1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

DirecTV/Viacom Dispute?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by danpeters, Jul 9, 2012.

  1. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    Thanks for being frank about it.

    IMHO $10 is about what Viacom's stuff is worth. I do recognize that everyone's perceived value is different however.

    And that's the rub - if and when D* (or anyone else) starts charging more than a customer's perceived value for the service the customer will go elsewhere.
     
  2. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    I don't think they are opposed to EPIX itself, just opposed to the high price Viacom is reportedly asking to carry it.
     
  3. mreposter

    mreposter Hall Of Fame

    1,711
    1
    Jul 29, 2006
    From the article:
    "We will likely look back on this dispute and the outcome of the Dish-AMC dispute and conclude that the large distributors have more leverage than originally perceived when up against all but the largest programmers."

    I think a related thing we're learning is that general entertainment type programming isn't as essential as the content owners think. People might not be happy about losing the Nik channels or MTV, but they by-and-large are tolerating the loss. It's really sports programming that fans will riot in the streets over.

    Disney, Fox and increasingly Comcast have the sports channels that people will demand no matter what the price. That puts Viacom, CBS, Discovery and other other general-entertainment-only companies in a much weaker position. When it comes down to it and Directv has to drop something to pay for increasingly expensive sports channels it's going to be general/niche entertainment channels that get the axe.
     
  4. zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    From the article:

    Kraft said he sees four key sticking points in the carriage talks. First, Viacom wants a 30 percent rate increase in year one of the new contract to bring DirecTV in line with other distributors, "while DirecTV effectively contends that other distributors are overpaying because they happened to sign their contracts with Viacom before ratings declined sharply," he said.
    Second, Viacom wants DirecTV to carry Epix on a bundled basis, while DirecTV only wants to carry Epix a la carte. Third, Viacom wants broader distribution of its networks across programming tiers, while DirecTV wants to be able to offer smaller packages.
    Finally, "DirecTV wants in and out-of-home streaming rights included in the new deal," Kraft suggested. "Viacom wants compensation for these rights."

    On point 1, they'll figure something out that's a lot less than 30%.

    Point 2, pretty much what I said was the hold up on this. Viacom is trying to force this station into a base package which is NOT how it is apparently elsewhere. So, who's playing hardball here?

    Point 3, of course Viacom wants their channels in the lowest possible tiers. All of them do. They don't want to be truly revealed as being as irrelevant as they all are. They'd lose quite a bit of revenue going to higher ones because a lot of people won't buy them. Not a shot at Viacom. I feel the same way about all channels. Could you imagine the day coming of ESPN being shipped to a higher tier? When plenty don't sub upwards to get it, all of a sudden people start to see they aren't as important as they've convinced everyone they are.

    Point 4, I totally agree with Viacom. Personally, I have no use for TV Everywhere and wish it wasn't tied to a price increase like it, Pandora, you tube access, etc were. Telling us additional features aren't free when we don't use it isn't justifying anything. Now had Whole Home been free with these new features or nomad been free, sure. But it seems the stuff people would actually use costs extra while all this other crap is "free" with your rate increase. Further, i find TV Everywhere useless personally. I have 3 TV's in the house hooked to D*, living room, bedroom, and office. Guess what 3 rooms I am usually always in? If I could watch this stuff at the mall, or church, or when I'm subjected to a trip to Jacksonville that'd be fine. But I can't, I can only watch it in the house. Soapbox over, just pointing out how ridiculous I think Directv making this a sticking point is. I understand wanting to add it, but it's a different device. Now if you are going to complain about not paying the increase they desire because it's available for free online then why do you care about adding it now to yours and why do you think you should get the opportunity to do that for free? If its that big a deal, don't add them.
     
  5. zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    True, but I'm just saying IF they gave this rationale, would you be ok with it? I've long said when they have these negotiations that carry on like this they should announce the per sub rate they were paying until the deal expired and say if we do not work out deal with "x" you will see an immediate credit on your next months bill for $"y". Maybe that'd work, maybe it wouldn't.
     
  6. Beerstalker

    Beerstalker Hall Of Fame

    3,556
    70
    Feb 9, 2009
    Peoria, IL
    That's exactly what they are talking about here. DirecTV wants the streaming rights to the Viacom channels so they can include them in their DirecTV iPad app and other apps like it. That way you could stream those channels to your iPad or other device in your home, or anywhere you go that you have internet access. That is what TV everywhere is. You can't do that with many channels now because DirecTV doesn't have the rights to be able to let you do that, that is what they are trying to get here.
     
  7. tulanejosh

    tulanejosh Godfather

    446
    10
    May 23, 2008
    D* is being strangley quiet today. No twitter posts since this morning. No new facebook posts. No updates to directvpromise.com. Very interesting. Wonder if someone said - cut the crap, this isn't helping. Take the high road.
     
  8. zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    I don't mean "on demand" stuff. I mean live streams of which we have 0 as far as I know that work outside the network on my home. Obviously there channels available "live." I see them on my app anytime I go to it. Why haven't they worked out a deal to have these channels, at least some of them, to work outside the home? If they had done this from the get go and had this stuff in place when they launched it, some of us might find it useful to bellyache about it now. But for all I know, this is for On Demand rights and/or watching "live" from home on the iPad.
     
  9. bri637

    bri637 Cool Member

    18
    1
    Oct 29, 2007
    I was thinking the same thing, usually they'll have one or two updates through their facebook page but the only thing I found was a tweet from 13 hours ago:

    We'll be back negotiating with Viacom in the AM to reach a final deal. Too close to turn back now => http://directvpromise.com #DIRECTVHasMyBack‬
     
  10. Beerstalker

    Beerstalker Hall Of Fame

    3,556
    70
    Feb 9, 2009
    Peoria, IL
    It is for On Demand rights and live streaming in the home and away from your home. DirecTV want's you to be able to do both from your DirecTV iPad app, wherever you are. Right now I believe they have rights to allow you to watch a bunch of channels live streaming in your home, but they don't have the rights to allow you to do it outside your home. That is what they are trying to get. They also are trying to get On Demand rights for outside the home.
     
  11. zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    I'll believe the outside my home part when I see it. Again, they should have had something available doing that now or not added the option at all until they did. And still, Viacom has every right to ask and receive compensation for either.
     
  12. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Which is the same stuff that Viacom is giving away for free on their own websites.
     
  13. Beerstalker

    Beerstalker Hall Of Fame

    3,556
    70
    Feb 9, 2009
    Peoria, IL
    Exactly, which is why DirecTV thinks it is silly for them to be asking DirecTV to pay for it when they give it away to cusotmers for free whether or not they subscribe to the channel through any pay TV provider.

    I guess I can kind of understand the argument that the people watching the shows through the DirecTV app wouldn't be counting towards the ad views that the people watching online through the viacom's websites would be, so they wouldn't be making the ad revenue off of those views. However, if someone is watching through the DirecTV app, then it means that person is subscribing to DirecTV and the Viacom channels through them. So Viacom is already getting compensated for that customer to have access to their shows, why do they need to count on the ad revenue from streaming through DirecTV's apps?
     
  14. zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    So they are going to demand they get it free when it's available online elsewhere yet make that a sticking point in negotiations when they've made it a point to say you can get it elsewhere? Seems dumb to me. If its so valuable for the, to have then compensate for it and go about your life. Otherwise, let it go and don't worry about it. Sorry, I side with Viacom on this point totally.
     
  15. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    The value is in having it all in one place. DirecTV wants to be a portal for entertainment, whether it be on your TV or on your iPad. It is part of future proofing their business. They have this spiffy iPad product that provides streaming anywhere but what you can stream is extremely limited. They are trying to improve the value of that product and enhance their overall product.

    What that is worth? I don't have a clue.
     
  16. Taltizer

    Taltizer Legend

    189
    0
    Sep 26, 2007
    Other networks put up free online content so i guess when the next contract comes up for renewal they will want that one for free to (Directv) That is dumb.ABC, NBC, CBC , FOX on and on they all put there shows online for free thats a stupid excuse to want to not want to make a fair deal.
     
  17. Mike_TV

    Mike_TV Legend

    158
    2
    Jan 17, 2006
  18. hellyea

    hellyea Mentor

    33
    0
    Nov 13, 2007
    Anybody get credit for an MDU / bulk service due to this dispute?
     
  19. BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    If the content owners start to lose leverage then they will seek to regain it by expanding their portfolio of channels.

    Example 1: Viacom gets the short end of the stick on this deal, so they buy up several smaller owners to expand their 17-26 channels to 30 or 40. Now they have more leverage over the providers in he next deal.

    Example 2: DirecTV gets the short end, so they go after Dish network to quickly increase their subscriber base, increasing their leverage.

    I think this is far more viable in the traditional cable market than the Sat market. Also, I think the feds would stop a DirecTV / Dish acquisition pretty quickly.
     
  20. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,043
    1,163
    Nov 13, 2006
    How about all the channels that DirecTV carries like all the New York RSN's and other things of that nature along with some of the Disney channels and AMC now and all their rainbow channels. Every providers missing something is just a matter of which providers missing which.
     

Share This Page