Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by danpeters, Jul 9, 2012.
We won't be given the terms at all.
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.
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.
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.
Doesn't have to be disclosed outside those who make the deals, though.
Huh, screen shot? yeah, maybe that speed one once second or two. Its proven its not that fast, period.
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.
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".
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?
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.
It's interesting when you see how many of the pay TV providers are backing DIRECTV on this one.
DirecTV Finds Some Unlikely Friends
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."
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.