Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by danpeters, Jul 9, 2012.
The whole truth in what is going on here is somewhere between what viacom and direct tv are saying
What if I told you that directv thought they pretty much *had* settled?
I've seen it a few times in contracts in my work. Usually the company that causes the back off loses.
Maybe Viacom's post was not for nothing after all.
Perhaps they lied intentionally to get DTV to admit the Epix part (we never heard DTV bring it up until Viacom said that the talks broke down completely). Perhaps that was Viacom's plan all along: to get DTV to admit that this is about Epix.
Now that the cat's out of the bag, too, how many people who didn't know about that channel before (some people didn't know the channel EXISTED) will at least want to know what the channel is, and how many of THOSE people will tell DTV that they might be willing to pay a bit extra for another channel that they might be interested in?
How many of those people would've NOT done that had they not known that Epix existed, let alone it be the big roadblock in everyone's way?
Yeah, can give the devil its due: that could've been a smart move on Viacom's part! Forced DTV to bring it up!
Always is. But doesn't mean it isn't closer to one side of the gulf.
http://blog.viacom.com/2012/07/no-deal-in-sight-viacom-compromise-proposals-fail-to-sway-directv/. The Viacom response was there was offers for Epix, without Epix, and incentives to carry Epix.
Nope, brand new. I think it had 8 miles on it when I first drove it off the lot. And now, 3 years later I've nearly drove the wheels off at something less than 12K on the odometer!
Full disclosure. That was the 5th or 6th car I had bought from them, so my track record was definitely working for me.
I didn't notice this mentioned in previous posts (but I may have overlooked it):
Did anyone catch this tweet from DirecTV a few hours ago:
"RT this: @tcm will be in HD on DIRECTV starting tomorrow AM!"
All I get when clicking that is a 500 server error.
But if true, then this is where we got to have someone come clean and reveal all the facts, because this is getting ridiculous to see two grown men fight like kids and give conflicting stories on what's what and whining to the press every day.
Im getting it without a problem.
I have question: Directv signs a contract for x amount of $ to carry lets say HBO channels x amount of years.Directv pays the money for the contract regardless of how many subs pay extra for those channels. Directv makes $ trying to get more subs to pay for HBO and pockets anything over the contract amount. Am i right or close?
So good, now that we know you know nothing about me:
A.) it's not all moral value, I block all kids channels period because my sons attitude changes drastically when let watch them. Thus, we dont let him watch tv much. FYI, I have all the religion channels blocked too. So go figure that one out.
B.) I brought it up because the person I was responding to said Directv was holding us all hostage. I made a point to say no they weren't holding me anything and why.
C.) I don't care about it being a rough world. I know it is. But that still doesn't give you any right to act like the TV police of my house. It is my job to raise my child as I see fit. Not yours. If I had Fuse or if MTV played videos of current music that he would hear on the radio I wouldn't have them blocked. But I do not want the reality shows on for him to freely flip through channels and watch as he pleases if I or his mom happen to be another room doing something. Like in my case, earning my degree taking a class or working.
D.) Do I think the complaints over that SB Halftime show were over the top? Yes. But did parents and all have a right to voice a complaint it happened without being dismissed as self righteous people sheltering their children from the "real world?" yes, they did. What I to this day don't get about that is why the FCC fined local affiliates for something broadcasted by the networks. What? They shouldn't air the Suoerbowl for fear something could happen? Yeah that'd go over real well.
This was added to Viacom's statement from earlier today:
While DIRECTV is registered in the US (Delaware of all places), a goodly chunk of its revenues (and some of its employees) are homed in Central and South America. Their hardware products are subcontracted from European and Asian companies operating plants in Mexico and China. You're either in the World Economy or your no longer in business.
DIRECTV is kind of like casinos: they make much better than average money off of a startling number of people that don't know when to quit. I suspect that is what some are bitter about. Others are bitter about their arguable decline in customer service as well as things that aren't within their direct control (crappy content, increase repeats).
In the end, DIRECTV continues to raise their rates consistently at the same time that they are bemoaning the declining value of the content that they deliver.
I was getting it earlier when trying to comment on the earlier post from them, so it might be something wrong on my end (there's a bad storm passing me right now, so it might be contributing to the issue, too).
But that usually means that there's a LOT of people on the server (known as "server stress"). You might've gotten through, but someone else might not.
Now that there is funny! :lol:
Probably safe to assume that most contracts are for $ per subscriber. The EPIX "flat fee" (as reported) is probably rare, or mis-stated (more likely the $500M quoted is a "20M subscribers * 12 months * 5 years" rolled up number)... If the contracts were flat fees generally, there wouldn't be all the channel "tiers".
Here's why I don't believe them. What purpose would Directv have to NOT work out a deal with them? It is in the company's best interest to get them back on with a fair deal. There's something in this they are not telling us. Whether its they'd move a significant number of their channels to a higher package if they'd carry EPIX. But not taking it they want all their stuff to remain where it was. It just really sounds like something is missing here.
I believe that is wrong. Most if not all channels are paid for on a per subscriber basis (of that channel). That is why companies want their channels on this tier or that so they get more money because of more subs.
This part annoys me. How can they KNOW people won't want a channel that has never been offered. As someone else said, most people probably don't even know it exists or what it is.
They may well be right, but it's impossible for them to KNOW.