Direct tv / Hearst dispute
 

In Moultonborough and just tuned in to ABC on Direct TV and was told unavailable due to dispute with Hearst. This is outrageous! Tried to contact both to no avail. Anyone have any ideas as to how to get this ridiculous dispute resolved? Neither seem to care about the consumer.

Happens often. Have Dish myself and can no longer get channel 7 from Boston. Also, no Celtics for the longest time


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

It's not that simple.

Hearst wants DirecTV to pay more money for their video feed which includes ABC. Hearst argues that DirecTV is offering "below market rates" for their services. If DirecTV agrees, they would pass the increased cost on to the consumer. Then the consumer would probably complain about rate increase which is not really a DirecTV issue.

So as a consumer, are you willing to pay ever increasing fees to the content providers like Hearst or do you want DirecTV to stand their ground to keep costs lower? Some want the service no matter what the price. Others want to keep their costs low and if cable/satellite increases, drop the service.

Be nice if cable/satellite/etc providers had à la carte offerings, with each channel provider charging its perceived value. If the cable/satellite/etc providers didn't gouge on their network costs, we might all get some relief. Channel providers like Hearst, believing watching channel 9 is worth the $50/month/subscriber, might wake up what their channel is really worth.

I get 200+ channels and only watch MAYBE 10, why should I subsidize the other 190 ?

I spoke in person with someone that works for the satellite company. Long story short, he said their contract was up and Hearst wants a 300% increase. And yes that cost would be passed on to subscribers:eek:

My sister lives in Mooresville. Not sure what her cable company is but they provide a la carte subscriptions and charged accordingly. Problem is, she is stuck with the initial subscription for a year. You can change annually but the price increased substantially!

Guess I will stick my Roku.

The same thing is happening in the Boston Market and a couple others. Fox 25 is no longer available on VERIZON Fios.

UPDATE: Verizon reached a deal with Fox on Saturday afternoon.

I'm considering the same, except I'd drop Xfinity. We do like and use Xfinity features that I don't see using ROKU. For example, DVR recordings. Any easy solution?

Can't you get these channels over the airwaves (antenna)?

Silicon Dust for a DVR solution
 

Look at SiliconDust HD Homerun product line for a DVR solution:
https://www.silicondust.com/

We use YouTube TV. Unlimited DVR, multiple simultaneous devices such as ROKU and tablets. Can use same account anywhere such as both home and on the island. In different parts of the country "local" channels will vary.

We also use Youtubetv
 

We use Youtubetv and while taking a train trip down to Orlando in Nov, on Mon night, with it being dark outside (no scenery), at 815 we were watching Monday Night Football at 815 that night. We were in a roomette with the door closed and the volume low, with the ly problem being quite bit of buffering. We also watched "our" local news while drinking our coffee, rather than Orlando.

Two Rokus for our two TVs. We went from almost $190 per mo to just over $100. We are looking at purchasing our own modem, and cut the $10 rental fee. We use our cell phones, no landline.

Back to DirecTV problems.

Dave

directv/hearst dispute
 

Since I mostly use Channel 9 for the local news, I agree that the rate increase is outrageous. I'd do without before I would pay that big an increase. When revenues drop off the chart, maybe WMUR will put pressure on Hearst to cave in. Not a good thing in the middle of an election year.

Have to disagree with. Not having channel 9 during a election year is a huge plus in my opinion


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Directv/Hearst dispute
 

As I expected, the dispute didn’t last long. Good to get local weather back.