Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by danpeters, Jul 9, 2012.
Not even in the ream of possibility. Reread.
no offense, but your understanding is incorrect. Viacom is asking for a 30% increase in what they receive from Directv. They are not asking for a 30% increase in your bill, nor would you see a 30% increase in your bill if Viacom got everything they wanted.
Currently Viacom represents about 5% of your bill (according to viacom). A 30% increase would mean that they represent 6.5% of your bill going forward. Using $100 base bill as an example - they currently represent $5, and would like to represent $6.50 going forward.
As far as I'm concerned viacom can go suck a$$ on this one. If I recall, when D* last renewed with those clowns in 2005, back when HD was first rolling out, D* was one of the first providers that launched a bunch of their HD feeds on MTV, VH1, BET, CMT, CC - all of which had NO HD programming but black crapy bars on the sides for years. They took up valuable HD bandwidth FOR YEARS before they started even programming in full screen HD. Now they pull this crap. Might as well keep them off and use the HD bandwidth for some quality missing HD.
And a $50 increase would definitely be a ream. In all realms
Pffew, I thought I was going to cough up a billion dollars. No way I could manage that.
But it sets precident for the other pigs that just can't wait to get to the trough. Every content provider will want as much or more. In a year or two, the $100 bill will be $200 per month.
If I were DirecTV, I'd put HD shopping on the former Viacom channels just to take this to the next level (brinksmanship) and to defray the costs of this outage.
uhh.. you misunderstand. I'm explaining to ghontz that his bill won't go up 30% regardless of what happens because he misunderstood a media quote... not commenting on anything else.
Is it bad that I don't know if I already had it?
Just another knowledgeable consumer here.
CNN has lost 60 percent of its audience, but they are also looking for a rate increase. If anything, DTV should cut their fee by the same 60 percent.
I would not mind the 30% increase if we got channels like mtv hits, jams, mtv u and vh1 soul as those are channels cable has had for years and Directv never had. I know they are not hd but but they all have 24/7 music videos. Epix would be a plus too.
It's available in Family or Choice Ultimate normally.
for those that are interested... you can back into exactly what V* is asking for with the information in this story.
MW says they want $1B more over 5 years.... 200 mil more per year... 16.7M more per month. Split over 20M subscribers, they want 83c more per subscriber per month for the entire bundle. If that represents 30% increase, they must've been paying $2.77 under the old deal. Spread over 26 channels (as they see it) they want an increase of 3c per channel. They are being honest - pennies per month.
This comes down to basically to less than a dollar a month. I understand everyone has different priorities, different financial situations, but all this for 83 cents per month?
Someone check my math.
With all these increases from Direct TV doesn't it make sense that Viacom wants their cut from the price increases since the last negotiation?
Streaming is the first nail in the coffin of Direct TV.
The second will be when cable providers can side-step net neutrality and let their downloads be excluded from GB limits.
The third will be cable providers like Comcast who also own the stations (CNBC) themselves.
It will only get harder to compete for the lower tier audience on price, making further increases to support their technology for the rest of us more likley and exponential.
I think Mike White makes a very compelling argument for ala carte pricing. He thinks it is unreasonable for us to have to pay for networks we "don't watch or even care about" and thinks your family should be given the choice to pay for only those channels you watch.
I personally don't see any difference between the way viacom is pricing their content to directv and the way directv prices it to consumers? Using a few good programs to subsidize a bunch of junk nobody wants.
Also, does viacom really stipulate in these deals that we pay for the increase? It is always "viacom wants you to pay xx% more." Isn't the argument between viacom and direct? Direct is then free to price there product accordingly. I wish instead of the PR spin Mike White would come out and say "I need to maintain xx% gross margin for our investors so we have decided to pass the cost through to you, our loyal customers." I'd actually back him if he did that.
He doesn't make any argument of the sort.. Check this bloomberg story out - he specifically says he is not trying to break up their bundle.
I dunno if ala carte pricing would end up being better for me or not, but that's the first thought that came to my mind watching his clip too--
Hey! I don't want to have to pay for the networks I "don't watch or even care about" either dude. Starting with every single sports channel.
Edited to note: we're referring specifically to the minute-and-a-half clip of the D* CEO that's on endless loop if you go to, say, subchannel 299-1.
I don't think I've got a dog in this fight beyond keeping my bills low, but his clip is really so much self-serving hypocritical twaddle.
Since it is only 83 cents a month, why don't you cover it for everyone? Problem solved.
Im personally not interested in unbundling. I want every channel i can possible get. It doesn't matter to me that i don't watch them, what matters is that i have the opportunity to watch them should i so desire. TV is a mindless activity for me after work and family obligations... its the one thing i don't have to think about. And making me choose my channels up front - that takes the spontaneity out of the activity... and it sorta makes me work for it. I do enough working.
absolutely.. for everyone but you. i tried to be polite, report some facts, and be respectful of other people's situations and priorities. why do you want to be a ____ about it? my personal opinion is that i don't care about a dollar a month. You do, that's great. Hope it works out for you.
If you look at the trashy kind of programming Viacom puts out, I think it is a waste and not worth 83 cents a month more. I don't think it is worth the money we are paying already. I rarely watch anything on those channels. I used to catch The Daily Show occasionally on their website, but now the greedy suits at Viacom have shut that down. I am supposed to be sad because I can't watch Jersey Shore anymore? DTV is doing us a favor.
I hope it lasts for a few weeks if not months. I won't be affected at all.
Don't forget , we are now getting a lot of Encore Channels now for free.