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 #981 of 3058
    mnassour

    mnassour Icon

    859
    9
    Apr 23, 2002
    It wouldn't surprise me that Viacom is facing the same situation that AM/FM radio is in this country. Basically, we have an entire generation growing up that, for the first time since the 1930s, does not listen to radio on a daily basis. Given my own college-age daughter's experience, perhaps we are looking at a generation that also does not watch near the television that we who came of age in the 70s did.

    Indeed, with the rise of Hulu and such services, we can see that their programming is delivered to them only on demand, when they want it, where they want it. They will not sit still for advertisers filling their minds with desires they didn't know they had, at least, not from the pictures from a glowing box in the corner of the living room. I will certainly accept that fact that part of the huge drop in ratings for the Viacom channels are due to their incompetent program decisions (Who did take the music out of MTV, anyway?). But programs can be changed. Neither Viacom nor anyone else can change the attitudes of a culture that has begun to reject the commercial television formula.

    I get the feeling that we are watching an economic tsunami appear on the horizon, at least for the media giants. If indeed those who control the economy are refusing to accept the concept of television and/or radio with stand-alone commercial announcements, then we are witnessing a change of historical events in the American economy.

    Perhaps....just perhaps...we are watching the water on the beach recede, before the following wave washes away what we know today as the mass media.

    Frankly, I hope I'm wrong, for TV is how I put bread and butter on the table. But if I'm right....oh, brother.
     
  2. Jul 11, 2012 #982 of 3058
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    Uhh, yeah it is. Any lawyer will tell you that. Go ahead, call one.
     
  3. Jul 11, 2012 #983 of 3058
    BlackCoffee

    BlackCoffee AllStar

    57
    0
    May 23, 2009
    I agree with you whole-heartedly. I think you are also siding with DTV, since thier position is to move VIACOM to a customer choice model. I don't know where contract negotiations are with ESPN, but you have to start somewhere.

    For the most part, I think DTV is looking to move to a customer choice model across the board. They realize that other forms of On-Demad entertainment they are competing with, not just cable, make bundling costs above the $99 point less attractive.

    If VIACOM channel selection is made to respond to customer demands, it sets the stage for other providers to follow.
     
  4. Jul 11, 2012 #984 of 3058
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    You are very wrong. Free speech is not a right on the Internet. The moderator of this forum can ban you for any reason, at any time, maybe simply because he/she does not like you, and you have no rights, no legal recourse on that matter.

    Why? Because this forum is privately owned, and not public. As far as the "pipe" goes, it too is owned by private companies, and they get to decide what traffic they want across it. Any attempt to introduce "net neutrality" in to the United States laws, has been blocked by congress. And as such, it is totally in the right of any provider to control what goes across it, and what is published using their services.

    A current example is efforts to control the spread of copyright infringements using online tools. Of course there are actual laws being broken there, so it might not be a great example of free speech, but it is the ISP's right for instance to try and throttle or block services such as torrents, if they so feel like it.

    As far as free speech is concerned, a hosting company is also completely in their right to refuse to publish what you want to publish. Try and publish a racist opinion on this forum for instance, and you can be assured - although perfectly legal otherwise as your 1st amendment right - that the owners of this forum will remove it. You are after all, on THEIR property.

    So don't be fooled into thinking your right of free speech is allowed "on the internet", because it most certainly is not.
     
  5. Jul 11, 2012 #985 of 3058
    Carl Spock

    Carl Spock Superfly

    4,567
    0
    Sep 3, 2004
    Where do you get this stuff? Is this off the top of your head?

    Of course it's legal. When your home's electrical service raised their rates, did you get a chance to disagree? How about changes on a phone land line? Ever have a chance to object to your long distance phone rates after you signed up?

    You certainly can change any of these services. You can switch providers if you don't like the changes they have made. Nobody is forcing you to use a specific telephone system. You can even go off the grid. But once you're on board, you're on board.

    And I'm betting you're 26 years old. But that's OK. My real name isn't Carl Spock.
     
  6. Jul 11, 2012 #986 of 3058
    gio12

    gio12 Icon

    932
    11
    Jul 31, 2006
    Spoke to 3- or 4 this morning. Unless the conversation was REORDERED with YOUR consent and they can conform you said yes, not its not. they have PROVE you said yes.
     
  7. Jul 11, 2012 #987 of 3058
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    It isn't? I am shattered.
     
  8. Jul 11, 2012 #988 of 3058
    wingrider01

    wingrider01 Hall Of Fame

    1,764
    2
    Sep 9, 2005
    unlimited data for att and verizon is long gone. Effective 06/28 for verizon everyone goes to shared data, if you wish to retain the grandfathered unlimited data you pay full retail for the phone
     
  9. Jul 11, 2012 #989 of 3058
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    Not true. That only comes in to play when it's a conversation. An email regarding the changes to the TOS is NOT a conversation.
     
  10. Jul 11, 2012 #990 of 3058
    cjrleimer

    cjrleimer Godfather

    481
    1
    Nov 16, 2004
    If DTV does a canadian style a la a carte model, I would be ok with it as you have in a way groups of channels e.g. as see here with telus http://www.telus.com/content/tv/sat/programming/index.jsp. I think this may be the model that other providers will be looking at down the road. Of course the owners e.g. Viacom, NBC Universal etc etc will lobby hard for this not to occur.
     
  11. Jul 11, 2012 #991 of 3058
    Carl Spock

    Carl Spock Superfly

    4,567
    0
    Sep 3, 2004
    This doesn't even pass the smell test. :nono2:
     
  12. Jul 11, 2012 #992 of 3058
    gio12

    gio12 Icon

    932
    11
    Jul 31, 2006
    DIRECTV has you back, until the put a knife into by raising rates. This is the cold hard facts. they MIGHT have to raise our rates if they get the Viacom channels back. They have to maintain their profits and cost of doing business. Do I blame them? No. But maybe that CAN get them back on and keeps rates the same, but I doubt it and understand.

    if this is long term, I will look to others ways to get a certain channels or a different provider. But I have been there, done that and prefer to stick with DIRECTV, as its best best option and proffered choice.

    Now, if they knife in the back comes, I will find a way to reduce my bill if I can. If I can't or the rate increase is too high, I have to think about things.

    Sorry folks, we the consumer have to have our OWN backs.
     
  13. Jul 11, 2012 #993 of 3058
    JMCecil

    JMCecil Godfather

    316
    0
    Jan 20, 2007
    that is only partially correct. What would happen is that very few would pay $30 to $40 for ESPN, so ESPN would be forced to eliminate the costs of maintaining a large number of distribution points that currently don't have content, but get commercial support based on "subscriber" data.
     
  14. Jul 11, 2012 #994 of 3058
    wingrider01

    wingrider01 Hall Of Fame

    1,764
    2
    Sep 9, 2005
    you are about 10 years out of date on this comment
     
  15. Jul 11, 2012 #995 of 3058
    gio12

    gio12 Icon

    932
    11
    Jul 31, 2006
    Ok, you win :sure::joy::nono2:
     
  16. Jul 11, 2012 #996 of 3058
    smitmor

    smitmor Mentor

    46
    0
    Dec 20, 2006
    Didn't Vinny win?
     
  17. Jul 11, 2012 #997 of 3058
    abooch

    abooch Legend

    175
    0
    Oct 25, 2008
    Quick question. I had to upgrade my package online because I had the old HD DVR choice package. Does this automatically put me in a new two-year agreement with D*? The reason I ask is because I've been a customer for almost 5 years, have 7 receivers multiple premiums and sports packages and have always paid the bill every month and have never called retention for any "deals." I want to call to see if there is anything they can do for me because I am upset about the channel loss.
     
  18. Jul 11, 2012 #998 of 3058
    gio12

    gio12 Icon

    932
    11
    Jul 31, 2006
    Huh? I still have my unlimited date with AT&T as does my wife. I can upgrade my phone and keep it too.
     
  19. Jul 11, 2012 #999 of 3058
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Remind me to never hire THOSE lawyers when I need one.... :D
     
  20. TheDaddy

    TheDaddy Cool Member

    17
    0
    May 7, 2008
    You're right. In some states no notification is required to legally record a call in the remaining states that do require notification all that is necessary is an intermittent tone to be played for the duration of the call. And all sales calls are recorded and third party verified or run through some form of QC.

    I'm in telecom, the call center arena etc...
     

Share This Page