# When will the Viacom Dispute end



## dxtrfn80 (Apr 18, 2012)

When will it end if it does ever end?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Don't we already have enough threads on the Viacom issue?


----------



## Pepe Sylvia (May 10, 2010)

Soon


----------



## LoweBoy (Sep 16, 2006)

Doesn't hurt my feelings all that junk is not on my precious "Turd Bird". Keep up the fight D*.


----------



## JMCecil (Jan 20, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Don't we already have enough threads on the Viacom issue?


Is that even possible?


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

It's over when it's over.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> Don't we already have enough threads on the Viacom issue?





JMCecil said:


> Is that even possible?


It would seem the poll omitted one important choice.....WHO CARES?


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

I said by the end of this year, because I think it will happen but probably not this month. I also don't really think the September date will be much of a factor becuase most of these channels (and cable channels in general) don't run their shows with the same seasons that the OTA networks do (for example Teen Mom and Real World are running their new seasons right now, those are two of MTVs bigger shows).


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It would seem the poll omitted one important choice.....WHO CARES?


+1


----------



## GBFAN (Nov 13, 2006)

When the Cubs win the World Series?


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

Who cares, How many of these threads are we going to have. I hope a mod closes this thread


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

This poll closes 4/11/15 Really you got to be kidding


----------



## espnjason (Sep 30, 2008)

I put down in 2013.

Perhaps when the November sweeps roll around and their ratings are dismal, they could finally do some restructuring.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

The only poll I would be interested would ask


1. Would never leave Directv over Viacom.
2. Would leave Directv over Viacom.
3. Have left Directv over Viacom.
3. Don't know.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

Viacom channels are garbage is not worth leaving DirecTv.

yosoyellobo did you catch the Euro Cup


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

JACKIEGAGA said:


> Viacom channels are garbage is not worth leaving DirecTv.
> 
> yosoyellobo did you catch the Euro Cup


Yes I did. Have become a big fan since the World Cup. Was going for Spain.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

Got to go with hdtvfan0001, who cares


----------



## NewForceFiveFan (Apr 23, 2010)

I hope it doesn't end. Even though there was maybe two Viacom channels I watched occasionally, the rest I never watched at all. I'm hoping my monthly bill will see a reduction because of this move. I say good riddance.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

For those of you saying good riddance, I hope they never come back, etc. Just remember, next time it might be channels you watch. Will you have the same reaction then?

I am sick of these channels getting dropped because the greedy suits involved can't come come to a deal. While I don't watch a lot on these channels I do watch some. I don't want to miss out on my stuff just because a bunch of guys are too stubborn to deal fairly. I already lost out on G4, thankfully NBC covered a lot of American Ninja warrior themselves this year but who knows if that will happen again, and there are other programs I still miss. 

As much as I want government to stay out of our lives I think something needs to be done here. Viewers shouldn't be used as pawns in an argument between multi-million/billion dollar companies arguing over how much more profit they can make this year. Channels shouldn't be able to be blacked out unless both sides have decided that they are not going to come to a deal, and the channels are officially dropped for good. And once that happens people should be allowed to get out of contracts that they are tied to if they are losing a bunch of channels that they care about. I understand not letting people out of contracts over 1 or 2 channels, but this is a fairly significant amount of channels that could impact someone pretty heavily. They shouldn't be forced to pay hundreds of dollars to switch providers because the two companies couldn't come to an agreement.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

JACKIEGAGA said:


> How many of these threads are we going to have.


Possibly more since you keep posting in them.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Beerstalker said:


> For those of you saying good riddance, I hope they never come back, etc. Just remember, next time it might be channels you watch. Will you have the same reaction then?


Yup. If I could cancel DirecTV if I could, but since it is part of the requirements for rent where I live, I'm kinda stuck.


----------



## dwrats_56 (Apr 21, 2007)

of course it will be before the ratings season starts. They would lose too much Ad money.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

I would have voted "I don't care", but it wasn't an option. So I didn't vote.


----------



## cjrleimer (Nov 17, 2004)

This will be vsesque. It will end before the ratings season begins.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

cjrleimer said:


> This will be vsesque.


What ??


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

The first key milestone is before we can no longer record tonight's _Daily Show with Jon Stewart_ and _Colbert Report_.

The second one might be when Viacom won't let us watch those episodes on Hulu...

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Tom, they may pull it. Stewart blasted Viacom.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

I really couldn't care less. And can Viacom just pull their shows from Hulu? Don't they have a contract in place (Not sure exactly how Hulu works)? Well, I mean, they CAN, even with a contract in place, lol, but I would imagine Hulu would then sue.


----------



## cjrleimer (Nov 17, 2004)

dcowboy7 said:


> What ??


VS came back right when the Stanley Cup Playoffs were about to begin or close to it. I think the channels come back right before the fall tv season begins.


----------



## B Newt (Aug 12, 2007)

Who cares???


----------



## KNPKH2ster (Apr 3, 2010)

Sooner than later I presume. From what I read on directvpromise.com, talks are still ongoing.


----------



## noahproblem (Aug 20, 2009)

GBFAN said:


> When the Cubs win the World Series?


So you're saying October 21, 2015? I hope you'll have your hoverboard ready (just watch out for the manure truck) 

On a serious note, I voted 2013 (I think the time window for a quick resolution has passed* and now it looks protracted).

*Of course, given my track record, watch this get settled this afternoon...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Beerstalker said:


> For those of you saying good riddance, I hope they never come back, etc. Just remember, next time it might be channels you watch. Will you have the same reaction then?
> 
> I am sick of these channels getting dropped because the greedy suits involved can't come come to a deal. While I don't watch a lot on these channels I do watch some. I don't want to miss out on my stuff just because a bunch of guys are too stubborn to deal fairly. I already lost out on G4, thankfully NBC covered a lot of American Ninja warrior themselves this year but who knows if that will happen again, and there are other programs I still miss.
> 
> As much as I want government to stay out of our lives I think something needs to be done here. Viewers shouldn't be used as pawns in an argument between multi-million/billion dollar companies arguing over how much more profit they can make this year. Channels shouldn't be able to be blacked out unless both sides have decided that they are not going to come to a deal, and the channels are officially dropped for good. And once that happens people should be allowed to get out of contracts that they are tied to if they are losing a bunch of channels that they care about. I understand not letting people out of contracts over 1 or 2 channels, but this is a fairly significant amount of channels that could impact someone pretty heavily. They shouldn't be forced to pay hundreds of dollars to switch providers because the two companies couldn't come to an agreement.


I don't think the government could do anything that wouldn't drive up costs faster in this situation. I think we are better off as we are right now, unfortunately.


----------



## SDimwit (Jul 14, 2008)

Ok, my prediction... When Viacom has to go a month without that big check from directv they will settle. Hopefully at that point directv bends them over and does them the same way they do us every month.


----------



## Crow159 (May 23, 2007)

I think it's going to go longer than most people think. It wouldn't surprise me if it went into 2013. 

I've read that if Viacom accepts a lower than wanted rate from Directv that it would trigger their "Most Favored Nations" clauses with other companies. I can't see Viacom making a deal with Directv that would affect the amount of money they get from some of their other agreements.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Crow159 said:


> I think it's going to go longer than most people think. It wouldn't surprise me if it went into 2013.
> 
> I've read that if Viacom accepts a lower than wanted rate from Directv that it would trigger their "Most Favored Nations" clauses with other companies. I can't see Viacom making a deal with Directv that would affect the amount of money they get from some of their other agreements.


Of course they could. And probably will.


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

Never would be fine with me.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

noahproblem said:


> So you're saying October 21, 2015? I hope you'll have your hoverboard ready (just watch out for the manure truck)
> 
> On a serious note, I voted 2013 (I think the time window for a quick resolution has passed* and now it looks protracted).
> 
> *Of course, given my track record, watch this get settled this afternoon...


think you meant 3015 there

it will end when they decide their profit margin has tanked - the stock holders will start getting involved when the dividends are gone. Would not be the first time a company senior executive staff has been voted off the island by the stock holders


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

I hope they take a hard stance on this, force Viacom to not raise their rates at all, during this "depression". It will send a signal to other companies that want to raise their rates, over the cost of living, that they aren't about to get an over the top rate increase. Now is the time to make a stand. Hopefully Dish and Cable will follow suit.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Crow159 said:


> I've read that if Viacom accepts a lower than wanted rate from Directv that it would trigger their "Most Favored Nations" clauses with other companies. I can't see Viacom making a deal with Directv that would affect the amount of money they get from some of their other agreements.


There may be ways around this - for instance, Directv re-signs for fewer channels at a different rate, dropping some of the lower rated ones. Or, Diretv signs at the new higher per-subscriber rate that Viacom wants, but some channels are moved up into higher tiers, so Directv's overall bill doesn't go up as much and it allows Directv to drive customers to Choice Xtra.


----------



## Sea bass (Jun 10, 2005)

Shortly after the Lakers sign Howard, the Viacom / Directv dispute will end.


----------



## Retro (Nov 27, 2007)

If it last's a long time, meaning 3-4 months, i think Directv will begin looking at creating a specific page for the viacom group of channels and seperate them from everything else while adding others to lower tier packages.. With so many channels falling under a few big companies, this is likely the future..

Besides that, i'm sure advertisers with viacom channels have already began to make adjustments to their advertising budgets, knowing there are apprx 20 million viewers less with access to those channels. They are not going to pay the same rate to advertise on Mtv or spike as below and that will really impact viacoms bottom line.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

According to Directv Facebook, they are getting close to a deal!


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

"damondlt" said:


> According to Directv Facebook, they are getting close to a deal!


They better be getting all available HD feeds with the new deal.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

TheRatPatrol said:


> They better be getting all available HD feeds with the new deal.


I'm sure all renegotiated deals have terms regarding HD. 

(And perhaps other features as well...)


----------



## wahooq (Oct 19, 2011)

Who cares? Git er done!


----------



## tvropro (Nov 3, 2010)

As it drags on more will get disenchanted by Direct and will look for other options and switch to other providers. Today is a week and IMHO too long. They need to quit beating around the bush and get down to business. Updates on directv promise are sugarcoated and offer no real substance so there is no real way of telling what really is happening. If things were good it would have been over already. Since that is not the case you can get an idea of the truth behind closed doors.

It will come to a point that both will realize that the bottom line $$$ is getting hurt beyond profits. When that happens a resolution will be done overnight. Until then expect it to drag on.


----------



## Santi360HD (Oct 6, 2008)

GBFAN said:


> When the Cubs win the World Series?


Never


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

GBFAN said:


> When the Cubs win the World Series?


they may have to stop playing at Wrigley Field or blow the place up and rebuild it for that to happen.


----------



## GBFAN (Nov 13, 2006)

Finally people understand.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

tvropro said:


> As it drags on more will get disenchanted by Direct and will look for other options and switch to other providers. Today is a week and IMHO too long. They need to quit beating around the bush and get down to business. Updates on directv promise are sugarcoated and offer no real substance so there is no real way of telling what really is happening. If things were good it would have been over already. Since that is not the case you can get an idea of the truth behind closed doors.
> 
> It will come to a point that both will realize that the bottom line $$$ is getting hurt beyond profits. When that happens a resolution will be done overnight. Until then expect it to drag on.


Or more will decide that Viacom channels and programs are mostly not must see TV and will stick with D*. BTW, that would describe me on day 1 of this!


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

From the hints dropped by DirecTV over the past 24 hours, I think the negotiations are basically done. Maybe they have one more day to tie up loose ends and then a day or two for the accountants and lawyers to go over everything and write up a formal contract.

I'm betting the Viacom channels will be back on the air by the weekend. I'll bet a beer at Del's Bar for anybody in the La Crosse, WI, area who wants to take me up on my bet.

:grin:


----------



## tvropro (Nov 3, 2010)

Carl Spock said:


> From the hints dropped by DirecTV over the past 24 hours, I think the negotiations are basically done. Maybe they have one more day to tie up loose ends and then a day or two for the accountants and lawyers to go over everything and write up a formal contract.
> 
> I'm betting the Viacom channels will be back on the air by the weekend. I'll bet a beer at Del's Bar for anybody in the La Crosse, WI, area who wants to take me up on my bet.
> 
> :grin:


We can hope, but I won't believe it till I see the channels back.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

tvropro said:


> As it drags on more will get disenchanted by Direct and will look for other options and switch to other providers. Today is a week and IMHO too long. They need to quit beating around the bush and get down to business. Updates on directv promise are sugarcoated and offer no real substance so there is no real way of telling what really is happening. If things were good it would have been over already. Since that is not the case you can get an idea of the truth behind closed doors.
> 
> It will come to a point that both will realize that the bottom line $$$ is getting hurt beyond profits. When that happens a resolution will be done overnight. Until then expect it to drag on.


Uh, both sides know that going in.

And the longer it drags out, the more folks realize there are other channels that sub for much of what Viacom puts out. The longer Viacom is gone the more viewers they lose even when they're back on DIRECTV®. Of course, there will be a few thousand who have already bailed.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

tvropro said:


> As it drags on more will get disenchanted by Direct and will look for other options and switch to other providers. Today is a week and IMHO too long.


If there was a provider that never had disputes or channels taken down for any period of time, then I would agree with you. Since there is not, and since there is absolutely no guarantee that the Viacom channels would not be taken down for an indeterminant length of time by the provider that one might switch, then I do not agree.that a significant number of customers will leave DirecTV over this dispute. Sure, some will, but that number will be small in comparison to the number of viewers that Viacom is losing.

It would have been nice if the negotiations had been completed before the old contract expired, but that did not happen. Now that the channels are down, I would prefer the negotiations take as long as necessary to come to the best agreement. Agreements that are reached quickly might not be the best in the long term. A week is not much time. A month or two seems reasonable.


----------



## tunce (Jan 19, 2006)

I believe the day that all carriers carry virtually all the same channels is over. Money as now entered into the equation with a much bigger role. So this will be the new norm and the providers will carry only the channels that they think will provide them with the biggest subscriber base with the least amount of channels that they can put into a mid-tier package. Sort of like a round about way of back dooring al-a-carte programing. So if you like channel x you will have to find which provider has it.


----------



## snappjay (Jul 16, 2010)

tunce said:


> I believe the day that all carriers carry virtually all the same channels is over. Money as now entered into the equation with a much bigger role. So this will be the new norm and the providers will carry only the channels that they think will provide them with the biggest subscriber base with the least amount of channels that they can put into a mid-tier package. Sort of like a round about way of back dooring al-a-carte programing. So if you like channel x you will have to find which provider has it.


The only thing I really want is all sports channels in HD. That's it. I don't care who offers it. DirecTV is the closest thing I've found to what I want.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It would seem the poll omitted one important choice.....WHO CARES?


That is my vote.


----------



## Sea bass (Jun 10, 2005)

Sea bass said:


> Shortly after the Lakers sign Howard, the Viacom / Directv dispute will end.


Gee, I was way off on this prediction!:lol:


----------

