Directv dispute with Viacom IS OVER!

Status
Please reply by conversation.
I thought that way at first, but the more I think about it I think DTV may be just as bad here. I actually think this is more of a pissing match between DTV and Netlflix, with Viacom providing the means.

Here's why:
DTV is trying to protect the old model (c'mon the ala carte language is just being used because they know consumers want it DTV has no intention of offering these channels ala carte), they are seemingly upset that Viacom makes the content available on other providers (Netflix) which means Viacom gets there take but DTV loses out.

This fight is more about slowing down Netflix and other providers that strike deals with Netflix.

Just my two cents.
But Viacom pulled the channels. They didn't have to . They could have kept them on and continued to work it out with Directv. And then they pull online content.
 
Wow, Have you been seeing how Viacom has been acting during this? Lies and blocking anyone that speaks the truth. Now they removed the online videos of the shows?
One has nothing to do with the other. I pay Directv to deal with Viacom.

I'm not saying Directv is wrong. But I'm not going to keep paying them as is, when we just lost 17 channels.

I asked about Viacom, they offered I accepted. Customers are fully entitled to compensation! It not 1 channel we are talking about, Its serveral.

So get over it! The fact that Viacom has now bloked their services online,Means Directv can nolonger even offer an online solution. So compensaton is in order. Again I don't feel bad for Direct, they will still have millions at the end of the day!
They will still raise their rates come March anyway! Regaudless of this stand off!
 
I said it on the Dish side about AMC and nearly got slammed by some for it. But,I'll still bring up here. If only channels were Al La Carte. I know the opposition believes we'd be paying more for less, but I really would like to see how much each network charges.
 
I said it on the Dish side about AMC and nearly got slammed by some for it. But,I'll still bring up here. If only channels were Al La Carte. I know the opposition believes we'd be paying more for less, but I really would like to see how much each network charges.
I don't think it would be cheaper by any means. Viacom is going to charge I'm sure more then $1 per channel, which I'm sure thats what your thinking.:)


I could see Viacom Charging $3-$5 for Nick or MTV
 
One has nothing to do with the other. I pay Directv to deal with Viacom.

I'm not saying Directv is wrong. But I'm not going to keep paying them as is, when we just lost 17 channels.

I asked about Viacom, they offered I accepted. Customers are fully entitled to compensation! It not 1 channel we are talking about, Its serveral.

So get over it! The fact that Viacom has now bloked their services online,Means Directv can nolonger even offer an online solution. So compensaton is in order. Again I don't feel bad for Direct, they will still have millions at the end of the day!
They will still raise their rates come March anyway! Regaudless of this stand off!

But what does it tell you about a company that blocks access to online video that they allowed before just because Directv pointed out that fact. They not only punished Directv subscribers but everyone else that doesn't subscribe to Directv. It will cost them .
 
But what does it tell you about a company that blocks access to online video that they allowed before just because Directv pointed out that fact. They not only punished Directv subscribers but everyone else that doesn't subscribe to Directv. It will cost them .
I don't disagree, But if Directv has any issue giving its customers credits for lost programming ,they can send Viacom a bill!
 
televisionarchives said:
According to this story this is what Directv wanted them to do before this all happened. I guess they didn't like all of the shows being online for free. Video Link: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-directv-viacom-20120712,0,5563710.story

If that's Direct's endgame then I'm not in support of them anymore. That moves the argument from keeping prices down for consumers to stifling competition. Lack of competition creating downward price pressure will ultimately harm consumers more in the long run.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
 
dtro77 said:
I don't think it would be cheaper by any means. Viacom is going to charge I'm sure more then $1 per channel, which I'm sure thats what your thinking.:)

I could see Viacom Charging $3-$5 for Nick or MTV

Yes, but I can pay for one and say screw the other. Look at HBO and Cinemax. HBOinc sets a price. I am not forced to buy both, I can say I love HBO's original programming but hate Cinemax's late night programming, so I'll buy HBO. Or I could say Cinemax is cheaper, and since I care more about the movies than True Blood, I'll buy Cinemax.

In my case, I'd buy Comedy Central and perhaps BET and VH1 Classic. That's it. My kids watch Disney and never Nick, and forget MTV for us.
 
If that's Direct's endgame then I'm not in support of them anymore. That moves the argument from keeping prices down for consumers to stifling competition. Lack of competition creating downward price pressure will ultimately harm consumers more in the long run.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
Another issue I Have with Directv, about forcing its programming, is no HBO GO on RoKu. Why should directv be aloud to control what device I use to view a paid subscription.

Directv is just as evil is its own ways.
 
This is really annoying, I wish I still had my C-Band dish up and I would sub a month of the MTV-Pak from SRL for $9.49 to at least get some of the channels and ask DirecTV for credit to make up for it.

P.S I've also lost my news mix because of this BS since DirecTV is using their mixers to make the two above channels. GRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Attachments

  • mspqq.jpg
    mspqq.jpg
    81.6 KB · Views: 147
  • 14dmyae.jpg
    14dmyae.jpg
    90.4 KB · Views: 143
Last edited by a moderator:
Another issue I Have with Directv, about forcing its programming, is no HBO GO on RoKu. Why should directv be aloud to control what device I use to view a paid subscription.

Directv is just as evil is its own ways.
I agree with both of these statements.
 
Is is about allowing it or is it about something else?
Well its unsupported, My guess Directv doesn't want you to stream HBO, they want you to watch it and VOD it on their equipment. Its Bull!

Its a Choice Directv made, its not because they can't support it if thats what your getting at.
 
Well its unsupported, My guess Directv doesn't want you to stream HBO, they want you to watch it and VOD it on their equipment. Its Bull!

Its a Choice Directv made, its not because they can't support it if thats what your getting at.

However, your argument about forcing someone into using their VOD doesn't make sense, because I can stream it on my 360, PC, or iPad. And DTV isn't the only one who is doing this. A couple of other providers are authorizing everything but Roku as well.
 
Just got to roll my eyes...Was trying out playon.tv on the roku.Wanted to see how some fast moving sports looked,so I selected Impact on the Spike channel.I got treated to the dreaded DTV has pulled 26 viacom channels ad and thats all.So in an effort to show DTV who's the man Viacom is also saying screw you to folks who don't even have a DTV sub.Really crappy I gutta say brother!
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)