Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

DirecTV/Viacom Dispute?


  • Please log in to reply
3057 replies to this topic

#1761 OFFLINE   Button Pusher

Button Pusher

    Icon

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 971 posts
  • LocationThe Bluegrass State
Joined: Jan 19, 2007

Posted 13 July 2012 - 02:26 PM

My 18 year old is upset. She lost all her favorite shows and channels! lol I told her maybe it was time to grow up and watch some adult shows! :lol: That didn't go over to well! :nono2:
Jeff

My Setup
















...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#1762 OFFLINE   dxtrfn80

dxtrfn80

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 41 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 13 July 2012 - 02:27 PM

So, what you are saying is the kids run that household. Ok. Mines 7 and doesn't. He is happy as can be playing in his room right now.


She told the kids to try Phineas and Ferb again tomorrow morning and they may like it as was fun for her to watch when she watched it one day while the kids were outside with their friends and their dad. Sometimes not having one show can lead to some new shows and activities. Get out and play it is nice in the mornings before the heat starts in the afternoon.

#1763 OFFLINE   Shades228

Shades228

    Hall Of Fame

  • Banned User
  • 5,914 posts
Joined: Mar 18, 2008

Posted 13 July 2012 - 02:31 PM

That's kinda funny. I'll admit that.

But let's make sure you understand truly what i am saying. I dont want them to care - or rather, i don't care that they don't. I'm good with that. I just want them to stop pretending that that do. Viacom is a scuzzy company, but they are honest with me about their intentions. They'd like for me to watching their channels, but its going to cost me (or in this case - Directv). Does that mean i agree with what they say? Certainly not. Does it mean that directv should bend over? Never said that either. I'm merely pointing out to people that somehow want to personalize this and represent directv as their personal advocate that their allegiance is misguided.

Also with the real world comments - you gotta go back a lot of pages, but i was responding to someone else that made a comment about the real world. I hate that phrase personally. Real is subjective.



I think the statement that they don't care is false. I know most people care about it. Now different people might care for different reasons. So I would say that DIRECTV does care and VIACOM does care. However the reasons for caring might be different. DIRECTV cares because at the end of the day having happy customers generates them capital and having unhappy customers doesn't. So this is a long term goal knowing that in the mean time there will be unhappy customer's but not as many as if they had to have a larger price increase. VIACOM cares because they want eyes on their programs and don't want people to learn to stop looking for it. They know that happy viewers remain viewers.

Now you could say that not everyone cares for the same reason or the same level as people because that would be true.
All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#1764 OFFLINE   jdskycaster

jdskycaster

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 272 posts
Joined: Sep 01, 2008

Posted 13 July 2012 - 02:34 PM

Netflix is a legitimate distributor on its own now and programmers are demanding very large fee increases to keep their digital content on the NF pipes. The starz agreement that starz walked away from was in excess of $300MM per year. The days of low programming fees for streaming providers are over. So my point is in fact valid. Viacom and other providers now have other sources of revenue that they didn't have 5 - 7 years ago that allows them to play hard ball with traditional video distributors.


How is your point still valid? In one sentence you say Viacom has other options. On the other hand you say those same options are not viable because these outlets are successful due to their low prices?

Netflix could not afford a major increase in rates anymore than DTV can and would be and are in the same boat. They already tried to increase rates a year ago and that worked out really well for them.:rolleyes:

#1765 OFFLINE   Darth Malgus

Darth Malgus

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 25 posts
Joined: Jul 04, 2012

Posted 13 July 2012 - 02:37 PM

There are three sides here: Viacom's, DirecTV's and the consumer's. I am firmly in the last camp, and think the other two are both being belligerent, shortsighted and intractable.

If I want to buy someone's house and they're asking, say, $250k and I make them an offer for $10,000, I should not get indigent, set up camp on their lawn and spend $20,000 to put up a billboard stating all the reasons why they're wrong and I'm right ("it's a crappy house," "no one else wants to buy it," "they should be happy I even made them an offer at all, the ingrates," etc.) when they refuse it.





This example is not even close to what is going on here. Viacom is not listing its channels at a set price for all to purchase. A better example would be if you were instead renting a home and subleasing it at a certain price. Then when your lease expires the owner of the property says you can stay if you pay me %30 more of the term of the next lease for the same home you currently live in, without any improvements or maintenance on my part. You then have some choices.

1. Move on to a place with better rent, leaving your tenant who is sub-leasing out of luck.

2. Pass the expense of the increase on to your tenant if your lease allows you to.

3. Absorb the increase yourself putting yourself at a financial disadvantage, and hurting any future plans you had for the profits you were making with this arrangement.

4. Negotiate with the owner of the property. "I am already here, if I move you will have a span of time in which you are not collecting my rent for your empty property, which you still must pay taxes on at the end of the year. It is more beneficial for both of us if we can come to an agreement that will allow you to keep your income, and save me the cost of moving, and finding a new place. I'm sure we can work out a deal". Which is what D* tried to do, and basically the property owner evicted them while the negotiations were going on.



See the difference?

#1766 OFFLINE   Shades228

Shades228

    Hall Of Fame

  • Banned User
  • 5,914 posts
Joined: Mar 18, 2008

Posted 13 July 2012 - 02:37 PM

Both companys just decided to go on vacation! I doubt half of what they claim they are doing is even taking place.


Damn I missed that memo.
All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#1767 OFFLINE   Shades228

Shades228

    Hall Of Fame

  • Banned User
  • 5,914 posts
Joined: Mar 18, 2008

Posted 13 July 2012 - 02:40 PM

How is your point still valid? In one sentence you say Viacom has other options. On the other hand you say those same options are not viable because these outlets are successful due to their low prices?

Netflix could not afford a major increase in rates anymore than DTV can and would be and are in the same boat. They already tried to increase rates a year ago and that worked out really well for them.:rolleyes:


Correct and look how much content they have lost in their streaming compared to what they have added. I sign up for Netflix about once a year for a couple of months but I always end up canceling it after a couple of months because after the initial jonesing of a show is over there's not much content for me to care about worth paying for.
All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#1768 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 13 July 2012 - 02:46 PM

I think the statement that they don't care is false. I know most people care about it. Now different people might care for different reasons. So I would say that DIRECTV does care and VIACOM does care. However the reasons for caring might be different. DIRECTV cares because at the end of the day having happy customers generates them capital and having unhappy customers doesn't. So this is a long term goal knowing that in the mean time there will be unhappy customer's but not as many as if they had to have a larger price increase. VIACOM cares because they want eyes on their programs and don't want people to learn to stop looking for it. They know that happy viewers remain viewers.

Now you could say that not everyone cares for the same reason or the same level as people because that would be true.


We're essentially saying the same thing. I feel directv cares only in so far as keeping me happy keeps me spending money with them. Hash tags like #directvhasmyback are misrepresenting their intentions. If said - hey we can't support this increase becuase its too much burden to place on our customers. They already spend more with us than they would with our competitors, if we pass this on, they'll leave us and that hurts our bottom line. Maybe its a slight different, but i respect it a heck of a lot more than falsely pretending to be my buddy.

#1769 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 13 July 2012 - 02:50 PM

Correct and look how much content they have lost in their streaming compared to what they have added. I sign up for Netflix about once a year for a couple of months but I always end up canceling it after a couple of months because after the initial jonesing of a show is over there's not much content for me to care about worth paying for.


You need to look at NF as a competiting video distribution provider becuase that's what it is. Its a 20MM strong online streaming video distribution network. That's how directv sees it - that's how Viacom sees it.

Your usage of the service - while perfect for you - probably isn't representative for the whole.

NF isn't going away - they are willing to pay for their content, and they look ever more appealing to the Viacoms of the world when the Directvs of the world start shutting them out. Directv is the harbinger of its own doom if it takes this too far.

#1770 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 13 July 2012 - 02:57 PM

How is your point still valid? In one sentence you say Viacom has other options. On the other hand you say those same options are not viable because these outlets are successful due to their low prices?

Netflix could not afford a major increase in rates anymore than DTV can and would be and are in the same boat. They already tried to increase rates a year ago and that worked out really well for them.:rolleyes:


I said viacom has other options to withstand mid term revenue loss. And they do. Netflix streaming wasn't around 5 years ago. neither was hulu. Neither was Amazon Video prime. All of those companies are willing to put up major cash to Viacom and other programmers. NF alone said it was willing to pay out nearly $2B in programming costs this year to bolster is streaming library. That's not chump change.

I never made the other statement.

#1771 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,472 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 13 July 2012 - 02:59 PM

You need to look at NF as a competiting video distribution provider becuase that's what it is. Its a 20MM strong online streaming video distribution network. That's how directv sees it - that's how Viacom sees it.

Your usage of the service - while perfect for you - probably isn't representative for the whole.

NF isn't going away - they are willing to pay for their content, and they look ever more appealing to the Viacoms of the world when the Directvs of the world start shutting them out. Directv is the harbinger of its own doom if it takes this too far.


Right. Because Viacom will not start raising prices on Netflix which does what he does because it is a cheap service. If they become a real player vis a vis cable and satellite, then the prices go up as does the price of Netflix. As does the price of Internet.

I see the Netflix model as even less viable down the road than satellite or cable. They are living in the moment.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#1772 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 13 July 2012 - 03:02 PM

Right. Because Viacom will not start raising prices on Netflix which does what he does because it is a cheap service. If they become a real player vis a vis cable and satellite, then the prices go up as does the price of Netflix. As does the price of Internet.

I see the Netflix model as even less viable down the road than satellite or cable. They are living in the moment.


That's not true - fees have already started to get raised on them. Starz for example got 30M a year in their first deal, and demanded more than $500 for their next. It's why Starz content is no longer on NF.

And as far as their model - they are just a different version of Cable and Sat. A non-telco on demand IPTV service is the most apt comparison. Its equally as valid if they can figure out how to get more content. And they'll figure that out quickly if Viacom and the like are no longer feeling beholden to their Cable/Sat partners. The only reason they stay away from netflix now if their traditional bed fellows prefer that they do so. But that changes if D* is no longer in the picture.

#1773 OFFLINE   BattleScott

BattleScott

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,353 posts
Joined: Aug 28, 2006

Posted 13 July 2012 - 03:13 PM

So how exactly do you propose we stand up to D* and Viacom in such away that it affects both of them equally, and leaves customers with a positive outcome on the other side of said action?


If you want to watch Viacom programming, then DirecTV is the one you need to stand up to. Switch providers to someone who is carrying Viacom.

If you don't think Viacom programming is worth any additional money, then you are already standing up to them by staying with DirecTV.

Viacom is hoping you will go the first route, DirecTV is hoping for the second. So, the only way to truly stand up to BOTH of them is to take your ball and go home.
HR24-500 / AM-21 / WGA54AG
42" Pannasonic Plasma
HR22-100 / 26" LG LCD
Slimline 5-LNB

#1774 OFFLINE   jdskycaster

jdskycaster

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 272 posts
Joined: Sep 01, 2008

Posted 13 July 2012 - 03:14 PM

That's not true - fees have already started to get raised on them. Starz for example got 30M a year in their first deal, and demanded more than $500 for their next. It's why Starz content is no longer on NF.


Correct, and furthermore let's see how viable the NF model is when they have to double or even triple their subcriber fees.

I dropped physical media from my NF subscription when they raised rates on me last year (as did hundreds of thousands of other subs). I recently dumped my streaming service as I had not watched anything of value in the last 6 months. I do however maintain Amazon Prime because I like the express shipping options and I purchase a ton of goods from Amazon. Their streaming video service is merely a bonus but would not come close to replacing my sat provider.

#1775 OFFLINE   Bradman

Bradman

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 55 posts
Joined: Aug 08, 2011

Posted 13 July 2012 - 03:14 PM

I am so glad that I don't live at a neighbors house because she has 4 kids and they love SpongeBob. Wednesday Morning when they turn the channel to 299 it had the Kids Mix, they were mad at the channel not showing SpongeBob. They did not pay attention to the crawls and ads Tuesday at all just watching SpongeBob. The alternates they did not like Phineas and Ferb, etc. They tuned out of Phineas and Ferb 2 minutes in and wanted SpongeBob instead. Mom told them it is a money issue that the channel was not there. Mom called Direct TV and got a 5 dollar credit but the kids were still not happy as they could not watch SpongeBob. Mom said "Mommy can't fix the problem" and the kids got very upset. Mom did not have any DVD's or recordings in her DVR to fix the problem. All of her friends also have Direct TV and in the same boat as her. Yesterday, they still tune to the channel waiting for SpongeBob to come back but still the same options Phineas and Ferb, etc. The kids still were upset by this situation and began screaming SpongeBob now not later. The kids demanded her switch companies but she said it would cost too much to get out of her contract. She ordered some SpongeBob DVD's yesterday and chose the standard option but the kids wanted next day delivery but she could not afford next day delivery. Today, she had to leave her kids with one of her friends to go out for the day.


Cool story, bro.:rolleyes:

#1776 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,472 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 13 July 2012 - 03:18 PM

That's not true - fees have already started to get raised on them. Starz for example got 30M a year in their first deal, and demanded more than $500 for their next. It's why Starz content is no longer on NF.

And as far as their model - they are just a different version of Cable and Sat. A non-telco on demand IPTV service is the most apt comparison. Its equally as valid if they can figure out how to get more content. And they'll figure that out quickly if Viacom and the like are no longer feeling beholden to their Cable/Sat partners. The only reason they stay away from netflix now if their traditional bed fellows prefer that they do so. But that changes if D* is no longer in the picture.


You just made my point. They fail quickly when the prices go up. And, no, they are not the same model. They do not own the pipeline which cable and satellite do. Huge difference.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#1777 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 13 July 2012 - 03:19 PM

Correct, and furthermore let's see how viable the NF model is when they have to double or even triple their subcriber fees.

I dropped physical media from my NF subscription when they raised rates on me last year (as did hundreds of thousands of other subs). I recently dumped my streaming service as I had not watched anything of value in the last 6 months. I do however maintain Amazon Prime because I like the express shipping options and I purchase a ton of goods from Amazon. Their streaming video service is merely a bonus but would not come close to replacing my sat provider.


People are already comfortable paying sat and cable $150 month. $25 - $75 for NF is a relative steal.

Cost won't be NF problem. Bandwidth caps are another story.

#1778 OFFLINE   jdskycaster

jdskycaster

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 272 posts
Joined: Sep 01, 2008

Posted 13 July 2012 - 03:19 PM

I personally applaud DTV for standing up to Viacom just as I did Dish standing up to AMC. Something has to change and no change has ever been affected by maintaining status quo. I will live without AMC on Dish - I can get it elsewhere if I feel it is worth the price they are asking per show. Although I think losing 17 channels is a bit tougher to swallow I can honestly say if Dish were in the same situation I would want them to react the same way as DTV.

#1779 OFFLINE   MartyS

MartyS

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,104 posts
Joined: Dec 29, 2006

Posted 13 July 2012 - 03:20 PM

I'm simply amazed at the number of lawyers and accountants we have on DBSTalk.
Marty

My Setup

Life is in HD and 3D -- be sure to enjoy it!!

Never argue with an idiot.
He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

#1780 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 13 July 2012 - 03:21 PM

You just made my point. They fail quickly when the prices go up. And, no, they are not the same model. They do not own the pipeline which cable and satellite do. Huge difference.


That's a fair point on the pipes. You are correct there.

But i think it's more an issue of not wanting to maintain two $100 services not a reluctance to pay NF $100 if the content is there.




spam firewall