All Hail Brak!
|
Yes
Absolutely.
I have Time Warner & I like watching Nick@Nite. |
|
RED
 |
I think they should give them the the money they want- Time Warner will lose tons of customers if they don't. I for one will be going to satellite if I lose 18 channels and they still want 70 bucks a month from me. |
|
Jay P
|
Why? Viacom is already banking in so much cash, they're greedy. |
|
JAMES2K
|
yes |
|
JJB
 |
So once again on the heels of temper tantrum between media giants the consumer loses or so it may seem. While Viacom and Time Warner wage PR wars against each other, trying to convince viewers that they are on the side of the consumer, we find ourselves caught in the middle. Well many of us are simply getting fed up...with all of them. So let me explain the risk they take...the little people who they take every last cent they can squeeze from us, all the while raking in profits from advertising, might just revolt. We might remind them that we aren't dumb enough to think that we are powerless here, because THEY need US and all our sets of eyes that allow them to reap their hefty profits from advertisers. So here is a message to both of them...in this day and age we can replace them with other shows on other networks, we can ditch our cable and use other avenues to watch programs(like the internet...LOVE the pirates!!). They need us more than we need them. So let me suggest that they take the last of our 2 cents we have to offer and that they both settle their little power struggle before we all just move on without them both. |
|
debijs
|
~~Time Warner is trying to keep consumer bills down. I think it's the wrong time to ask for increases from either party. I am glad TW is fighting the increase. Cable is expensive enough. Let Viacom get their increases from advertisers.~~ |
|
cornwalace
|
It's a double-edged sword.
If Time Warner provides the increase that Viacom is requesting, many Time Warner subsidiaries as well as Time Warner themselves will have to increase the monthly rate that they charge customers in order to compensate. Nobody wants to pay Timegher bill, and Time Warner know's this. They are avoiding the increase and cannot eat the costs themselves, or the cable companies themselves will go under.
If Viacom pulls their channels from Time Warner, Viacom will not receive any money from those channels, and request an even higher increase from the companies that Viacom already have contracts with. Not only that, but, they will loose more viewers by limiting who they will allow to watch their show. |
|
josuna123
 |
If what they say will only be 23 cents extra a month, I figure they should pay Viacom. We already have outrageous fees from Time Warner and 23 cents a month I would pay to watch my channels. For less than a penny a day to watch 19 great channels, I say Time Warner should just give it up and listen to the customers already. |
|
Beth Erin
 |
You know everyone says they are glad they aren't going to raise their bill by not accepting a deal and paying viacom money.... are they planning to drop our bills if they dont? I mean are we gonna have to pay for the channels we arent going to get anymore? This freakin sucks anyway. WTF? No Daily Show or Colbert Report? and... my son LOVES noggin.... yeah, try explaining to a 2 year old why he cant watch Oswald anymore. If they dont deal with them then my family for one and I know many others will be switching to dish. They're saying it would be like an extra 3 bucks a mnth on everyone's bill... what's 3 bucks when you already pay an arm and a leg for it? Yeah, so insane. |
|
thatssoscene13
|
Yes, I think they should. They only want them to raise the bill by 23 cents. You can find that under your couch monthly. |
|
Brian A
 |
I think they both suck. I think TWC should use the extra $10 they plan on charging me starting next month to pay off Viacom.
Satellite here I come!
Edit:
TWC is trying to keep costs down, my hiney! |
|
Jim ((C.A.B.))
|
Viacom's at fault. They want their financial problems resolved at the expense of TWC customers. |
|
Best Answer
|
Do people honestly think this is a fued over 23 cents a month per customer? Its got to be more than that- Think about all the On Demand you get with those channels. Viacom is certainly being greedy, like they dont have enough money and Time Warner is really trying to reason with them- its Viacom choice to turn the channels off tonight- Time Warner asked for an extension until a resolution is found.
Hopefully our channels will only be off for a week and they can get it resolved by then. |
|
REDALERT
|
Oh I think it's greed, I mean come on, MTV is an Icon for our generation so is Nickelodeon. If they let those stations fail I think cable companies like Qwest, Comcast, Direct TV would loose a lot of customers. |
|
speaking_my_mind
 |
The only reason why Viacom is asking for more money is because they've lost $8 billion this year. Do you know why they are probably losing money? They are probably losing ad revenues because their ratings having been going down for years. Why are they asking TWC customers to pay more for channels they watch less? Aren't MTV and VH1 supposed to be music channels? MTV and VH1 only show music videos when people are asleep and they just show sleazy reality shows all day. Besides the early morning young children's shows, Nickelodeon sucks now too. What is Viacom's solution to this? They want us to pay extra for their other packages like they are HBO or something just so we can watch old and non-mainstream music videos. Don't get me wrong, I hate Time Warner Cable's monopoly on all of the apartment complexes in my area though. |
|
| |
|
Homepage 
Financial
Forum 
Corporations 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
