DirecTV Users Lose Access to Viacom Channels As Obnoxious Retransmission Feuds Continue Tipped by Gbcue 
Yet another in a long and annoying line of retransmission disputes between broadcasters and cable TV operators has resulted in DirecTV customers losing access to all Viacom channels since last night. The story is becoming an all-too-familiar one, with the two sides being unable to come to an agreement before the expiration of an existing contract. Impacted customers have lost access to Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central and 14 other channels. "We have been very willing to get a deal done, but Viacom is pushing DirecTV customers to pay more than a 30 percent increase, which equates to an extra $1 billion, despite the fact that the ratings for many of their main networks have plummeted," DirecTV said in a statement. Regulators are expected to begin examining regulations prohibiting paying customers from losing access to content while new contracts are negotiated.
|
  baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
| I wonder Why the distributors dont gather forces (DirectTV, Dish, TimeWarner, Comcast) and just say to Viacom "hey, this is the price we are going to give you, if you dont take it then you cant broadcast on any of us".
I feel like that might halt the yearly TV price increases, since so many comes from these channel distributors. | |
|  | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: I wonder Because is direct doesnt have them but its competitors do they may be able to snag a few customers. | |
| | | | | | | Re: I wonder Oh yeah what law is that? | |
| | | | | | | | |  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: I wonder Ha.. and what the content companies are doing is called "extortion" | |
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: I wonder said by Simba7:Ha.. and what the content companies are doing is called "extortion"
You're absolutely correct!
There are a few simple things I believe they should put into a law/regulation and call it a day.
1) Those customers who have subscribed prior to the retrans deal should remain able to view the network so long as they signed a contract at the current rate until the time their commitment is lost. The providers are benefit to the very contract the carrier gets because the customer is in a contract. New customers should not receive the programming AND if the negotiations have not been resolved, the carrier should discontinue access as their initial contracts expire.
2) (and this is my BIGGEST peeve) The networks should be FORBIDDEN from running scrolls on their tv feeds during a contract negotiation, PERIOD! They should NOT be allowed to involve the consumer by means of motivation to bail on (say) Dish for DirecTV or Cable. This is leverage that should NOT be on the table. It's pure extortion and is meant to damage the carrier in the process of negotiation. Furthermore, as a cable subscriber WHY do *I* need to know about a dispute between a network and a carrier I don't subscribe?
3) If a subscriber is to lose a channel, the carrier MUST reduce the cable bill of all subscribers affected by the actual retail value which would be determined by a magistrate.
4) In case of a dispute, both parties should have to justify their rates to a court or magistrate. Hollywood has FAR too long had the ability to arbitrarily set their rates. There have been many times in history where the carriers have had to justify rate increases based on costs. Hollywood has a VERY broad spreadsheet and, in my opinion, raises rates just because.
For many years, people have turned their sights to carriers for unjust rate increases.. they've been blamed for simply being greedy on TV increases when their rates are largely affected by retrans agreements. Because of the abuse, providers have been regulated in the past. Perhaps it's time to regulate Hollywood on video services for the very thing carriers have been accused of.
I think the consumer is getting tired of getting caught up in these petty arguments. They need to do this outside of the public arena - it's a dishonest tactic. | |
|
| | | |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Would price fixing apply here? I don't think I've ever heard of a group being charged with fixing prices for what they PAY for a service. | |
| | | | | | Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: I wonder It'd be like the consumers telling the oil companies what they'll pay for oil. | |
| | | | | | | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: I wonder said by Simba7:It'd be like the consumers telling the oil companies what they'll pay for oil.
I know what it would be like. But is that illegal?
Buying groups abound that bring together buyers of products or services to get more favorable pricing or to have clout where they had little individually. There are also buying cartels, but I think one of the main distinctions is what does the effect of the group/cartel have on both upstream, downstream, and competitors.
If DirecTV, Dish, TimeWarner, Comcast when to Viacom and said you will only allow us to carry your channels and other operators cannot have your service, then there are issues. Nor are those cable companies telling Viacom what they can or can't sell to other cable dealers or other distribution means. | |
| | | | | | | JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:2 | said by Simba7:It'd be like the consumers telling the oil companies what they'll pay for oil.
No, it wouldn't be like that at all. Look, consumers have the power of the purse over business. You tell these companies, every day, what you're willing to pay for something. You do it through your purchasing actions. | |
|
| | | | iknowPremium
join:2012-03-25 | NO, those laws are aimed at sellers, NOT buyers!!. I've NEVER found a law that says you can't dispute a price a seller charges!. BUT, these laws were passed to protect buyers of products that could have been priced unconscionably high by collusive pricing by the sellers read the "sense of congress" on each law. | |
| | | | | |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: I wonder said by iknow:NO, those laws are aimed at sellers, NOT buyers!!. I've NEVER found a law that says you can't dispute a price a seller charges!. BUT, these laws were passed to protect buyers of products that could have been priced unconscionably high by collusive pricing by the sellers read the "sense of congress" on each law. Please re-read
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing
Price fixing is an agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product,
Price fixing requires a conspiracy between sellers or buyers.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care | |
| | | | | | | iknowPremium
join:2012-03-25 | Re: I wonder "Price fixing is an agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.
The intent of price fixing may be to push the price of a product as high as possible, leading to profits for all sellers but may also have the goal to fix, peg, discount, or stabilize prices. The defining characteristic of price fixing is any agreement regarding price, whether expressed or implied."
They are NOT on the same side in a market!. NOTICE also, that Profits of the SELLERS are the case in point!. in any case, the intent of the law is to lower prices in favor of consumers, NOT to increase prices in favor of sellers!. this is what FAIR competition is about!. no one can be forced by law to pay for anything they feel is too costly.(taxes are an exception). | |
|
| | | | | its price collusion. IT would be like the Airlines, which they believe did set prices at a level to rape the consumer.
Yes Ideally it would be nice for all providers to tell these large companies to shove on the channel costs. Its bad enough the garbage channels you have to carrier to get the few you want. | |
| | | | JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:2 | That would be called collusion. Companies can't do it. Besides, why would they do that? If I'm DirecTV's competitors I'd be advertizing that 'we have Comedy Central... DirecTV doesn't.' | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Charter
| said by Linklist:said by baineschile:Why the distributors dont gather forces (DirectTV, Dish, TimeWarner, Comcast) and just say to Viacom "hey, this is the price we are going to give you, if you dont take it then you cant broadcast on any of us".
Because if they got together as a group to decide that, they would be breaking the law. Isnt Viacom breaking the law by using their powers of a monopoly and content owner to cut access to DTVs customers? Isnt that showing that they are a monopoly and are abusing their powers as a monopoly(to a point where they are now showing they need more regulation) | |
| | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: I wonder said by Chubbysumo:said by Linklist:said by baineschile:Why the distributors dont gather forces (DirectTV, Dish, TimeWarner, Comcast) and just say to Viacom "hey, this is the price we are going to give you, if you dont take it then you cant broadcast on any of us".
Because if they got together as a group to decide that, they would be breaking the law. Isnt Viacom breaking the law by using their powers of a monopoly and content owner to cut access to DTVs customers? Isnt that showing that they are a monopoly and are abusing their powers as a monopoly(to a point where they are now showing they need more regulation) Someone could certainly try and prove that claim;including DOJ, state attorneys general; etc. But as there are 5 or 6 major content groups and scores of smaller ones, a monopoly would be hard to prove.
The fact that only Viacom sells a particular popular show or group of shows doesn't make for a monopolist.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care | |
| | | | | | | Re: I wonder said by Linklist:The fact that only Viacom sells a particular popular show or group of shows doesn't make for a monopolist. And that's the crux of the issue. Being the only company producing a hot show is not the same thing as the only company producing TV shows at all. The high courts have never accepted such an argument. | |
|
| | | | | | | JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:2 | said by Chubbysumo:said by Linklist:said by baineschile:Why the distributors dont gather forces (DirectTV, Dish, TimeWarner, Comcast) and just say to Viacom "hey, this is the price we are going to give you, if you dont take it then you cant broadcast on any of us".
Because if they got together as a group to decide that, they would be breaking the law. Isnt Viacom breaking the law by using their powers of a monopoly and content owner to cut access to DTVs customers? Isnt that showing that they are a monopoly and are abusing their powers as a monopoly(to a point where they are now showing they need more regulation) No, it's not the same thing. Viacom may have exclusive control over, say, Comedy Central, but that's no different than, say, Apple having total control over, say, the iPhone. It's their product. Other companies can, and do, come in with competing offerings. Fox News started because Murdoch though CNN was too liberally biased.
The argument could then be made that there are no other alternatives - what's the alternative to say Comedy Central? That's an invalid argument. Companies aren't obligated to exist to provide you with a specific product or service. Meaning, a competing offering to Comedy Central doesn't HAVE to exist. If it does... great. If it doesn't, then the question is - why? If it turns out that Viacom is engaging in unfair practices to keep another such channel, a competing channel, from seeing the light of day... that would be illegal. But just because one doesn't exist, doesn't mean that Viacom is doing anything illegal here. In other words - Viacom doesn't have a monopoly. There are other content providers out there. Any one of them are free to offer up content that directly competes with what Viacom offers. | |
|
| | | said by baineschile:Why the distributors dont gather forces (DirectTV, Dish, TimeWarner, Comcast) and just say to Viacom "hey, this is the price we are going to give you, if you dont take it then you cant broadcast on any of us".
Because it would be against the law......That's not to say that it would be great for consumers. Most laws and corporations are anti-consumer in the first place and made to protect the fabricated idea that money is something "real". | |
| | | | Because that would be against the law. Anti competition and all that. Companies cannot conspire together to control costs. | |
| |  UnbundledBut When ? ?Premium
join:2010-09-13
Irving, TX | What I would like to see, and there's no law against this, as far as I know, is for consumers to get together, and tell all of the cable/ satellite/wire companies, and the Media Conglomerates that bundle to them, that we, the customers are going to ONLY pay for the networks that we watch, and that we are no longer going to pay for netwroks that we --do not-- watch. Period. | |
|
ke4pymPremium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC | Dispute resolved Per Facebook post from DirecTV this is resolved. Channels are back. | |
| | | | Re: Dispute resolved Hah... glad I called DTV to beyotch earlier today. Snagged a nice billing credit for the next few months... | |
| | SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL | said by ke4pym:Per Facebook post from DirecTV this is resolved. Channels are back.
As of this moment, the channels are not broadcasting on my boxes at home. | |
| | SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL | In fact, looking at DirecTV's facebook site, there is nothing saying that the dispute has been resolved. The only thing I see is that they are giving people free access to Encore movie networks until July 31st in the meantime. | |
| | | | channels are not back, i just checked | |
| | | | no they did not..need to read it again. Viacom negotiations are still in progress. In the interim, go to »www.directvpromise.com for more info. DTV will open up all the Encore channels for customers through July 31. | |
| |  Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:11 | THESE BROADCASTERS HAVE ALOT OF NERVE RAISING THIER FUCKA PRICES WHEN THE QUALITY OF PROGRAMMING CONTINUES TO GO DOWNHILL!!!!!
I dont blame DTV for putting up a fuss and not automatically raising customer rates to compensate... EVEN THEY CAN SEE THAT TRASH IS BEING SEEN ON THESE NETWORKS NOW!! | |
| | Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:11 | THE CHANNELS ARE NOT BACK AND THEY SHOULD NOT COME BACK!!!!!
VIACOM HAS ALOT OF NERVE ASKING FOR MORE $$$$$ WITHOUT MAKING THE QUALITY ANY BETTER!!
The crap on MTV is totally insane!!!!!! | |
| |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Yes, it is resolved. Your bill will be going up. | |
| |  StreetSpiritThis spot reserved for Xenu.Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY
kudos:3
·Optimum Online
| I just called my pal, a die hard DirecTV user.
Comedy Central, MTV, VH1 & Nick are still off for him. I don't know what was posted on the Facebook page, but until they crank up the channels, some of his favorite programming (CC, MTV, VH1) is up in the air.
If this lasts longer than a month, he's switching to cable, something I've been hinting at all the time  | |
| | Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:11 | When i looked @ the program guide,they are ALL SCHEDULED to come back @ 3am PT Friday morning..... (Who knows wheather they will stick to the guide however) | |
|
| | Viacom Won't be missed.... With all the junk they show on TV... Good riddance to Viacom Channels and hello to more high quality HDTV channels. | |
| | | | Re: Viacom Won't be missed.... I am also very happy DTV dropped Viacom and it's crap content. Viacom is the definition of greed and tosses it's weight around the entertainment industry, and it's good to see DTV stand up and tell them to "take a hike".
Go DTV...I support your actions! | |
|
| | In the end, the customer loses No matter which way this goes, the Customer will be the one who loses.
I also hope no DirecTV customers actually think their bills are going to go down now because of the lessened amount of available channels. | |
| | | So tired of the shite tv out there They ask for more because people like the Kardashians need their 30 million per season for absolute junk... | |
|  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| The only effective consumer ploy... ...would be a wide spread boycott cutoff DTV cashflow by canceling your account, spend the next couple months doing something different. If 25% or more of customer would do that they'd be begging you to come back by next week, offering huge discounts by fall.
Instead, you all act like crackheads, unable to pull yourself away from the dumbbox for even a week, let alone a couple months.
You deserve the poor treatment and constant price increases you get. | |
| | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: The only effective consumer ploy... How is boycotting DTV going to help the issue of the programmers (Viacom in this most recent case) demanding tons of increases for DTV to carry their channels. By switching to another provider who carries the channels, all you end up doing is giving more power to the networks to demand price increases, which the carrier (DTV in this case) will just have to turn around and add to your bill.
Your proposal does nothing to help the issue, and in fact, makes it even worse. | |
| | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: The only effective consumer ploy... It is the first step in sending a message to providers that their content isn't worth what the ask.
I'm not suggesting a different provider, I'm saying cold turkey quit, or GREATLY reduce your subscription, hit redbox or netflix or amazon, if you must, but mostly smoke less of what they put in the pipe. It's summer take a walk, spend the 100 buck towards some simple hobby, eat a better meal, have sex with the TV OFF  don't let that compulsive habit win.
Just as a cable company will reneogoetate with providers if take rates go down, dish can do the same.
But they have no ammo/incintive to do so, until a substanial number of subscribers revolt and directly say "I won't pay that!"
they can laugh off a few hundred leaving, laugh nervously if a couple thousand leave, but 10-30-50k would send shockwaves in any high cashflow industry.
| |
| | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: The only effective consumer ploy... Gotcha... I thought you were saying to drop DTV and go with Dish or something...
Unfortunately, most people will complain, but few will ever take any drastic steps to do something about it. It's easier to just complain about the high bills or lack of programming but continue to pay the bill than it is take action and drop the service and do without it. | |
| | | | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: The only effective consumer ploy... Nope I just lump dish and DTV as interchangeable/ not noticably different and really ALMOST CATV like except for no locals and an undesirable CONTRACT (yes I understand it's to pay off the dish and install, but it prevents you from easily turning on and off service to protest events like this, which is all the more reason for people to take these contract disputes and push them as breach of contract escape clauses.
This is not an act of god or beyond their control, this is about money and should be settled months or years in advance. | |
|
kd6caeP2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Palmdale, CA | How can distributors be allowed to just pull channels? I'm curious about something technically. don't all national networks such as Nick, USA, TBS, and the like, originate on a C-band or KU-band satelite which all distributors be they satelite or cable then receive and rebroadcast to their customers? Assuming this is the case, why can't these providers just keep on broadcasting the channel? Can the provider itself somehow truly prevent the distributor from receiving the signal from the originating satelite? I suppose now that everything is digital this may be very possible. Finally can't consumers who may have a c-band or KU-band dish receive these channels directly from the content provider, just as the distributor would be doing? What would be the rate charged by the content provider to receive a given set of channels if say I had a dish and wanted to receive content that way? I don't know if there are very many consumers with the big dishes anymore, but I would think that would be one way of getting around all these carrier imposed messes. Just watch the content from the source signal. | |
| | | | Re: How can distributors be allowed to just pull channels? They are called copyrights for a reason.
All the cable channels are encrypted on C Band. Even if it was legal to take their signals and redistribute them without the networks' permission the networks could just revoke the decryption keys they gave the providers. The cable companies would then have to break the encryption, violating even more laws.
Consumers can no longer practically receive most cable channels from C Band because the networks have moved away from a standard encryption system which allows for authorization to end consumers' receivers to multiple encryption methods not designed for home receivers. The hardware to decrypt these satellite distribution feeds costs thousands of dollars and networks only provide decryption information to cable companies, not home customers.
4DTV/Digicipher II is the last C Band encryption system designed for home users to be allowed to subscribe to it and it is dead now with fewer than 20,000 subscribers, a tiny selection of networks, and no HD channels.
The only thing C/Ku Band dishes are useful for anymore is free-to-air unencrypted content, or if you're some sort of super genius, private decryption of all the encrypted feeds. The piracy scene may have figured out how to do some of this but there is no encryption in use for satellite distribution right now that has had a method released to decrypt it publicly. Anyone who may have figured out how to crack the newer encryptions has learned their lesson from the last time cracks were made publicly available: everyone switched encryption to something even more complex and more difficult to crack. | |
| | | | said by kd6cae:why can't these providers just keep on broadcasting the channel? Can the provider itself somehow truly prevent the distributor from receiving the signal from the originating satelite? The satellite feeds are encrypted, and the companies that use them have to get their satellite receivers authorized by the programmers. | |
| | | | Even if the feeds weren't encrypted, they can't legally rebroadcast them without an agreement with the programmers. Otherwise, the lawyers will descend like locusts. | |
| |  maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | said by kd6cae:Can the provider itself somehow truly prevent the distributor from receiving the signal from the originating satelite? In a nutshell, this is how it works:
A media company that owns 1 or more TV channels for distribution, beams them to a commercial operated satellite, and encrypts the stream with a encryption that can be decrypted with say.... 100 different decryption keys. Each of those 100 encryption keys is different, but can be used to decrypt the stream.
Distributors, like Dish, DirecTV, Comcast, Time Warner, Brighthouse, Cox, FIOS, U-Verse, and dozens of smaller, local cable companies receive this feed by satellite, and are issued a single decryption key - one of the 100 - by the media company to decrypt the feed. They in turn re-distribute, re-encode, re-work the feed for their own system. Cable companies distribute it across their cable network, U-verse converts it to IP-TV, DirecTV and Dish beam it to their OWN satellite for customers to receive. 100 keys is a fictional number of course, just used as an example.
If a network needs to be pulled, it can happen any of 2 ways.
1) The distributor simply replaces the channel with something else, or nothing at all.
2) The media company revokes the encryption key for 1 particular company, and that company now no longer can decrypt the channel, and gets a black screen instead. Other companies that do not have a dispute, continue to receive the feed without issue.
So, it all depends who gets pissed off the most whether 1 or 2 happens. 
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
|
 redxiiPremium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
Sherwood, MI
Suddenlink
ISDN
Fiber Optic
Broadband Tweaks
/dev/null
| Viacom... Isn't that the network notorious for its really long commercial breaks? Comedy Central is the least offender, but when watching 90s Nick they squeeze as much as they can without going over the time slot. TVLand is seen extending time slots by 10 minutes for more commercials, and/or shorten a show to make room for more commercials.
What are they doing with all that advertising revenue..
--
Moe, I need your advice… See I've got this friend named Joey Joe-Joe... Junior... Shabadoo.. | |
| Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| $ consumers should stop feeding cable companies their hard hearned money! the slop they put on cable-tv these days isn't worth a rusty penny, let alone hundreds in fees, set-top rentals, taxes & surcharges, etc.
OTA and Internt can feed your video needs more cost effectively. | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: $ What does this topic have to do with cable-tv again? I believe you're speaking about subscription television, right?
Further, internet feeds? .. that's still rewarding the networks. The only way to fight back as a consumer is to shun those that don't play well. And was suggested before, CUT THE CORD! There really isn't anything on cable TV that can't be gone with out for a few weeks, months or what ever.
In a perfect world, one thing I'd REALLY love to see is a national downgrade campaign. I'd LOVE to see as many people in the nation downgrade their service to the lowest form of service for a month. That's it! ONE MONTH! Cable would take tier 1, and the satellite subs would take the $19 plan or family plans or what ever. THAT would send a shock-wave through the country like never seen before. I think people could live on broadcast for a month.. and as you suggest, some FREE video content for a while too.
Something like this would be the best protest ever! THIS would be a dream come true I believe for everyone. And all it takes is a phone call,.. not even a home visit. | |
|
| | Viacom stinks I really could care less about this one other than Comedy Central, and thats primarily for Workaholics and Tosh.0 which arent exactly making me a brighter person
I'd pay to not get MTV, what a total waste of space. | |
| | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Re: Viacom stinks And that's part of the problem... Viascum is demanding DTV buy *all* of their crap channels instead of the ones people actually want.
They claim "26 channels", but my lineup lost 16 channels, and there are dash-one info channels for 2 more (spanish channels I've never seen.) Like you, the ONLY ONE I regularly watch is Comedy Central. (the tivo will occasionally record something off Nick or VH1, but I usually delete it without watching.) | |
|
| | I think it's about Epix as well So look out comacst. | |
| Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
| Colbert and Daily Show not available online So Viacom, once again, demonstrates how important the consumers are to them. Another strong and loud F U from the multi BILLION dollar company.
With the kids out of the house, I've come to realize the only thing I am missing through all of this is the Daily Show. It is on hiatus this week, so no big deal. If it doesn't come back next week, I could care less. | |
|  newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1 | Pack Sand Viacom As far as I'm concerned, DirecTV can drop all Viacom channels and then lower my monthly bill.
It's way past time for cable & satellite providers to tell these greedy networks to go pack sand. | |
| | | [ Do we get discount for them taking away channel ? ] Do we get a discount for them taking away channels?
--
Like My DSL!!! | |
| OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA | This Industry Needs Some Serious Disintermediation First a high profile creative group needs to put some top quality entertainment on You Tube or such. Then they need to start charging for it - say 10$ per season. Then others will follow and the Cable Companies will loose their hold on the industry. It does not make sense to me that this has not happened yet.
The tricky part would be sports. But it is not insurmountable. | |
| | | Good Riddens Been a Directv customer for 14yrs almost. Don't need those channels, don't watch those channels and I am sure I can find something else to watch on the other 1000 channels I have. So hoping one day "a la carte" will be a reality and not some fantasy. | |
| | | |
maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | Viacom is garbage They now have removed a big portion of their online content. Shows you could previously watch for free online, have been removed not just for DirecTV customers (as they could have any type of internet connection), but for everyone.
Viacom is so afraid that DirecTV customers will watch their shows online, that they pulled em for all. Now customers of Dish, cable companies, FIOS and U-Verse are getting SCREWED OVER by Viacom as well, and they have nothing to do with the Viacom/DirecTV dispute.
F them. I am a DirecTV customer, and am FULLY supporting to THROW the Viacom channels from the lineup. Let Viacom decide whether they can miss the 20 million potential sets eyeballs. (and their families).
By removing the online content for all, Viacom has shown what a company of filthy thugs they are.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
| | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·DIRECTV
1 edit | Re: Sell it elsewhere While I'm no fan of ANYTHING Viacrap err Viacom produces, which is in fact complete s***. I also DETEST DirecTV. I was a subscriber for two years and couldn't believe the horrible installation work, the obnoxious CSRs, and the POOR SD picture quality as well. Any time there was the slightest hint of a thunderstorm the picture would go out sometimes for a couple of hours, yet my dish was not obstructed by any objects and signal was 95 all of the time.
The FINAL straw with DirecTV was when after no longer being under contract I called to cancel since their prices are simply outrageous without the initial promo offers. I was connected with retention and was browbeaten for almost an hour as I tried to cancel. Not only that after asked this bozo to cancel my account for the sixth time, he mentioned that they will check my STB for all the PPVs I watched without being charged for (since box wasn't connected to the landline) of course I explained that I only accidentally ordered ONE and that it was noted on my account and was not charged to me previously.
I have NEVER experienced such HORRENDOUS service from ANY other company I ever dealt with before. I was motivated to write the CEO at the time Mike White? and sent the letter return receipt requested, the receipt was signed as received BUT I NEVER HEARD ONE WORD FROM THEM REGARDING MY COMPLAINTS.
DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO DirecTV. A Shady company. | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | WHAT??! Are you saying what I think you are? You're actually rewarding Viacom for bad behavior? Can you even justify their need for a rate increase, other than possibly ratings? ratings doesn't make a channel worth more.. hell, ratings increases ad-buy rates.. so they double dip to the consumer and expect more money from them too.. it's call "our shit don't stink" reasoning. So what happens when ratings drop? .. do they reduce their retrans fees? no.. they don't.
What they NEED to do is justify their rates like every other business and stop playing foolish games. To this date, no network has even entertained selling their feed on alternative distribution feeds and I doubt they will. See, they're not on your side.. they want to get paid. They make FAR more money through these "tradition methods" than they would direct to the home.
This is just a love-hate relationship they have, aka a lover's spat, that you're part just a part of. It's their version of porn as it's obscene to the average viewer to view. The networks are using the open competition (Dish and cable providers) to get their way while working AGAINST your ability to have YOUR competition.. otherwise, they'd work for a resolution that would give YOU choice... hint: they're not. | |
| | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Sell it elsewhere said by nunya:Hurry up and turn them into "dumb pipe" providers as far as I'm concerned. This is a statement that always makes me want to ask... "Who is going to turn them into dumb pipes?" ... is it the government? .. that's not going to happen and I really have no desire or opinion on that line, but why would you want the government, if this is the case, to assume such broad authority over a private industry and dictate this? As much as it sounds great to you on the surface, you're selling out so many other freedoms we have in this country in the process.
So who else? .. the content providers? ... like I said above, that will never happen. You're very argument is a prime example as to why. These content providers already realize that the majority of their alternative subscribers are looking to pay a rock bottom price, so why would they cut their throat in order to make the MSO a dumb pipe in the first place? As it stands, content providers get paid by subscribers even if the subscriber never watches their network.
So who else? the customer? the customer is going to pay the least possible when ever possible. Not a good business model.
So again, we're back to the government. It will never happen in an industry that is not deemed life essential.
Besides, why in the world SHOULD they be turned into dumb pipes? Their core business still remains video, and internet is second. So you're saying "I'm dismissing the fact they provide video, first, and internet/pone second because it suits me".. the fact is that not everyone in this nation wants a dumb pipe so you'd be trying to force a change on the masses that most people clearly do not want... no different than health care.
Enjoy. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·