Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by mws192, Sep 9, 2019.
You selected that package knowing what it costs. I fail to see how you're the injured party.
I agree with that. Its hard to say for sure but I dont know how anyone couldnt lean to it has to be more Disney's fault.
The real "blame" goes to changes in the way television is delivered. Not that long ago "everybody" had linear subscription televison. AKA cable or DBS. And "everybody" paid for the ESPNs and all the other sports channels, whether they watched or not. This eventually reached about HALF of the entire bill. And this money passed through the provider to ESPN, et al, and on to the leagues and on to the players. So ESPN, et al, is on the hook for huge $$ to the leagues, who are in turn on the hook for huge $$ to players.
But, and it is hard for sports fans to understand, but it is true, a lot of people have no interest in sports at all.
So today, there are other ways to get television. True cord-cutting (OTA and free stuff like Pluto or youtube); what many people call cord-cutting (subscribing to non-linear on-demand TV like Netflix or Hulu); or alternative TV providers (youtube TV, Sling, Play Station Vue, etc)
So a lot of people have found they can be OK without live sports. DirecTV wants to compete for these people. DirecTV could, if Disney would let it, easily offer several packages great channel line up, with no sports at all, and there are PLENTY of customers who would sign up for it.
Disney does not want to let it. This deal is not as simple as AT&T wants to pay X and Disney wants to get Y. It is over if, and if so, how many customers will be allowed to have, a sports free package.
At the end of the day, whether Disney (New Fox, Comcast, Sinclair, et al) like it or not, sports free TV is coming.
Well said. What people seem to fail to recognize is we could go to a per channel model Lets say ESPN was not in a dispute but DirecTV changes their model to price your package only for he channels you add and ESPN loses 50% of its customers from DirecTV. Do people really think ESPN is going to be okay with losing that 50% revenue? The answer is no. They are going to charge the remaining 50% more money to make up for the lose because they know that 50% wants the channel and will pay for it. It also means that we will all lose some channels we want because not enough people watch and pay for them. Also how could any new channel ever come to the market with zero subscribers? This concept of people just expecting DirecTV to pay for what ever the increase is, is nothing short of insane. If Chevy starts raising the prices of their cars by 50% starting tomorrow is it going to affect their sales? Overnight did their cars become worth 50% more? Would Chevy learn anything if everyone just paid the new prices? No, they would learn more by everyone telling them to eat it and not buy their product. I know this isnt the exact same but same concept. Cant just raise rates to raise rates. These channels used to say viewership was up and we deserve more money. Now its dont matter that their viewership is down they still think they deserve more money. It has to stop at some point. These increases are not sustainable. That is a fact!
Cancelling DIRECTV is exactly what Disney wants you to do. So if you want to follow the instructions of that corporate overlord ... it is your choice.
I'd look for a temporary solution if the channels go dark. The sad part is that Disney will get paid whether you pay through DIRECTV or another provider. Perhaps this is a good time to figure out how important the channels are in your life.
If the ESPN channels are all you watch perhaps suspending the account would be better than cancelling. It would be easier to reverse when there is a deal.
Remember - DTV will be absorbing most of the ill will with a blackout - and Disney and all other content providers know that. There is no doubt in my mind Disney is using that to extract more $$$ from DTV, and in turn us.
It's why I say Disney is at least 60% of the problem.
Why would it??
You are right. I selected a package. One that has ESPN and their channels. I pay more for it so I expect to have it. Included in this package are GodTV, 5 Shopping Channels, and several others I will not continue to pay for if the ones I want are not available. I’m sure million others will be with me.
DTV has already lost a million subs this quarter. Expect it to triple or more with this news.
People like you would love to be able to subscribe to TV channels via a la carte. Unfortunately that is not feasible for service providers.
DTV is responding to people on twitter promoting other stations football is on. That is all I need to know if a contract or extension would be signed today. Guess not. Get ready for a max exodus.
Disney can prevent it, by holding firm in telling providers that if you want to get Disney Channel, ABC O&Os and other non-sports stuff you have to include ESPN for x% of your customers, take it or leave it.
A national provider like Directv cannot compete if they don't have Disney Channel or offer ABC in any in ABC O&O markets (which is probably 1/3 of the US population since those O&O markets are in the biggest cities) People could mostly care less if they don't get Freeform, but not getting Disney Channel or ABC is a deal breaker for many. Thus Disney is and will continue to be able to force carriage of ESPN.
Fox can continue to force carriage of FS1 (though it is far less expensive and therefore less of an issue) via FNC and the Fox O&Os for some reasons.
Sinclair will now be able to force carriage of the former FSN RSNs and the new Cubs channel via the threat of losing all of Sinclair's locals which would affect over half the US population.
So no, sports free TV is not coming. At least not in the next decade if you want traditional package based TV. If you want sports free TV you will have to cut the cord COMPLETELY. Meaning not going to a streaming MVPD that's basically the same thing, i.e. Sling TV and its ilk. But going to true streaming alternatives like Netflix, Apple TV+ and so forth. There will be some programs you simply won't be able to watch because they will only be on linear TV, and you'll have to have to OK with that.
Not sure why people are talking about canceling Directv. I can understand average customers doing it, but people on dbstalk know Directv's suspension policy and anyone who is happy with Directv today but will be unhappy with them tomorrow if ESPN is gone could simply suspend and go to a month by month streamer like Sling TV in the interim.
Though it makes me wonder if someone like Sling TV got a million new customers over the weekend and all of them wanted to watch ESPN Monday night whether it might not work so smoothly...
I get that canceling would be a way to register your "disapproval" at Directv for losing ESPN but if you want them to agree to whatever terms to keep the channel then IMHO you lose your right to complain about the yearly price increases from now on.
AT&T is no less of a “corporate overlord” than the Mouse is. In fact, the Mouse has treated me far better over the years than AT&T has. I’m with AT&T for one reason only, Sunday Ticket.
ESPN is over price .Hang in there Direc.
And DTV isn’t?
I honestly could care less who is to blame. The bottom line is that I pay DirecTV every month for service, not Disney. It also doesn't help that my most recent bill just shot up in price.
I can't see myself actually cancelling, but I will demand that I get something in return (credits, free ST, free premium channels, etc.) to make up for it.
So if Disney gets cut and I lose those stations off my package, will DTV adjust my bill accordingly?? They won’t. They didn’t do it when NBC went off. Not when CBS went off. In fact next year, prices will be higher even with or without Disney stations.
IMO, I really don't care if Disney and ESPN go away. I do not watch either one. The only sports I may watch is my local Football Team and car races via OTA channels.
I might feel a little more sorry for AT&T about their programming costs, if I wasn't getting gouged for receiver fees after paying an upfront fee for each one of them, especially given the overall crappiness of all of them except the HR54.
They're contacting D* subs directly. See post #76.
Well they gave me $120 a month off my bill for a year so for me the answer is no. All TV providers are high. That isnt just DirecTV. It comes down to what are you willing to pay to get what you want. I like some of the channels that may go away but I stand behind DirecTV in trying to keep from raising our rates more. I think its the right thing to do and I will do without the channels while they sort it out. Should we be credited for missing channels, sure but i dont mind not having them for a bit for them to get the right deal. I think its smart business.
This reminds me of Wal-Mart and people trying to get their product in their stores or keep them in there. Wal-Mart makes the give them a huge discount or they wont be selling in their stores. In this case the TV channels want a huge increase or they wont provide their content to DirecTV. Some businesses at Wal-Mart have to tell them sorry we wont make any money if we give it to you near cost. If ESPN wants to much money then they should see what its like to not have any money coming in from DirecTV. If you tell your boss you want a 40% increase in salary and demand it, are you going to be able to survive on no pay check if they let you go or would you have really taken what they may offer you? Im proud of DirecTV for taking a stand. The pay TV industry has a lot of hard growing and sorting out to do in the next 10 years. Its going to get worse probably before it gets better.