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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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...

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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?