Yes, it would be interesting to be able to hear BOTH sides.
Lets have a debate between the two companies so we can REALLY see what they are in dispute about.
DirecTV / Versus dispute: Who's side are you on?
- Thread starter TomCat4680
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 60
- Views 8K
- Status
Yes, it would be interesting to be able to hear BOTH sides.
Lets have a debate between the two companies so we can REALLY see what they are in dispute about.
The article I posted earlier in this thread a little after noon kind of said the same thing that Comcast's main issue was the channel being moved to the sports package. Both sides are going to spin things to make themselves look like the victim. The truth is, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
The article has been updated with a reply from DirecTV.
Updated: Versus-DirecTV Dispute About Subscriber Loss - 2009-09-02 15:48:18 EDT | Multichannel News
Updated: Versus-DirecTV Dispute About Subscriber Loss - 2009-09-02 15:48:18 EDT | Multichannel News
Well... considering:
Since I've been with D* (for over 2 years) I haven't seen any programming disputes like this before, leading me to believe that D* is usually fair when it comes to programming deals, unlike E* which seems to frequently have disputes...
ALL Cable companies that own sporting networks are basically d*cks about it, ESPECIALLY when it comes to making deals with Satellite companies. For example, I don't understand why I live in New England yet Comcast Sports New England is not part of my local RSN deal. And no, I'm not going to pay extra for the Sports Package when I wouldn't even be able to watch NBA games on it. It doesn't make sense that I can watch the Nets and Knicks games but I can't watch Celtics games.
Versus is in NO position to request extra money for it's programming. Unless you're a die-hard NHL or MMA fan or just love watching infomercials, you probably wouldn't even notice if Versus was removed.
Given all that, I'm on D*'s side in this thing. That doesn't mean that I think that D* is a shining star and deserves NO blame whatsoever, but unless some other major facts come out of this to the contrary, I don't see myself siding with a fledgling network owned by a cable company.
Since I've been with D* (for over 2 years) I haven't seen any programming disputes like this before, leading me to believe that D* is usually fair when it comes to programming deals, unlike E* which seems to frequently have disputes...
ALL Cable companies that own sporting networks are basically d*cks about it, ESPECIALLY when it comes to making deals with Satellite companies. For example, I don't understand why I live in New England yet Comcast Sports New England is not part of my local RSN deal. And no, I'm not going to pay extra for the Sports Package when I wouldn't even be able to watch NBA games on it. It doesn't make sense that I can watch the Nets and Knicks games but I can't watch Celtics games.
Versus is in NO position to request extra money for it's programming. Unless you're a die-hard NHL or MMA fan or just love watching infomercials, you probably wouldn't even notice if Versus was removed.
Given all that, I'm on D*'s side in this thing. That doesn't mean that I think that D* is a shining star and deserves NO blame whatsoever, but unless some other major facts come out of this to the contrary, I don't see myself siding with a fledgling network owned by a cable company.
I voted Versus, belive it or not, simply because I want my hockey, regardless of 25 cents, 30 cents, whatever per month that DirecTV has to pay.
Directv can burn in hell for all I care. Until they stop gouging customers just because they can directv can bite me. And that goes for Dish and Comcast too, BTW.
See, I am an equal opportunity hater....
There's no reason ANY subscription service has to be so expensive. We,as customers, have been promised cheaper TV since pay tv was invented. And all we have gotten was the shaft. I wouldn't be against making it illegal for any channel that plays commercials or any kind of advertising to change for said channel. Its time consumers get what we were promised so long ago. Oh and while I am at it, i also make it illegal to encrypt any signal with commercial advertising on it.
There, that should do it.
See, I am an equal opportunity hater....
There's no reason ANY subscription service has to be so expensive. We,as customers, have been promised cheaper TV since pay tv was invented. And all we have gotten was the shaft. I wouldn't be against making it illegal for any channel that plays commercials or any kind of advertising to change for said channel. Its time consumers get what we were promised so long ago. Oh and while I am at it, i also make it illegal to encrypt any signal with commercial advertising on it.
There, that should do it.
I did find Versus' semi-sarcastic remark about Directv being the "sports leader" a bit interesting. Basically, they're saying that you can't be the leader unless you carry them. Well, by golly, if a provider HAS to carry your network go ahead and demand .80 cents instead of .27. I don't believe that comment bolstered their position.
Both sides are trying to better their situation. We'll just see who blinks first, I suppose.
Sounds like D* is experiencing some of the same tactics E* has had to face with contract negotiations with providers. 
I'm just glad I'm not a "juror" in a case like this since, admittedly a DTV subs, I am "biased" against Comcast not solely due to the Vs issue, but the other ones....no CSN Philly in their home mkt, no CSN Northwest in that region. I don't like the "no satt feeds" trend from Comcast. I admit that, as others have pointed out here, DTV's house may not be pristine either (ST exclusive contract that I suppose upsets other carriers), but Comcast, to me, represents a "conflict of interest" threat that may snowball soon.
I could not vote as it was posted before I do not know enough to VOTE.. But after I sell my home DTV will not make the move with me I enjoy watching Pro Cycling and VS's is the only place to see the races....
Based on that article now, I believe this network will dark at least tell next year sometime. I also would probably now support versus on this and not directv considering the fact they shouldn't be trying to put this channel in a more restricted package.
i can't vote because there isn't a third option. both sides aren't totally telling the truth as they are spinning the dispute in their favor. somewhere inbetween is the real truth. hence, i don't favor either side, i just want the real truth.
I totally agree. Both companies are spinning/bending the truth to make themselves look like the victim. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
It's like taking sides on a playground. Is this really how corporate negotiations go down? Both sides are putting out public statements that are basically the equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"
DIRECTV: Versus on DIRECTV
http://www.versus.com/nw/article/vie...le_2column.tpl
The only real losers (as always) are the consumers.
DIRECTV: Versus on DIRECTV
http://www.versus.com/nw/article/vie...le_2column.tpl
The only real losers (as always) are the consumers.
I think Comcast is trying to pull a Dolan Family game like they do with MSG HD. They want to stop subscriber defect to other companies. I am a hockey fan but dont care if we get Versus back. I am all in favor of move the HD bandwith to something else like ESPNU or AMC or Travel as I stated in another post.
- Status
