DirecTV HDTV - Page 441

Originally Posted by Steve Mehs 

iTunes, barf! I refuse to use anything from Apple. I've severed all ties with that company. These online services are useless for the highlight shows I watch like Inside NASCAR and Inside The NFL on Showtime, NHL Tonight, SportsCenter and others. They're useless for live news, they’re useless for live sports.
Likewise, why should I have to pay more for TV, just because a few crybabies are whining about paying for content they don’t want when this has been the way it’s been done since the beginning of the Pay TV industry? C-band was a la carte and it’s all but gone, Dish Network had their Dish Pix package, that was a complete failure. A la carte does not work, and it will never be a reality. There really is no point in even arguing about it, as my side has already won.
If you don’t like the way things are done, then by all means cancel your pay TV service and suffer with using iTunes, this way you are only paying for the exact content you want.

Originally Posted by Steve Mehs 

'Cord cutting' *Yawn*. Just is done by a few. Don’t need to talk to a college student when I can go online, look at subscriber numbers and see that in the US there are approx. 116 million TV households, and combined there are about 100 million pay TV subscribers. Wake me up when that number decreases by 20 or 30 million. While ‘cord cutting’ may be all the rage according to some, it is just a very very small minority. The vast majority of US households have one form of traditional pay TV or anothe.r
Aereo, looks like that’s only good for OTA content. I have no use for that. I’m making it a point to drastically reduce and eventually eliminate my OTA TV viewing aside from sports. There is so much high quality content on the cable and premium cable channels there is no point to watching OTA. I haven’t watch ABC in years, now that Chuck is finished, so is me watching NBC, CBS has some decent shows, and Fox has me for Animation Domination. CW, ION, My Network TV and PBS are of absolutely zero interest to me. All OTA networks could go away this very second and I would even know or care until the next time the Yankees and scheduled for a Saturday game on FOX.
I’m really not sure why this is a big deal. For example, I have no use for TCM. I do not want to watch boring black and white movies from 100 years ago. Do I care I’m paying for a channel that I have no interest in? No not really, I forgot the channel even existed until people on here started mentioning DirecTV will be adding it in HD

Originally Posted by gregzoll 

...They are why the rest of us pay more for having Satellite Radio.

Originally Posted by Steve Mehs 

110% agree! Yep. If one is truly on the fence about a service, then I have no problem with a few discounts and such, but those that play the game are just ruining it for the rest of us. Either satellite radio is worth it to you at the price it’s being sold at or not. If it’s not worth it, don’t subscribe. I too pay full price for my XM Subscription (XM subscriber Since Aug, 2003) and Sirius Subscription (Sirius Subscriber Since Oct 2004), and have never once called up and asked for a discount. I’m satisfied with the service, I have no reason to complain, and want the service to improve, and it can’t improve without money.
Where I work, if a customer wants to cancel their service, either altogether or go to a competitor due to price (not like there’s competition in the SDARS industry anymore), sure we’ll bend over backwards to keep your business and offer all sorts of discounts, free value added service and whatnot, but that doesn’t go without notice. At the end of the year, we know exactly how much money we lost in the form of giving discounts and freebies to the whiners and cry babies. That figure is then used in determining the following years price increases. So in the end everyone pays.

So it is OK for us to subsidize your SPORTS addiction, yet you "whine like a crybaby" (your phrase) when others want you to subsidize their cost of satellite radio subscriptions:

Originally Posted by DiCecco 

Why can't we have a system like Shaw Direct in Canada where you can buy individual channels for $2.00 a month instead of having to buy a top tier package to get one channel. I also like their theme packages for $5.00 a month.

Originally Posted by MichaelLAX 

Mitt Romney needs YOU to replace his Etch-a-Sketch Guy!!!

If you happen to find yourself backstage after the show, make sure you have red apples from El Rio Grande on hand—that’s their favorite snack.

http://sidedish.dmagazine.com/2012/03/26/elephant-lunch-recap/

Originally Posted by Steve Mehs 

These online services are useless for the highlight shows I watch like Inside NASCAR and Inside The NFL on Showtime,

Originally Posted by MichaelLAX 

Are you really suggesting that ESPN breaks even?!?

You are correct, the successful channels like ESPN will cost the individual subscriber more. Unless, of course that is the only channel you subscribe to.

The lower rated channels will go dark, just like our favorite television shows do once they cannot be supported by their ratings. Or maybe the higher rated television shows should be required to subsidize the lower rated ones, so that they do not have to be cancelled!

Originally Posted by GlassWolf 

Am I the only one who doesn't feel like I've lost anything by Viacom pulling it's shows off the air?
MTV? Hasn't been relevant for about 20 years now, since they stopped playing music. I'm GLAD to see Jersey Shore go off the air! Same with that 16 and knocked up series.
Comedy Central? Hasn't been funny for at least 5 to 8 years now.
Kids' channels? I don't have kids, so who cares?
Spike? Nothing of interest. I don't care about professional wrestling, and I really wish SyFy would drop that garbage, too.
Just give me BBCa in HD on DirecTV and lower the bills accordingly now that Viacom is gone, and it'd be perfect to me.

Originally Posted by KK in CT 

Of course they're doing much better than breaking even?? Not sure how you interpreted my statement otherwise? The point was they are enjoying that because they can spread the cost over all subscribers to a service, not just those that watch. If they could only charge those that actually watch, the cost would have to go up to enjoy the same profit they do now. And like I said, it doesn't appear that any channels these days are happy just maintaining what they make today...

Originally Posted by KK in CT 

I would say its a pretty safe "supposition" that any channel will try everything they can to at least bring in the same revenue as before. So even a channel like ESPN that gets a very high rate per subscriber would need to charge much more per those that actually watch just to break even. The channels that get pennies now and have low ratings would need to charge quite a bit to stay on the air. How else could it work? No channel seems to be looking for less money these days...

Originally Posted by KK in CT 

Of course they're doing much better than breaking even?? Not sure how you interpreted my statement otherwise? The point was they are enjoying that because they can spread the cost over all subscribers to a service, not just those that watch. If they could only charge those that actually watch, the cost would have to go up to enjoy the same profit they do now. And like I said, it doesn't appear that any channels these days are happy just maintaining what they make today...

Originally Posted by MichaelLAX 

...You are correct, [in an a la carté pricing situation] the successful channels like ESPN will cost the individual subscriber more. Unless, of course that is the only channel you subscribe to.

The lower rated channels will go dark, just like our favorite television shows do once they cannot be supported by their ratings. Or maybe the higher rated television shows should be required to subsidize the lower rated ones, so that they do not have to be cancelled!

Originally Posted by rebkell 

I don't watch any of the Viacom channels, but I do think we should be compensated for losing 19 channels..

Originally Posted by Steve Mehs 

Maybe if you stop speaking gibberish and stick to the topic at hand you'll be better off.
Oh that's right you 'busted' me on two things that are related and go together like apples and elephants.

Originally Posted by keenan 


(Sorry, that was too easy! )

Originally Posted by GlassWolf 

Am I the only one who doesn't feel like I've lost anything by Viacom pulling it's shows off the air?

Originally Posted by fjames 

...My personal pet peeve is being forced to view network programming on my local affiliates. I'm legally mandated to do this. My view is the affiliates have a "social contract" to deliver network programming, unadulterated and in its entirety, and if they fail, they're nothing but an independent that happens to show some form of network programming. Therefore, I should be able to view it elsewhere (like a network package from my service provider...)

Originally Posted by fjames 

No, but I would be pretty upset to lose AMC...

Originally Posted by MichaelLAX 

Remember when CBS and FOX sued DirecTV to stop their practice of allowing subscribers to purchase out of area network affiliates? A great propaganda campaign was started by the networks to convince everyone about the holy grail of "local programming" and how the public interest required that this system be kept in place by requiring viewers to watch local commercials.
About 18 nanoseconds after they won their court case, DirecTV started offering NFL Sunday Ticket: so instead of watching the local affiliates football game, we could now watch out of area broadcasts of FOX and CBS (to the detriment, of course, of our local affiliates local commercials ratings!)
DIFFERENCE: Once we pay them MONEY for the privilege, the public interest and localism be damned!

Originally Posted by Steve Mehs 

Again, why are you even continuing with this? A la carte is not going to happen! There's no point in even discussing it. I win, you lose, and apparently 100 million people agree with me. Let's move on.

Originally Posted by fjames 

. My personal pet peeve is being forced to view network programming on my local affiliates. I'm legally mandated to do this. My view is the affiliates have a "social contract" to deliver network programming, unadulterated and in its entirety, and if they fail, they're nothing but an independent that happens to show some form of network programming. Therefore, I should be able to view it elsewhere (like a network package from my service provider.)

Originally Posted by DiCecco 

Why can't we have a system like Shaw Direct in Canada where you can buy individual channels for $2.00 a month instead of having to buy a top tier package to get one channel. I also like their theme packages for $5.00 a month.

Originally Posted by fjames 

No, but I would be pretty upset to lose AMC. Whether or not you watch a given channel bundle is much less an issue than the constant threat of losing something because the various entities that have that power can't play well.
The system is broken, the results are finally becoming obvious. What comes next is anyone's guess. My wish is that the rules makers stop worrying about some startup being able to compete, and start worrying about the end user having rational choices. My personal pet peeve is being forced to view network programming on my local affiliates. I'm legally mandated to do this. My view is the affiliates have a "social contract" to deliver network programming, unadulterated and in its entirety, and if they fail, they're nothing but an independent that happens to show some form of network programming. Therefore, I should be able to view it elsewhere (like a network package from my service provider.)

Originally Posted by GlassWolf 

MTV? Hasn't been relevant for about 20 years now, since they stopped playing music.

Originally Posted by DrDon 

In a business model where you were the customer, you might. But you're not. You're the product being delivered to the advertiser. Network programming is the bait that attracts you and local affiliates have the right to strike exclusivity deals with programming providers.