesterday. Yikes! Who is this Big Jan person? It was a horror film! And not a bit of music at all!


----------



## MartyS

Barry in Conyers said:


> Some people would support DirecTV if they dropped half the channels and doubled the prices.


Depends on which half of the channels :lol::lol:


----------



## tonyd79

lokar said:


> To anyone saying a la carte would be too complicated for D* to implement, that's ridiculous! C-band had a la carte for years and Canada has had a limited form of a la carte for years where you have a cheap base package and then add themed groups of 5-7 channels for around $6 each after that. I don't even care about any Viacom channels but I'm 100% for a la carte! The first provider with the guts to offer this will do very well, they will at least get my business.


C-band moved toward bundling (smaller bundles but still bundling) away from a la carte because a la carte was NOT working.

And C-band never had anywhere near 20 million turnkey users. Completely different market. C-band always was and always will be more of a hobbyist platform. And the investment that DirecTV and Dish (and even the cable systems) have is not there.


----------



## tonyd79

MartyS said:


> Depends on which half of the channels :lol::lol:


The even ones.


----------



## MartyS

mitchflorida said:


> DTV should stick it to Viacom by replacing TVLand with metv or antennatv or something similar. Who would notice? They are the same shows.


I agree... Me TV would be a great alternative to TVLand... would I miss Hot in Cleveland, yeah, but not too much.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

fleckrj said:


> I think you are correct. If we take the current dispute at face value, Viacom wants $0.03 more per day ($10.96 per year) per customer x 20,000,000 customers. DirecTV claims that only 20% of their cutomers even watch Viacom. To get the same revenu from DirecTV in an a la carte package, the increase would be $54.79 per year - and this is just the increase.
> 
> If the increase is, as DirecTV claims, 30% over the old rate, then the current rate per customer is on the order of $36.53 per year, and the new price Viacom wants is on the order of $47.49 per customer per year. If only 20% of the DirecTV customers actually want Viacom, then to get the same revenue from DirecTV, Viacom would have to charge $237.41 per customer per year or $19.78 per month.
> 
> $19.78 per month is just the portion that goes directly to Viacom for their 17 channels. I have no idea of what the overhead at DirecTV will add to the fee to get the programing to you, but it is not insignificant. When you take into consideration what all of the other providers will expect for their programing, then the total is not going to be any cheaper than it is now.


well 30% more likely is the price of epix


----------



## Beerstalker

zimm7778 said:


> I've really been thinking about something. I have no data to back this up but I believe if MTV/VH-1 did what they used to do and show music videos most of the time, they might have more of a shot of getting back on and having not gone dark in the first place. People like music. May not like current pop stuff but they like music. Most young adults that are the crux of those spending $$$ advertisers love grew up with MTV showing videos of the stuff they heard on the radio. We did not grow up with trailer park trash reality tv. Those shows have a stigma attached to them of playing to the lowest common denominator of our society. I don't know what kind of advertisers and ad rates they get, but one would have to imagine it isn't the same level as The Mentalist reruns on TNT. You cannot expect a large chunk of the paying customer base to feel sympathy for them being gone when this is the type of thing these channels (by and large the face of the group along with Nickelodeon) air.


If people want just music then that is what Palladia, CMT Pure Country, VH1 Soul, VH1 Classic, MTV Jams, and MTV Hits are for. Those channels play music videos/concert photage nearly 24/7. Contrary to what people say MTV has not given up totally on music, they have just spun it off onto different channels based on genre. It's too bad those channels don't get upgraded to HD and have wider distribution, I think it might help MTV beat the stigma that they don't care about music.

As far as ratings go look at the ratings for them compared to MTV and VH1 and then tell me if you still think that what the people really want is music.


----------



## tonyd79

MartyS said:


> I agree... Me TV would be a great alternative to TVLand... would I miss Hot in Cleveland, yeah, but not too much.


Given that Me TV and the others like it are built to sell programming to local stations, you would probably have an issue with existing contracts. I don't think any of that genre of channel have cable or satellite distribution beyond local channels.

Maybe DirecTV can make their own.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

tonyd79 said:


> C-band moved toward bundling (smaller bundles but still bundling) away from a la carte because a la carte was NOT working.
> 
> And C-band never had anywhere near 20 million turnkey users. Completely different market. C-band always was and always will be more of a hobbyist platform. And the investment that DirecTV and Dish (and even the cable systems) have is not there.


well why can't we have small bundles / theme packs??

sports can be on it own and let's say you offer that and then you may even get people who take sports only who don't have any TV pack right now.


----------



## tonyd79

JoeTheDragon said:


> well why can't we have small bundles / theme packs??
> 
> sports can be on it own and let's say you offer that and then you may even get people who take sports only who don't have any TV pack right now.


Not saying you can't have smaller bundles. I was pointing out that a la carte (which means individual channels) has failed in the only venue that gave it full use. And that the problems of scale and expectations by the customer make it less likely in the realm we are talking about today.

In C-Band land, the middle men have little skin the game. They are purely license managers. They do not have large costs like launching a satellite to recoup.

And there will still be basics that everyone will get. I am betting dollars to donuts that that will include ESPN.

Finally, the C-Band market is so small, that is is seen as gravy, not as the meat.


----------



## bobvick1983

lokar said:


> Canada has had a limited form of a la carte for years where you have a cheap base package and then add themed groups of 5-7 channels for around $6 each after that.


That is a great idea. I have always liked the Canadian model, and have never understood why the American DBS providers do not offer what Bell ExpressVu and Shaw Direct do. Have the core channels, then everything else is in "theme packages" for instance, I care nothing at all about Disney, ABC Family, TeenNick, Nicktoons, Disney Juniour or Sprout and even Nickelodeon now for that matte, because I don't have any small children. Why cant they be in a "Preschool Theme package" for those who do not need them nor want to watch them. Of course, I know the answer, it is the greedy programmers. For instance, take Disney. In order to get Disney and ABC Family, and the other Disney controlled networks, Disney all but forces DirecTV and Dish, Comcast and Charter, and all the others put all or most of the networks that they control in the majority of the packages that they offer. I am not usually an advocate of more government intervention in free market matters, but at the pace that cable/DBS rates are increasing and the greed of the programmers, I think it is time that the FCC became involved and forced more regulation, kind of like the CRTC does in Canada.


----------



## tvropro

Here's a funny note. Viacom wants more money right? But back in the summer of 2010 refused to sell Showtime to C banders anymore. Many people wanted it still but they refused There was a good chunk of change they lost because they made that stupid move. Now it's coming back to bite them since they are looking for money elsewhere. How stupid are these big companies. Hey Viacom if your listening allow us C banders your Showtime channels again, that way you won't have to resort to what your doing here with Direct.

In the beginning of 2011 HBO pulled the same crap. Watch the next big blowout dispute be with HBO.


----------



## bobvick1983

tvropro said:


> Here's a funny note. Viacom wants more money right? But back in the summer of 2010 refused to sell Showtime to C banders anymore. Many people wanted it still but they refused There was a good chunk of change they lost because they made that stupid move. Now it's coming back to bite them since they are looking for money elsewhere. How stupid are these big companies. Hey Viacom if your listening allow us C banders your Showtime channels again, that way you won't have to resort to what your doing here with Direct.


Viacom has nothing to do with Showtime anymore. They are owned by CBS Corporation, which is the "old" Viacom. Of course controlling interests of both corporations are owned by National Amusements, which is controlled by Sumner Redstone. However, Viacom has not received any revenue from Showtime since it was split from the "old Viacom" now CBS Corporation in 2006.


----------



## MartyS

"Beerstalker" said:


> If people want just music then that is what Palladia, CMT Pure Country, VH1 Soul, VH1 Classic, MTV Jams, and MTV Hits are for. Those channels play music videos/concert photage nearly 24/7. Contrary to what people say MTV has not given up totally on music, they have just spun it off onto different channels based on genre. It's too bad those channels don't get upgraded to HD and have wider distribution, I think it might help MTV beat the stigma that they don't care about music.
> 
> As far as ratings go look at the ratings for them compared to MTV and VH1 and then tell me if you still think that what the people really want is music.


Actually, they're doing a lot more "reality" tv than they ever did before, especially MTV and VH1


----------



## maartena

lokar said:


> To anyone saying a la carte would be too complicated for D* to implement, that's ridiculous! C-band had a la carte for years and Canada has had a limited form of a la carte for years where you have a cheap base package and then add themed groups of 5-7 channels for around $6 each after that. I don't even care about any Viacom channels but I'm 100% for a la carte! The first provider with the guts to offer this will do very well, they will at least get my business.


It's not ridiculous. You are talking about 20 million subscribers with 20 million different wishes, where C-Band never had anywhere NEAR that much, almost no-one had (or has) a 5-foot dish in their back yard. The only places they were somewhat popular was in rural areas where there was no cable. In cities, an occasional bar had a big dish on the roof, but that was about it. On top of that, there were more than just one provider. Now there is only Skyvision, but there used to be more (NPS comes to mind, ProgrammingCenter I think still does sell programming), each dealing with several tens-of-thousands of customers at most, perhaps a 100k if they were big. The last number I could find anywhere on Google, is that in 2005 there were about 100k C-Band users TOTAL, among whomever sold programming.

The more subscribers you have, the more complicated it becomes. And DirecTV has 20 MILLION subscribers. It really becomes a different ballgame with that kind of amount. A good analogy: It is a lot easier to manage traffic in a town with 10.000 people, then it is in a town like New York with 8 million.

There is so much to consider. Besides the user complication, there are contracts to be upheld, and there will be NO a-la-carte without 100% agreement with the television/media companies that provide the stations. And they must sell advertising..... with a contract in place, their stations in a certain package, they can go back to potential advertisers and say: We have a potential of 20 million DirecTV customers (or: xx million that have Choice Extra, xx million that have Choice ultimate), and those numbers are perhaps updated once a quarter, but they go down and up with the number of subscribers. It becomes a lot harder to sell to advertisers if you have to tell them: "Well... between September and March we get about so many viewers, because we have this award winning series, but between April and August we only get so many, because award winning series season is over, and half the people dropped the channel for the summer".

If it was AMC for instance, I would have dropped it. I only watch Mad Men, and since season 5 is over.... I could save some money by dropping the channel till the new season starts. That is something neither DirecTV or AMC would want.

a-la-carte as you envision it, will remain a dream.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

tvropro said:


> Here's a funny note. Viacom wants more money right? But back in the summer of 2010 refused to sell Showtime to C banders anymore. Many people wanted it still but they refused There was a good chunk of change they lost because they made that stupid move. Now it's coming back to bite them since they are looking for money elsewhere. How stupid are these big companies. Hey Viacom if your listening allow us C banders your Showtime channels again, that way you won't have to resort to what your doing here with Direct.
> 
> In the beginning of 2011 HBO pulled the same crap. Watch the next big blowout dispute be with HBO.


 really?? HBO is not forced and is all a cart


----------



## tvropro

JoeTheDragon said:


> really?? HBO is not forced and is all a cart


HBO will just jack up there price then and Direct will pass it to the consumer.


----------



## cypherx

If DirecTV would drop Viacom permanently we would drop DirecTV. We watch MTV, VH1, Comedy, Spike, Palladia. With a baby on the way, eventually Nick Jr / Nick... In a few years after they grow out of Babyfirst and PBS Sprout.

On the plus side we would get more HD channels on cable like DIY, H2, Style, NASA and a few more. On the negative side we would have to deal with crappy DVRs and the ugly no frills featureless software that runs their system, no MRV, web programming, iPad app, HBOGo, etc.

It's a sucky situation.


----------



## Xsabresx

This may have been mentioned previously so my apologies if I am repeating, but someone made an interesting comment on one of the articles on Deadline.com. Wasnt anyone important, it was just a regular Joe commenting on an article but it made a lot of sense.

In short they said that in the beginning this hurt Viacom because they lost the 19+mil customers, but if it goes on too long it is going to hurt Directv a lot more. They mentioned that it looks really bad when a sat/cableco cant even carry the simplest of "cable" channels (MTV, VH1, etc)


----------



## Davenlr

cypherx said:


> On the plus side we would get more HD channels on cable like DIY, H2, Style, NASA and a few more. On the negative side we would have to deal with crappy DVRs and the ugly no frills featureless software that runs their system, no MRV, web programming, iPad app, HBOGo, etc.
> 
> It's a sucky situation.


Not true. While it costs a bit up front to keep costs down later, you can get Cablecard devices for your computer with 2, 3 or 4 tuners, as well as several verisons of Tivo with up to 2TB/4Tuners with all the multiroom options, and other options in some form, you mentioned.


----------



## maartena

tvropro said:


> Here's a funny note. Viacom wants more money right? But back in the summer of 2010 refused to sell Showtime to C banders anymore. Many people wanted it still but they refused There was a good chunk of change they lost because they made that stupid move. Now it's coming back to bite them since they are looking for money elsewhere. How stupid are these big companies. Hey Viacom if your listening allow us C banders your Showtime channels again, that way you won't have to resort to what your doing here with Direct.
> 
> In the beginning of 2011 HBO pulled the same crap. Watch the next big blowout dispute be with HBO.


C-Band is becoming too small of a player. As I noted earlier, a Google search revealed that in 2005 there were about a 100.000 C-Band users left. A report in 2010 from Motorola on the usage of their 4DTV receiver said 18.000 users had them, but there are other brands.

C-Band is going to be a done deal soon. There is still plenty of FTA to watch using smaller dishes, but the big commercial networks...... I don't think for much longer.

Companies have been pulling networks off of C-Band for years now...

Oh and for those that want a-la-carte, this is what a-la-carte looks like on C-Band:

http://www.programming-center.net/h2h_410.htm

$5.99 for BBC America. Per Month.
$5.99 for BRAVO. Per Month.

And so on for about 20 or so channels..... most of the other stuff is sold in packages.

Yah well.... if you only have a few ten-thousand customers left, it might work for the hold-outs. But I think C-Band as a commercial satellite service is having its nails hammered in its coffin, and it will only be a matter of time before the last nail is hammered in.... and then C-Band will be just a FTA service.


----------



## tonyd79

"Davenlr" said:


> Not true. While it costs a bit up front to keep costs down later, you can get Cablecard devices for your computer with 2, 3 or 4 tuners, as well as several verisons of Tivo with up to 2TB/4Tuners with all the multiroom options, and other options in some form, you mentioned.


I hated TiVo with cable.


----------



## Alan Gordon

zimm7778 said:


> I've really been thinking about something. I have no data to back this up but I believe if MTV/VH-1 did what they used to do and show music videos most of the time, they might have more of a shot of getting back on and having not gone dark in the first place. People like music. May not like current pop stuff but they like music. Most young adults that are the crux of those spending $$$ advertisers love grew up with MTV showing videos of the stuff they heard on the radio. We did not grow up with trailer park trash reality tv. Those shows have a stigma attached to them of playing to the lowest common denominator of our society. I don't know what kind of advertisers and ad rates they get, but one would have to imagine it isn't the same level as The Mentalist reruns on TNT. You cannot expect a large chunk of the paying customer base to feel sympathy for them being gone when this is the type of thing these channels (by and large the face of the group along with Nickelodeon) air.


I could be wrong, but I suspect that MTV and CMT has probably gotten better ratings with their reality shows than they did with their music.



lparsons21 said:


> Come on! Viacom has children's shows and trash TV for the adults. Yeah, some enjoy trash TV and I have no problem with that, but it certainly isn't worth much in the way of money out of my pocket.


They have other programming as well...



mitchflorida said:


> DTV should stick it to Viacom by replacing TVLand with metv or antennatv or something similar. Who would notice? They are the same shows.


TV Land has reruns not found on those channels, and that doesn't even account for TV Land's five original scripted programs.

~Alan


----------



## maartena

Davenlr said:


> Not true. While it costs a bit up front to keep costs down later, you can get Cablecard devices for your computer with 2, 3 or 4 tuners, as well as several verisons of Tivo with up to 2TB/4Tuners with all the multiroom options, and other options in some form, you mentioned.


Yeah, with TiVo's going for pricetag of $149 a piece minimum ($299 I think if you want the good one, and $399 for the 4 tuner one) plus a monthly subscription of $14.95 PER Tivo. (Plus the cable company charges you anywhere from $5 t $10 per cable card).

And you would still have to get cable boxes for your other TV's, if you want Tivo's for all it is going to get a very expensive ordeal.

Additionally, cablecard is a ONE-way service, and you cannot use VOD services or P2P services through them.

So there are disadvantages. Plus no multi-room DVR setup, the cable boxes you get for other TV's won't be able to access the content on the TiVo.

From a financial point of view, you are probably better off with the crappy cable boxes from the cable company, as they are issued for free and for a monthly fee that is much lower than TiVo and Cablecard combined.


----------



## Davenlr

maartena said:


> Additionally, cablecard is a ONE-way service, and you cannot use VOD services or P2P services through them.


Yep, if you want NEW Tivo's, its pretty expensive up front. The monthly charges for the second and additional ones are cheaper though. Comcast only charges me $2.50 for the first cablecard, and $1.50 for the second Tivo. I have lifetime on mine, so dont have to worry about monthly charges to Tivo. Payoff is around 2-2 1/2 years. You still pay DirecTv for each box as well, with no option for lifetime.

Comcast is rolling out VOD services on the Tivo this year. Dont know how they are doing it.
There is multiroom viewing, but its a copy not streaming. Plus side there is you can copy any show you want to keep to your computer and store it on the hard drive or burn it to a DVD. No loss of programming if the DVR bites the dust.

While I dont use them, Ive been told the new Comcast DVRs will do MRV. Cant say for sure.


----------



## damondlt

maartena said:


> From a financial point of view, you are probably better off with the crappy cable boxes from the cable company, as they are issued for free and for a monthly fee that is much lower than TiVo and Cablecard combined.


 Agree! I researched Tivo option when I had cable, and it would have never worked out to be cost effective.


----------



## Xsabresx

Alan Gordon said:


> I could be wrong, but I suspect that MTV and CMT has probably gotten better ratings with their reality shows than they did with their music.


I might challenge that but I dont think we'll ever know for sure. MTV didnt "report" to The Neilsens until 1994. Even still, TV was different back then. It wasnt uncommon at all for a show to get 30+ million viewers. Hell even Alf was hitting 20+ million. I could see a music video eclipsing Jersey Shore's 7-8mil viewers.

Again, I am not sure we'd ever know for sure.


----------



## loudo

lokar said:


> To anyone saying a la carte would be too complicated for D* to implement, that's ridiculous! C-band had a la carte for years and Canada has had a limited form of a la carte for years where you have a cheap base package and then add themed groups of 5-7 channels for around $6 each after that. I don't even care about any Viacom channels but I'm 100% for a la carte! The first provider with the guts to offer this will do very well, they will at least get my business.


It wouldn't be impossible, just very costly to DirecTV which they would pass onto the customer. It is easy to assign a group of stations to a receiver, but picking them out assigning them one at a time is a lot more costly.


----------



## zimm7778

"Beerstalker" said:


> If people want just music then that is what Palladia, CMT Pure Country, VH1 Soul, VH1 Classic, MTV Jams, and MTV Hits are for. Those channels play music videos/concert photage nearly 24/7. Contrary to what people say MTV has not given up totally on music, they have just spun it off onto different channels based on genre. It's too bad those channels don't get upgraded to HD and have wider distribution, I think it might help MTV beat the stigma that they don't care about music.
> 
> As far as ratings go look at the ratings for them compared to MTV and VH1 and then tell me if you still think that what the people really want is music.


Since every channel you just named is either not available or on much higher tiers I wouldn't compare ratings between the two. I also didn't point to ratings in my post. I pointed to the stigma of MTV programming and whether the adults paying the bills really care if it's available as Viacom isn't getting nearly the groundswell of support Fox did earlier this year. All of this "MTV does care about music" is irrelevant to the discussion. Directv has all of 1 of those channels and it's in HD Extra. So, the others don't figure into the equation.


----------



## zimm7778

"Alan Gordon" said:


> I could be wrong, but I suspect that MTV and CMT has probably gotten better ratings with their reality shows than they did with their music.
> 
> They have other programming as well...
> 
> TV Land has reruns not found on those channels, and that doesn't even account for TV Land's five original scripted programs.
> 
> ~Alan


Again, never said a word about ratings.


----------



## Draconis

Nickelodeon ratings tumble from loss of carriage on DirecTV. 
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-nickratings-20120716,0,1495882.story



> Ratings for Viacom's Nickelodeon have fallen dramatically in the days since the channel was dropped from satellite broadcaster DirecTV over a fee dispute.


Could not have happened to a nicer company.


----------



## susanandmark

Draconis said:


> Nickelodeon ratings tumble from loss of carriage on DirecTV.
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-nickratings-20120716,0,1495882.story
> 
> Could not have happened to a nicer company.


So which is it? Are Viacom channels are so worthless, crappy and over-priced that DirecTV doesn't need them to ever return and shouldn't pay 2 cents to get them back? Or are so many DirecTV customers regularly and habitually watching these channels that loss of this single provider's customer base can cause a channel's ratings to plummet?

Can't have it both ways.


----------



## tvropro

maartena said:


> C-Band is becoming too small of a player. As I noted earlier, a Google search revealed that in 2005 there were about a 100.000 C-Band users left. A report in 2010 from Motorola on the usage of their 4DTV receiver said 18.000 users had them, but there are other brands.
> 
> C-Band is going to be a done deal soon. There is still plenty of FTA to watch using smaller dishes, but the big commercial networks...... I don't think for much longer.
> 
> Companies have been pulling networks off of C-Band for years now...
> 
> Oh and for those that want a-la-carte, this is what a-la-carte looks like on C-Band:
> 
> http://www.programming-center.net/h2h_410.htm
> 
> $5.99 for BBC America. Per Month.
> $5.99 for BRAVO. Per Month.
> 
> And so on for about 20 or so channels..... most of the other stuff is sold in packages.
> 
> Yah well.... if you only have a few ten-thousand customers left, it might work for the hold-outs. But I think C-Band as a commercial satellite service is having its nails hammered in its coffin, and it will only be a matter of time before the last nail is hammered in.... and then C-Band will be just a FTA service.


C band has a few things up it's sleeve that hasn't been released to the public yet. It may surprise some in the future.

Getting back to DirecTv why can't Direct look at the alacarte model of C band and expand upon it for itself. Thats what we want from Direct don't we? We want to watch the tv channels we want at a fair price. How many actually watch more than maybe 10 or 20 in a package at the most. Let the consumer tailor the channels to their watching needs. If the programmers loose some of those junk channels because of ala cart or mini packs so what. It makes more sense to get good programming for your buck than some of that mindless crap on those subpar channels.


----------



## tvropro

Draconis said:


> Nickelodeon ratings tumble from loss of carriage on DirecTV.
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-nickratings-20120716,0,1495882.story
> 
> Could not have happened to a nicer company.


They both need each other to survive. I was talking with a guy in retentions over the weekend and he totally agrees with that. In the meantime Viacom & Direct are both acting like children and not playing. :nono:


----------



## onan38

Here is a very good story on the whole thing and i tend to agree.

http://newyork.newsday.com/business...profits-to-blame-for-blackout-trend-1.3840057


----------



## tonyd79

"susanandmark" said:


> So which is it? Are Viacom channels are so worthless, crappy and over-priced that DirecTV doesn't need them to ever return and shouldn't pay 2 cents to get them back? Or are so many DirecTV customers regularly and habitually watching these channels that loss of this single provider's customer base can cause a channel's ratings to plummet?
> 
> Can't have it both ways.


20 million households are still 20 million households. That is a large percentage of TV households and will have an impact no matter if the ratings are high or low.

Add: Nielsen says there are just under 115 million households. Directv is in 20 million. Or 17% of them. Of course, some have two services but directv still represents about 15% of all households. Assuming something linear among providers, it would mean the Viacom ratings would dip about 15%.


----------



## Guesst925XTU

We are a 4 person household with 2 HD DVRs and 2 HD receivers. I can honestly say that in the past year nobody has watched Palladia, Centric, Tr3s, CMT, Logo, VH1 Classic, TeenNick, Nick Jr., Spike, BET, VH1, TV Land or Comedy Central. 

If we lose the Viacom channels so be it, just don't raise our bill!!! Personally I would think it would be great if we could only pay for the channels we actually watch.


----------



## AMike

A disclaimer before I begin here: I do not watch any of the channels impacted nor do we have any children. We do not miss any of the channels, but fully understand those who do and hopefully this will be resolved soon.

With that being said, one of the quirks of this blackout is for certain hotels that use DirecTV as their provider. I travel frequently for business and lately I've been traveling to spots not too far from Philly. At the hotel I'm staying at this week, they have a grand total of 28 channels (which is this day and time is a ridiculously low number as most hotels I stay at have 50 or more channels). Of those 28, 3 are Viacom channels (Nick, MTV, and Comedy Central). That's 11% of the channels offered at this hotel. Not that I'm going to watch those channels, since that's not really a destination for me, but it leaves us with 25 viewable channels here.

I'm sure there are parents at this and other hotels that use D* having to explain to their kids why they can't watch Nick or MTV.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

AMike said:


> A disclaimer before I begin here: I do not watch any of the channels impacted nor do we have any children. We do not miss any of the channels, but fully understand those who do and hopefully this will be resolved soon.
> 
> With that being said, one of the quirks of this blackout is for certain hotels that use DirecTV as their provider. I travel frequently for business and lately I've been traveling to spots not too far from Philly. At the hotel I'm staying at this week, they have a grand total of 28 channels (which is this day and time is a ridiculously low number as most hotels I stay at have 50 or more channels). Of those 28, 3 are Viacom channels (Nick, MTV, and Comedy Central). That's 11% of the channels offered at this hotel. Not that I'm going to watch those channels, since that's not really a destination for me, but it leaves us with 25 viewable channels here.
> 
> I'm sure there are parents at this and other hotels that use D* having to explain to their kids why they can't watch Nick or MTV.


Hears a old tick I used in the past look for hotels have cable / list we have 40/50+ channels (with the end of analog cable does work that well any more)

Now we need more places with the directv residential experience.


----------



## shendley

Thanks for the post. A very good read on the dispute.



onan38 said:


> Here is a very good story on the whole thing and i tend to agree.
> 
> http://newyork.newsday.com/business...profits-to-blame-for-blackout-trend-1.3840057


----------



## android.cphone

I am actually supprised that this has not yet been resolved. I am getting tired of peeping thru my neighbors windows to watch my favorite programs


----------



## fleckrj

susanandmark said:


> So which is it? Are Viacom channels are so worthless, crappy and over-priced that DirecTV doesn't need them to ever return and shouldn't pay 2 cents to get them back? Or are so many DirecTV customers regularly and habitually watching these channels that loss of this single provider's customer base can cause a channel's ratings to plummet?
> 
> Can't have it both ways.


Sure you can. Viacom claims that 20% of DirecTV viewers watch their channels. That is a minority of the DirecTV customers, but it represents a large part of the Viacom viewership. so it does work both ways. DirecTV does not need Viacom, but Viacom needs DirecTV. The dispute will be resolved eventually, but there no reason for DirecTV to rush.


----------



## yosoyellobo

android.cphone said:


> I am actually supprised that this has not yet been resolved. I am getting tired of peeping thru my neighbors windows to watch my favorite programs


That was you. I almost got my shot gun.


----------



## android.cphone

yosoyellobo said:


> That was you. I almost got my shot gun.


ROTFL
South park just not as funny without sound would you kindly open your window and tilurn up the volume


----------



## RasputinAXP

Jon Stewart just took Viacom to task for this whole debacle, and it's highly entertaining.


----------



## Davenlr

John Stewart blasts his own company (Viacom), for pulling out on DirecTv and the internet, and even said when he woke up this morning "My 8 yr old son was watching Dark Knight Rises in 3D" in a direct reference to torrents. He has John Oliver at a DirecTv household, relaying the show to them in person. Its hilarious. You all need to hulu this one.


----------



## wmb

onan38 said:


> Here is a very good story on the whole thing and i tend to agree.
> 
> http://newyork.newsday.com/business...profits-to-blame-for-blackout-trend-1.3840057





Draconis said:


> Nickelodeon ratings tumble from loss of carriage on DirecTV.
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-nickratings-20120716,0,1495882.story
> 
> Could not have happened to a nicer company.


One things these makes clear is this dispute is the front line in the battle between content providers and content distributors. These channels are a significant part of DirecTV's offering and DirecTV is a significant part of Viacom's distribution. Clearly, both need each other. This is a test for both sides and will set the stage for the industry for years to come.


----------



## mdavej

cypherx said:


> If DirecTV would drop Viacom permanently we would drop DirecTV...
> 
> On the plus side we would get more HD channels on cable like DIY, H2, Style, NASA and a few more. On the negative side we would have to deal with crappy DVRs and the ugly no frills featureless software that runs their system, no MRV, web programming, iPad app, HBOGo, etc.
> 
> It's a sucky situation.


That's what I thought too at first. Then I started using an HTPC and Xbox extenders as my cable DVRs and got 8 tuner capability, a slick, sophisticated GUI, MRV, remote DVR management and remote viewing far superior to anything DirecTV has.

So I got back all the channels I lost with Dish and potentially DirecTV, plus a killer DVR, all for a lot less money. Wouldn't work out for a big sports fans, but worked out great for me.


----------



## ApeRan

Davenlr said:


> John Stewart blasts his own company (Viacom), for pulling out on DirecTv and the internet, and even said when he woke up this morning "My 8 yr old son was watching Dark Knight Rises in 3D" in a direct reference to torrents. He has John Oliver at a DirecTv household, relaying the show to them in person. Its hilarious. You all need to hulu this one.


I wonder if Viacom will allow the episode to be put online....I bet they will be dicks about it and keep it off the website as well as Hulu.
If this is the case, I wonder how quickly it will show up on the internet anyway...
I bet Colbert will skewer them as well.


----------



## Davenlr

ApeRan said:


> If this is the case, I wonder how quickly it will show up on the internet anyway...
> I bet Colbert will skewer them as well.


Im betting it will be on torrents within 15 minutes of the end of the show.


----------



## android.cphone

ApeRan said:


> I wonder if Viacom will allow the episode to be put online....I bet they will be dicks about it and keep it off the website as well as Hulu.
> If this is the case, I wonder how quickly it will show up on the internet anyway...
> I bet Colbert will skewer them as well.


Keeep eye on u tube


----------



## TheRatPatrol

"Davenlr" said:


> John Stewart blasts his own company (Viacom), for pulling out on DirecTv and the internet, and even said when he woke up this morning "My 8 yr old son was watching Dark Knight Rises in 3D" in a direct reference to torrents. He has John Oliver at a DirecTv household, relaying the show to them in person. Its hilarious. You all need to hulu this one.


"This just in, Viacom fires Jon Stewart for negative comments he made about the company......."


----------



## android.cphone

TheRatPatrol said:


> "This just in, Viacom fires Jon Stewart for negative comments he made about the company......."


ROTFLMAO if they did that they may as well put a for sale sign ot the company


----------



## Davenlr

Audience Network announced "The Daily Show"


----------



## ApeRan

android.cphone said:


> ROTFLMAO if they did that they may as well put a for sale sign ot the company


hehehe...

for all the talk about how popular Nickelodeon is for Viacom, the Daily Show and Colbert Report are HUGE draws ratings wise....I can imagine that there are going to be a lot of advertisers making phone calls tonight/tomorrow morning....


----------



## danjfoley

Anyone got a link to a torrent or you tube of the daily show? I can't find one so far. Been looking. piratebay doesn't have one up yet. Maybe it might take some time.


----------



## Eagleshadow

DirectTv plays hardball as does Viacom. I shed no tears for anyone. Neither DTV or Viacom has exclusive use of the Darth Vader Mask. The only winners in the end will be DirectTv and Viacom. Customers will eventually see price creep either by overt increase in fees or by elimination of channels to offset the costs. The token free channels added for the remainder of the month don't benefit those with the high dollar packages like myself. DirectTV becomes more expensive every year. DTV's key advantage is its wider coverage and availability than FIOS.


----------



## danjfoley

Fios has a crappy GUI. direct tv has the best GUI from what i can see. I've never used dish. But just the thought of having to reinstall everything, all the multiroom dvr systems, all the programs i set to record.. way to much. I'd rather wait a few week, then have to re do all that.

Plus like i said i HATE the fios gui. And the comcast one. It's not even a GUI. More like a DOS interface from the 80s.


----------



## danjfoley

daily show is up on pirate bay. downloading it now. that's right viacom. I'll get your damn programming no matter what. And i don't even have to watch the commercials this way.


----------



## android.cphone

danjfoley said:


> daily show is up on pirate bay. downloading it now. that's right viacom. I'll get your damn programming no matter what. And i don't even have to watch the commercials this way.


:'( i cant view it on cell phone


----------



## android.cphone

Someone tell me what john said


----------



## Davenlr

android.cphone said:


> Someone tell me what john said


He said "Anyone remember Oprah?" "Three days and is was 'who is this Ellen chick'"
Paraphrasing...
Said people will find other things to watch or do, read a book, have a conversation...
Then said even his 8 yr old could download the shows using torrents
Only old people are missing out on the show

Then they went to a DirecTv household, where John Oliver attempted to give them a play by play of what was going on, on the show...except the couple started talking and being intimate, and ignored the "TV".


----------



## gregftlaud

If u have amazon instant video on any of your streaming devices they will have The Daily Show up by tomorrow afternoon. I'm gonna watch it on my roku player


----------



## georule

Viacom is getting their a** kicked. Make a deal, boys. Find a way to save face (toss in extra rights or something), and make a deal.


----------



## smitmor

The Jon Stewart Clip
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-16-2012/tv-banned


----------



## mark40511

smitmor said:


> The Jon Stewart Clip
> http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-16-2012/tv-banned


Ha! Thanks for sending the link.


----------



## android.cphone

Yes thank you. Right now its to bufferd fir me to really enjoy but i got the punch line


----------



## wingrider01

Guesst925XTU said:


> We are a 4 person household with 2 HD DVRs and 2 HD receivers. I can honestly say that in the past year nobody has watched Palladia, Centric, Tr3s, CMT, Logo, VH1 Classic, TeenNick, Nick Jr., Spike, BET, VH1, TV Land or Comedy Central.
> 
> If we lose the Viacom channels so be it, just don't raise our bill!!! Personally I would think it would be great if we could only pay for the channels we actually watch.


find statements like this amusing - I don't watch it so I don't care - remember the next channels that may have the same issue are ones that you DO watch, then what would your comments be.

It should not matter if you watch it or not, it is the principle of the thing. I can say the exact same thing about the dedicated sports channesl, have not watched anything on a sports channel since I got satillite around 1996 and never watched it on cable OTA prior to that date, so basicly can say the same exact thing about sports channels.

Ala-carte channels are the same as the new shared data plans for cell service - be careful what you ask for, you might get it and then realize it is not exactly what you thought you would get - carriers and signal providers are out to make a profit, and will price to get that profit, so instead of saving you money they make more money.


----------



## susanandmark

fleckrj said:


> Sure you can. Viacom claims that 20% of DirecTV viewers watch their channels. That is a minority of the DirecTV customers, but it represents a large part of the Viacom viewership. so it does work both ways. DirecTV does not need Viacom, but Viacom needs DirecTV. The dispute will be resolved eventually, but there no reason for DirecTV to rush.


Total baloney. See: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=3054570#post3054570

And even if the bogus "only 20%" B.S. was accurate how well would DirecTV do without 20% of its customers? Or 20% of its profits? Is that minority important then?


----------



## adamson

Is it over? Really totally ........

I hate Directv right now.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

"TheRatPatrol" said:


> "This just in, Viacom fires Jon Stewart for negative comments he made about the company......."


"UPDATE: E! picks up Jon Stewart". LOL

Just watched the clip, funny.


----------



## yosoyellobo

smitmor said:


> The Jon Stewart Clip
> http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-16-2012/tv-banned


It looks like Jon Stewart is taking a lemon and turning it into lemonade. Way to go Jon.


----------



## tonyd79

yosoyellobo said:


> It looks like Jon Stewart is taking a lemon and turning it into lemonade. Way to go Jon.


Favorite part is that it opens with the Viacom anti-DirecTV commercial.


----------



## Ira Lacher

onan38 said:


> Here is a very good story on the whole thing and i tend to agree.
> 
> http://newyork.newsday.com/business...profits-to-blame-for-blackout-trend-1.3840057


The article mentions that satcos and cablecos are crabbing about "only" 16 percent to 19 percent profit on multimillion-dollar revenue. How greedy can they (or their shareholders) get?

:nono2:


----------



## damondlt

Ira Lacher said:


> . How greedy can they (*or their shareholders*) get?
> 
> :nono2:


 Agree!


----------



## Laxguy

TheRatPatrol said:


> "UPDATE: E! picks up Jon Stewart". LOL
> 
> Just watched the clip, funny.


+1

Re: taking down internet feeds:

"What is this, Viacom, China??"


----------



## mitchflorida

If anyone wants to watch Snookie and "The Situation" do the "Pickle Prank" on MTV, it is available here: http://www.hulu.com/watch/293507#s-p1-sr-i0

You are really missing a lot when you don't get Viacom!


----------



## lparsons21

Ira Lacher said:


> The article mentions that satcos and cablecos are crabbing about "only" 16 percent to 19 percent profit on multimillion-dollar revenue. How greedy can they (or their shareholders) get?
> 
> :nono2:


The article seems to be wrong on that point. Here's a link showing Direct's net profit margin :
http://ycharts.com/companies/DTV/profit_margin

And here's Dish's :
http://ycharts.com/companies/DISH/profit_margin

Note in both cases net profit is around 10%. That is pretty good margin for a commodity product, but not a grotesque one.


----------



## ciurca

If any of you who are crying corporate greed owned stock in either company, you would be happy they are protecting your investment return.


----------



## Mariah2014

Newest update is not making sound like they are still getting closer to an agreement anymore. Which leads me to believe it could be a long while before we see these stations return and that is providing they do return.


----------



## fleckrj

susanandmark said:


> Total baloney. See: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=3054570#post3054570
> 
> And even if the bogus "only 20%" B.S. was accurate how well would DirecTV do without 20% of its customers? Or 20% of its profits? Is that minority important then?


DirecTV will lose some customers if Viacom never comes back, but there is always customer churn. It is not going to be anywhere near 20%, though, that care enough about Viacom to leave. I watch Comedy Central and Nick at night occaisonally, and my grandchildren watch Nick occaisionally, so we are part of the 20% who watch Viacom, but we definitely do not miss it enough to change providers. If I cared about basics, I would have gone with Dish or stayed with TWC (although it is not like they never have carriage disputes).

In the end, it is a business decision for both companies. I am sure that DirecTV has already figured out how much they can pay and charge for Viacom so that the customers that leave because the price are offset by the customers that stay because Viacom is back (or conversely, how many leave because Viacom is not carried versus how many do not leave because of the price DirecTV will have to charge).

The good thing is that there are choices. Dish has Viacom (for the moment), but not Rainbow, Disney, or out-of-market sports channels. DirecTV has Rainbow, Disney, and out-of-market sports packages, but not Viacom. No one provider has everything, and all providers have carriage disputes (and it is only going to get worse).

I still stand by my position that Viacom needs DirecTV more than DirecTV needs Viacom. The dispute will be settled. DirecTV will pay more than they did under the old contract, but they will not pay as much as Viacom is asking at the moment. The longer the negotiations go, the more likely the price DirecTV pays will go down from where Viacom started.


----------



## zimm7778

"ciurca" said:


> If any of you who are crying corporate greed owned stock in either company, you would be happy they are protecting your investment return.


Agreed. I tried to explain this early in the dispute but of course some people think the so-called wealthy are the only ones making money here. Pretty much they show disregard of anyone's investments in these companies or mutual funds through their retirement program at work who have these companies in it, most of whom are middle class. Do I think this dispute one way or the other is going to sink the company? Of course not. But every little bit helps.


----------



## fleckrj

ciurca said:


> If any of you who are crying corporate greed owned stock in either company, you would be happy they are protecting your investment return.


But are they? The longer the dispute lasts the more likely it is that both sides will have a lower return on investment - Directv because of lost customers, and Viacom because of lower viewership, advertising rates, and fees recieved from DirecTV. At this point, I think DirecTV has the upper hand, but both sides are going to lose something from this - DirecTV will just lose less than Viacom does.


----------



## tonyd79

"fleckrj" said:


> But are they? The longer the dispute lasts the more likely it is that both sides will have a lower return on investment - Directv because of lost customers, and Viacom because of lower viewership, advertising rates, and fees recieved from DirecTV. At this point, I think DirecTV has the upper hand, but both sides are going to lose something from this - DirecTV will just lose less than Viacom does.


Viacom has already lost. Maybe more than they recoup on higher fees.

Directv only loses anything substantial if it drags on and on and on.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Xsabresx said:


> I might challenge that but I dont think we'll ever know for sure. MTV didnt "report" to The Neilsens until 1994. Even still, TV was different back then. It wasnt uncommon at all for a show to get 30+ million viewers. Hell even Alf was hitting 20+ million. I could see a music video eclipsing Jersey Shore's 7-8mil viewers.
> 
> Again, I am not sure we'd ever know for sure.


Broadcast networks ratings used to be higher, but my understanding is that cable networks' ratings are much higher now than they used to be.



android.cphone said:


> I am getting tired of peeping thru my neighbors windows to watch my favorite programs


That's the excuse you're going with, huh?! 

~Alan


----------



## cjrleimer

mshaw2715 said:


> Newest update is not making sound like they are still getting closer to an agreement anymore. Which leads me to believe it could be a long while before we see these stations return and that is providing they do return.


The definition of closer is a loose term. Is it 30 percent?, 40 percent? or 70 percent? Either way until I see specifics, I still think we are in for a dispute that will be similar to VS in the nature that it didnt get urgent till right around Stanley Cup Playoff time in the case of VS, which would be equal to September 1st for MTV.


----------



## maartena

susanandmark said:


> So which is it? Are Viacom channels are so worthless, crappy and over-priced that DirecTV doesn't need them to ever return and shouldn't pay 2 cents to get them back? Or are so many DirecTV customers regularly and habitually watching these channels that loss of this single provider's customer base can cause a channel's ratings to plummet?
> 
> Can't have it both ways.


Sure you can.

One is an opinion about the quality of the programming of the channel, the other is a measured fact with those nifty little Nielsen devices people can install in their homes.

I too believe the channels are full of crap television not worth a dime. But I do not have any kids or teens, nor do I fall in the 18 to 25 age group, and those three cover just about 90% of the channels that ViaCom offers. The other 10% are Spike, TVLand and Palladia, all which i watch every so often, but not so much they are a "must have".

That said, ratings are ratings. I may think the television provided by Viacom is mostly brainless crap, but I can't speak for other viewers.

Nickolodeon went from 1.8 million to 1.2 million in a week, indicating that 600k kids from DirecTV subscribers tuned in to Nickelodeon. Interesting in this measurement would be to see the increase in Disney and PBS kids channels ratings.


----------



## dcandmc

My wife and I watch The Daily Show on Comedy Central, and my daughter watches some shows on Nick, so we are definitely some of the DirecTV customers that are missing programming. However, I hope that DirecTV continues to hold out. The Daily Show is available online, and there are lots of other choices in kids programming. The longer this goes on, the more it will hurt Viacom as opposed to DirecTV. Those Viacom viewers that haven't switched to another provider (and I don't think the number of those switching will be very big to begin with) will realize that they can either do without quite well or they can catch their program/s on an alternate source.

One question: we have The Daily Show set up to record all new episodes on two of our four HD DVRs. Last night, these recordings took place on channel 8327, where for 30 minutes the DirecTV logo was recorded. Why?


----------



## maartena

android.cphone said:


> I am actually supprised that this has not yet been resolved. I am getting tired of peeping thru my neighbors windows to watch my favorite programs


Fully with humor intended, the fact you prefer peeping thru your neighbors windows instead of switching your provider to e.g. Dish, tells me something about the "creepiness level" of your character.


----------



## maartena

dcandmc said:


> One question: we have The Daily Show set up to record all new episodes on two of our four HD DVRs. Last night, these recordings took place on channel 8327, where for 30 minutes the DirecTV logo was recorded. Why?


The channels aren't "gone", they are just hidden until the dispute has been resolved. To make sure that your recordings resume again without you having to do anything, they hide them in such a way all set recordings remain intact. Obviously, since the dispute is ongoing, you will not see anything but the DirecTV logo.... but if they resolve the dispute, the recordings should resume normally without you having to set them up.

So just delete the recordings.


----------



## zimm7778

"fleckrj" said:


> But are they? The longer the dispute lasts the more likely it is that both sides will have a lower return on investment - Directv because of lost customers, and Viacom because of lower viewership, advertising rates, and fees recieved from DirecTV. At this point, I think DirecTV has the upper hand, but both sides are going to lose something from this - DirecTV will just lose less than Viacom does.


And they'll get some back when the next carrier has a dispute with Viacom or whoever else and those go dark.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

zimm7778 said:


> Agreed. I tried to explain this early in the dispute but of course some people think the so-called wealthy are the only ones making money here. Pretty much they show disregard of anyone's investments in these companies or mutual funds through their retirement program at work who have these companies in it, most of whom are middle class. Do I think this dispute one way or the other is going to sink the company? Of course not. But every little bit helps.


Meh, up to a point. If you have a only have a minimal stake as part of a 401k, factoring in the increases, you're just taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other.


----------



## SPACEMAKER

"Draconis" said:


> Nickelodeon ratings tumble from loss of carriage on DirecTV.
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-nickratings-20120716,0,1495882.story
> 
> Could not have happened to a nicer company.


Wow. That's a pretty severe hit Advertisers are probably fuming, especially movie studios touting new releases. I hope DIRECTV keeps holding out. I have already found an alternative source to watch Tosh.0 and Workaholics so I am all set.


----------



## sdk009

I watched the Daily Show & Colbert as it was shown at their regular time on my HR20-100 via the PlayOn software and an added script. It wasn't true HD, but it was on.
So they can both keep their war-of-words going, it won't effect me.


----------



## bones boy

Guesst925XTU said:


> If we lose the Viacom channels so be it, just don't raise our bill!!! Personally I would think it would be great if we could only pay for the channels we actually watch.


Ultimately that is probably what you'll have - either via smartphone apps or channels on Roku or similar devices. If D* never brings the Viacom channels back, I'm sure a Viacom subscription-based app will appear somewhere shortly thereafter. And if that is successful other media companies might do the same. That is a-la-carte in the 21st century sense. And that could spell big trouble for D* in the long-term.


----------



## zimm7778

"Pepe Sylvia" said:


> Meh, up to a point. If you have a only have a minimal stake as part of a 401k, factoring in the increases, you're just taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other.


The way things are right now, anything not involving loss is a good thing. Although losses to a certain point can be good I guess as long as things improve at some point. The lower the value the more your investment which increases every 2 weeks can increase when things recover. I really wish I had bought about $200 worth of SXM stock in 2008 when it plummeted to $.05 a share. It's still not doing gangbusters or anything but it would be a nice sum I'd be sitting on now.


----------



## SPACEMAKER

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/vi...-jon-stewart-rips-handling-directv/2012-07-17

Good stuff.


----------



## paulman182

I believe someone should investigate the Stewart's household admitted viewing of pirated material.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

SPACEMAKER said:


> http://www.fiercecable.com/story/vi...-jon-stewart-rips-handling-directv/2012-07-17
> 
> Good stuff.


I keep reading these articles that end with them getting closer. It reminds me of the Grand Funk Railroad song.


----------



## tvropro

Pepe Sylvia said:


> I keep reading these articles that end with them getting closer. It reminds me of the Grand Funk Railroad song.


:lol:


----------



## mitchflorida

Time is on DTV's side. They have already been hit with tens of thousands of calls, have given everyone who asks $15 over three months . . they can just chill. It is at $2.30 a month now. Viacom wants $3.00. My guess is split the difference, $2.65, which is still too much .


----------



## rlj1010

paulman182 said:


> I believe someone should investigate the Stewart's household admitted viewing of pirated material.


Obviously, he was joking since TDKR is not even in 3D.


----------



## Paul Secic

Alan Gordon said:


> I could be wrong, but I suspect that MTV and CMT has probably gotten better ratings with their reality shows than they did with their music.
> 
> They have other programming as well...
> 
> TV Land has reruns not found on those channels, and that doesn't even account for TV Land's five original scripted programs.
> 
> ~Alan


TV Land is on the Net as well.


----------



## BattleScott

bones boy said:


> Ultimately that is probably what you'll have - either via smartphone apps or channels on Roku or similar devices. If D* never brings the Viacom channels back, I'm sure a Viacom subscription-based app will appear somewhere shortly thereafter. And if that is successful other media companies might do the same. That is a-la-carte in the 21st century sense. And that could spell big trouble for D* in the long-term.


That is really my hope for all of this. Once upon a time, the providers used to be the ONLY way to access content (non-FTA anyways) and they took full advantage of that. Now, with emerging on-line technology, apps, smart-tv's, MS Media, HMCs, Apple TV, etc. they are becoming less powerful and in many cases, stand in the way of that access. To be sure, they are still the most practical method today, but hopefully each one of these battles will drive the content owners a little bit closer to making the big move.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Paul Secic said:


> TV Land is on the Net as well.


That's all well and good for the internets, but it doesn't matter to me personally.

~Alan


----------



## bobcamp1

mitchflorida said:


> Time is on DTV's side. They have already been hit with tens of thousands of calls, have given everyone who asks $15 over three months . . they can just chill. It is at $2.30 a month now. Viacom wants $3.00. My guess is split the difference, $2.65, which is still too much .


So instead of giving Viacom $3/month, they're giving $5/month to their customers. Some people got free NFLST, a $200 value, or free Showtime for six months, or both.

D* can't give away the freebies forever. Eventually they'll end up paying more than an average of $3/month to keep their customers. Time is ultimately on Viacom's side.

FYI, "rumor" has it the final price will be $2.85. But no one knows about which channels will go into which packages yet.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

By your reckoning, time is on Viacom's side, but when the next ratings book comes out Viacom will be in pain based on recent articles. Not to mention the amount they are not getting right now in retrans fees, which is somewhere between $20 million and $100 million a month depending on whose numbers you believe.

One has to wonder how long Viacom will choose to take the loss on its channel portfolio.


----------



## Santi360HD

so V* blinked

http://allthingsd.com/20120717/that...-web-ban-for-jon-stewart-and-stephen-colbert/


----------



## PrinceLH

Stuart Sweet said:


> By your reckoning, time is on Viacom's side, but when the next ratings book comes out Viacom will be in pain based on recent articles. Not to mention the amount they are not getting right now in retrans fees, which is somewhere between $20 million and $100 million a month depending on whose numbers you believe.
> 
> One has to wonder how long Viacom will choose to take the loss on its channel portfolio.


Not just that, but sponsors are going to start pulling ads or requiring rebates on their contracts, because their programming is not getting to 20 million households.


----------



## 1948GG

SPACEMAKER said:


> Wow. That's a pretty severe hit Advertisers are probably fuming, especially movie studios touting new releases. I hope DIRECTV keeps holding out. I have already found an alternative source to watch Tosh.0 and Workaholics so I am all set.


The problem is, the numbers don't really affect the 'broadcasters' simply because the ad rates, set by the Nielsen, are changed only...

*ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS*

That means that no matter what the 'dailies' or any other ratings show, the 'broadcaster' simply gets s 'free ride' on whatever the viewership was, and the ad rates set, for several months no matter WHAT happens (up to and including the earth slipping out of it's orbit swinging into the sun).

That's the upshot, the 'broadcasters' can wait out whoever they're dealing with until the next ratings period. Still collect their bonuses.

So, the re-transmitters (DirecTV, Dish, Cable) need to go into the negotiations with a six-month strategy; tell their customer right up front that this is the way things are set up (the 'broadcasters' continue to rake in the cash 'skating' on their old viewership) and that it will take up to six months to actually put any pressure on them the other direction.

Folks think that things are 'instantaneous' and they aren't. The 'broadcasters' use this fact to their advantage, period.


----------



## PrinceLH

1948GG said:


> The problem is, the numbers don't really affect the 'broadcasters' simply because the ad rates, set by the Nielsen, are changed only...
> 
> *ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS*
> 
> That means that no matter what the 'dailies' or any other ratings show, the 'broadcaster' simply gets s 'free ride' on whatever the viewership was, and the ad rates set, for several months no matter WHAT happens (up to and including the earth slipping out of it's orbit swinging into the sun).
> 
> That's the upshot, the 'broadcasters' can wait out whoever they're dealing with until the next ratings period. Still collect their bonuses.
> 
> So, the re-transmitters (DirecTV, Dish, Cable) need to go into the negotiations with a six-month strategy; tell their customer right up front that this is the way things are set up (the 'broadcasters' continue to rake in the cash 'skating' on their old viewership) and that it will take up to six months to actually put any pressure on them the other direction.
> 
> Folks think that things are 'instantaneous' and they aren't. The 'broadcasters' use this fact to their advantage, period.


If it becomes protracted, into a six month window, then Viacom becomes anxious. Even a 3 month delay would show in the next set of numbers. Ad rates would be affected, considering that 20 million households would not have access to the programming and commercial ads.

Since Directv has started down this road, they should maintain their stance and make Viacom come back to the table and accept better terms.


----------



## renbutler

ciurca said:


> If any of you who are crying corporate greed owned stock in either company, you would be happy they are protecting your investment return.


But "the wealthy" and "greed" are the latest buzzwords today. That perspective taints many people's entire world view. They are always so critical of the wealthy's obsession with money, and strangely enough they do it with their own obsession with how much money people have and what they should do with it.


----------



## fleckrj

bones boy said:


> Ultimately that is probably what you'll have - either via smartphone apps or channels on Roku or similar devices. If D* never brings the Viacom channels back, I'm sure a Viacom subscription-based app will appear somewhere shortly thereafter. And if that is successful other media companies might do the same. That is a-la-carte in the 21st century sense. And that could spell big trouble for D* in the long-term.


For people who live in urban areas and only want one (or maybe two) programs at a time, perhaps, but high speed internet, 3G, and 4G are not going to be able to keep up with the demand of multiple HD streams or penetrate areas with low housing densities. Satellite delivery will be around for a long time.


----------



## fleckrj

bobcamp1 said:


> So instead of giving Viacom $3/month, they're giving $5/month to their customers. Some people got free NFLST, a $200 value, or free Showtime for six months, or both.
> 
> D* can't give away the freebies forever. Eventually they'll end up paying more than an average of $3/month to keep their customers. Time is ultimately on Viacom's side.
> 
> FYI, "rumor" has it the final price will be $2.85. But no one knows about which channels will go into which packages yet.


The difference is that DirecTV is giving $5/month only for three months and only for the people who bother to call and ask for it. Viacom wants $3/month for all 20,000,000 DirecTV customers for 5 years.

I know $3 x 60 is a lot more than $5 x 3, and I suspect that very few customers actually call to ask for the discount.


----------



## mitchflorida

1948GG said:


> The problem is, the numbers don't really affect the 'broadcasters' simply because the ad rates, set by the Nielsen, are changed only...
> 
> *ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS*
> 
> That means that no matter what the 'dailies' or any other ratings show, the 'broadcaster' simply gets s 'free ride' on whatever the viewership was, and the ad rates set, for several months no matter WHAT happens (up to and including the earth slipping out of it's orbit swinging into the sun).
> 
> That's the upshot, the 'broadcasters' can wait out whoever they're dealing with until the next ratings period. Still collect their bonuses.
> 
> So, the re-transmitters (DirecTV, Dish, Cable) need to go into the negotiations with a six-month strategy; tell their customer right up front that this is the way things are set up (the 'broadcasters' continue to rake in the cash 'skating' on their old viewership) and that it will take up to six months to actually put any pressure on them the other direction.
> 
> Folks think that things are 'instantaneous' and they aren't. The 'broadcasters' use this fact to their advantage, period.


You are acting like you know what you are talking about, and you don't. When Viacom doesn't deliver the amount of households promised, they have to use advertising slots for "make goods", to make up for the lower viewership. Instead of using the slots for new money, they are using them to compensate the old advertsiers.


----------



## F1 Fan

fleckrj said:


> For people who live in urban areas and only want one (or maybe two) programs at a time, perhaps, but high speed internet, 3G, and 4G are not going to be able to keep up with the demand of multiple HD streams or penetrate areas with low housing densities. Satellite delivery will be around for a long time.


True, but the majority of handsets each come with their own 3/4G access (even though you can tether - most people do not bother).

And I know for a fact that Verizon Wireless had a long term plan when they rolled out 4g (hence they put a fiber backhaul where AT&T put copper backhaul from the towers - AT&T are running bonded T1's in our area for their 4G LTE). They got caught on the hop when people dropped land lines in favor of cell phones - they missed a lot of opportunity and marketing there. So this time around they have planned their 4G to be in speeds of 200M+ by the end of 2015 (it could be 2016 my memory is not so good). They are targeting DSL and cable internet users.

Remember a decent HD (current HD) stream needs about 3M to view. I get close to 30M on my Verizon 4G phones and tablets, so I could easily stream enough to view all on my household.

No one should predict what can't be done in 3 to 5 years (ask Facebook, Apple etc.), because you will be very disappointed. And I am sure Directv is monitoring all this internet speeds and distribution carefully.


----------



## susanandmark

Santi360HD said:


> so V* blinked
> 
> http://allthingsd.com/20120717/that...-web-ban-for-jon-stewart-and-stephen-colbert/


I think this is good, because it's a plus for consumers, but I'm boggled how anyone feels this is a win for DirecTV, or in fact why they slammed Viacom for doing so in the first place.

DirecTV crowing (e.g. here:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/225265272599216129, here:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/225098050090188800, directvpromise.com, etc.) about the online return and saying we'll watch you tomorrow on Hulu is silly. Doubly so since they have publicly castigated Viacom for even offering their programs online to begin with, saying it "devalues" their product.

So if Viacom posts the content online, they're cheating DirecTV, and if they remove it they're jerks who should be slammed?

Dumb all around. I'm not fan of Viacom, but I don't pay Viacom (directly). I pay DirecTV, which is why main beef is with them.

If these stupid channel blackouts become the normal negotiating tactic for DirecTV, and other providers, as predicted by some, _my_ prediction is that more and more customers will say, 'Why bother?,' save their money and find their entertainment elsewhere.

Seriously I've called the tactics childish before, but it honestly feels like that's insulting to most children, who handle themselves better, and with more concern for those their actions effect, than these mega-corps.


----------



## mitchflorida

susanandmark said:


> DirecTV crowing (e.g. here:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/225265272599216129, here:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/225098050090188800, directvpromise.com, etc.) about the online return and saying we'll watch you tomorrow on Hulu is silly. Doubly so since they have publicly castigated Viacom for even offering their programs online to begin with, saying it "devalues" their product.
> 
> So if Viacom posts the content online, they're cheating DirecTV, and if they remove it they're jerks who should be slammed?
> 
> Dumb all around. I'm not fan of Viacom, but I don't pay Viacom (directly). I pay DirecTV, which is why main beef is with them.
> 
> If these stupid channel blackouts become the normal negotiating tactic for DirecTV, and other providers, as predicted by some, _my_ prediction is that more and more customers will say, 'Why bother?,' save their money and find their entertainment elsewhere.
> 
> Seriously I've called the tactics childish before, but it honestly feels like that's insulting to most children, who handle themselves better, and with more concern for those their actions effect, than these mega-corps.


Too bad you're not the chief negotiator for DirecTV. You could probably solve the problem in less than five minutes.


----------



## Tubaman-Z

susanandmark said:


> I think this is good, because it's a plus for consumers, but I'm boggled how anyone feels this is a win for DirecTV, or in fact why they slammed Viacom for doing so in the first place.
> 
> DirecTV crowing (e.g. here:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/225265272599216129, here:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/225098050090188800, directvpromise.com, etc.) about the online return and saying we'll watch you tomorrow on Hulu is silly. Doubly so since they have publicly castigated Viacom for even offering their programs online to begin with, saying it "devalues" their product.
> 
> So if Viacom posts the content online, they're cheating DirecTV, and if they remove it they're jerks who should be slammed?
> 
> Dumb all around. I'm not fan of Viacom, but I don't pay Viacom (directly). I pay DirecTV, which is why main beef is with them.
> 
> If these stupid channel blackouts become the normal negotiating tactic for DirecTV, and other providers, as predicted by some, _my_ prediction is that more and more customers will say, 'Why bother?,' save their money and find their entertainment elsewhere.
> 
> Seriously I've called the tactics childish before, but it honestly feels like that's insulting to most children, who handle themselves better, and with more concern for those their actions effect, than these mega-corps.


I do agree that this would seem to be a short-sighted strategy in that it starts nudging D*'s customers towards non-D* sources. I had my 1st direct experience of a Roku when visiting friends last weekend - and I was impressed.


----------



## cjrleimer

http://www.multichannel.com/article/487314-Viacom_Reinstates_Web_Episodes.php online episodes are back.


----------



## Ira Lacher

renbutler said:


> But "the wealthy" and "greed" are the latest buzzwords today. That perspective taints many people's entire world view. They are always so critical of the wealthy's obsession with money, and strangely enough they do it with their own obsession with how much money people have and what they should do with it.


"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to." -- Dorothy Parker

"The only thing I like about rich people is their money." -- Nancy Astor


----------



## maartena

F1 Fan said:


> BBC Test Card


Offtopic: I remember that test card in your icon from when I still lived in Europe. The girl in it is in her 50s today.... 

That brings back memories.


----------



## gio12

F1 Fan said:


> Remember a decent HD (current HD) stream needs about 3M to view. I get close to 30M on my Verizon 4G phones and tablets, so I could easily stream enough to view all on my household.
> .


I am going to call BULL on this one. Post pictures of a speediest. because I am SURE Verizon would want you on every commercial for them.

Most speed tests show DL for Verizon being in the 8-17mps range overall.
Oh, and AT&T has faster download speeds on their 3.5 & 4G LTE. Verizon faster up though.


----------



## zimm7778

"PrinceLH" said:


> If it becomes protracted, into a six month window, then Viacom becomes anxious. Even a 3 month delay would show in the next set of numbers. Ad rates would be affected, considering that 20 million households would not have access to the programming and commercial ads.
> 
> Since Directv has started down this road, they should maintain their stance and make Viacom come back to the table and accept better terms.


And because of that if i were Directv I'd drag my feet and offer them less than the current deal that just expired. They'd either answer for it to advertisers or take the deal and run. Let's see them squirm and reap what they sowed with their childish antics. Their ads alone would be enough to make me do it. Btw, anyone know when this 6 months ends?


----------



## zimm7778

"renbutler" said:


> But "the wealthy" and "greed" are the latest buzzwords today. That perspective taints many people's entire world view. They are always so critical of the wealthy's obsession with money, and strangely enough they do it with their own obsession with how much money people have and what they should do with it.


Yes, it's called jealousy.


----------



## maartena

cjrleimer said:


> http://www.multichannel.com/article/487314-Viacom_Reinstates_Web_Episodes.php online episodes are back.


Yeah, they couldn't keep screwing everyone else that did not have DirecTV for much longer. It was a scare tactic, designed to force DirecTV into submission. Take away the shows altogether, and see if they bit.

DirecTV did not bite. So, the alternatives are back online, NO ONE has to miss out on at least the most popular shows, although streaming them through the web is an annoyance if you have a nice big, not-internet connected TV.

Nevertheless, Viacom's strategy failed.

It looks like DirecTV is winning the "social media war", or at least from what I can tell from some of the analysts that look at twitter/facebook/youtube activity. More users seem to support DirecTV's point of view.

I think what is mostly different than other disputes, is how DIRTY Viacom has been playing this game. Normally, there will be some mudslinging back and forth between the disputed companies (see Tribune for example), but Viacom has taken "mudslinging" to a whole new level. Commercials that pray on little kids that hear "DirecTV is taking away your Spongebob", full-page ads in news papers, and removing all online video for everyone. This game has never been played this dirty before.

And it doesn't look like the sleezy strategies are paying off for Viacom.


----------



## tonyd79

Tubaman-Z said:


> I do agree that this would seem to be a short-sighted strategy in that it starts nudging D*'s customers towards non-D* sources. I had my 1st direct experience of a Roku when visiting friends last weekend - and I was impressed.


Funny that both DirecTV and Viacom disagree with your take on the strategy.


----------



## zimm7778

"maartena" said:


> Yeah, they couldn't keep screwing everyone else that did not have DirecTV for much longer. It was a scare tactic, designed to force DirecTV into submission. Take away the shows altogether, and see if they bit.
> 
> DirecTV did not bite. So, the alternatives are back online, NO ONE has to miss out on at least the most popular shows, although streaming them through the web is an annoyance if you have a nice big, not-internet connected TV.
> 
> Nevertheless, Viacom's strategy failed.
> 
> It looks like DirecTV is winning the "social media war", or at least from what I can tell from some of the analysts that look at twitter/facebook/youtube activity. More users seem to support DirecTV's point of view.
> 
> I think what is mostly different than other disputes, is how DIRTY Viacom has been playing this game. Normally, there will be some mudslinging back and forth, but Viacom has taken "mudslinging" to a whole new level. Commercials that play on little kids that hear "DirecTV is taking away your Spongebob", and removing all online video for everyone. This game has never been played this dirty before.
> 
> And it doesn't like the sleezy strategies are paying off for Viacom.


Why would Directv care? All that did was piss off everyone with every other provider. If you ask me it was a hail mary shot out of desperation because deep down I think they knew the outcry in their favor wasn't going to be severe enough to make Directv flinch. So, they played the last card they had and cut off internet shows. It didn't work so they'll come crawling to the table or their channels will stay off. Viacom has acted like children through this whole negotiation. I know their core audience thought this was great but the other 80% of us didn't.


----------



## mitchflorida

I think its fair to say that Viacom owns a lot of cable channels that people watch but don't really care about. Put me in that category, especially now they are streaming their more popular shows.


----------



## mnassour

ciurca said:


> If any of you who are crying corporate greed owned stock in either company, you would be happy they are protecting your investment return.


Dropping ratings and sliding stock prices, with stock reduced from "buy" to "hold"?

THAT kind of "protection" I don't need!


----------



## fireponcoal

There's always bitmetv..


----------



## renbutler

Ira Lacher said:


> "If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to." -- Dorothy Parker
> 
> "The only thing I like about rich people is their money." -- Nancy Astor


Thanks for the chuckle, but I think you accidentally supported my point.

Anyway, back on topic, let's stop worrying about how much profit corporations are making. Unless we're directly invested, or if they're doing something that directly breaks the law, that's not our business.


----------



## Santi360HD

susanandmark said:


> I think this is good, because it's a plus for consumers, but I'm boggled how anyone feels this is a win for DirecTV, or in fact why they slammed Viacom for doing so in the first place.
> 
> DirecTV crowing (e.g. here:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/225265272599216129, here:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/225098050090188800, directvpromise.com, etc.) about the online return and saying we'll watch you tomorrow on Hulu is silly. Doubly so since they have publicly castigated Viacom for even offering their programs online to begin with, saying it "devalues" their product.
> 
> So if Viacom posts the content online, they're cheating DirecTV, and if they remove it they're jerks who should be slammed?
> 
> Dumb all around. I'm not fan of Viacom, but I don't pay Viacom (directly). I pay DirecTV, which is why main beef is with them.
> 
> If these stupid channel blackouts become the normal negotiating tactic for DirecTV, and other providers, as predicted by some, _my_ prediction is that more and more customers will say, 'Why bother?,' save their money and find their entertainment elsewhere.
> 
> Seriously I've called the tactics childish before, but it honestly feels like that's insulting to most children, who handle themselves better, and with more concern for those their actions effect, than these mega-corps.


Bottom line Viacom was wrong for involving everyone in a dispute that doesnt involve everyone. I loved how Jon Stewart ripped them a new cornhole for it..I was all set for the torrent sites for my fix of Colbert & The Daily Show...that or camping out at my bar (I have both D* and Time Warner there). Reminds me of the OWS protestors here in NYC...very few had a collective message and alot of them were just nut jobs. Viacom and D* are just like those OWS protestors that shyte on police cars and said everyone has to die to get a message across..Viacom saw wrong only because they were called out..


----------



## tulanejosh

the directvpromise.com posts have become a lot less optimistic lately. Friday and over the weekend, definitely gave the impression of progress, and this will be over soon. Monday, was more subdued, and Tuesday's gave absolutely no rays of sunshine.


----------



## bobcamp1

fleckrj said:


> The difference is that DirecTV is giving $5/month only for three months and only for the people who bother to call and ask for it. Viacom wants $3/month for all 20,000,000 DirecTV customers for 5 years.
> 
> I know $3 x 60 is a lot more than $5 x 3, and I suspect that very few customers actually call to ask for the discount.


I think we made a math error. Since D* will probably pay a price between $2.65 and $3 to Viacom for each customer, they will at most realize a net savings of $0.35 per month per customer while they continue to give out over $5 per month per customer.

So $0.35 x 60 vs. $5 x 3 is the best case, and D* is great.

But $0.15 x 60 vs. $6 x 3 is more realistic (added $1 to account for free 6 months Showtime and NFLST), D* is losing their shirt. Luckily not everyone is calling in for the discount.

I think they'll settle in two or three days anyway. I also think this will be the new way these negotiations are held in the future. Both sides throwing their customer/viewers under the bus.


----------



## mnassour

gio12 said:


> I am going to call BULL on this one. Post pictures of a speediest. because I am SURE Verizon would want you on every commercial for them.


Ahhhh.....don't.

I've personally seen better than 20 on my Verizon 4g and as little as 2. The issue with Verizon 4g is that it's extremely (at least in my market) variable, from time to time and place to place. It can be really, *really*, nice....but it's not consistent enough to serve as a full-time ISP.

(EDIT LATER: Just did speakeasy.net/speedtest. Connected to the Dallas server from Austin. Phone is a Droid Razr Maxx. Got 27.59 down, 12.17 up. But that won't last. I'd take a picture but, well, the phone's my camera!)

But to jump back to topic , after last night's Daily Show, I'm not sure how Viacom could have continued keeping the full episodes off the web. Stewart was spitting blood. The last thing Viacom needs is DirecTV shooting at them from the front, and Stewart from the rear. And for some reason, I think more people watch Stewart than read DirecTV press releases.


----------



## Ira Lacher

renbutler said:


> Thanks for the chuckle, but I think you accidentally supported my point.
> 
> Anyway, back on topic, let's stop worrying about how much profit corporations are making. Unless we're directly invested, or if they're doing something that directly breaks the law, that's not our business.


I believe it is our business because corporate profits have become nearly totally divorced from customer satisfaction. The publicly held corporation's priorities are:

Major investors (such as mutual funds, etc.)
Major shareholders -- of preferred stock and of large blocks of common stock
Lenders
Officers
Minor investors -- those who have a few shares of stock
Customers -- those who but the corporation's products or services
And there is a huge gap between minor investors and customers, who constantly get lost in the slipstream of corporate policies designed to please the first five.


----------



## shendley

Just called and asked directv to help me defray the cost of a roku streaming device to get Stewart and Colbert while the dispute goes on. Was initially offered a $10 credit for 3 months, then he topped it off with a $5 credit for 3 months. Doesn't quite cover my costs but I'm content.


----------



## Tubaman-Z

tonyd79 said:


> Funny that both DirecTV and Viacom disagree with your take on the strategy.


Yep. There are a myriad of considerations of which I have no knowledge. Thus my outsider perspective is limited to public statements, hearsay, guesses, and my own experience. Kind of the same information sources as 99% of the participants of this discussion. And therefore subject to the same kinds of errors.

My experience is that D*'s suggesting on-line sources for programming coupled with the demonstration of an HD Roku got me looking at alternative content sources. The Viacom dispute had nothing (directly) to do with it (i.e. I don't value their programming that much). While the price is compelling (Roku HD + HuluPlus + NetFlix vs. my D* bill), I value my live sports (Bears, Twins, Purdue football and basketball) too much to cut the cord at this time.


----------



## Tubaman-Z

fireponcoal said:


> There's always bitmetv..


Is that the channel for people who only want 1/8 of the available programming?


----------



## F1 Fan

gio12 said:


> I am going to call BULL on this one. Post pictures of a speediest. because I am SURE Verizon would want you on every commercial for them.
> 
> Most speed tests show DL for Verizon being in the 8-17mps range overall.
> Oh, and AT&T has faster download speeds on their 3.5 & 4G LTE. Verizon faster up though.


My mistake - was a typo. I meant 20M not 30M. And yes I get 17+ quite often.

I use it a lot as my home DSL cannot get better than 1.5/384k so I watch a lot over 4G on my devices and plugged into HDMI.

So in my rural household I can (and did last summer for about 6 months then signed back up with Directv in December 2011) watch all I needed in our household via 4G.

EDIT: Speedtest on my Droid Bionic from College Station To Waco was 17.4 down then the second time was 21.3 down. Cant do a screen capture on this.


----------



## mitchflorida

shendley said:


> Just called and asked directv to help me defray the cost of a roku streaming device to get Stewart and Colbert while the dispute goes on. Was initially offered a $10 credit for 3 months, then he topped it off with a $5 credit for 3 months. Doesn't quite cover my costs but I'm content.


if you are smart, you will pocket the money and just watch their shows for free on Comedy Central's website. LOL


----------



## mnassour

mitchflorida said:


> if you are smart, you will pocket the money and just watch their shows for free on Comedy Central's website. LOL


Indeed, now that Stewart NAILED Viacom last night, that's once again an alternative! :lol:


----------



## renbutler

Ira Lacher said:


> I believe it is our business because corporate profits have become nearly totally divorced from customer satisfaction.


That's a hell of a blanket statement there. It's also quite absurd in a discussion about a company that continually excels in customer service ratings.



Ira Lacher said:


> As we have seen with the BP oil spill as well as the banking scandals now coming to light, corporations will repeatedly and without reservation break the law to maximize profits. That's why profits are directly at issue.


I specifically said that it becomes our business when they're breaking the law. But that has NOTHING to do with the DirecTV/Viacom dispute.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

A couple of times we've strayed a bit too close to politics. As a reminder, lets not go there.

Mike


----------



## SParker

Mike Bertelson said:


> A couple of times we've strayed a bit too close to politics. As a reminder, lets not go there.
> 
> Mike


+1


----------



## darkpowrjd

tulanejosh said:


> the directvpromise.com posts have become a lot less optimistic lately. Friday and over the weekend, definitely gave the impression of progress, and this will be over soon. Monday, was more subdued, and Tuesday's gave absolutely no rays of sunshine.


Might not be any new news to report other than the readditions of the webisodes.

However, I didn't see anything about a fallout on any site yet. Just that they are getting closer to something happening. It does get annoying that nothing gets said on the sites that they said we should be getting updates from. I personally would love for something to get resolved so we can stop talking about it already.

That and we can get those banners on the guide to go away. Seriously, the lag when I scroll through the pages because they have to tell me where every single Viacom channel went to are annoying as all hell! Maybe it's a good sign, though, that some of those banners have disappeared. Perhaps that is a sign that this could come to a conclusion sooner than we all think.


----------



## Fraaaak

mnassour said:


> Indeed, now that Stewart NAILED Viacom last night, that's once again an alternative! :lol:


Kind of thought he nailed both Viacom and DirecTV, as well he should have.


----------



## georule

From DirecTV's FB post, sounds like they think a breakthru has been had and they're getting close.


----------



## tulanejosh

georule said:


> From DirecTV's FB post, sounds like they think a breakthru has been had and they're getting close.


agree. "very soon" "draw closer" "finalize details". those are all positive words.


----------



## tonyd79

"Tubaman-Z" said:


> Yep. There are a myriad of considerations of which I have no knowledge. Thus my outsider perspective is limited to public statements, hearsay, guesses, and my own experience. Kind of the same information sources as 99% of the participants of this discussion. And therefore subject to the same kinds of errors.
> 
> My experience is that D*'s suggesting on-line sources for programming coupled with the demonstration of an HD Roku got me looking at alternative content sources. The Viacom dispute had nothing (directly) to do with it (i.e. I don't value their programming that much). While the price is compelling (Roku HD + HuluPlus + NetFlix vs. my D* bill), I value my live sports (Bears, Twins, Purdue football and basketball) too much to cut the cord at this time.


Yeah. I love my roku. Have had one for quite some time (early adopter). It has its limits but it is great for old shows and movies.


----------



## maartena

tulanejosh said:


> agree. "very soon" "draw closer" "finalize details". those are all positive words.


"very soon" falls under the same category as the word described in my signature.

They could use "incredibly absolutely amazingly superduper very very VERY really VERY soon", and it would still not tell us anything about..... when.


----------



## tulanejosh

maartena said:


> "very soon" falls under the same category as the word described in my signature.
> 
> They could use "incredibly absolutely amazingly superduper very very VERY really VERY soon", and it would still not tell us anything about..... when.


i hear ya


----------



## Xsabresx

maartena said:


> "very soon" falls under the same category as the word described in my signature.
> 
> They could use "incredibly absolutely amazingly superduper very very VERY really VERY soon", and it would still not tell us anything about..... when.


We wouldnt want people to be optimistic or anything.


----------



## Carl Spock

A settlement has to be soon, within the next week. This isn't that tough.

From posts in this thread, DirecTV and Viacom aren't that far apart money-wise. That's not that big a deal. In fact, I'm not sure what the big deal is.

Viacom, come up with the one big thing you must have in an agreement, your deal-breaker. DirecTV, do the same. Almost certainly they won't be the same issue. I could see Viacom saying they need $X.YZ per subscriber to hit their nut and make money. DirecTV might say their most pressing need is to put some channels in upper tier packages where they could charge more for them. Glory be! We have the makings of a negotiation here! Add some new channels into the equation so that both sides can look forward to additional revenue streams and wrap this puppy tonight.

My biggest fear is that sanity will not rule the day. These two have been snipping at each other like it's high school. The worst has been Viacom. Their public pranks make me worry that the anti-sales department has taken charge there. If it has, forget reasonableness. We are in for a long slog, with a resolution months away.

Let's pray that rational heads are at the negotiating table.


----------



## shendley

Yeah, but Hulu via Roku looks much better on my plasma than Comedy Central's website looks on my computer.



mitchflorida said:


> if you are smart, you will pocket the money and just watch their shows for free on Comedy Central's website. LOL


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Some news.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-17/directv-says-it-s-closer-to-deal-with-viacom

Mike


----------



## SPACEMAKER

I wonder if Viacom realizes that this has turned into a PR disaster and is now just trying to figure out how to "save face." Anyone objective person who knows both sides of this can only conclude that Viacom is the villain here and I am sure Viacom fully realizes this.


----------



## dpeters11

With how public this has been so far, I really hope when the contract is done, it's not just "terms were not disclosed."


----------



## tonyd79

"dpeters11" said:


> With how public this has been so far, I really hope when the contract is done, it's not just "terms were not disclosed."


It will be.


----------



## ciurca

Half a mile from my front door I push 30mb per second. Inside my house my vzw 4g is usually around 10/5. A vz tech told me the 4 g signal fades more dramatically from towers compared to 3g. FWIW, if I didn't have 4 computers a Wii and an Xbox I would tether my unlimited data plan. But as it is I need our Comcast which is usually testing at 50/5-6.
Regarding Viacom, my kids are losing patience.


----------



## zimm7778

"F1 Fan" said:


> My mistake - was a typo. I meant 20M not 30M. And yes I get 17+ quite often.
> 
> I use it a lot as my home DSL cannot get better than 1.5/384k so I watch a lot over 4G on my devices and plugged into HDMI.
> 
> So in my rural household I can (and did last summer for about 6 months then signed back up with Directv in December 2011) watch all I needed in our household via 4G.
> 
> EDIT: Speedtest on my Droid Bionic from College Station To Waco was 17.4 down then the second time was 21.3 down. Cant do a screen capture on this.


I have 75/35 from Verizon FIOS. Is that what we are talking about or actual DSL service?


----------



## maartena

Carl Spock said:


> A settlement has to be soon, within the next week. This isn't that tough.
> 
> From posts in this thread, DirecTV and Viacom aren't that far apart money-wise. That's not that big a deal. In fact, I'm not sure what the big deal is.


Might be that Viacom wants DirecTV to carry *all* their channels, not just the ones DirecTV has now.

or....

It could be that they want Epix to be in the same deal, something that DirecTV explicitly has refused in the past.

or....

Perhaps Viacom wants more stations in HD, and DirecTV's bandwidth is pretty limited at the moment, and they rather use it for something else.

or....

They want certain channels in certain packages. Often, demanding more money is not the only demand, they might also want to have some of the channels moved to a lower tier, as that means more access, more viewers, thus more advertising income.

There are probably a lot of ifs, and/or buts in this deal.... money is by far the only consideration, if it was JUST money, they could just haggle pawn-star style for a day, and call it a deal.


----------



## ciurca

"zimm7778" said:


> I have 75/35 from Verizon FIOS. Is that what we are talking about or actual DSL service?


Talking about 4g wireless internet.


----------



## maartena

dpeters11 said:


> With how public this has been so far, I really hope when the contract is done, it's not just "terms were not disclosed."


Well, let me disappoint you ahead of time. No one outside of DirecTV or Viacom will never know.

And there is good reasons both don't want that information out in the public:

- Viacom doesn't want other carriers to know how much it is receiving from DirecTV, else the other carriers have a base price to go off of. (In this case, it could be Viacom has to come down more than they would like to just to get the channels lit again).

- DirecTV doesn't want other media companies to know how much it is paying for Viacom channels, otherwise they would be able to compare content/channels/ratings and come up with their own figures. (In this case, it could be DirecTV is going to pay more than they would like just to get the channels lit again).

In short: Count on "terms were not disclosed".

At least we won't know the financial details. Whether other agreements were made (e.g. more channels, more HD, package changes) we'll find out eventually.


----------



## Carl Spock

maartena said:


> There are probably a lot of ifs, and/or buts in this deal.... money is by far the only consideration, if it was JUST money, they could just haggle pawn-star style for a day, and call it a deal.


That's exactly what I'm saying, *maartena*. Money isn't the big issue. Once you admit and settle that, these other things can be worked out. Maybe DirecTV doesn't put more up Viacom HD channels until Direct 14 is launched. Maybe EPIX is a higher tier channel. The rest of these things are open for negotiation - and forget either company's previous stands because when it comes to these secondary issues, my starting point is that only one thing is a deal breaker per side and we settle those up front - and the two sides work it out. Yes, it might take a few more days. Maybe I am over-optimistic thinking it would take one evening. And certainly both sides would want to run any proposed settlement past a bevy of lawyers and accountants. But that's what negotiations are all about: Getting past previous roadblocks and finding a solution that allows both sides to win.


----------



## DodgerKing

maartena said:


> The channels aren't "gone", they are just hidden until the dispute has been resolved. To make sure that your recordings resume again without you having to do anything, they hide them in such a way all set recordings remain intact. Obviously, since the dispute is ongoing, you will not see anything but the DirecTV logo.... but if they resolve the dispute, the recordings should resume normally without you having to set them up.
> 
> So just delete the recordings.


That is why it records channel 8241 instead of just 241.


----------



## DodgerKing

Pepe Sylvia said:


> I keep reading these articles that end with them getting closer. It reminds me of the Grand Funk Railroad song.


Their last good song. After that they got poppy and sucky.


----------



## Laxguy

DodgerKing said:


> That is why it records channel 8241 instead of just 241.


And are not those "recordings" of the DIRECTV® logo empty, taking up probably less than a couple of Megabytes?


----------



## tonyd79

"Laxguy" said:


> And are not those "recordings" of the DIRECTV® logo empty, taking up probably less than a couple of Megabytes?


Not empty. Probably small but they do have music. Since they don't move, the video portion is probably very small.


----------



## chrisexv6

maartena said:


> "very soon" falls under the same category as the word described in my signature.
> 
> They could use "incredibly absolutely amazingly superduper very very VERY really VERY soon", and it would still not tell us anything about..... when.


When will then be now?

SOON!


----------



## RunnerFL

dpeters11 said:


> With how public this has been so far, I really hope when the contract is done, it's not just "terms were not disclosed."


We won't be given the terms at all.


----------



## Carl Spock

Agreed. All we'll see is the results. 

Not only do we not need to know the terms, Viacom would be at a great disadvantage if they became public. Imagine how much other service providers would like to know just what it took to get Viacom to settle.

Similarly, DirecTV doesn't want the Discovery Networks, whose contract, according to this thread, comes up before the end of the year, to know just how far it can be pushed.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Carl Spock said:


> Agreed. All we'll see is the results. Not only do we not need to know the terms, Viacom would be at a great disadvantage if they became public. Imagine how much other service providers would like to know just what it took to get Viacom to settle.


Carl, the problem is that Viacom has "most favored nation"-type contracts with other distributors, some paying 3.00 for the Viacom package. If Viacom settles for less, it would have to automatically accept that same rate from other distributors.


----------



## Carl Spock

Gloria, upthread in a different comment, I linked to your wonderful post where you made just that point. Yours was one of the few important and insightful posts in this whole thread.

I'm sure some of the terms of the contract will have to be disclosed but overall, the industry is best served by keeping the rest of it secret. I am also under no illusion that the general outline of the deal won't be known by the movers and shakers in the television industry within a few weeks but the specifics shouldn't be aired.

And again, even more to the original questioner's point, it serves no purpose to post the terms of the settlement here or in the media.


----------



## tonyd79

"Carl Spock" said:


> Gloria, I quoted your post upthread where you made just that point. Yours was one of the only posts in this whole thread that is important.
> 
> I'm sure some of the terms of the contract will have to be disclosed but overall, the industry is best served by keeping the rest of it secret.


Doesn't have to be disclosed outside those who make the deals, though.


----------



## gio12

mnassour said:


> Ahhhh.....don't.
> 
> I've personally seen better than 20 on my Verizon 4g and as little as 2. The issue with Verizon 4g is that it's extremely (at least in my market) variable, from time to time and place to place. It can be really, *really*, nice....but it's not consistent enough to serve as a full-time ISP.
> 
> (EDIT LATER: Just did speakeasy.net/speedtest. Connected to the Dallas server from Austin. Phone is a Droid Razr Maxx. Got 27.59 down, 12.17 up. But that won't last. I'd take a picture but, well, the phone's my camera!)
> 
> But to jump back to topic , after last night's Daily Show, I'm not sure how Viacom could have continued keeping the full episodes off the web. Stewart was spitting blood. The last thing Viacom needs is DirecTV shooting at them from the front, and Stewart from the rear. And for some reason, I think more people watch Stewart than read DirecTV press releases.


Huh, screen shot? yeah, maybe that speed one once second or two. Its proven its not that fast, period.


----------



## pogo

So, tonight my wife made me watch the D* video on this. What a load of crap. D* is complaining because viacom won't let them pick the shows they want? Gee, I guess that's their programming model. NOT. I fail to understand how these idiots think they can couch this as me against Viacom. I don't have a contract with Viacom -- I have one with DirecTV. i'm not a bit confused about who is not delivering what I paid for.


----------



## dpeters11

"pogo" said:


> So, tonight my wife made me watch the D* video on this. What a load of crap. D* is complaining because viacom won't let them pick the shows they want? Gee, I guess that's their programming model. NOT. I fail to understand how these idiots think they can couch this as me against Viacom. I don't have a contract with Viacom -- I have one with DirecTV. i'm not a bit confused about who is not delivering what I paid for.


No, I believe their stance is if Viacom wants that large of an increase, the customer should be able to pay just for the channels they want. It has nothing to do with individual shows.

What really were DirecTVs options? Just tell Viacom they'd pay the billon dollars? Nothing prevented Viacom from allowing the channels to stay during negotiations. Pulling them and pulling content offline hurt them more than it did DirecTV.


----------



## pogo

gomenasai. I said "shows" when I should have said "channels". You're absolutely right. Now, tell me when D* allowed me to pay only for the "channesl" that I want. It's kind of a distinction without a difference. Look, this is a peeing match between D* and Viacom. D* trying to paint it as Viacom against me is crap. It's a contract dispute. Viacom is playing hardball. BOOHOO, D*. That's what sometimes happens in the world where you don't just get your way. Fan's of a number of Viacom's "channels"/"shows" are pissed, but I don't think that it should be at Viacom. I guess they should just sell their product to D* at whatever terms D* wants. Yea. That ain't how it works in my world. If it were, I'd be negotiatiing with D* to buy only the channels that I want. (Yeah, that'll happen) They're hypocrites and they think that their customers are too stupid to figure it out. I think they need to stop whining and get back to the table and settle this. Don't whine about wanting to buy something for the price that it's not availble for and then complain when the seller says, "okay, then you don't get it".


----------



## dpeters11

Negotiating is a two way street. DirecTV shouldn't have to just accept the first offer Viacom throws out, and Viacom doesn't have to accept the first offer of DirecTV. It would have been possible to allow the channels to stay up as they talked, but Viacom is the one that did not allow that.

This is how it works for channel carriage. It's more like us buying a house or car than buying a consumer good. How many people pay sticker price?


----------



## pogo

dpeters11 said:


> Negotiating is a two way street. DirecTV shouldn't have to just accept the first offer Viacom throws out, and Viacom doesn't have to accept the first offer of DirecTV. It would have been possible to allow the channels to stay up as they talked, but Viacom is the one that did not allow that.
> 
> This is how it works for channel carriage. It's more like us buying a house or car than buying a consumer good. How many people pay sticker price?[/QUOTE
> 
> Yeah. Like I said, that's called hardball. They don't have to let people who aren't paying for their content have it. That's a negotiating strategy. It has nothing to do with D*'s customers except for the hope that they'll bring pressure to bear to bring back the "channels" that we want. Or, in D*'s view, that we'll cave to Viacom's scare tactics.
> 
> BTW, when's the last time that a dealer let you just drive the car around while you were trying to come to terms. Jeeeeesh!


----------



## ciurca

"gio12" said:


> Huh, screen shot? yeah, maybe that speed one once second or two. Its proven its not that fast, period.


I can CONSISTENTLY get around 30 mbps down in peak locations in my area. Yes 1/2 mile away it drops to around 10/mbps but always fast in the right signal locations.


----------



## Draconis

It's interesting when you see how many of the pay TV providers are backing DIRECTV on this one.

DirecTV Finds Some Unlikely Friends



> Several cable-TV operators have come out publicly supporting their satellite-TV rival DIRECTV during its program-fee dispute with Viacom Inc. adding that they don't intend to ramp up marketing to capitalize on the situation.
> 
> For a week now, DIRECTV's 20 million customers haven't been able to receive Viacom-owned cable channels such as MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central, because of a dispute over fees. But in an unusual show of support, in recent days Time Warner Cable Inc., Cox Communications Inc. and Mediacom Communications Corp. have each publicly backed DirecTV's position, presenting a unified front against steadily rising programming costs that are wracking the pay-TV industry.


----------



## Mark Holtz

pogo said:


> So, tonight my wife made me watch the D* video on this. What a load of crap. D* is complaining because viacom won't let them pick the channels they want? Gee, I guess that's their programming model. NOT. I fail to understand how these idiots think they can couch this as me against Viacom. I don't have a contract with Viacom -- I have one with DirecTV. i'm not a bit confused about who is not delivering what I paid for.


Look at it this way.... DirecTV (and Dish and the cable providers) are resellers of Viacom programming. You cannot deal directly with directly with Viacom, but you have to deal with the reseller. It is up to the reseller to negotiate a price with Viacom, and then resell the product to you.

Isn't this like the new car business? I cannot purchase a car directly from the automaker, but through their dealers.

It should be noted that DirecTV, under their Customer Agreement, states that DirecTV "reserve the unrestricted right to change, rearrange, add or delete our programming packages, the selections in those packages, our prices, and any other Service we offer, at any time."


----------



## mitchflorida

There's a new crisis in Bikini Bottom.

Ratings for Viacom-owned Nickelodeon and other cable channels are sinking fast in a blackout that has kept DirecTV's 20 million customers from watching episodes of "SpongeBob Squarepants," "Dora the Explorer" and other popular shows.

Viacom's networks, including MTV, BET and Comedy Central, have lost an estimated 2 million viewers in just the first week of the fee dispute with the nation's largest satellite-TV provider.

Kiddie cash cow Nickelodeon was already reeling from a troubling 20-percent ratings decline - possibly due to competition from Netflix - before the fight broke out with DirecTV.

Now, it looks like the denizens of Bikini Bottom are collateral damage. Nick's total viewers in primetime dropped 38.5 percent to 1.2 million in just the first week of the blackout, according to Nielsen .

"To me the headline difference at Nickelodeon is going to look huge," said analyst Todd Juenger of Bernstein Research.

Beyond Nickelodeon, other Viacom channels took a major hit. BET fell 23 percent in total viewers, Spike fell 28.9 percent and VH1 Classic was down 54.1 percent. Comedy Central fell just 1.1 percent, while MTV managed a 4.2 percent uptick.

"We anticipated an impact in the ratings," a Viacom spokesman said. "This is not what we want."

The cable spat is not only upsetting customers - it's roiling advertisers. Viacom could be on the hook for millions of dollars in so-called make-goods to compensate advertisers if the dispute isn't resolved soon. Marketers are already making calls about how Viacom will meet its ratings guarantees, sources told The Post.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...#ixzz20xzZ5De


----------



## BenJF3

Draconis said:


> It's interesting when you see how many of the pay TV providers are backing DIRECTV on this one.
> 
> DirecTV Finds Some Unlikely Friends


These disputes would be non existant if the distributors backing D* would commit to not paying squat. Remember, the content providers NEED the distributors, not the other way around. I for one cannot understand why they allowed the situation to get this bad. The corrupted the entire business model of advertiser supported television. Instead, we now PAY to watch commercials? All the distributors have to do is all agree to tell the content providers to go punt and problem solved.


----------



## thomas_d92

I agree any channel that D has to pay for should be commercial free. After 11:00pm on the west coast over half the channels are info commercials and I have to pay for it. In November my contract is up and I am gone . I will be ota and streaming only. I do not watch reality programs and all my favorite channels are going that way. $90 a month for reality tv , no thanks.


----------



## raott

BenJF3 said:


> These disputes would be non existant if the distributors backing D* would commit to not paying squat. Remember, the content providers NEED the distributors, not the other way around.


They clearly need each other or the distributors wouldn't pay anything. IMO, the content providers need the distributors less and less each day because of internet channels (which is why D* is so afraid of Roku).


----------



## raott

thomas_d92 said:


> I agree any channel that D has to pay for should be commercial free. After 11:00pm on the west coast over half the channels are info commercials and I have to pay for it. In November my contract is up and I am gone . I will be ota and streaming only. I do not watch reality programs and all my favorite channels are going that way. $90 a month for reality tv , no thanks.


Except the market has dictated there is a value to be paid to distribute channels that have commercials. If there was no market, and no distributor was willing to pay for it, commercial channels would be free to the distributors.


----------



## mitchflorida

I think this is an instance where DTV is saying the Emperor has no clothes. Who the heck cares about these unloved "popular" channels? There are some channels that people are loyal to, but not Viacom's. If anything , people are ashamed to admit that they even watch them.


----------



## mnassour

mitchflorida said:


> I think this is an instance where DTV is saying the Emperor has no clothes. Who the heck cares about these unloved "popular" channels? There are some channels that people are loyal to, but not Viacom's. If anything , people are ashamed to admit that they even watch them.


That's a very, very, very good point.

If this gets settled, say, within the next week or so, no harm done, and we go back to the way everything was.

If it doesn't, then don't be surprised to see not only satellite providers, but also the cable folks reassessing what programming they're willing to carry. Let's say DirecTV decides it will lose less by dropping Viacom and taking the hit of those who leave because of that decision, rather than by paying what Viacom wants and keeping those subs.

Every company is here to make money...and making more money is better than making less money.

It's entirely possible that Direct could become even more sports oriented as it seeks to maximize profit, maybe with some premium channels and a few news channels on the side. Dish then assumes the position of the movies and foreign/niche programming leader by dropping ESPN and the remaining (expensive) sports programming not carried on the national nets.

I'm not saying I want this to happen, I'm just saying each company could be rethinking its position as it seeks to maximize profit. I don't see this scenario as good for satellite or the consumer, but it could happen.


----------



## Diana C

mitchflorida said:


> ...Now, it looks like the denizens of Bikini Bottom are collateral damage. Nick's total viewers in primetime dropped 38.5 percent to 1.2 million in just the first week of the blackout, according to Nielsen .
> 
> "To me the headline difference at Nickelodeon is going to look huge," said analyst Todd Juenger of Bernstein Research.
> 
> Beyond Nickelodeon, other Viacom channels took a major hit. BET fell 23 percent in total viewers, Spike fell 28.9 percent and VH1 Classic was down 54.1 percent. Comedy Central fell just 1.1 percent, while MTV managed a 4.2 percent uptick.
> 
> "We anticipated an impact in the ratings," a Viacom spokesman said. "This is not what we want."
> 
> The cable spat is not only upsetting customers - it's roiling advertisers. Viacom could be on the hook for millions of dollars in so-called make-goods to compensate advertisers if the dispute isn't resolved soon. Marketers are already making calls about how Viacom will meet its ratings guarantees, sources told The Post.
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...#ixzz20xzZ5De


This illustrates a good point. The pre-existing ratings drop would already be eating into Viacom's revenue. Increasing the fees paid by distributors was the only avenue available to offset the loss.

It also shows that Viacom had to be feeling desperate to actually pull the channels. The way advertising contracts are written, the networks promise to deliver a certain number of "impressions" (viewers, basically) for each contract. If the ratings drop, the networks are obligated to either run the given campaign more times at no charge, or to provide monetary compensation to the advertiser. Many large advertisers (e.g. MacDonalds) have clauses in their contracts that say that if the networks fail to deliver what is spelled out in the contract they won't pay for ANY of the airtime.

If this drags on for more than another 2 weeks or so, Viacom will be facing a situation where even if they were to get the full increase, they would still lose money in the current fiscal year.

I think we may be seeing the start of a sea change here. Viacom no doubt expected DirecTV to cave to avoid a prolonged outage...after all, they always have in the past, unlike Dish Network that has often called the networks' bluff. The fact that DirecTV is acting in such an uncharacteristic manner, and that the cable providers are backing that position, may mean that we are starting to see exactly what has been mentioned many times in this thread. Namely, that the distributors are simply saying that they won't pay any more...the channels are simply not worth what the networks are asking.


----------



## harsh

renbutler said:


> That's a hell of a blanket statement there. It's also quite absurd in a discussion about a company that continually excels in customer service ratings.


Excels as compared to whom? The IRS?

DISH knocked DIRECTV off the top step this last go-around and the anecdotes about uneven treatment and misinformation are arguably getting more fantastic.


----------



## HuskerHarley

mitchflorida said:



> I think this is an instance where DTV is saying the Emperor has no clothes. Who the heck cares about these unloved "popular" channels? There are some channels that people are loyal to, but not Viacom's. *If anything , people are ashamed to admit that they even watch them*.


I'm not ashamed,,I miss Palladia & Spike, my GrandKids miss SpongeBob..

HH


----------



## Carl Spock

mitchflorida said:


> Who the heck cares about these unloved "popular" channels? There are some channels that people are loyal to, but not Viacom's. If anything , people are ashamed to admit that they even watch them.


Huh?

Kids love Nickelodeon. A five year old will take minutes telling you a story she saw on Dora. She's not ashamed.

Young people love MTV. Jersey Shore received the ratings it got because people were discussing at work or school the latest escapades of Snooki, Pauly D and The Situation.

Thirty and forty-somethings who still rock love Palladia. I have a doctor friend who plays bass in a very popular local rock band and every time I go over to his house and he turns on the TV, it was last on Palladia.

People of many ages love Comedy Central. If you like politics and have a sense of humor, The Daily Show and/or The Colbert Report are must-sees. If Jon Stewart takes down a big-wig with a cutting remark, it is replayed the next day on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. What else do these three networks agree upon? And they aren't replaying The Daily Show clip because the reporters and producers like the show. They are replaying it because it's news. The comedy skit can become more memorable than the original remark.

As far as I can see, you are the only closet watcher of Viacom network shows, *mitchflorida*.


----------



## harsh

mitchflorida said:


> Who the heck cares about these unloved "popular" channels?


Quite a few in the pre-teen age group from what I've seen.

I spoke with a co-worker yesterday and her words were something like "half our channels are gone".


----------



## harsh

RunnerFL said:


> We won't be given the terms at all.


There's a financial conference call coming up in a short amount of time. The question will arise if the dispute is resolved and what manner of sticking points remain will likely surface if it isn't..


----------



## ChicagoBlue

GiantsFan383 said:


> I hate to say this but you guys are right,pay tv as a whole is getting way too expensive. Satellite is also getting expensive for only television,cable is expensive but if you get their triple play it's not that bad. In New Jersey, if you get satellite and get the triple play you only get crappy DSL. Satellite could be losing a big battle here even though it may not be their fault. I see DBS in a whole going down soon maybe I'm wrong but without Sunday ticket directv is over.


If I had a penny for how many times I have heard that about DBS. From the start it was that DBS could never make inroads. Then about 10 years ago it was the argument they couldnt' sustain without local channels. Then it became something else.

You do realize that for many citizens in this country all they have is DBS, right? For many others, their options are an incredibly poor cable option or DBS.

Your notion that pay tv is getting too expensive I find disingenious as well. Too expensive compared to what? Say you are paying $100 a month for tv. That's about $3 a day to entertain your family, get up to speed on the news and what all, etc, etc. $3 a day for a service that continues to entertain with 100's of channels all day long. $3 a day won't get a you a Starbucks that pleases you for 15 minutes.

What I find so funny in all these rants here by people saying these guys are greedy for having a 10% profit (oh the humanity) is that if you look at the profits isolated on the broadband side by telcos and cable companies, they are 60% and higher. That's where your anger should be. That $50 a month you are paying for internet service doesn't cost them very much at all.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Titan25 said:


> This illustrates a good point. The pre-existing ratings drop would already be eating into Viacom's revenue. Increasing the fees paid by distributors was the only avenue available to offset the loss.
> 
> It also shows that Viacom had to be feeling desperate to actually pull the channels. The way advertising contracts are written, the networks promise to deliver a certain number of "impressions" (viewers, basically) for each contract. If the ratings drop, the networks are obligated to either run the given campaign more times at no charge, or to provide monetary compensation to the advertiser. Many large advertisers (e.g. MacDonalds) have clauses in their contracts that say that if the networks fail to deliver what is spelled out in the contract they won't pay for ANY of the airtime.
> 
> If this drags on for more than another 2 weeks or so, Viacom will be facing a situation where even if they were to get the full increase, they would still lose money in the current fiscal year.
> 
> I think we may be seeing the start of a sea change here. Viacom no doubt expected DirecTV to cave to avoid a prolonged outage...after all, they always have in the past, unlike Dish Network that has often called the networks' bluff. The fact that DirecTV is acting in such an uncharacteristic manner, and that the cable providers are backing that position, may mean that we are starting to see exactly what has been mentioned many times in this thread. Namely, that the distributors are simply saying that they won't pay any more...the channels are simply not worth what the networks are asking.


it is also sweeps week.


----------



## lparsons21

pogo said:


> BTW, when's the last time that a dealer let you just drive the car around while you were trying to come to terms. Jeeeeesh!


For me, that would be August 2009, which was when I bought my current car. The dealer gave me the keys and I drove it about a week before we came to terms that we both liked.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

susanandmark said:


> Funny how when customers, whose income as a whole has been stagnant, or falling, for the better part of five years now (unlike DirecTV's profits), complain about rising costs it's "*****ing and whining," but when DirecTV resists price increases they're "holding the line" and "fighting the good fight."


Coming from you that is rather precious when you read your earlier posts that DTV should just give in and keep the channels up. Trying to have it both ways again, I see.

If DTV were to do that, those people with stagnant or falling incomes would have an even tougher time, or are you unable to connect those dots?

Look, the way these contracts are written, DTV's costs are going up every year whether we have a depression, recession or boom because each year the contracts guarantee built in increases to the amount they have to pay the programmers. That is built in and regardless of what is going on in the world, that is the world a tv distributor lives in.


----------



## Mariah2014

The -1 channels for these channels is now gone and any mention on the other pages about these channels being in a dispute is gone as well. Yet, the mix channels act like they belong on those numbers now.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

patmurphey said:


> I don't understand all the angst and blame against Viacom over the 30% request. Isn't DirecTV charging a lot more than 30% more than they did 7 years ago?


Is DTV giving you more in those 7 years? HD, 3D, more channels, better technology (MRV, connectivity, etc), more local channel markets, interactivity, etc, etc? I would argue DTV gave you a lot more in those 7 years than Viacom did for that 30%.

Plus, DTV has to deal with all these providers wanting massive increases, not just Viacom.

Let's compare apples to apples, shall we?


----------



## ChicagoBlue

mitchflorida said:


> There's a new crisis in Bikini Bottom.
> 
> Ratings for Viacom-owned Nickelodeon and other cable channels are sinking fast in a blackout that has kept DirecTV's 20 million customers from watching episodes of "SpongeBob Squarepants," "Dora the Explorer" and other popular shows.
> 
> Viacom's networks, including MTV, BET and Comedy Central, have lost an estimated 2 million viewers in just the first week of the fee dispute with the nation's largest satellite-TV provider.
> 
> Kiddie cash cow Nickelodeon was already reeling from a troubling 20-percent ratings decline - possibly due to competition from Netflix - before the fight broke out with DirecTV.
> 
> Now, it looks like the denizens of Bikini Bottom are collateral damage. Nick's total viewers in primetime dropped 38.5 percent to 1.2 million in just the first week of the blackout, according to Nielsen .
> 
> "To me the headline difference at Nickelodeon is going to look huge," said analyst Todd Juenger of Bernstein Research.
> 
> Beyond Nickelodeon, other Viacom channels took a major hit. BET fell 23 percent in total viewers, Spike fell 28.9 percent and VH1 Classic was down 54.1 percent. Comedy Central fell just 1.1 percent, while MTV managed a 4.2 percent uptick.
> 
> "We anticipated an impact in the ratings," a Viacom spokesman said. "This is not what we want."
> 
> The cable spat is not only upsetting customers - it's roiling advertisers. Viacom could be on the hook for millions of dollars in so-called make-goods to compensate advertisers if the dispute isn't resolved soon. Marketers are already making calls about how Viacom will meet its ratings guarantees, sources told The Post.
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...#ixzz20xzZ5De


In addition, Disney rating are up about the same amount Viacom's are down. Viacom is helping to push their own viewers of kids programming to a competitor. Viacom = not very smart right now.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

All this chatter here about DTV earning a 10% profit, where is this coming from? When did this country change where it is now bad for an AMERICAN company with AMERICAN operations employing thousands of AMERICANS making only a 10% profit is now termed as GREEDY, SELFISH and somehow evil? I see this a lot amongst people nowadays and it is really sad to see. Those evil companies making profits are often paying for someone's pension, paying taxes, employing people that pay A LOT OF TAXES, etc, etc.

For those of you upset about a 10% profit, you guys must go bonkers over Microsoft, AT&T, Apple, IBM, P&G, etc. They make DTV's profits look like they are hosting a lemonade stand on the corner.


----------



## zimm7778

"ChicagoBlue" said:


> All this chatter here about DTV earning a 10% profit, where is this coming from? When did this country change where it is now bad for an AMERICAN company with AMERICAN operations employing thousands of AMERICANS making only a 10% profit is now termed as GREEDY, SELFISH and somehow evil? I see this a lot amongst people nowadays and it is really sad to see. Those evil companies making profits are often paying for someone's pension, paying taxes, employing people that pay A LOT OF TAXES, etc, etc.
> 
> For those of you upset about a 10% profit, you guys must go bonkers over Microsoft, AT&T, Apple, IBM, P&G, etc. They make DTV's profits look like they are hosting a lemonade stand on the corner.


Since more and more became jealous of anyone making $1 more than them. See: oil companies who make like 6.2 % profit and rank 114th on industry profits. But, who gets vilified politically?


----------



## abooch

ChicagoBlue said:


> In addition, Disney rating are up about the same amount Viacom's are down. Viacom is helping to push their own viewers of kids programming to a competitor. Viacom = not very smart right now.


Kids are going to find shows on Disney and now Disney Jr., that they may have never knew about or have never given a chance before. So, a decent percentage of kids may stay on Disney now instead of Nick if/when it comes back and Nick will lose those "customers."


----------



## renbutler

harsh said:


> Excels as compared to whom? The IRS?
> 
> DISH knocked DIRECTV off the top step this last go-around and the anecdotes about uneven treatment and misinformation are arguably getting more fantastic.


DirecTV has always been a corporation since its founding, and it was #1 in customer service for a long time. That means that any current decline in customer service (perceived or real) has NOTHING to do with the fact that they are a corporation. DISH is a corporation, and apparently they are doing well in that regard.

Some corporations do well by their customers, and others do not. The blanket damning of "rich corporations" is such a ridiculous trend.


----------



## rlj1010

ChicagoBlue said:


> In addition, Disney rating are up about the same amount Viacom's are down. Viacom is helping to push their own viewers of kids programming to a competitor. Viacom = not very smart right now.


The addition of Disney Junior sounds like a good thing, but really it's not. They must air Mickey Mouse Clubhouse about 12 times a day. Nick Jr. programming is way better.


----------



## tulanejosh

abooch said:


> Kids are going to find shows on Disney and now Disney Jr., that they may have never knew about or have never given a chance before. So, a decent percentage of kids may stay on Disney now instead of Nick if/when it comes back and Nick will lose those "customers."


believe that's his point.


----------



## tulanejosh

rlj1010 said:


> The addition of Disney Junior sounds like a good thing, but really it's not. The must air Mickey Mouse Clubhouse about 12 times a day. Nick Jr. programming is way better.


Disney Jr is also a brand new channel. Give it a year and see what their programming looks. Never bet against the mouse.


----------



## mnassour

tulanejosh said:


> Never bet against the mouse.


:lol:

All kidding aside, that really bears repeating. That company has a long track record of taking crap and turning it into flowers.


----------



## susanandmark

ChicagoBlue said:


> Coming from you that is rather precious when you read your earlier posts that DTV should just give in and keep the channels up. Trying to have it both ways again, I see.
> 
> If DTV were to do that, those people with stagnant or falling incomes would have an even tougher time, or are you unable to connect those dots?
> 
> Look, the way these contracts are written, DTV's costs are going up every year whether we have a depression, recession or boom because each year the contracts guarantee built in increases to the amount they have to pay the programmers. That is built in and regardless of what is going on in the world, that is the world a tv distributor lives in.


Show me where I said that? In fact, I specifically said that was NOT what I was saying, when DirecTV fanboys tried to portray it as such. I have simply noted, over and over, that DirecTV (and Viacom) shouldn't use end-users as pawns in their (should be private) negotiations. That these shenanigans--the PR campaigns, public sniping and blacking out of channels--are childish and consumer unfriendly and do NOTHING to "help" customers, despite their claims. That the only loser in these negotiations are the consumers.


----------



## tulanejosh

mnassour said:


> :lol:
> 
> All kidding aside, that really bears repeating. That company has a long track record of taking crap and turning it into flowers.


They specialize in kids. That's like 90% of their entire business model. Kids. Channels, programming, theme parks, toys, movies. Kids. Kids. Kids. I have no doubt that Disney Jr will be a major player in children's programming. Even when (not if) Nick comes back.


----------



## Mark Holtz

ChicagoBlue said:


> Your notion that pay tv is getting too expensive I find disingenious as well. Too expensive compared to what? Say you are paying $100 a month for tv. That's about $3 a day to entertain your family, get up to speed on the news and what all, etc, etc. $3 a day for a service that continues to entertain with 100's of channels all day long. $3 a day won't get a you a Starbucks that pleases you for 15 minutes.


Your $3 per day assumes that one watches television each and every day. I don't watch television every day and, in fact, several days could go by between the times I watch a show.

I could just do Redbox rentals. That's $1-$1.50 per rental, and assuming that's one rental per day, thats $30-$45.

I could elect to pay $14.95 to play World of Warcraft online. That's about 50 cents per day.

I could just go with the local television signal. Thats nothing per day.

I can also borrow books or videos from friends or coworkers. Thats nothing per day.

Point is, there are viable substitutes available. Pay television is a "nice to have", not an "essential need". I am about to go back to college to get some certifications to advance my career, and that is a higher priority than DirecTV.


----------



## Ira Lacher

GiantsFan383 said:


> I see DBS in a whole going down soon.


I disagree for one main reason: Satellite is not constrained by the physical attachments of provider to consumer. The lack of a cable needed to provide programming to customers will remain a huge cost advantage over a cable service, which has an infrastructure to maintain and improve to keep up with the latest developments in transmission technology, e.g. fiber-optics.


----------



## Ira Lacher

zimm7778 said:


> Since more and more became jealous of anyone making $1 more than them. See: oil companies who make like 6.2 % profit and rank 114th on industry profits. But, who gets vilified politically?


The only situation with that, Zimm, is that when a small business makes a 6.2 percent profit it's hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars. When an oil company makes 6.2 percent profit, it's billions of dollars.


----------



## zimm7778

"Ira Lacher" said:


> The only situation with that, Zimm, is that when a small business makes a 6.2 percent profit it's hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars. When an oil company makes 6.2 percent profit, it's billions of dollars.


So? Percentage is percentage. Of course those profits are going to be that much with that percentage because they are big enough to do it. But it also takes millions to invest back in the company to continue to make that profit and stay in business. I'm so sick of listening to people complain about oil companies and for that matter any corporation who didn't nearly cause the economic collapse in 2008. Most are run well, employ hundreds or thousands of people, and probably millions have stock or is part of a mutual fund in their retirement accounts. Hurting those corporations hurts those people who have an interest most of which are the middle class. Many with an agenda don't seem to realize this or rather just turn a blind eye to it. And again, their profit is all of 6.2%....114th in industry ranking.

Now, I draw the line at off shoring. Sending jobs overseas may temporarily help the bottom line but IMO it hurts us all in the long run which I wrote a paper for a class on.

Soap box over. Back to Directv-Viacom. At least for me.


----------



## seltech

Ugh, my daughter wanted to watch some Spongebob. I figured not a big deal we keep 10 recordings of that particular series. Only to find all 10 recordings are nothing but that DTV banner for 30 minutes each. I checked other viacom channels which I record series on, and sure enough, its been recording the DTV banner ad while the channels are down. :nono2:


----------



## rlj1010

seltech said:


> Ugh, my daughter wanted to watch some Spongebob. I figured not a big deal we keep 10 recordings of that particular series. Only to find all 10 recordings are nothing but that DTV banner for 30 minutes each. I checked other viacom channels which I record series on, and sure enough, its been recording the DTV banner ad while the channels are down. :nono2:


To make up for the SpongeBob SquarePants void, I went to Amazon and ordered SpongeBob: The First 100 Episodes DVD box set. 14 discs. and only $33. That should keep the kids busy!


----------



## seltech

rlj1010 said:


> To make up for the SpongeBob SquarePants void, I went to Amazon and ordered SpongeBob: The First 100 Episodes DVD box set. 14 discs. and only $33. That should keep the kids busy!


Oh! thanks for the heads up, will definitely order that!


----------



## mitchflorida

you can get the same programming on netflix, first month free

http://movies.netflix.com/movie/SpongeBob-SquarePants-Season-6-Vol.-1/70098192


----------



## Mark Holtz

mitchflorida said:


> you can get the same programming on netflix, first month free
> 
> http://movies.netflix.com/movie/SpongeBob-SquarePants-Season-6-Vol.-1/70098192


And people wonder why the cable companies are imposing data caps....


----------



## maartena

mitchflorida said:


> There's a new crisis in Bikini Bottom.
> 
> Ratings for Viacom-owned Nickelodeon and other cable channels are sinking fast in a blackout that has kept DirecTV's 20 million customers from watching episodes of "SpongeBob Squarepants," "Dora the Explorer" and other popular shows.
> 
> Viacom's networks, including MTV, BET and Comedy Central, have lost an estimated 2 million viewers in just the first week of the fee dispute with the nation's largest satellite-TV provider.
> 
> Kiddie cash cow Nickelodeon was already reeling from a troubling 20-percent ratings decline - possibly due to competition from Netflix - before the fight broke out with DirecTV.
> 
> Now, it looks like the denizens of Bikini Bottom are collateral damage. Nick's total viewers in primetime dropped 38.5 percent to 1.2 million in just the first week of the blackout, according to Nielsen .
> 
> "To me the headline difference at Nickelodeon is going to look huge," said analyst Todd Juenger of Bernstein Research.
> 
> Beyond Nickelodeon, other Viacom channels took a major hit. BET fell 23 percent in total viewers, Spike fell 28.9 percent and VH1 Classic was down 54.1 percent. Comedy Central fell just 1.1 percent, while MTV managed a 4.2 percent uptick.
> 
> "We anticipated an impact in the ratings," a Viacom spokesman said. "This is not what we want."
> 
> The cable spat is not only upsetting customers - it's roiling advertisers. Viacom could be on the hook for millions of dollars in so-called make-goods to compensate advertisers if the dispute isn't resolved soon. Marketers are already making calls about how Viacom will meet its ratings guarantees, sources told The Post.
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...#ixzz20xzZ5De


If I was DirecTV, I would put a realistic "take it or leave it" offer on the table today. One that is somewhere in the middle of their current differences, and the maximum that DirecTV is willing to pay and/or carry, and call it a day.

Put the ball in Viacom's court, and let them decide if they want to accept the offer, or pull the channels forever.

I will remain a DirecTV customer either way.


----------



## snappjay

Mark Holtz said:


> And people wonder why the cable companies are imposing data caps....


I do not have a problem with data caps... there's no free lunch, as they say.

What pisses me off is when their own in house half-assed netflix doesn't count against the data cap.


----------



## maartena

seltech said:


> Ugh, my daughter wanted to watch some Spongebob. I figured not a big deal we keep 10 recordings of that particular series. Only to find all 10 recordings are nothing but that DTV banner for 30 minutes each. I checked other viacom channels which I record series on, and sure enough, its been recording the DTV banner ad while the channels are down. :nono2:


Yeah... the thing about the 10 recordings.... I have several series with lots of repeats set like that, and it will start throwing away the oldest one and record a new one in its place to keep at a maximum of 10.

If Spongebob has been on at least 10 times last week, you will have a lot of DirecTV logos indeed.


----------



## snappjay

We've been stocking up on Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and Doc McStuffins... just in case Disney and DTV want to go round and round


----------



## BattleScott

ChicagoBlue said:


> All this chatter here about DTV earning a 10% profit, where is this coming from? When did this country change where it is now bad for an AMERICAN company with AMERICAN operations employing thousands of AMERICANS making only a 10% profit is now termed as GREEDY, SELFISH and somehow evil? I see this a lot amongst people nowadays and it is really sad to see. Those evil companies making profits are often paying for someone's pension, paying taxes, employing people that pay A LOT OF TAXES, etc, etc.
> 
> For those of you upset about a 10% profit, you guys must go bonkers over Microsoft, AT&T, Apple, IBM, P&G, etc. They make DTV's profits look like they are hosting a lemonade stand on the corner.


I'd like to know where the 10% figure is coming from?
DirecTV earns well above 10% and it has been trending up over the last several years.

You continually berate the customers here for "*****ing and whining" about our real increases every year, then you come on here and continually ***** and moan about the imaginary "margin squeeze" that DirecTV is suffering.


----------



## tulanejosh

maartena said:


> If I was DirecTV, I would put a realistic "take it or leave it" offer on the table today. One that is somewhere in the middle of their current differences, and the maximum that DirecTV is willing to pay and/or carry, and call it a day.
> 
> Put the ball in Viacom's court, and let them decide if they want to accept the offer, or pull the channels forever.
> 
> I will remain a DirecTV customer either way.


Forever is a big word. Nothing is forever. Except death. Unless you are hindi.


----------



## dxtrfn80

maartena said:


> Yeah... the thing about the 10 recordings.... I have several series with lots of repeats set like that, and it will start throwing away the oldest one and record a new one in its place to keep at a maximum of 10.
> 
> If Spongebob has been on at least 10 times last week, you will have a lot of DirecTV logos indeed.


SpongeBob airs *10 times in one day.*


----------



## maartena

BattleScott said:


> I'd like to know where the 10% figure is coming from?
> DirecTV earns well above 10% and it has been trending up over the last several years.


And they better. Seeing the business that they are in, a loose piece of space junk could really, really ruin their day. If they were to lose an entire satellite (eg. an important one such as D10/11 or 12) due to whatever reason, they do have options. They can lease space from a commercial satellite operator, such as Intelsat, and at least keep the company going without customers fleeing because they lost half their HD lineup or something. For a PREMIUM, STEEP price of course.

After that, they would have to accelerate the next planned satellite, if even possible as they will probably have to keep their launch window.

In any case, this kind of disaster scenario requires a LOT of money, so having a relatively good bank account is imperative to any company.

Compare it to your own income. If you have anything left at the end of the month, those are "profits" that you can either choose to spend anyways, or put into savings. When you lose your job or have a major issue in your left that costs money, those who opted to put it into savings will have a lot easier time surviving.


----------



## fleckrj

ciurca said:


> I can CONSISTENTLY get around 30 mbps down in peak locations in my area. Yes 1/2 mile away it drops to around 10/mbps but always fast in the right signal locations.


Which is why I said that penetration of high speed internet, especially in rural areas, is not going to replace DirecTV (or Dish) any time soon. I can get 4G on my Verison Droid Razr only on the second floor of my house. On the first floor and in the basement, I can only get 3G, yet I live in a metropolitan area that actually has excellent 4G coverage. It is just that 4G deteriorates very rapidly as one moves away from the tower or into a building.

Along the interstate highways I expect the 4G signal is good, but in rural areas, if you get very far from the highways, there is no signal.

Satellite delivery of TV and internet will be around for a long time.


----------



## Richard

GiantsFan383 said:


> I hate to say this but you guys are right,pay tv as a whole is getting way too expensive. Satellite is also getting expensive for only television,cable is expensive but if you get their triple play it's not that bad. In New Jersey, if you get satellite and get the triple play you only get crappy DSL. Satellite could be losing a big battle here even though it may not be their fault. I see DBS in a whole going down soon maybe I'm wrong but without Sunday ticket directv is over.


You people with multiple provider choices need to get over yourselves.

DBS (DirecTV/USSB/DISH) in general was originally meant to get cable like services to those who had no other way to get it. And in most cases, it is still the only way to get it.

DirecTV/DISH aren't going anywhere.


----------



## maartena

snappjay said:


> We've been stocking up on Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and Doc McStuffins... just in case Disney and DTV want to go round and round


I don't know exactly when, but I don't think the Disney contract is up till some time in 2013.


----------



## BattleScott

ChicagoBlue said:


> Is DTV giving you more in those 7 years? HD, 3D, more channels, better technology (MRV, connectivity, etc), more local channel markets, interactivity, etc, etc? I would argue DTV gave you a lot more in those 7 years than Viacom did for that 30%.
> 
> Plus, DTV has to deal with all these providers wanting massive increases, not just Viacom.
> 
> Let's compare apples to apples, shall we?


Actually, not really:

HD - $10 extra
MRV - $3 extra, plus purchase HW
Features - interactive increased leased fee $1 (20%)
More locals - OK but we both know that hey had no choice there.
Channels - counting those that I've lost to the "plus" and "HD extra" packages, I now have fewer than I did before, except for shopping and other pay to play channels.


----------



## Mark Holtz

dxtrfn80 said:


> SpongeBob airs *10 times in one day.*


Lets see here.... 9 AM-11 AM and 4 PM-6 PM..... yup, that's eight times.

Of course, since the show has been airing since May, 1999, we are talking about 186 episodes here....


----------



## BattleScott

maartena said:


> And they better. Seeing the business that they are in, a loose piece of space junk could really, really ruin their day. If they were to lose an entire satellite (eg. an important one such as D10/11 or 12) due to whatever reason, they do have options. They can lease space from a commercial satellite operator, such as Intelsat, and at least keep the company going without customers fleeing because they lost half their HD lineup or something. For a PREMIUM, STEEP price of course.
> 
> After that, they would have to accelerate the next planned satellite, if even possible as they will probably have to keep their launch window.
> 
> In any case, this kind of disaster scenario requires a LOT of money, so having a relatively good bank account is imperative to any company.
> 
> Compare it to your own income. If you have anything left at the end of the month, those are "profits" that you can either choose to spend anyways, or put into savings. When you lose your job or have a major issue in your left that costs money, those who opted to put it into savings will have a lot easier time surviving.


+1. no idea how it pertains to the context of my post, but +1...


----------



## gregftlaud

Yah i have a roku player and netflix streaming i think the first 5 seasons are free.


----------



## Mariah2014

Based on the responses in the Directv twitter feed it is starting to sound like we may be getting them back very soon and it may just be down to hours and not days tell they return.


----------



## Carl Spock

maartena said:
 

> If I was DirecTV, I would put a realistic "take it or leave it" offer on the table today. One that is somewhere in the middle of their current differences, and the maximum that DirecTV is willing to pay and/or carry, and call it a day.
> 
> Put the ball in Viacom's court, and let them decide if they want to accept the offer, or pull the channels forever.
> 
> I will remain a DirecTV customer either way.


There is a difference between negotiations and the game of chicken you want to play. The perfect end to a negotiation is when both sides to win. If you win only by making the other side lose, you've got a bad business partner. And after signing a new agreement, these two companies will be partners for years. Winning now at the expense of fighting over every issue that will come up over the life of the contract is totally a short term attitude.

DirecTV has to give Viacom a win at the end, just like Viacom has to let DirecTV win, too.

Plus it is way too early for a "take it or leave it" offer. It's been only a week since the channels were pulled off the air. There is still plenty of time for movement on both sides.


----------



## fleckrj

Carl Spock said:


> There is a difference between negotiations and the game of chicken you want to play. The perfect end of a negotiation is when both sides to win. If you win only by making the other side lose, you've got a bad business partner. And after signing a new agreement, these two companies will be partners for years. Winning now at the expense of fighting over every issue that will come up over the life of the contract is totally a short term attitude.
> 
> DirecTV has to give Viacom a win at the end, just like Viacom has to let DirecTV win, too.
> 
> Plus it is way too early for a "take it or leave it" offer. It's been only a week since the channels were pulled off the air. There is still plenty of time for movement on both sides.


Typos not withstanding, this is the best post in this thread so far!


----------



## Carl Spock

Thanks for the complement, fleckrj. 

Still looking for the typos, though.  

EDIT -- Found one!  And knowing me, I'm sure there are more. :grin:


----------



## David Ortiz

Carl Spock said:


> Thanks for the complement, fleckrj.
> 
> Still looking for the typos, though.


compliment


----------



## Carl Spock

:hurah:


----------



## renbutler

Ira Lacher said:


> The only situation with that, Zimm, is that when a small business makes a 6.2 percent profit it's hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars. When an oil company makes 6.2 percent profit, it's billions of dollars.


That doesn't make any sense. A small business has only a few people to spread those thousands of dollars among, and the oil industry has tens of thousands of people to spread those billions among.

So, who gets to decide how many dollars of profit are reasonable for DirecTV? You? The government?

And let's try to keep the answer on topic so that we don't keep straying dangerously close to politics...


----------



## maartena

Carl Spock said:


> There is a difference between negotiations and the game of chicken you want to play. The perfect end to a negotiation is when both sides to win. If you win only by making the other side lose, you've got a bad business partner. And after signing a new agreement, these two companies will be partners for years. Winning now at the expense of fighting over every issue that will come up over the life of the contract is totally a short term attitude.
> 
> DirecTV has to give Viacom a win at the end, just like Viacom has to let DirecTV win, too.
> 
> Plus it is way too early for a "take it or leave it" offer. It's been only a week since the channels were pulled off the air. There is still plenty of time for movement on both sides.


You are right. A bad relationship is never good.... for either party.

Although looking at the mud that has been slung at each-other through Twitter and Facebook and other means, the relationship seems quite sour at this particular moment in time.


----------



## tonyd79

David Ortiz said:


> compliment


You got me. I was looking for that word in his original post, not the follow up!


----------



## snowcat

I want to put in my 2 cents to support Cartoon Network. For those that like SpongeBob, try Adventure Time or Regular Show. MAD and Amazing World of Gumball are also really cool and funny. 

Cartoon Network is relevant again for kids (and adults) TV, and my kids and I watch it a lot more than Nick nowadays. The only thing I would miss on Nick is The Legend of Korra, which won't have any new episodes till 2013.


----------



## Carl Spock

David Ortiz said:


> compliment





tonyd79 said:


> You got me. I was looking for that word in his original post, not the follow up!


Don't worry, Tony. There are often a full complement of typos in my posts.


----------



## Mariah2014

http://www.facebook.com/directv
According to today's update, posted less than a hour ago, they are inching closer to a deal and would love to allow everyone to watch their favorite programs, but they still don't have a deal yet.


----------



## maartena

mshaw2715 said:


> http://www.facebook.com/directv
> According to today's update, posted less than a hour ago, they are inching closer to a deal and would love to allow everyone to watch their favorite programs, but they still don't have a deal yet.


In other words, nothing has changed since yesterday. Or Monday. Or last week actually.


----------



## Draconis

I just checked the DIRECTV promise website, they are reporting that Viacom is returning free online access for a number of their shows. Hopefully the end of this dispute is coming soon.


----------



## Mariah2014

Yep, that is what it sounds like. Oh well, I don't miss these channels but i feel for those who do.


maartena said:


> In other words, nothing has changed since yesterday. Or Monday. Or last week actually.


----------



## Mariah2014

They actually announced that yesterday after at least one of viacom's stars voiced out against what they were doing.


Draconis said:


> I just checked the DIRECTV promise website, they are reporting that Viacom is returning free online access for a number of their shows. Hopefully the end of this dispute is coming soon.


----------



## ehilbert1

So no matter if these channels come back or not we should expect our bills to increase come Feb right? I know its around $3 or $4 every year. Does that $3 or $4 always go toward programming?


----------



## chrisexv6

Draconis said:


> I just checked the DIRECTV promise website, they are reporting that Viacom is returning free online access for a number of their shows. Hopefully the end of this dispute is coming soon.


I wouldnt go that far. My guess is they did it because of the NON-DirecTV customers anger from losing access to online stuff because of Viacoms dispute with (only) DirecTV. And oh yeah Jon Stewart asked if they thought this was China 

Id be pretty ticked too if I was a non-DirecTV customer used to streaming online, then couldnt because of a fight with DirecTV.


----------



## Mariah2014

I would believe that would be the case, but if this goes on that long you might seem them change that plan based on the number people leaving because of the cost and lack of certain channels.


ehilbert1 said:


> So no matter if these channels come back or not we should expect our bills to increase come Feb right? I know its around $3 or $4 every year. Does that $3 or $4 always go toward programming?


----------



## DViper2399

Viacom's every reply on twitter today is to switch providers


----------



## Mariah2014

I noticed that, but they want this cycle to continue because then they can raise it and then raise it again and again. It never stops the cycle. Other companies are starting to back Directv because this cycle has to be stopped.


DViper2399 said:


> Viacom's every reply on twitter today is to switch providers


----------



## Mike Bertelson

OK, I just deleted a bunch of political posts...AGAIN!

If it happens again there will be thread bans; or worse. 

If you report a post DO NOT reply to it. When you do you become part of the problem your are reporting.

Mike


----------



## maartena

ehilbert1 said:


> So no matter if these channels come back or not we should expect our bills to increase come Feb right? I know its around $3 or $4 every year. Does that $3 or $4 always go toward programming?


There are other things besides programming that those increases go to.... Obviously besides Viacom there are dozens of other deals negotiated each year, mostly with local station owners, but also with smaller national entities that just own 1 or 2 channels.

But the cost of doing business doesn't stay the same either. Higher gas prices means a bigger gas bill for driving around all the installers. The leasing company that they lease their buildings from might have upped the lease price. There might be an increase in corporate taxes due to new laws or new regulations. And just like what happens when you get a contractor that quotes you $12k for a new roof, it may end up being $15k when its all said and done..... and that happens with businesses as well. The builders of D14 might come back and say.... unforeseen costs, its going to be $2million more.

There are so many factors to the cost of doing business. Dish was the ONLY company out of the carriers (besides maybe the small local cable companies I don't know about) that did not raise their prices this year, and they touted that for a while too. But then, they lost AMC and something tells me that when they announced their intention NOT to raise prices in January, that the decision to cut AMC was already made. So they essentially off-set the loss of a price raise with cutting a set of channels.

If the Viacom dispute stays a dispute, we might NOT see a price increase in February.... but you can bet that if that happens, you WILL see a heftier price increase the year after, especially if Viacom comes back on board.


----------



## renbutler

Mike Bertelson said:


> OK, I just deleted a bunch of political posts...AGAIN!
> 
> If it happens again there will be thread bans; or worse.
> 
> If you report a post DO NOT reply to it. When you do you become part of the problem your are reporting.
> 
> Mike


Looks like a couple of mine were included, and I apologize. I tried to steer the semi-political tangents back to the applicable DirecTV discussion. But I guess there's a fine line (sometimes) between what's political and what's not.


----------



## susanandmark

Draconis said:


> It's interesting when you see how many of the pay TV providers are backing DIRECTV on this one.
> 
> DirecTV Finds Some Unlikely Friends


Other TV service providers backing DirecTV is no more "proof" that DirecTV is correct, than other content providers backing Viacom is an indication that Viacom is "in the right."

Ever heard of the enemy of my enemy is my friend? That's what we have here. Of course other people that pay Viacom for channels want DirecTV to successfully negotiate for less. In some cases, because then their own rates will go down (per their own Viacom contract clauses), or in others simply because they know they too will be negotiating with Viacom in the future and prefer a lower standard to be set.

The same holds true if Disney comes out "in support" of Viacom's position. Doesn't make them more right, just makes them on the same side.


----------



## ATARI

Carl Spock said:


> There is still plenty of time for movement on both sides.


Like a bowel movement.


----------



## Carl Spock

:lol:

I've never thought of equating DirecTV and Viacom's being locked in a standoff with constipation but you do have a point, *ATARI*.


----------



## DViper2399

Looks like resolution is not coming soon,
This just posted by viacom:

No end in sight

http://blog.viacom.com/


----------



## lugnutathome

And ultimately its repercussions will flow down hill to us so good call.

Don "not missing any of em so Mongo no care either way" Bolton


----------



## cjrleimer

DViper2399 said:


> Looks like resolution is not coming soon,
> This just posted by viacom:
> 
> No end in sight
> 
> http://blog.viacom.com/


Its a he said, she said thing between the two. They will get it done by September 17th. Otherwise, this thread will be about 500 pages by then.:grin:


----------



## BattleScott

Carl Spock said:


> :lol:
> 
> I've never thought of equating DirecTV and Viacom's being locked in a standoff with constipation but you do have a point, *ATARI*.


It's the perfect anaolgy, they're both full of SH%&!!!!!


----------



## mrphil

_"July 18, 2012 @ 3:56 PM

by Viacom

In sharp contrast to DIRECTV's public spin, it's now clear that they have no intention of working with us to expedite a resolution and return our 26 networks to DIRECTV subscribers.
_"

26 Networks? Really


----------



## cjrleimer

mrphil said:


> _"July 18, 2012 @ 3:56 PM
> 
> by Viacom
> 
> In sharp contrast to DIRECTV's public spin, it's now clear that they have no intention of working with us to expedite a resolution and return our 26 networks to DIRECTV subscribers.
> _"
> 
> 26 Networks? Really


At this rate, I think they need to be locked in a room with this 



 playing over and over again


----------



## Taltizer

It seems like Viacom is trying to work out a deal in good faith here now and its Directv thats holding us all hostage now.Get a deal done and put this all behind us until the next dispute rears its ugly head.


----------



## darkpowrjd

DViper2399 said:


> Looks like resolution is not coming soon,
> This just posted by viacom:
> 
> No end in sight
> 
> http://blog.viacom.com/


Buuut....DTV is saying that they were getting closer to a deal.

So who is telling the truth here?

You know it's going to be a long road when they can't seem to get anything done but they can find time to talk trash about one another.

So, Viacom, how can you explain DTV telling us something different? Which one is it? Is it close to a deal? Was there a falling out?


----------



## cjrleimer

darkpowrjd said:


> Buuut....DTV is saying that they were getting closer to a deal.
> 
> So who is telling the truth here?
> 
> You know it's going to be a long road when they can't seem to get anything done but they can find time to talk trash about one another.
> 
> So, Viacom, how can you explain DTV telling us something different? Which one is it? Is it close to a deal? Was there a falling out?


I dont know, but at this rate I could give a you know what less. Once September comes around, I may just be leaving.


----------



## darkpowrjd

cjrleimer said:


> I dont know, but at this rate I could give a you know what less. Once September comes around, I may just be leaving.


DTV posted a Facebook message a few hours ago that contradicts what Viacom is saying:



> We continue to inch closer to a new agreement enabling us to once again provide the Viacom channels, but we'd prefer - like you - not to have to wait any longer. We've seen all of Viacom's radio, TV and print ads asking us to bring the channels back. We couldn't agree more and have been asking Viacom from day one not to suspend them in the first place. If you feel the same, please ask Viacom to give us the permission to put these channels back on while we continue to work on a new long-term agreement. But until that happens, we remain committed to keeping fans connected by whatever means necessary. We will continue to share updates about key series to watch via Hulu.com, TheDailyShow.com, ColbertNation.com and other complimentary viewing opportunities.
> 
> We've been encouraged by the show of support from our customers, especially parents, who say they also stand firm against an unnecessary 30% increase and that switching providers is not the solution. And when our top competitors like Time Warner Cable, Cox, MediaCom and the 850 mom-and-pop cable shops of the American Cable Association voice their support, we believe a change for the better is coming soon.
> 
> Our promise to you is to always provide the best experience at the most reasonable value. Keep track of the latest developments on our website - www.directvpromise.com


----------



## Taltizer

Maybe its true like Swanni reported today on his site Directv is saying this to mislead us the subscribers so they don loose anymore than they have already lost because of the dispute to other providers there giving us false hope to keep us holding on to Directv's service a little longer hoping a deals in sight.After all Directv has been known to do this before in past disputes to its subscribers.


----------



## Xsabresx

Wow Viacom's ratings fell off of a cliff this past week.

_Word is that negotiations are still moving slowly. And that could mean Viacom's in for a lot of pain based on Nielsen data from the first week in which its 17 channels were dark on DirecTV. The black out began on July 11, which means that Viacom networks didn't have DirecTV's 20M subscribers for five days in the week that ended July 15. During that week, there was a 27% drop in the total day live viewing for the target audiences of Viacom's networks compared with the same period last year, according to a compilation of ratings data by Barclays Capital. The previous week the networks collectively were -14%. Those with the steepest year-over-year drops were Nick at Nite (-48.1%), Nickelodeon (-45.0%), VH1 Classic (-35.3%), Nick Toons (-34.8%), and CMT (-32.0%). Viacom's more resilient channels were VH1 (-1.3%), Teen Nick (-2.5%), Comedy Central (-5.5%), BET (-13.0%), and TVLand (-18.1%)._

http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/viacom-ratings-nosedive-in-first-week-of-dispute-with-directv/


----------



## tonyd79

"Taltizer" said:


> It seems like Viacom is trying to work out a deal in good faith here now and its Directv thats holding us all hostage now.Get a deal done and put this all behind us until the next dispute rears its ugly head.


Where do you get that????


----------



## cjrleimer

Xsabresx said:


> Wow Viacom's ratings fell off of a cliff this past week.
> 
> _Word is that negotiations are still moving slowly. And that could mean Viacom's in for a lot of pain based on Nielsen data from the first week in which its 17 channels were dark on DirecTV. The black out began on July 11, which means that Viacom networks didn't have DirecTV's 20M subscribers for five days in the week that ended July 15. During that week, there was a 27% drop in the total day live viewing for the target audiences of Viacom's networks compared with the same period last year, according to a compilation of ratings data by Barclays Capital. The previous week the networks collectively were -14%. Those with the steepest year-over-year drops were Nick at Nite (-48.1%), Nickelodeon (-45.0%), VH1 Classic (-35.3%), Nick Toons (-34.8%), and CMT (-32.0%). Viacom's more resilient channels were VH1 (-1.3%), Teen Nick (-2.5%), Comedy Central (-5.5%), BET (-13.0%), and TVLand (-18.1%)._
> 
> http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/viacom-ratings-nosedive-in-first-week-of-dispute-with-directv/


Wow, but its not september so no urgency yet from viacom.


----------



## tulanejosh

Taltizer said:


> Maybe its true like Swanni reported today on his site Directv is saying this to mislead us the subscribers so they don loose anymore than they have already lost because of the dispute to other providers there giving us false hope to keep us holding on to Directv's service a little longer hoping a deals in sight.After all Directv has been known to do this before in past disputes to its subscribers.


All i can say is that D* is really lucky that they have ST, otherwise i would have probably left by now. I dont want to be recruited to their cause. i just want to watch tv.


----------



## tulanejosh

cjrleimer said:


> Wow, but its not september so no urgency yet from viacom.


what's with the september references? new tv season?


----------



## kosh56

mrphil said:


> _"July 18, 2012 @ 3:56 PM
> 
> by Viacom
> 
> In sharp contrast to DIRECTV's public spin, it's now clear that they have no intention of working with us to expedite a resolution and return our 26 networks to DIRECTV subscribers.
> _"
> 
> 26 Networks? Really


This really makes me distrust anything Viacom has to say. If they are lying about the number of channels, something that is easy to call them out on, what are they lying about that goes on behind closed doors?


----------



## mnassour

Taltizer said:


> Maybe its true like Swanni reported today on his site Directv is saying this to mislead us the subscribers so they don loose anymore than they have already lost because of the dispute to other providers there giving us false hope to keep us holding on to Directv's service a little longer hoping a deals in sight.After all Directv has been known to do this before in past disputes to its subscribers.


Well, if Swanni tells you it's day, you can bet it's the middle of the night. As for who is "lying", they both are. Direct has pretty much won the PR war, at least up to this point, so it has nothing to gain by raising what some might call false hope.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Folks, there have been some mildly off-color posts regarding (ahem) bodily functions. Please let's not go there.


----------



## tulanejosh

kosh56 said:


> This really makes me distrust anything Viacom has to say. If they are lying about the number of channels, something that is easy to call them out on, what are they lying about that goes on behind closed doors?


I think there's a difference between public posturing and closed door reality. The Miami Heat and the Boston Celtics HATE each other. Yet they hang out in the offseason.

In any case - Directv's post about inching closer... inch. As in progressing slowly. Viacom says they aren't interesting in resolving quickly. Those two aren't that out of sync.


----------



## Taltizer

tonyd79 said:


> Where do you get that????


Where do you get that they are not and Directv is?. Sorry I dont beat the drum for either one.Neither company is better than the other.Looking out for our wallet NO!Looking out for there own wallets.YES!.Big business is only out for there selves and be damned with us the customer.Sorry im no one of you Directv Fan Boyz.I see them both for what they are.Greedy but atleast Viacoms not coming out and saying a deal is almost done when it seems there isnt one close to being done like Directv is misleading its subscribers into believing.


----------



## tulanejosh

Taltizer said:


> Where do you get that they are not and Directv is?. Sorry I dont beat the drum for either one.Neither company is better than the other.Looking out for our wallet NO!Looking out for there own wallets.YES!.Big business is only out for there selves and be damned with us the customer.Sorry im no one of you Directv Fan Boyz.I see them both for what they are.Greedy but atleast Viacoms not coming out and saying a deal is almost done when it seems there isnt one close to being done like Directv is misleading its subscribers into believing.


Take everything everyone says with a grain of salt. Swanni is correct. D* does have motive to paint a rosier picture than otherwise might exist - so you won't leave. Viacom has motive to paint a more dire picture. This is still an active negotiation and they can gain leverage and incent D* to cave on unresolved points by inciting the d* customer base to leave D*.


----------



## tonyd79

"Taltizer" said:


> Where do you get that they are not and Directv is?. Sorry I dont beat the drum for either one.Neither company is better than the other.Looking out for our wallet NO!Looking out for there own wallets.YES!.Big business is only out for there selves and be damned with us the customer.Sorry im no one of you Directv Fan Boyz.I see them both for what they are.Greedy but atleast Viacoms not coming out and saying a deal is almost done when it seems there isnt one close to being done like Directv is misleading its subscribers into believing.


Again. Where is this coming from? There is nothing from anyone who says who is or is not bargaining in good faith.

But I do see actions. Viacom tore on line programming away from all its customers until their two biggest stars called them on it. They make commercials putting words in their stars mouths and make Dora cry.

Yup. Good faith.


----------



## tonyd79

"tulanejosh" said:


> Take everything everyone says with a grain of salt. Swanni is correct. D* does have motive to paint a rosier picture than otherwise might exist - so you won't leave. Viacom has motive to paint a more dire picture. This is still an active negotiation and they can gain leverage and incent D* to cave on unresolved points by inciting the d* customer base to leave D*.


There are two signs that are bad for a poster on Internet forums. One is comparing anyone to hitler or nazi Germany. The other is using the phrase "Swanni is correct."


----------



## zimm7778

"Taltizer" said:


> It seems like Viacom is trying to work out a deal in good faith here now and its Directv thats holding us all hostage now.Get a deal done and put this all behind us until the next dispute rears its ugly head.


I've been held hostage for having to pay for this crap I never watch and have all but 2 of the channels parental controlled out. I'm perfectly fine if I never see them again.


----------



## tulanejosh

tonyd79 said:


> There are two signs that are bad for a poster on Internet forums. One is comparing anyone to hitler or nazi Germany. The other is using the phrase "Swanni is correct."


everyone has to be right once in a while. Just the law of averages.

Also - media outlets are saying talks have broken down. Just saw it in the LA Times.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...t-ct-viadirectbroken-20120718,0,4060953.story


----------



## Taltizer

Well its all back up online for the world to watch so yea.Good Faith!. Dora's happy now.it's over Viacom restored it move on.Put a little pressure on Directv to work in good Faith to get a deal done and get past this greed and quit holding its subscribers hostage any longer just to fatten there wallets a little more.


----------



## cjrleimer

Taltizer said:


> Well its all back up online for the world to watch so yea.Good Faith!. Dora's happy now.it's over Viacom restored it move on.Put a little pressure on Directv to work in good Faith to get a deal done and get past this greed and quit holding its subscribers hostage any longer just to fatten there wallets a little more.


Yep, and degenerate America with their crappy tv e.g. mtv.


----------



## maartena

Interesting tweet from a Bloomberg reporter. (That I ironically found because Swanni retweeted it)


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/225706880650080256
"DirecTV response: We accepted Viacom's offer for the current channels, but Viacom wants more than $500M for EPIX, and that's not OK with us"

It would seem.... that EPIX is indeed the hold up.

And again, DirecTV is clearly in the right here. Viacom wants to FORCE Epix on DirecTV.


----------



## tonyd79

"Taltizer" said:


> Well its all back up online for the world to watch so yea.Good Faith!. Dora's happy now.it's over Viacom restored it move on.Put a little pressure on Directv to work in good Faith to get a deal done and get past this greed and quit holding its subscribers hostage any longer just to fatten there wallets a little more.


Being shamed into doing something by your own employees is not "good faith" but that thought may not fit every agenda.


----------



## thomas_d92

If Directv pays Viacom one more cent then in the old contract it is a lost for Directv. They should ask Viacom for less then before because the channels are nothing but reality junk. Do not cave Directv offer less then before.


----------



## danpeters

From twitter just a couple minutes ago:

DIRECTV‏: Viacom’s current statement on our negotiations is completely inaccurate #DIRECTVHasMyBack


----------



## tonyd79

"maartena" said:


> Interesting tweet from a Bloomberg reporter. (That I ironically found because Swanni retweeted it:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/225706880650080256
> "DirecTV response: We accepted Viacom's offer for the current channels, but Viacom wants more than $500M for EPIX, and that's not OK with us"
> 
> It would seem.... that EPIX is indeed the hold up.
> 
> And again, DirecTV is clearly in the right here. Viacom wants to FORCE Epix on DirecTV.


Like that Swanni proves himself wrong. 

Ahem. Seems I had a lot of this right.


----------



## danpeters

DirecTV just confirmed that Epix is the holdup:

http://www.directvpromise.com/latest-updates/#.UAcwiURt2b0


----------



## tonyd79

"thomas_d92" said:


> If Directv pays Viacom one more cent then in the old contract it is a lost for Directv. They should ask Viacom for less then before because the channels are nothing but reality junk. Do not cave Directv offer less then before.


Totally disagree. The contract is seven years old and is below market value even for a diminished product. Viacom deserves a raise but we now see that is not the real sticking point.

Wonder if anyone has thought of tying the contracts and escalators to ratings?


----------



## maartena

From DirecTV page:

_"Viacom's current statement on our negotiations is completely inaccurate. They made a proposal last night for our carriage of the 17 channels they pulled from DIRECTV and we accepted all material terms for those channels including an increase that was more than fair. We are ready to close this deal at anytime and restore those channels to our customers.

However, as part of that offer, Viacom insists that we carry the EPIX channel at an additional cost of more than half a billion dollars. We know our customers don't want to pay such an extreme price for an extra channel, they simply want the ones they had returned to them. We stand ready and willing to work with Viacom to get this done and, once again, ask Viacom to do the right thing and restore these channels to our customers immediately."_


----------



## tonyd79

Is Viacom going to turn this into a reality show? Cause it just got goooooood.


----------



## darkpowrjd

zimm7778 said:


> I've been held hostage for having to pay for this crap I never watch and have all but 2 of the channels parental controlled out. I'm perfectly fine if I never see them again.


Good lord, all but two? You have, what, a billion channels that could show you ten times worse that what could be shown on the Viacom channels (at least morally worse), and you're concerned that you have to "block out" those channels?

Do you keep them locked up in the house, too? It's a rough world out there, you know?


----------



## danpeters

tonyd79 said:


> Is Viacom going to turn this into a reality show? Cause it just got goooooood.


It's sad to say but I think I've had more fun over the past week following this whole debacle and all of the comments on the Facebook pages and the back and forth than I ever had actually watching a Viacom channel..


----------



## darkpowrjd

maartena said:


> From DirecTV page:
> 
> _"Viacom's current statement on our negotiations is completely inaccurate. They made a proposal last night for our carriage of the 17 channels they pulled from DIRECTV and we accepted all material terms for those channels including an increase that was more than fair. We are ready to close this deal at anytime and restore those channels to our customers.
> 
> However, as part of that offer, Viacom insists that we carry the EPIX channel at an additional cost of more than half a billion dollars. We know our customers don't want to pay such an extreme price for an extra channel, they simply want the ones they had returned to them. We stand ready and willing to work with Viacom to get this done and, once again, ask Viacom to do the right thing and restore these channels to our customers immediately."_


So this IS about the Epix channel! I KNEW there was something else that DTV wasn't wanting to add.

So they don't even want to try it out? And while we may not want to pay THAT much, we might want the channel if they can find a better price for it. Hopefully DTV considers adding it if Viacom lowers the price on that.


----------



## Taltizer

Let Mike White take a pay reduction and add Epix may be some pocket change for him and sign the deal and lets get on with life.I dont think Stewart shamed them into anything there were no new episodes to put online until after monday night when he made those comments on his show. So thats getting a little old.And MTV does have some really good shows like Teen Wolf,Awkward - TVLand has,The Soul Man,Retired at 35,The Exes,Happily Divorced,Hot in Cleveland.SpikeTV has TNA Impact Wrestling,Repo Games,Diamond Divers,And maybe some others im missing right now but just because some people dont care for them and wont miss them other may really like the programming and have paid there good hard earned money to see them.And now we have to wait for a pi**ing contest to end to get the damn things back.Its just STUPID!!.


----------



## tonyd79

"Taltizer" said:


> Let Mike White take a pay reduction and add Epix may be some pocket change for him and sign the deal and lets get on with life.I dont think Stewart shamed them into anything there were no new episodes to put online until after monday night when he made those comments on his show. So thats getting a little old.And MTV does have some really good shows like Teen Wolf,Awkward - TVLand has,The Soul Man,Retired at 35,The Exes,Happily Divorced,Hot in Cleveland.SpikeTV has TNA Impact Wrestling,Repo Games,Diamond Divers,And maybe some others im missing right now but just because some people dont care for them and wont miss them other may really like the programming and have paid there good hard earned money to see them.And now we have to wait for a pi**ing contest to end to get the damn things back.Its just STUPID!!.


Hahahahaha.


----------



## tonyd79

"darkpowrjd" said:


> So this IS about the Epix channel! I KNEW there was something else that DTV wasn't wanting to add.
> 
> So they don't even want to try it out? And while we may not want to pay THAT much, we might want the channel if they can find a better price for it. Hopefully DTV considers adding it if Viacom lowers the price on that.


Pretty sure directv would be taking Epix. Remember the comedian (forgot his name) who said it was coming. It is the hard line price. Viacom wants a flat fee and directv takes the risk on selling the channel. No other premiums work that way.


----------



## maartena

tonyd79 said:


> Totally disagree. The contract is seven years old and is below market value even for a diminished product. Viacom deserves a raise but we now see that is not the real sticking point.
> 
> Wonder if anyone has thought of tying the contracts and escalators to ratings?


A 10% raise would be more appropriate, based on value of the almighty dollar combined with the value of their programming.

But yeah.... trying to force EPIX on DirecTV is a disgusting tactic in my opinion.


----------



## danpeters

tonyd79 said:


> Pretty sure directv would be taking Epix. Remember the comedian (forgot his name) who said it was coming. It is the hard line price. Viacom wants a flat fee and directv takes the risk on selling the channel. No other premiums work that way.


Jim Norton


----------



## maartena

danpeters said:


> It's sad to say but I think I've had more fun over the past week following this whole debacle and all of the comments on the Facebook pages and the back and forth than I ever had actually watching a Viacom channel..


I am now going to blame YOU (as threadstarter) for EVERYTHING!


----------



## Carl Spock

darkpowrjd said:


> So this IS about the Epix channel! I KNEW there was something else that DTV wasn't wanting to add.
> 
> So they don't even want to try it out? And while we may not want to pay THAT much, we might want the channel if they can find a better price for it. Hopefully DTV considers adding it if Viacom lowers the price on that.


All we know is DirecTV doesn't want to spend a lot more money for the EPIX channel.

We don't know anything about whether they do or do not want to carry the EPIX channel.


----------



## tonyd79

"danpeters" said:


> Jim Norton


Thanks.


----------



## tulanejosh

well at least we got some honesty. It's about Epix. Honestly - i kinda want Epix. is it worth $500MM over 5 years? Not touching that, but if it could work out, I'd kinda like to have that channel. Kinda tend to think it should be subscription based like HBO.


----------



## mreposter

dxtrfn80 said:


> SpongeBob airs *10 times in one day.*


I wish there was an option to suspend a series recording rather than having to outright delete it and then recreate it later. It would make it easier at times like these or when you go out of town to simply put it on hold.


----------



## darkpowrjd

tonyd79 said:


> Pretty sure directv would be taking Epix. Remember the comedian (forgot his name) who said it was coming. It is the hard line price. Viacom wants a flat fee and directv takes the risk on selling the channel. No other premiums work that way.


Not sure how Epix would work (if it's a premium service or not), but my thing is that I'm hoping this is not the type of attitude that DTV had with G4, which it's not the price but rather what the channel IS! If DTV is looking at it like "we don't want to add this for any amount of money" and they're letting it be a complete block for everything else, then it'll be an extremely frustrating venture because they'll let one channel ruin things.

I'm with DTV about the extreme price hike, but as I've said before, DTV cannot be complete channel nazis and think we shouldn't have a say in whether or not a particular channel is worth our while.


----------



## maartena

Taltizer said:


> Let Mike White take a pay reduction and add Epix may be some pocket change for him


Mike White makes 5.6 million dollars a year.

(In contrast, the Viacom CEO made 43 Million last year, and 83 million the year before).

I don't think Mike White has the funds to cover the more than 500 million that Viacom wants. However, if Viacom would just pay their CEO about 5 million dollars also, they would recoup the 500 million in about 12 years. 

Not sure how long the contract is for, but if we are talking paycuts..... Viacom which has about HALF the revenue should not be paying its execs EIGHT TIMES as much. If paycutting needs to be done just to get this deal worked out..... lets start there.


----------



## cjrleimer

darkpowrjd said:


> Not sure how Epix would work (if it's a premium service or not), but my thing is that I'm hoping this is not the type of attitude that DTV had with G4, which it's not the price but rather what the channel IS! If DTV is looking at it like "we don't want to add this for any amount of money" and they're letting it be a complete block for everything else, then it'll be an extremely frustrating venture because they'll let one channel ruin things.
> 
> I'm with DTV about the extreme price hike, but as I've said before, DTV cannot be complete channel nazis and think we shouldn't have a say in whether or not a particular channel is worth our while.


+1 Tough and fair is fine with us, but tough and going too overboard isnt.


----------



## danpeters

maartena said:


> I am now going to blame YOU (as threadstarter) for EVERYTHING!


Hey, I'll take the blame!

Maybe DirecTV will let me negotiate with Viacom. I know how to make heads roll!

Dan


----------



## BattleScott

"kosh56" said:


> This really makes me distrust anything Viacom has to say. If they are lying about the number of channels, something that is easy to call them out on, what are they lying about that goes on behind closed doors?


They're not "lying", probably just counting their ppv and part - time rsns...


----------



## tonyd79

"maartena" said:


> Mike White makes 5.6 million dollars a year.
> 
> (In contrast, the Viacom CEO made 43 Million last year, and 83 million the year before).
> 
> I don't think Mike White has the funds to cover the more than 500 million that Viacom wants. However, if Viacom would just pay their CEO about 5 million dollars also, they would recoup the 500 million in about 12 years.
> 
> Not sure how long the contract is for, but if we are talking paycuts..... Viacom which has about HALF the revenue should not be paying its execs EIGHT TIMES as much. If paycutting needs to be done just to get this deal worked out..... lets start there.


Math is fun!


----------



## zimm7778

"Taltizer" said:


> Well its all back up online for the world to watch so yea.Good Faith!. Dora's happy now.it's over Viacom restored it move on.Put a little pressure on Directv to work in good Faith to get a deal done and get past this greed and quit holding its subscribers hostage any longer just to fatten there wallets a little more.


Actually it sounds to me like you are someone that had Directv said no progress was made and Viacom said there was youd still fault Directv. So yes, you do seem to be beating the drum for pro-Viacom.

Btw, this was just posted on Directv's Facebook page:

Viacom's current statement on our negotiations is completely inaccurate. They made a proposal last night for our carriage of the 17 channels they pulled from DIRECTV and we accepted all material terms for those channels including an increase that was more than fair. We are ready to close this deal at anytime and restore those channels to our customers.

However, as part of that offer, Viacom insists that we carry the EPIX channel at an additional cost of more than half a billion dollars. We know our customers don't want to pay such an extreme price for an extra channel, they simply want the ones they had returned to them. We stand ready and willing to work with Viacom to get this done and, once again, ask Viacom to do the right thing and restore these channels to our customers immediately. Thank you.


----------



## Whogaman

According to Directv's Facebook page, the only remaining sticking point is that Viacom wants D* to carry the EPIX channel. Here's the Statement:


> DirecTV
> 
> Viacom's current statement on our negotiations is completely inaccurate. They made a proposal last night for our carriage of the 17 channels they pulled from DIRECTV and we accepted all material terms for those channels including an increase that was more than fair. We are ready to close this deal at anytime and restore those channels to our customers.
> 
> However, as part of that offer, Viacom insists that we carry the EPIX channel at an additional cost of more than half a billion dollars. We know our customers don't want to pay such an extreme price for an extra channel, they simply want the ones they had returned to them. We stand ready and willing to work with Viacom to get this done and, once again, ask Viacom to do the right thing and restore these channels to our customers immediately. Thank you.


Comcast carries it on our local cable, but I have no idea what they have on it. Maybe that ala carte idea might be of some value.

Peace Whoga


----------



## lparsons21

tulanejosh said:


> well at least we got some honesty. It's about Epix. Honestly - i kinda want Epix. is it worth $500MM over 5 years? Not touching that, but if it could work out, I'd kinda like to have that channel. Kinda tend to think it should be subscription based like HBO.


It sounds as if Viacom would want it as just part of one of the packages, but that isn't how it is on any other provider that I know of.

Dish has it as an al a carte` package @$7/month, or part of the [email protected] package @$10. I think the cable companies have it as either a stand alone package or part of some add-on package.

And yeah, I'd like to see Epix come to D* also. Good movies not on other channels and some European boxing that the others don't carry suits me just fine. Especially the Lions Gate stuff!!


----------



## zimm7778

"darkpowrjd" said:


> Good lord, all but two? You have, what, a billion channels that could show you ten times worse that what could be shown on the Viacom channels (at least morally worse), and you're concerned that you have to "block out" those channels?
> 
> Do you keep them locked up in the house, too? It's a rough world out there, you know?


So let's see, you are the one who probably tells people who complain about what's on TV to turn it off if you don't want your kids seeing it. Then I'll bet when that nipple gate happened in the Superbowl when people had no chance to change it and complained, then it was "they've seen worse, get over it." Now in my case I have nearly all of their channels blocked along with a few others and you come with this disrespectful crap. How about you don't worry about what happens in my house and keep your opinions about it to yourself?! I don't tell you what to watch at yours! And no you condescending arrogant jerk, I have "choice" so I have far less than most people with Directv!


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Whogaman said:


> According to Directv's Facebook page, the only remaining sticking point is that Viacom wants D* to carry the EPIX channel. Here's the Statement:
> 
> Comcast carries it on our local cable, but I have no idea what they have on it. Maybe that ala carte idea might be of some value.
> 
> Peace Whoga


really comcast said no and they even got EPSN to not force the longhorn channel.


----------



## zimm7778

"Taltizer" said:


> Let Mike White take a pay reduction and add Epix may be some pocket change for him and sign the deal and lets get on with life.I dont think Stewart shamed them into anything there were no new episodes to put online until after monday night when he made those comments on his show. So thats getting a little old.And MTV does have some really good shows like Teen Wolf,Awkward - TVLand has,The Soul Man,Retired at 35,The Exes,Happily Divorced,Hot in Cleveland.SpikeTV has TNA Impact Wrestling,Repo Games,Diamond Divers,And maybe some others im missing right now but just because some people dont care for them and wont miss them other may really like the programming and have paid there good hard earned money to see them.And now we have to wait for a pi**ing contest to end to get the damn things back.Its just STUPID!!.


So again, interesting you want Directv to do whatever Viacom wants but yet you claim to bang the drum for no one.


----------



## Beerstalker

Actually 500million doesn't seem like all that bad of a price if the contract is for 5 years like everyone keeps saying. That would only be 42 cents a month if they gave the channel to everyone. Not bad compared to $16/month for HBO and $12/month for the others. Especially if we get all the Epix channels.

Now if it's 500million a year, then that's not nearly as good of a deal at $2.08 per subscriber per month if they give it to everybody, but still not horrible. If they kept it seperate and chargned $12/month for it like they do Cinemax, Shotwime, etc. they'd only need about 3.5million subscribers to cover the $500million, that's less that 18% of their subscribers.


----------



## tonyd79

"Beerstalker" said:


> Actually 500million doesn't seem like all that bad of a price if the contract is for 5 years like everyone keeps saying. That would only be 42 cents a month if they gave the channel to everyone. Not bad compared to $16/month for HBO and $12/month for the others. Especially if we get all the Epix channels.
> 
> Now if it's 500million a year, then that's not nearly as good of a deal at $2.08 per subscriber per month if they give it to everybody, but still not horrible. If they kept it seperate and chargned $12/month for it like they do Cinemax, Shotwime, etc. they'd only need about 3.5million subscribers to cover the $500million, that's less that 18% of their subscribers.


Not sure but fios charges $10 a month for Epix.


----------



## BattleScott

You have to notice that they didn't say "We agreed to pay Viacom what they asked for", they said "more than fair". I'm sure that is how they see it.

I imagine Viacom responded to the lower offer with "OK, we'll take you lower increase offer but in return, you have to carry EPIX".

Taking what either side says as "truth" is just plain silly.


----------



## zimm7778

"tonyd79" said:


> Not sure but fios charges $10 a month for Epix.


I don't remember for sure but doesn't it come in their top line package with Showtimes and Cinemax's?


----------



## tonyd79

"zimm7778" said:


> I don't remember for sure but doesn't it come in their top line package with Showtimes and Cinemax's?


I don't think it does but maybe. Can't remember either.


----------



## ehilbert1

maartena said:


> There are other things besides programming that those increases go to.... Obviously besides Viacom there are dozens of other deals negotiated each year, mostly with local station owners, but also with smaller national entities that just own 1 or 2 channels.
> 
> But the cost of doing business doesn't stay the same either. Higher gas prices means a bigger gas bill for driving around all the installers. The leasing company that they lease their buildings from might have upped the lease price. There might be an increase in corporate taxes due to new laws or new regulations. And just like what happens when you get a contractor that quotes you $12k for a new roof, it may end up being $15k when its all said and done..... and that happens with businesses as well. The builders of D14 might come back and say.... unforeseen costs, its going to be $2million more.
> 
> There are so many factors to the cost of doing business. Dish was the ONLY company out of the carriers (besides maybe the small local cable companies I don't know about) that did not raise their prices this year, and they touted that for a while too. But then, they lost AMC and something tells me that when they announced their intention NOT to raise prices in January, that the decision to cut AMC was already made. So they essentially off-set the loss of a price raise with cutting a set of channels.
> 
> If the Viacom dispute stays a dispute, we might NOT see a price increase in February.... but you can bet that if that happens, you WILL see a heftier price increase the year after, especially if Viacom comes back on board.


Thank for the great post! I sort of figure that if someone like Dish doesn't raise prices for a year they will double an increase later on. Who knows they may be lucky. I've been with Direct since 2006 and like clock work it's an extra $3 or so a year. It would be nice if they eased up every once in a while.


----------



## tonyd79

"BattleScott" said:


> You have to notice that they didn't say "We agreed to pay Viacom what they asked for", they said "more than fair". I'm sure that is how they see it.
> 
> I imagine Viacom responded to the lower offer with "OK, we'll take you lower increase offer but in return, you have to carry EPIX".
> 
> Taking what either side says as "truth" is just plain silly.


I think they actually accepted a Viacom offer (reduced) for the missing channels. But the important thing that it was viacoms offer. Then Viacom threw them a curveball (again..they threw them off with the original pull the channels order).

Viacom does not seem to be bargaining in good faith at all.


----------



## Carl Spock

tulanejosh said:


> well at least we got some honesty. It's about Epix.


If Viacom would agree with to the truthfulness of DirecTV's recent comments - and thats a big If - it's also pretty amazing that we are getting details as specific as these in the middle of the negotiations. That's almost unheard of.

It also makes me doubt the complete accuracy of both Viacom's and DirecTV's statements. I suspect more there is more spin here than light.

I frankly don't like the sign. Negotiations like these are best conducted in private so that neither side is locked into a position.

But then, this back and forth public whinning by both Viacom and DirecTV is completely in line with how this whole dispute has gone so far. It's been said upthread but it needs to be said again:

This is so high school! :nono2:


----------



## tonyd79

"Carl Spock" said:


> If Viacom would agree with to the truthfulness of DirecTV's recent comments - and thats a big If - it's also pretty amazing that we are getting details as specific as these in the middle of the negotiations. That's almost unheard of.
> 
> I frankly don't like the sign. Negotiations like these are best conducted in private so that neither side is locked into a position.
> 
> But then, this back and forth public whinning by both Viacom and DirecTV is completely in line with how this whole dispute has gone so far. It's been said upthread but it needs to be said again:
> 
> This is so high school! :nono2:


It could backfire but I think it was healthy that they called Viacom on the recent lies.

Viacom seems to react to some of those stuff. They put shows back on line after being called on it. Maybe this is what they understand?

But also, it is not "about Epix" except in how Epix is to be paid for and presented. They did have a disagreement on fees. The bulk has now been settled.


----------



## Carl Spock

Very possibly, Tony. Back Viacom into a corner. Make them have to settle. It's not a bad plan.


----------



## android.cphone

I still say lock viacom in a room and force them to watch the customer information channel for hundreds of
hours then they would give direct tv the channels just to put an end to the looping nonsense


----------



## tonyd79

"android.cphone" said:


> I still say lock viacom in a room and force them to watch the customer information channel for hundreds of
> hours then they would give direct tv tue channels just to put an end to the looping nonsense


Cruel AND unusual.

I like it!


----------



## BattleScott

tonyd79 said:


> I think they actually accepted a Viacom offer (reduced) for the missing channels. But the important thing that it was viacoms offer. Then Viacom threw them a curveball (again..they threw them off with the original pull the channels order).
> 
> Viacom does not seem to be bargaining in good faith at all.


I don't think that's completely accurate. Based on their own FB post, the EPIX was part of the proposal. They say that "accepted the proposal for those channels" but in the same breath, say that "however, part of the proposal was EPIX".

So I think they are really exagerating their "acceptance".


----------



## tonyd79

"Carl Spock" said:


> Very possibly, Tony. Back Viacom into a corner. Make them have to settle. It's not a bad plan.


Or it backfires. Don't think it will.

Viacom was stupid to say there was no progress. What does that get them when they were probably seconds away from a new contract?


----------



## cjrleimer

BattleScott said:


> I don't think that's completely accurate. Based on their own FB post, the EPIX was part of the proposal. They say that "accepted the proposal for those channels" but in the same breath, say that "however, part of the proposal was EPIX".
> 
> So I think they are really exxagerating their "acceptance".


Would anybody like to be a fly in the wall during this? Because I would, I mean its I said this while you said this. At this rate just play We built this city over and over again till this is done.


----------



## tonyd79

"BattleScott" said:


> I don't think that's completely accurate. Based on their own FB post, the EPIX was part of the proposal. They say that "accepted the proposal for those channels" but in the same breath, say that "however, part of the proposal was EPIX".
> 
> So I think they are really exagerating their "acceptance".


Whatever you say. No one around here knows anything more than what is on a Facebook post.


----------



## darkpowrjd

zimm7778 said:


> So let's see, you are the one who probably tells people who complain about what's on TV to turn it off if you don't want your kids seeing it. Then I'll bet when that nipple gate happened in the Superbowl when people had no chance to change it and complained, then it was "they've seen worse, get over it." Now in my case I have nearly all of their channels blocked along with a few others and you come with this disrespectful crap. How about you don't worry about what happens in my house and keep your opinions about it to yourself?! I don't tell you what to watch at yours! And no you condescending arrogant jerk, I have "choice" so I have far less than most people with Directv!


You mad?

I was saying that it sounds excessive when you have a nice bit of things to choose from. I was just a bit blunt about it (which I don't apologize for since it IS true that it is a ROUGH world out there full of a lot of crap...just look at DTV and Viacom acting the way they are about this and then tell me that TV isn't painting a fantasy world). You got all defensive about it and telling me to not concern myself with what happens in your house when you kind of brought it into the conversation by telling us you block a lot of Viacom channels (for moral reasons...why else would you code lock a channel for?). If you didn't want me or anyone else talking about what you don't and do block and didn't want us responding to that, then why the hell did you bring it up as part of this dialogue?

You even said that you would rather DTV not bring the channels back because them doing so would mean you'd have to block them again. That's telling me that you're citing that as the reason why you're siding with DTV about the Viacom dispute, which is kind of the subject of this thread. It doesn't make me the "condescending arrogant jerk" when I respond to someone who inserted the moral value of the channels under their roof as PART of the narrative. You brought it up. You didn't expect anyone to respond?

And more to the point, YES, if you're blocking THAT many channels (I could see you blocking MTV and maybe Spike or Comedy Central since it has a good bit of TV14 shows that kids shouldn't watch, I agree, but you admitted to having issues with a LOT more than that), and have THAT much of a problem with what airs on those channels, then not only are you doing a cardinal sin there (letting the TV be the babysitter), but you're probably also blocking a good bit of other non-Viacom channels. I'm sorry, but you made yourself out to be the overprotective one, there.

Again, I'm not saying you have no right. You do what you want. I'm saying that you shouldn't bring that into the conversation and then never expect someone to call you out on it if they see it excessive, especially if it has something to do with the subject we're talking about.

By the way, I never said a damn thing about Nipplegate. I think it's severely stupid that we're still going to that incident, which happened on LIVE F**KING TV which no one had any control over, as the focal point for everything that has ever happened on TV. The only grudge I have on that thing now is that we have to hear the PTC and their constant FCC spam fest every single time they feel frisky.


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> For me, that would be August 2009, which was when I bought my current car. The dealer gave me the keys and I drove it about a week before we came to terms that we both liked.


Any chance this was a "pre-owned" car where additional mileage wasn't going to significantly impact its value?


----------



## BattleScott

tonyd79 said:


> Whatever you say. No one around here knows anything more than what is on a Facebook post.


Very true. But the DirecTV post says that EPIX was part of the proposal, not a "curve ball" thrown in after they made an agreement.


----------



## Carl Spock

android.cphone said:


> I still say lock viacom in a room and force them to watch the customer information channel for hundreds of
> hours then they would give direct tv the channels just to put an end to the looping nonsense


My idea is to set up a conference call between Mike White, Sumner Redstone and a great CSR from Retention. Let her wrap up the deal. She could throw in free Sunday Ticket.


----------



## tonyd79

"BattleScott" said:


> Very true. But the DirecTV post says that EPIX was part of the proposal, not a "curve ball" thrown in after they made an agreement.


Maybe curveball was a little strong. But still a new sticking point. The crux was always the price.

Still is but mostly now on Epix.


----------



## android.cphone

Carl Spock said:


> My idea is to set up a conference call between Mike White, Sumner Redstone and a great CSR from Retention. Let her wrap up the deal. She could throw in free Sunday Ticket.


That would be a great idea but we do that after we force the customer info on them


----------



## Carl Spock

tonyd79 said:


> Viacom was stupid to say there was no progress. What does that get them when they were probably seconds away from a new contract?


This is the point where I stop believing either DirecTV's or Viacom's statement. The line that DirecTV wanted to settle last night but didn't reeks of spin. If they really, really, really wanted to settle, somehow the deal would have gotten done.

My guess is that DirecTV feels they have the upper hand right now and wants to see what more time gets them. It could be hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of the contract. I'd sit on my hands for that kind of money.


----------



## android.cphone

The whole truth in what is going on here is somewhere between what viacom and direct tv are saying


----------



## tonyd79

"Carl Spock" said:


> This is the point where I stop believing either DirecTV's or Viacom's statement. The line that DirecTV wanted to settle last night but didn't reeks of spin. If they really, really, really wanted to settle, somehow the deal would have gotten done.
> 
> My guess is that DirecTV feels they have the upper hand right now and wants to see what more time gets them. It could be hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of the contract. I'd sit on my hands for that kind of money.


What if I told you that directv thought they pretty much *had* settled?

I've seen it a few times in contracts in my work. Usually the company that causes the back off loses.


----------



## darkpowrjd

tonyd79 said:


> Maybe curveball was a little strong. But still a new sticking point. The crux was always the price.
> 
> Still is but mostly now on Epix.


Maybe Viacom's post was not for nothing after all.

Perhaps they lied intentionally to get DTV to admit the Epix part (we never heard DTV bring it up until Viacom said that the talks broke down completely). Perhaps that was Viacom's plan all along: to get DTV to admit that this is about Epix.

Now that the cat's out of the bag, too, how many people who didn't know about that channel before (some people didn't know the channel EXISTED) will at least want to know what the channel is, and how many of THOSE people will tell DTV that they might be willing to pay a bit extra for another channel that they might be interested in?

How many of those people would've NOT done that had they not known that Epix existed, let alone it be the big roadblock in everyone's way?

Yeah, can give the devil its due: that could've been a smart move on Viacom's part! Forced DTV to bring it up!


----------



## tonyd79

"android.cphone" said:


> The whole truth in what is going on here is somewhere between what viacom and direct tv are saying


Always is. But doesn't mean it isn't closer to one side of the gulf.


----------



## cjrleimer

http://blog.viacom.com/2012/07/no-deal-in-sight-viacom-compromise-proposals-fail-to-sway-directv/. The Viacom response was there was offers for Epix, without Epix, and incentives to carry Epix.


----------



## Carl Spock

android.cphone said:


> The whole truth in what is going on here is somewhere between what viacom and direct tv are saying


 Word


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> Any chance this was a "pre-owned" car where additional mileage wasn't going to significantly impact its value?


Nope, brand new. I think it had 8 miles on it when I first drove it off the lot. And now, 3 years later I've nearly drove the wheels off at something less than 12K on the odometer! 

Full disclosure. That was the 5th or 6th car I had bought from them, so my track record was definitely working for me.


----------



## smitmor

I didn't notice this mentioned in previous posts (but I may have overlooked it):

Did anyone catch this tweet from DirecTV a few hours ago:
"RT this: @tcm will be in HD on DIRECTV starting tomorrow AM!"


----------



## darkpowrjd

cjrleimer said:


> http://blog.viacom.com/2012/07/no-deal-in-sight-viacom-compromise-proposals-fail-to-sway-directv/. The Viacom response was there was offers for Epix, without Epix, and incentives to carry Epix.


All I get when clicking that is a 500 server error.

But if true, then this is where we got to have someone come clean and reveal all the facts, because this is getting ridiculous to see two grown men fight like kids and give conflicting stories on what's what and whining to the press every day.


----------



## cjrleimer

darkpowrjd said:


> All I get when clicking that is a 500 server error.


Im getting it without a problem.


----------



## onan38

I have question: Directv signs a contract for x amount of $ to carry lets say HBO channels x amount of years.Directv pays the money for the contract regardless of how many subs pay extra for those channels. Directv makes $ trying to get more subs to pay for HBO and pockets anything over the contract amount. Am i right or close?


----------



## zimm7778

"darkpowrjd" said:


> You mad?
> 
> I was saying that it sounds excessive when you have a nice bit of things to choose from. I was just a bit blunt about it (which I don't apologize for since it IS true that it is a ROUGH world out there full of a lot of crap...just look at DTV and Viacom acting the way they are about this and then tell me that TV isn't painting a fantasy world). You got all defensive about it and telling me to not concern myself with what happens in your house when you kind of brought it into the conversation by telling us you block a lot of Viacom channels (for moral reasons...why else would you code lock a channel for?). If you didn't want me or anyone else talking about what you don't and do block and didn't want us responding to that, then why the hell did you bring it up as part of this dialogue?
> 
> You even said that you would rather DTV not bring the channels back because them doing so would mean you'd have to block them again. That's telling me that you're citing that as the reason why you're siding with DTV about the Viacom dispute, which is kind of the subject of this thread. It doesn't make me the "condescending arrogant jerk" when I respond to someone who inserted the moral value of the channels under their roof as PART of the narrative. You brought it up. You didn't expect anyone to respond?
> 
> And more to the point, YES, if you're blocking THAT many channels (I could see you blocking MTV and maybe Spike or Comedy Central since it has a good bit of TV14 shows that kids shouldn't watch, I agree, but you admitted to having issues with a LOT more than that), and have THAT much of a problem with what airs on those channels, then not only are you doing a cardinal sin there (letting the TV be the babysitter), but you're probably also blocking a good bit of other non-Viacom channels. I'm sorry, but you made yourself out to be the overprotective one, there.
> 
> Again, I'm not saying you have no right. You do what you want. I'm saying that you shouldn't bring that into the conversation and then never expect someone to call you out on it if they see it excessive, especially if it has something to do with the subject we're talking about.
> 
> By the way, I never said a damn thing about Nipplegate. I think it's severely stupid that we're still going to that incident, which happened on LIVE F**KING TV which no one had any control over, as the focal point for everything that has ever happened on TV. The only grudge I have on that thing now is that we have to hear the PTC and their constant FCC spam fest every single time they feel frisky.


So good, now that we know you know nothing about me:

A.) it's not all moral value, I block all kids channels period because my sons attitude changes drastically when let watch them. Thus, we dont let him watch tv much. FYI, I have all the religion channels blocked too. So go figure that one out.
B.) I brought it up because the person I was responding to said Directv was holding us all hostage. I made a point to say no they weren't holding me anything and why.
C.) I don't care about it being a rough world. I know it is. But that still doesn't give you any right to act like the TV police of my house. It is my job to raise my child as I see fit. Not yours. If I had Fuse or if MTV played videos of current music that he would hear on the radio I wouldn't have them blocked. But I do not want the reality shows on for him to freely flip through channels and watch as he pleases if I or his mom happen to be another room doing something. Like in my case, earning my degree taking a class or working. 
D.) Do I think the complaints over that SB Halftime show were over the top? Yes. But did parents and all have a right to voice a complaint it happened without being dismissed as self righteous people sheltering their children from the "real world?" yes, they did. What I to this day don't get about that is why the FCC fined local affiliates for something broadcasted by the networks. What? They shouldn't air the Suoerbowl for fear something could happen? Yeah that'd go over real well.


----------



## Carl Spock

darkpowrjd said:


> All I get when clicking that is a 500 server error.


This was added to Viacom's statement from earlier today:



> *UPDATE IN RESPONSE TO DIRECTV'S STATEMENT ON EPIX:*
> 
> DIRECTV's most recent press release regarding EPIX is one more complete work of fiction from the company. We've offered DIRECTV various compromise proposals - proposals without EPIX, proposals with EPIX, and proposals with significant incentives to carry EPIX. DIRECTV did not accept all material terms for our channels, nor are we asking for a sum of $500 million for EPIX. Nothing in the press release reflects the reality of the negotiations, which, sadly, are at an impasse


----------



## harsh

ChicagoBlue said:


> When did this country change where it is now bad for an AMERICAN company with AMERICAN operations employing thousands of AMERICANS making only a 10% profit is now termed as GREEDY, SELFISH and somehow evil?


While DIRECTV is registered in the US (Delaware of all places), a goodly chunk of its revenues (and some of its employees) are homed in Central and South America. Their hardware products are subcontracted from European and Asian companies operating plants in Mexico and China. You're either in the World Economy or your no longer in business.

DIRECTV is kind of like casinos: they make much better than average money off of a startling number of people that don't know when to quit. I suspect that is what some are bitter about. Others are bitter about their arguable decline in customer service as well as things that aren't within their direct control (crappy content, increase repeats).

In the end, DIRECTV continues to raise their rates consistently at the same time that they are bemoaning the declining value of the content that they deliver.


----------



## darkpowrjd

cjrleimer said:


> Im getting it without a problem.


I was getting it earlier when trying to comment on the earlier post from them, so it might be something wrong on my end (there's a bad storm passing me right now, so it might be contributing to the issue, too).

But that usually means that there's a LOT of people on the server (known as "server stress"). You might've gotten through, but someone else might not.


----------



## studechip

tonyd79 said:


> There are two signs that are bad for a poster on Internet forums. One is comparing anyone to hitler or nazi Germany. The other is using the phrase "Swanni is correct."


Now that there is funny! :lol:


----------



## jautor

onan38 said:


> I have question: Directv signs a contract for x amount of $ to carry lets say HBO channels x amount of years.Directv pays the money for the contract regardless of how many subs pay extra for those channels. Directv makes $ trying to get more subs to pay for HBO and pockets anything over the contract amount. Am i right or close?


Probably safe to assume that most contracts are for $ per subscriber. The EPIX "flat fee" (as reported) is probably rare, or mis-stated (more likely the $500M quoted is a "20M subscribers * 12 months * 5 years" rolled up number)... If the contracts were flat fees generally, there wouldn't be all the channel "tiers".


----------



## zimm7778

"Carl Spock" said:


> This was added to Viacom's statement from earlier today:


Here's why I don't believe them. What purpose would Directv have to NOT work out a deal with them? It is in the company's best interest to get them back on with a fair deal. There's something in this they are not telling us. Whether its they'd move a significant number of their channels to a higher package if they'd carry EPIX. But not taking it they want all their stuff to remain where it was. It just really sounds like something is missing here.


----------



## tonyd79

"onan38" said:


> I have question: Directv signs a contract for x amount of $ to carry lets say HBO channels x amount of years.Directv pays the money for the contract regardless of how many subs pay extra for those channels. Directv makes $ trying to get more subs to pay for HBO and pockets anything over the contract amount. Am i right or close?


I believe that is wrong. Most if not all channels are paid for on a per subscriber basis (of that channel). That is why companies want their channels on this tier or that so they get more money because of more subs.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

> However, as part of that offer, Viacom insists that we carry the EPIX channel at an additional cost of more than half a billion dollars. *We know our customers don't want to pay such an extreme price for an extra channel, they simply want the ones they had returned to them.* We stand ready and willing to work with Viacom to get this done and, once again, ask Viacom to do the right thing and restore these channels to our customers immediately.


This part annoys me. How can they KNOW people won't want a channel that has never been offered. As someone else said, most people probably don't even know it exists or what it is.

They may well be right, but it's impossible for them to KNOW.


----------



## darkpowrjd

zimm7778 said:


> So good, now that we know you know nothing about me:
> 
> A.) it's not all moral value, I block all kids channels period because my sons attitude changes drastically when let watch them. Thus, we dont let him watch tv much. FYI, I have all the religion channels blocked too. So go figure that one out.
> B.) I brought it up because the person I was responding to said Directv was holding us all hostage. I made a point to say no they weren't holding me anything and why.
> C.) I don't care about it being a rough world. I know it is. But that still doesn't give you any right to act like the TV police of my house. It is my job to raise my child as I see fit. Not yours. If I had Fuse or if MTV played videos of current music that he would hear on the radio I wouldn't have them blocked. But I do not want the reality shows on for him to freely flip through channels and watch as he pleases if I or his mom happen to be another room doing something. Like in my case, earning my degree taking a class or working.
> D.) Do I think the complaints over that SB Halftime show were over the top? Yes. But did parents and all have a right to voice a complaint it happened without being dismissed as self righteous people sheltering their children from the "real world?" yes, they did. What I to this day don't get about that is why the FCC fined local affiliates for something broadcasted by the networks. What? They shouldn't air the Suoerbowl for fear something could happen? Yeah that'd go over real well.


A) I wonder why you even HAVE DirecTV, then, if you block that many channels. I would simply not watch them. Every time I watch Fox News, I look around for the closest knife (can't handle that many blatant lies reported as "news"), but it's not blocked at all. Maybe you're confusing blocking with not putting them on a favorites list. There are guide options that have it only list your favorite channels in the guide. The others aren't blocked (you can still watch them if you punch in the right channel number), but they just don't appear unless you tell DTV to list them.

B) And you could've made that point without saying that you blocked them? You could've just said that you didn't watch them. You made that addition there, so you brought the code blocking into this, assuming, like I said above, you're not confusing "blocking" with "not favoriting".

C) I say rough world because look what you have going on right now. Kids being exposed to news about homophobia/sexism/racism of the worst kind, people acting like idiots in town halls to their politicians *****ing about things they know nothing about, hospitality being a thing of the complete past, stuff like that. Hell, I've seen parents with kid hand in hand while spewing every single profanity they could dish out. Now, are you going to block news shows? Do you have Fox News and MSNBC blocked? I don't know. As I've said before, that's your right to do that if you want. However, don't think for a second that I, someone who have as much of a right as you do to respond to anything you, I, or anyone else posts on this site, won't respond to if it something is excessive. It doesn't mean I'm trying to parent your kid or anything LIKE that. It's my right to respond to something you post, and if you post something like that, especially if it has something to do with what we're talking about (which it did), then you should expect someone to possibly respond to the stuff you post, pro or con. Again, no reason to get all defensive about this. I'm not doing anything that you shouldn't have expected anyone to do. I just pointed out that your blocking that many things was excessive and you went on a long rant about how I somehow tried to parent your kid.

D) They've had six or so years to get over it already. The PTC STILL cites that incident as their sticking point, and the press STILL cites it as the FCC's reason to be all up in faces. Why is it that after six years, we're STILL not over that?


----------



## Laxguy

Oh, well, it's a try......



> Money for Nothing~~~ Dire Straits
> 
> <I want my MTV> Chorus and intro for 1:45
> 
> Now look at them yo-yo's that's the way you do it
> You play the guitar on the MTV
> That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
> Money for nothin' and chicks for free
> Now that ain't workin' that's the way you do it
> Lemme tell ya them guys ain't dumb
> Maybe get a blister on your little finger
> Maybe get a blister on your thumb
> 
> We gotta install microwave ovens
> Custom kitchen deliveries
> We gotta move these refrigerators
> We gotta move these color TV's


----------



## ndole

I like FNC, it's a valued Directv channel


----------



## BattleScott

"zimm7778" said:


> Here's why I don't believe them. What purpose would Directv have to NOT work out a deal with them? It is in the company's best interest to get them back on with a fair deal. There's something in this they are not telling us. Whether its they'd move a significant number of their channels to a higher package if they'd carry EPIX. But not taking it they want all their stuff to remain where it was. It just really sounds like something is missing here.


I'm wondering if Direct is maybe using this smaller fish to sharpen their claws for some looming "higher-demand" networks. They are probably gathering some pretty good data on how far they can go and which "talking-points" play well and which ones not so well in this new social media battleground.

Ever seen a video of a killer whale "practicing" on a seal?


----------



## Taltizer

Atleast Viacom's trying to make a deal and post updates wheres Directv at?. In hiding.


----------



## tonyd79

"Taltizer" said:


> Atleast Viacom's trying to make a deal and post updates wheres Directv at?. In hiding.


Hahahahaha.


----------



## darkpowrjd

ndole said:


> I like FNC, it's a valued Directv channel


I like MSNBC for the same reason. Agreed to disagree with political views here.



BattleScott said:


> I'm wondering if Direct is maybe using this smaller fish to sharpen their claws for some looming "higher-demand" networks. They are probably gathering some pretty good data on how far they can go and which "talking-points" play well and which ones not so well in this new social media battleground.
> 
> Ever seen a video of a killer whale "practicing" on a seal?


Not quite sure if it's a smart move for either side. Runs the risk of people getting tired of the back and forth and just not bother with either company. This is why they need to just shut up and get some deal done.


----------



## Laxguy

Taltizer said:


> Atleast Viacom's trying to make a deal and post updates wheres Directv at?. In hiding.


Aside from being inaccurate and unfair, I agree with you.:nono:


----------



## zimm7778

"darkpowrjd" said:


> A) I wonder why you even HAVE DirecTV, then, if you block that many channels. I would simply not watch them. Every time I watch Fox News, I look around for the closest knife (can't handle that many blatant lies reported as "news"), but it's not blocked at all. Maybe you're confusing blocking with not putting them on a favorites list. There are guide options that have it only list your favorite channels in the guide. The others aren't blocked (you can still watch them if you punch in the right channel number), but they just don't appear unless you tell DTV to list them.
> 
> B) And you could've made that point without saying that you blocked them? You could've just said that you didn't watch them. You made that addition there, so you brought the code blocking into this, assuming, like I said above, you're not confusing "blocking" with "not favoriting".
> 
> C) I say rough world because look what you have going on right now. Kids being exposed to news about homophobia/sexism/racism of the worst kind, people acting like idiots in town halls to their politicians *****ing about things they know nothing about, hospitality being a thing of the complete past, stuff like that. Hell, I've seen parents with kid hand in hand while spewing every single profanity they could dish out. Now, are you going to block news shows? Do you have Fox News and MSNBC blocked? I don't know. As I've said before, that's your right to do that if you want. However, don't think for a second that I, someone who have as much of a right as you do to respond to anything you, I, or anyone else posts on this site, won't respond to if it something is excessive. It doesn't mean I'm trying to parent your kid or anything LIKE that. It's my right to respond to something you post, and if you post something like that, especially if it has something to do with what we're talking about (which it did), then you should expect someone to possibly respond to the stuff you post, pro or con. Again, no reason to get all defensive about this. I'm not doing anything that you shouldn't have expected anyone to do. I just pointed out that your blocking that many things was excessive and you went on a long rant about how I somehow tried to parent your kid.
> 
> D) They've had six or so years to get over it already. The PTC STILL cites that incident as their sticking point, and the press STILL cites it as the FCC's reason to be all up in faces. Why is it that after six years, we're STILL not over that?


A.) sports, I sub to MLB, NHL, and NFL ST. The Internet versions aren't nearly as good plus the local teams are blacked out. Again, if you choose not to watch it and keep them unblocked that's fine. You don't see me here trying to show you up do you? Most people don't block them. I don't care. I do. Yes I'll get defensive because it's absolutely none of your concern. "So, you'd be happy paying the same amount without those channels" would have been a question to ask. That is relevant to this discussion. Not telling me what I do in my home is excessive when it has absolutely none of your business whatsoever.

B.) whatever, they are blocked by parental control. I know what it is. I am not someone who needs to have a judge declare me incapable of handling any new technology and make it illegal for me to do so like my wifes parents.

C.) I don't engage in news media bashing. Thats for the ideological blowhards to do. During the times MSNBC and FNC do news coverage, which is during the day when everyones at work I've seen by and large the same stories reported the same way (excluding all the obligatory party cheerleaders takes on the issues) as I do on CBS which is who I usually watch for news. I do not have FNC or MSNBC blocked. Although if I could block certain shows I'd block the prime time lineup of both. I am also not engaging in your social and political conversation. What you refer to as one thing may not be how I or many others do. It doesn't matter what you think is excessive. You don't pay my bill and no I shouldn't expect it. What I watch or don't watch in my house is my business, not yours.

D.) Isn't Brent Bozelle part of the PTC or was part of them? He's one of the ideologues I can't stand. He claims to report media bias then when he puts this info on his website he totally spins it to make everyone look liberal. I can watch the same story he does and see it as an honest question, to him it's veiled agenda.


----------



## s.g925

This EPIX battle PROVES thast DIRECTV does not give a dang about what the CUSTOMER WANTS.

You have out of touch executives telling us what channels we will get, they never send out electronic surveys and/or paper ones with ALL NATIONAL CHANNELS they do not carry and ask the CUSTOMER (WHO PAYS THEIR SALARY) WHAT CHANNELS WE WANT and then add some of them yearly.

I belive if you are A NATIONWIDE provider of video service you MUST CARRY EVERY AVAILABLE NATIONAL CABLE CHANNEL.


----------



## noahproblem

harsh said:


> While DIRECTV is registered in the US (Delaware of all places),


Delaware is actually one of (if not the) most popular states in which to incorporate (or , in D*'s case, to organize as an LLC) - a lot of corporations and LLCs incorporate and organize there.


----------



## ndole

What else besides cost would you expect them to bargain over? Jellybeans?


----------



## tonyd79

"s.g925" said:


> This EPIX battle PROVES thast DIRECTV does not give a dang about what the CUSTOMER WANTS.
> 
> You have out of touch executives telling us what channels we will get, they never send out electronic surveys and/or paper ones with ALL NATIONAL CHANNELS they do not carry and ask the CUSTOMER (WHO PAYS THEIR SALARY) WHAT CHANNELS WE WANT and then add some of them yearly.
> 
> I belive if you are A NATIONWIDE provider of video service you MUST CARRY EVERY AVAILABLE NATIONAL CABLE CHANNEL.


Friend, let me introduce you to C Band cause that is the only place you can get it all.

Now let the grown ups continue their chat.


----------



## Davenlr

ndole said:


> What else besides cost would you expect them to bargain over? Jellybeans?


Package (tier) placement, HD, Music channels not currently carried which actually play music... Just to name a few. I am sure DirecTv is resisting adding any more basic channels, and I am sure Viacom is pushing to have all their channels carried.


----------



## tonyd79

"Davenlr" said:


> Package (tier) placement, HD, Music channels not currently carried which actually play music... Just to name a few. I am sure DirecTv is resisting adding any more basic channels, and I am sure Viacom is pushing to have all their channels carried.


Maybe but nothing I've seen or heard actually says that. So far, I've only heard restoration of the existing channels plus Epix. My information may not be complete. So take it for what it is.

Of course, tier placement is money.


----------



## Carl Spock

Taltizer said:


> Atleast Viacom's trying to make a deal and post updates wheres Directv at?. In hiding.


Yeah, right... 



s.g925 said:


> This EPIX battle PROVES thast DIRECTV does not give a dang about what the CUSTOMER WANTS.
> 
> You have out of touch executives telling us what channels we will get, they never send out electronic surveys and/or paper ones with ALL NATIONAL CHANNELS they do not carry and ask the CUSTOMER (WHO PAYS THEIR SALARY) WHAT CHANNELS WE WANT and then add some of them yearly.
> 
> I belive if you are A NATIONWIDE provider of video service you MUST CARRY EVERY AVAILABLE NATIONAL CABLE CHANNEL.


Nice first post. Welcome to the forum. Do you always walk into a room shouting?


----------



## cjrleimer

s.g925 said:


> This EPIX battle PROVES thast DIRECTV does not give a dang about what the CUSTOMER WANTS.
> 
> You have out of touch executives telling us what channels we will get, they never send out electronic surveys and/or paper ones with ALL NATIONAL CHANNELS they do not carry and ask the CUSTOMER (WHO PAYS THEIR SALARY) WHAT CHANNELS WE WANT and then add some of them yearly.
> 
> I belive if you are A NATIONWIDE provider of video service you MUST CARRY EVERY AVAILABLE NATIONAL CABLE CHANNEL.


Calm down buddy. Remember when your stepping in someones house, you dont piss on their floor.


----------



## tulanejosh

"BattleScott" said:


> You have to notice that they didn't say "We agreed to pay Viacom what they asked for", they said "more than fair". I'm sure that is how they see it.
> 
> I imagine Viacom responded to the lower offer with "OK, we'll take you lower increase offer but in return, you have to carry EPIX".
> 
> Taking what either side says as "truth" is just plain silly.


Thy said they agreed to all material terms which included a more than fair increase. That's another way of saying - we agreed to oh them why they asked for for basic channels r in their revised proposal.


----------



## David MacLeod

spent 30 min on hold tonight, called to cancel, will try tomorrow.
damn sure isn't worth waiting on phone to do...same time not worth paying for d* when channels I want are not there.


----------



## tulanejosh

"tonyd79" said:


> It could backfire but I think it was healthy that they called Viacom on the recent lies.
> 
> Viacom seems to react to some of those stuff. They put shows back on line after being called on it. Maybe this is what they understand?
> 
> But also, it is not "about Epix" except in how Epix is to be paid for and presented. They did have a disagreement on fees. The bulk has now been settled.


I agree. They didn't say we won't buy epix. They said they don't want to pay 500mm for it. Last haggling point is epix fees.


----------



## tulanejosh

"BattleScott" said:


> I don't think that's completely accurate. Based on their own FB post, the EPIX was part of the proposal. They say that "accepted the proposal for those channels" but in the same breath, say that "however, part of the proposal was EPIX".
> 
> So I think they are really exagerating their "acceptance".


They didn't say they wouldn't carry epix either. They said they don't want to pay half a bil for it.


----------



## tonyd79

"David MacLeod" said:


> spent 30 min on hold tonight, called to cancel, will try tomorrow.
> damn sure isn't worth waiting on phone to do...same time not worth paying for d* when channels I want are not there.


Maybe you should hold on a day or two more unless you like portraying your avatar.


----------



## Carl Spock

Davenlr said:


> Package (tier) placement, HD, Music channels not currently carried which actually play music... Just to name a few. I am sure DirecTv is resisting adding any more basic channels, and I am sure Viacom is pushing to have all their channels carried.





tonyd79 said:


> Maybe but nothing I've seen or heard actually says that. So far, I've only heard restoration of the existing channels plus Epix. My information may not be complete. So take it for what it is.
> 
> Of course, tier placement is money.


I'd be shocked if the whole kielbasa wasn't on the table at some point in negotiations.


----------



## BattleScott

"tulanejosh" said:


> Thy said they agreed to all material terms which included a more than fair increase. That's another way of saying - we agreed to oh them why they asked for for basic channels r in their revised proposal.


They "agreed" to the part of the proposal that would restore the dropped channels. They did not agree to the part about EPIX, so they never actually agreed on anything.


----------



## David MacLeod

tonyd79 said:


> Maybe you should hold on a day or two more unless you like portraying your avatar.


been a week.
the only reason I got d* to begin with was for comedy central.
so I don't feel like like paying, however feel free to paypal me if you want me to continue paying for it.


----------



## tonyd79

"tulanejosh" said:


> They didn't say they wouldn't carry epix either. They said they don't want to pay half a bil for it.


I think Viacom is trying to get a flat fee no matter how many subs. Directv wants them to be a premium. Either is fine but then the money becomes the sticking point. Half a bil for a basic channel is a lot of cash. High fees that go into a separate bucket (a la HBO) is a different animal.

It sounds to me that neither company wants to gamble on the long term sales of Epix.


----------



## Carl Spock

David MacLeod said:


> spent 30 min on hold tonight, called to cancel, will try tomorrow.
> damn sure isn't worth waiting on phone to do...same time not worth paying for d* when channels I want are not there.


Suspend your account. You will stop paying for DirecTV.

Otherwise, wouldn't you feel foolish if you canceled tomorrow and they settled on Friday?


----------



## tonyd79

"David MacLeod" said:


> been a week.
> the only reason I got d* to begin with was for comedy central.
> so I don't feel like like paying, however feel free to paypal me if you want me to continue paying for it.


I'm just telling you that the end may be in sight. You can change providers all you want. That is your choice. But who says the one you go to doesn't get into a pissing match with Viacom next month while they are back with directv.

Or what Carl said while I was typing.


----------



## David MacLeod

Carl Spock said:


> Suspend your account. You will stop paying for DirecTV.
> 
> Otherwise, wouldn't you feel foolish if you canceled tomorrow and they settled on Friday?


been considering it long before this anyways.


----------



## tonyd79

"David MacLeod" said:


> been considering it long before this anyways.


Okay then. I wish you well.


----------



## dpeters11

"harsh" said:


> While DIRECTV is registered in the US (Delaware of all places), a goodly chunk of its revenues (and some of its employees) are homed in Central and South America.


Whats so unusual about incorporating in Delaware? I think it would be more unusual to not be.


----------



## David MacLeod

tonyd79 said:


> I'm just telling you that the end may be in sight. You can change providers all you want. That is your choice. But who says the one you go to doesn't get into a pissing match with Viacom next month while they are back with directv.


this is going to drag on at least another 7-10 days.
and if another provider does not meet my needs I dump them too.
I hold no loyalty to a company, I owe them nothing.

if I get through to them we'll see, I will be sending some equipment back no matter what.


----------



## zimm7778

s.g925 said:


> This EPIX battle PROVES thast DIRECTV does not give a dang about what the CUSTOMER WANTS.
> 
> You have out of touch executives telling us what channels we will get, they never send out electronic surveys and/or paper ones with ALL NATIONAL CHANNELS they do not carry and ask the CUSTOMER (WHO PAYS THEIR SALARY) WHAT CHANNELS WE WANT and then add some of them yearly.
> 
> I belive if you are A NATIONWIDE provider of video service you MUST CARRY EVERY AVAILABLE NATIONAL CABLE CHANNEL.


Thats wonderful you believe that. Go start your own service and do so and see how that works out for you. And your few customers based on the size of that initial bill will I'm sure love their yearly price hikes as well since you would, you know, carry every channel nationwide.

Actually while I do not know this for sure I would suspect Directv would add it if it's a premium service and there'd be no issue. Again, nothing concrete on that, just assuming they would do so.


----------



## darkpowrjd

zimm7778 said:


> A.) sports, I sub to MLB, NHL, and NFL ST. The Internet versions aren't nearly as good plus the local teams are blacked out. Again, if you choose not to watch it and keep them unblocked that's fine. You don't see me here trying to show you up do you? Most people don't block them. I don't care. I do. Yes I'll get defensive because it's absolutely none of your concern. "So, you'd be happy paying the same amount without those channels" would have been a question to ask. That is relevant to this discussion. Not telling me what I do in my home is excessive when it has absolutely none of your business whatsoever.
> 
> B.) whatever, they are blocked by parental control. I know what it is. I am not someone who needs to have a judge declare me incapable of handling any new technology and make it illegal for me to do so like my wifes parents.
> 
> C.) I don't engage in news media bashing. Thats for the ideological blowhards to do. During the times MSNBC and FNC do news coverage, which is during the day when everyones at work I've seen by and large the same stories reported the same way (excluding all the obligatory party cheerleaders takes on the issues) as I do on CBS which is who I usually watch for news. I do not have FNC or MSNBC blocked. Although if I could block certain shows I'd block the prime time lineup of both. I am also not engaging in your social and political conversation. What you refer to as one thing may not be how I or many others do. It doesn't matter what you think is excessive. You don't pay my bill and no I shouldn't expect it. What I watch or don't watch in my house is my business, not yours.
> 
> D.) Isn't Brent Bozelle part of the PTC or was part of them? He's one of the ideologues I can't stand. He claims to report media bias then when he puts this info on his website he totally spins it to make everyone look liberal. I can watch the same story he does and see it as an honest question, to him it's veiled agenda.


I'm not going to try to separate any of this because, in all of this, you're, again, assuming I said anything about how to parent your kid in the first damn place, which is not, I repeat, NOT, what I'm doing here. I'm saying that I thought it was a bit excessive, but I, again, STRESS THIS, that it is within your right to block whatever the hell you want. If you want to block the entire channel lineup for whatever reason you may have, then do so (I might laugh my ass off if you did that, but more power to you).

But don't come on here, post that you've DONE so, then don't expect anyone to come on here, SEE IT, and not respond to it regardless of what they had to say. I'm not sure what in this you're refusing to grasp, but this is a simple concept. I hope you're reading your own posts and realize how utterly ridiculous you sound accusing me of doing something I'm not doing. If I wanted to really tell you how to parent your kid, then I'd find out where you lived and come over there myself and change what you blocked and didn't. But I'm not. You turned "it's excessive" and "I'd find worse things in the rough world" to me putting a gun to your head telling you to change completely without the chance to defend your decisions. I'm a little lost of where you're connecting those two dots.

In other words, you're taking what I'm saying WAY too personally. If I insulted you in any way, then I apologize for the way it came out, but I'm not going to sit here and apologize for the opinion that I thought so many blocked channels are an excessive use of the option, and it's something that I myself would not do because I meant it. You can take it however you want, but bottom line is that I brought it up because you did. Nothing more.


----------



## dpeters11

"s.g925" said:


> This EPIX battle PROVES thast DIRECTV does not give a dang about what the CUSTOMER WANTS.
> 
> You have out of touch executives telling us what channels we will get, they never send out electronic surveys and/or paper ones with ALL NATIONAL CHANNELS they do not carry and ask the CUSTOMER (WHO PAYS THEIR SALARY) WHAT CHANNELS WE WANT and then add some of them yearly.
> 
> I belive if you are A NATIONWIDE provider of video service you MUST CARRY EVERY AVAILABLE NATIONAL CABLE CHANNEL.


Thy actually have done surveys. It's been brought up here, that our most wanted channel was BBC America, but that it wasn't the most requested on customer surveys. We are a skewed demographic.

A provider is under no obligation to carry everything. Even for a must carry local channel, there are enough exceptions and requirements that it isn't as required as it sounds.

If DirecTV were actually legally required to carry a channel, Viacom could give any price and DirecTV would have to pay it, and have Mike White get on Jon Stewart's desk singing "You're the Tops."


----------



## tulanejosh

"BattleScott" said:


> They "agreed" to the part of the proposal that would restore the dropped channels. They did not agree to the part about EPIX, so they never actually agreed on anything.


I understand what you are saying, we're arguing semantics. . I'm just saying it can also interpreted another way. That they aren't refusing epix just refusing it at $500mm.


----------



## s.g925

Carl Spock said:


> Yeah, right...
> 
> Nice first post. Welcome to the forum. Do you always walk into a room shouting?


Wrong their Genius, ALL CAPS on ALL words is shouting, ALL CAPS on specific words is emphasizing.


----------



## s.g925

cjrleimer said:


> Calm down buddy. Remember when your stepping in someones house, you dont piss on their floor.


1st off this is not DirectV forum and 2nd it is only fanboys forum and 3rd there are more CUSTOMERS than the few and exectutives Directv listens too, We pay for the service, therefore IT IS OUR HOUSE not DirecTV's


----------



## atlrep

I never heard of epix until a few weeks ago when someone called asking about it. That's 1 out of several thousand and it was only for a ufc fight. It's hard enough pushing premiums ppl have heard of. I don't forsee Viacom putting the marketing money neccesary out to result in sales and dtv isn't gonna pay for a channel Noone is asking for.


----------



## tulanejosh

"tonyd79" said:


> I think Viacom is trying to get a flat fee no matter how many subs. Directv wants them to be a premium. Either is fine but then the money becomes the sticking point. Half a bil for a basic channel is a lot of cash. High fees that go into a separate bucket (a la HBO) is a different animal.
> 
> It sounds to me that neither company wants to gamble on the long term sales of Epix.


That's how I'm seeing it too. But at $500m over 5 years. They need less than 600k subscribers @ 15.99/month. With a 20M install base I have to believe they can grab that. Hell they probably have 600k premier customers alone who would get it.


----------



## tulanejosh

"David MacLeod" said:


> this is going to drag on at least another 7-10 days.
> and if another provider does not meet my needs I dump them too.
> I hold no loyalty to a company, I owe them nothing.
> 
> if I get through to them we'll see, I will be sending some equipment back no matter what.


It think we are nearly there too. Small history lesson - Battle of New Orleans (the biggest battle of the war if 1812) was fought AFTER peace had already been agreed too.


----------



## wingrider01

noahproblem said:


> Delaware is actually one of (if not the) most popular states in which to incorporate (or , in D*'s case, to organize as an LLC) - a lot of corporations and LLCs incorporate and organize there.


It is also the most desired state to file chapter 11 in.....


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

dpeters11 said:


> Thy actually have done surveys. It's been brought up here, that our most wanted channel was BBC America, but that it wasn't the most requested on customer surveys. We are a skewed demographic.


I so wish there was a statement released that said "We know our customers don't want BBC America in HD." I'd be LOLing so hard as this site had a collective meltdown.


----------



## tonyd79

"tulanejosh" said:


> That's how I'm seeing it too. But at $500m over 5 years. They need less than 600k subscribers @ 15.99/month. With a 20M install base I have to believe they can grab that. Hell they probably have 600k premier customers alone who would get it.


But if they put it in premier (which includes everything but the big sports packages and the sort of free hd pack) they get nothing from it.

They probably don't want to be in a position to offer it as premium on top of premier.

Anyway, I don't think they believe in the channel or it would be on. It started out pretty bad but it really ha improved with movies like the Marvel heroes movies at its center. If it continues to improve, it could be a good investment. If it does not, maybe not.

But there is also digital rights for Epix. Epix has a huge library of movies available to stream. A lot of it is absolute dreck (non cult cult movies from the 60s and 50s) but it is rather extensive.


----------



## tonyd79

"Pepe Sylvia" said:


> I so wish there was a statement released that said "We know our customers don't want BBC America in HD." I'd be LOLing so hard as this site had a collective meltdown.


Don't they pretty much say that every month it is not on. I don't expect it soon. Hope I am wrong but...


----------



## Xsabresx

s.g925 said:


> Wrong their Genius, ALL CAPS on ALL words is shouting, ALL CAPS on specific words is emphasizing.


Irony?


----------



## tonyd79

"s.g925" said:


> 1st off this is not DirectV forum and 2nd it is only fanboys forum and 3rd there are more CUSTOMERS than the few and exectutives Directv listens too, We pay for the service, therefore IT IS OUR HOUSE not DirecTV's


Actually, it isn't yours or mine. We are guests here.


----------



## darkpowrjd

atlrep said:


> I never heard of epix until a few weeks ago when someone called asking about it. That's 1 out of several thousand and it was only for a ufc fight. It's hard enough pushing premiums ppl have heard of. I don't forsee Viacom putting the marketing money neccesary out to result in sales and dtv isn't gonna pay for a channel Noone is asking for.


No one asked for it because no one heard of the channel.

How can you ask for something when you don't know it's there? It's sort of like what Dish did with AMC to try to say that no one noticed that it moved before they dropped the channel. They DID noticed it, but because they weren't made aware of where it went to, they couldn't find it, and Dish knew that people will get tired of looking (or get all lazy) and not look for it at all. Then Dish has the final reason they need to drop the channel (and there is speculation that the situation between Dish and AMC is about Dish having an ax to grind about something personal).

Not completely the same, but until recently, for instance, I've never even HEARD of Epix, and I'm pretty curious myself. If I knew about it sooner, I could make a judgment one way or another. But since I didn't, and I'm just now hearing about the channel, I'm now wondering what it is, and what's stopping DTV from adding it if it's not just about the money. The latter is a question I think DTV should be obligated to answer for us, because according to Viacom, they have refused any way to get the Epix thing to work.

I'm thinking there's something ELSE about Epix that DTV doesn't like other than the price tag. If so, then shame on you, DTV, for making this another G4 thing.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

tonyd79 said:


> Don't they pretty much say that every month it is not on. I don't expect it soon. Hope I am wrong but...


Sort of. People are often suggesting it will be the next one added. If they actually came out and pretty much said that they would never add it, there would be a lot of "interesting" posts.


----------



## BattleScott

tulanejosh said:


> I understand what you are saying, we're arguing semantics. . I'm just saying it can also interpreted another way. That they aren't refusing epix just refusing it at $500mm.


Oh, sure, after all we're talking about a carefully worded PR post on facebook, not any kind of legal contract waiting for signatures.


----------



## dxtrfn80

I guess people will miss the new SpongeBob episodes on Saturday night. First new SpongeBob episodes since the blackout. Fred 3 Movie the following Saturday. (first full day of the Olympics and the Michael Phelps Show) 1 Big Time Rush episode missed and 2 more the next 2 Mondays. No iCarly's or Victorious' missed yet and none scheduled for the next few weeks. iCarly is ending in November.

At least Nick will repeat these shows over and over again.


----------



## Davenlr

atlrep said:


> It's hard enough pushing premiums ppl have heard of.


Exactly the reason I suspect Comcast is dropping several of the more specialized premiums in their channel realignment posted a page or so back.

The landscape is changing. More and more people are getting their movies from streaming and PPV, and get their "old" movies (not currently being streamed) from the free movie channels. Since you dont need the specialized premiums to get the "acclaimed" series' shown by each network, Comcast chose to drop them for more channels they can attract customers with.

Our system is already this way. Many basic channels DirecTv doesnt carry, and those movies...they are probably available on VOD.


----------



## tonyd79

"darkpowrjd" said:


> No one asked for it because no one heard of the channel.
> 
> How can you ask for something when you don't know it's there? It's sort of like what Dish did with AMC to try to say that no one noticed that it moved before they dropped the channel. They DID noticed it, but because they weren't made aware of where it went to, they couldn't find it, and Dish knew that people will get tired of looking (or get all lazy) and not look for it at all. Then Dish has the final reason they need to drop the channel (and there is speculation that the situation between Dish and AMC is about Dish having an ax to grind about something personal).
> 
> Not completely the same, but until recently, for instance, I've never even HEARD of Epix, and I'm pretty curious myself. If I knew about it sooner, I could make a judgment one way or another. But since I didn't, and I'm just now hearing about the channel, I'm now wondering what it is, and what's stopping DTV from adding it if it's not just about the money. The latter is a question I think DTV should be obligated to answer for us, because according to Viacom, they have refused any way to get the Epix thing to work.
> 
> I'm thinking there's something ELSE about Epix that DTV doesn't like other than the price tag. If so, then shame on you, DTV, for making this another G4 thing.


Not sure what you are reading but Epix is probably coming to directv. Viacom did not say directv refused it. They said they made three offers but left the details in the dust. The one without Epix probably had an outrageous increase, etc.


----------



## tonyd79

"Pepe Sylvia" said:


> Sort of. People are often suggesting it will be the next one added. If they actually came out and pretty much said that they would never add it, there would be a lot of "interesting" posts.


I will say it is probably not coming soon. My data may be out of date but it is/was true.


----------



## tonyd79

"Davenlr" said:


> Exactly the reason I suspect Comcast is dropping several of the more specialized premiums in their channel realignment posted a page or so back.
> 
> The landscape is changing. More and more people are getting their movies from streaming and PPV, and get their "old" movies (not currently being streamed) from the free movie channels. Since you dont need the specialized premiums to get the "acclaimed" series' shown by each network, Comcast chose to drop them for more channels they can attract customers with.
> 
> Our system is already this way. Many basic channels DirecTv doesnt carry, and those movies...they are probably available on VOD.


Somehow I doubt that all the movies that are on the 24 premiums comcast is dropping are on VOD.

I think it is a mistake personally. What does Comcast now have? Fewest premiums. Bad out of town sports. They are going to build their business on 1970s cable principles except in HD?


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

tonyd79 said:


> I will say it is probably not coming soon. My data may be out of date but it is/was true.


No, I'm talking about the "what's next" opinions people post in the anticipation threads, not anything official from any source.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

darkpowrjd said:


> No one asked for it because no one heard of the channel.
> 
> How can you ask for something when you don't know it's there? It's sort of like what Dish did with AMC to try to say that no one noticed that it moved before they dropped the channel. They DID noticed it, but because they weren't made aware of where it went to, they couldn't find it, and Dish knew that people will get tired of looking (or get all lazy) and not look for it at all. Then Dish has the final reason they need to drop the channel (and there is speculation that the situation between Dish and AMC is about Dish having an ax to grind about something personal).
> 
> Not completely the same, but until recently, for instance, I've never even HEARD of Epix, and I'm pretty curious myself. If I knew about it sooner, I could make a judgment one way or another. But since I didn't, and I'm just now hearing about the channel, I'm now wondering what it is, and what's stopping DTV from adding it if it's not just about the money. The latter is a question I think DTV should be obligated to answer for us, because according to Viacom, they have refused any way to get the Epix thing to work.
> 
> I'm thinking there's something ELSE about Epix that DTV doesn't like other than the price tag. If so, then shame on you, DTV, for making this another G4 thing.


maybe it's like EPIX as got to be in choice and there is no choice about it if you want Viacom.

also can be about HD slots they want MTV2 HD, Logo HD, TV Land HD, TeenNick HD, Centric HD, EPIX HD, EPIX 2 HD, EPIX 3 HD, EPIX Drive-In HD.

Also there are SD Dtv does not have like MTV Hits, MTV Jams, mtvU


----------



## JoeTheDragon

tonyd79 said:


> Somehow I doubt that all the movies that are on the 24 premiums comcast is dropping are on VOD.
> 
> I think it is a mistake personally. What does Comcast now have? Fewest premiums. Bad out of town sports. They are going to build their business on 1970s cable principles except in HD?


Showtime 2 as non movie stuff as well.

likely it's away to F* over cable card uses want HBO VOD rent our box at $8-$9 /mo.


----------



## cjrleimer

Per everybodys favorite whipping boy Swanni on twitter, Directv has removed the mention of Viacom on the on screen guide.


----------



## tulanejosh

"cjrleimer" said:


> Per everybodys favorite whipping boy Swanni on twitter, Directv has removed the mention of Viacom on the on screen guide.


They have. Mix channels sporadically work as well.


----------



## RunnerFL

Taltizer said:


> Atleast Viacom's trying to make a deal and post updates wheres Directv at?. In hiding.


They've been posting updates as well. The updates seem to coincide with each other. Tit for tat if you will.


----------



## chrisexv6

A quick read on Epix at Wikipedia and I have to wonder....it kinda seems like HDNet and their sister channels.

I wonder if thats a sticking point for DirecTV, since they have such long/strong ties with HDNet.


----------



## dxtrfn80

cjrleimer said:


> Per everybodys favorite whipping boy Swanni on twitter, Directv has removed the mention of Viacom on the on screen guide.


No more Viacom channels ever again.


----------



## android.cphone

I hope these channels come back soon. I dont have a computer and i am going blind watching shows on my phone...


----------



## RunnerFL

s.g925 said:


> Wrong their Genius, ALL CAPS on ALL words is shouting, ALL CAPS on specific words is emphasizing.


1. It's there, not their.

2. All caps is shouting even if it's just one word. Emphasis would be to use a bold font or italics.


----------



## Taltizer

cjrleimer said:


> Per everybodys favorite whipping boy Swanni on twitter, Directv has removed the mention of Viacom on the on screen guide.


Still talks about it in the guide on channel 567.Its still there about Viacom.


----------



## tulanejosh

"Taltizer" said:


> Still talks about it in the guide on channel 567.Its still there about Viacom.


Maybe they are attempting to stop the trashy behavior and take the high road.


----------



## tonyd79

"Pepe Sylvia" said:


> No, I'm talking about the "what's next" opinions people post in the anticipation threads, not anything official from any source.


I don't see it soon. (wink)


----------



## tonyd79

"cjrleimer" said:


> Per everybodys favorite whipping boy Swanni on twitter, Directv has removed the mention of Viacom on the on screen guide.


Not true. Incomplete work from swanni as usual. Probably read it in a forum somewhere. They have slowly downgrading the notices as it is not news anymore.


----------



## rlj1010

chrisexv6 said:


> I wonder if thats a sticking point for DirecTV, since they have such long/strong ties with HDNet.


I believe that HDNet has just recently been rebranded as AXS TV. Just FYI.


----------



## tonyd79

"chrisexv6" said:


> A quick read on Epix at Wikipedia and I have to wonder....it kinda seems like HDNet and their sister channels.
> 
> I wonder if thats a sticking point for DirecTV, since they have such long/strong ties with HDNet.


I don't see Epix as HDNET at all. More like HBO a few years ago. Movies, some boxing, just starting series.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

tulanejosh said:


> I understand what you are saying, we're arguing semantics. . I'm just saying it can also interpreted another way. That they aren't refusing epix just refusing it at $500mm.


That is exactly what this is from what I heard today. The channel(s) aren't worth $500 million, plain and simple.

A couple of points, for those saying this is just about Epix, that is crazy talk. These things are never about one thing. Epix is part.

I'll remind some of you, who here mentioned Epix and Viacom squabble coming up two Sundays ago before it even hit the press?  Yours truly. It wasn't until Monday of that week it hit the papers, but those of us in the industry have known about the Viacom deal for a long time.

Rate structure is ultimately what this was about along with Netflix \ digital consumption which is a pain point for everyone in the business on the distribution side. These programmers want to give their stuff away for nothing but want the distributors to pay for them to do it. A good article in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago about this very thing.


----------



## Mariah2014

This is not really new news. They removed most of that, if not all of that around 6am eastern this morning.


cjrleimer said:


> Per everybodys favorite whipping boy Swanni on twitter, Directv has removed the mention of Viacom on the on screen guide.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

Reuters article how people are for once starting to blame the content providers, not the distributors.

PAY TV Distributors no longer seen as the bad guys

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/18/directv-viacom-dispute-idINL2E8IIEFD20120718


----------



## ChicagoBlue

cjrleimer said:


> http://blog.viacom.com/2012/07/no-deal-in-sight-viacom-compromise-proposals-fail-to-sway-directv/. The Viacom response was there was offers for Epix, without Epix, and incentives to carry Epix.


That is what I am hearing, though DTV isn't denying that either. DTV agreed in principle to a rate (you can assume below that 30% number) to put the 17 channels (not 26 - Viacom BS there) back on the air. Viacom wants Epix included because very few majors carry Epix and they need the distribution.

Most likely Viacom wants a flat fee, like $100 million per year for a total of $500 million. The problem with those deals for distributors is the onus of the risk is entirely on them. A per subscriber model is much more preferable because then they only pay if people give a darn about the content. In a flat fee situation, DTV writes a check whether anyone buys it or not. That's not good business, though those deals do happen from time to time. I'd bet if Viacom got that number down to $25 million per year DTV would do it, but that is just a guess.


----------



## Tubaman-Z

As a REMINDER, if there is a USER who you find ANNOYING you can always add them to your IGNORE list via the USER CP.


----------



## onan38

The little ones are already forgetting viacom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/b...-viacoms-rivals-in-childrens-programming.html


----------



## ChicagoBlue

harsh said:


> While DIRECTV is registered in the US (Delaware of all places), a goodly chunk of its revenues (and some of its employees) are homed in Central and South America. Their hardware products are subcontracted from European and Asian companies operating plants in Mexico and China. You're either in the World Economy or your no longer in business.
> 
> DIRECTV is kind of like casinos: they make much better than average money off of a startling number of people that don't know when to quit. I suspect that is what some are bitter about. Others are bitter about their arguable decline in customer service as well as things that aren't within their direct control (crappy content, increase repeats).
> 
> In the end, DIRECTV continues to raise their rates consistently at the same time that they are bemoaning the declining value of the content that they deliver.


I don't disagree that they have business interests elsewhere, but they are still an American company that employs American people that pay American taxes. It used to be a good thing for American companies to make a profit, sadly many people now are anti American companies which is really sad.

DTV has to raise their rates to keep up with the increase cost of the programming, of course they are going to bemoan that because at the end of the day few are blaming Disney, Viacom, NFL, etc, they are blaming Comcast, Time Warner, Dish, etc. They have every right to bemoan, especially when these content providers then go and sell the very same content for nothing on Netflix or somewhere else. Eventually that is going to bite them very hard where enough people leave the pay tv guys but the content online generates almost no revenue and then everyone is screwed. No content, no money, no subscribers.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

tulanejosh said:


> everyone has to be right once in a while. Just the law of averages.
> 
> Also - media outlets are saying talks have broken down. Just saw it in the LA Times.
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...t-ct-viadirectbroken-20120718,0,4060953.story


A broken clock is more accurate than Swanni, and that is no exaggeration.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

onan38 said:


> I have question: Directv signs a contract for x amount of $ to carry lets say HBO channels x amount of years.Directv pays the money for the contract regardless of how many subs pay extra for those channels. Directv makes $ trying to get more subs to pay for HBO and pockets anything over the contract amount. Am i right or close?


DTV pays HBO based on the number of subs that sign up for HBO. The risk, therefore, is shared by HBO and DTV. So to answer your question, you aren't right or close. 

What Viacom is likely asking for is a big check for $500 million and then tells DTV to do whatever they want with the programming, but all the risk is on DTV to find a way to get the money back. DTV would be stupid to sign up for that, then again Viacom is the same outfit saying 17 = 26 so I wouldn't put anything past them.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

David MacLeod said:


> this is going to drag on at least another 7-10 days.
> and if another provider does not meet my needs I dump them too.
> I hold no loyalty to a company, I owe them nothing.
> 
> if I get through to them we'll see, I will be sending some equipment back no matter what.


I'll take a wager on that. 48 hours, tops. Tipping point today. Deal was basically done, Viacom went public with the Epix stuff, DTV called BS. Viacom is getting absolutely obliterated in the ratings right now. OBLITERATED and it is costing them dearly.

48 hours.


----------



## Mariah2014

Interesting article. Once people learn this is just endless game with these distributors, they will learn to stop changing companies just to get channels.


ChicagoBlue said:


> Reuters article how people are for once starting to blame the content providers, not the distributors.
> 
> PAY TV Distributors no longer seen as the bad guys
> 
> http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/18/directv-viacom-dispute-idINL2E8IIEFD20120718


----------



## ChicagoBlue

s.g925 said:


> This EPIX battle PROVES thast DIRECTV does not give a dang about what the CUSTOMER WANTS.
> 
> You have out of touch executives telling us what channels we will get, they never send out electronic surveys and/or paper ones with ALL NATIONAL CHANNELS they do not carry and ask the CUSTOMER (WHO PAYS THEIR SALARY) WHAT CHANNELS WE WANT and then add some of them yearly.
> 
> I belive if you are A NATIONWIDE provider of video service you MUST CARRY EVERY AVAILABLE NATIONAL CABLE CHANNEL.


You wouldn't stay in business very long. Don't you think there is a reason that NO NATIONAL PROVIDER HAS IT ALL? Cost my friend. Cost. If there was a true a la carte model, you would be right, but their isn't because the content providers don't want that.


----------



## cjrleimer

onan38 said:


> The little ones are already forgetting viacom.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/b...-viacoms-rivals-in-childrens-programming.html


Oh the joy of competition. Of course we have a bunch of media conglomorates in America.


----------



## Mariah2014

I suspect the offer they wanted to get was the one with the extra incentives in it they cheapened the price of what we have, but in return they needed to pay 500 million for Epix. I suspect every deal without that station had the current stations costing a lot more than that offer did.


ChicagoBlue said:


> That is what I am hearing, though DTV isn't denying that either. DTV agreed in principle to a rate (you can assume below that 30% number) to put the 17 channels (not 26 - Viacom BS there) back on the air. Viacom wants Epix included because very few majors carry Epix and they need the distribution.
> 
> Most likely Viacom wants a flat fee, like $100 million per year for a total of $500 million. The problem with those deals for distributors is the onus of the risk is entirely on them. A per subscriber model is much more preferable because then they only pay if people give a darn about the content. In a flat fee situation, DTV writes a check whether anyone buys it or not. That's not good business, though those deals do happen from time to time. I'd bet if Viacom got that number down to $25 million per year DTV would do it, but that is just a guess.


----------



## Mariah2014

I wish I was as optimistic as you are, but I think it will probably be next week at the earliest. I think, if Viacom is telling anything true, the talks probably did break down so to speak. I had seen one article in the last 24 hours state they went back to the drawing board. I think certain issues are keeping them far enough apart that Viacom isn't desperate enough to make a deal yet. If they were, it would have happened by now and not more arguing back and fourth about who is telling the truth.


ChicagoBlue said:


> I'll take a wager on that. 48 hours, tops. Tipping point today. Deal was basically done, Viacom went public with the Epix stuff, DTV called BS. Viacom is getting absolutely obliterated in the ratings right now. OBLITERATED and it is costing them dearly.
> 
> 48 hours.


----------



## Mariah2014

It sounds more like the setup that they have probably for NFL Sunday Ticket, which is why in the past it had cost those who purchased the package so much to get it.


ChicagoBlue said:


> DTV pays HBO based on the number of subs that sign up for HBO. The risk, therefore, is shared by HBO and DTV. So to answer your question, you aren't right or close.
> 
> What Viacom is likely asking for is a big check for $500 million and then tells DTV to do whatever they want with the programming, but all the risk is on DTV to find a way to get the money back. DTV would be stupid to sign up for that, then again Viacom is the same outfit saying 17 = 26 so I wouldn't put anything past them.


----------



## Mariah2014

I could live with that, but I think would kind of be fun to try out for a trial run to see what it was like.


dxtrfn80 said:


> No more Viacom channels ever again.


----------



## The_Geyser

I don't miss these channels at all!


----------



## darkpowrjd

ChicagoBlue said:


> I'll take a wager on that. 48 hours, tops. Tipping point today. Deal was basically done, Viacom went public with the Epix stuff, DTV called BS. Viacom is getting absolutely obliterated in the ratings right now. OBLITERATED and it is costing them dearly.
> 
> 48 hours.


I don't know. Viacom DID get DTV to admit that Epix was the issue (it was DTV that brought Epix up first, not Viacom), one way or another. Now everyone on the Facebook page is commenting about the channel itself as it relates to this ordeal. I think people are going to be willing to at least have a trial of the channel to see if it's actually worth it. I would agree that DTV should at least let us see the channel to and let us make up our own minds on it. It wouldn't be practical or fair for them to refuse to add it period without seeing it first. Not understanding how people are saying "we don't want it" without seeing what it is first or what they show on it. I'm hoping, again, that this doesn't become DTV saying "we don't care for the channel, so don't include it or we don't deal" like they did with G4.

Honestly, too, I'm beginning to think this might've not been the first time Viacom has tried to get Epix up there with no avail. If so, and this keeps going, I'm going to think that public opinion might go in Viacom's favor. Though the greedy bastard thing will stay, people could see DTV's stubbornness to add a channel even when people might be willing to let them come to a middle ground compromise about the price of it work against them. Remember that others might see that DTV is unwilling to compromise and is too hard nosed, and might not even bother to negotiate with them. DTV is in a tough boat, too, if this keeps going.

I wouldn't mind having Spike TV back so I can see how "improved" TNA is, myself. And I'm willing to try out Epix if they do add it. I don't want DTV to force us to either have the channel or to go without. Do the ala carte thing like the Sony Movie Channel package thing (don't know the name of it) where, if you want it, you can pay an extra, say, $5/month to have it, and if you don't want to, then you don't have to and can pay the same thing you do now. Viacom gets paid what they want, but then DTV can turn around and make a profit out of those that want Epix (assuming they can). Everyone wins.

But yeah, I think momentum switch to Viacom a bit because now the Epix thing is out in the open, enough for people to be curious about it.


----------



## tonyd79

"mshaw2715" said:


> I suspect the offer they wanted to get was the one with the extra incentives in it they cheapened the price of what we have, but in return they needed to pay 500 million for Epix. I suspect every deal without that station had the current stations costing a lot more than that offer did.


I am sure.


----------



## Mariah2014

As long as they are not losing a lot of subscribers, the momentum will be in Directv's hands. Advertisers and ratings on Viacom's channels are putting pressure on them to get it done faster than the dropping of Directv is by a few. 


darkpowrjd said:


> I don't know. Viacom DID get DTV to admit that Epix was the issue (it was DTV that brought Epix up first, not Viacom), one way or another. Now everyone on the Facebook page is commenting about the channel itself as it relates to this ordeal. I think people are going to be willing to at least have a trial of the channel to see if it's actually worth it. I would agree that DTV should at least let us see the channel to and let us make up our own minds on it. It wouldn't be practical or fair for them to refuse to add it period without seeing it first. Not understanding how people are saying "we don't want it" without seeing what it is first or what they show on it. I'm hoping, again, that this doesn't become DTV saying "we don't care for the channel, so don't include it or we don't deal" like they did with G4.
> 
> Honestly, too, I'm beginning to think this might've not been the first time Viacom has tried to get Epix up there with no avail. If so, and this keeps going, I'm going to think that public opinion might go in Viacom's favor. Though the greedy bastard thing will stay, people could see DTV's stubbornness to add a channel even when people might be willing to let them come to a middle ground compromise about the price of it work against them. Remember that others might see that DTV is unwilling to compromise and is too hard nosed, and might not even bother to negotiate with them. DTV is in a tough boat, too, if this keeps going.
> 
> I wouldn't mind having Spike TV back so I can see how "improved" TNA is, myself. And I'm willing to try out Epix if they do add it. I don't want DTV to force us to either have the channel or to go without. Do the ala carte thing like the Sony Movie Channel package thing (don't know the name of it) where, if you want it, you can pay an extra, say, $5/month to have it, and if you don't want to, then you don't have to and can pay the same thing you do now. Viacom gets paid what they want, but then DTV can turn around and make a profit out of those that want Epix (assuming they can). Everyone wins.
> 
> But yeah, I think momentum switch to Viacom a bit because now the Epix thing is out in the open, enough for people to be curious about it.


----------



## onan38

Epix schedule.

http://www.epixhd.com/channel/schedule/


----------



## darkpowrjd

mshaw2715 said:


> As long as they are not losing a lot of subscribers, the momentum will be in Directv's hands. Advertisers and ratings on Viacom's channels are putting pressure on them to get it done faster than the dropping of Directv is by a few.


I was only thinking about public opinion, and what they might want DTV to do (stand firm or give Viacom what they want to have).


----------



## Mariah2014

I think the only thing public opinion is doing is helping keep the topic important to both companies, where as versus kind of got left alone for awhile tell comcast and directv decided to deal again.


darkpowrjd said:


> I was only thinking about public opinion, and what they might want DTV to do (stand firm or give Viacom what they want to have).


----------



## darkpowrjd

onan38 said:


> Epix schedule.
> 
> http://www.epixhd.com/channel/schedule/


There's a few ones I'm interested in. I know of one of those movies, Super 8, that was filmed in a city right near where I live, and was one I was wanting to see. Noticed that they are airing a Lewis Black special, as well (I remember the name as he was a regular guest on Keith Olbermann's shows while KO was still employed).

Not TOO bad of showings. Might be a bit on the older side, but still...


----------



## Mariah2014

That is why it kind of reminds me of a Cinemax/ Encore type of channel because of the older content mixed with some newer content.


darkpowrjd said:


> There's a few ones I'm interested in. I know of one of those movies, Super 8, that was filmed in a city right near where I live, and was one I was wanting to see. Noticed that they are airing a Lewis Black special, as well (I remember the name as he was a regular guest on Keith Olbermann's shows while KO was still employed).
> 
> Not TOO bad of showings. Might be a bit on the older side, but still...


----------



## darkpowrjd

mshaw2715 said:


> I think the only thing public opinion is doing is helping keep the topic important to both companies, where as versus kind of got left alone for awhile tell comcast and directv decided to deal again.


It might be that way with G4, as well, especially now that Comcast is joined with NBC, and even moreso that NBC, which also broadcasts the Olympics, could have leverage to get something going to get G4 back on DirecTV (they could have something on G4 about it, or put some events on the channel like they do with USA or MSNBC, and Telemundo, to the point where DTV has no choice but to consider readding it).

In a way, I think if Viacom owned some TV stations, they would have a LOT more leverage, and DTV could have a much more sense of urgency because local TV would be affected (like if Viacom and CBS would still be joined, stations like KDKA would be gone from DTV, a MAJOR blow). Them not having that luxury hurts them.


----------



## Mariah2014

Very true, but for G4 to return they need new content besides the gamer material they have.


darkpowrjd said:


> It might be that way with G4, as well, especially now that Comcast is joined with NBC, and even moreso that NBC, which also broadcasts the Olympics, could have leverage to get something going to get G4 back on DirecTV (they could have something on G4 about it, or put some events on the channel like they do with USA or MSNBC, and Telemundo, to the point where DTV has no choice but to consider readding it).
> 
> In a way, I think if Viacom owned some TV stations, they would have a LOT more leverage, and DTV could have a much more sense of urgency because local TV would be affected (like if Viacom and CBS would still be joined, stations like KDKA would be gone from DTV, a MAJOR blow). Them not having that luxury hurts them.


----------



## darkpowrjd

mshaw2715 said:


> That is why it kind of reminds me of a Cinemax/ Encore type of channel because of the older content mixed with some newer content.


It wouldn't be something I'd spend my whole day tracking or watching, but I wouldn't mind having it. Has some good stuff on it. It does seem like what would happen if Starz and Encore combined (used those two because Starz and Encore are owned by the same people, I think). It does have some DAMN recent stuff that I didn't think premium channels would have yet.


----------



## Mariah2014

Your right. It does kind of seem like that, if you were to combine those two.


darkpowrjd said:


> It wouldn't be something I'd spend my whole day tracking or watching, but I wouldn't mind having it. Has some good stuff on it. It does seem like what would happen if Starz and Encore combined (used those two because Starz and Encore are owned by the same people, I think). It does have some DAMN recent stuff that I didn't think premium channels would have yet.


----------



## tulanejosh

"ChicagoBlue" said:


> A broken clock is more accurate than Swanni, and that is no exaggeration.


Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


----------



## darkpowrjd

mshaw2715 said:


> Very true, but for G4 to return they need new content besides the gamer material they have.


There IS one thing that I would love G4 for, and that is their E3 coverage. They've always done a pretty good job with it (and I had to watch the Sony press conference online this year because G4 wasn't on DTV and GameTrailers didn't show it on Spike for some odd reason this year). Granted, some of their corespondents are kind of biased for particular systems, but it's the only TV broadcast of E3 stuff past the pressers, and they've done it every year.

Oh yeah, now that I think of it, imagine if the Viacom/DTV thing became permanent. Gametrailers does a LOT of things on Spike, and if Spike is down because of this crap, where will that lead gamers for TV coverage? Sure, they can get that online, but it would be a very good thing to have that added amount of quality (seems to legitimize gaming by a ton), and online is not the same as having it on your TV in HD, especially if they show game footage (you want to see how it looks in full HD to see how it will really look on a system). Trust me: I've been a lifelong gamer, and it would mean a LOT to get some of this stuff back.


----------



## Mariah2014

The only way to get it back is to keep letting them know and get others to do as well. If comcast really wanted the channel on Directv, they would pay directv to carry it.


darkpowrjd said:


> There IS one thing that I would love G4 for, and that is their E3 coverage. They've always done a pretty good job with it (and I had to watch the Sony press conference online this year because G4 wasn't on DTV and GameTrailers didn't show it on Spike for some odd reason this year). Granted, some of their corespondents are kind of biased for particular systems, but it's the only TV broadcast of E3 stuff past the pressers, and they've done it every year.
> 
> Oh yeah, now that I think of it, imagine if the Viacom/DTV thing became permanent. Gametrailers does a LOT of things on Spike, and if Spike is down because of this crap, where will that lead gamers for TV coverage? Sure, they can get that online, but it would be a very good thing to have that added amount of quality (seems to legitimize gaming by a ton), and online is not the same as having it on your TV in HD, especially if they show game footage (you want to see how it looks in full HD to see how it will really look on a system). Trust me: I've been a lifelong gamer, and it would mean a LOT to get some of this stuff back.


----------



## falkor

If Directtv had a clue , they would walk away from ALL negotiations with Viacom and be quiet . Viacom would BEG to come back under Direct terms . Viacom loses here . Everyday . And it gets worse by the minute . Direct loses very little . Viacom is already hurting badly and it WILL get worse . I say leave Viacom alone and see how long those idiots can last .


----------



## Mariah2014

The only problem with that is it might increase the number of people switching providers because they think the stations are not coming back for a long time, if ever. At least this way they can say they are trying to make a deal, even if they onlly talk for 10 minutes a day.


falkor said:


> If Directtv had a clue , they would walk away from ALL negotiations with Viacom and be quiet . Viacom would BEG to come back under Direct terms . Viacom loses here . Everyday . And it gets worse by the minute . Direct loses very little . Viacom is already hurting badly and it WILL get worse . I say leave Viacom alone and see how long those idiots can last .


----------



## Jeffro

If you guys want Epix you should call or e-mail DirecTV about it now before any contract is signed. You might say how much a month you are willing to pay for it too.


----------



## PrinceLH

mshaw2715 said:


> The only problem with that is it might increase the number of people switching providers because they think the stations are not coming back for a long time, if ever. At least this way they can say they are trying to make a deal, even if they onlly talk for 10 minutes a day.


Directv is right about one thing; going to Dish and you lose AMC. I would rather have AMC alone, than any of the Viacom channels going. I'm sure cable and Dish are cheering on Directv, in this battle, If Directv wins, they win, in the long run. Let Viacom sink. Hell, offer them less than they were getting on their last contract. Send a message to other programmers, that we won't tolerate the blackmailing and bullying. From what I've seen, Directv is winning the communications war against Viacom.


----------



## Mariah2014

That is why I feel these companies need to stop poaching from each other in situations like this, so they can stop this cycle that helps companies like Viacom. I agree that AMC is better than the channels we lost.


PrinceLH said:


> Directv is right about one thing; going to Dish and you lose AMC. I would rather have AMC alone, than any of the Viacom channels going. I'm sure cable and Dish are cheering on Directv, in this battle, If Directv wins, they win, in the long run. Let Viacom sink. Hell, offer them less than they were getting on their last contract. Send a message to other programmers, that we won't tolerate the blackmailing and bullying. From what I've seen, Directv is winning the communications war against Viacom.


----------



## John in Cal

How do I complain and to who? Two weeks without the new Futurama? This sucks. Work it out, stop making the consumer suffer. You know when my unemployment runs out in September, I'm dropping DirecTV as part of my austerity program, and after this, I won't miss them at all.


----------



## PrinceLH

mshaw2715 said:


> That is why I feel these companies need to stop poaching from each other in situations like this, so they can stop this cycle that helps companies like Viacom. I agree that AMC is better than the channels we lost.


I see TCM is going HD later today! One more good movie channel to get some HD content. Maybe DTV will fill the Viacom void and really squeeze them good.


----------



## SanxDiegoxSand

my first post! woo

anyway i'd love to have Epix and i'm extremely satisfied with how relatively fast these negotiations are going. also love the addition of Disney Junior and TCM HD.

the way i see it, these things happen and you just have to wait it out. As long as the channels aren't down for months, i'm fine with it.

then again that's just me.


----------



## jerbear4

lol, some of the arguments here is how AMC is better then most Viacom channels. sounds like the old Sour grapes analogy.


----------



## Jungle Jim

jerbear4 said:


> lol, some of the arguments here is how AMC is better then most Viacom channels. sounds like the old Sour grapes analogy.


AMC has more great programming that all the Viacom channels combined, so I don't see how it's sour grapes. Pick any one of the three, in isolation, of Mad Men, Walking Dead, or Breaking Bad, and AMC is better.


----------



## DaveC27

Some interesting figures, Viacom are losing $14M a week as a result of the blackout. and that D*'s break-even point is a loss of 1.15million subscribers

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/analyst-directv-viacom-spat-could-351691


----------



## JMCecil

PrinceLH said:


> I see TCM is going HD later today! One more good movie channel to get some HD content.


You mean another HD channel with no HD on it.


----------



## lparsons21

Jungle Jim said:


> AMC has more great programming that all the Viacom channels combined, so I don't see how it's sour grapes. Pick any one of the three, in isolation, of Mad Men, Walking Dead, or Breaking Bad, and AMC is better.


While that would be true in my opinion, others may disagree.

But then Breaking Bad is in its last season and isn't Mad Men going to take another hiatus? Walking Dead is going to be around for awhile and unless AMC does some more budget cutting, will probably remain excellent.

But don't forget Hell on Wheels, superb western.

But the reality is that AMC has some great shows, they only represent a tiny portion of their programming. The rest of the time it is ad padded movies or just outright ad shows, that is where the bulk of their programming day is.


----------



## wingrider01

Jungle Jim said:


> AMC has more great programming that all the Viacom channels combined, so I don't see how it's sour grapes. Pick any one of the three, in isolation, of Mad Men, Walking Dead, or Breaking Bad, and AMC is better.


again it is a mater of prespective, viewing habits and age of the viewer - in our household AMC grabs about .000001 percent of viewin habits while some of the viacom stations have about 90 percent of the viewers watching it during their allocated time span


----------



## JoeTheDragon

DaveC27 said:


> Some interesting figures, Viacom are losing $14M a week as a result of the blackout. and that D*'s break-even point is a loss of 1.15million subscribers
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/analyst-directv-viacom-spat-could-351691


DirecTV wants to be able to offer smaller packages.

Go for it! it needs to be the theme packs in canada or at the very lest like the UK / EU, New Zealand and Australia. Where sports is in it's own pack. Even foxtel has theme packs and one of them is kids and music that has disney and Viacom channels in it.


----------



## Mariah2014

You have to be careful when doing that because it can leed to much higher prices like Comcast and other cable companies.


JoeTheDragon said:


> DirecTV wants to be able to offer smaller packages.
> 
> Go for it! it needs to be the theme packs in canada or at the very lest like the UK / EU, New Zealand and Australia. Where sports is in it's own pack. Even foxtel has theme packs and one of them is kids and music that has disney and Viacom channels in it.


----------



## Ken K

I don't post a lot here, am not a lawyer, did not sleep at HI Express last night, but I have been with DTV since 1994 and do somewhat support what they are doing for us.

It seems to me that the introduction of the Epix issue into these negotiations could possibly be considered a violation of Antitrust Laws. Part of the Antitrust Laws deal with the illegal act of 'Tying'. Maybe someone with a legal background could weigh in on this.

I can't post a URL because I don't have 5 posts here, but one could use the Google and search for *ANTITRUST + TYING* to learn more if interested.


----------



## captaink5217

If this continues too long, even though I just renewed my 2 yr commitment , I'll suspend the account for 6 months until tax return time and just pay the ETF with my tax return. My 9 yr old is really missing spongebob and she watches winx club too, she keeps saying how she wants cable back. In my area the poconos blue ridge cable is a really good service. DVR isn't as good but they have more channels in hd than d had.


----------



## Mariah2014

Sounds like they would carry EPIX in the same way they do other premiums or atleast in the same way they do the HD Extra pack.


DaveC27 said:


> Some interesting figures, Viacom are losing $14M a week as a result of the blackout. and that D*'s break-even point is a loss of 1.15million subscribers
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/analyst-directv-viacom-spat-could-351691


----------



## George_T

John in Cal said:


> How do I complain and to who? Two weeks without the new Futurama? This sucks. Work it out, stop making the consumer suffer. You know when my unemployment runs out in September, I'm dropping DirecTV as part of my austerity program, and after this, I won't miss them at all.


With all due respect, if I was unemployed, the last concern that I woud have would be going two weeks without Futurama.


----------



## Athlon646464

John in Cal said:


> How do I complain and to who? Two weeks without the new Futurama? This sucks. Work it out, stop making the consumer suffer. You know when my unemployment runs out in September, I'm dropping DirecTV as part of my austerity program, and after this, I won't miss them at all.


Viacom - They pulled the plug and they are the ones who want more money.


----------



## Mariah2014

I think both sides are to blame money wise to some extent, but I agree the blame mainly rests on Viacom trying to force extra channels at a premium price in a non premium to tier on everyone.


Athlon646464 said:


> Viacom - They pulled the plug and they are the ones who want more money.


----------



## Athlon646464

captaink5217 said:


> If this continues too long, even though I just renewed my 2 yr commitment , I'll suspend the account for 6 months until tax return time and just pay the ETF with my tax return. My 9 yr old is really missing spongebob and she watches winx club too, she keeps saying how she wants cable back. In my area the poconos blue ridge cable is a really good service. DVR isn't as good but they have more channels in hd than d had.


Be careful - no providers are immune to this sort of thing. Hearst pulled the plug on the ABC affiliate here in Boston (channel 5) last week for Time Warner subs as an example.

It would be cheaper for you to sign up for Netflix DVD's and/or streaming for the next month or two until this is resolved to get your Spongebob fix.


----------



## Mariah2014

I believe both Amazon and Netflix still have free trials, so it would buy you some time in case they can make a deal soon.


Athlon646464 said:


> Be careful - no providers are immune to this sort of thing. Hearst pulled the plug on the ABC affiliate here in Boston (channel 5) last week for Time Warner subs as an example.
> 
> It would be cheaper for you to sign up for Netflix DVD's and/or streaming for the next month or two until this is resolved to get your Spongebob fix.


----------



## Carl Spock

When questioned, people who have posted saying they'd drop DirecTV over this decision really has a broader issue. With *John in Cal*, it's because he's unemployed and was going to drop DirecTV in a couple of months in any case. When I suggested *David MacLeod* suspend his account rather than drop DirecTV, giving them time to come to a settlement, he responded that he'd "been considering it long before this anyways."

I've yet to see a poster say he's going to drop DirecTV that (1) I believe (these two guys I believe, so that's not an issue here), and (2) is changing content providers truly because of this dispute. Churn is a fact of life with a service provider and I can chalk up these two cases up to churn.


----------



## lparsons21

There will be some that cancel/switch, but I think the numbers will be pretty low and offset between Dish and Direct a bit.


----------



## Mariah2014

The only thing about that is this time they won't be replacing people as quick unless they didn't care about these stations in the first place. 


Carl Spock said:


> When questioned, people who have posted saying they'd drop DirecTV over this decision really has a broader issue. With *John in Cal*, it's because he's unemployed and was going to drop DirecTV in a couple of months in any case. When I suggested *David MacLeod* suspend his account rather than drop DirecTV, giving them time to come to a settlement, he responded that he'd "been considering it long before this anyways."
> 
> I've yet to see a poster say he's going to drop DirecTV that (1) I believe (these two guys I believe, so that's not an issue here), and (2) is changing content providers truly because of this dispute. Churn is a fact of life with a service provider and I can chalk up these two cases up to churn.


----------



## snowcat

lparsons21 said:


> There will be some that cancel/switch, but I think the numbers will be pretty low and offset between Dish and Direct a bit.


The question I am curious about is how has this affected signing up new customers to DirecTv?

I would think most of us current customers can live without these channels for a while, but I would be surprised if many people are signing up since this happened.


----------



## Carl Spock

Athlon646464 said:


> It would be cheaper for you to sign up for Netflix DVD's and/or streaming for the next month or two until this is resolved to get your Spongebob fix.


Alternative content providers will be the only winners here. I will get a Roku or an Apple TV if this continues past the Olympics.

As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, cable companies and Dish Network all have the same situation going on as DirecTV has with Viacom. Other servide providers have fought/are fighting/will be fighting with different content providers other than Viacom but the same situation will come up again for anybody who switches. Instead, folks who turn to ways to get their television that didn't exist half a dozen years ago could experience less of a chance of future interruptions.

To me, this would be DirecTV's biggest reason to settle soon. As Paul Simon once sang, "keep the customer satisfied". Letting him wander could really bite them in the corporate butt down the road.


----------



## Laxguy

JMCecil said:


> You mean another HD channel with no HD on it.


[Re: TCM]

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please elaborate?


----------



## Mariah2014

It is because most of the films on that channel, if not all were shot before they changed the aspect ratio to what it is today. As a result the films fill the screen in SD, but not HD.


Laxguy said:


> [Re: TCM]
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please elaborate?


----------



## Mariah2014

It has to be affecting them unless they are signing up people who are joining for the sports and not channels that are centered towards teens and children exept TVland that is aimed at an older audience. 


snowcat said:


> The question I am curious about is how has this affected signing up new customers to DirecTv?
> 
> I would think most of us current customers can live without these channels for a while, but I would be surprised if many people are signing up since this happened.


----------



## Laxguy

snowcat said:


> The question I am curious about is how has this affected signing up new customers to DirecTv?
> 
> I would think most of us current customers can live without these channels for a while, but I would be surprised if many people are signing up since this happened.


Kinda depends on whether they're AMC fans or not.... as well as possibly being in the majority who don't care for any of the Viacom offerings. But, yes, I am also sure there are some for whom that'd be an absolute barrier. Probably not many, but it'd take a sophisticated interviewing team to figure out how many.


----------



## Athlon646464

Carl Spock said:


> Alternative content providers will be the only winners here. I will get a Roku or an Apple TV if this continues past the Olympics.
> 
> As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, cable companies and Dish Network all have the same situation going on as DirecTV has with Viacom. Other servide providers have fought/are fighting/will be fighting with different content providers other than Viacom but the same situation will come up again for anybody who switches. Instead, folks who turn to ways to get their television that didn't exist half a dozen years ago could experience less of a chance of future interruptions.
> 
> To me, this would be DirecTV's biggest reason to settle soon. As Paul Simon once sang, "keep the customer satisfied". Letting him wander could really bite them in the corporate butt down the road.


I love my Roku!


----------



## Laxguy

mshaw2715 said:


> It is because most of the films on that channel, if not all were shot before they changed the aspect ratio to what it is today. As a result the films fill the screen in SD, but not HD.


Ah, thanks. But aspect ratio doesn't determine HD or not. [And, yes, there usually is a correlation!]

If they were shot on celluloid, they can be telecined into 1920 x 1080 or even higher. If they were true films, they were partially butchered cutting down to 4:3. If properly redone, not only do you get HD resolution, but a closer match to the original aspect ratio, often wider than our current 16:9.


----------



## Mariah2014

Interesting, I did not know that.


Laxguy said:


> Ah, thanks. But aspect ratio doesn't determine HD or not. [And, yes, there usually is a correlation!]
> 
> If they were shot on celluloid, they can be telecined into 1920 x 1080 or even higher. If they were true films, they were partially butchered cutting down to 4:3. If properly redone, not only do you get HD resolution, but a closer match to the original aspect ratio, often wider than our current 16:9.


----------



## tonyd79

mshaw2715 said:


> It is because most of the films on that channel, if not all were shot before they changed the aspect ratio to what it is today. As a result the films fill the screen in SD, but not HD.


Very much not true.

The earlier movies shown this morning were in OAR (4x3). Reports are that all movies on TCM HD are OAR except in rare cases where they cannot get the right source. They have issued apologies in those rare cases.

What he is referring to is that movies are uprezzed from SD to HD at TCM USA rather than using HD masters and downrezzing for the SD channel.

However, it is all in the quality. If the PQ is excellent, it does not matter if was SD uprezzed or not. The opposite happens on AMC. They take good HD material and make it look awful.


----------



## ApeRan

So, Viacom is showing full episodes of The Daily Show and Colbert Report online again...I'm glad I can get my fix but I did notice something. It seems as though they have increased the number of commercials that they show while viewing.

IIRC, it used to be 2-3 30 sec. commercials; now it seems like there are 4-5 ?

Just thought that it was interesting, especially after the info regarding the amount of revenue Viacom is losing.


----------



## Mariah2014

probably trying to make up for lost advertising revenue on tv due to a lack of viewers.


ApeRan said:


> So, Viacom is showing full episodes of The Daily Show and Colbert Report online again...I'm glad I can get my fix but I did notice something. It seems as though they have increased the number of commercials that they show while viewing.
> 
> IIRC, it used to be 2-3 30 sec. commercials; now it seems like there are 4-5 ?
> 
> Just thought that it was interesting, especially after the info regarding the amount of revenue Viacom is losing.


----------



## Mark Holtz

I am looking forward to watching widescreen movies on TCM that aren't windowboxed.


----------



## Carl Spock

captaink5217 said:


> . My 9 yr old is really missing spongebob and she watches winx club too, she keeps saying how she wants cable back.


Maybe I'm being harsh but how about using this as a teachable moment that nothing in life is permanent? At 9 she should be old enough to get that point.

I was about her age when I started using Leo Durocher's catch phrase, "nice guys finish last." I must have said it one too many times at home when my mother turned on me and spit out, "Who says you're a nice guy?"  Whoa! That rocked my world! Et tu, mama? But it made me grow up in a hurry. I also stopped saying, "nice guys finish last."


----------



## maartena

mshaw2715 said:


> It is because most of the films on that channel, if not all were shot before they changed the aspect ratio to what it is today. As a result the films fill the screen in SD, but not HD.


Aspect ratio has nothing to do with standard and/or high definition.

Up until the 90ies, most film was shot on 35mm film. If the original reels are still available, these can be used to make a high-definition version of any film.

Take this movie as an example:






A Bridge Too Far, 1977 - has been digitally remastered and can be seen in its entirety on Youtube. You can select up to 1080p quality.

The aspect ratio.... is different than 16:9, I grant you that. It is 1.37:1 instead, resulting in a wider screen, which in turn on a 16:9 screen would result in black bars at the bottom and top. For television broadcast, sometimes movies are cropped so they fit on the screen.

As far as TCMHD goes, they have many digital tapes with movies that aren't necessarily in HD, but are of better quality than SD broadcast on 480i. These tapes were often made in the 90ies, before actual High Definition was even an issue, on DVCPRO or BETACAM tapes. These tapes contain a version of the movie that was also derived from the original 35mm film, edited for broadcast, and is still in use today. The quality of the movie on the tape is significantly better than SD, and when these tapes are used to broadcast movies - and many stations that broadcast pre-90ies movies probably use these kind of tapes from their library - via a HD medium, you will see a significant improvement of quality.

In the industry, to be considered "high definition", it has to have a better resolution than 480i. It doesn't have to be wide screen or conform to any sort of aspect ratio. As a matter of fact, in the late 90ies and early 2000s, quite a few TV's were sold - especially the rear-projection kind - that could accept and show 720p HD through component cables, but had a 4:3 screen resolution. Most people just used them as SD TV's. Often, these could also use 4:3 resolutions like 800x600 and 1024x768 to display video, and purely from a technical/theoretical standpoint, those resolutions ARE "high definition", they just aren't one of the currently defined 720/1080 standards.

In any case: TCM HD looks pretty darn good!


----------



## Mike Bertelson

This is not a OAR discussion or a TCM discussion. Back to topic please.

:backtotop

Mike


----------



## maartena

ApeRan said:


> So, Viacom is showing full episodes of The Daily Show and Colbert Report online again...I'm glad I can get my fix but I did notice something. It seems as though they have increased the number of commercials that they show while viewing.
> 
> IIRC, it used to be 2-3 30 sec. commercials; now it seems like there are 4-5 ?
> 
> Just thought that it was interesting, especially after the info regarding the amount of revenue Viacom is losing.


From what I have been reading in articles, Viacom has been fielding a lot of calls from angry advertisers, and they might have appeased some of them by putting their commercials in the online version of the show the advertiser paid to be shown with.


----------



## danpeters

DIRECTV‏: As we have done every day since this began, we'll are back negotiating with Viacom tomorrow to get closer to a final deal

I hope the person that writes these tweets isn't the one doing the negotiating..

(And does that mean they are taking the day off today?)


----------



## Carl Spock

A day off at this point is good. Time to reflect.

If they don't get this done before the Olympics, then it won't get done until September. The Olympics will dominate viewing, especially with the favorable time change from Britain. Plus it will be August and TV viewing always goes down in August. I just don't see any major pressing for an agreement in August.


----------



## Athlon646464

Carl Spock said:


> I just don't see any major pressing for an agreement in August.


Aren't you forgetting the 5 & 9 year olds here who miss the Sponge? :grin:


----------



## Paul Secic

darkpowrjd said:


> I don't know. Viacom DID get DTV to admit that Epix was the issue (it was DTV that brought Epix up first, not Viacom), one way or another. Now everyone on the Facebook page is commenting about the channel itself as it relates to this ordeal. I think people are going to be willing to at least have a trial of the channel to see if it's actually worth it. I would agree that DTV should at least let us see the channel to and let us make up our own minds on it. It wouldn't be practical or fair for them to refuse to add it period without seeing it first. Not understanding how people are saying "we don't want it" without seeing what it is first or what they show on it. I'm hoping, again, that this doesn't become DTV saying "we don't care for the channel, so don't include it or we don't deal" like they did with G4.
> 
> Honestly, too, I'm beginning to think this might've not been the first time Viacom has tried to get Epix up there with no avail. If so, and this keeps going, I'm going to think that public opinion might go in Viacom's favor. Though the greedy bastard thing will stay, people could see DTV's stubbornness to add a channel even when people might be willing to let them come to a middle ground compromise about the price of it work against them. Remember that others might see that DTV is unwilling to compromise and is too hard nosed, and might not even bother to negotiate with them. DTV is in a tough boat, too, if this keeps going.
> 
> I wouldn't mind having Spike TV back so I can see how "improved" TNA is, myself. And I'm willing to try out Epix if they do add it. I don't want DTV to force us to either have the channel or to go without. Do the ala carte thing like the Sony Movie Channel package thing (don't know the name of it) where, if you want it, you can pay an extra, say, $5/month to have it, and if you don't want to, then you don't have to and can pay the same thing you do now. Viacom gets paid what they want, but then DTV can turn around and make a profit out of those that want Epix (assuming they can). Everyone wins.
> 
> But yeah, I think momentum switch to Viacom a bit because now the Epix thing is out in the open, enough for people to be curious about it.


EPIX is better than STARZ.


----------



## damondlt

Paul Secic said:


> EPIX is better than STARZ.


 Not in my Opinion!:nono:


----------



## lparsons21

Paul Secic said:


> EPIX is better than STARZ.


I agree, but the Starz package with Encore is better than Epix.


----------



## Carl Spock

Athlon646464 said:


> Aren't you forgetting the 5 & 9 year olds here who miss the Sponge? :grin:


 Great point. :righton:

The 5 year olds especially know nothing of the Olympics or August or anything except they don't have spongebob. 9 year olds, not so much. You can talk to them. You might not get through, but you can talk to them.


----------



## Athlon646464

Carl Spock said:


> Great point. :righton:
> 
> The 5 year olds especially know nothing of the Olympics or August or anything except they don't have spongebob. 9 year olds, not so much. You can talk to them. You might not get through, but you can talk to them.


:listenup: I suppose you could always tell the 5 year olds that the guy in the pool winning the medals is SpongeBob all grown up.

As far as begin able to get through to a 9 year old? Doesn't happen until about 21 or 22. :lol:


----------



## rlj1010

I mentioned it earlier, but you can get "SpongeBob: The First 100 Episodes" on a 14-disc DVD box set for $33 at Amazon. (For any of the parents, whose kids are going through withdrawals! 

http://www.amazon.com/SpongeBob-Squ...&qid=1342718628&sr=8-1&keywords=spongebob+100

2233 minutes of Spongebob, and no commercials. Also good for car trips, if you keep a portable dvd player.


----------



## maartena

Carl Spock said:


> A day off at this point is good. Time to reflect.
> 
> If they don't get this done before the Olympics, then it won't get done until September. The Olympics will dominate viewing, especially with the favorable time change from Britain. Plus it will be August and TV viewing always goes down in August. I just don't see any major pressing for an agreement in August.


I'm not so sure the audience that likes Jersey Shore and Teenwolf is the same audience that likes the Olympics.


----------



## tonyd79

"maartena" said:


> I'm not so sure the audience that likes Jersey Shore and Teenwolf is the same audience that likes the Olympics.


Hey. There are always those shows of BIg Jan watching the Olympics and trying out for the javelin team.


----------



## anopro

I have watched Enccore more in the last week than a month of watching all Viacom channels combined. So I hope it never get resolved.


----------



## Carl Spock

rlj1010 said:


> 2233 minutes of Spongebob


 That's a lot of Spongebob! :eek2:


----------



## Athlon646464

anopro said:


> I have watched Enccore more in the last week than a month of watching all Viacom channels combined. So I hope it never get resolved.


+1


----------



## p010ne

lparsons21 said:


> Don't forget that they are also giving us Encore channels until the end of the month. I doubt that is free to them.


 Seems the free Encore channels are dim in my Guide? :nono2:


----------



## jasonblair

This is actually the lead story on CNNMoney.com right now, and it seems pretty pro-DirecTV!

http://buzz.money.cnn.com/2012/07/19/viacom-directtv-blackout/


----------



## fleckrj

deleted because my long post, by the time I got around to hitting the enter key, was redundant.


----------



## Ira Lacher

jasonblair said:


> This is actually the lead story on CNNMoney.com right now, and it seems pretty pro-DirecTV!
> 
> http://buzz.money.cnn.com/2012/07/19/viacom-directtv-blackout/


What's to stop the content providers from furnishing content direct to consumer? You do this with MLB.TV, Fox Soccer on the Go, etc.


----------



## RunnerFL

Paul Secic said:


> EPIX is better than STARZ.


Not as far as I'm concerned. Starz has come up with some pretty good original programming lately.


----------



## RunnerFL

maartena said:


> I'm not so sure the audience that likes Jersey Shore and Teenwolf is the same audience that likes the Olympics.


They'd probably just think it's a bad episode of Jackass.


----------



## RunnerFL

fleckrj said:


> deleted because my long post, by the time I got around to hitting the enter key, was redundant.


I hate when that happens.


----------



## Athlon646464

fleckrj said:


> deleted because my long post, by the time I got around to hitting the enter key, was redundant.


I wish you hadn't. I thought your info about old movies was great and very informative. :goodjob:


----------



## billsharpe

JMCecil said:


> You mean another HD channel with no HD on it.


I suspect those old movies will look much better on TCM HD than TCM SD.

I couldn't believe how good the old Hogan's Heroes show looked on HD Net.

:backtotop


----------



## Arya Stark

> I'm glad I can get my fix but I did notice something. It seems as though they have increased the number of commercials that they show while viewing.


Daily Show and Colbert have commercials when you watch online? I've watched those shows online a lot (especially lately!) and I can't remember seeing a single commercial. Maybe my memory is getting way worse than I thought, but I don't think so!


----------



## tonyd79

"Ira Lacher" said:


> What's to stop the content providers from furnishing content direct to consumer? You do this with MLB.TV, Fox Soccer on the Go, etc.


Nothing. But that is still boutique type stuff. Mad money. Not a solid revenue stream compared to cable and satellite. It may grow but unless the bandwidth conundrum is solved, still won't be a big alternative.


----------



## inkahauts

"Mike Bertelson" said:


> This is not a OAR discussion or a TCM discussion. Back to topic please.
> 
> :backtotop
> 
> Mike


Never thought you'd have to say that n this thread!

Well we are over a week in, and i think if anything my prediction of this not hurting DIRECTV until after the first of the year at the earliest and will hurt Viacom quickly seems to be coming true so far. If Viacom really is losing 20% of its viewership, and has gotten so desperate they have started showing episodes online again, then I think DIRECTV can simply hold out for a deal they like and Viacom will cave if they start to see a chance that their stockholders won't make enough money this quarter.


----------



## shendley

Has anyone else seen the commercial Viacom (I assume) is inserting into The Daily Show and The Colbert Report when viewed via Hulu Plus? It urges people to "drop Directv." "Comedy Central is crucial. Directv is not." The last scene urging us to drop Directv shows one of the characters from South Park taking a dump. Pretty crude, but that's South Park, right? I wonder if it will have any effect? I'm not about to bolt myself, but one thing it did was remind me of a few more shows on Comedy Central that I like to watch occasionally (anyone seen Key and Peele? Very funny duo!). And I have to admit it was a pretty funny ad.


----------



## inkahauts

"shendley" said:


> Has anyone else seen the commercial Viacom (I assume) is inserting into The Daily Show and The Colbert Report when viewed via Hulu Plus? It urges people to "drop Directv." "Comedy Central is crucial. Directv is not." The last scene urging us to drop Directv shows one of the characters from South Park taking a dump. Pretty crude, but that's South Park, right? I wonder if it will have any effect? I'm not about to bolt myself, but one thing it did was remind me of a few more shows on Comedy Central that I like to watch occasionally (anyone seen Key and Peele? Very funny duo!). And I have to admit it was a pretty funny ad.


It's funny. Them putting their shows back online just proves that do doesn't need to carry their channels since their content is so easily and freely available online. They just don't understand how they are devaluing their own product by making it free to people on a platform that can not bring in nearly as much money as pay tv. They are trading pay tv for free online...


----------



## DrZ

Just spoke to a retention rep at Dtv and he said that Viacom channels will be back by Sunday....take that with as large a grain-of-salt as you can handle.


----------



## Taltizer

Anyone know the numbers on how many Directv customers that have already bolted i know of 5 family and friends myself that got fedup and went to dish they are tired of getting misled by directv's statements of deals and lack of getting a deal done when my contracts up in a month im going myself.This crap of were close to a deal and we have your back is bull it sounds like a line from broke back mountain or something.Its Stupid.


----------



## zimm7778

"DrZ" said:


> Just spoke to a retention rep at Dtv and he said that Viacom channels will be back by Sunday....take that with as large a grain-of-salt as you can handle.


Someone said that last week. I have no idea how someone can say this with any authority and that includes those negotiating.


----------



## Athlon646464

Taltizer said:


> Anyone know the numbers on how many Directv customers that have already bolted i know of 5 family and friends myself that got fedup and went to dish they are tired of getting misled by directv's statements of deals and lack of getting a deal done when my contracts up in a month im going myself.This crap of were close to a deal and we have your back is bull it sounds like a line from broke back mountain or something.Its Stupid.


What do all of those people say about Dish's issues with their content providers?


----------



## tonyd79

"Taltizer" said:


> Anyone know the numbers on how many Directv customers that have already bolted i know of 5 family and friends myself that got fedup and went to dish they are tired of getting misled by directv's statements of deals and lack of getting a deal done when my contracts up in a month im going myself.This crap of were close to a deal and we have your back is bull it sounds like a line from broke back mountain or something.Its Stupid.


I don't have numbers but it is fewer than directv projected when it started. How much fewer, I don't know.


----------



## JeffBowser

Pffft. I don't care what either of them do. All I've missed is a few episodes of Horsepower TV, but I can stare at Courtney online if I need to


----------



## JcT21

i was reading some of the directv facebook posts and seen this one that caught my attention....

"dish network carries epix and the other viacom channels we are missing. how is it they can carry epix and sitll keep their prices similar or somewhat lower than directv prices? what is directvs issue with carrying epix?"

i can see the point that the facebook poster was making. why is directv opposed to epix?


----------



## zimm7778

"Ira Lacher" said:


> What's to stop the content providers from furnishing content direct to consumer? You do this with MLB.TV, Fox Soccer on the Go, etc.


The only way any of the leagues could forego pay tv is by allowing all games including the local one to be available. Plus, a large bulk of revenue for the leagues comes from network deals who in term sell it to providers. I would suspect MLB for instance makes way more from the RSNs, ESPN, and FOX than they ever will from MLB.tv.


----------



## Carl Spock

DrZ said:


> Just spoke to a retention rep at Dtv and he said that Viacom channels will be back by Sunday.


:listenup: Well, I say they will be back by Saturday night...so there! :raspberry



> take that with as large a grain-of-salt as you can handle.


Would I lie to you?


----------



## Athlon646464

JcT21 said:


> i was reading some of the directv facebook posts and seen this one that caught my attention....
> 
> "dish network carries epix and the other viacom channels we are missing. how is it they can carry epix and sitll keep their prices similar or somewhat lower than directv prices? what is directvs issue with carrying epix?"
> 
> i can see the point that the facebook poster was making. why is directv opposed to epix?


The timing for the end of each provider's contract is different. My guess is that Dish may face a similar issue when their Viacom contract is up, unless Viacom learns some sort of lesson here.


----------



## zimm7778

"JcT21" said:


> i was reading some of the directv facebook posts and seen this one that caught my attention....
> 
> "dish network carries epix and the other viacom channels we are missing. how is it they can carry epix and sitll keep their prices similar or somewhat lower than directv prices? what is directvs issue with carrying epix?"
> 
> i can see the point that the facebook poster was making. why is directv opposed to epix?


Perhaps they aren't totally opposed to it but don't want it where Viacom does. Again I could be wrong but I think if Viacom agreed to let the channel be a premium service they'd have no problem adding it. Then if Viacoms deal causes the channel to be $30 a month, oh well. Only those who want it would have to pay it. However there's another fallacy in this argument about price. Right off the top of my head I know Dish isn't carrying AMC or MLB Network unless that's changed. There may be others but that could be why they are about even in price. EPIX could cost a lot and the programming costs are offset by some they don't have. Theres also the agreement of the amount of the deal that could and probably does per provider. Also, Dish seems to be the place to go for movies so they may hide some of the actual programming cost elsewhere to placate the audience, It's not just comparing the channels and price of one to another unless both are totally equal.


----------



## BobbyK

EPIX is $7.00 a month on E*.


----------



## tonyd79

"Athlon646464" said:


> The timing for the end of each provider's contract is different. My guess is that Dish may face a similar issue when their Viacom contract is up, unless Viacom learns some sort of lesson here.


You are correct.

At one time, directv saw little value in Epix when it was new and I could see their point. They werent even sure it would survive.

Now Epix has grown and seems decent an directv seems to want it.


----------



## tulanejosh

inkahauts said:


> It's funny. Them putting their shows back online just proves that do doesn't need to carry their channels since their content is so easily and freely available online. They just don't understand how they are devaluing their own product by making it free to people on a platform that can not bring in nearly as much money as pay tv. They are trading pay tv for free online...


They need to readd them (eventually) if they expect me to keep paying what i pay. I know that it's unrealistic that they will cut my bill... But they should also know that its unrealistic to expect me to continue to pay the same amount for less service. That it's available on Hulu, etc - to me - doesn't matter. I pay directv because of the convenience factor they provide not because of the access.


----------



## Athlon646464

tulanejosh said:


> They need to readd them (eventually) if they expect me to keep paying what i pay. I know that it's unrealistic that they will cut my bill... But they should also know that its unrealistic to expect me to continue to pay the same amount for less service. That it's available on Hulu, etc - to me - doesn't matter. I pay directv because of the convenience factor they provide not because of the access.


Curious - If D* caved today and paid a lot more for the Viacom stuff, would you then pay your fair share of the increase?

BTW - You can call D* and likely get some sort of a discount just because you call them, and you can enjoy the free movie channels they have given to us for now.


----------



## zimm7778

"BobbyK" said:


> EPIX is $7.00 a month on E*.


I was most likely exaggerating the price. The point was I would imagine if they wanted it to be a premium stand alone and funded by its those who sub to it only Directv would have no problem. But again, I could very well be wrong on this.


----------



## tonyd79

"BobbyK" said:


> EPIX is $7.00 a month on E*.


$10 on fios with one SD and two HD channels.


----------



## SPACEMAKER

"Paul Secic" said:


> EPIX is better than STARZ.


False.


----------



## lparsons21

BobbyK said:


> EPIX is $7.00 a month on E*.


Yes, it is. It is also available in the $10/month [email protected] package too, which includes quite a few other channels, and one disk out at a time DVDs.


----------



## zimm7778

"tulanejosh" said:


> They need to readd them (eventually) if they expect me to keep paying what i pay. I know that it's unrealistic that they will cut my bill... But they should also know that its unrealistic to expect me to continue to pay the same amount for less service. That it's available on Hulu, etc - to me - doesn't matter. I pay directv because of the convenience factor they provide not because of the access.


You know things go up every year. So if next year Directv said "yeah our prices in programming went up but since we don't have Viacom anymore we are not paying them at all so the increase in fees is offset by the loss of those channels. Therefore, your bill will not go up" wouldn't satisfy you? This is of course under the scenario they don't come back.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Interesting article

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/analyst-directv-viacom-spat-could-351691


----------



## tulanejosh

Athlon646464 said:


> Curious - If D* caved today and paid a lot more for the Viacom stuff, would you then pay your fair share of the increase?
> 
> BTW - You can call D* and likely get some sort of a discount just because you call them, and you can enjoy the free movie channels they have given to us for now.


I'm not necessarily the best person to ask that question to. My monthly bill is exceeds $200 because of my sports subscriptions, add-ons and programming tier. Those are all personal choices that i and my family make, and I dont think i would make a single change if my bill increase by $10 a year. I'm not trying to be cavalier or flippant with money. People all have different circumstances, and I absolutely 100% respect that. I dont want to pay more, but if that's what happens... I'll deal with it. You asked the question - im giving you an honest answer.

But it's not really about what i wouldn't or wouldn't be willing to pay though. It's about what i currently pay. Viacom is factored into my current bill. I think this dispute is temporary, but fact remains Viacom is still factored into my bill even though i currently don't get them. if that continues long term - it's becomes a "principle of the thing" issue for me just like "any increase" is a principle of the thing issue for so many other people.

I did get a $10 discount, and Im grateful for that. But free movie channels, MLB, etc are of no benefit to me. I had those before this dispute.


----------



## woj027

Satelliteracer said:


> Interesting article
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/analyst-directv-viacom-spat-could-351691


Is there an easy place to figure out who all the providers are for the channels? Is Disney the largest?,is Viacom second? Third? 10th? Where is HBO? Turner?

I think it would be interesting to see who owns all the channels.

I wonder how consolidation
will work on that end of the spectrum.


----------



## tulanejosh

zimm7778 said:


> You know things go up every year. So if next year Directv said "yeah our prices in programming went up but since we don't have Viacom anymore we are not paying them at all so the increase in fees is offset by the loss of those channels. Therefore, your bill will not go up" wouldn't satisfy you? This is of course under the scenario they don't come back.


Im not saying im dissatisfied. Im saying it cant go on forever. By that rationale - the increase shouldn't go up by quite as much. Would probably be ok with that. But that's very subjective, no way to know how much it could have gone up by if they had viacom in that instance.


----------



## Athlon646464

tulanejosh said:


> I'm not necessarily the best person to ask that question to. My monthly bill is exceeds $200 because of my sports subscriptions, add-ons and programming tier. Those are all personal choices that i and my family make, and I dont think i would make a single change if my bill increase by $10 a year. I'm not trying to be cavalier or flippant with money. People all have different circumstances, and I absolutely 100% respect that. I dont want to pay more, but if that's what happens... I'll deal with it. You asked the question - im giving you an honest answer.
> 
> But it's not really about what i wouldn't or wouldn't be willing to pay though. It's about what i currently pay. Viacom is factored into my current bill. I think this dispute is temporary, but fact remains Viacom is still factored into my bill even though i currently don't get them. if that continues long term - it's becomes a "principle of the thing" issue for me just like "any increase" is a principle of the thing issue for so many other people.
> 
> I did get a $10 discount, and Im grateful for that. But free movie channels, MLB, etc are of no benefit to me. I had those before this dispute.


Thanks for being frank about it.

IMHO $10 is about what Viacom's stuff is worth. I do recognize that everyone's perceived value is different however.

And that's the rub - if and when D* (or anyone else) starts charging more than a customer's perceived value for the service the customer will go elsewhere.


----------



## RunnerFL

JcT21 said:


> i was reading some of the directv facebook posts and seen this one that caught my attention....
> 
> "dish network carries epix and the other viacom channels we are missing. how is it they can carry epix and sitll keep their prices similar or somewhat lower than directv prices? what is directvs issue with carrying epix?"
> 
> i can see the point that the facebook poster was making. why is directv opposed to epix?


I don't think they are opposed to EPIX itself, just opposed to the high price Viacom is reportedly asking to carry it.


----------



## mreposter

From the article:
_"We will likely look back on this dispute and the outcome of the Dish-AMC dispute and conclude that the large distributors have more leverage than originally perceived when up against all but the largest programmers."_

I think a related thing we're learning is that general entertainment type programming isn't as essential as the content owners think. People might not be happy about losing the Nik channels or MTV, but they by-and-large are tolerating the loss. It's really sports programming that fans will riot in the streets over.

Disney, Fox and increasingly Comcast have the sports channels that people will demand no matter what the price. That puts Viacom, CBS, Discovery and other other general-entertainment-only companies in a much weaker position. When it comes down to it and Directv has to drop something to pay for increasingly expensive sports channels it's going to be general/niche entertainment channels that get the axe.


----------



## zimm7778

From the article: 

Kraft said he sees four key sticking points in the carriage talks. First, Viacom wants a 30 percent rate increase in year one of the new contract to bring DirecTV in line with other distributors, "while DirecTV effectively contends that other distributors are overpaying because they happened to sign their contracts with Viacom before ratings declined sharply," he said.
Second, Viacom wants DirecTV to carry Epix on a bundled basis, while DirecTV only wants to carry Epix a la carte. Third, Viacom wants broader distribution of its networks across programming tiers, while DirecTV wants to be able to offer smaller packages.
Finally, "DirecTV wants in and out-of-home streaming rights included in the new deal," Kraft suggested. "Viacom wants compensation for these rights."

On point 1, they'll figure something out that's a lot less than 30%.

Point 2, pretty much what I said was the hold up on this. Viacom is trying to force this station into a base package which is NOT how it is apparently elsewhere. So, who's playing hardball here?

Point 3, of course Viacom wants their channels in the lowest possible tiers. All of them do. They don't want to be truly revealed as being as irrelevant as they all are. They'd lose quite a bit of revenue going to higher ones because a lot of people won't buy them. Not a shot at Viacom. I feel the same way about all channels. Could you imagine the day coming of ESPN being shipped to a higher tier? When plenty don't sub upwards to get it, all of a sudden people start to see they aren't as important as they've convinced everyone they are. 

Point 4, I totally agree with Viacom. Personally, I have no use for TV Everywhere and wish it wasn't tied to a price increase like it, Pandora, you tube access, etc were. Telling us additional features aren't free when we don't use it isn't justifying anything. Now had Whole Home been free with these new features or nomad been free, sure. But it seems the stuff people would actually use costs extra while all this other crap is "free" with your rate increase. Further, i find TV Everywhere useless personally. I have 3 TV's in the house hooked to D*, living room, bedroom, and office. Guess what 3 rooms I am usually always in? If I could watch this stuff at the mall, or church, or when I'm subjected to a trip to Jacksonville that'd be fine. But I can't, I can only watch it in the house. Soapbox over, just pointing out how ridiculous I think Directv making this a sticking point is. I understand wanting to add it, but it's a different device. Now if you are going to complain about not paying the increase they desire because it's available for free online then why do you care about adding it now to yours and why do you think you should get the opportunity to do that for free? If its that big a deal, don't add them.


----------



## zimm7778

"tulanejosh" said:


> Im not saying im dissatisfied. Im saying it cant go on forever. By that rationale - the increase shouldn't go up by quite as much. Would probably be ok with that. But that's very subjective, no way to know how much it could have gone up by if they had viacom in that instance.


True, but I'm just saying IF they gave this rationale, would you be ok with it? I've long said when they have these negotiations that carry on like this they should announce the per sub rate they were paying until the deal expired and say if we do not work out deal with "x" you will see an immediate credit on your next months bill for $"y". Maybe that'd work, maybe it wouldn't.


----------



## Beerstalker

zimm7778 said:


> Further, i find TV Everywhere useless personally. I have 3 TV's in the house hooked to D*, living room, bedroom, and office. Guess what 3 rooms I am usually always in? If I could watch this stuff at the mall, or church, or when I'm subjected to a trip to Jacksonville that'd be fine. But I can't, I can only watch it in the house. Soapbox over, just pointing out how ridiculous I think Directv making this a sticking point is. I understand wanting to add it, but it's a different device. Now if you are going to complain about not paying the increase they desire because it's available for free online then why do you care about adding it now to yours and why do you think you should get the opportunity to do that for free? If its that big a deal, don't add them.


That's exactly what they are talking about here. DirecTV wants the streaming rights to the Viacom channels so they can include them in their DirecTV iPad app and other apps like it. That way you could stream those channels to your iPad or other device in your home, or anywhere you go that you have internet access. That is what TV everywhere is. You can't do that with many channels now because DirecTV doesn't have the rights to be able to let you do that, that is what they are trying to get here.


----------



## tulanejosh

D* is being strangley quiet today. No twitter posts since this morning. No new facebook posts. No updates to directvpromise.com. Very interesting. Wonder if someone said - cut the crap, this isn't helping. Take the high road.


----------



## zimm7778

"Beerstalker" said:


> That's exactly what they are talking about here. DirecTV wants the streaming rights to the Viacom channels so they can include them in their DirecTV iPad app and other apps like it. That way you could stream those channels to your iPad or other device in your home, or anywhere you go that you have internet access. That is what TV everywhere is. You can't do that with many channels now because DirecTV doesn't have the rights to be able to let you do that, that is what they are trying to get here.


I don't mean "on demand" stuff. I mean live streams of which we have 0 as far as I know that work outside the network on my home. Obviously there channels available "live." I see them on my app anytime I go to it. Why haven't they worked out a deal to have these channels, at least some of them, to work outside the home? If they had done this from the get go and had this stuff in place when they launched it, some of us might find it useful to bellyache about it now. But for all I know, this is for On Demand rights and/or watching "live" from home on the iPad.


----------



## bri637

tulanejosh said:


> D* is being strangley quiet today. No twitter posts since this morning. No new facebook posts. No updates to directvpromise.com. Very interesting. Wonder if someone said - cut the crap, this isn't helping. Take the high road.


I was thinking the same thing, usually they'll have one or two updates through their facebook page but the only thing I found was a tweet from 13 hours ago:

We'll be back negotiating with Viacom in the AM to reach a final deal. Too close to turn back now => http://directvpromise.com #DIRECTVHasMyBack‬


----------



## Beerstalker

zimm7778 said:


> I don't mean "on demand" stuff. I mean live streams of which we have 0 as far as I know that work outside the network on my home. Obviously there channels available "live." I see them on my app anytime I go to it. Why haven't they worked out a deal to have these channels, at least some of them, to work outside the home? If they had done this from the get go and had this stuff in place when they launched it, some of us might find it useful to bellyache about it now. But for all I know, this is for On Demand rights and/or watching "live" from home on the iPad.


It is for On Demand rights and live streaming in the home and away from your home. DirecTV want's you to be able to do both from your DirecTV iPad app, wherever you are. Right now I believe they have rights to allow you to watch a bunch of channels live streaming in your home, but they don't have the rights to allow you to do it outside your home. That is what they are trying to get. They also are trying to get On Demand rights for outside the home.


----------



## zimm7778

"Beerstalker" said:


> It is for On Demand rights and live streaming in the home and away from your home. DirecTV want's you to be able to do both from your DirecTV iPad app, wherever you are. Right now I believe they have rights to allow you to watch a bunch of channels live streaming in your home, but they don't have the rights to allow you to do it outside your home. That is what they are trying to get. They also are trying to get On Demand rights for outside the home.


I'll believe the outside my home part when I see it. Again, they should have had something available doing that now or not added the option at all until they did. And still, Viacom has every right to ask and receive compensation for either.


----------



## tonyd79

Beerstalker said:


> It is for On Demand rights and live streaming in the home and away from your home. DirecTV want's you to be able to do both from your DirecTV iPad app, wherever you are. Right now I believe they have rights to allow you to watch a bunch of channels live streaming in your home, but they don't have the rights to allow you to do it outside your home. That is what they are trying to get. They also are trying to get On Demand rights for outside the home.


Which is the same stuff that Viacom is giving away for free on their own websites.


----------



## Beerstalker

tonyd79 said:


> Which is the same stuff that Viacom is giving away for free on their own websites.


Exactly, which is why DirecTV thinks it is silly for them to be asking DirecTV to pay for it when they give it away to cusotmers for free whether or not they subscribe to the channel through any pay TV provider.

I guess I can kind of understand the argument that the people watching the shows through the DirecTV app wouldn't be counting towards the ad views that the people watching online through the viacom's websites would be, so they wouldn't be making the ad revenue off of those views. However, if someone is watching through the DirecTV app, then it means that person is subscribing to DirecTV and the Viacom channels through them. So Viacom is already getting compensated for that customer to have access to their shows, why do they need to count on the ad revenue from streaming through DirecTV's apps?


----------



## zimm7778

"Beerstalker" said:


> Exactly, which is why DirecTV thinks it is silly for them to be asking DirecTV to pay for it when they give it away to cusotmers for free whether or not they subscribe to the channel through any pay TV provider.


So they are going to demand they get it free when it's available online elsewhere yet make that a sticking point in negotiations when they've made it a point to say you can get it elsewhere? Seems dumb to me. If its so valuable for the, to have then compensate for it and go about your life. Otherwise, let it go and don't worry about it. Sorry, I side with Viacom on this point totally.


----------



## tonyd79

zimm7778 said:


> So they are going to demand they get it free when it's available online elsewhere yet make that a sticking point in negotiations? Seems dumb to me. If its so valuable for the, to have then compensate for it and go about your life. Otherwise, let it go and don't worry about it.


The value is in having it all in one place. DirecTV wants to be a portal for entertainment, whether it be on your TV or on your iPad. It is part of future proofing their business. They have this spiffy iPad product that provides streaming anywhere but what you can stream is extremely limited. They are trying to improve the value of that product and enhance their overall product.

What that is worth? I don't have a clue.


----------



## Taltizer

Other networks put up free online content so i guess when the next contract comes up for renewal they will want that one for free to (Directv) That is dumb.ABC, NBC, CBC , FOX on and on they all put there shows online for free thats a stupid excuse to want to not want to make a fair deal.


----------



## Mike_TV

Satelliteracer said:


> Interesting article
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/analyst-directv-viacom-spat-could-351691


This is costing Viacom $14 million per week. Interesting...


----------



## hellyea

Anybody get credit for an MDU / bulk service due to this dispute?


----------



## BattleScott

woj027 said:


> Is there an easy place to figure out who all the providers are for the channels? Is Disney the largest?,is Viacom second? Third? 10th? Where is HBO? Turner?
> 
> I think it would be interesting to see who owns all the channels.
> 
> I wonder how consolidation
> will work on that end of the spectrum.


If the content owners start to lose leverage then they will seek to regain it by expanding their portfolio of channels.

Example 1: Viacom gets the short end of the stick on this deal, so they buy up several smaller owners to expand their 17-26 channels to 30 or 40. Now they have more leverage over the providers in he next deal.

Example 2: DirecTV gets the short end, so they go after Dish network to quickly increase their subscriber base, increasing their leverage.

I think this is far more viable in the traditional cable market than the Sat market. Also, I think the feds would stop a DirecTV / Dish acquisition pretty quickly.


----------



## inkahauts

"JcT21" said:


> i was reading some of the directv facebook posts and seen this one that caught my attention....
> 
> "dish network carries epix and the other viacom channels we are missing. how is it they can carry epix and sitll keep their prices similar or somewhat lower than directv prices? what is directvs issue with carrying epix?"
> 
> i can see the point that the facebook poster was making. why is directv opposed to epix?


How about all the channels that DirecTV carries like all the New York RSN's and other things of that nature along with some of the Disney channels and AMC now and all their rainbow channels. Every providers missing something is just a matter of which providers missing which.


----------



## inkahauts

"tulanejosh" said:


> They need to readd them (eventually) if they expect me to keep paying what i pay. I know that it's unrealistic that they will cut my bill... But they should also know that its unrealistic to expect me to continue to pay the same amount for less service. That it's available on Hulu, etc - to me - doesn't matter. I pay directv because of the convenience factor they provide not because of the access.


Say they add another 26 channels 10 of which to be in HD but they aren't the Viacom channels would that make you happy? The key in that question is is it the amount of content or is it the specific content you're after. I have a feeling DirecTV could find other channels that would actually have overall more new programming that people would probably like to fill the void.


----------



## tulanejosh

bri637 said:


> I was thinking the same thing, usually they'll have one or two updates through their facebook page but the only thing I found was a tweet from 13 hours ago:
> 
> We'll be back negotiating with Viacom in the AM to reach a final deal. Too close to turn back now => http://directvpromise.com #DIRECTVHasMyBack‬


Maybe they are taking a day off. Maybe they've been instructed to go to radio silence because someting is imminent and they dont want to anger the natives again.

At my company - the people that man our twitter account are basically sales reps that have special training on how to deal with angry customers that no longer have the fear of actually saying something hurtful to a real person (i.e. people are always tougher behind an anonymous internet screename). they dont know anything special.


----------



## BattleScott

Satelliteracer said:


> Interesting article
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/analyst-directv-viacom-spat-could-351691


That is pretty intersting to think about.

If you're a smaller or indy channel owner (like ION for example), are you secretly hoping that Viacom takes a beating on this deal? It might increase your market value quickly...


----------



## inkahauts

"Satelliteracer" said:


> Interesting article
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/analyst-directv-viacom-spat-could-351691


If accurate I think it's funny they don't want to let DirecTV stream their channel even though they offer their shows themselves for free through their own portal. Fools.

Excellent article and points out some interesting things going on.

As I have said before I think some of the providers need to shrink down the number channels they have and repeat things less often that would actually increase their value from a subscription but the question is does that increase offset the advertising revenue they lose by not having as many channels.


----------



## inkahauts

"Beerstalker" said:


> That's exactly what they are talking about here. DirecTV wants the streaming rights to the Viacom channels so they can include them in their DirecTV iPad app and other apps like it. That way you could stream those channels to your iPad or other device in your home, or anywhere you go that you have internet access. That is what TV everywhere is. You can't do that with many channels now because DirecTV doesn't have the rights to be able to let you do that, that is what they are trying to get here.


And Viacom wants money for it and DirecTV says it shouldn't cost them anything more. DirecTV does not pay them for each box that's able to receive the programming they only pay them for every account that's able to receive programming so why should this be any different?


----------



## tulanejosh

inkahauts said:


> Say they add another 26 channels 10 of which to be in HD but they aren't the Viacom channels would that make you happy? The key in that question is is it the amount of content or is it the specific content you're after. I have a feeling DirecTV could find other channels that would actually have overall more new programming that people would probably like to fill the void.


Theoretically, that would work. You're reading too much into this though. I'm not unhappy at the moment beyond the irritation that this thing has dragged out. personally, I'm looking forward to getting these channels back. I want these channels back far more than i want a $3/month discount or any alternative programming.


----------



## inkahauts

"tulanejosh" said:


> Theoretically, that would work. You're reading too much into this though. I'm not unhappy at the moment beyond the irritation that this thing has dragged out. personally, I'm looking forward to getting these channels back. I want these channels back far more than i want a $3/month discount or any alternative programming.


I and simply wondering if Viacom doesn't come to terms with DirecTV and DirecTV were to add a bunch of other channels that would possibly make up for the Viacom channels how many subscribers do we think Direct TV would actually lose? I think Viacom has a lot more to lose than DirecTV in all of this in more ways than one.


----------



## tulanejosh

inkahauts said:


> I and simply wondering if Viacom doesn't come to terms with DirecTV and DirecTV were to add a bunch of other channels that would possibly make up for the Viacom channels how many subscribers do we think Direct TV would actually lose? I think Viacom has a lot more to lose than DirecTV in all of this in more ways than one.


I think it would depend on the channels. And i also dont think that people are as loyal to D* as we all might like to think. This forum is not representative in so many ways. A lot of people don't understand why the channels are gone, don't really care and just want to watch Spongebob or whatever else.


----------



## Carl Spock

Nice article in the New York Times:

Denied Nickelodeon, DirecTV's Youngest Clients Find Substitutes



> Threats of television programming blackouts have become begrudgingly accepted by adults who know what these financial fights are all about.
> 
> But children accustomed to their daily dose of SpongeBob SquarePants are proving to be a bit more restless.


Later on in the story:


> "The first two days were rough on my toddler," Mary Pedone Howard wrote on the Facebook wall for Viacom, where hundreds have posted angry rants against the company (and against DirecTV). Now, though, when it is TV time, she said her daughter asks for the Disney Channel instead. "Leave it to a 3-year-old to show mom that adaptation is a great thing," she wrote.


----------



## 996911

Carl Spock said:


> Nice article in the New York Times:
> 
> Denied Nickelodeon, DirecTV's Youngest Clients Find Substitutes
> 
> Later on in the story:


Exactly how it is in our household. We were in full panic mode when Nick Jr. went off the air. But a funny thing happened along that way......My 4 year old asks for Disney Junior now every morning. He doesn't even care now that Nick Jr. is gone. He even says "thank you Daddy for my new Disney Junior channel!". Gotta love the young mind.

As adults, we do miss Comedy Central since we like the Daily Show but we don't have to have it.


----------



## David MacLeod

Carl Spock said:


> When questioned, people who have posted saying they'd drop DirecTV over this decision really has a broader issue. With *John in Cal*, it's because he's unemployed and was going to drop DirecTV in a couple of months in any case. When I suggested *David MacLeod* suspend his account rather than drop DirecTV, giving them time to come to a settlement, he responded that he'd "been considering it long before this anyways."
> 
> I've yet to see a poster say he's going to drop DirecTV that (1) I believe (these two guys I believe, so that's not an issue here), and (2) is changing content providers truly because of this dispute. Churn is a fact of life with a service provider and I can chalk up these two cases up to churn.


I've been on hold twice in 2 days. I don't standby with a phone to my ear.
will try again tomorrow.


----------



## Mark Holtz

David MacLeod said:


> I've been on hold twice in 2 days. I don't standby with a phone to my ear.
> will try again tomorrow.


How long did you hold until you gave up?


----------



## falkor

Our society is I CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT IT ! This is sad . I watched some Viacom channels but , I can survive without them . Anyone willing to switch carriers over this are not people I would want subscribing through me anyway . Directtv should walk . The difference here is that Direct can survive EASILY without Viacom . Viacom can survive but , they will hurt the whole time . They lose viewers . Loss of viewers equates to lower ratings on channels . Lower ratings equates to less advertising money . Less advertising money equates to lower stock prices . Lower stock prices equates to less money to Viacom . Blah . Viacom will hurt badly . Direct should demand , as Viacom has done , whatever they want and tell Viacom it matters not what they want . Direct not carrying Viacom is slowly killing Viacom . NOT the other way around . Viacom almost has to have Direct in order to survive . They can survive without them but , very little profit .


----------



## Mark Holtz

Perhaps, after this dispute, both companies can adopt better customer-facing messaging. Perhaps take it down from, "OMG! DirecTV is killing Spongebob Squarepants" and along the lines of, "Pardon the interruption of you favorite programs, but we can't agree on the price. Thank you for your patience."

It's a sad state of affairs when people pay attention to a 10 second blipvert, but don't want to hear the whole story.


----------



## p010ne

"p010ne" said:


> Seems the free Encore channels are dim in my Guide? :nono2:


Channels are bright again!


----------



## Mark Holtz

falkor said:


> Our society is I CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT IT ! This is sad . I watched some Viacom channels but , I can survive without them .


Beyond the obvious basic human needs, I place my job, my car, Internet access, and cell phone at the top of my list. DirecTV is around the level of "gee, it's nice to have, can we do without?", and no channels scream "must watch" for my anymore.


----------



## sigma1914

Mark Holtz said:


> Beyond the obvious basic human needs, I place my job, my car, Internet access, and cell phone at the top of my list. DirecTV is around the level of "gee, it's nice to have, can we do without?", and no channels scream "must watch" for my anymore.


Yet, you actively participate in a satellite TV forum.


----------



## darkpowrjd

I'm trying to get an answer on their Facebook page about if they would add EPIX if the price was fair to them, or if they just don't want it on their service period. I don't know why they don't address that. Perhaps they don't want EPIX (if Viacom is telling the truth about trying everything in the book to get DTV to say yes to this channel, then it's safe to say that DTV has a creative issue with EPIX), and they remember the G4 fallout, so they don't want people to think that DTV is keeping their customers from content that they might actually want (if the price was right, I mean).

I thing 500 million for an unproven channel IS VERY steep, but I think it should be given a chance TO prove itself on the lineup. Thing is, I don't understand why DTV doesn't address the possibility that they don't have any interest in the channel.

By the way, does anyone else see that many of the DirecTV answers to people on FB are more or less form answers? I've seen the same answer, almost word for word, given to a variety of questions.


----------



## mnassour

tulanejosh said:


> D* is being strangley quiet today. No twitter posts since this morning. No new facebook posts. No updates to directvpromise.com. Very interesting. Wonder if someone said - cut the crap, this isn't helping. Take the high road.


No.

Someone said "you can't negotiate in public." This means they're finally considering serious negotiations. That doesn't mean stuff will be back tomorrow, Saturday, Sunday, or in 2023. But it does mean they're talking.

No one had to say "cut the crap" at DirecTV. This is a very large corporation that knows what it is doing. If it didn't, it would be Dish.


----------



## Mark Holtz

sigma1914 said:


> Yet, you actively participate in a satellite TV forum.


Not as actively as I used to, and, if you haven't gathered by the user number, I've been around for a long long time. Anyone remember the Dish Network 501 receiver? I had one of those for two years.


----------



## darkpowrjd

RunnerFL said:


> I don't think they are opposed to EPIX itself, just opposed to the high price Viacom is reportedly asking to carry it.


The problem is coming from what Viacom has claimed, though, and DTV has yet to respond to it. http://blog.viacom.com/2012/07/no-deal-in-sight-viacom-compromise-proposals-fail-to-sway-directv/

Viacom claimed that they have tried to do certain things to get them to accept EPIX. I wish DTV would address this in detail so we would know one way or another. Is it the price? The channel itself? Do they just not want it? If Viacom's take is accurate, then what the hell is the problem with the channel besides the price that DTV is seeing here?

Of course, until DTV responds to this (which I'm surprised they haven't yet given that the two sides haven't stopped taking pot shots at each other since this began...as if the insults and calls to switch help move things along), we will be left with a very important question needing a clear answer that's being completely ignored.


----------



## tonyd79

Do we put up a festivus pole when the channels come back?


----------



## tonyd79

"darkpowrjd" said:


> The problem is coming from what Viacom has claimed, though, and DTV has yet to respond to it. http://blog.viacom.com/2012/07/no-deal-in-sight-viacom-compromise-proposals-fail-to-sway-directv/
> 
> Viacom claimed that they have tried to do certain things to get them to accept EPIX. I wish DTV would address this in detail so we would know one way or another. Is it the price? The channel itself? Do they just not want it? If Viacom's take is accurate, then what the hell is the problem with the channel besides the price that DTV is seeing here?
> 
> Of course, until DTV responds to this (which I'm surprised they haven't yet given that the two sides haven't stopped taking pot shots at each other since this began...as if the insults and calls to switch help move things along), we will be left with a very important question needing a clear answer that's being completely ignored.


It is the bottom line price plus the amenities. No problems with Epix itself but how it was packaged and priced.


----------



## Church AV Guy

Taltizer said:


> Anyone know the numbers on how many Directv customers that have already bolted i know of 5 family and friends myself that got fedup and went to dish they are tired of getting misled by directv's statements of deals and lack of getting a deal done when my contracts up in a month im going myself.This crap of were close to a deal and we have your back is bull it sounds like a line from broke back mountain or something.Its Stupid.


Less than or greater then the number of DISH subscribers who left over the AMC channel cutoff? I suspect that Viacom will request the same terms with all the service providers from now on, so DirecTV won't be alone. They are merely first. The only thing that has actually been said is the number who have left over this issue was less than predicted. DirecTV could live with the predicted number, so they are likely ver happy. Viacom has lost significant ratings though, and I suspect that they are very UNhappy indeed.



tulanejosh said:


> D* is being strangley quiet today. No twitter posts since this morning. No new facebook posts. No updates to directvpromise.com. Very interesting. Wonder if someone said - cut the crap, this isn't helping. Take the high road.


I greatly HOPE it means that an agreement is near. When they quit talking to us and start talking to each other, it is a good sign.



darkpowrjd said:


> The problem is coming from what Viacom has claimed, though, and DTV has yet to respond to it. http://blog.viacom.com/2012/07/no-deal-in-sight-viacom-compromise-proposals-fail-to-sway-directv/
> 
> Viacom claimed that they have tried to do certain things to get them to accept EPIX. *I wish DTV would address this in detail so we would know one way or another.* Is it the price? The channel itself? Do they just not want it? If Viacom's take is accurate, then what the hell is the problem with the channel besides the price that DTV is seeing here?
> 
> Of course, *until DTV responds to this* (which I'm surprised they haven't yet given that the two sides haven't stopped taking pot shots at each other since this began...as if the insults and calls to switch help move things along), we will be left with a very important question needing a clear answer that's being completely ignored.


Any disclosure of the terms being discussed endangers the whole negotiating process. I have been very surprised at the specifics that have been published so far by both sides. Usually this kind of disclosure spells doom for any agreement as the terms and conditions of these negotiations are always confidential. the less said, the better (for an agreement).


----------



## Araxen

I hope Directv does add Epix and I hope Viacom becomes reasonable in fee's for the channel.


----------



## leadout_kv

darkpowrjd said:


> The problem is coming from what Viacom has claimed, though, and DTV has yet to respond to it. http://blog.viacom.com/2012/07/no-deal-in-sight-viacom-compromise-proposals-fail-to-sway-directv/
> 
> Viacom claimed that they have tried to do certain things to get them to accept EPIX. I wish DTV would address this in detail so we would know one way or another. Is it the price? The channel itself? Do they just not want it? If Viacom's take is accurate, then what the hell is the problem with the channel besides the price that DTV is seeing here?
> 
> Of course, until DTV responds to this (which I'm surprised they haven't yet given that the two sides haven't stopped taking pot shots at each other since this began...as if the insults and calls to switch help move things along), we will be left with a very important question needing a clear answer that's being completely ignored.


I thought D* has responded to Viacom's EPIX proposals. Its pretty simple from D*'s perspective.

Viacom wants EPIX bundled, D* wants EPIX a-la-cart.

As a consumer I like the option of choosing (a-la-cart style). If I don't want EPIX than I don't pay for it. Viacom wants EPIX bundled so D* is forced to charge customers more even if we don't want EPIX.

Pretty simple to understand...not simple to settle on.


----------



## inkahauts

"tulanejosh" said:


> I think it would depend on the channels. And i also dont think that people are as loyal to D* as we all might like to think. This forum is not representative in so many ways. A lot of people don't understand why the channels are gone, don't really care and just want to watch Spongebob or whatever else.


On the contrary my point is people have no loyalty. It's not about being loyal to DirecTV it's about lack of loyalty to Viacom. If DirecTV can offer up a good enough substitute most won't want to go through the frustration of changing providers just because of the Viacom channels.


----------



## Taltizer

I though Epix had been offered to Directv in different ways just not bundled and they were rejecting those options also.They just dont want Epix at all.Thats whats being said on the boards here.


----------



## inkahauts

"darkpowrjd" said:


> The problem is coming from what Viacom has claimed, though, and DTV has yet to respond to it. http://blog.viacom.com/2012/07/no-deal-in-sight-viacom-compromise-proposals-fail-to-sway-directv/
> 
> Viacom claimed that they have tried to do certain things to get them to accept EPIX. I wish DTV would address this in detail so we would know one way or another. Is it the price? The channel itself? Do they just not want it? If Viacom's take is accurate, then what the hell is the problem with the channel besides the price that DTV is seeing here?
> 
> Of course, until DTV responds to this (which I'm surprised they haven't yet given that the two sides haven't stopped taking pot shots at each other since this began...as if the insults and calls to switch help move things along), we will be left with a very important question needing a clear answer that's being completely ignored.


We have no business knowing the details IMHO. All that could do is hurt their negotiators and that's bad form.


----------



## tonyd79

"Taltizer" said:


> I though Epix had been offered to Directv in different ways just not bundled and they were rejecting those options also.They just dont want Epix at all.Thats whats being said on the boards here.


Uh. No.


----------



## inkahauts

"Taltizer" said:


> I though Epix had been offered to Directv in different ways just not bundled and they were rejecting those options also.They just dont want Epix at all.Thats whats being said on the boards here.


That's not what the insiders reporting in some of the trade magazines have been saying though. I can believe in them more than I do all of us randomly guessing here on the forums.


----------



## tonyd79

"inkahauts" said:


> That's not what the insiders reporting in some of the trade magazines have been saying though. I can believe in them more than I do all of us randomly guessing here on the forums.


I'm not guessing.


----------



## dxtrfn80

No more SpongeBob ever again on DTV.


----------



## cjrleimer

Its been relatively quiet on both ends Viacom and D*. I think they are negotiating non stop or taking a break as the urgency isnt important right now.


----------



## studechip

tonyd79 said:


> I'm not guessing.


Then you must have specific insider knowledge of what is being discussed, yes?


----------



## tulanejosh

inkahauts said:


> On the contrary my point is people have no loyalty. It's not about being loyal to DirecTV it's about lack of loyalty to Viacom. If DirecTV can offer up a good enough substitute most won't want to go through the frustration of changing providers just because of the Viacom channels.


Good theory. But in reality - I don't think there are really very many substitutes that have the reach and national appeal of these channels, certainly not ones that directv doesn't already offer.


----------



## Taltizer

inkahauts said:


> That's not what the insiders reporting in some of the trade magazines have been saying though. I can believe in them more than I do all of us randomly guessing here on the forums.


I hear you unless you are sitting there at the table making the deal your self you cant say one way or the other what is really happening.Anyone can get on these message boards and say they know for a fact they exactlly know whats going on behind the scenes but unless they are the deal makers the are guessing just as much as we are.None of us know.NONE!.


----------



## tonyd79

"Taltizer" said:


> I hear you unless you are sitting there at the table making the deal your self you cant say one way or the other what is really happening.Anyone can get on these message boards and say they know for a fact they exactlly know whats going on behind the scenes but unless they are the deal makers the are guessing just as much as we are.None of us know.NONE!.


On some message boards, yes.


----------



## SPACEMAKER

From D* Twitter feed:

"DIRECTV continued to speak with Viacom several times today but have yet to finalize an agreement. We will stay on it through the night."


----------



## tonyd79

"SPACEMAKER" said:


> From D* Twitter feed:
> 
> "DIRECTV continued to speak with Viacom several times today but have yet to finalize an agreement. We will stay on it through the night."


Usually don't work through the night unless both sides want to come to agreement and they are close.

We will see.


----------



## Taltizer

tonyd79 said:


> On some message boards, yes.


So you are a Directv Employee and you are one of the negotiators taking a break to answer postings here on the message boards.Well get back to the deal making and get us a deal done.Please!.Nah just joking with yah .lol.


----------



## tulanejosh

yeah something is up. They are being extremely uncharacteristically quiet. I know yesterday's spat was unusual as well, but they're giving nothing out today. This seems to me like attempting to be on your best behavior.


----------



## tulanejosh

Taltizer said:


> So you are a Directv Employee and you are one of the negotiators taking a break to answer postings here on the message boards.Well get back to the deal making and get us a deal done.Please!.Nah just joking with yah .lol.


Even if he's not... This aint the CIA or MI5 or the Church of Scientology. It's a contract negotiation between 2 tv companies. Stuff gets out. Guarantree you nearly every employee at both those companies that has any level of real responsibility knows exactly what's going on, including when the Viacom dude called Chang a petulent little mfer.


----------



## tonyd79

"Taltizer" said:


> So you are a Directv Employee and you are one of the negotiators taking a break to answer postings here on the message boards.Well get back to the deal making and get us a deal done.Please!.Nah just joking with yah .lol.


My cover is blown.

Nah. Just jokin with you too.


----------



## tulanejosh

From FB:

It is important to all of us here at DIRECTV to keep all of you in the loop. As the business day was coming to a close here on the east coast, we continued to speak with Viacom several times but have yet to finalize an agreement. We will stay on it, continue our discussions through the night and keep you posted. As always, we thank you for your patience, understanding and continued support.


----------



## cypherx

Well at least PirateBay still works. F- Viacom.


----------



## tonyd79

"Taltizer" said:


> So you are a Directv Employee and you are one of the negotiators taking a break to answer postings here on the message boards.Well get back to the deal making and get us a deal done.Please!.Nah just joking with yah .lol.


Seriously, what I meant is that this message board has a long history of accurate data. Either directly from employees like Satracer and others or via good honest communication with each other and, yes, directv people.

90% of what I have posted is my own analysis which is not guesswork but that leaves the other 10%.


----------



## danpeters

tulanejosh said:


> From FB:
> 
> It is important to all of us here at DIRECTV to keep all of you in the loop. As the business day was coming to a close here on the east coast, we continued to speak with Viacom several times but have yet to finalize an agreement. We will stay on it, continue our discussions through the night and keep you posted. As always, we thank you for your patience, understanding and continued support.


So I guess we should expect Viacom to post something shortly that reads something along the lines of "DirecTV is continuing with their lies. We haven't spoken in a week and are nowhere close to having a deal."

That seems to be the pattern..


----------



## onan38

Taltizer said:


> I hear you unless you are sitting there at the table making the deal your self you cant say one way or the other what is really happening.Anyone can get on these message boards and say they know for a fact they exactlly know whats going on behind the scenes but unless they are the deal makers the are guessing just as much as we are.None of us know.NONE!.


Apparently Directv and viacom are not at the table anyway they are on the phone acording to

You may have heard that Viacom is trying to upset customers with some very loud rhetoric about negotiations breaking down. Their statement, intended for dramatic effect, is completely false. Please know that we are indeed continuing to negotiate with Viacom so they can return the channels to our customers as soon as possible. Just last night, Viacom made a proposal for the return of the 17 channels they dropped from DIRECTV. Earlier this morning, we accepted all material terms for those channels including an increase that was more than fair. We are ready to sign that deal immediately. What's holding things up right now is that they are insisting that we launch the EPIX movie channel (an extra channel that DIRECTV has never carried) at the additional cost of more than a half billion dollars. Whatever way you slice it, the main issue remains the same. Viacom's total price tag to continue carrying channels is just too high and will adversely affect our customers. And so, as we have done every day since this began, we will be back on the phone negotiating with the Viacom executives tomorrow so we can get closer to a final deal. We are too close to turn back now. The fact is Viacom and DIRECTV need each other so we will get this done. http://www.directvpromise.com/#6

I guess its harder to get a deal made when you aren't sitting across a table and doing everything over the phone.


----------



## tulanejosh

danpeters said:


> So I guess we should expect Viacom to post something shortly that reads something along the lines of "DirecTV is continuing with their lies. We haven't spoken in a week and are nowhere close to having a deal."
> 
> That seems to be the pattern..


Something changed since yesterday. I dont know what exactly. But the tone of the official communication from D* is different. They've been quiet. No snark. Simple statements. My gut says they are close.

My gut also says two social media employees got their a$$es handed to them after the display they put on yesterday.


----------



## Taltizer

tonyd79 said:


> Seriously, what I meant is that this message board has a long history of accurate data. Either directly from employees like Satracer and others or via good honest communication with each other and, yes, directv people.
> 
> 90% of what I have posted is my own analysis which is not guesswork but that leaves the other 10%.


I knew what you meant there are alot of people her in the know and they are people that have reliable information that you can believe in.I do come hear to get the most up to date information on whats going on.I know there are satracer and others that have info you can count on.So I do know what your saying.I believe what your telling us.


----------



## Laxguy

tulanejosh said:


> ....including when the Viacom dude called Chang a petulent little mfer.


Cool! Cite of a site, please!


----------



## tulanejosh

Laxguy said:


> Cool! Cite of a site, please!


I made that up, but cmon, you know it's happened!


----------



## tonyd79

"tulanejosh" said:


> I made that up, but cmon, you know it's happened!


I think that was a poster here.


----------



## dxtrfn80

There is a dispute that has been going on since *2005*. Time Warner and MASN sports which carries the Washington Nationals and Baltimore Orioles baseball games.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

tulanejosh said:


> Even if he's not... This aint the CIA or MI5 or the Church of Scientology. It's a contract negotiation between 2 tv companies. Stuff gets out. Guarantree you nearly every employee at both those companies that has any level of real responsibility knows exactly what's going on, including when the Viacom dude called Chang a petulent little mfer.


It would never happen, but imagine a reality show, The Negotiation.


----------



## Shades228

When EPIX was coming out DIRECTV's CEO publicly stated there was no plans of having that channel. It was the last public statement made about EPIX, by DIRECTV, until this negotiation went public.


----------



## danpeters

It looks like the Twitter activity has picked up slightly this evening from both sides. DirecTV has been retweeting supporters saying that they aren't switching, and Viacom is encouraging people to switch and are retweeting DirecTV-bashing tweets.

I guess they both just needed a little break..


----------



## revolg

A deal will be made very soon


----------



## android.cphone

The -1channels are gone


----------



## kevinturcotte

danpeters said:


> It looks like the Twitter activity has picked up slightly this evening from both sides. DirecTV has been retweeting supporters saying that they aren't switching, and Viacom is encouraging people to switch and are retweeting DirecTV-bashing tweets.
> 
> I guess they both just needed a little break..


Yeah, switch to Dish. Then next year when you're in the middle of a 2 year contract and they pull this same thing with Dish, they gonna tell you to switch again, and incur the ETF? lol Switching solves NOTHING! It's just a temporary fix to a probably temporary problem.


----------



## RunnerFL

darkpowrjd said:


> Viacom claimed that they have tried to do certain things to get them to accept EPIX.


AKA Force it on them.



darkpowrjd said:


> I wish DTV would address this in detail so we would know one way or another.


They did when they said Viacom is trying to make them take EPIX for $500 million.



darkpowrjd said:


> Is it the price? The channel itself? Do they just not want it?


Based on the tone of their statement I'd say it's the price. They want to get the 17 channels back now and negotiate EPIX later.



darkpowrjd said:


> If Viacom's take is accurate, then what the hell is the problem with the channel besides the price that DTV is seeing here?


I don't think the channel is the problem but on the off chance that it is maybe DirecTV sees no value in yet another movie channel.



darkpowrjd said:


> Of course, until DTV responds to this (which I'm surprised they haven't yet given that the two sides haven't stopped taking pot shots at each other since this began...as if the insults and calls to switch help move things along), we will be left with a very important question needing a clear answer that's being completely ignored.


Again, they did respond when they made their statement about Viacom asking to include EPIX for $500 million.


----------



## tulanejosh

danpeters said:


> It looks like the Twitter activity has picked up slightly this evening from both sides. DirecTV has been retweeting supporters saying that they aren't switching, and Viacom is encouraging people to switch and are retweeting DirecTV-bashing tweets.
> 
> I guess they both just needed a little break..


not anything like it was yesterday. as long as that continues, it should be seen as positive. even if they are still far apart from a deal, removing the sniping removes an impediment from the deal.


----------



## RunnerFL

Taltizer said:


> I though Epix had been offered to Directv in different ways just not bundled and they were rejecting those options also.They just dont want Epix at all.Thats whats being said on the boards here.


Viacom says they made offers both with and without EPIX. They didn't say anything about how it may or may not be bundled.


----------



## danpeters

android.cphone said:


> The -1channels are gone


Think they have been gone for a day or two now. Probably just had them set for a week or something.


----------



## RunnerFL

Taltizer said:


> I hear you unless you are sitting there at the table making the deal your self you cant say one way or the other what is really happening.


Neither can you.


----------



## RunnerFL

android.cphone said:


> The -1channels are gone


They have been gone at least 24 hours now.


----------



## studechip

RunnerFL said:


> Neither can you.


He didn't say he could, unlike another poster who insinuated that he knew what was going on.


----------



## DodgerKing

Looks like a deal is just around the corner.

http://www.directvpromise.com/?lpos=footer#9



> Just last night, Viacom made a proposal for the return of the 17 channels they dropped from DIRECTV. Earlier this morning, we accepted all material terms for those channels including an increase that was more than fair. We are ready to sign that deal immediately.


Just the EPIX thing is holding it up.


----------



## vt209

Shades228 said:


> When EPIX was coming out DIRECTV's CEO publicly stated there was no plans of having that channel. It was the last public statement made about EPIX, by DIRECTV, until this negotiation went public.


The perfect example of what is wrong with DIRECTV (and many more companies) they do ask the entire customer base if they want this new channel, they just decide on their own and prove they do not care what the customer wants.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

vt209 said:


> The perfect example of what is wrong with DIRECTV (and many more companies) they do ask the entire customer base if they want this new channel, they just decide on their own and prove they do not care what the customer wants.


viacom does not want it on it's own they want as part of a basic pack.


----------



## Bambler

Personally, when this thing started, I could honestly care less what happened. But after seeing what Viacom is doing and realizing the three-way tug-of-war going on between the providers, distributors and us (the consumers), I honestly hope DirecTV just walks away.


----------



## Sixto

Seems like the typical dance as with any challenging negotiation, with each side rattling swords as expected. I'd guess that a deal will be struck fairly soon, especially since it appears they're making some progress.

As with most things, I'm sure this is a very big deal to some diehards who's major preference is the Viacom channels, while probably most people will enjoy the summer until they work this out.


----------



## danpeters

Just 20-25 minutes ago:

Viacom: @JDPurtz We are continuing to work towards a deal w/ @DIRECTV. 
Retweeted by DIRECTV 

DIRECTV‏: We ask for your patience as we continue to reach closer to a fair agreement that will restore the Viacom channels. #DIRECTVHasMyBack

Well, DirecTV actually retweeted a Viacom tweet and both companies seem to be on the same page now about being close to a deal. That has to be somewhat promising.


----------



## Sixto

Bambler said:


> Personally, when this thing started, I could honestly care less what happened. But after seeing what Viacom is doing and realizing the three-way tug-of-war going on between the providers, distributors and us (the consumers), I honestly hope DirecTV just walks away.


Funny you say that, I somewhat feel the same way, but I also think they'll figure this out, and hope that they do for those that really enjoy the Viacom channels.

To me, the DirecTV messaging, whether you believe the facts as presented or not, has been professional, while the Viacom messaging just seems over-the-top nasty and sleazy.


----------



## Carl Spock

danpeters said:


> DirecTV actually retweeted a Viacom tweet


 Almost like friends. This is much better than the snipping.

I have to agree - we may actually get a deal soon.


----------



## tulanejosh

Sixto said:


> most people will enjoy the summer until they work this out.


Where i live - summer is the worst time of year. way too hot. Bring on the fall - football, fall tv, cooler weather. I can deal with a little viacom hiatus for a bit, but if D* ever lost ST... I'd probably need to seek therapy.


----------



## tonyd79

"Carl Spock" said:


> Almost like friends. This is much better than the snipping.
> 
> I have to agree - we may actually get a deal soon.


Festivus? For returning channels and maybe Epix?


----------



## tulanejosh

tonyd79 said:


> Festivus? For returning channels and maybe Epix?


Yes. I'll bring the Blue Moon.


----------



## danpeters

It really makes me wonder how much different this would have been, say, 5 years when Twitter didn't exist. There was no easy way to customers to interact with either company, no real easy way for the companies to bash each other, and the public wasn't fed up to the minute lies. I would have to believe that a deal would have come about a lot easier.

Back in 2004 when Dish went through this, there was no Twitter and Facebook was brand new. That dispute had the channels off the air for all of 2 days. 

Seems like social media really blew things out of proportion this time. Hopefully a lesson was learned by both companies.


----------



## tonyd79

"danpeters" said:


> It really makes me wonder how much different this would have been, say, 5 years when Twitter didn't exist. There was no easy way to customers to interact with either company, no real easy way for the companies to bash each other, and the public wasn't fed up to the minute lies. I would have to believe that a deal would have come about a lot easier.
> 
> Back in 2004 when Dish went through this, there was no Twitter and Facebook was brand new. That dispute had the channels off the air for all of 2 days.
> 
> Seems like social media really blew things out of proportion this time. Hopefully a lesson was learned by both companies.


Or it is bringing pressure to get settled. Two way street. Customers are voicing their frustration either way.

Twitter played no appreciable role in the directv / versus dispute.


----------



## cjrleimer

tonyd79 said:


> Or it is bringing pressure to get settled. Two way street. Customers are voicing their frustration either way.
> 
> Twitter played no appreciable role in the directv / versus dispute.


Twitter however played in the role of bs artist e.g. Swanni :grin:


----------



## tonyd79

"cjrleimer" said:


> Twitter however played in the role of bs artist e.g. Swanni :grin:


Okay. I give.


----------



## android.cphone

Its time viacom comes forward and makes up to direct tv i am about to send viacom to bed without dinner.


----------



## android.cphone

And to reply to viacoms suggestion that i switch providers...
1.i like direct tv.
2.i am under contract till jan 2013
3. My credit has gone down hill since i got direct tv so dish would likely require a $200-$300 deposit.
4. My cable company here sucks. 


So if anyone from viacom sees this ill say the following... quit wasting time trying to get me to switch providers and get to work on a solution to the mess u started.


----------



## Laxguy

vt209 said:


> The perfect example of what is wrong with DIRECTV (and many more companies) they do ask the entire customer base if they want this new channel, they just decide on their own and prove they do not care what the customer wants.


Welcome to DBSTalk! 
Polling the entire customer base is not possible; should we each vote on 400 channels? 
Regardless, it doesn't prove they don't care about what we want.


----------



## Davenlr

Laxguy said:


> Polling the entire customer base is not possible.


Would be quite easy. Insert a questionnaire in the paper bills, and attach it to the email of the paperless customers.


----------



## android.cphone

"Davenlr" said:


> Would be quite easy. Insert a questionnaire in the paper bills, and attach it to the email of the paperless customers.


And how many people would really take the time to answer it and send it back out?


----------



## Laxguy

android.cphone said:


> And how many people would really take the time to answer it and send it back out?


4,390 out of 20,000,000+.
Then no one would tabulate it.
Then, without some basis for cost of each channel, the survey is meaningless.


----------



## android.cphone

"Laxguy" said:


> 4,390 out of 20,000,000+.
> Then no one would tabulate it.
> Then, without some basis for cost of each channel, the survey is meaningless.


Surveys just do not work ..


----------



## inkahauts

"danpeters" said:


> It really makes me wonder how much different this would have been, say, 5 years when Twitter didn't exist. There was no easy way to customers to interact with either company, no real easy way for the companies to bash each other, and the public wasn't fed up to the minute lies. I would have to believe that a deal would have come about a lot easier.
> 
> Back in 2004 when Dish went through this, there was no Twitter and Facebook was brand new. That dispute had the channels off the air for all of 2 days.
> 
> Seems like social media really blew things out of proportion this time. Hopefully a lesson was learned by both companies.


They'd just do it all on commercials over the radio and tv ads and newspaper ads, just like they are doing now too.


----------



## mreposter

CNBC just reported that Viacom and Directv have settled and all the channels are coming back.

More details:

_In addition to the channels' return, DIRECTV customers will also gain the ability to see Viacom programming on tablets, laptops, handhelds and other personal devices via the DIRECTV Everywhere platform. Carriage of the EPIX movie channel is not required as part of the new agreement.

"We are very pleased to be able to restore the channels to our customers and thank them for their unprecedented patience and support," said Derek Chang, executive vice president of Content Strategy and Development for DIRECTV. "It's unfortunate that Viacom took the channels away from customers to try to gain leverage, but in the end, it's clear our customers recognized that tactic for what it was."_


----------



## JcT21

im glad the dispute is over. i hope we get more viacom channels in HD though. im kinda bummed about epix. i hope they add it as pay package like hbo & others.


----------



## BenJF3

mreposter said:


> CNBC just reported that Viacom and Directv have settled and all the channels are coming back.


And In Other News, DirecTV subscribers can expect a billing increase soon...


----------



## rvernier

mreposter said:


> CNBC just reported that Viacom and Directv have settled and all the channels are coming back.
> 
> _In addition to the channels' return, DIRECTV customers will also gain the ability to see Viacom programming on tablets, laptops, handhelds and other personal devices via the DIRECTV Everywhere platform. Carriage of the EPIX movie channel is not required as part of the new agreement.
> 
> "We are very pleased to be able to restore the channels to our customers and thank them for their unprecedented patience and support," said Derek Chang, executive vice president of Content Strategy and Development for DIRECTV. "It's unfortunate that Viacom took the channels away from customers to try to gain leverage, but in the end, it's clear our customers recognized that tactic for what it was."_


Good news!!


----------



## zimm7778

They are all back up. Spike was running those much missed infomercials a moment ago.


----------



## snappjay

DTV Facebook:

The channels are already back! *Plus as a result of our new deal you will soon enjoy the freedom to see all your favorite Viacom shows on tablets, handhelds, laptops and other media devices through our DIRECTV Everywhere platform*.

I like that part. I use my ipad DTV app all the time


----------



## dtv757

so are we getting EPIX?


----------



## snappjay

I also noticed that the "ala carte" thing didn't pan out :-\


----------



## James Long

*DIRECTV and Viacom Reach Agreement for Return of Viacom's 17 Channels Including Extensive New Digital Rights for DIRECTV Customers
*
EL SEGUNDO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- DIRECTV has reached a new long-term agreement with Viacom to restore 17 channels (including Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV, BET, Spike, CMT, TV Land and ten other channels) that Viacom had taken away from DIRECTV customers on July 10. Viacom has returned all affected networks.

Financial terms were not disclosed.

In addition to the channels' return, DIRECTV customers will also gain the ability to see Viacom programming on tablets, laptops, handhelds and other personal devices via the DIRECTV Everywhere platform. Carriage of the EPIX movie channel is not required as part of the new agreement.

"We are very pleased to be able to restore the channels to our customers and thank them for their unprecedented patience and support," said Derek Chang, executive vice president of Content Strategy and Development for DIRECTV. "It's unfortunate that Viacom took the channels away from customers to try to gain leverage, but in the end, it's clear our customers recognized that tactic for what it was."

Chang added, "The attention surrounding this unnecessary and ill-advised blackout by Viacom has accomplished one key thing: it serves notice to all media companies that bullying TV providers and their customers with blackouts won't get them a better deal. It's high time programmers ended these anti-consumer blackouts once and for all and prove our industry is about enabling people to connect to their favorite programs rather than denying them access."

The dispute helped generate significant public support from hundreds of thousands of customers and also, surprisingly enough, many high-profile DIRECTV competitors. The 850 small and independently owned local cable systems that make up the American Cable Association joined the anti-blackout chorus, as did Cox Communications, Time Warner Cable and Mediacom.

http://investor.directv.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=693651


----------



## ARKDTVfan

I was gonna ask about the hd feed of Comedy Central but they just.flipped the switch


----------



## onan38

Glad its settled for awhile. Ok who's next Batter Up !


----------



## Carl Spock

It's almost like Festivus in July!

I want to thank the cooler heads at both Viacom and DirecTV for coming to an agreement. Early on, it seemed like the hot heads were spinning their points out of control, using new media like a digital coffee shop. They were the loud table over in the corner at Denny's, talking out their butts and doing nothing other than disturbing the meals of their fellow diners. I'm glad they were finally ushered out so that the rest of us could get back to our food.


----------



## kb24sd

onan38 said:


> Glad its settled for awhile. Ok who's next Batter Up !


CBS.


----------



## Carl Spock

And the Discovery networks.

There really is no end to the negotiating of carriage agreements.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

It's too bad D* doesn't offer Epix for those who would be willing to pay for it. But glad to see the channels back for those who watch them. Oh well. Next dispute......

Also hope the new deal adds all the missing HD feeds. I care more about HD feeds then streaming.


----------



## danpeters

TheRatPatrol said:


> It's too bad D* doesn't offer Epix for those who would be willing to pay for it. But glad to see the channels back for those who watch them. Oh well. Next dispute......
> 
> Also hope the new deal adds all the missing HD feeds. I care more about HD feeds then streaming.


According to the Viacom press release, it sounds like Epix still isn't completely out of the question to be added:

"All 26 Viacom networks, including Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV, BET, CMT, Logo, Spike, TV Land, MTV2, VH1, VH1 Classic, Palladia, Nick Jr., Nicktoons, TeenNick, Tr3s and Centric, will return to DIRECTV's channel lineup immediately. As part of the overall carriage agreement, DIRECTV has an option to add the EPIX service to its entertainment offerings."

http://blog.viacom.com/2012/07/best...eement-to-renew-carriage-of-viacoms-networks/


----------



## snappjay

Encore is still on.... but for how long?


----------



## BenJF3

G4? I might switch, but no G4...


----------



## danpeters

snappjay said:


> Encore is still on.... but for how long?


I remember seeing in one of the early on tweets and Facebook posts that it would be free through the end of July.


----------



## tulanejosh

"danpeters" said:


> According to the Viacom press release, it sounds like Epix still isn't completely out of the question to be added:
> 
> "All 26 Viacom networks, including Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV, BET, CMT, Logo, Spike, TV Land, MTV2, VH1, VH1 Classic, Palladia, Nick Jr., Nicktoons, TeenNick, Tr3s and Centric, will return to DIRECTV's channel lineup immediately. As part of the overall carriage agreement, DIRECTV has an option to add the EPIX service to its entertainment offerings."
> 
> http://blog.viacom.com/2012/07/best-day-ever-directv-and-viacom-reach-agreement-to-renew-carriage-of-viacoms-networks/


I would like to see it added. They do run some good movies that are no liner on the existing premiums. Even If it's a la carte I'd be interested.


----------



## MysteryMan

tulanejosh said:


> I would like to see it added. They do run some good movies that are no liner on the existing premiums. Even If it's a la carte I'd be interested.


Getting the four Epix channels would be nice.


----------



## Captain Spaulding

Tr3s and Centric? I didn't even know they existed...or what they are!


----------



## PCampbell

I removed the Viacom channels from my favorites list and have no plans to put them back.


----------



## android.cphone

I am sooo glad that i can finally find outhow who lives in a pineapple at the bottom of the sea. It has been bothering me for a week


----------



## fleckrj

I wonder how many of the people who left DirecTV because Viacom was dark actually got their new service installed before the dispute was settled. This was much adu about missing 17 channels for 10 days.


----------



## HuskerHarley

End of Thread?

HH


----------



## monyking

I think there should be some petition to show Directv that we subscribers would like to pay more to receive Epix as long as it's all the channels and not just one or two....Don't let it be like Cinemax in the past when they offered just three channels at full price. Do you think this would be a good idea or no?


----------



## Carl Spock

No.

If Epix continues to improve, then it can be its own separate agreement down the road.


----------



## tonyd79

Epix is and should be a premium.


----------



## Athlon646464

mreposter said:


> CNBC just reported that Viacom and Directv have settled and all the channels are coming back.


So, the wet SpongeBob in the bed of Viacom's CEO worked!!


----------



## loudo

MysteryMan said:


> Getting the four Epix channels would be nice.


I saw one article where it stated DirecTV had the option to add them later this year, then I saw where Swanni said it was not part of the deal. But, over the years, we have all learned that Swanni information is not always the most reliable source.

As far as I am concerned they could have left all 26 off the air and given us Epix.


----------



## Carl Spock

This is why it was important that both companies got out of this dispute whole and basically happy. I'm sure both DirecTV and Viacom wanted more than they got but I'm also certain they got what they needed. Otherwise this wouldn't have been settled so quickly. And this was quick. Just ask NBC about Versus.

DirecTV and Viacom will be business partners for many years. Epix and other opportunities will certainly arise for both companies during the term of the contract. There has to be good relations between the two sides for those future discussions to go well.


----------



## damondlt

snappjay said:


> Encore is still on.... but for how long?


July 31 st It was stated by directv several times.


----------



## Lancelink

James Long said:


> *DIRECTV and Viacom Reach Agreement for Return of Viacom's 17 Channels Including Extensive New Digital Rights for DIRECTV Customers
> *
> ..."It's unfortunate that Viacom took the channels away from customers to try to gain leverage, but in the end, it's clear our customers recognized that tactic for what it was."
> 
> Chang added, "The attention surrounding this unnecessary and ill-advised blackout by Viacom has accomplished one key thing: it serves notice to all media companies that bullying TV providers and their customers with blackouts won't get them a better deal. It's high time programmers ended these anti-consumer blackouts once and for all and prove our industry is about enabling people to connect to their favorite programs rather than denying them access."...


Ouch! That's a hard beatdown for DTV's new BFF. It's also pretty accurate IMO.


----------



## mnassour

It's painfully obvious that DirecTV considers itself the winner in this one. That does NOT mean our bills won't be going up. But it does mean that Direct basically got the terms it was going for:

1. no required carriage of Epix
2. Viacom content to go
3. a long-term contract

The two statements seem to bear this out. Viacom basically said we're pleased to be back, while DirecTV strutted around, as borne out in the statements quoted above.

(from: http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/its...each-carriage-agreement-viacom-nets-restored/ )

Game-set-match: DirecTV, or so it seems this morning.

Y'know....it's kind of funny....all this time Charlie Ergen has been posturing about how he is trying to keep costs down and protect the consumer. But when a really big time dispute blew up, it was DirecTV that dug in its heels and apparently really put a hurt on Viacom.


----------



## tonyd79

Maybe no one knows they are back on....none of the Viacom channels are on What's Hot.


----------



## maartena

James Long said:


> Carriage of the EPIX movie channel is not required as part of the new agreement.


Sounds like DirecTV stood their ground on this one and won.


----------



## tonyd79

"maartena" said:


> Sounds like DirecTV stood their ground on this one and won.


I think they stood their ground on most of it and won.

Be nice if Epix comes but they have gotten their terms.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

ChicagoBlue said:


> I'll take a wager on that. 48 hours, tops. Tipping point today. Deal was basically done, Viacom went public with the Epix stuff, DTV called BS. Viacom is getting absolutely obliterated in the ratings right now. OBLITERATED and it is costing them dearly.
> 
> 48 hours.


Patting myself on the back!


----------



## ChicagoBlue

maartena said:


> Sounds like DirecTV stood their ground on this one and won.


To put it mildly. Let's just say more than a few shockwaves in the industry but about 3 or 4 days ago pretty much everyone started to see that Viacom was getting pistol whipped on this. Very shrewd by DTV, very shrewd.


----------



## fireponcoal

ChicagoBlue said:


> Patting myself on the back!


Go team?


----------



## ChicagoBlue

mnassour said:


> It's painfully obvious that DirecTV considers itself the winner in this one. That does NOT mean our bills won't be going up. But it does mean that Direct basically got the terms it was going for:
> 
> 1. no required carriage of Epix
> 2. Viacom content to go
> 3. a long-term contract
> 
> The two statements seem to bear this out. Viacom basically said we're pleased to be back, while DirecTV strutted around, as borne out in the statements quoted above.
> 
> (from: http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/its...each-carriage-agreement-viacom-nets-restored/ )
> 
> Game-set-match: DirecTV, or so it seems this morning.
> 
> Y'know....it's kind of funny....all this time Charlie Ergen has been posturing about how he is trying to keep costs down and protect the consumer. But when a really big time dispute blew up, it was DirecTV that dug in its heels and apparently really put a hurt on Viacom.


It's not even "so it seems", this was a smack down of EPIX (sic) proportions.

Of course bills will go up, DTV still gave Viacom an increase but not one in the stratosphere like they were asking for.


----------



## Sixto

ChicagoBlue said:


> Patting myself on the back!


Yep, for those subscribers that can tolerate patience, in today's world, this is how things now happen, and it's usually best for the long-term.

Complex negotiations need to come to extreme pain thresholds for people to act. Not always, but it's becoming more the norm.


----------



## DodgerKing

Can I call it or what?

http://www.satelliteguys.us/directv...en-viacom-returns-directv-13.html#post2918349


----------



## reweiss

DodgerKing said:


> Can I call it or what?
> 
> http://www.satelliteguys.us/directv...en-viacom-returns-directv-13.html#post2918349


Very nice prediction.

Now, can you pick the winning lottery numbers for me in Georgia?


----------



## shocky

The real question is when are they going to repeat the all new Futurama we missed!


----------



## maartena

snappjay said:


> Encore is still on.... but for how long?


Till the 31st. They said it would be on for the month regardless of whether they will come to an agreement.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

The Android app is weird now. If I browse by date and time, it skips over those numbers. If I browse by channel number, I can see the channels but there is no data. (I'm presuming the latter is because the guide data wasn't being pulled while they were off.)


----------



## RunnerFL

shocky said:


> The real question is when are they going to repeat the all new Futurama we missed!


Today at 8:58pm Eastern.


----------



## Old_School

Captain Spaulding said:


> Tr3s and Centric? I didn't even know they existed...or what they are!


Centric IMO is basically viacoms version of BET


----------



## RunnerFL

So all in all I missed the following:

1 Episode of Tosh.0
1 Episode of Workaholics
2 Episodes of Futurama

And guess what? They are all on again within the next couple of days. Just as I thought, I missed nothing.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

Old_School said:


> Centric IMO is basically viacoms version of BET


It's actually BET 2 basically (I think it used to be BET _something_, but I don't remember. BET IS a Viacom channel.


----------



## zimm7778

"monyking" said:


> I think there should be some petition to show Directv that we subscribers would like to pay more to receive Epix as long as it's all the channels and not just one or two....Don't let it be like Cinemax in the past when they offered just three channels at full price. Do you think this would be a good idea or no?


If you mean stand alone premium, fine. Part of a base package, no.


----------



## David Ortiz

RunnerFL said:


> So all in all I missed the following:
> 
> 1 Episode of Tosh.0
> 1 Episode of Workaholics
> 2 Episodes of Futurama
> 
> And guess what? They are all on again within the next couple of days. Just as I thought, I missed nothing.


I don't see a repeat for the first Futurama episode missed, Zapp Dingbat.


----------



## Old_School

fleckrj said:


> I wonder how many of the people who left DirecTV because Viacom was dark actually got their new service installed before the dispute was settled. This was much adu about missing 17 channels for 10 days.


Talked to my brother-in-law a few days ago,(Dish Installer) he said that became VERY busy.:lol:

I'll have to talk to him again this weekend and see if they slowed down....


----------



## John Strk

Great! So when can we expect details on how much our base packages are going up?


----------



## zimm7778

"mnassour" said:


> It's painfully obvious that DirecTV considers itself the winner in this one. That does NOT mean our bills won't be going up. But it does mean that Direct basically got the terms it was going for:
> 
> 1. no required carriage of Epix
> 2. Viacom content to go
> 3. a long-term contract
> 
> The two statements seem to bear this out. Viacom basically said we're pleased to be back, while DirecTV strutted around, as borne out in the statements quoted above.
> 
> (from: http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/its-over-directv-viacom-reach-carriage-agreement-viacom-nets-restored/ )
> 
> Game-set-match: DirecTV, or so it seems this morning.
> 
> Y'know....it's kind of funny....all this time Charlie Ergen has been posturing about how he is trying to keep costs down and protect the consumer. But when a really big time dispute blew up, it was DirecTV that dug in its heels and apparently really put a hurt on Viacom.


I think Viacom put a lot of the hurt on themselves with the way they acted.


----------



## RunnerFL

David Ortiz said:


> I don't see a repeat for the first Futurama episode missed, Zapp Dingbat.


Yeah, I thought I did. I got that via Torrent anyways. :lol:


----------



## RunnerFL

John Strk said:


> Great! So when can we expect details on how much our base packages are going up?


The usual $5/mo in February.


----------



## Old_School

Well, at least i'll have spike back in time for HorsepowerTv


----------



## lparsons21

mnassour said:


> Y'know....it's kind of funny....all this time Charlie Ergen has been posturing about how he is trying to keep costs down and protect the consumer. But when a really big time dispute blew up, it was DirecTV that dug in its heels and apparently really put a hurt on Viacom.


I'm sorry but that just is out of whack. Ergen has often taken down channels in these disputes, to the point that many here have made very negative comments about how often it occurs.

So to call it 'posturing' is just so much baloney!

And frankly Viacom was its own worst enemy in all this. They displayed a childish and very negative approach to negotiations, which in the end bit them in the butt. That gave D* the high ground.


----------



## Ira Lacher

lparsons21 said:


> Ergen has often taken down channels in these disputes, to the point that many here have made very negative comments about how often it occurs.


Doesn't it seem to you, though, that when he does, there's a personal edge to it? While the DTV-Viacom dispute seemed heightened, at least with their public statements, you never got the impression that it was anything else but business and that a deal would be struck, sooner or later. Contrast that with DISH's childish take-the-ball-and-never-come-back approach surrounding AMC channels.


----------



## bjoe

CBS Corp in the fall (CBS o&o's, SHO, TMC, FLIX, , CBS Sports Net)

DirecTV faces another programming negotiation in coming months: Its deal with CBS Corp. (CBS) is up for renewal in the fall, according to a person familiar with the matter.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO...?mod=WSJ_MarketingAndStrategy_middleHeadlines


----------



## tonyd79

"Ira Lacher" said:


> Doesn't it seem to you, though, that when he does, there's a personal edge to it? While the DTV-Viacom dispute seemed heightened, at least with their public statements, you never got the impression that it was anything else but business and that a deal would be struck, sooner or later. Contrast that with DISH's childish take-the-ball-and-never-come-back approach surrounding AMC channels.


Everything Charlie does is personal.


----------



## lparsons21

Ira Lacher said:


> Doesn't it seem to you, though, that when he does, there's a personal edge to it? While the DTV-Viacom dispute seemed heightened, at least with their public statements, you never got the impression that it was anything else but business and that a deal would be struck, sooner or later. Contrast that with DISH's childish take-the-ball-and-never-come-back approach surrounding AMC channels.


In general, no I don't believe it is that way. The current AMC dispute is certainly exascerbated by the lawsuit, but that hasn't been the case for most of the disputes.

Actually when AMC came on in HD with Dish it surprised many as they knew there was no love lost between them and Dish.

In the back of my mind, I keep thinking that D* was helped in their handling of the Viacom issue by the fact that Dish has just taken AMC off without huge subscriber loss. Which kind of sent the signal that maybe this was the time for the distributor/content provider battle lines to be set.

We all knew it was coming at some point in time.


----------



## WebTraveler

we have no idea the terms. For all we know the terms are what they were before. I tend to believe Directv stood its ground. If it caves then the next provider won't back down when it wants another 30% and then before long our 100 bill will be $130 this year. My guess is Viacom needed Directv more than the other way around.


----------



## fleckrj

Old_School said:


> Centric IMO is basically viacoms version of BET


And here I thought BET was Viacom's version of BET 

Both Centric and BET are owned by Viacom, and both target African-American audiences. Centric originally was BET on Jazz and showcased jazz music-related programming. Now is is a general interest channel geared towards an older African-American audience than BET is.


----------



## bflora

RunnerFL said:


> So all in all I missed the following:
> 
> 1 Episode of Tosh.0
> 1 Episode of Workaholics
> 2 Episodes of Futurama
> 
> And guess what? They are all on again within the next couple of days. Just as I thought, I missed nothing.


Actually last week's new Futurama "Zapp Dingbat" is not found in doing a search of upcoming episodes. Last night's new episode, "The Butterjunk Effect" is on tonight at 8:58 and repeated several times in the search.


----------



## tgater

Old_School said:


> Well, at least i'll have spike back in time for HorsepowerTv


2nd. And Tosh on Tuesday.


----------



## SayWhat?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...ach-new-program-fee-agreement-ending-blackout



> Viacom Inc. will get more than $600 million a year from DirecTV in programming fees under their new seven-year agreement, up at least 20 percent from the previous terms, a person with direct knowledge of the matter said.


----------



## Laxguy

DodgerKing said:


> Can I call it or what?
> 
> http://www.satelliteguys.us/directv...en-viacom-returns-directv-13.html#post2918349


Bragging, from a Dodger fan, at this juncture, is unseemly.....


----------



## Santi360HD

bjoe said:


> CBS Corp in the fall (CBS o&o's, SHO, TMC, FLIX, , CBS Sports Net)
> 
> DirecTV faces another programming negotiation in coming months: Its deal with CBS Corp. (CBS) is up for renewal in the fall, according to a person familiar with the matter.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO...?mod=WSJ_MarketingAndStrategy_middleHeadlines


Lets see how a channel pull (let that of a premium) sits with those that pay extra for them ontop of the basic fee and try to pass it off to me that you have my back in the negotiations..

I can just see the headlines..
"_DIRECTV HAS BEEN FORCED TO TAKE DOWN SHOWTIME & The Movie Channel"_RING---------------RING
Thank you for calling directv...
in a few words please state why you're calling
*Customer service*

Good morning thank you for calling Directv, I see you're a long time customer of ours how may I help you??

"surely you dont expect me to pay my premium fee for Showtime or TMC this month since you're not fkn offering it huh?"

" absloutely sir, here is your credit"

thanks for nothing...click...

---------Bottom Line

A premium channel should NEVER be in fear of being pulled..while extra money is being paid on it by us...remember us?? you know...your subscribers??


----------



## tonyd79

"Santi360HD" said:


> Lets see how a channel pull (let that of a premium) sits with those that pay extra for them ontop of the basic fee and try to pass it off to me that you have my back in the negotiations..
> 
> I can just see the headlines..
> "DIRECTV HAS BEEN FORCED TO TAKE DOWN SHOWTIME & The Movie Channel"RING---------------RING
> Thank you for calling directv...
> in a few words please state why you're calling
> Customer service
> 
> Good morning thank you for calling Directv, I see you're a long time customer of ours how may I help you??
> 
> "surely you dont expect me to pay my premium fee for Showtime or TMC this month since you're not fkn offering it huh?"
> 
> " absloutely sir, here is your credit"
> 
> thanks for nothing...click...
> 
> ---------Bottom Line
> 
> A premium channel should NEVER be in fear of being pulled..while extra money is being paid on it by us...remember us?? you know...your subscribers??


I sorta agree but you are forgetting that a lot of folks get their premiums not a la carte but bundled. What do you do with those in your scenario. Sure. For a la carte, you just pass the price on cause it is the price.

Plus what happens if it is part of a package or one side wants it to be like Epix?

I think you trivialized the issue.


----------



## Odys

WebTraveler said:


> we have no idea the terms. For all we know the terms are what they were before. I tend to believe Directv stood its ground. If it caves then the next provider won't back down when it wants another 30% and then before long our 100 bill will be $130 this year. My guess is Viacom needed Directv more than the other way around.


According to Bloomberg (via Engadget):

As expected, Bloomberg reports "people with direct knowledge" claim the new agreement is another seven year contract priced at more than $600 million per year, about 20 percent more than what Viacom was getting before. At least one analyst called it a win for both sides -- we'll see how subscribers fared if (when) there's a rate hike any time soon.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/20/directv-viacom-agreement-epix-mtv-vh1-comedy-central-nick/


----------



## Santi360HD

tonyd79 said:


> I sorta agree but you are forgetting that a lot of folks get their premiums not a la carte but bundled. What do you do with those in your scenario. Sure. For a la carte, you just pass the price on cause it is the price.
> 
> Plus what happens if it is part of a package or one side wants it to be like Epix?
> 
> I think you trivialized the issue.


then hows this...i'll be more to the point...
1st here is my copy & paste

_A premium channel should NEVER be in fear of being pulled..while extra money is being paid on it by us...remember us?? you know...your subscribers?? _

to all my fellow D* subscribers...that pay for the premium services..MYSELF included...

...are you cool with an alleged PREMIUM channel pull??? do you feel at ease that DirecTV has my back to fight injustice on price increases by CBS..on stuff on your a la carte premium offering that you're paying extra on????


----------



## mrphil

Between now and when this latest agreement nears expiration, perhaps they can agree on how many Viacom channels/'networks' D* actually carries!:lol:

From Viacom's blog: "_All *26 Viacom networks*, including Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV, BET, CMT, Logo, Spike, TV Land, MTV2, VH1, VH1 Classic, Palladia, Nick Jr., Nicktoons, TeenNick, Tr3s and Centric, will return to DIRECTV's channel lineup immediately."_

and DirectvPromise: _"DIRECTV has reached a new long-term agreement with Viacom to restore *17 channels *(including Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV, BET, Spike, CMT, TV Land and ten other channels) that Viacom had taken away from DIRECTV customers on July 10. Viacom has returned all affected networks."_


----------



## tonyd79

"Santi360HD" said:


> then hows this...i'll be more to the point...
> 1st here is my copy & paste
> 
> A premium channel should NEVER be in fear of being pulled..while extra money is being paid on it by us...remember us?? you know...your subscribers??
> 
> to all my fellow D* subscribers...that pay for the premium services..MYSELF included...
> 
> ...are you cool with an alleged PREMIUM channel pull??? do you feel at ease that DirecTV has my back to fight injustice on price increases by CBS..on stuff on your a la carte premium offering that you're paying extra on????


You missed my point. I do not pay a la carte for Showtime and neither do a lot of other people.

Extra Innings, Sunday Ticket, yes. Showtime, HBO, cinemax, encore, starz, no.


----------



## Laxguy

Viacom double counting channels that are both SD and HD??


----------



## tonyd79

"Laxguy" said:


> Viacom double counting channels that are both SD and HD??


The water was cold when directv counted!


----------



## Santi360HD

tonyd79 said:


> You missed my point. I do not pay a la carte for Showtime and neither do a lot of other people.
> 
> Extra Innings, Sunday Ticket, yes. Showtime, HBO, cinemax, encore, starz, no.


what about those that do? I had that for years with time warner only HBO & Cinemax...not tmc, not sho, not starz, not encore.

im supposed to politically stand by and feel good about a channel pull? and unlike a basic channel..a $$premium channel..and I'm cool with that cause said provider is looking out for me??..HAH!!


----------



## maartena

Odys said:


> According to Bloomberg (via Engadget):
> 
> As expected, Bloomberg reports "people with direct knowledge" claim the new agreement is another seven year contract priced at more than $600 million per year, about 20 percent more than what Viacom was getting before. At least one analyst called it a win for both sides -- we'll see how subscribers fared if (when) there's a rate hike any time soon.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/20/directv-viacom-agreement-epix-mtv-vh1-comedy-central-nick/


What i don't see noticed anywhere is.... outside of Epix, will DirecTV be required to carry the few Viacom channels that they currently are not carrying, such as MTV Jams or VH1 Classic?

$600 million per year by the way.... is $30 per year per customer, or $2.50 a month per customer.


----------



## tonyd79

"Santi360HD" said:


> what about those that do? I had that for years with time warner only HBO & Cinemax...not tmc, not sho, not starz, not encore.
> 
> im supposed to politically stand by and feel good about a channel pull? and unlike a basic channel..a $$premium channel..and I'm cool with that cause said provider is looking out for me..HAH!!


Now you expect them to pull a channel for some but not for others? It would get pulled. You don't get charged. That's it. Just like when the NHL was closed down. Folks who bought NHL Center Ice didn't get charged.

I would hope that the premiums are dealt with differently but it could happen. If the contract is bundled (say Showtime with the CBS contracts or Epix with MTV) it could be part of a larger thing.

Heck, one of the Viacom channels was a semi-premium. Palladia. It got pulled.

All I am saying is think through all the implications not just one. These things are more complex than one thread of thought.


----------



## tonyd79

"maartena" said:


> What i don't see noticed anywhere is.... outside of Epix, will DirecTV be required to carry the few Viacom channels that they currently are not carrying, such as MTV Jams or VH1 Classic?
> 
> $600 million per year by the way.... is $30 per year per customer, or $2.50 a month per customer.


I think you mean other channels. We already have vh1 classic.


----------



## maartena

Santi360HD said:


> what about those that do? I had that for years with time warner only HBO & Cinemax...not tmc, not sho, not starz, not encore.
> 
> im supposed to politically stand by and feel good about a channel pull? and unlike a basic channel..a $$premium channel..and I'm cool with that cause said provider is looking out for me??..HAH!!


No worries, the contracts for premium channels are a whole different beast. Unlike regular channels, there is a direct client-to-television-provider exchange of money, DirecTV is just acting as the middle man and taking a cut. Sure, there are negotiations, contracts, etc, etc but it is a whole different animal, negotiation-wise.

I see CBS pulling all their normal channels during a dispute, but Showtime will probably stay on the air.


----------



## Santi360HD

tonyd79 said:


> Now you expect them to pull a channel for some but not for others? It would get pulled. You don't get charged. That's it. Just like when the NHL was closed down. Folks who bought NHL Center Ice didn't get charged.
> 
> I would hope that the premiums are dealt with differently but it could happen. If the contract is bundled (say Showtime with the CBS contracts or Epix with MTV) it could be part of a larger thing.
> 
> Heck, one of the Viacom channels was a semi-premium. Palladia. It got pulled.
> 
> All I am saying is think through all the implications not just one. These things are more complex than one thread of thought.


I understand about the no charge kind of thing with NHL Center Ice during the strike..
D* would be commiting PR suicide billing for SHO/TMC & such should an impasse with CBS happen.

But the point I was making is that its a premium that we pay extra for, it shouldnt have the same complications and bickerings as a basic channel.


----------



## tonyd79

"maartena" said:


> No worries, the contracts for premium channels are a whole different beast. Unlike regular channels, there is a direct client-to-television-provider exchange of money, DirecTV is just acting as the middle man and taking a cut. Sure, there are negotiations, contracts, etc, etc but it is a whole different animal, negotiation-wise.
> 
> I see CBS pulling all their normal channels during a dispute, but Showtime will probably stay on the air.


I agree. I think we were talking hypothetically.

Although an unreasonable demand could cause a premium to go dark. What if they want to be put on a different tier? What if they want to charge a flat fee like Viacom wanted for Epix that is too high? What if they want more of a cut for bundled customers?

I don't see it happening with Showtime as the real and only issue with CBS will be the O&O network affiliates.


----------



## Paul Secic

tulanejosh said:


> I would like to see it added. They do run some good movies that are no liner on the existing premiums. Even If it's a la carte I'd be interested.


I'm a big fan of EPIX! Hopefully DTV will get it.


----------



## Santi360HD

its a shame we didnt get epix...


----------



## tonyd79

"Santi360HD" said:


> I understand about the no charge kind of thing with NHL Center Ice during the strike..
> D* would be commiting PR suicide billing for SHO/TMC & such should an impasse with CBS happen.
> 
> But the point I was making is that its a premium that we pay extra for, it shouldnt have the same complications and bickerings as a basic channel.


But it can. In fact while the Viacom dispute was not all about Epix, the last day or so was exactly about a premium channel. You are focusing only on the price of the single channel a la carte.

But I'll give you another reason why that could be an issue, too. Say CBS wants to increase the price by 50% yet all the other major players already have a contract in place. So, directv or whoever would have to raise the price while dish and the rest are advertising Showtime for cheap. How does that work for dirctv's benefit? Or yours?

I doubt most of this would happen but you are making flat statements that don't hold up.


----------



## tonyd79

"Santi360HD" said:


> its a shame we didnt get epix...


Probably not over yet. They have the option. I gather they didn't want Epix bundled into the deal but wanted to set it aside.

Right now (pure guess), I'd expect it this year.


----------



## Beerstalker

I'm not so sure we have to worry about Showtime anyway. I'm thinking maybe it's on a seperate contract since we just got all those additional Showtime channels added back in 2010.



tonyd79 said:


> Probably not over yet. They have the option. I gather they didn't want Epix bundled into the deal but wanted to set it aside.
> 
> Right now (pure guess), I'd expect it this year.


I'm thinking we might eventually get it too. DirecTV's stance seemed much softer on it this time around. When it first launched they pretty much said they had no interest in Epix, this time around they said that they felt $500 million was too much. I'm hoping they come to terms and are able to add it as a seperate premium like Cinemax, HBO, Showtime, Etc. maybe for a little less since there are fewer channels. Say all 4 Epix channels for $8 alone, $7 with one other premium, or $6 with two, etc. Or maybe put it in the HD Extra pack and bump up the price of it a bit (although that would probably put an end to the fluke some of us are taking advantage of).


----------



## Santi360HD

tonyd79 said:


> But it can. In fact while the Viacom dispute was not all about Epix, the last day or so was exactly about a premium channel. You are focusing only on the price of the single channel a la carte.
> 
> But I'll give you another reason why that could be an issue, too. Say CBS wants to increase the price by 50% yet all the other major players already have a contract in place. So, directv or whoever would have to raise the price while dish and the rest are advertising Showtime for cheap. How does that work for dirctv's benefit? Or yours?
> 
> I doubt most of this would happen but you are making flat statements that don't hold up.


you're right my statements (on premium channel pulls) dont hold water. I hope it never does

Its largely concentrated on Basic channels, AMC on E* , Versus, G4, NFL Network still not on some cable companies..SNY & MSG on E* ....yeah basic channels, they're the ones always in peril..


----------



## tonyd79

"Santi360HD" said:


> you're right my statements (on premium channel pulls) dont hold water. I hope it never does
> 
> Its largely concentrated on Basic channels, AMC on E* , Versus, G4, NFL Network still not on some cable companies..SNY & MSG on E* ....yeah basic channels, they're the ones always in peril..


Hey. I truly mean this. I enjoy fleshing out ideas. Thanks for the give and take.


----------



## Paul Secic

Pepe Sylvia said:


> It's actually BET 2 basically (I think it used to be BET _something_, but I don't remember. BET IS a Viacom channel.


This channel used to called BET Jazz two years ago. It was pretty cool.


----------



## lparsons21

tonyd79 said:


> Probably not over yet. They have the option. I gather they didn't want Epix bundled into the deal but wanted to set it aside.
> 
> Right now (pure guess), I'd expect it this year.


While I am firmly in the camp wanting Epix, I doubt that it will happen soon. I think the Epix package is 3 HD channels and one SD channel, so D* would need to give up some transponder space that is an issue right now for some upcoming sports that may be of more interest to D* corporate given D*'s position on sports in general.

I would be in favor of just negotiating the main Epix channel and forget the rest until the next sat is launched, and that should be doable if the 2 parties can have a meeting of the minds.


----------



## grecorj

Numbers in focus, see NYTimes Media Decoder blog for details.

DTV was paying $500mm/year under old deal. Now paying $600mm. That's a $100mm increase per year (20%). That's a $5 per subscriber (20mm subscribers) per year increase. Or about $0.40/month -- so "pennies a day" increase quote from Viacom is valid.

Supposedly Viacom wants $500mm/year for Epix.


----------



## Santi360HD

lparsons21 said:


> While I am firmly in the camp wanting Epix, I doubt that it will happen soon. I think the Epix package is 3 HD channels and one SD channel, so D* would need to give up some transponder space that is an issue right now for some upcoming sports that may be of more interest to D* corporate given D*'s position on sports in general.
> 
> I would be in favor of just negotiating the main Epix channel and forget the rest until the next sat is launched, and that should be doable if the 2 parties can have a meeting of the minds.


and we all know D*'s stance on HD......................................Soon !!


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

If they add Epix as a premium it should include all of the channels AND online authentication a la HBOGO. One channel at a premium price won't cut it.


----------



## lparsons21

Pepe Sylvia said:


> If they add Epix as a premium it should include all of the channels AND online authentication a la HBOGO. One channel at a premium price won't cut it.


I wouldn't expect a single channel to be a one-channel premium, more like into the HD Extra Pack, which is where I think it belongs.

As to the rest, well some practicality has to be taken into account. The fact is that D* has somewhat restricted transponder space and your all or none approach would most likely mean none.


----------



## speedy4022

"Santi360HD" said:


> its a shame we didnt get epix...


+1


----------



## CaptainInspiration

Any chance the nightly shows we missed on comedy central will be on VOD? I don't see them listed as of yet...


----------



## tulanejosh

"doesn't require Epix" is a very interesting way of phrasing it. Doesn't require it... doesn't mean they wont do it.


----------



## fleckrj

grecorj said:


> Numbers in focus, see NYTimes Media Decoder blog for details.
> 
> DTV was paying $500mm/year under old deal. Now paying $600mm. That's a $100mm increase per year (20%). That's a $5 per subscriber (20mm subscribers) per year increase. Or about $0.40/month -- so "pennies a day" increase quote from Viacom is valid.
> 
> Supposedly Viacom wants $500mm/year for Epix.


True, but it is fewer pennies a day than Viacom asked for originally. I think being without the channels for 10 days was worth it to save one-third of Viacom's original asking price.

Had Epix been added at the price Viacom wanted, that would have ben a 120% increase in price ($1100mm instead of $500mm) for a 23% increase in the number of channels (21 instead of 17).


----------



## tzphotos.com

Check your DVRs. It looks like it will attempt to re-record the missed shows if they are repeated. I noticed that they are in the to-do list of my DVR.

Thumbs up for the DVR software!


----------



## tonyd79

"lparsons21" said:


> While I am firmly in the camp wanting Epix, I doubt that it will happen soon. I think the Epix package is 3 HD channels and one SD channel, so D* would need to give up some transponder space that is an issue right now for some upcoming sports that may be of more interest to D* corporate given D*'s position on sports in general.
> 
> I would be in favor of just negotiating the main Epix channel and forget the rest until the next sat is launched, and that should be doable if the 2 parties can have a meeting of the minds.


I don't think there is any fixed package for Epix. Fios has 2 hd. Some systems have only 1.

Depends on what the option says. They could start with 1.

What Epix really brings is a ton of streaming stuff and on demand. Wonder if the digital streaming rights included Epix of they out it on.


----------



## Tubaman-Z

tonyd79 said:


> The water was cold when directv counted!


Nice ref - well played, sir.


----------



## Tubaman-Z

For those still wondering, tr3s is MTV 3 for the hispanic audience (MTV tres -> tr3s).


----------



## Taltizer

Im glad this finally got resolved.If they do add Epix I agree with others I think it should go into the HD Extra Pack and if subscribers want it they can get that package and get the channel.That would seem if its one single channel where it should go.


----------



## captaink5217

Is epix commercial free movie channels like starz and hbo?


----------



## RunnerFL

captaink5217 said:


> Is epix commercial free movie channels like starz and hbo?


Yes, yet another group of movie channels.

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


----------



## TBoneit

Epix is a plus channel for me, mostly movies, HBO is a epic fail ever since they started doing so many series. 

I stopped watching AMC years ago when they started putting 2 tons of commercials in 1 ton rated movie.

I have no interest in paying for HBO, Cinemax, SHowtime, or Starz and have not done so for many years.


----------



## captaink5217

I would pay for that if it was offered as another premium, I pay for all the other premium movie packages already, so what the heck throw in another.


----------



## MysteryMan

loudo said:


> I saw one article where it stated DirecTV had the option to add them later this year, then I saw where Swanni said it was not part of the deal. But, over the years, we have all learned that Swanni information is not always the most reliable source.
> 
> As far as I am concerned they could have left all 26 off the air and given us Epix.


As I posted elsewhere the only channel Viacom offers that I occasionally watch is Palladia. The rest do not fulfill my viewing habits. But there is a target audience for those twenty six Viacom channels, hence their return to DirecTV. The Epix channels would be more icing on the cake for movie buffs. I'll repeat what I posted before about Swanni. He's a lot like Dr. Phil. The two of them know everything there is to know about absolutely nothing.


----------



## tonyd79

TBoneit said:


> Epix is a plus channel for me, mostly movies, HBO is a epic fail ever since they started doing so many series.
> 
> I stopped watching AMC years ago when they started putting 2 tons of commercials in 1 ton rated movie.
> 
> I have no interest in paying for HBO, Cinemax, SHowtime, or Starz and have not done so for many years.


A bit different here. HBO, for me, is saved by the original series. Game of Thrones is magnificent. What hurts HBO for me is their lack of respect for OAR. Starz is very good for that, so I like them.

I did give up on AMC (the series they have do not entice me at all and the movies are hacked up). Sad, cause, it used to be up there with TCM.

The price I pay for all the premiums as a Premier customer is not all that bad considering that I like them for different reasons and watch them all to some extent.


----------



## Fraaaak

Well, this is cool. Viacom channels are back, many of us got "free stuff" from D* and we might even be able to get Epix soon!


----------



## mrphil

MysteryMan said:


> I'll repeat what I posted before about Swanni. He's a lot like Dr. Phil. The two of them know everything there is to know about absolutely nothing.


!rolling


----------



## grecorj

Googling around, it looks like Epix makes a little less than $3 on average per sub (per month).

$500mm would have put it at about $2/sub a month for DTV.


----------



## jahgreen

Laxguy said:


> Bragging, from a Dodger fan, * * * * , is unseemly.....


Fixed that for you.


----------



## Taltizer

My 5 friends an relatives got calls from Directv today begging them to come back to Directv now that the Viacom deal was settled so they were offered free equipment upgrades i think HR34's and Whole Home and 3 free months of all programming to get them back before there dish network installs and a bunch of other free programming so i guess they did get something good out of leaving directv over the Viacom dispute if Directv's going to offer all of this I cant blame people to take it to come back.If I didnt have to wait for a month before I could have left and they offered it all to me I would take the deal to stay a little longer to.


----------



## Taltizer

Taltizer said:


> My 5 friends an relatives got calls from Directv today begging them to come back to Directv now that the Viacom deal was settled so they were offered free equipment upgrades i think HR34's and Whole Home and 3 free months of all programming to get them back before there dish network installs and a bunch of other free programming so i guess they did get something good out of leaving directv over the Viacom dispute if Directv's going to offer all of this I cant blame people to take it to come back.If I didnt have to wait for a month before I could have left and they offered it all to me I would take the deal to stay a little longer to.


The all programming is the Premiere and HD Extra Pack and i think was some sports stuff to but cant remember what that was ST or something.


----------



## inkahauts

"mrphil" said:


> Between now and when this latest agreement nears expiration, perhaps they can agree on how many Viacom channels/'networks' D* actually carries!:lol:
> 
> From Viacom's blog: "All 26 Viacom networks, including Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV, BET, CMT, Logo, Spike, TV Land, MTV2, VH1, VH1 Classic, Palladia, Nick Jr., Nicktoons, TeenNick, Tr3s and Centric, will return to DIRECTV's channel lineup immediately."
> 
> and DirectvPromise: "DIRECTV has reached a new long-term agreement with Viacom to restore 17 channels (including Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV, BET, Spike, CMT, TV Land and ten other channels) that Viacom had taken away from DIRECTV customers on July 10. Viacom has returned all affected networks."


The funny part Is it's really 26 CHANNELS and 17 NETWORKS.


----------



## tonyd79

grecorj said:


> Googling around, it looks like Epix makes a little less than $3 on average per sub (per month).
> 
> $500mm would have put it at about $2/sub a month for DTV.


Fun with numbers.

The $3 you got per sub. Assuming that is to Epix and not subscriber cost (Fios charges $10 a month), that number would be skewed if you were talking about a premium channel. For $500 mil, if you got 2 million to sub, then you are talking over $20 per sub per month. Plus DirecTV's profit would make it a $25-$30 channel!

As for the $2/sub. That is a lot if it were basic. You are talking ESPN money!


----------



## Sandra

DodgerKing said:


> Can I call it or what?


Hey Dodger King...I don't recognize that site!!!   

Hope all is well...


----------



## revolg

"revolg" said:


> A deal will be made very soon


Did I lie to anyone  just know who u know here.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

OK all... I think this thread has served its purpose. If you have any compelling reason to post here, please do but otherwise I would be fine with this thread fading into the past.


----------



## jblaze50

Wow , we get the Viacom channels back. So what you missed the past week plus , will be shown again and again and again. That's the problem with these mergers of channels , they show the same programming over and over again. I could of cared less if these crap channels came back , but those who like them , good news for you. But this is why our bills go up every year. Now Viacom can pay snooki and jwow for there new show. I am glad the TCM went HD though.


----------



## damondlt

Stuart Sweet said:


> OK all... I think this thread has served its purpose. If you have any compelling reason to post here, please do but otherwise I would be fine with this thread fading into the past.


sounds good!


----------



## APB101

inkahauts said:


> The funny part Is it's really 26 CHANNELS and 17 NETWORKS.


What _bull****_ that was! To make a claim of SD and HD separately to extend the numbers by 9. And I read a few reports sticking to the number _26_. _Garbage._


----------



## Rtm

snappjay said:


> I also noticed that the "ala carte" thing didn't pan out :-\


This....


----------



## xmguy

"Old_School" said:


> Well, at least i'll have spike back in time for HorsepowerTv


Just my thoughts exactly. Missed it last week. Wonder if most of the Powerblock shows will be new?


----------



## APB101

Interesting article: http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/its...each-carriage-agreement-viacom-nets-restored/


----------



## Paul Secic

captaink5217 said:


> Is epix commercial free movie channels like starz and hbo?


Yes.


----------



## ibooksrule

tonyd79 said:


> Epix is and should be a premium.


Its not a premium on Dish its part of the HD package. Should be the same with Directv.


----------



## inkahauts

"ibooksrule" said:


> Its not a premium on Dish its part of the HD package. Should be the same with Directv.


S you think everyone's bills should go up another $2 a month for those channels?

They belong in a premium tier so those that want them can have them and pay for them themselves, IMHO. Makes no sense to force these channels at the rates they want on everyone. Overall rates are high enough without needing to pile on.


----------



## lparsons21

inkahauts said:


> S you think everyone's bills should go up another $2 a month for those channels?
> 
> They belong in a premium tier so those that want them can have them and pay for them themselves, IMHO. Makes no sense to force these channels at the rates they want on everyone. Overall rates are high enough without needing to pile on.


Ibooks.. mispoke a bit. On Dish it is either available for $7/month as an a la carte` pick, or included in the $10/month [email protected] which is similar to the HD Extra Pack that D* has.

And that is the way that D* should offer it imo.


----------



## speedy4022

"ibooksrule" said:


> Its not a premium on Dish its part of the HD package. Should be the same with Directv.


Epix if it is added needs to be in the hd extra pak like hdnet movies.


----------



## ibooksrule

TBoneit said:


> Epix is a plus channel for me, mostly movies, HBO is a epic fail ever since they started doing so many series.
> 
> I stopped watching AMC years ago when they started putting 2 tons of commercials in 1 ton rated movie.
> 
> I have no interest in paying for HBO, Cinemax, SHowtime, or Starz and have not done so for many years.


Epix also shows allot more variety. They show many older movies that you dont see on the other movie channels. I use to like the channel when i was on Dish and they seemed to show more variety. Its no extra on Dish i think Directv should not charge extra either.


----------



## ibooksrule

lparsons21 said:


> Ibooks.. mispoke a bit. On Dish it is either available for $7/month as an a la carte` pick, or included in the $10/month [email protected] which is similar to the HD Extra Pack that D* has.
> 
> And that is the way that D* should offer it imo.


Must have changed because we got EPIX and didnt get some extra pack.


----------



## inkahauts

"ibooksrule" said:


> Epix also shows allot more variety. They show many older movies that you dont see on the other movie channels. I use to like the channel when i was on Dish and they seemed to show more variety. Its no extra on Dish i think Directv should not charge extra either.


So DIRECTV should not charge for something that Viacom wants $500 million a year for? Really?

I can see maybe putting it in the extra pack, but then I'd expect the extra pack price to increase a little bit. It wouldn't need to increase a lot, because simply having more people sub to the pack would help pay for the channel, but I'd bet a 1 to 3 dollar increase if they did that.

I doubt its coming though, I think viacom wants a flat rate for it and DIRECTV is never going to go that route.


----------



## Odys

TBoneit said:


> Epix is a plus channel for me, mostly movies, HBO is a epic fail ever since they started doing so many series.
> 
> I stopped watching AMC years ago when they started putting 2 tons of commercials in 1 ton rated movie.
> 
> I have no interest in paying for HBO, Cinemax, SHowtime, or Starz and have not done so for many years.


Then you are missing some of the best tv in many years. Movies can be found anywhere, the series on HBO, Showtime and AMC are far more worth the price than mere movies.


----------



## tonyd79

ibooksrule said:


> Epix also shows allot more variety. They show many older movies that you dont see on the other movie channels. I use to like the channel when i was on Dish and they seemed to show more variety. Its no extra on Dish i think Directv should not charge extra either.


You must be talking about Epix Drive In or Epix 3. Epix and Epix 2 pretty much concentrate on more recent blockbusters (last 20 years with a big emphasis on newer movies). I have them on Fios. No assurance that even if DirecTV adds Epix they will do all four.

However, as I said before, Epix has a huge library of older movies (lots of them B flicks) available streaming or On Demand. Pretty sure that is what they populate Drive In with.

I still say it is more like HBO/Cinemax than like TCM or Fox Movie Channel, which are truly basic.

Epix is a premium on fios as well. $10 a month or in their top level package. Just like HBO, etc., on DirecTV.


----------



## James Long

ibooksrule said:


> Must have changed because we got EPIX and didnt get some extra pack.


Currently one EPIX channel is available in AT250 (Epix Drive-In) and the others are available either a la carte for $7 or as part of [email protected] for $10 (the better deal being [email protected] as the extra $3 provides several other channels).

It is a decent package. If DirecTV decides to offer the channels it could provide a boost to their HD Extra package or as an a la carte. It takes up the same space on the satellites regardless of how many people can view it, so providing it it as many subscribers as possible at a decent price makes sense.


----------



## tonyd79

inkahauts said:


> So DIRECTV should not charge for something that Viacom wants $500 million a year for? Really?
> 
> I can see maybe putting it in the extra pack, but then I'd expect the extra pack price to increase a little bit. It wouldn't need to increase a lot, because simply having more people sub to the pack would help pay for the channel, but I'd bet a 1 to 3 dollar increase if they did that.
> 
> I doubt its coming though, I think viacom wants a flat rate for it and DIRECTV is never going to go that route.


A flat rate is what Viacom asked for. In the final deal, they could have made it an option with a flat rate or an option with a per sub rate. Nothing has reported that yet.

As for the HD pack increasing, just stop offering repeated 3 month free access and that will take care of it.


----------



## TBoneit

My point was I'm, not paying for series when I can get ones that I like on the networks, USA, SciFi, TNT etc. As it is between the free movie channels, and non pay channel serials there is more content than I have time to watch. Why Pay more. 

Whee Warehouse 13 next Monday!


----------



## tonyd79

TBoneit said:


> My point was I'm, not paying for series when I can get ones that I like on the networks, USA, SciFi, TNT etc. As it is between the free movie channels, and non pay channel serials there is more content than I have time to watch. Why Pay more.
> 
> Whee Warehouse 13 next Monday!


Because some of the series blow away other ones and they are all commercial free.

Game of Thrones is one of the best endeavors ever taken on by an American TV channel, for example. If it were on USA, SyFy, TNT, etc., it would be butchered and probably not even done (heck, it wasn't).

Besides, you do not get TNT, USA, Syfy, etc., free. You pay for them. Same with Warehouse 13 (a pretty damned good show but still not in the class of GoT).

Now if you said "ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS, PBS, CW, etc., you have an argument about paying.


----------



## ibooksrule

maybe epix is not the channel im thinking of then. There were 2 that were allot of classic movies 90s and before. Not B movies but blockbusters from 70s and 80s and such. I thought it was epix but maybe im wrong.


----------



## tonyd79

"ibooksrule" said:


> maybe epix is not the channel im thinking of then. There were 2 that were allot of classic movies 90s and before. Not B movies but blockbusters from 70s and 80s and such. I thought it was epix but maybe im wrong.


Was it in HD? Could have been one of the Plex channels.

Directv is supposed to get them soon.


----------



## ibooksrule

thats it. It was retroplex. I did watch epix too but it was retro plex im thinking of that showed lots of movies from 80s and 70s and such.
That would be great to see on Directv


----------



## PrinceLH

Didn't miss Viacom one bit!


----------



## tonyd79

"PrinceLH" said:


> Didn't miss Viacom one bit!


That's cause it is not gone.


----------



## tonyd79

"ibooksrule" said:


> thats it. It was retroplex. I did watch epix too but it was retro plex im thinking of that showed lots of movies from 80s and 70s and such.
> That would be great to see on Directv


They announced an agreement with starz for it but when and if any hd, we don't know.

Glad we could figure that out.


----------



## actah

Now we can move on to a bigger problem...
How to get DirectTV feed delivered over the internet?(or to Canadian wannabe subscribers)


----------



## ciurca

The horse is dead. Stop with the beating.


----------



## Tom Robertson

actah said:


> Now we can move on to a bigger problem...
> How to get DirectTV feed delivered over the internet?(or to Canadian wannabe subscribers)


<moderator mode> Talk to the Canadian government (they are the ones limiting service. Anything else is not to be discussed here at DBStalk.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## maartena

TBoneit said:


> Whee Warehouse 13 next Monday!


Where's my Farnsworth!


----------



## TomK

I took the 'delivered over the internet' comment to mean streaming a la Viacom channels (for example). Do you mean that's not to be talked about in another thread where it would probably belong?


----------



## maartena

TomK said:


> I took the 'delivered over the internet' comment to mean streaming a la Viacom channels (for example). Do you mean that's not to be talked about in another thread where it would probably belong?


Generally speaking, streaming content is geographically restricted due to the fact that a TV station has to pay the producer of the program a certain amount of money to be allowed to broadcast the program, who in turn restricts the deal to the United States only, because they can sell the same program to a Canadian broadcaster for a good deal of money as well.

If the broadcaster would allow streaming to Canada, there is less incentive for a Canadian broadcaster to actually buy the TV series in question. It becomes even more interesting when we include Europe in the equation. Many American produced TV shows are popular in a variety of European countries. They sell the same series to a TV station in e.g. 20 countries for good money, and again if streaming was allowed, they may not have sold the series.

In essence, without explicit consent of the producer of the material, it isn't allowed to stream the content to outside the country's border. The same is true for Canadian programming. For instance, the only way I can see "Canadian Pickers" (obviously the Canadian variant of the American one) is to download it through illegal channels, as the producer of this content does not stream it, nor sell it to an American television station.

The grey area in all this is the border area, where CABLE systems often carry some Canadian TV stations. (I know this to be the case in Michigan for instance, e.g. in Port Huron)

In any case since the viewing of a geographically protected broadcast can only be done via illegal ways, it has been the decision of this board not to allow discussion on how this can be achieved. (And understandably so, they are a respected board and don't want to get in trouble with neither DBS carriers nor TV stations).

In short, the discussion on how to receive American streamed television or DBS type services OUTSIDE the United States, should be discussed on boards that are.... lets say more affiliated with the darker side of the internet. Streaming within the United States, from Viacom to U.S. subscribers, can be discussed freely.

However, this thread is specifically about the now ended dispute. As such, it might be better to start your own thread about this.


----------



## maartena

Tom Robertson said:


> <moderator mode> Talk to the Canadian government (they are the ones limiting service. Anything else is not to be discussed here at DBStalk.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


Actually, I believe it is the producers of content that decide this.... as they want to sell their wares to Canadian television stations as well, they explicitly demand that streaming websites are geographically limited.

For the same reason BBC iPlayer is not available outside of the UK for instance, although they have opened up special versions for Ireland, Australia, and some other places I think. It's all about producers who hold the rights, not so much about governments doing anything about it.


----------



## Tom Robertson

maartena said:


> Actually, I believe it is the producers of content that decide this.... as they want to sell their wares to Canadian television stations as well, they explicitly demand that streaming websites are geographically limited.
> 
> For the same reason BBC iPlayer is not available outside of the UK for instance, although they have opened up special versions for Ireland, Australia, and some other places I think. It's all about producers who hold the rights, not so much about governments doing anything about it.


While you are correct that content producers "could" have a say--the Canadian FCC prohibits wholesale importing of US (and likely others) content into Canada. So the content producers don't have a direct choice in the matter.

Thus, the FCC has reciprocated and prohibits wholesale importing of Canadian channels into the US.

While I understand the theory of Canada wanting to keep Canada as Canada and avoid being the 51st state of the US, I'm not sure this approach is really useful.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## skaman74

"Tom Robertson" said:


> While you are correct that content producers "could" have a say--the Canadian FCC prohibits wholesale importing of US (and likely others) content into Canada. So the content producers don't have a direct choice in the matter.
> 
> Thus, the FCC has reciprocated and prohibits wholesale importing of Canadian channels into the US.
> 
> While I understand the theory of Canada wanting to keep Canada as Canada and avoid being the 51st state of the US, I'm not sure this approach is really useful.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


Though all Canadian television channels just play american shows on a SD channel with the same 10 commercials on repeat. Except for Spike, A&E and the Buffalo and Seattle Big 4s the rest are all Canadian channels with american programing except for a couple Canadian shows...Trailer Park Boys.

Also Canadian FCC = CRTC


----------



## paulman182

inkahauts said:


> S you think everyone's bills should go up another $2 a month for those channels?
> 
> They belong in a premium tier so those that want them can have them and pay for them themselves, IMHO. Makes no sense to force these channels at the rates they want on everyone. Overall rates are high enough without needing to pile on.


I don't know, I have to pay for all the useless (to me) Viacom channels that everyone else seems to love.


----------



## lparsons21

paulman182 said:


> I don't know, I have to pay for all the useless (to me) Viacom channels that everyone else seems to love.


Well, not everyone! 

I'd gladly trade all the other Viacom stations for Epix.


----------



## inkahauts

"paulman182" said:


> I don't know, I have to pay for all the useless (to me) Viacom channels that everyone else seems to love.


I hear you, but it's a lot easier to keep more from coming on than taking ones we have already had away. I say draw the line in the sand today. If its not a local of some sort, or replacing another channel, it needs to be put in its own tier or at least a new package, like the Hi Definition extra pack. Everyone starting a channel today is to late to get in on the ground floor as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Hoosier205

"lparsons21" said:


> Well, not everyone!
> 
> I'd gladly trade all the other Viacom stations for Epix.


We might have had Epix by now had they not screwed themselves within the industry.


----------



## lparsons21

Hoosier205 said:


> We might have had Epix by now had they not screwed themselves within the industry.


If you're referring to the recent negotiations, yeah you could have that take.

But otherwise, Epix would be a good addition to the HD Extra Pack imo. D* had said much earlier they weren't interested in it (2009 I believe), and with what is going on with adding new HD channels, I don't really expect it any time soon.


----------



## Hoosier205

"lparsons21" said:


> If you're referring to the recent negotiations, yeah you could have that take.
> 
> But otherwise, Epix would be a good addition to the HD Extra Pack imo. D* had said much earlier they weren't interested in it (2009 I believe), and with what is going on with adding new HD channels, I don't really expect it any time soon.


No, I'm referring to their Netflix deal.


----------



## NewForceFiveFan

lparsons21 said:


> If you're referring to the recent negotiations, yeah you could have that take.
> 
> But otherwise, Epix would be a good addition to the HD Extra Pack imo. D* had said much earlier they weren't interested in it (2009 I believe), and with what is going on with adding new HD channels, I don't really expect it any time soon.


I have the Epix app on my Ipod Touch in addition to HBO Go, Crackle, and Netflix apps. I use my Cox broadband account to authenticate it since Epix is on Cox even though I don't have the tv package the channel is in. In terms of offerings compared to Sony's Crackle service it sucks. The most entertaining stuff I saw was the two original documentaries by William Shatner on Star Trek fandom and the 1984 Tim Matheson movie The House of God.

*My Crackle Queue:*
Why it Crackles: Total Recall (2012)
Candy Stripers
Bats
The Unknown (crackle original tv series)
Used Cars
The Fifth Element
Marvel Anime: Ironman (tv series)
Jackie Chan Adventures (seasons 1-3; went to Netflix for seasons 4-5)
Godzilla: Tokyo S.O.S.
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Godzilla Against Mechagodzilla
Ghostbusters
Ghostbusters II
Kung Fu Hustle
NewsRadio (seasons 1-2)
Galaxy Express 999 (complete series)
Blood: The Last Vampire (live-action movie)
The Cable Guy
Angel of Death Movie
Wind Chill
And Now For Something Completely Different
Barney Miller (tv series)
Space Truckin' (crackle original tv series)
Balls Out: Gary The Tennis Coach
Sanford and Son (tv series)
You Don't Mess With The Zohan
Married with Children (tv series)

*
My Epix Queue:*
Empty. The POS app won't add things to the queue no matter how many times you mash the Add button.

If Epix EVER does end up in the HD Extra Pack it will be the last channel I watch. HDMN, MGM, Sony, and Universal are still my fave channels in the pack.


----------

