Viacom Uses Fans As Hostages: Blocks Daily Show, Colbert Streams For Everyone To Spite DirecTV
from the um.-overkill dept
So, as the dispute between Viacom and DirecTV over how much money Viacom wants for its channels wore on, the various Viacom channels like MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodian disappeared for DirecTV subscribers. As often happens in such situations, DirecTV told its customers that they regretted the situation and were working on it, but in the meantime, they could check out missing programs online. Viacom's massive overkill response? Pull the free streams it offers online of two of its most popular shows: The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. For everyone. Not just DirecTV subscribers. Because, apparently, pissing off consumers and driving them to unauthorized means, is... um... I don't know... supposedly going to get them on Viacom's side? This is the kind of "strategic" thinking that goes on at Viacom, apparently.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: stephen colbert, television, the daily show
Companies: directv, viacom
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Disruption
On that note, the judge in the Aereo case has refused to issue an injunction forcing Aereo to stop providing their over-the-air broadcast TV streaming online.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/judge-rules-against-broadcasters-denying-injun ction-against-aereo-tv/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If by benefiting consumers you mean open up alternatives, though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We'll see what actually happens when these guys get back from vacation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can't pull up any recent episodes either, so it is relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If I were in their shoes, I'd say, "Ok. If that's how you want to play things, fine. We just won't carry your offerings anymore. Goodbye and don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!" Then I'd reduce the subscription price for all my DirectTV subscribers by whatever amount it was costing per user to carry Viacom's offerings. This should keep most subscribers relatively happy, plus they can always go online if they absolutely must have a particular Viacom show. Then I'd sit back and watch as Viacom has a hissy fit, then goes on to the next service provider and attempts the exact same thing with them.
If enough providers were to simply drop Viacom altogether (which is plausible if they all decided to unite for a common cause), Viacom would quickly cease to be worth much to advertisers, who in turn will move on to greener pastures. This scenario ends with Viacom completely losing on both sides of the equation.
Would this be enough for Viacom to go belly up I wonder? If so, it's like I said at the beginning; it's risky bluff. Especially when one realizes Viacom doesn't have a monopoly on stupid, emotionally driven decision making. There's no telling what DirectTV and those like them might do when pushed far enough by Viacom. I guess part/most of it would come down to an analysis of which would be least damaging to profits; paying insanely huge fees to Viacom or ditch them and hope you don't lose too many subscribers over it (who may go to your competitor, or just as likely cut the cable for good). It will be interesting to see what happens next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1) "That's mine and you can't play with it!"
2) "You're not the boss of me!"
3) A lot of big words and flowery prose to make it appear that the preceding "philosophy of the 5-year-old" is moral, ethical, and a good foundation for building a society on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Good to know that stupidity is still alive...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stupidity is certainly rampant in your idiotic post.
Randd very probably had narcisstic personality disorder and what worked for her is highly unlikely to work for psychologically and emotionally healthy humans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good to know you're too stupid to come up with your own, better argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I bet Colbert and Stewart are going to have a field day with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not that anyone will see it =P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, as a Dish Network subscriber, I will get to see it. Although we currently are without AMC, IFC and one more channel (I forget the name of).
But, to make up for it, if you're a Dish Network subscriber and you call Customer Service you can either get credit towards your bill or... my favorite option which I'm going to try for this afternoon... get a FREE Roku 2 box (so that if you have broadband you can still access AMC content through one of the options online). They may give more than one box depending on your situation. Since we have a ton of receivers in our home, I'm shooting for getting at least two boxes, which I think they'll allow. It's basically taken on a case per case basis as far as what Dish Network is willing to give you for the loss of said channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I swear....stop eating your hat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fade into Irrelevance
A move like this could make these channels fade into irrelevance, as other options of entertainment are starting to become commonplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can anyone come up with another industry where this would even be considered *sane*, let alone the right response?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The music industry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(see Redbox fight over DVD rentals)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'll wheel out Stanley Holloway again for those who missed it before.
Full story here http://sniff.numachi.com/pages/tiHAPNCEFT.html
Some choice extracts:
Of course things didn't work out for Sam - because of his obstinacy:
Eventually DirecTV may get a much better bargain...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Three ha'pence a foot it'll cost you
And as for me Sam says don't fret,
'Skys took a turn since this morning
I think it'll brighten up yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We're getting to a critical mass of broadband savvy users, and people who just happened to by Rokus for Netflix, that someone like John Stewart could just go only to Broadband and start the inevitable demise of companies like viacom whos business model is to stand in between the Intellectual Property creator and consumer..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The 'free' market can only be free (of regulation) the way that 'free' men can be free (of laws). There have to be some to keep a certain level of sanity and fairness. Too much regulation (especially of the wrong type) can stifle business, but too little can lead to anarchy and monopolistic abuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love DirecTV's counter-move.
They decided to give all the "Encore" movie channels to subscribers for free until the 31st.
I couldn't watch a re-run of the Daily Show last night, and had to instead make due with a free Sean Connery "Bond" film? Okay, *which* company are people going to side with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I love DirecTV's counter-move.
And you know what, Dish Network does a similar thing when they lose channels. I know since the AMC dispute/loss there's been a few additions I've seen on the program guide that weren't there before. At least two of which are movie channels. Cube was on one the other night, which if you haven't heard of/seen... GO DO SO IMMEDIATELY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I love DirecTV's counter-move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I love DirecTV's counter-move.
Apologies Doug D.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I love DirecTV's counter-move.
Sean Connery IS James Bond!
'Nuff Said!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I love DirecTV's counter-move.
Yeah, yeah, I know, but it wasn't THAT bad (except the ending). Still, it beat watching iCarly reruns for the 28000th time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I love DirecTV's counter-move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I love DirecTV's counter-move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I love DirecTV's counter-move.
Point is If I had lost those shows back in the day because of a broadcaster blackout, I would have flipped my lid. I agree that iCarly is no loss. I feel pity for the kids 3 generations behind 30 years old for missing all that great pre-Viacom programming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I love DirecTV's counter-move.
And might I add "wtf dude?!" You just made me feel semi-old and I'm not even old! Lol. All those shows you mentioned are exactly the same ones I watched back in my day when they were first coming out. Good times.
Although I will say, I've watched iCarly on occasion. My younger relatives like it and my buddy's niece and nephew love it, which it always happens to be on whenever we're getting ready to go tear up the town. So we watch it with them before we head out. It's not bad, but it sure isn't no "Ahhh! Real Monsters" or any of the other stuff we had back in the day. Which just gave me an idea, I still have some of that stuff recorded on VHS tapes (gasp!), just might have to dig up one of my old VCRs and play it for all these kids I'm around. Bet they'll get a kick out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I love DirecTV's counter-move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I love DirecTV's counter-move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why aren't Colbert and John Steward looking to move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why aren't Colbert and John Steward looking to move
If ever on of the contracted individuals does something the studio deems undesirable, the studio "hangs them out to dry" for awhile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why aren't Colbert and John Steward looking to move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why aren't Colbert and John Steward looking to move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But neither side really makes sense to me. DTV and Dish are afraid of people cutting the cord so what do they do when in a contract dispute? They direct people to Amazon/itunes, hulu, netflix etc, give people credits off their bill for buying episodes online, and give away streaming (roku) devices that show people they really don't need these expensive services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's in spite to DTV because DTV told it's customers they can still go on their missing channels web site and watch their shows they are missing.
In response viacom removed some popular shows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artifactivity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Artifactivity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Throes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Throes."
Life leaps and makes the interception! He's heading for the endzone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An immaculate interception?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Death breaks left, and lights a cigarette. Now he sticks out his arm and... OMG he's thrown a clothesline. Life's is down! The ball comes out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Life recovers the fumble on a bounce. Oh my lord, he's heading left, now right, and a spin move! He's making for the end zone folks! Death is giving chase. He...could...go..all...the...
--We're sorry, the conclusion of this game has been blacked out by Viacom to better serve you, the viewer. You're welcome, fuckers.--
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is sort of funny in a way, since they are sort of similar. You got someone withholding services until the other makes a commitment. When they final break down and commit, they realize the mistake they made and are now wishing it would just be all over. =P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it still doesn't make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*consumers reaction*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *consumers reaction*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Supplementing this news.
Quote:
http://www.multichannel.com/article/487036-Viacom_Yanks_Free_TV_Shows_From_Web_Amid_Di recTV_Impasse.php
And according to Viacom the internet is only to serve as promotional marketing tool.
Quote:
Kicking and screaming Viacom needs to be dragged around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Supplementing this news.
They act like there isn't anything else in the world to entertain or inform me. Your content won't be missed, Viacom. I have the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Supplementing this news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
....Huh, that may not have been a smart move.
DAMN YOU DIRECTTV YOU MAKE ME NOT THINK GOOD!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They stand to make a lot more money by forcing dtv to accept their terms than they lose by cutting off non subscribers from their online sevices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I actually do believe that is what Viacom is thinking. Moreover I think this would have been reasonable logic up to the late 1990s. What they may be missing now, however, is that distribution channels are no longer exclusive (or even protected by local monopoly rents), nor is their content. They may get past one maybe two more rounds of strong-arm pricing, but their future is bleak down that road further on.
In other words the logic you describe made perfect since before consumers had alternatives for both distribution and content.
I know this is a real taboo in today's paradigm... but companies really should start taking a long view on viability and profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The biggest problem is that the transition from computer screen to TV screen hasn't been a smooth one, despite new devices coming out all the time to make this easier. Cutting the cord increases your hassle. But eventually there will be no difference between your TV and your computer, and cable will go the way of VHS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
In addition, the fact that it's increasingly impossible to find anything to watch despite having a couple hundred channels.
The whole idea of splitting a cable up into channels is a technological artifact from the previous millennium. All I need is a single channel -- The Internet. Then all I need is the bandwidth for the one program I am watching, from the one server I am connected to. For example, NetFlix, or Hulu Plus or Amazon Prime, or YouTube, or direct to some cable channel websites. Or (gasp!) other programming independent of cable or satellite!
The whole idea of splitting programming up into time slots is a technological artifact from the previous millennium. All I need is an internet connection to a server that lets me watch what I want NOW, when I'm ready. And pause it. Come back tomorrow and resume if I want to.
The whole idea of broadcast is a technological artifact from the previous millennium. Centralized broadcasters, many receivers. It should work the other way, like the Internet does. Setup a server and I come to you. Not the other way, where your broadcast waves cross my property line -- but more importantly must be allocated a chunk of valuable spectrum. By setting up a server on the internet, a content provider uses no dedicated pre-allocated spectrum that is just for their use.
There is no limit to how many servers can be set up, just like the web. It's just that serving audio, and then later video are just higher and higher hurdles to jump. But the technology to do this continues to become more and more accessible. Any idiot can upload a video to YouTube. (Yes, surprisingly, it is true. I could provide examples, but leave this as an exercise for the reader to confirm.) With somewhat more effort you can set up a streaming server that streams your cat live, or a menu of pre recorded videos of your kids. Obviously this same approachable technology could be used by anyone with something to say -- just like the web did for print.
Yes, there are some costs for scaling up video servers -- but its getting cheaper and more approachable every day. Once upon a time a box to act as a web server was somewhat of a hurdle to set up and expensive. (Price of a Unix workstation in the tens of thousands, fat internet pipe, understanding how to configure bind, zones, etc, etc.)
But by all means -- while the world is changing around you -- slowly but surely -- go ahead and hold your audience hostage for more money. Do you assume the audience is so stupid that they don't know that the greater money you are holding them hostage for is ultimately going to come from: the audience being held hostage?
The world never changes overnight. It's a gradual slow process. There wasn't one single day when the microcomputer took over from mainframes. But it happened even though there is no single day you can point to when it did.
My point is this. The best thing you can do while the world is changing around you is to put your head in the sand, put your fingers in your ears, sing La la la la la, and try to get new laws passed. Oh, and hold hostage the very audience who you want more money from -- they'll just love you for that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
Google: define channels
chan·nel/ˈCHanl/
Noun:
A length of water wider than a strait, joining two larger areas of water, esp. two seas.
Verb:
Direct toward a particular end or object: "advertisers channel money into radio".
Synonyms:
noun. canal - duct - groove - gutter - ditch
verb. canalize
The internet is different than cable or broadcast.
On the internet all of the possible "channels" of information are not coming into my home unbidden. The bandwidth is not sliced up so that every possible server in the world has its own dedicated slot or "channel" preallocated to send bits to me.
When I go to a website, as much of the available bandwidth as possible is used to send information to me. If I surf multiple sites at once, they compete for bandwidth.
Maybe you mean websites are channels in the sense of thinking channels are offered on a menu. This knob turns to channels 2 through 13, providing a menu of 12 channels to select from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
No we won't. People said the same shit when CDs came out. Some people care and some people do not. But we still have Blue-rays and FLAC files. With the ability to pass everything around digitally there is no reason people who care can not get the high quality version and people who don't can steam the shitty version.
In 40 years elitests like you will still have pure high quality videos/music to enjoy while you call everyone who downloads the compressed version a peasant. Just like the vinyl snobs did to the cds purchasers 20 years ago.
If I can to watch something in high quality I will download the extra 7gbs of content or get a blue ray. But if I just want to stream some comedy movie I really don't care if its not "TRUE HD"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
How you consume it will always be your choice. They are not going to start filming shit with 240i cameras because people stream. You can download and pay for the high quality just like you can now.
Just cause things need to be compressed to stream doesn't mean people are deleting the high quality original copy after they compress it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
Right everything else will be on whatever replaces blue-ray or available for high quality digital download. You can watch high quality its just not the common option because most people don't care and don't want to wait for a 7gb download of what they could just be watching already. It doesn't mean the option to download is going to disappear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
So, Roku can't stream 1080p with DTS-HD? Get a WDTV then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
I don't know what this guys deal is anyway. The blue-ray is a relatively new tech, if that type of physical media fails its not like no one will ever make an HD digital copy.
Maybe he forgets his only option was VHS 30 years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
Not to mention that there are people and organizations outside of the ISP and content industries which are making improvements all the time on the very technology that those two industries use, which acts as an outside force to push the average standard higher.
I fully expect that when--not if--the legislative shackles are unbound from intellectual monopolies and technology that it will advance for the sake of nothing more than progress itself, and the average consumer will reap the benefits of that work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
If I can watch it when I want, pause it, resume it tomorrow -- from a different device, wherever I am and have time to watch, then yes -- I'll compromise on your notion of ultimate quality.
If I doesn't fit my lifestyle then I won't watch it at all. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
Apart from the fact that you CAN'T see a difference between 1080p and 720p on a 40" TV, where are your studies proving LAME encoded mp3s with are distinguishable from CD quality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And they wonder why people are cutting the Cable cord
Sadly there are so many people who do just that. I go with the times myself. At one point it was awesome for me to have dtv then I bought a FTA box. That was pretty nice for me for a good while but as my internet now has the bandwidth to stream instantly that is my new norm.
A gigabyte for me today is around 150 seconds "at places that allow enough connections to pull the max or a torrent". Where as my net in the not too far past would have took around a bazillion hours.
What's my point? The norm is always evolving and what seems so awesome today is just gonna be old news tomorrow. Cable TV is going to come to a end very soon. It's the only logical next step in the evolution of technology.
Do we still have companies that produce millions and millions of typewriters because they're the most logical choice verses a computer? Of course not rofl! I'd use my cell phone over a typewriter just because it could probably store enough data to fill up my house if wrote down on paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Payola Go ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Payola Go ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nuff said!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To them it's all about taking their own viewers hostage to collect a ransom from the cable and satellite providers.
And cable and satellite providers are pushing themselves towards extinction by giving into the hostage situation and raising their prices year after year. I mean, TRIPLING your prices over an 11 year period is an unsustainable business model for any industry. This is part of why Hulu and Netflix are doing so well, the have reasonable prices.
If cable and satellite providers all got together and said NO at the same time then Viacom and others would be forced to give in, or lose all their revenue streams. But of course Viacom won't let that happen, they make their deals end at different times on purpose, so that customers can jump to another cable/satellite provider if one of them refuses to pay the ransom. Also, it would probably break anti-monopoly laws for them to all get together and pressure Viacom and others together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't even realize...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extortion
Guess what V. I am a parent with a bit torrent client and a buncha terabyte drives. Try me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Provide the actual numbers!
Thanks for the concise, "billion dollars and 30% increase" analysis Direct TV. Same for the Viacom analysis... "pennies per subscriber"? What does any of that mean? If the cost was $1, and it went up "30 cents" to $1.30, would anyone complain? I doubt it. But try to get the real numbers from either company and you hit a wall. I have requested in writing the exact figures, and neither responded. COST PER SUBSCRIBER... BEFORE AND AFTER FOR THE SPECIFIC VIACOM PACKAGE BEING NEGOTIATED. REALLY IS THIS SO SECRET?
"They" seem all too willing, in this battle they decided to take to the social media crowd, to sympathize with the "public outrage". There we hear parents complaining that their kids want to watch Spongebob and are being denied...along with the "evil and greedy corporations". Yes, this is the way to settle disputes. I would love to see what actually happens at the negotiating table... do they bring out a pile of idiotic comments from their "fans"? That is "getting to yes"?
Send me the current and proposed cost per subscriber, then I will decide based on that number whether I want to pay. Simple as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Provide the actual numbers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Provide the actual numbers!
Viacom then pulled the plug on BOTH DirecTV AND their own web feeds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Provide the actual numbers!
Viacom's logic: We only want an extra "couple of pennies a day" per subscriber. So that's nothing, right? Wrong!
First, why do they say "a couple of pennies"? Is that literally 2? If so, why not say 2? It's probably more than 2, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in these calculations:
2 cents/day times 30 days/month times 84 months (the previous contract was in place for 7 years), times 20 million DirecTV customers. What does that add up to? $1,008,000,000
Yep, there's the $1 BILLION extra that DirecTV says Viacom is demanding.
DirecTV says Viacom is asking for a 30% increase, so that $1 BILLION is ON TOP of what DirecTV is paying now.
Viacom says they're asking for an increase of "a couple of pennies a day per subscriber" but won't tell us what we're currently paying (even if you ask them - they say that DirecTV sets the price), so here's some math (again giving Viacom the benefit of the doubt and using 2 pennies/day):
Let y = the current daily bill rate
30% * y = 0.02
y = 0.02 / 0.30
y = 0.06666666
So DirecTV is currently paying about $2/month (per subscriber) for Viacom's lame channels. Now, they probably mark that up when they bill you, because they want to make a profit, so you can probably figure that the portion of your bill that gives you the Viacom channels in your package is about $2.30 - $2.60/month, assuming a 15% - 30% markup (15 is what I would consider the low end, and 30 the high end, but I believe most service industries run in that profit range).
So, I guess you have to ask yourself, what are the Viacom channels worth to you? If you're currently paying about $2.50/month, are you willing to pay $3.25/month? Of course, Viacom maintains that DirecTV shouldn't pass along the price increase to its customers. Huh? Then why does Viacom feel it should pass on a price increase to DirecTV? Buit I digress...
Now DirecTV's stance is that if Viacom thinks its networks are so valuable, they should be willing to sell them the way movie channels are sold - a la carte. You pay for only the channels you're interested in watching. You want MTV? That'll be $0.50/month. BET? $0.60/month. Nickelodeon? $0.95/month. TVLand? $0.30/month. Comedy Central? $0.80/month. Those are sample prices, and not based on any real expectation of actual costs, but you get the idea. Of course, all DirecTV is really doing with that argument is calling Viacom's bluff on their perceived network value. Viacom would never agree to a la carte pricing, because they know that there's no way they'd be able to sell all their channels to every subscriber. That's why Viacom is insisting on keeping everything bundled into an all-or-nothing agreement. Which ultimately means we all end up paying for channels we'll never watch, but because we're all sharing the cost, the price per channel ends up being mnore reasonable.
Hope that helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Provide the actual numbers!
here:
http://news.discovery.com/tech/viacom-directtvs-spat-120714.html
Christina Ortiz blogs: "In case you haven’t noticed, Viacom and DirectTV have been trading blows over carriage fees, the amount of money DirectTV pays Viacom to air channels. Recently Viacom, who owns MTV, Comedy Central, Nickolodeon and 23 other channels, raised their fees by 30 percent, which amounts to $7.30 in additional fees annually per subscriber, or about $144 million a year for the 20 million or so of DirectTV’s users. DirectTV thought the fees were too much and as of Tuesday at 11:50 pm, they shut off all 26 Viacom channels, leaving only an alternate channel with a loop apology from DirectTV CEO Mike White."
So where is the BILLION DOLLARS Direct TV?
$7.30 per subscriber ANNUALLY?
Who cares? This is a minor amount in my total Direct TV bill, and indeed an even lesser amount in my total telecommunication cost (cell, broadband, TV).
There are NO winners in this silly fight involving a bunch of petulant children. Yeah it is all about customers. Sure it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's the customer?
The viewers are not Viacom's customers. The viewers are Viacom's product. The auto, soap, insurance, and drink companies, and other advertisers are Viacom's customers. And I don't think they particularly care whether The Daily Show is available online or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who's the customer?
Then, shouldn't Viacom be paying for its product? Every other industry does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who's the customer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who's the customer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who's the customer?
One way of looking at it to be sure. But, they piss the public off enough that they go elsewhere and/or just pirate instead of paying their subscription fees? Viacom no longer have any "product" to sell...
"And I don't think they particularly care whether The Daily Show is available online or not."
The "product" do care, and they're running out of reasons to stick with traditional broadcasters...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why isn't Viacom paying DirecTV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:D
Also, with IPV6 recently coming out it will be even harder to track down people who are downloading stuff. GG, legacy players.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arguing during a broadcast
Imagine, two corporations arguing with each other passive-aggressively in the middle of their own broadcast in front of their own customers. After this, I wonder if DirecTV will ever push Viacom on the swingset again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arguing during a broadcast
What's more disgusting is viacom using children to get their parents to put pressure on DTV to settle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arguing during a broadcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
watching Daily Show online
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just plain contempt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bye Bye Viacom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For me? Don't care. Cut the cord around a decade ago. Don't see PPV nor even public tv. Don't own a tv anymore. Don't want one. Tired of all the commercials and ads.
I hope Viacom sticks to it's guns for the next decade. One less is a blessing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self: Bite my tongue, don't even bring up that bastard word "broadband". Its just... not ... worth it... and it misses the entire context of his post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"You're really just not profitable enough for us, considering our internet options. If you can't sweeten the pot for us, we'll cut you out of the loop and focus on streaming services like hulu, netflix, and our own websites, where we can get per-view, relevant advertising and you get nothing."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For those that don't know, Stewart often does extended interviews when his guest is an actual expert in some field and tosses the whole thing, unedited, on the web. It's actually my favorite thing about the Daily Show. Instead of just fitting time constraints for the TV broadcast, sometimes you get conversations on topics that are longer than the TV show itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nahhh, probably not. But I'll rewrite some Captain Highliner ads like the one where a disreputable character asks "Arrrrgggg, Billy, has ya eva bin to sea?" just in case. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hulu dot com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GREAT IDEA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AMC / DISH
AMC streaming 'Breaking Bad' premiere for Dish customers
http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/12/3155132/amc-streaming-breaking-bad-premiere
http://w ww.amctv.com/breakingbad4dish/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
directv sucks and rates will rise with or without viacom
People are all outraged and upset with viacom. If directv is already raping, why shouldnt viacom get their peice of the pie. Dont get me wrong, I am not for viacom. I am just against directv getting off the hook and putting all the blame on viacom.
Who forced them to raise my rates in march? And stupid people beleive all the propaganda. Also, why should viacom be forced to give away their product to directv customers for free when directv is charging an arm and a leg for it. They were directing all their customers to viacoms online site to get the programming while they worked it out. Meanwhile I am still being charged full price for less product. To mean it seams directv is the only one who wins. My kid wants nik jr!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agree 100%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disagree 100%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disagree 100%
I HOPE DIRECTV WINS. COME ON AMERICA WE CAN WIN BACK NICKELODEON GO AMERICA! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would you miss Viacom?
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=206822
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
im not gonna be a pawn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cost.
The cable and satalite companies have to pay to tap Viacom's and Clear Channel II's lines. The service providers really are the victims here because each year the studios ask for more and more money. Granted there are other variables driving the costs up, but that's the biggest factor right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cost.
Viacom cut off its Internet programming, and prevented DirecTV from carrying Viacom programming or face charges of "pirating" their signal since there's no contract at the moment.
DirecTV did...what exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cost.
The cable and satalite companies have to pay to tap Viacom's and Clear Channel II's lines. The service providers really are the victims here because each year the studios ask for more and more money. Granted there are other variables driving the costs up, but that's the biggest factor right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
block it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Directv & Viacom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Directv & Viacom
I don't know who is telling the truth in this matter but I do know that Viacom does not care for the people that watched their shows."
Technically, BOTH are right!
DirecTV DID pull the feeds...but it was because they were forced to do so by Viacom or face charges of pirating the signal since DirecTV technically doesn't have the right to transmit without a contract in place!
Don't ya just love irony?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Viacom withholds the Daily Show from streaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Viacom withholds the Daily Show from streaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Americans resond to bad corporate practices with boycotts
P.S.
Thanks, DirecTV, for the extra premium channels while this is going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dissatisfied with all tv
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or they could put them back up online and I'd gladly watch the commercials so that they can get paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]