Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by danpeters, Jul 9, 2012.
I think that's the point that some are overlooking. Maybe by choice, maybe not.
According to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...primetime-for-week-ending-july-8-2012/140800/ :
Prime-time Average Viewers (Live+7D) Week Ending July 8, 2012:
Nick, Jr (21/25)
Comedy Central (23/25)
TV Land (25/25)
Prime-time Adults 18-49 (Live+7D)
Comedy Central (11/25)
Total Day Average Viewers (Live+7D)
Nick, Jr (16/25)
TV Land (17/25)
Not making the top 25 with any of the above 3 demographics:
8/17 not making the top 25, only 1 (Nick) cracking the top 10.
Where'd you go to law school? Do you realize that just because something is in writing and signed off on - a court can throw out any provision of a contract is wants? Please tell me you realize that.
Regardless - Directv is doing what it said it would/could do in its TOS. Great. However - when they sold the service they advertise those services with the strong implications that they'll be available to you - and they charge you accordingly. I dont recall any of their marketing materials or commercials telling me "sometimes you'll get them, sometimes you won't". It'd be like going to heavily advertised "family night" at the ballpark, getting the sh*t kicked out of you in the parking lot and the team taking no responsibillity for it becuase their TOS says they aren't responsible for security. Then why'd you advertise it as a family night if you weren't going to create an environment that lived up to your marketing promises? Maybe Directv has the freedom to do whatever they want - but maybe they also should not heavily advertise what channels they will provide you either. It's misleading.
I await your political filled response.
It's all about money. D* could just absorb or partially absorb the price increase, after all they've been very profitable and this isn't going to ruin them by any means. Then it wouldn't affect your bill at all.
But D*'s not going to do that. They'll raise their price regardless of the settlement. And the price increase will be whatever the new agreement is with another 20% on top of that. And they'll blame it *ALL* on Viacom. Viacom may have the majority of the dirty tricks so far, but D* has yet to play their dirtiest trick.
You're picking 1 week in the summer. Look at the year of 2011: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76679201/Cable-Time-Period-Rank-2011
For all day total viewers, we lost the #1 & #3 channels, as well as, 8 of the top 30 channels.
I really don't mind the challenge to my math skills. I am secure enough to not get offended. Her arguement is correct and I did take some liberties to make a point.
I only do that so I don't respond to hidden male bashing, anti-conservative innuendo that continually crops up in her posts. It is pretty obvious that this is just the susan side of susanandmark.
Thanks for looking out for me. Comsumption of entertainment will be based on personnality. Some people hate FOX, some hate MSNBC. That is naturally going to creep into this discussion. VIACOM probably appeals more to liberals than conservatives. All I care about is only paying for what I choose. If DTV unbundles VIACOM, I don't care what they charge. I guess I also understand that sometime business is nasty and we just need to get through it. If we declare VIACOM entertainment a public service, maybe the government can force them to provide channels even without a contract. Remember Reagan and the FAA.
I'm not actually insulting anyone's math skills. I'm calling someone on manipulating numbers and calling it a hard fact, when it's anything but. Wildly different thing.
In the end, throwing around numbers like "30% percent increase" and "a billion dollars" and "subsidizing the 80% who don't watch Viacom at all" is simply misleading B.S.
Would DirecTV gain as much traction with the general public saying, "Viacom wants us to pay them about 80 cents more per month per subscriber, which amounts to about $10/year for you?" Doubtful. While some people may very well fight to the death over that $10 year over year, most would be more in the "you took away my channels for that?!?" camp. (And, for the record, I firmly believe that DirecTV AND Viacom are equally complicit in the removal of those channels.)
Heck, when DirecTV does their annual increase--and they will, regardless of economy, inflation and how these negations go--I guarantee it will be a lot more than $1/month per customer. And the general consensus here will undoubtably be that it's very, very fair and that DirecTV had no choice. No one is going to bite at an inflammatory headline that says "DirecTV demands their customers to pay more $1 billion more a YEAR for same product!!!" Even if you can do the math (20 million customers with an average increase of $5/month) to make that argument.
And, by the way, I have never once argued that DirecTV should "just pay whatever to maintain my consumer lifestyle" (whatever that means, if you're a DirecTV, or any other pay TV subscriber, you are, by definition, a consumer), just that these tactics are customer unfriendly.
And that and a $5.50 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. This forum represents a minuscule percentage of all DirecTV customers and is way, WAY skewed from the average consumer's point of view.
As for viewing preferences ... If someone wants to watch a 24-hour/day marathon of the Real Housewives of Des Moines seven days a week, while I'd prefer to gauge my eyes without a soup spoon, good on them! I could care less. Your likes/dislikes have just as much value and/or ridiculouslness as mine.
I vote for D* removing the cost of the V* channels from all standing packages. Then put all V* into their own package. Then sell V* at the rates require by Viacom. Settle all disputes with programming groups this way. Then the groups will have to openly be competitive with pricing.
If you want it bad enough you will pay. Out of all their channels the only one I watch it Comedy central and thats rare.
OK, so even though the contract says there will be disruptions, DTV is offering compensation, and they appear to be acting in good faith, you can take them to court.
No problem with that, start a class action lawsuit. When you send me the info, I will opt out.
Cord cutters still use a TV. They just stream video through a Boxee, Roku, AppleTV, XBox 360, or PlayStation 3. Or even just a PC attached to the TV. Most TV series available on bluray (rentable through Netflix), or through streaming services like Hulu, etc. This works well for people who don't mind waiting a bit to see a series.
It doesn't work for live sports though. I'm quickly seeing why DirecTV focuses so much energy on that side of their business.
Competition from this and other forms if Internet entertainment are devaluing Viacom's product. They're losing ratings and advertising dollars because of it. They're trying to make up for it by raising DirecTV's price, but DirecTV is facing the very same pressure to keep prices low. Relentless rate hikes are not sustainable. I wouldn't go as far as to say the whole business model is not sustainable, but it needs to learn how to get more efficient and adapt instead of demanding more and more money that consumers don't have.
LOL, 35% of people in the U.S. have no broadband service. Those people are paying the correct amount for Viacom's streaming services -- nothing.
LOL #2 -- you're right. "I demand you start charging me for the stuff you've been giving away for free. It's not fair those people have to pay yet I don't."
I am just saying that it appears most in this forum disagree. If you need some love, VIACOM has a blog going.
You take things way too literally. I'll break it down. You continue to refer to the contract as if its some holy document, inscribed in stone, irrefutable and beyond question. You agreed to it and so it shall be. I'm pointing out to you that that's not the case. Contracts, generally speaking, are guiding documents about what happens if one party doesn't live up to its end, and even then, a judge (with justification) has the authority to throw out portions that she doesn't agree with.
Im not saying Im taking them to court, or that i want to take them to court, or that you should take them to court. Im just tired of reading your preachy posts that afford the "contract" greater importance than it actually enjoys and felt compelled to correct your limited legal knowledge. And yes... I do have a JD.
It is not that Susan love Viacom. She thinks she is doing a service to us by pointing out that DirecTV is not a good bunch of folks.
Fair enough - I should have done more homework - thanks for the link. I wonder what the 2012 YTD rankings look like?
The full-year 2011 rankings list was interesting as it confirmed that as a participant in this "WAY skewed" (highly skewed?) forum I don't watch much that is attractive to the general populace. The channels that I watch the most (History - Pawn Stars, American Pickers, American Restoration, SyFy - silly B movies) are ranked 9 and 25 respectively.
You can guide a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.
Viacom then tells Directv to jam it. Then what?
People have no idea how carriage contracts work. :nono2:
oh cmon now SR. I've seen many posts in which you've engaged that weren't hugely supportive of unbunding. Why the organizational championing of it now? We all know that if channels go unbunndled that we're not paying $5 for 26 channels.
Never claimed to be a lawyer. I am looking at both parties as being equal. My point is that she does have remedies for her dissatisfaction and they are not, as she claims, in the contract which is what she paid for (her words not mine).
If you are a lawyer, you know exactly why the disruption clause is in almost all consumer service contracts. If the argument is that poor customer service will cause people to walk, I am fine with that. However, DTV is not a public utility that demands intervention. Anyone who has lived in the real world for the pass 50 years and had electricity, water, phone (cell or land), bought gasoline (remember the 70's) knows that sometime business has service disruptions.