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
* * * * - 1 votes

The Weather Channel and DIRECTV

satellite DIRECTV The Weather Channel weather

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
217 replies to this topic

#126 OFFLINE   Gloria_Chavez

Gloria_Chavez

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 462 posts
Joined: Aug 11, 2008

Posted 15 January 2014 - 04:38 PM

I heard on a TV report that DirecTV wanted to pay 20% less than they had been paying for the channel and that TWC wanted to raise the price by a penny per sub over the previous cost.  That would mean the two sides were quite a bit more than a penny apart, if indeed what I heard was accurate.

 

In my opinion, DirecTV would still be greatly overpaying for the channel even with a 20% cut.  I think an 80% cut would be closer to the mark.

 

Weather Company receives 0.13 from 100M subs.  That's 156M in annual carriage fees. 

 

You discount by 80%, then all the other distributors will want the same.

 

With about 2B of debt on its balance sheet, its options are limited.


Since 1995 the average cable bill has increased 122%, while TV consumption per household just 13%.

http://www.multichan...1_Per_Month.php

http://blog.nielsen....-all-time-high/

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#127 OFFLINE   damondlt

damondlt

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,749 posts
  • LocationNewfoundland, Pa
Joined: Feb 27, 2006

Posted 15 January 2014 - 05:36 PM

Weather Company receives 0.13 from 100M subs. That's 156M in annual carriage fees.

You discount by 80%, then all the other distributors will want the same.

With about 2B of debt on its balance sheet, its options are limited.

The weather Channel's debt is not my problem.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app
  • bill875 likes this

Blue Ridge Communticatons

Digital HD Basic Plus, Cinemax,Showtime/TMC,Starz /Encore
Tivo T6 (Roamio Plus) Master Bedroom,Samsung 5300 40 Inch

Tivo Mini Livingroom Vizio M602i-B3 60 Inch

Tivo Mini Bedroom 2  LG 26LE5300 26 Inch
Tivo Mini Bedroom 3  Element ELEFW328 32 Inch
Cisco HD ,Bedroom office 4  Magnavox 32 inch

Arris Touchstone DG1660 15 Mbps down 2 Mbps up.

 


#128 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Never say 'never'.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,146 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 15 January 2014 - 06:12 PM

fun with math.

 

Let's say it is a penny per sub per month. That would be $200,000 per based upon a nice round number of 20 million subs. As TWC has  ratings in the range of 200,000 total viewers from all sources, it is safe to say that DirecTV watchers are probably somewhere near 20,000 or so. That means $200,000 for 20,000 customers or $10 a month.

 

Not literally and this kind of argument can be made for a bunch of channels but looking at it at both sides. Yes, it may be a penny a month but pennies have a way of adding up.

On top of the fact that TWC had become overpriced at its recent level, before you add ca. $2.4MM. ADD, mind you. At a reported 12 cents a sub, you are talking real money. 


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#129 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Never say 'never'.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,146 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 15 January 2014 - 06:15 PM

I heard on a TV report that DirecTV wanted to pay 20% less than they had been paying for the channel and that TWC wanted to raise the price by a penny per sub over the previous cost.  That would mean the two sides were quite a bit more than a penny apart, if indeed what I heard was accurate.

 

In my opinion, DirecTV would still be greatly overpaying for the channel even with a 20% cut.  I think an 80% cut would be closer to the mark.

What you say fits perfectly, but I'd say the channel is worth less than half of the reported 12 cents a sub/month. 


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#130 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 40,807 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 15 January 2014 - 06:25 PM

Fun with math indeed ... assume TWC was getting 12c, less than the 13c industry price for the channel. TWC says "pay us what others are paying us" (the penny increase). DirecTV says, no - how about 9.6c (rumored 20% less)? The impasse forms - and now TWC is getting $2.4 million less per month.

And for TWC that has to hurt ... they are not passing through a per subscriber charge for their programming. They are expecting 12c/13c per subscriber from 100 million subscribers to pay for programming that is not cheaper to provide to 80 million than it was to 100 million.
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#131 OFFLINE   PCampbell

PCampbell

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,464 posts
Joined: Nov 18, 2006

Posted 15 January 2014 - 07:23 PM

Thens there's the add money they are not getting. I bet directv is not missing out on as much money.

Edited by PCampbell, 15 January 2014 - 07:48 PM.

DirecTV since 1996

Slimline 5 SWM 16
HR24-100
HR24-500
HR24-500

HR44-500
ATT uverse internet


#132 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 40,807 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:13 PM

Thens there's the add money they are not getting. I bet directv is not missing out on as much money.


There were those 20 customers who cancelled. :)
  • WB4CS likes this
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#133 OFFLINE   REDSKINSFAN47

REDSKINSFAN47

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 202 posts
  • LocationWoodbine,MD
Joined: Sep 02, 2007

Posted 15 January 2014 - 09:11 PM

There were those 20 customers who cancelled. :)

19 im back with directv already :rotfl:


hr20,hdmi to living room,componant mirred to office,h20kit hdmi,bedroom mine r15,bedroom daughters h20,other d10,slimline dish mounted on back of house,18 in.round (spare),on 3ft pipe in ground watered by dog daily.ota on roof.

#134 OFFLINE   Dude111

Dude111

    An Awesome Dude

  • Registered
  • 531 posts
Joined: Aug 06, 2010

Posted 16 January 2014 - 12:44 AM

I have since heard weather nation IS NOT LIVE but on a 3 hour delay!!!!

The weather channel also has a channel WITH JUST WEATHER,its called WEATHER SCAN!!

http://weatherchanne...iki/Weatherscan

Why doesnt DirecTV carry them?? -- I THINK ITS ALL ABOUT $$$$$ -- WEATHER NATION IS CHEAPER AND IS NOT AS GOOD IF IT INDEED IS NOT LIVE!!

#135 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,495 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 16 January 2014 - 12:52 AM

WeatherScan doesn't have a national feed, it's generated locally by an IntelliStar at the cable headend similar to the one that does local on the 8s.

As for WeatherNation, according to their promos they will be upgrading their graphics and going live in the near future. Prior to DirecTV carrying them they were just a weather service that pre-delivered content for playback while for severe weather it was the local affiliate who broke in for live coverage.

Edited by KyL416, 16 January 2014 - 01:03 AM.


#136 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,871 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 16 January 2014 - 02:48 AM

Disgraceful, yes. 'More disgraceful" , I doubt it. What is more disgraceful is stopping negotiations and yanking a channel away from customers. That is the most disgraceful thing anyone here has done. Whatever the issue, keep the channel on and *try* to negotiate. This is utter and complete disregard for customers - and I don't want to hear how they are looking out for my bill. Look out for it by negotiating better, not by removing a channel.
This is a bad precedent


Actually this is a fantastic precedent. It's letting channels know that they've gotten so many channels and are spreading their stuff out over so much with such a high price that they cannot afford to pay for them all. At Some point they have to fold some of them back into each other again, this is the first step. there first needs to be competition that will help drive prices for certain channels back down to reality.

The most recent example was FX and FX two there's absolutely zero reason for FX 2. none nada zip. They basically decided that they wanted to not only raise the rates for fx but they wanted to double them after that and therefore added a second FX channel.

We are passed ridiculousness at this point.

The weather Channel just happens to be the first real name channel to be sacrificed over the TV landscape the way it is continually grown in both number of channels as well as price per channel which is made everything unsustainable for the consumer.
  • mshaw2715, PCampbell and TravelFan1 like this

#137 OFFLINE   PCampbell

PCampbell

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,464 posts
Joined: Nov 18, 2006

Posted 16 January 2014 - 06:42 AM

+1


DirecTV since 1996

Slimline 5 SWM 16
HR24-100
HR24-500
HR24-500

HR44-500
ATT uverse internet


#138 OFFLINE   don s

don s

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 58 posts
Joined: Sep 04, 2011

Posted 16 January 2014 - 08:40 AM

Actually this is a fantastic precedent. It's letting channels know that they've gotten so many channels and are spreading their stuff out over so much with such a high price that they cannot afford to pay for them all. ..

 What they ACTUALLY did that normal customers notice , is take off a channel instead of leaving it on as they negotiate.   All I see is post after post about wasteful channels and driving costs down.  That's great, no one is arguing against that.   My point is that there has to be a way to do that without yanking channels as you negotiate.   Whether the channel stays on or not eventually, there are a lot of pissed off customers now, and it doesn't have to be this way.

 

I get just as pissed when content owners pull their channels too.  It's not just DTV, it's the process that is broken ..


Edited by don s, 16 January 2014 - 08:41 AM.


#139 OFFLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 13,942 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 16 January 2014 - 10:35 AM

If TWC told DirecTV to pull it as the contract and extension expired, DirecTV doesn't have any choice in the matter. They have to pull it.



#140 OFFLINE   wxguy

wxguy

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 91 posts
Joined: Feb 17, 2008

Posted 16 January 2014 - 10:54 AM

Who needs TWC. There is already a free solution:

http://www.mediabist...olution_b210490

:grin:



#141 OFFLINE   sdk009

sdk009

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 689 posts
  • LocationStanislaus County Farmland
Joined: Jan 19, 2007

Posted 16 January 2014 - 11:14 AM

It's not a three hour delay, but TWC claims its a three hour repeating loop.  I can't verify this because living in drought stricken NorCal, we haven't had any bad weather since December 2012, so there's no reason to watch any weather channel.  



#142 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 3,570 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 16 January 2014 - 11:23 AM

 Whether the channel stays on or not eventually, there are a lot of pissed off customers now, and it doesn't have to be this way.

 

What's your source for "a lot"? How many customers do you think are even aware that TWC is no longer carried? I'd measure "pissed off customers" by how many leave over the absence of the channel, and by that measure almost no one cares about it. You'd see a bigger exodus from dropping DogTV.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#143 OFFLINE   don s

don s

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 58 posts
Joined: Sep 04, 2011

Posted 16 January 2014 - 12:55 PM

What's your source for "a lot"? How many customers do you think are even aware that TWC is no longer carried? I'd measure "pissed off customers" by how many leave over the absence of the channel, and by that measure almost no one cares about it. You'd see a bigger exodus from dropping DogTV.

 

Despite the echo chamber of replies in this forum, everyone I know who has DTV is mad TWC is not on now - every one of my relatives and friends.  I'm not gonna quantify "a lot" because it doesn't matter anyway.   It's about the process of pulling stations while negotiating that is the issue.  


Edited by don s, 16 January 2014 - 12:56 PM.


#144 OFFLINE   Stuart Sweet

Stuart Sweet

    The Shadow Knows!

  • Super Moderators
  • 36,939 posts
Joined: Jun 18, 2006

Posted 16 January 2014 - 01:10 PM

don s,

remember that DIRECTV does not have the right to broadcast any channel without an agreement. The Weather Channel allowed that agreement to expire and we see no evidence that either side made any attempt to allow for broadcast during negotiations.

DIRECTV keeps channels on the air all the time while negotiating, except when the people on the other side of the table don't let them.

There are going to be people on both sides of this argument. DIRECTV currently claims that so far they've had only minimal complaints and an unusual number of compliments for this move. True? Not? Who knows.

Out of curiosity, what is it that your relatives and friends don't like about WeatherNation? Is it the lack of a "weather on the 8s" function? I know they're working on it.
Opinions expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of DBSTalk.com, DIRECTV, DISH, The Signal Group, or any other company.

#145 OFFLINE   don s

don s

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 58 posts
Joined: Sep 04, 2011

Posted 16 January 2014 - 01:25 PM

don s,

remember that DIRECTV does not have the right to broadcast any channel without an agreement. The Weather Channel allowed that agreement to expire and we see no evidence that either side made any attempt to allow for broadcast during negotiations.

DIRECTV keeps channels on the air all the time while negotiating, except when the people on the other side of the table don't let them.

There are going to be people on both sides of this argument. DIRECTV currently claims that so far they've had only minimal complaints and an unusual number of compliments for this move. True? Not? Who knows.

Out of curiosity, what is it that your relatives and friends don't like about WeatherNation? Is it the lack of a "weather on the 8s" function? I know they're working on it.

 

Again for me , it it's not even necessarily a matter of WHO pulled the station.   It does seem like it was DTV, but no one knows.   My point is about the utter disregard of customers  when ANY STATION gets pulled DURING negotiations.  If TWC pulled the station , then sure, they are to "blame" here.  It happens all the time, I realize.  Content owners do this constantly.  That doesn't "seem" to have happened here, but maybe it did.   The point I am trying hard to make above all of the DTV defenders here is that while negotiating contracts it is despicable for EITHER SIDE to pull the station.  I know whoever does it , does it because they think it gives them leverage, but all they are doing is screwing the customer.  I bet anything that pulling a station makes no difference at all in whatever contact is finally signed (or not signed).  Renew TWC, or don't, but both sides have to realize that they are making customers mad - again despite the echo champer in online forums ...

 

Edit:  Sorry, forgot to answer your question.   My relatives know and like the people themselves, Jim Cantore, et al, as well as the weather-on-the-8s'..   My friends just like the station in general, they think the new one looks cheesy.  I think the new station is OK actually to be honest.


Edited by don s, 16 January 2014 - 01:28 PM.


#146 OFFLINE   Stuart Sweet

Stuart Sweet

    The Shadow Knows!

  • Super Moderators
  • 36,939 posts
Joined: Jun 18, 2006

Posted 16 January 2014 - 01:34 PM

For the record I have long supported (and blogged about) mandatory arbitration between content providers and pay-TV companies. The parties should be required to tell a third party (whether governmental or non-gvernmental) when negotiations are not expected to conclude on time, which would set in motion very specific events. The current carriage agreement would be extended until an arbitrator had reviewed the case and then whatever that arbitrator decided would be the final terms of the contract. If either party did not want to abide by that decision, they would be prohibited from entering into new negotiations for one year and would have to publicly disclose which party didn't want to accept the terms.
  • mhking, bill875, Laxguy and 1 other like this
Opinions expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of DBSTalk.com, DIRECTV, DISH, The Signal Group, or any other company.

#147 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,871 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 16 January 2014 - 01:39 PM

What they ACTUALLY did that normal customers notice , is take off a channel instead of leaving it on as they negotiate. All I see is post after post about wasteful channels and driving costs down. That's great, no one is arguing against that. My point is that there has to be a way to do that without yanking channels as you negotiate. Whether the channel stays on or not eventually, there are a lot of pissed off customers now, and it doesn't have to be this way.

I get just as pissed when content owners pull their channels too. It's not just DTV, it's the process that is broken ..


But in this case I don't think any process change would matter. I think DIRECTV was done with them and probably said we will pay this and that's it after the deadline and Twc said no and so it's over. I think looking at it now this channel was toast months ago.

I don't think there was anymore negotiation I be had.

And I really don't think there's many pissed if customers. Here on this forum we are far more aware than the regular customer of channel changes and there's very few that are mad about this. And we probably see a higher percentage I mad people than the general subscriber base for this situation.

It's the first of several I think we may lose over time. And again I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.

#148 OFFLINE   peds48

peds48

    🙈🙉🙊📡

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 13,669 posts
  • LocationLong Island, NY
Joined: Jan 10, 2008

Posted 16 January 2014 - 01:46 PM

For the record I have long supported (and blogged about) mandatory arbitration between content providers and pay-TV companies. The parties should be required to tell a third party (whether governmental or non-gvernmental) when negotiations are not expected to conclude on time, which would set in motion very specific events. The current carriage agreement would be extended until an arbitrator had reviewed the case and then whatever that arbitrator decided would be the final terms of the contract. If either party did not want to abide by that decision, they would be prohibited from entering into new negotiations for one year and would have to publicly disclose which party didn't want to accept the terms.

this seems very fair to me and should be adopted


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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 

#149 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,871 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 16 January 2014 - 01:51 PM

Again for me , it it's not even necessarily a matter of WHO pulled the station. It does seem like it was DTV, but no one knows. My point is about the utter disregard of customers when ANY STATION gets pulled DURING negotiations. If TWC pulled the station , then sure, they are to "blame" here. It happens all the time, I realize. Content owners do this constantly. That doesn't "seem" to have happened here, but maybe it did. The point I am trying hard to make above all of the DTV defenders here is that while negotiating contracts it is despicable for EITHER SIDE to pull the station. I know whoever does it , does it because they think it gives them leverage, but all they are doing is screwing the customer. I bet anything that pulling a station makes no difference at all in whatever contact is finally signed (or not signed). Renew TWC, or don't, but both sides have to realize that they are making customers mad - again despite the echo champer in online forums ...

Edit: Sorry, forgot to answer your question. My relatives know and like the people themselves, Jim Cantore, et al, as well as the weather-on-the-8s'.. My friends just like the station in general, they think the new one looks cheesy. I think the new station is OK actually to be honest.


A couple things.

At what point during negotiations is it ok to finally say we aren't going to reach a deal and part ways and remove the channel permanently? Because these negotiations have likely been going in for ages as they usually do and I don't think either side thinks that there are more negotiations to happen. I'm think twc hopes customer complaints will bring DIRECTV someday back. It won't IMHO.

Second DIRECTV keeps channels without contracts and we never hear a word about it when negotiations are good. HBO was on for what some suggest over a year without any contract but you meet heard about that in press releases.

#150 OFFLINE   don s

don s

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 58 posts
Joined: Sep 04, 2011

Posted 16 January 2014 - 03:43 PM

"At what point during negotiations is it ok to finally say we aren't going to reach a deal and part ways and remove the channel permanently? 

I don't know what the answer to that is, but I would think a minimum criteria would be when the BOTH say so, no?   If both parties agree that negotiations are finished and that they could not reach an agreement, and publicly say so, then so be it.  

 

Also for the record,  being very aware of channel changes  - as most on these forums are - is very different from knowing what the average DTV customers know or like.  I am not gonna argue the merits of TWC, I am just saying that the consensus of how well liked a station is here is not necessarily representative of the overall DTV base.  







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: satellite, DIRECTV, The Weather Channel, weather

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