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. Jul 11, 2012 #841 of 3058
    bkress

    bkress Cool Member

    20
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    I give thumbs up to Direct, as consumers we are being screwed buy these scumbags, all these "cable broadcasters" are flooding us with commericals
    non stop when watching these channels and we are paying for it in or bill, then we see more commericals than on OTA TV, we have to endure the program Logo ( that gets bigger every day) that promotes programing now annoy's us with continous crap - it has to stop! :(
     
  2. Jul 11, 2012 #842 of 3058
    susanandmark

    susanandmark Godfather

    468
    6
    Feb 15, 2007

    Unless, of course, you're already one of the top tier (highest dollar) customers already paying for all those services ...
     
  3. Jul 11, 2012 #843 of 3058
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Exactly. We have seen as many as 600% increases with locals up in washington state, and just a month or so ago another small broadcasting company with several locals asked for a 300% increase.

    The economy has killed everyone. But some of these companies.... instead of adjusting to bad times, they are just looking to offset losses in one part of the company with more income in other parts.

    In this case, most media companies have lost a tremendous amount of income in advertising between 2007 (when the economy started its slide) to 2011 (when it slowly, VERY slowly started to recover). And now they are trying to offset the loss in advertising income by charging carriers more money. It has been a sign of recent times, and yes, it is indeed company greed at its finest.

    Re: Viacom, their chief executive was the "highest paid executive" in 2010, earning just over 84 million dollars. This was MORE than what the CEO's of Ford, GM, and Chrysler made COMBINED.

    How can a company justify that in 2010, after just coming off of 2 HORRIFIC economic years in 2008 and 2009?

    Yeah yeah.... mumble.... bonus in contracts.... mumble mumble.... already agreed before hand.... mumble..... B-effing-S! The CEO of Viacom is already a billionaire, and could have easily said: I'll take $1 million this year, please put the remaining $83 million back in to the company.

    I know there have been a few CEO's that have done that. Even less, they took $1, one dollar, just so they can legally stay on the books as an employee, and gave all of their salary and bonuses back to the company. Of course besides salary and bonus, they get stock options.... but those do depend on the the company doing well. They are worth considerably less if the company does poorly, and although those can run up to many millions as well, at least there is something to work for, as you will simply get stock that is worth less money if the company struggles.

    And again, don't get me wrong: DirecTV executives get paid millions as well, and they are also just out to line their pockets. And the less they pay for a carriage contract, the more they can line their pockets. But in the end, it is US that will foot the bill, and to remain competitive against Dish, Cable, and U-Verse/FIOS (and other IPTV outlets) they have to keep the price as low as possible, and any cent-per-subscriber they can take off, the better it is for our wallets in the long run.
     
  4. Jul 11, 2012 #844 of 3058
    woods_men

    woods_men Cool Member

    10
    0
    Jul 11, 2012
    In my 92 year on the plamet, I have seen and learned that the most respected people are the ones who you have to watch the most.
     
  5. Jul 11, 2012 #845 of 3058
    Carl Spock

    Carl Spock Superfly

    4,567
    0
    Sep 3, 2004
    There are some wonderful first time posts in this thread.
     
  6. Jul 11, 2012 #846 of 3058
    mnassour

    mnassour Icon

    859
    9
    Apr 23, 2002
    Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh!

    Do NOT step on Sixto around here. You will be ostracized for trashing one of the people who has worked the hardest to make this an outstanding source of information and tarring yourself as ignorant.

    I didn't say you DID do that in this post....let's just consider this good information and move on, OK?
     
  7. Jul 11, 2012 #847 of 3058
    woods_men

    woods_men Cool Member

    10
    0
    Jul 11, 2012
    True of mine as well and i bet this sispute is over Viacom wanting Directv to carry ALL of its channels and Directv does not want the consumer to have them.
     
  8. Jul 11, 2012 #848 of 3058
    woods_men

    woods_men Cool Member

    10
    0
    Jul 11, 2012
    So he may be a bully and people who say something he does not like is pushed away, sounds like a person who can not handle multiple opinions and experience from older folks.
     
  9. Jul 11, 2012 #849 of 3058
    wingrider01

    wingrider01 Hall Of Fame

    1,764
    2
    Sep 9, 2005
    Maybe an incentive to you but for a lot of us this means absolutely nothing, now the equivlant value in pay per view and cinema direct would be more then acceptable
     
  10. Jul 11, 2012 #850 of 3058
    zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    Talking about locals, I really don't understand why at least with cable this is ever an issue. There is or was a mandate from the FCC (yeah I know) that local channels were MUST CARRY by cable. All this money crap was irrelevant they required cable providers to have them whether they wanted to or not. Did this change? Or did the FCC just decide to let this become a free for all also?
     
  11. Jul 11, 2012 #851 of 3058
    wingrider01

    wingrider01 Hall Of Fame

    1,764
    2
    Sep 9, 2005
    we will see, found it...
     
  12. Jul 11, 2012 #852 of 3058
    paulman182

    paulman182 Hall Of Fame

    4,841
    4
    Aug 4, 2006
    It's not about Viacom. I watch exactly zero of those channels.

    The next channels to go could be your channels. Or my channels.

    No, not my channels. I pay for all the premium channels, and that's 99% of what I watch.
     
  13. Jul 11, 2012 #853 of 3058
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Every company is out to make profits, DirecTV included. They has a HUGE increase in revenue in the South-American market where they have been expanding their services.

    Revenue, by the way, is something else than profit. In the last quarter of 2011 profits for DirecTV were about 1.2 billion, where for Viacom they were about 640 million, both being about 4 to 6% of their revenue of 28 and 15 billion. Since both companies have to make investments, that is a reasonable profit margin.

    Where it gets sick is how they compensate their CEO's. Mike White of DirecTV made 5.9 Million in 2011 (and 32 Million in 2010, mostly one-time awards counting for multiple years when he took over as CEO), where Viacom's CEO Daumann made 43 Million. (and 84 Million in 2010)

    A company that is not even HALF the size of DirecTV, is paying its executives EIGHT TIMES the money? Yeah, they sure are worried about piracy there at Viacom. :D
     
  14. Jul 11, 2012 #854 of 3058
    markrubi

    markrubi Icon

    692
    0
    Oct 12, 2006
    I think Viacom should rename nickelodeon to nikelanddime :lol:
     
  15. Jul 11, 2012 #855 of 3058
    sean67854

    sean67854 AllStar

    100
    0
    May 9, 2007
    I think what I'm paying for my DirecTV service is fine with or without those crap channels. Capitalism. DirecTV is allowed to make money, and we are not allowed to say when it's too much, except by taking our business elsewhere. You don't like it? Adios.

    DirecTV does a lot of R&D that most people don't take into consideration, but would piss and moan about if it didn't exist, like oh, i don't know, HD recievers, off air tuner boxes, website guide, etc.

    I want DirecTV to make a little extra money to work on things to keep making things better. I just got a new 3D tv and when I hooked it up, holy moly, there are 3D channels on DirecTV, for no extra charge. Granted the programming is pretty much crap, but they are there.
     
  16. Jul 11, 2012 #856 of 3058
    Sea bass

    Sea bass Icon

    697
    4
    Jun 9, 2005
    Wow!....:nono2:
     
  17. Jul 11, 2012 #857 of 3058
    sean67854

    sean67854 AllStar

    100
    0
    May 9, 2007
    This exactly. When you have a company that has to spend the money to launch freakin' SATELLITES into SPACE, I think profit is a more appropriate number to look at. It's not exactly the same as the cable company digging a ditch to bury cable or fiber.
     
  18. Jul 11, 2012 #858 of 3058
    susanandmark

    susanandmark Godfather

    468
    6
    Feb 15, 2007
    Ding, ding, ding!

    If only it were so easy. DirecTV locks customers into ironclad "contracts" (without even gaining physical signatures in 90 percent of the cases), demanding payment if you desire to leave FOR ANY REASON, with no reciprocal promises made to the consumer's they're locking down. In essence, they could reduce your channel count to one and charge you the same price, or even more, and you'd have no recourse, legal or otherwise.

    For everyone that argues "but they'd never do that," due to bad PR, corporate suicide and the like, you may be correct (certainly hope you are!) but what sucks, and feels so very, VERY wrong to me is that THEY COULD. And we, the customers, could do little about it. Contracts that maintain early termination fees are, in general (beyond DirecTV), wildly consumer UNfriendly. At least with cell phones you actually have to physically sign something and they've had enough class action suits and the like that they highlight the ETF fees and force you to acknowledge you know the drill ... With DirecTV they just send you a post card weeks later, IF they even bother to do that.

    A substantial change in programming or pricing SHOULD come with a "you can leave any time you're not happy" out. If DirecTV really "had our backs" this would be a given (any company with faith in the quality of their product doesn't need a two-year contract to keep consumers on board) and, honestly, would actually make me feel better about NOT leaving ... Just knowing I could if I needed/wanted to.
     
  19. Jul 11, 2012 #859 of 3058
    zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    This argument is one a lot of people like to make but it doesn't work with me. Btw, you said you were sure the ones who WANT them would be glad to pay it. I agree. Let them and don't make me do it. Anyway, back to what I was saying. There isn't a single channel I watch Directv could drop that I would raise cane over as long as if it was gone permanently they either lowered the bill or gave me something in return. I'll do something else or watch something else. And oh by the way, it almost was channels i watch recently when they had the dispute with Fox over the RSNs. I watch those. However, i felt the same way I do now. The only 3 channels I feel are a must I can get OTA: CBS, Fox, and NBC. Now before I'm misinterpreted, I did not say those are all I WANT. I want more and thus why I have pay tv service. But programming costs are out of control and I wish the FCC would require all channels be negotiated separately and tv providers do an a la carte. People think this is horrible because the bill would increase. That's true for some at first. See, the network owners tell you most everyone can't live without their stuff. In truth, they know if people had to pay individually for their channels the veil on that lie would be exposed. So, for example under my system, ESPN works out a deal to make up for the number of customers it knows it's going to lose and winds up with $10 for just their channel. They'll be far less people subbing to it. However, they can't raise the price for the duration of the contract to make up for even that because the deal is for x number of years. When they lose way too much money on advertising they'll come back to the table to do something more reasonable and get more subs. This would be the same thing for every channel. That's why I advocate for a la carte service.
     
  20. Jul 11, 2012 #860 of 3058
    keith_benedict

    keith_benedict Godfather

    342
    0
    Jan 11, 2007
    Yeah, it sucks, but...

    To be fair, you had a choice to sign or NOT sign their 2 year contract. Nobody forced you to contract with Directv for their services. If you didn't like the terms, you shouldn't have signed.
     

Share This Page