Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Support Forum' started by Dee_Ann, Oct 23, 2016.
Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!
Not totally true. Verizon carries CSN Philadelphia on Fios in the Philly market, and I believe cable overbuilder and direct competitor RCN does as well. It's just the two satellite providers that don't carry it, Not sure if the terrestrial loophole is still a thing, or if it has been closed and Comcast is no longer grandfathered, but you can bet if Dish was given the opportunity to pick up CSN Philly, you know that they wouldn't.
The "loophole" has been closed.
My theory is that not having CSN-P (and T-W Dodgers channel and Pac 12 Network) serves a purpose for DirecTV. We do not, but DirecTV and Comcast certainly do, know how much less the DBS to cable ratio is in Philly (where there is no local RSN) contrasted to some other city with one. When the time to renew RSN deals comes up, knowing that if you walk away it will cost you only X number of customers is a good thing to know.
The large just keep getting larger.....will it ever stop?
AT&T-Time Warner merger approved, setting the stage for more consolidation across corporate America
No, not while the party of "deregulate everything" is in power. Is that a pit-worthy comment?
Yes. Let’s keep politics out of it
Except that this situation is fully political. Can't remove the baby from the bathwater in this case.
Unfortunately politics seems to have taken over the issue but IMHO the merger would simply be anti-competitive. It just seems like common sense to believe that if AT&T (DirecTV,UVerse) owns HBO, CNN and the rest of the Turner channels then they will provide them cheaper to their customers than they will provide them to customers of other providers, like Dish. And that doesn't sound fair at all.
Nope, just the opposite. Combinations of content makers and content deliverers is very pro-consumer. If AT&T holds up Comcast on the T-W channels, then Comcast holds up DirecTV on the NBC channels. So, it is in everybody's interest to be reasonable with one another.
Great day for the consumer.
That sounds like it comes from an AT&T subscriber and/or share holder.
What does Dish and the rest of the providers who don't own channels do? Oh yea, their customers will have to pay more. Sounds like some pretty bad days for all those consumers.
Dish had the same chance as Comcast and AT&T to buy channels / content but they choose not to do it, heck they could of produced their own ( Netflix has become a monster company because of their content ).
I find it hard to go after Comcast and AT&T because they made smart business decisions.
I recall the “fine” production values of the Charlie Chats. I’d be concerned about PQ on any Dish produced content.
Tell that to all the little cable companies and other providers. Hell, the local cable company here could barely afford to buy new trucks much less drop billions of dollars on content.
It's like if Ford owned the roads and charged extra if you wanted to drive a Chevy on their roads. Does that sound fair? Of course it would be a good business decision for Ford but would it be right?
Correct... but that doesn’t support the pro consumer point, at all.
I am usually for less regulation by the government. However, I think that MPVD’s should be prohibited from owning content producers and Congress should address this issue. I.E. if your the cable, satellite, or OTT provider, you should be prohibited from owning the channels you offer. Seems like we’re going back to the old days of ‘ma Bell.’
If things go awry, hopefully the market will correct itself. I feel strongly that consumers vote with their wallets, and it's becoming easier and easier to shift from service to service. That's how T-Mobile was able to resurrect itself from being a miserable 4th tier carrier to what it is today. Speaking of which, I support the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, even as a resident of Sprint's hometown region. But I digress. If people get fed up and feel they are being overpriced, then I think they'll vote by switching to service providers that offer different and/or new types of channels and programming. It may mean that new channels emerge to fill the void and separate themselves from carrier-owned content, like this merger is creating.
How's that for a non-political approach to the subject?
My consumer action is to pay the least for better. Last year I dumped AT&T wireless for T-mobile. Last month I Dumped AT&T u-verse home phone and internet. Went to no home phone like many have, and switched to Comcast internet for higher speed(6vs25) same price. In both cases it was better infrastructure at lesser or equal price.
More than likely that will happen ....
Yes, your consumer action... that is not the same as these mergers being consumer friendly. Let’s say other providers get knocked out, and that leaves a smaller handful. They raise the prices on channel costs, on channels they own... there is no recourse for you to go to another provider. It’s either download illegally, or don’t have TV at that point. Now, this is a stretch, but the point remains the same. It is NOT consumer friendly. I am a fan of less regulation though, and was only pointing out that the statement made was far from accurate