1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

DirecTV/Viacom Dispute?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by danpeters, Jul 9, 2012.

  1. Jul 11, 2012 #961 of 3058
    rmmccann

    rmmccann AllStar

    330
    20
    Apr 16, 2012
    ND, USA
    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).
     
  2. Jul 11, 2012 #962 of 3058
    Sixto

    Sixto Well-Known Member

    12,224
    94
    Nov 18, 2005
    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.
     
  3. Jul 11, 2012 #963 of 3058
    BlackCoffee

    BlackCoffee AllStar

    56
    0
    May 23, 2009
    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.
     
  4. Jul 11, 2012 #964 of 3058
    Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    499
    17
    Aug 11, 2008
    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.
     
  5. Jul 11, 2012 #965 of 3058
    iceman2a

    iceman2a Icon

    545
    0
    Dec 30, 2005
    Hudson, FL...
    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!
     
  6. Jul 11, 2012 #966 of 3058
    tulanejosh

    tulanejosh Godfather

    446
    10
    May 23, 2008
    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.
     
  7. Jul 11, 2012 #967 of 3058
    mnassour

    mnassour Icon

    859
    9
    Apr 23, 2002
    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.
     
  8. Jul 11, 2012 #968 of 3058
    RML81

    RML81 Legend

    111
    0
    Jul 3, 2011
    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.
     
  9. Jul 11, 2012 #969 of 3058
    WestDC

    WestDC Well-Known Member

    2,455
    107
    Feb 9, 2008
    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
     
  10. Jul 11, 2012 #970 of 3058
    Sixto

    Sixto Well-Known Member

    12,224
    94
    Nov 18, 2005
    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."​
     
  11. Jul 11, 2012 #971 of 3058
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Uh, no.

    I guess you think that to drop prices on Burger King, you need to get Ruth's Chris to drop their prices.
     
  12. Jul 11, 2012 #972 of 3058
    renbutler

    renbutler Godfather

    566
    10
    Oct 17, 2008
    I have no idea how proactive the mods will be in deleting the original comment. If they do, I will delete mine. Simple enough.
     
  13. Jul 11, 2012 #973 of 3058
    gio12

    gio12 Icon

    886
    3
    Jul 31, 2006
    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.
     
  14. Jul 11, 2012 #974 of 3058
    zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    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.
     
  15. Jul 11, 2012 #975 of 3058
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    It's completely legal.
     
  16. Jul 11, 2012 #976 of 3058
    zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    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.
     
  17. Jul 11, 2012 #977 of 3058
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    I'm starting to see a pattern. It may be the same person using different accounts. Real creative. :lol:
     
  18. Jul 11, 2012 #978 of 3058
    Sixto

    Sixto Well-Known Member

    12,224
    94
    Nov 18, 2005
    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.
     
  19. Jul 11, 2012 #979 of 3058
    gio12

    gio12 Icon

    886
    3
    Jul 31, 2006
    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:
     
  20. Jul 11, 2012 #980 of 3058
    gio12

    gio12 Icon

    886
    3
    Jul 31, 2006
    Ok. But you physically pressing 1 acts as your digital signature.
     

Share This Page