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
- - - - -

Unbundling in the Air?


  • Please log in to reply
125 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   Tubaman-Z

Tubaman-Z

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 499 posts
Joined: Jul 30, 2007

Posted 27 February 2013 - 09:37 PM

Just saw this:

http://www.latimes.c...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."

Kevin

My top 5 wishlist: 1) Free MRV HR to HR 2) Fix Channels I Receive so that it is accurate 3) > 50 SeriesLink 4) Usage of both internal and external drives concurrently 5) Support for other video providers as DoD (i.e. Hulu, CBS)   

DirecTV HR21-200, 2008 (DirecTV anniversary gift)
DirecTV HR20-100 (2TB eSATA), 2007
DirecTV since 1995

<><


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

#2 OFFLINE   acostapimps

acostapimps

    Hall Of Famer

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,619 posts
  • LocationIllinois
Joined: Nov 05, 2011

Posted 27 February 2013 - 09:42 PM

Why didn't Directv did this with the Epix issue? Directv should fight for consumers not shareholders.

Directv Genie DVR HR44-700
Directv HD DVR HR24-500
Directv HD Receiver H24-200
Directv Wireless Mini Client C41W-100 (Deactivated)
Directv Standard SD Receiver D12-700 

SWM 16  SWM 8-Way Splitter  SWM 2-Way Splitter  Slimline 5LNB  

Directv Subscriber From 2009-?


#3 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,596 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 27 February 2013 - 10:52 PM

Why didn't Directv did this with the Epix issue? Directv should fight for consumers not shareholders.


...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.
DTV = Digital Television

#4 OFFLINE   Joe166

Joe166

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 123 posts
Joined: Jan 05, 2007

Posted 28 February 2013 - 10:06 AM

Why didn't Directv did this with the Epix issue? Directv should fight for consumers not shareholders.




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 OFFLINE   paulman182

paulman182

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,835 posts
Joined: Aug 04, 2006

Posted 28 February 2013 - 10:33 AM

...their first responsibility is to their shareholders.


That's what really is shameful.

About business in general, not just DirecTV.

Equipment includes a buncha stuff that I no longer have interest in detailing


#6 OFFLINE   adkinsjm

adkinsjm

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 914 posts
Joined: Mar 25, 2003

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:26 PM

That's what really is shameful.

About business in general, not just DirecTV.


Would you give all of your personal money away to make a customer happy, or go without a paycheck?

#7 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,596 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:51 PM

That's what really is shameful.

About business in general, not just DirecTV.


How is it shameful?
DTV = Digital Television

#8 OFFLINE   tunce

tunce

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 335 posts
Joined: Jan 19, 2006

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:54 PM

That's what really is shameful.

About business in general, not just DirecTV.


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... :(
Tunce

HR34-700 w/AM21 | HR20-700 | H21-200 | SWiM | Slimline 3
Whole Home - External Antenna

#9 OFFLINE   evan_s

evan_s

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,136 posts
Joined: Mar 03, 2008

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:02 PM

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 OFFLINE   Tubaman-Z

Tubaman-Z

    Godfather

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 499 posts
Joined: Jul 30, 2007

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:30 PM

... and therefore how their top management is judged.


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.

Kevin

My top 5 wishlist: 1) Free MRV HR to HR 2) Fix Channels I Receive so that it is accurate 3) > 50 SeriesLink 4) Usage of both internal and external drives concurrently 5) Support for other video providers as DoD (i.e. Hulu, CBS)   

DirecTV HR21-200, 2008 (DirecTV anniversary gift)
DirecTV HR20-100 (2TB eSATA), 2007
DirecTV since 1995

<><


#11 OFFLINE   FLWingNut

FLWingNut

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 414 posts
Joined: Nov 19, 2005

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:46 PM

That's what really is shameful.

About business in general, not just DirecTV.


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 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 18,701 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 28 February 2013 - 04:26 PM

Would you invest your money in a company that doesn't make a return on your investment the #1 priority?

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.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#13 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,546 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:35 PM

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.


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.
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

#14 OFFLINE   Dazed & Confused

Dazed & Confused

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 273 posts
Joined: Jun 13, 2007

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:39 PM

If bundling is done away with, Frank Fritz will not be happy.
_____________________________________________
Sony KDL-40V2500 / HR20-100
Sony KDS-55A2020 / HR22-100

#15 OFFLINE   Dude111

Dude111

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 491 posts
Joined: Aug 06, 2010

Posted 01 March 2013 - 03:08 AM

That would be good!!!!

I would have these

Golf Channel
Boomerang
TVI (328)

#16 OFFLINE   luckydob

luckydob

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 451 posts
Joined: Oct 01, 2006

Posted 01 March 2013 - 07:06 AM

That would be good!!!!

I would have these

Golf Channel
Boomerang
TVI (328)


Not so sure the Golf Channel would survive unbundling....careful what you wish for.

#17 OFFLINE   Herdfan

Herdfan

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 5,983 posts
Joined: Mar 18, 2006

Posted 01 March 2013 - 07:47 AM

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.

My Setup

 

Why can I get to the "Adult's Only" area faster than I can get to the "ToDo" List?  DirecTV, that is messed up!!!


#18 OFFLINE   peds48

peds48

    🙈🙉🙊📡

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 10,685 posts
  • LocationLong Island, NY
Joined: Jan 10, 2008

Posted 01 March 2013 - 08:21 AM

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)
Here’s to the crazy ones.
The misfits. The rebels.
The the troublemakers.
The round pegs in the square holes.

The ones who see things different.
They’re not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status quo.


Think Differently 

#19 OFFLINE   Grafixguy

Grafixguy

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 383 posts
Joined: Mar 15, 2008

Posted 01 March 2013 - 08:36 AM

If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.

#20 OFFLINE   ziggy29

ziggy29

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 691 posts
  • LocationSan Antonio DMA
Joined: Nov 18, 2004

Posted 01 March 2013 - 09:04 AM

It wouldn't matter if the company were privately held. The point is, was and will always be return on investment.


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.
My stuff: D* HR20-700 (living room) / R15 (bedroom) / OTA 91XG+YA1713+HDP269 / Harmony 880




Protected By... spam firewall...And...