Maybe DirecTV may be about have their own Netflix moment

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by vandergraff, Oct 29, 2011.

  1. vandergraff

    vandergraff Legend

    145
    1
    Sep 26, 2007
    Big companies who forget their customers often lose their way.

    Netflix recent history shows that.

    If on November 1st DirecTV removes FOX channels it may give many (loyal) customers a moment to reflect......

    I send DirecTV $100+ a month.

    Now I have a good internet connection and can get Netlix 1080P streaming ($7.99 a month). Hulu Plus ($9.99 a month), Amazon Prime (free as I am am Prime member) and for recent movies either Vudu HDX (~$4 a movie) or Netflix Blu-Ray ($9.99 a month).

    ROKU 2 streamers work well for Netflix and Amazon and are cheap for multiple streamers around the house and $80 Blu-Ray player can handle the Netflix Blu-Rays or VUDU HDX.

    Be very careful DirecTV - I wouldn't let your customers think about the alternatives.........
     
  2. MikeW

    MikeW Hall Of Fame

    2,575
    5
    May 16, 2002
    Wish I was in Santa Cruz. That town is awesome!

    Interesting thoughts, but I've about given up on Video over IP. The catalogs on Netflix and Amazon Prime get old pretty quick, I've found many shows on HULU Plus that can't be seen on TV, must watch on a PC and my son loves NIK, Cartoon Net, and BOOM. Can't get that on any of the IP services.

    This loss is a blip on the radar. Happens all of the time and either gets resolved before the deadline or soon thereafter.
     
  3. mreposter

    mreposter Hall Of Fame

    1,711
    1
    Jul 29, 2006
    And one of the reasons so many customers abandoned Netflix was because of the price increase.

    So if Directv gives Newscorp everything it wants to keep FX and the Fox RSNs and then raises everyone's monthly bill several dollars next year, what do you think the effect is going to be?

    If you want to open your wallet and tell Newscorp to take as much as they want then go right ahead. I'd rather give Directv time to fight this out and keep my bill from skyrocketing.
     
  4. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    10,151
    1,188
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    We've seen this with Versus and now we're seeing it with FOX. Better to lose the channels until DirecTV can get a "fair" deal from FOX then to jump ship only to find the grass isn't really greener at a later date. ;)
     
  5. Surveyor40

    Surveyor40 DBSTalk Club Member

    478
    1
    Jan 5, 2006
    Personally, I would prefer to loose the channels than pay an even higher sub increase in March. Then when D* announces subscription cost increases in 2012, this thread will change to why is D* increasing rates when the economy is so bad. Yes, I watch the channels soon to go dark. Yet, I would rather wait then pay more for the same content to watch it now.
     
  6. mdavej

    mdavej Hall Of Fame

    2,401
    32
    Jan 30, 2007
    You're exactly right. Dish did the same thing last year and lost a lot of subs because of it. Only many of them went to DirecTV rather than drop it entirely. I suspect the current dispute will send many the other way. Streaming is no substitute for the kind of sports content many DirecTV subs want.

    Personally, I'd prefer D* and Dish hold the line on what they pay for content, so if Fox goes away forever, good riddance. If they want more money, they should sell more ads and make better content rather than extort those who simply deliver it.
     
  7. lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    4,751
    350
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    Yeah, Dish did lose some customers over the Fox battle, whether it was 'lots' depends on definition. I was with Dish at the time and following the complaints and such and didn't see a dash away from Dish over it. Yep some did, vast majority knew, just like most of us here know, that these battles come and go and it isn't worth switching over, imo.

    IPTV is kind of neat and I do use it. But let's get real, IPTV has massive holes in programming availability. No live sports for the most part is a big killer, hell much of sports isn't even available on a delay. Costs after you pay for a few of the services to get the broadest selection, aren't cheap. Of course, you can always go torrents and other illegal methods... :)

    I use a Dell Hybrid for much of IPTV. I have an app on my iPad that makes it handy to control. I also use MediaMall's Playlater app. It allows recording of video from the online sites it supports and then that is available on my HR to watch. Pretty handy.
     
  8. YakeVlad

    YakeVlad Legend

    103
    0
    Aug 12, 2011
    I'm not happy with the situation, but it's better than D* caving to Fox's requested increases. It's clear the media conglomerates solution of choice to their ad revenue woes is to try and hold the service providers hostage and get the money from huge carriage fee increases. With all of these disputes between media conglomerates and service providers I can't imagine the service providers are going to continue taking these battles on the chin, but they're going to have to start working together in order to have the necessary muscle to push back. IMO it's time the service providers start collectively showing the bird to the media corps in response to these requests.

    Part of the reason the media corps are able to get away with this is the service providers are so busy fighting each other for customers that they think it's better to try and take advantage of each others disputes with the media corps than to support one another. If instead they started taking the approach that a media corp trying to hijack one service provider is in fact an attack against them all (because you know they'll just pull the same tactic against the next one when its contract is up for renewal) and stood up against such tactics as a group, then they could be much more effective in their individual negotiations. A media corp forcing a situation of channels being yanked by a single provider is like employing the "Nuclear Option" against a foe which has no equivalent capability. However, if the service providers came up with a "Nuclear Option" of their own the media corps couldn't be so braisin with their fee increase attempts.

    The media corps are also winning from the current environment in which their agreements with the service providers all expire in different years and quarters. The dates are so spread out that no single provider can withstand removing major channels longer term b/c it's too far down the road before another provider could reach a similar point and thus further hurt the media corps revenues enough to entice the media corp back to the negotiating table. Perhaps it's time for the service providers to wise up and bring their contract expiration dates in line with one another. Then if a media corp tries to get a 40% increase, it's trying to force it through all, or at least multiple, of the service providers at the same time and they can collectively in response choose to pull the channels from all their services. Yes, I know that would wildly swing the power in the opposite direction, but there has to be something that is in the middle of this and the current environment.

    Bottom line, the media corps are wisely taking advantage of a climate which is clearly in their favor. What service provider can afford to drop too many channels in order to negotiate a more reasonable fee when the other providers are going to pounce on that like a golden opportunity to steal customers away from a competitor and the contract expiration dates are so far apart that the providers can't effectively boycott a media corp? Worse yet, the service providers customers are constantly getting caught in the crossfire. Either we lose channels or constantly hop from one provider to the next to avoid these outages, and ultimately either way end up paying ever increasing bills as the rising costs are passed along to us.
     
  9. Chrismon1001

    Chrismon1001 AllStar

    86
    3
    Apr 3, 2011
    I love a mix of both DirecTV and online services and would not drop either. I (or someone in the house) currently subs and use almost daily, Netflix (Blu-ray and Streaming), Hulu Plus, Crunchy Roll, and NHL Game Center, also Vudu for high quality streaming and Amazon Prime/Amazon Video on Demand/Amazon Music for Buying/Streaming Movies/TV Shows/Music. Also Spotify for music streaming, SiriusXM Online for Howard Stern, and Simply Audio Books for well audio books along with Audible for books I can't get on Simply Audio Books. And a lot of free shows can be downloaded on PlayStation Network.
     
  10. fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,569
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    The only Fox channels I care about are the out-of-market regional sports channels, and I cannot get them from Time Warner Cable or from Dish. I would rather see Fox taken down than having DirecTV give News Corp what they want.
     
  11. 1980ws

    1980ws Legend

    237
    2
    Mar 18, 2008
    Longwood,...
    I may lose Fox Sports Florida and Sun Sports. I'm sure it won't be forever. Yes I'll miss some Panthers games, some Seminoles shows, but drop D* over this? No way. It's still the best television service on the planet.
     
  12. vandergraff

    vandergraff Legend

    145
    1
    Sep 26, 2007
    One Fox Channel alone already costs me $14.99 a month (Fox Soccer Plus) - another Fox Soccer effectively costs me $12:99 a month (it is the only reason I get the sports pack).

    So sorry I don't get the DirecTV is fighting for me propaganda - frankly I think I am already over paying DirecTV for these channels.

    If I lose both these channels for any significant period bye bye DirecTV - and I will save myself over $100 a month.

    I should add the both DirecTV and Fox will lose me as a customer.
     
  13. gdn

    gdn AllStar

    104
    1
    Aug 5, 2007
    Dallas, TX
    Screw Fox and ESPN - Directv is just trying to get a fair deal - if they pay more, what the networks are wanting, your bill just goes up as has been said. What do FOX and ESPN have if they don't have subscribers - no income. Let em pull them for a week or two - no one will die. Way past time for a la carte, pick and choose - pay for what I want. I may pay a little more for just what I want, but tired of paying way too much for the junk I don't want and don't watch - I'm guessing from the hundreds of channels - I watch 15, maybe 20 tops.
     
  14. gdn

    gdn AllStar

    104
    1
    Aug 5, 2007
    Dallas, TX
    Will add as well - if you don't think that ESPN is going to require more money - where do you think a good chunk of the $300 million for the LHN or other specialty networks that likely can't pay for themselves, come from. Those are the stations that should be one off - paid for by the people that want them - not every subscriber. Being a Sooner fan - that isn't a lopsided comment toward the LHN - if we had our own network - I wouldn't expect everyone to want it or pay for it- and to see it myself - I should pay a few bucks a month, not subsidized by all. If people won't pay a few bucks a month to get a dedicated channel - then they really don't want it either. Just another big corporation making big bucks deals and shoving it down every subscribers throats.
     
  15. Avder

    Avder Hall Of Fame

    1,395
    0
    Feb 6, 2010
    The only thing I know is that if this game of MegaConglomerate Chicken doesnt get settled and I lose Fox Sports North to this crap there is a very high chance that I will defect to cable. I would love to stick it to News Corp as much as anyone, but I am too big of a Wild fan to voluntarily not watch my games.
     
  16. RMBittner

    RMBittner Legend

    123
    0
    Mar 28, 2011
    Mike: I agree with you re: Video over IP. You could access Hulu Plus, Amazon, Netflix, iTunes, and every channel's Web site -- and, if you actually enjoy watching a lot of TV, you still wouldn't be able to duplicate the programming you can find from an average cable provider, let alone a satellite provider like DirecTV.

    I'm not yet a D* customer -- waiting for that ever-elusive DirecTiVo -- but I've been shocked at how hard it is to find online even the small handful of programs that I can't get on my dual-tuner TiVo due to schedule conflicts. . . especially if I don't want to be tied to a computer.

    I love iTunes and Netflix stuff, because you can easily watch it on an iPad and port it to your HDTV. But most of the Hulu Plus content is restricted to viewing on a computer; you can't even watch it on an iPad. I think all of the folks who talk about "cutting the cord" -- i.e., giving up a cable/satellite subscription in favor of online consumption -- must not watch much television.
     
  17. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,527
    102
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    The problem is that sounds somewhat like collusion, and that is illegal.

    I'm not against it, just saying that it could be illegal.
     
  18. kcaudiofx

    kcaudiofx Legend

    147
    0
    Dec 26, 2009
    This is all getting old, With ANY provider, not JUST Directv, Dish went through this same thing not too long back, and EVERYONE that I can think of was complaining at Dish, now I see the same thing but people complaining at Directv. Why dont we all complain to the actual networks who are causing/wanting this increase.. Actually I see a lot of people on D*'s side so this is mainly aimed to the Original Poster plus the ones that agree with the OP.. Price increases everywhere over-time, If I mow your lawn back in 1995 when gas was 95 cents a gallon (give or take) for $10.00 do you REALLY think I am going to mow your same yard in 2011 for the same price when gas prices are above $3.00? Maybe I am going in left field here, I am just tired of seeing people complain about all this, yea it sucks our bills might all go up, but D*/Dish/Comcast/TWC IS NOT going to eat all the extra costs involved! IF (BIG IF) Netflix, Hulu ETC really took off and exploded, watch their prices increase over time.. Enough of me ranting and raving as I probably made no sense
     
  19. jmpfaff

    jmpfaff AllStar

    56
    0
    Dec 12, 2004
    I have "premium" television because of sports. Unfortunately, the Netflix type solution doesn't help me at all.

    If no one in your family watches live sports, it might be viable. And, in such case, you should jump on it, because you shouldn't be subsidizing my ESPN. (My wallet objects to my writing that statement) But I'll join other posters in warning you to make sure you will be getting all the content you expect to get via IP, as I suspect there is less content available than you think there is.

    Especially with the NBA lockout, I can survive for a few weeks without any of the impacted Fox channels. Although not happy about missing my second straight Longhorn game next week (LHN yesterday, FX next Saturday). My concern is Belo -- which has the Houston CBS affiliate. Losing the AFC NFL games is not acceptable, so I'll have to make sure my antenna connectinos are working by next weekend.

    PS....one thing I miss with Dish to DirecTV is that the Dish receivers had built in OTA capability. DirecTV could blunt OTA channel threats by adding this capability or giving AM21s away for free. I currently am using the TV's built in tuners for OTA (only used about once a quarter)
     
  20. RDH416

    RDH416 Legend

    113
    1
    Oct 24, 2007
    Makes great sense to me and agree wholeheartedly!
     

Share This Page

spam firewall