Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by danpeters, Jul 9, 2012.
Yeah I know, I just happen to be lucky enough to be out of contract at the moment too
why 10.96 per month if the rate increase from viacom is only 10.96 per year. Viacom's piece of any increase would be 91 cents per month. Of course, they have other carriage agreements to renew, etc. But viacom alone would not result in anything close to an $11/month increase.
$10 per YEAR, works out to >$1 month. The "$3 annual increase" you quote (thought it's usually closer to $5) is $3 EVERY MONTH, which works out to $36/year... You're confusing your time periods.
And the funniest part of all this is the exact same people saying they'd rather lose the channels forever than have DirecTV give Viacom one more cent, are the same folks who argue that if you can't afford a $36/year increase you shouldn't be spending your money pay TV anyway.
I agree. In essence, DTV is a hybrid getting some of it's content over the internet. This includes the internet APPs that provide a portal to YouTube, etc.
We will see what choices people make in the future. I for one, like some level of redundancy. The new flashy technology of "Cloud" was the solution to everything until recently. Those of us old enough to have started with client-server (the old version of cloud) know why people moved to locally stored data and apps. As broadband connectivity moves away from unlimited free data, as exhibited by wireless companies, and the true cost of cloud storage and reliability is passed on, price points will get closer together. Cost models take time to get defined and marginal utility curves eventually develop a decreasing slope with useage growth.
At least for the near term, DTV will be around and probably evolve.
With all due respect, I think you are mistaken. What Viacom gets from Netflix, Hulu and their own website advertising is chump change compared to what they get from the Cable/Satellite providers in fees and advertising.
Viacom just got a little greedy and decided to add some "icing to the cake" by shopping it on the internet sites. Looks like it has blown up in their face. That's why they took all of their content on their websites down. Couldn't happen to a nicer group of corporate suits
Can you accept the notion that protecting our costs IS protecting their bottom line.
I don't think anyone realistically sees DirecTV as particularly charitable, but sometimes our best interests are their best interests as well. If they just grab their ankles and accept whatever and then expect us to do likewise when they pass those costs along, they lose customers and it hurts their bottom line.
Standing up for themselves equates to standing up for us as well in this case. Those are inseparable objectives in this matter. They need to contain the cost of doing business in order to contain the cost of their product to us, the subscriber so we contiue to subscribe and pay into their bottom line.
They are absolutely standing up for us...it's just not motivated by anything chivalrous.
I stand corrected. You're absolutely right. :eek2:
But my package rate is normally a $3 per year hike.
This year, with the adjustements to the other charges like mirroring fees and DVR charges and my package actually went up by $4 the end result was admittedly more than $3
Fuzzy math there....
The $3 increase (usually slightly more than that) is a monthly increase = $36 per year so covers your $10 or $15 cost.
But I dont disagree with your point (just your math ). As has been said on here, if Viacom get their 30% (and dont forget Directv offered an increase - and am reading between the lines of about 5%) then all will and our bills will go up by 30% just to keep the status quo.
So for a $100 a month bill the potential is to go up by $30 a month once Viacom, Disney, et al (and I bet ESPN would try something just because) get their way.
I am still for a form of a la carte. And while most people say it will be more expensive I disagree.
There can be bundles such as the current packages which would offset the costs for those people spread across their package. But for those who want true a la carte then pay the price. Supply and Demand. If you say to me that ESPN is going to run me $20 per month a la carte then I have to decide if it is worth it. If it is then I pay, if not then I wont.
If enough people wont pay the demanded price then that has a direct affect on the vendor (ESPN). Either they find ways to cut costs and so deliver at fair market value (see the Apple analogy earlier in the thread). Or raise revenue else where (ads, etc.).
And there comes a tipping point where my a la carte becomes more than a package and I go for the package but am locked in for xx months.
We do the same in my business. I provide IT support. My all you can eat monthly rate is 67% of my hourly rate. I can do that because I know my metrics to the $0.01 and have reduced costs without loss of quality (automation etc.) and be proactive, plus I have a large customer base to offset any glitches.
But I still have people who pay the hourly instead. Some pay less than they would for the monthly. Others pay more each month - yet try telling them to change!
So a mix of packages and a la carte would work. I couldnt double my hourly rate as the customers would not choose it. And I would lose more than would switch to the monthly package. So I find other ways to save and still deliver what they need.
Historically you are correct. Online streaming agreements have been low. However - that's no longer the case. Netflix is a legitimate distributor on its own now and programmers are demanding very large fee increases to keep their digital content on the NF pipes. The starz agreement that starz walked away from was in excess of $300MM per year. The days of low programming fees for streaming providers are over. So my point is in fact valid. Viacom and other providers now have other sources of revenue that they didn't have 5 - 7 years ago that allows them to play hard ball with traditional video distributors.
And none of them want directv to give Viacom a 30% increase because everything will go up across the board.
Everyone should be rooting for directv in this. Even you.
Up Next this year: (or possibly moving in to Q1 2013 if expires Dec 31st)
- Discovery Communications. (14 channels)
- CBS Corp. (28 Locals CBS/CW/MyNetwork, Showtime, TMC, a few other channels)
Expected some time soon, maybe 2013:
- Disney/ABC (16 channels, plus 8 Locals, including the 3 biggest DMA's NY, LA, Chi)
Fox was recently renewed (2010 I think) so they won't be bugging DirecTV any time soon I think. There is Ted Turner as well with his networks, and NBC/Comcast with plenty of channels.
In short, we'll see some sort of dispute once a year. This is never ending.
At some level, we are all working with questionable facts. Any attempt to say a 30% increase in the contract between DTV and VIACOM is a direct 30% increase in the pass through of VIACOM to the customer doesn't recognize overhead burdens and profit which normally would multiply a 30% supply cost into a 40% or more pass through cost.
A lot of the settle now arguments attempt to portray this a isolate and pennies on the dollar. I am not sure that is true.
I can say that the average DTV package is moving above the $99 per month price point that most services like. Strategically, I think DTV needs to contain all cost, I don't think they will be attactive to investors if they allow profit margins to decline.
Yep, we certainly will. And how this current one is being done and its final outcome will determine in no small part just how those negotiations will proceed.
Personally I think this is a battle that has been coming for a long time, I'm actually surprised it didn't happen sooner. And I also think that we can expect more of this over-the-brinkmanship type of actions in upcoming rate negotiations.
As our incomes are not increasing even at a cost of living rate, we as consumers are, or should be, much more demanding in what we get for our dollars. If someone wants more than a cost-of-living rate increase, then they better be ready to provide that extra that makes it worthwhile.
Over/under amount of pages in this thread 1000 pages then another thread with how do I get those channels in my favorites again.
I don't think they will ever go away. Even in the "IPTV best case scenario", where most Americans can enjoy a 1 Gbps fiberoptic connection to their homes, get QuadHD to 4 or 5 TV's, there will still be a large portion of the United States where it won't be financially feasible to get fast internet connections out to them. At some point, Dish and DirecTV might merge, and perhaps due to IPTV dwindle all the way down to about 5 million customers in total (instead of 20 million and 14 million), they will still be able to run a viable, healthy company with that number, and serve people that can't get ultra high speed internet connections, or are mobile such as RV's, boats. (Including commercial services like TV on board JetBlue flights)
Additionally, even with a 1 Gbps connection you still can't serve a hotel with 300 rooms of all the channels you might want. DirecTV has a solution for that, and many hotels fall outside of city boundaries and aren't served by cable. And at least at this moment, is a hell of a lot cheaper than a 1 Gbps internet connection PLUS whatever a IPTV company charges.
No, satellite based TV services won't be going anywhere. Not for a LONG LONG time, not just for the "near term".
This will go like all the rest.
D- Big deal
D-Even more mud
D-Muddiest of the muddy
V-We are pleased to be able to announce an agreement with DTV that will allow our faithful viewers to once again watch their favorite programs.
D-We are pleased to announce an agreement that allows us to once again carry V programming at a price our customers can afford.
Next Company- It starts all over again.
Yup, lather, rinse, repeat...
Only a 1933 Errol Flynn movie???? For shame. It is a cinematic masterpiece (IMDB says 1938) and features that great character actor and father of the Skipper, Alan Hale Sr as Little John. :lol:
This thread is hard to keep up with, I left my house a couple hrs ago and now, two more pages of mostly pissing contest's continuing.
Ah but worth the entertainment. Gotta do something without comedy central.