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. tvropro

    tvropro AllStar

    52
    0
    Nov 3, 2010
    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.
     
  2. maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    It is not sure at all whether Disney Jr. is going to be HD. More likely it will be SD.
     
  3. maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    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.
     
  4. Billzebub

    Billzebub Godfather

    783
    44
    Jan 1, 2007
    Pittsburgh, PA
    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.:D:D:D
     
  5. BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    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.
     
  6. rainydave

    rainydave AllStar

    90
    1
    May 28, 2006
    [​IMG]
    I'm missing some fine entertainment!
     
  7. damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    232
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    Only Millionares got that memo!
     
  8. Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,136
    27
    Sep 16, 2006
    :) Rainydave hahaha
     
  9. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,238
    552
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Kinda like that scenario! :righton:
     
  10. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,238
    552
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Want, not "need".
     
  11. felickz

    felickz Cool Member

    13
    0
    Jul 20, 2006
    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.
     
  12. felickz

    felickz Cool Member

    13
    0
    Jul 20, 2006
    Wow ... first time seeing that in perspective!
     
  13. don s

    don s Mentor

    58
    1
    Sep 4, 2011
    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?

    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.
     
  14. Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    499
    17
    Aug 11, 2008
    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.
     
  15. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Latest Facebook update sounded pretty positive.

    Included the line "This isn't your business. It is ours. And we mean to do it."
     
  16. TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,224
    180
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    Wow. Interesting.

    Again I hope whatever happens they are offered and take every available HD feed.
     
  17. tulanejosh

    tulanejosh Godfather

    446
    10
    May 23, 2008
    Let's take our words outside as it were. You have a PM waiting for you and i eagerly await your response.
     
  18. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Hey. I wanna hear what you said. No fair! LOL!!!
     
  19. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    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.
     
  20. Pepe Sylvia

    Pepe Sylvia Legend

    169
    1
    May 10, 2010
    From the closed Viacom Solutions thread

    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.
     

Share This Page