Heads Up - Possible MAJOR DIRECTV Dispute (RUMOR ALERT!)

[Mr Tony]

Turner only holds a part of the holdings for those channels. Disney Viacom holds part, and then you have Time Warner holding the rest of the cards. If anyone is playing games, it is Time Warner, just like Comcast did with their channel holdings.

Viacom has nothing to do with Turner. Turner is a subsidiary of Time Warner (basically the old Ted Turner Networks)

 

[jcrandall]

Depending on when this contract ends if a gap in agreements last a while this could create high hell come March, when the majority of the NCAA March Madness is on Turner stations.

 

[Annie61]

aargh not Cartoon and Boomerang (no I'm not kidding) darn it darn it. I do watch TNT also. Hopefully it's just a rumor and things don't get ugly.

 

[Jimbo]

aargh not Cartoon and Boomerang (no I'm not kidding) darn it darn it. I do watch TNT also. Hopefully it's just a rumor and things don't get ugly.

Or it gets settled before the expiration date ...

We need to find out WHEN it expires so we have a clue !

 

[tedb3rd]

I am against government regulations that interfere with businesses making business decisions... But this whole 'contract negotiations' disputes with Direct, Dish, and everybody else is pretty stupid. I wish the government would step in here on behalf of the consumers. Between broadcasters and carriers, I blame the broadcasters more because of their multiple points of revenue--they've got companies paying for commercials AND money from the carriers (Dish, Direct, etc.).

There is no physical or technical limitation making pay-per-channel not possible. It's all caught up in contracts and the corporates big-wigs knowing that a pay-per-channel option would cut into their profits.. so that's why they're so hard against it. Less profit will end with lower prices for consumers after the rules of competition between carriers has taken effect.

 

[Jimbo]

I am against government regulations that interfere with businesses making business decisions... But this whole 'contract negotiations' disputes with Direct, Dish, and everybody else is pretty stupid. I wish the government would step in here on behalf of the consumers. Between broadcasters and carriers, I blame the broadcasters more because of their multiple points of revenue--they've got companies paying for commercials AND money from the carriers (Dish, Direct, etc.).

There is no physical or technical limitation making pay-per-channel not possible. It's all caught up in contracts and the corporates big-wigs knowing that a pay-per-channel option would cut into their profits.. so that's why they're so hard against it. Less profit will end with lower prices for consumers after the rules of competition between carriers has taken effect.

If your referring to Ala Carte, it won't work ... IF you were to chose the channels you watch only, the price would be much higher than you pay now.

 

[acostapimps]

No we don't have TheBlaze Channel TBC lol.

 

[bruin95]

TCM would be a MAJOR loss in my household. I couldn't care less about the rest of channels in the list.

 

[shkarter1985]

If this happens, I would miss my Conan.

And my brother would miss Scooby Doo reruns too.

 

[joed32]

I am against government regulations that interfere with businesses making business decisions... But this whole 'contract negotiations' disputes with Direct, Dish, and everybody else is pretty stupid. I wish the government would step in here on behalf of the consumers. Between broadcasters and carriers, I blame the broadcasters more because of their multiple points of revenue--they've got companies paying for commercials AND money from the carriers (Dish, Direct, etc.).

There is no physical or technical limitation making pay-per-channel not possible. It's all caught up in contracts and the corporates big-wigs
knowing that a pay-per-channel option would cut into their profits.. so that's why they're so hard against it. Less profit will end with lower prices for consumers after the rules of competition between carriers has taken effect.

Let a bunch of politicians who are for sale to the highest bidder handle the TV contracts? We would not be the highest bidder, it would still be the broadcasters vs the providers and the losers would be the consumer. Let the free market work.

 

[gadgtfreek]

First sentence: I am against government regulations interfering with business decisions. Second sentence: I wish government regulations would interfere with this business decision because it affects me.

LOL

 

[TheTechGuru]

As long as TNT is back before the new season of Dallas starts.

Now I might drop my package down to Choice Xtra because I mainly have Ultimate for Boomerang.

 

[zim2dive]

If your referring to Ala Carte, it won't work ... IF you were to chose the channels you watch only, the price would be much higher than you pay now.

This is the strawman they always float to try to shut down discussion of a la carte. proof please. (there is no reason it should cost *more* for me to remove channels I currently get)

This will only happen with govt intervention. The monopoly hold is too strong for any cable/sat/IPTV service to break (ie. witness Intel abandoning it's IPTV effort).

And FWIW, I hope DTV takes a very tough negotiating stance, even if it does mean service interruption.. it's the only way to stop the madness of content price increases.

EDIT: if it really would "cost more".. please explain how the content providers are RACING to switch to this higher revenue stream. They'd be all over it. It's not much different from the "shared data plans" the cell phone companies recently were so *gracious* to offer us.. anyone notice how the bottom-line cost actually went UP? Content providers would HAPPILY offer alacarte with the left hand if it meant them receiving more money with the right.

 

[Tampa8]

Take some time and read some of many past posts on this subject, where people took time to discuss the many very valid reasons A La Carte is not what apparently you think it is. And your premise is wrong. USA does not want to have to charge $8 a month because 1/2 the people (as an example) under A La Carte get it and in addition do not get any of the USA accompanying channels. This isn't the thread to keep going into specifics but there are others where it is.
As one starting point, go no farther than looking at the season cost of one AMC show online. Ok if you want only that show, not great to get the channels for other shows.

 

[Juan]

Forget about alacart..people will be purchasing TV shows via roku and similar devices..the entire concept of a channel will be completely different 5 years from now..all shows will be on demand and we will be paying through the nose for live sports streams

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using SatelliteGuys mobile app

 

[joed32]

This is the strawman they always float to try to shut down discussion of a la carte. proof please. (there is no reason it should cost *more* for me to remove channels I currently get)

This will only happen with govt intervention. The monopoly hold is too strong for any cable/sat/IPTV service to break (ie. witness Intel abandoning it's IPTV effort).

And FWIW, I hope DTV takes a very tough negotiating stance, even if it does mean service interruption.. it's the only way to stop the madness of content price increases.

EDIT: if it really would "cost more".. please explain how the content providers are RACING to switch to this higher revenue stream. They'd be all over it. It's not much different from the "shared data plans" the cell phone companies recently were so *gracious* to offer us.. anyone notice how the bottom-line cost actually went UP? Content providers would HAPPILY offer alacarte with the left hand if it meant them receiving more money with the right.

Those of us that started out with C-band which had ala carte have seen the "proof". They charge so much for individual channels that it's always cheaper to buy a package that includes the channels that you want. They decide the prices and they're not going to set it up so that you can get away with paying less.

 

[Jimbo]

Those of us that started out with C-band which had ala carte have seen the "proof". They charge so much for individual channels that it's always cheaper to buy a package that includes the channels that you want. They decide the prices and they're not going to set it up so that you can get away with paying less.

I agree 1000%.

I was one of the lucky ones for awhile when I had my C-Band set up.
I managed to contact a company that after alot of push to give them the idea, came up with a Sports Package as well as the main programming discovery history TNT that type of stuff ...

I told them what I wanted and we worked on a price and they eventually added that package to thier menu ...

Then the Sports packages were extra, but many times you didn't need Sports Packages with the C-Band and the Wild Feeds.

I got the Sunday Ticket when I had the C-Band, your not gonna believe it, but I got it regularly the first few years for $ 79.
I think the 3rd year it went to $99.

 

[zim2dive]

Those of us that started out with C-band which had ala carte have seen the "proof". They charge so much for individual channels that it's always cheaper to buy a package that includes the channels that you want. They decide the prices and they're not going to set it up so that you can get away with paying less.

If "everyone" was going to end up paying MORE.. that would mean MORE revenue for content providers.. they would be falling over themselves to "innovate" and "meet the needs of the consumer" (aka "charge more")..... the fact that they are not.. that content providers are continuing to bundle the channels and pummel the cable/sat providers with an all-or-nothing choice clearly says to _me_ that there is more money to be made by staying bundled.

The (un)free-market is clearly saying they like it the way it is.

 

[Jimbo]

If "everyone" was going to end up paying MORE.. that would mean MORE revenue for content providers.. they would be falling over themselves to "innovate" and "meet the needs of the consumer" (aka "charge more")..... the fact that they are not.. that content providers are continuing to bundle the channels and pummel the cable/sat providers with an all-or-nothing choice clearly says to _me_ that there is more money to be made by staying bundled.

The (un)free-market is clearly saying they like it the way it is.

Theres a reason for that ...

Most channel owners own more than one channel, thus making it thier advantage to make it so all thier channels have to be allowed or none of them.

Better price for the bundle of channels, if you don't want to have all our channels, you'll pay dearly for that prime channel you want.

Thus we have PACKAGES from each provider to choose from.

 

[zim2dive]

Theres a reason for that ...

Most channel owners own more than one channel, thus making it thier advantage to make it so all thier channels have to be allowed or none of them.

Better price for the bundle of channels, if you don't want to have all our channels, you'll pay dearly for that prime channel you want.

Thus we have PACKAGES from each provider to choose from.

The (doom and gloom) statements were made that we would ALL pay MORE (than we pay now) if the world was alacarte.... if we are paying more, that means MORE total revenue for the providers. Exactly what "advantage" are they getting by walking away from that extra revenue? (or the same revenue for providing fewer services)

At the end of the day this is business.. so we can ignore everything they say, and need only focus on what they DO (to maximize profits). Right now their actions say that bundling makes them more $$.. implying that alacarte would make them less $$ (which implies consumers spending less $$).