Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Media Television Entertainment News

DirecTV Drops Viacom Channels 378

Posted by Soulskill
from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DirecTV Drops Viacom Channels

Comments Filter:
  • by sanosuke001 (640243) on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @02:25PM (#40618575)
    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?).
  • they are all evil (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alen (225700) on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @02:26PM (#40618593)

    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

  • by alen (225700) on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @02:29PM (#40618633)

    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:Breaking News (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Russ1642 (1087959) on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @02:33PM (#40618733)
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @02:34PM (#40618741)

    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.

  • by billcopc (196330) <> on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @02:37PM (#40618785) Homepage

    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.

  • I use Roku (Score:5, Insightful)

    by na1led (1030470) on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @02:37PM (#40618789)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @02:45PM (#40618925)
    Net neutrality: ensuring that the Internet does not become like this.
  • by alen (225700) on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @02:47PM (#40618955)

    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.

  • by sl4shd0rk (755837) on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @02:47PM (#40618957)

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @02:49PM (#40619003)

    If they were smart, they would.

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

  • by garyebickford (222422) <gar37bic@gm a i l . c om> on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @06:46PM (#40622791)

    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.

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn