Direct TV lost many channels

[Raizinman]

Anyone have Direct TV and not getting a good number of standard channels? If you have missed the communication from Michael White CEO, here it is.

Michael White (DIRECTV Chairman, President And CEO)
Hi, I’m Mike White CEO of DIRECTV, for the past several months, I’ve been in negotiations with Viacom over how much of your bill is fare to pay for their networks. Unfortunately, Viacom has decided to take their channels away from our customers. It’s a temporary, regrettable tactic to try to force you to pay substantially more for all their networks even the ones you don’t watch or care about. We think that’s unreasonable.

[Michael White]
At the very least we believe Viacom should be willing to give you family the choice to pay for only those channels you watch. But so far they’ve refused. Viacom continues to insist on an all or nothing approach, they demand that you pay over 30% more. That’s an extra billion dollars for the exact same channels you already receive. Rest assured, both sides will come to an agreement. So please ignore any of their scare tactics by standing firm. DIRECTV can continue to keep your monthly bill as low as possible, bringing you and your family the very best television experience at the most reasonable cost is and always will be DIRECTV’s promise to you. To find out more how we are working to resolve this as quickly as possible visit directvpromise.com and thanks for your patience.

Are you aware that Michael White makes 5.9 Million dollars a year!

I’m calling to cancel Direct TV. They would not break the contract, but did offer me FREE showtime and Stars and $5 a month off my monthly billing. If you have Direct TV, give them a call.

Who ever heard of only paying for channels that only you watch? Heck, I only watch 4 or 5 channels and would not mind only paying for 4 or 5 channels.

 

[Ns1]

Heck, I only watch 4 or 5 channels and would not mind only paying for 4 or 5 channels.

4-5 channels @ $10/channel

 

[waggy]

4-5 channels @ $10/channel

/this

i laugh when people think getting the 4-5 big name channels they want is going to be cheaper.

Are you aware that Michael White makes 5.9 Million dollars a year!

and this matters why? good for him for earning a job that gives him great pay.

 

[Jeff7]

4-5 channels @ $10/channel

Yup.
They would likely perform some crazy statistical analyses so that they could put together a pricing plan that would keep the vast majority of monthly bills right where they are, maybe with a $1-$2 decrease so that people think they're saving money.

...
and this matters why? good for him for earning a job that gives him great pay.

$5.9M. As far as CEOs go, that's like the cashier at K-mart who can't top $0.30/hr above minimum wage.

 

[Anubis]

4-5 channels @ $10/channel

@ 50$ that would be a 50% discount vs what it currently costs

 

[Ns1]

@ 50$ that would be a 50% discount vs what it currently costs

Anyone paying > $100 for cable tv/satellite is an idiot

 

[Anubis]

not that i dissagree, however the is no other way to get the channels i want, ive called they wont reduce it and its not worth the hassel to change from cable to sat to save a little if any money

 

[waggy]

not that i dissagree, however the is no other way to get the channels i want, ive called they wont reduce it and its not worth the hassel to change from cable to sat to save a little if any money

exactly. they know you are willing to buy the next tier to get the channels you want.

those channels are going to be insanely priced.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

I'm glad they didn't cave to Viacom. I'd much rather be without a couple crappy channels than pay more a month.

 

[SunnyD]

Anyone paying > $100 for cable tv/satellite is an idiot

Indeed. If you're paying more than ~$50/month for it, you're doing it really, really wrong.

 

[blackangst1]

Everything I have read puts Viacom in the wrong on this deal. Its been in the news for weeks...

 

[waggy]

Everything I have read puts Viacom in the wrong on this deal. Its been in the news for weeks...

same

 

[Xecuter]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV

Revenue US$ 27.226 billion

5.9 million / 27.226 billion = 2.1670462058326599573936678175274e-4

 

[Imported]

I'm glad they didn't cave to Viacom. I'd much rather be without a couple crappy channels than pay more a month.

Same here. I don't watch any of the Viacom channels.

 

[DrPizza]

/this

i laugh when people think getting the 4-5 big name channels they want is going to be cheaper.

Not all of us want those "big name" channels; and some of us realize that the channels we do want cost a lot less than what we're paying. I don't want to pay for MTV or VH1 or the plethora of kids channels (though I do want boomerang) or the "news" channels, or the weather channel. I'd bet that 90% of my viewing is from 4 channels - ABC, CBS, NBC (for the local news), and reruns of psych or some such show on Ion.

 

[BoomerD]

Same here. I don't watch any of the Viacom channels.

Me either. Other than some clutter in the guide explaining why <insert Viacom channel> is missing, I haven't even noticed...BUT, that won't stop me from calling to see if they're gonna offer anything in replacement...:biggrin:

 

[torpid]

4-5 channels @ $10/channel

Worth it; I'd rather pay those channels $10/month for making content I love and make sure none of the other channels get any more for me.

 

[SaDiZTiKStyLeZ]

Save yourself the trouble & switch to internet-streaming only.

 

[Ns1]

Worth it; I'd rather pay those channels $10/month for making content I love and make sure none of the other channels get any more for me.

I'd rather pay $50 and get 50 channels, but w/e floats your boat.

 

[Baked]

What are you really watching that requires you to have cable TV now a days? ESPN? Everything else you can d/l or stream and watch at your leisure. I bought a HDTV antenna for network HD channels, and got my internet service for streaming and d/ling TV episodes I wanna watch.

 

[torpid]

I'd rather pay $50 and get 50 channels, but w/e floats your boat.

Do you watch the extra 45? I don't. Many of them get a huge chunk of the $50, too. AMC makes some of the best shows on TV yet gets a paltry $0.26 per subscriber.

 

[Ns1]

Do you watch the extra 45? I don't.

I usually don't, but if I can get another 45 channels at the same price then why not?

 

[Gooberlx2]

Of those 26 channels, Comedy Central is the only one that would remotely matter to me. Even then, only for Southpark and Daily Show...most of which I can eventually watch online for free on their official websites. I wish Dish's dispute was with Viacom instead of AMC.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Not all of us want those "big name" channels; and some of us realize that the channels we do want cost a lot less than what we're paying. I don't want to pay for MTV or VH1 or the plethora of kids channels (though I do want boomerang) or the "news" channels, or the weather channel. I'd bet that 90% of my viewing is from 4 channels - ABC, CBS, NBC (for the local news), and reruns of psych or some such show on Ion.

You know you can get those channels for free right? I personally like having a lot of cable channels even if I only watch about 15-20 with any regularity, so cable makes sense for me. I don't understand people who are shelling out money to watch channels that are available for free over public airwaves. A subscription to Netflix streaming would be less than you're likely paying for cable and they have every episode of Psych (so far).

 

[torpid]

I usually don't, but if I can get another 45 channels at the same price then why not?

Because as a consumer I would prefer that the money I pay be distributed according to how much I value the content so that the current model of bundling goes away. I'd probably actually come out ahead paying $20 for two channels and then $2/episode for everything else.