ChiefWahoo
New member
Re: Versus on Directv - Enough is Enough!!!
When did Versus start broadcasting College Hockey?data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0105d/0105d4d364e81077443e2ccf09dd58bb3b6a1efa" alt="Confused :confused: :confused:"
When did Versus start broadcasting College Hockey?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0105d/0105d4d364e81077443e2ccf09dd58bb3b6a1efa" alt="Confused :confused: :confused:"
When I'm at the gym around that time, it always seems like ESPN has a college basketball game on. They never have the deuce on so I'm not sure what they have on. The poker places may be buying the time from ESPN. Most times I've seen poker are during the afternoons and late evenings.
ESPN broadcasts the WSOP from July-November in prime time.
But that's not the big hang-up as I understand it.
Comcast wants Directv to keep Versus on the same subscriber tier it's always been on, yes. That we agree on. But that's not the main issue as I've understood it -- and it's something Comcast conveniently leaves out of all their press releases.
Comcast wants to charge Directv the SAME money per-subscriber that they charge Dish Network for carrying Versus.
The whole problem is that Dish doesn't have Versus on a "basic" package -- it's on a higher, more premium package of some kind. That enables Dish to offset Versus' higher per-subscriber costs (which most feel are too high anyway given the channel's ratings and overall programming) by charging a premium for the package it's in. Given how low the interest is in Versus overall, that seems to be the most equitable thing to do -- but Comcast isn't allowing Directv to do that.
What Comcast wants is for Directv to keep Versus in the basic package it was in -- but charge Directv as if it's in a premium package, when it isn't. Ultimately, under Comcast's demands, one article guessed that Directv could pay up to 20% more per-customer than Dish Network does -- can you blame them for not agreeing to go along with that deal?
I'm not going to cry a river for Directv either when two big corporations go at it, but to me, seems like Comcast is the one making the most demands for a channel that has, in the big picture, very limited appeal.
What makes the most sense is for Comcast to allow Directv to move Versus to the premium Sports Pack (which is where it ought to be, most hockey fans like us already have it, and you'd have a hard time justifying Versus being on a "basic" package given its paltry ratings) like they allow Dish Network to do. Then Comcast gets their fees. But Comcast, apparently, wants to have their cake and eat it too -- they want the most viewers, while also charging a premium for them. At this point in time with a channel that has very, very small ratings outside of the NHL I'd say they're the ones demanding more than Directv is.
And it might be more complicated than that -- Directv and Comcast have been bickering over some of the regional sports networks' contracts, so that's probably tied in to some degree.
Either way, we're all the big losers in the end.![]()
Thank you for this good insight. That's why I started this thread...to flesh out the issues and try to make some sense of this mess. I agree with you that it would make sense to move Versus to the Sports Pack on Directv. You are right, if you're a hockey fan, you're already paying for that package so what's the diff? All I know is that its going to suck to not be able to watch playoff hockey. It all boils to one thing: G-R-E-E-D!!!!
If there are any class-action lawyers out there, might be a good case worth looking into.
Why? DirecTV customers are not victims of any kind of crime or consumer fraud perpetuated by DirecTV. Comcast and DirecTV are not doing anything illegal to each other. They are attempting to make business deals in their own best interests. Comcast has a service it is willing to offer for a price. DISH Network and DirecTV are two completely separate entities doing a similar business but offering it in different ways. No law on the books exists that says Comcast has to offer Versus to both under the same terms. While greed on the part of both is the major underlying cause in this dispute, it isn't against the law.
People might have a cause if their contract specifically mentioned Versus, but DTV can add and drop networks whenever they want.
As far as the Versus situation goes -- I truly believe Comcast is just trying to exploit the one (and only) big property they have. It's like they want Vs. to be treated like ESPN when it's a far cry, obviously, from it. If another big provider ends up at loggerheads with Comcast then I think they'll probably start negotiating.
Why? DirecTV customers are not victims of any kind of crime or consumer fraud perpetuated by DirecTV. Comcast and DirecTV are not doing anything illegal to each other. They are attempting to make business deals in their own best interests. Comcast has a service it is willing to offer for a price. DISH Network and DirecTV are two completely separate entities doing a similar business but offering it in different ways. No law on the books exists that says Comcast has to offer Versus to both under the same terms. While greed on the part of both is the major underlying cause in this dispute, it isn't against the law.
So you practice class action law?
Do you?
While watching the Bruins v Devils last night on Versus (I have Dish Net), I heard "Doc" Emmrick welcome Direct TV viewers.
Sorry I didn't catch the channel number, but congrats to all Direct TV hockey fans who were held hostage all season.