1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the new DBSTalk community platform. We have recently migrated to a community platform called Xenfono and hope you will find this change to your liking. There are some differences, but for the most part, if you just post and read, that will all be the same. If you have questions, please post them in the Forum Support area. Thanks!

Unbundling in the Air?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Tubaman-Z, Feb 27, 2013.

  1. Feb 27, 2013 #1 of 126
    Tubaman-Z

    Tubaman-Z Godfather

    534
    6
    Jul 30, 2007
    Just saw this:

    http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-fi-ct-cable-lawsuit-20130227,0,5370492.story

    Legal battle between Cablevision and Viacom could rattle TV business

    Excerpt:

    Cable operator Cablevision Systems Corp. filed suit Tuesday in federal court in New York accusing Viacom Inc., parent of MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central, of anti-competitive behavior. At issue is whether Viacom uses its leverage to force distributors such as Cablevision to carry low-rated networks in return for access to its popular channels, a practice known in the industry as bundling.

    "The manner in which Viacom sells its programming is illegal, anti-consumer and wrong," Cablevision charged in a statement. Viacom, the company contended, "effectively forces Cablevision's customers to pay for and receive little-watched channels in order to get the channels they actually want."

    Other distributors, including Time Warner Cable and DirecTV, issued statements in support of Cablevision's lawsuit against Viacom.

    "There's no question that the current all-or-nothing system dictated by programmers is completely broken," DirecTV said in a statement, adding that "for programmers to force this system on all pay-TV customers, just so they can line their pockets with extra profits, is shameful."
     
  2. Feb 27, 2013 #2 of 126
    acostapimps

    acostapimps Hall Of Famer

    1,866
    50
    Nov 5, 2011
    Illinois
    Why didn't Directv did this with the Epix issue? Directv should fight for consumers not shareholders.
     
  3. Feb 27, 2013 #3 of 126
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    ...their first responsibility is to their shareholders. That's sorta the point. BTW - they did do this with Epix. They refused to take it as a bundle with other channels. They also declined to take it solo as well.
     
  4. Feb 28, 2013 #4 of 126
    Joe166

    Joe166 AllStar

    130
    4
    Jan 5, 2007


    You're kidding, aren't you? The shareholders are the owners. While good customer relationships are important, if the owners aren't compensated the business goes under. If the business goes under, there ARE no products for consumers to complain about.
     
  5. Feb 28, 2013 #5 of 126
    paulman182

    paulman182 Hall Of Fame

    4,839
    3
    Aug 4, 2006
    That's what really is shameful.

    About business in general, not just DirecTV.
     
  6. Feb 28, 2013 #6 of 126
    adkinsjm

    adkinsjm Icon

    923
    2
    Mar 25, 2003
    Would you give all of your personal money away to make a customer happy, or go without a paycheck?
     
  7. Feb 28, 2013 #7 of 126
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    How is it shameful?
     
  8. Feb 28, 2013 #8 of 126
    tunce

    tunce Godfather

    336
    1
    Jan 19, 2006
    Wow, ok everyone should just do things for free and give away everything that they have so you can get what you want. Oh that's right fairness... :(
     
  9. Feb 28, 2013 #9 of 126
    evan_s

    evan_s Hall Of Fame

    2,136
    0
    Mar 3, 2008
    Yes the business is ultimately responsible to its shareholders as a publicly traded company but I think the key is how they view that. Unfortunately, most companies now only seem to care about the short term. How do I make the most money now. How do I meet the expectations for this quarter. They'll worry about next quarter when it gets here. This is unhealthy for the company, not good for their customers and bad overall but it's often how companies are judged and therefor how their top management is judged.
     
  10. Feb 28, 2013 #10 of 126
    Tubaman-Z

    Tubaman-Z Godfather

    534
    6
    Jul 30, 2007
    and compensated as determined by the Board of Directors.

    Back to the topic at hand....anyone think that Cablevision (and their friends of the court, D* and others) have a snowball's chance of winning this? If they do I guess we'd find out just how much a la carte (or some version thereof) would really cost.
     
  11. Feb 28, 2013 #11 of 126
    FLWingNut

    FLWingNut Godfather

    466
    11
    Nov 19, 2005
    A CEO that doesn't think about the shareholders first won't be a CEO very long.

    Would you invest your money in a company that doesn't make a return on your investment the #1 priority?
     
  12. Feb 28, 2013 #12 of 126
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    182
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    It is an unfortunate fact that some see DIRECTV's financial success as being more important than subscriber satisfaction while others see customer satisfaction as the only true measure of a company's success. The latter group is deluded. The former seems all too willing to take one for the greater good of DIRECTV.

    DIRECTV's foremost responsibilities are to its shareholders and that's not going to change. To the extent that they don't do anything to significantly reduce the revenues from operation, the subscribers will get what they get.

    It wouldn't matter if the company were privately held. The point is, was and will always be return on investment.
     
  13. Feb 28, 2013 #13 of 126
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    203
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Okay. Finally I get to agree with harsh.

    Customer satisfaction is an ingredient in a successful company but the bottom line is the bottom line. The point is to maximize profit. That means finding the right balance among income (sales) and costs. You do what you can to grow income without making it cost too much.

    It is not an accident that some of the most successful companies satisfy their customers but they do not put that above making money.
     
  14. Feb 28, 2013 #14 of 126
    Dazed & Confused

    Dazed & Confused Godfather

    273
    0
    Jun 13, 2007
    If bundling is done away with, Frank Fritz will not be happy.
     
  15. Mar 1, 2013 #15 of 126
    Dude111

    Dude111 An Awesome Dude

    734
    20
    Aug 6, 2010
    That would be good!!!!

    I would have these

    Golf Channel
    Boomerang
    TVI (328)
     
  16. Mar 1, 2013 #16 of 126
    luckydob

    luckydob Godfather

    451
    0
    Oct 1, 2006
    Not so sure the Golf Channel would survive unbundling....careful what you wish for.
     
  17. Mar 1, 2013 #17 of 126
    Herdfan

    Herdfan DIRECTV A-Team

    6,443
    87
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    Wait a minute, let me get this straight. Cablevision wants to be able to just purchase the channels it wants and not all the others.

    Now who here thinks that if Cablevision wins, that the customers will then be able to only purchase the channels they want?

    This may be a case of be careful what you wish for.
     
  18. Mar 1, 2013 #18 of 126
    peds48

    peds48 DIRECTV A-Team DBSTalk Club

    18,406
    909
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    What this means is that Cablevision will get to choose which channels to buy (carry) and pay. Lets say 2 million (just a number) for just Comedy Central and not 20 million for 9 less popular channels. The problem with this is that less popular channels might get drop, like the Golf Channel (I choose that random)
     
  19. Mar 1, 2013 #19 of 126
    Grafixguy

    Grafixguy Godfather

    470
    20
    Mar 15, 2008
    If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.
     
  20. Mar 1, 2013 #20 of 126
    ziggy29

    ziggy29 Icon

    691
    2
    Nov 18, 2004
    San Antonio DMA
    Actually, it could matter, at least somewhat. A publicly traded company has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders first and foremost. I know plenty of people in small business, for example, who feel they make enough money that they don't have to cut corners on ethics or abuse their customers and employees. Go public and if you can screw them to get a few more cents per share to please Wall Street, you pretty much have to do it.

    Private business owners can decide to place ethics over profits. Public companies have a duty to put profit front and center. I'm not saying that's evil, just different. And IMO it's also why a steadily increasing percentage of the "best places to work" list are among privately held companies -- ones that don't have to give their workers a steadily worse deal to please shareholders. Just about all businesses are in business to make money. But private companies can decide they have made "enough" profit. Public companies can't.
     

Share This Page