DirecTV Drops Viacom Channels

An anonymous reader writes "DirecTV has dropped all of Viacom's channels. This includes channels such as MTV, Comedy Central, and Nickelodeon. The drop is reported to be over a carrier fee dispute. It appears programming content can magically disappear from satellite, too, and not just from streaming services. Viacom said it was 'because contract talks with DirecTV had “reached an impasse.” DirecTV, in turn, said in a statement that it had offered Viacom “increased fees for their networks going forward; we just can’t afford the extreme increases they are asking for.”' I guess pirating and physical media is the only way to make sure the content we pay for doesn't disappear."

Comments

Well there you go

[fustakrakich]

If you want to see riots in America, this will do it.

Re:Well there you go

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to see riots in America, this will do it.

Not if you're with DirecTV.... Viacom's channels have exclusive rights to "Riots in America".

Of course, if *all* the carriers refuse Viacom's fees, I guess you could say that the revolution will not be televised.

Re:Well there you go

[oldmac31310]

The revolution may or may not be televised depending on whether the carrier fee dispute is settled. News at 11.00. Maybe.

Re:Well there you go

[garyebickford]

Point of history - I just read the history of 'Association Football'. Turns out originally there were several forms of 'football' played at different schools in England. Several of them got together to normalize the rules. The resulting ruleset, which was the original version of 'Association Football' and changed the ball shape to be round instead of egg-shaped, was considered too wussy for some. Some schools took their ball and went home, calling their version 'Rugby football'. Until those rules came out, 'footballs' were not round in any version of the game. And, of course, American and Australian football descended from Rugby football, which is undoubtedly closest to the original football games. So what most people in the world consider 'football' was the new 'odd' version. And the term 'soccer' was a contraction of sorts from 'Association Football'. All this happened in England (not yet called 'UK') before it became popular in other countries.

Therefore, Rugby, American and Australian football have at least the same, if not more, justification for using the word football versus those other folks who play with a round ball that flies too easily and every time two players come within a foot of each other, one of them falls down crying.

I don't see much to miss

[sanosuke001]

Aside from a few Comedy Central programs, I don't seem much here that I'd miss. MTV is full of BS "reality" TV and Nick is full of kids shows that are usually no Netfix if you need them and, being kids shows, they probably won't care if they're watching reruns (or notice). So, really, what does Viacom have that is worth paying increased fees anyway? It's not like South Park costs that much to produce (maybe FCC fees?).

Re:I don't see much to miss

[alen]

my wife are cancelling cable next month after we realized that we're paying $165 a month for triple play and the cable part is mostly the same few kids cartoons that we DVR and watch multiple times and we can buy them on amazon for $10 PER SEASON and watch unlimited times

dont underestimate the power of stupidity

Re:I don't see much to miss

[gl4ss]

the bigger thing I guess is that if you had subscribed to a satellite service, signed up for a channel package and then *boom* it's out?

- another angle to look at this is that viacom viewed directv as a good robbery candidate since they had contractually obliged to deliver these channels to their clients? ("hey, they can't drop us, they already resold the service we're selling to them hahahah")

Re:I don't see much to miss

[MickyTheIdiot]

All the good parts of the Daily Show and spinoffs are available legally on the 'net anyway. So this wouldn't be a loss for me...

but still I always hope that this sort of idiocy causes drops en masse. I wouldn't bet any money on that, however... it's just a hope that "consumers" might actually kick a corporation in the ass for being jackasses for once.

Re:I don't see much to miss

[KhabaLox]

my wife are

Mitt, is that you?

Re:I don't see much to miss

[demachina]

There is a considerable hypocrisy in DirectTV's CEO looping a video on the down channels complaining about how awful it is that Viacom is forcing them to take all the channels as one package.

I would love it if DirectTV let me buy the few channels they have we still watch ala carte for a small fraction of what they are charging for their packages.

As others have said, Viacom expecting another billion dollars for their especially pathetic channel line up is over the top. Once you get past The Daily Show, South Park and Colbert there is absolutely nothing Viacom is offering that is worth paying for. And since they are all loaded with ads, why do people even have to pay for them like they are premium channels.

I would also greatly appreciate if their boxes were setup to kill all the annoying shopping and religious channels they are carrying with simple switches. You can setup a custom guide without them but since they constantly move their channels around it is annoying to maintain it. Of course I imagine the shopping channels are paying them to force their channels down the throats of their customers so. . .

One of the great mysteries of life to me is why people watch shopping channels or buy the crap they sell keeping them in business. Consumerism has achieved its ultimate goal when people actually sit and watch channels that are nothing but ads. The pinnacle of this phenomenon is I recently saw a shopping channel purportedly selling houses in Florida. Pretty much the last thing anyone should be doing is buying real-estate sight unseen on a shopping channel using an auction that is guaranteed to be rigged.

Re:I don't see much to miss

[Obfuscant]

...since they had contractually obliged to deliver these channels to their clients?

You can bet there is a thirty-day change provision in the DirectTV contract that allows them to change the lineup with a month's notice. Just like cable.

Speaking of that, Comcast/xfinity customers in my town have just gotten a letter telling them that C/x are dropping ALL analog services on Aug 14. They're really helpful in telling people that they'll need to add digital adapters to any analog TV, and even say that there will be no monthly service charge for those adapters. They list the standard desktop box, the DTA, and CableCard as possibilities.

Then in the next paragraph they say there will be a $1.99 monthly service charge for any device that is added.

I hope my state AG will discuss this with them. Probably won't.

The same letter tells us, indirectly, that we are losing all the Portland network stations (being in the middle, we currently get Portland and Eugene markets.) And we're losing the PBS station that is IN THIS TOWN, and will be getting the one from Eugene instead.

I love Comcast.

Re:I don't see much to miss

[gtbritishskull]

Actually, all full episodes of The Daily Show and Colbert Report were available and on Hulu. But, I just saw a story (published less than an hour ago) that said Viacom was suspending putting full episodes online due to this DirectTV thing. Very disappointed about that. Hopefully it will not last.

Re:I don't see much to miss

[Obfuscant]

And since they are all loaded with ads, why do people even have to pay for them like they are premium channels.

People don't have to pay for them as premium channels, at least not on any cable system I've gotten. MTV, COM, VH1 are the ones I am talking about, of course. The '2's are in advanced tiers.

Viacom charges the cable and dish providers for them because they can.

Of course I imagine the shopping channels are paying them to force their channels down the throats of their customers so. . .

Cable carriers used to get a cut from the sales. I don't know if that's true still. But nobody is forcing those channels down your throat. Just don't watch them. Problem solved.

What's a more annoying problem is what the morons at Comcast/xfinity are doing now, which is programming the DTA (dumb digital adapter) to be able to tune to channels you aren't subscribed to (displaying a "XXX isn't currently in your programming package. Call 1800COMCAST for info" message), and the useless music channels. So now, instead of being able to surf from one channel to the next easily, there are a full 70 channels of "no you may not" in between the top viewable channel and rolling over to the lowest. Scum.

Re:I don't see much to miss

[nabsltd]

There is a considerable hypocrisy in DirectTV's CEO looping a video on the down channels complaining about how awful it is that Viacom is forcing them to take all the channels as one package.

I would love it if DirectTV let me buy the few channels they have we still watch ala carte for a small fraction of what they are charging for their packages.

There's no hypocrisy at all here. The reason DirecTV won't let you pick individual channels is because their contacts with the channel owners won't let them.

Companies like Viacom know that in order to allow providers like DirecTV to sell a la carte, they would have to price individual channels realistically, and they would get a lot less uptake, and thus advertising dollars (which are based on both actual and possible viewers) would go down. The affected channel list shows just how badly Viacom would lose possible viewers based on a la carte. Of the 17 channels, only about 4 could be considered "general viewership": 1 is gay/lesbian interest, 2 are aimed at African Americans, 4 primarily at children, 6 are music channels (well, maybe not MTV) with several aimed at specific types (Hispanic, country, etc.) of music.

Re:I don't see much to miss

[Fjandr]

I would love it if DirectTV let me buy the few channels they have we still watch ala carte for a small fraction of what they are charging for their packages.

They'd go out of business, because all the networks that produce those channels will not license them to DirecTV (or anyone else) in anything but a complete package deal.

So, if DirecTV (or anyone else) actually offered an a la carte service that was proportionally priced, they'd still have to eat the cost of all those worthless networks that nobody wants access to.

The lack of a la carte programming is 100% the fault of content producers like Viacom. If delivery services all stood up and refused to license content the way it currently is, they'd more than likely be charged with collusion or some such by the DOJ. This isn't to say video providers would start offering a la carte if they were financially capable of doing so; that's something we'd only find out once producers stopped tying their crap to the products people are actually willing to pay for.

they are all evil

[alen]

we go through this every year or so

Content owner wants more money and demands rate increase
TV service operator says no
content owner pulls channels
viewers scream bloody murder and rape and demand tv operator pony up a few $$$ of their limitless magical bank account
tv operator blinks first then raises rates
viewers complain but don't do anything
repeat in a few years

the content owners know people are dumb and live by the monthly payment and will blame their cable or satellite company. they sell their channels in bundles and raise the rates every few years. people continue to pay the higher rates because they are too stupid to do anything else other than look at rectangle with moving pictures

Re:they are all evil

[alen]

isn't TCM part of time warner?

you want a la carte? pay itunes or amazon. don't expect it from cable. not going to happen

Re:they are all evil

[billcopc]

The difference here is that Viacom does not own DirecTV. These so-called content owners pull the same bundling bullshit on distributors, which is another reason why unbundling should be mandated by law. Why should DirecTV have to carry (and pay for) a pile of shitty channels, just to get the one their customers actually want ?

Yes, consumers are ignorant and too lazy to stick to their guns, but the problem doesn't magically stop at the distributor's head-end. It's a dirty industry from top to bottom.

Re:they are all evil

[alen]

we're probably close to the peak if we haven't passed it yet

i've noticed a lot more people i know don't watch TV much anymore and like to read, go outside and do other things that were considered geeky and dumb when i was a kid.

Re:they are all evil

[Jaysyn]

You do have to love how the distributors bitch that the content producers bundle channels & then go and do the exact same thing to the subscribers.

Me? I don't care, I dropped cable years & years ago when I realized the quality was steadily decreasing while the prices did the opposite. Anything I really want to see I can get on DVD or watch for free online.

Re:they are all evil

[Cro Magnon]

Yeah, and my mom told me Time-Warner & ABC are having a pissing match (my words, not hers). You can't win, no matter which provider you have.

Re:they are all evil

[ticker47]

While a la carte would be nice, a lot of the channels bundled together would fail to grab enough viewers to make them economically feasible. You know that very few people will actually watch all 26 of those channels that Viacom has. Instead they'll opt to watch a two or three. Remove the bundling and all of the sudden the provider doesn't make enough money to keep airing all of those channels. A few might still make it, but a large portion of those channels would just cease to exist. When you lose channels, you lose variety and eventually you end up paying the same amount of money or more for a small subset of the channels you can get now with bundling.

Re:they are all evil

[Tridus]

People who want live sports are pretty likely to shut up and pay for whatever bundle-o-crap that the providers are selling.

Re:they are all evil

[jxander]

Good. No, great! If a channel can't muster a lineup of shows that garners enough of a following to justify its own existence, let it die.

I think you'll find a much higher quality of programming when people have direct control over what gets their support and what doesn't. I could easily pick 20 channels out of the 1000+ currently offered as part of the basic Cox package and never miss a beat. I'd even make this sweet deal: I'll pay 25-30% of the current price for 2% of the current content.

Re:they are all evil

[Just Some Guy]

we're probably close to the peak if we haven't passed it yet

I think we're past the tipping point. I have small kids and they watch a lot of Netflix cartoons. Between that $7 a month fee (with an Internet connection I would have anyway) and a decent digital antenna, I don't have a lot of desire to switch back to the $110 per month Dish Network plan I'd had. Yeah, there's stuff I miss. No, it's not worth an extra $103 per month to see it. Netflix + OTA content is Good Enough for us - and apparently for a lot of other people, too.

Re:they are all evil

[mattack2]

I would rather go to one game than watch the whole season on TV.

I'm not a sports person, but I think you might be the exception. Just like people with really good home theaters (not me) think watching movies at their house is better than at a movie theater, I've heard sports fans say that the TV experience is better than being there -- you are certainly seeing more detailed action, and don't have to pay the ridiculous prices for food/beer, etc..

Obligatory...

[jaymzter]

And nothing of value was lost.

Any reason why Viacom or any other such wastewater producer can't just switch to streaming all their shows? I know not everyone has a computer, but I don't see why `channels` can't cut out the middle man in some instances and go directly to end users on a contract type basis. Maybe simulcast on cable for those that care and streaming only for those that want a la carte. Seems like a revenue source waiting to be tapped.

Re:Obligatory...

[lobos]

Any reason why Viacom or any other such wastewater producer can't just switch to streaming all their shows? ...Seems like a revenue source waiting to be tapped.

As someone who covers media companies for an investment firm and spends a lot of my work thinking about things like this, they would lose out on a lot of money if they did that. Content owners currently have a dual stream revenue source. One are the monthly affiliate fees paid by you through the cable provider. The other is advertising. The content owners have been getting filthy rich through this model and have no desire to give it up.

If they were to start going directly to the end users and charging you, chances are they would lose more money than they made under the old model. The first reason is there is no (or little) advertising in the model you are proposing. So your fees would have to cover all the money they make off of advertising. Which will likely never happen. The second is that, in the current model, many people pay monthly affiliate fees for channels they would not purchase on a standalone basis (this is the same reason why you will likely never see à la carte channels) and cable providers would demand lower affiliate fees, or drop the channels altogether, if the content owners started going direct to the end user. So your fee to get the streaming portion would have to be quite high because you are currently being subsidized by advertising and a lot of people who never watch the channel.

I should note that I would love to see à la carte programming, but I'm just explaining why you're not going to see it right now. However, there may come a point when it starts happening. It really comes down to simple economics. If enough people start cutting the cord, or something else disrupts the current model enough, then they will start moving to other models. But right now it's way too lucrative for them to ever give it up.

Sounds like a negotiating tactic

[jandrese]

The problem is, both sides and neither side have the position of strength here. Viacom obviously wants the big bucks from the cable/satellite company, and the cable/satellite companies don't want people cancelling because you dropped the channels they care about. Maybe that's why there has been such a push for 2 year contracts on these services as of late. If the consumers are locked in the company could have a lot more leverage over the content producers.

Re:Sounds like a negotiating tactic

[thomasw_lrd]

I have kids, and Nick has almost nothing of value. Disney on the other hand is a lot better. The writing for some of the new shows is really good. It's gotten a lot better once the Cyrus's quit/got let go. It's got sight gags for the kids, and it's got some intellectual humor for the adults. Now if they could play more than 3 shows a season, so that we can watching newer stuff more often. Or just play Phineas and Ferb all day (which I highly recommend all geeks on this site watch at least a few episodes. It's really good, IMO).

Yeah, not missing much

[kiriath]

Both CC and MTV used to have Descent programs and Music respectively. Since neither, have either, I'm good with that.

What does that do to contracts?

[Tancred]

I was considering switching from Comcast to DirecTV recently. Without Comedy Central (specifically The Daily Show and The Colbert Report) I wouldn't switch. But what if I had switched and they dropped one of the main channels I wanted? Would I have grounds to get out of a term contract? Would I have to go to small claims court if they resisted?

Re:What does that do to contracts?

[Spritzer]

Tough Luck.
DirecTV Terms of Service

(d) Our Programming Changes. Many factors affect the availability, cost and quality of programming and may influence the decision to raise prices and the amount of any increase. These include, among others, programming and other costs, consumer demand, market and shareholder expectations, and changing business conditions. Accordingly, we must reserve the unrestricted right to change, rearrange, add or delete our programming packages, the selections in those packages, our prices, and any other Service we offer, at any time. We will endeavor to notify you of any change that is within our reasonable control and its effective date. In most cases this notice will be about one month in advance. You always have the right to cancel your Service, in whole or in part, if you do not accept the change (see Section 5). If you cancel your Service, a deactivation fee (described in Sections 2 & 5(b)) or other charges may apply. Credits, if any, to your account will be posted as described in Section 5. If you do not cancel, your continued receipt of our Service will constitute acceptance.

I would assume most or all other carriers have similar clauses.

Re:What does that do to contracts?

[Tancred]

I had no doubt something like that was in the contract. What I wonder though, is how that holds up legally, given their advertising of channel packages. If that term of the contract was absolute, one month in to your contract they could change the price to $1000/month and cut everything but the golf channel. But I don't think they'd get away with charging their early termination / deactivation fees. So where's the line...?

Re:What does that do to contracts?

[chromas]

G4 shitcanned itself.

And to compensate customers...

[fahrbot-bot]

DirecTV has dropped all of Viacom's channels.

... DirectTV will, of course, lower their subscription fees accordingly.

Re:And to compensate customers...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were smart, they would.

At least their customers would side with dtv if their bill dropped 5-10 bucks.

Re:And to compensate customers...

[PancakeMan]

I know you were joking, but just as a point of information, it looks like DirecTV is giving away the Encore channels in an effort at compensation while the Viacom stations are dark.

Re:And to compensate customers...

[fahrbot-bot]

I know you were joking, but just as a point of information, it looks like DirecTV is giving away the Encore channels in an effort at compensation while the Viacom stations are dark.

And that helps people that paid to watch Comedy Central how? I understand the effort from their point, but I'd rather have money back than access to something I don't want. (Sorry, we're out of the steak you ordered, so here's some Haggis - enjoy.)

Disclaimer: I'm not a DirectTV customer, just commenting on how their customer service doesn't seem to help either word "customer" or "service". But, hey, companies are people, my friend, and people make mistakes... (but they keep the money).

Piracy is the answer

[bhlowe]

Yes, drop your comcast and DirectTV and just pirate everything! Nice ethical solution... (ducking)

Re:Piracy is the answer

[Spritzer]

Or do like I do. Pay them for service and download most everything anyway. I'm paying for it. How I choose delivery is my business.

SABnzbd + SickBeard + AstraWeb = FU and your silly games

Re:Breaking News

[Russ1642]

Stories aren't broken on Slashdot. We wait for one or preferably several news articles are written, people have a chance to actually read them (I know, not exactly reality), and then we can discuss them intelligently.

Thanks Viacom and DirectTV!

[Anonymous Coward]

This was precisely the motivation I needed to finally make the jump and cancel my TV cable/satellite services completely. For months I've been dancing around the idea of just picking up the TV shows I enjoy on Disc or using Netflix but I stuck around.

I almost made the jump when this sort of bullshit was going on with AMC. But now that this is the second time this has happened I am done. Good luck sticking it to your loyal customers with either increased rates to pay for Viacom or by reduced quality of service (which I'm certain they will not reduce prices for).

I'm not on a contract so I do not have to worry about this, but I wonder if this can be considered a change in service and allow people to get out of their contracts early.

I use Roku

[na1led]

Canceled my Cable Subscription, which I was paying over $100 a month for. With Roku, I have Netflix, Hulu Plus, and Amazon Prime, all of which cost less than $25 a month, plus my roof antenna for local channels. Internet TV is going to be the future.

Re:I use Roku

[na1led]

Might also want to take a look at this too - http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/07/11/amazon-snaps-at-netflixs-heels-with-paramount-pictures-deal/

Re:Stop press!!

[icebike]

Geez, you kids today are so demanding.

Give him a break, his favorite TV channel is off the air and he's sitting there with nothing to do till it returns.

Net neutrality

[betterunixthanunix]

Net neutrality: ensuring that the Internet does not become like this.

Give up the addiction

[sl4shd0rk]

Cancel your cable. Go outside and enjoy it while it's still free.

In case you were wondering.

[Steauengeglase]

They own the following (via Wikipedia):

MTV, MTV2, MTV Tr3Âs, MTV Desi, MTV Hits, MTV Jams, mtvU, Nickelodeon, Nick 2/Nick at Nite, Nick Jr., TeenNick, Nicktoons, CMT, CMT Pure Country, CMT (Canada) (10%), TV Land, VH1, VH1 Classic, VH1 Soul, BET Networks, BET, BET Hip-Hop, BET Gospel, Centric, Palladia, Comedy Central, Logo, TMF, VIVA and Spike.

Of course the real loss there is Nickelodeon. Folks have to plop their kids down in front of something and no Nickelodeon or Nick Jr. means crying young 'uns and cancelled service. Not a pleasant thought if I were DirecTV.

Re:Terminate Contract?

[Animats]

I wonder if there is verbiage in consumer's contracts that allow them to end it early with no fee due to an adverse change

Yes. You can get out for $15.

(d) Our Programming Changes. Many factors affect the availability, cost and quality of programming and may influence the decision to raise prices and the amount of any increase. These include, among others, programming and other costs, consumer demand, market and shareholder expectations, and changing business conditions. Accordingly, we must reserve the unrestricted right to change, rearrange, add or delete our programming packages, the selections in those packages, our prices, and any other Service we offer, at any time. We will endeavor to notify you of any change that is within our reasonable control and its effective date. In most cases this notice will be about one month in advance. You always have the right to cancel your Service, in whole or in part, if you do not accept the change (see Section 5). If you cancel your Service, a deactivation fee (described in Sections 2 & 5(b)) or other charges may apply. Credits, if any, to your account will be posted as described in Section 5. If you do not cancel, your continued receipt of our Service will constitute acceptance.

Hilarious duelling message scrollers

[Gordo_1]

So I have DirecTV and was watching a DVRed show on ComedyCentral last night and noticed that Viacom had added a scrolling message to the bottom of the screen where they published the DirecTV customer service number and told everyone to call DirecTV to protest the removal of Viacom channels. So DirecTV allows that to stand, but shrunk the actual broadcast channel subtly, so they could fit their own scrolling message below the Viacom one telling subscribers that Viacom are greedy bastards that want to charge DirecTV a billion extra dollars for their channels.

Hilarious. Then it went black at 9pm PDT and switched to one of those generic channel selector guide channels.

Whatever... I guess I'll have to browse Youtube to get my fill of Tosh.0-style Internet video idiocy for a couple weeks until the babies work out an agreement.

Antitrust?

[jgoemat]

Of course the real loss there is Nickelodeon.

Of all these channels, the only one I really care about is Comedy Central, but I might watch something on Spike every once in a while. Do you think Viacom would be doing this if we could buy individual channels? They make money from ads which they bombard us with more and more every year. I think Viacom would be happy that their ads are getting to more households. I find it ridiculous that I have to pay for BET Gospel and CMT Pure Country when all I want to watch is South Park.

Re:Costs vs Promises

[jnaujok]

So, you would prefer that DirecTV simply accept any rate increase of the content provider and pass them on to you? So, the $1B increase ($50/year/subscriber) should just be passed on to you? Like Viacom says, "it's only pennies a day."

And once that precedent is set, when Disney want's another $5 a month, and HBO does, and every other network, and your bill goes to $400 a month, will you vent your anger at the content providers or will you scream at DirecTV for not attempting to argue with the content providers to maintain a fair rate?

I'm no fanboi of DirecTV (although I do have it) but I'd rather they fought against a price increase even if it means temporarily losing channels, rather than tagging another $5 a month onto my bill.

Re:Greedy Networks

[bws111]

No, you don't remember that, because it never happened. Originally your cable subscription was just re-transmission of OTA broadcasts, complete with all the commercials. In the mid 70's HBO came along, and for an additional fee you could watch movies commercial free - still true today. In the late 70's cable companies offered regional programming (sports, mostly), again for an additional fee (either monthly subscription or pay-per-view). Today, most of those regional channels (and many, many, more) have moved to some sort of 'extended basic' package, for a fee far less than was what was charged in the 70's. Those channels now have ads, but are no longer 'premium' channels. One of the first real 'cable' channels was MTV, and it was indeed commercial-free - for the first 10 minutes of it's existence.

This magical time when cable was commercial-free that you are 'remembering' never existed.

Re:Costs vs Promises

[icebike]

I prefer that Direct TV absorb the cost for the remainder of my contract, and raise it at the end of my contract, just like rent (because that is what it is).

After all, the impasse is over a trivial amount: "Viacom is asking DirecTV for a rate increase of a couple pennies per day, per subscriber."

At the end of their contract with the providers they should give plenty of advanced warning to the customers, and if an impasse is reached, a price reduction to reflect the reduced content should be offered to the DirectTV subscribers.

Re:This is not the first time and will not be the

[PRMan]

I, for one, am very happy they do this. This allows them to have the broadest selection of channels for the lowest price.

Notshow business...

[FatdogHaiku]

First they came for MTV,
and I didn't speak out because it had died twenty years ago.

Then they came for Comedy Central,
and I didn't speak out because it's a big loop of the same old stuff.

Then they came for the Kardashians,
and I bought them lunch and a full tank of gas.

I know E! is not owned by Viacom, but a person can dream, can't they?

Re:Costs vs Promises

[wbav]

https://xkcd.com/1070/

I did miss the word couple. My fault there; however, the word couple doesn't always mean the same thing depending on the speaker/writer.

That said, why does Viacom deserve a raise, when the rest of us are having to do more for less money? Are they dropping ads? Nope. Are they offering more content? Nope.

In fact from the Viacom website:
At approximately 11:50 p.m., DirecTV dropped 26 Viacom channels, including:

Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV, BET, VH1, CMT, Logo, Spike, TV Land, MTV2, VH1 Classic, Palladia, Nick Jr., NickToons, TeenNick, Nickelodeon West, Tr3s, Centric, MTV India, Nickelodeon HD, Comedy Central HD, MTV HD, BET HD, VH1 HD, CMT HD and Spike HD.

This matches with the claim from DirecTV that Viacom is double counting the HD channels.

Furthermore, Viacom pulled their full episodes of Colbert/Daily Show for everyone. They'd rather pull content for everyone instead of having a few people get access another way. That's just wrong. Viacom is coming off as a bully here.