Verizon deletes the Outdoor Channel.
Then the Weather Channel.
Now the Sony Channel.
Do the folks in charge think I don't care?
My neighbor went to Comcast from FIOS and never looked back!
I suggest to the powers at Verizon to restore these channels, or I'll soon join my neighbor.
You folks don't decrease my bill when you give me less service, and you think that's OK?
I liked those channels, and I've about had enough with you dropping them without adjusting my bill, ecause you're giving me less than I signed up for.
Do what you have to do to get them back, or I'll seriously concider the flyers from your competition that I get in the mail every week.
Regards,
{edited for privacy}
What has been stated is that channels are being dropped because the number of viewers doesn't warrant the cost.
Even though channels are being dropped, others are renewed at a higher cost that is offsetting the savings from the dropped channels.
I would suggest looking at Comcast forums to see if they have done similar actions.
@bobbo527 wrote:
While I completely agree with you about the frustration of Sony being dropped (I am very unhappy about it as well), you are only fooling yourself if you think Comcast is any better. Comcast is far worse when it comes to dropping channels (AND raising prices at the same time) and always has been.
Actually itโs a game ALL providers play. And the one that suffers is the customer.
content providers and networks all want more money to boost their revenues.
then cable companies and Fios tv and satellite tv companies donโt want to pay those increased programming costs. Then itโs the consumer that is held hostage. In some instances Verizon and cable etc. give in and pay more. Then the customers get dinged for more money and the vicious cycle continues.
How to break the cycle is for consumers to stop paying these outlandish prices and then when the companies see that numbers are falling more and more, they will take notice and the content providers will be out. And with cable and Fios tv dumping stations it can only be a short time before they go under.
This is why tv like Sling, DirectTVNOW and a few others can offer 150+ stations for $35 and no taxes or bogus surcharges or insidious sports fees tacked on is the way to go.
Throw In Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Acorn & BritBox and you save a load of money each month.
I'm guessing it is only a matter of time before content providers starting holding up streaming services for higher fees as well.
They have a certain amount of income they need. If too many people switch over from cable, they will start losing money.
@CRobGauth wrote:I'm guessing it is only a matter of time before content providers starting holding up streaming services for higher fees as well.
They have a certain amount of income they need. If too many people switch over from cable, they will start losing money.
I read that today online. The companies like Verizon and Charter, Cox etc. are seeing the exodus and Wall Street analysts like Moffett are saying if it continues then they will raise the broadband prices so it will be a pay me now, or you will pay me higher later.
of course if community broadband escalates then these providers will be out.
Folks, I do understand that it's all a corporate profit numbers concideration, when they drop a channel because the channel wants too much money.
BUT, the Outdoor channel, the Weather channel, and now the Sony channel?
That's too many popular channels gone (at least popular with this customer).
Seems to me that Verizon cares more about aserting their negotiotion prowness than satisfying their customers.
Yes, all the providers do it; but Verizon's competitors offer what I want.
So, I'm looking.
That's all.
Joe
I agree. Big company like Verizon shouldn't be cutting cost by removing The Weather Channel and replacing it with AccuWeather. You add the channel and then maybe eventually remove the one that is less watched.
Weather channel (and others) are being dropped at renewal time.
Verizon stated that the number of viewers of TWC wasn't worth the cost.
There are two parts to the cost of every channel.
1) Fixed cost to connect to content and distribute to customers.
2) Cost per subscriber. Cable companies pay for every subscriber whose package contains a channel. With TWC being in all packages, Verizon pays for everyone. Accuweather was almost if not free.
Yes more people would have watched TWC. but would they be willing to pay extra for it?
Same with a lot of the other channels either being dropped or moved to higher packages only. Cable companies have to balance content price increases with the fact that a large number (I would presume) of their customers are on contract. So while content prices are rising, income is fixed. Only changing as people come up for renewal.
So they have to make decisions. Just like the customers. When time comes for renewal, make the decision that gives you the best bang for your buck.
@Naps33 wrote:I agree. Big company like Verizon shouldn't be cutting cost by removing The Weather Channel and replacing it with AccuWeather. You add the channel and then maybe eventually remove the one that is less watched.
What you and others are not aware of. Verizon is not cutting costs. Just like cable companies they remove stations either on their own for reasons known only to them. Or under the retransmission fights when providers want more moola and Verizon wants the same pricing or lower.
The big issue here is like cable companies, your customer pricing is not reduced. Do you get less for paying the same or more.
The point is the Weather Channel & Bloomberg is on every major cable system Charter/TWC Spectrum Altice/Optimum Comcast/Xfinity ATT/DirectTV Dish. Verizon is a bigger overall company (Market Cap) than all except ATT.
FiOS is separate business from other parts of Verizon. So overall market cap doesn't help, FiOS has to stand on its own.
@Naps33 wrote:The point is the Weather Channel & Bloomberg is on every major cable system Charter/TWC Spectrum Altice/Optimum Comcast/Xfinity ATT/DirectTV Dish. Verizon is a bigger overall company (Market Cap) than all except ATT.
Verizon is not a bigger company in relations to tv and broadband Fios to the others.
its an umbrella company with wireless and other ventures included. Entertainment and email companyโs and other background firms acquisitions.
Verizon is not the largest. Also AT&T has been bankrupt 3 times. The owners I believe are southwestern bell now who bought the trade name. There is very little AT&T left today.
ATT is the largest telecom company in the world.
They actually own Southwestern Bell not the other way around.
It to owns lots of smaller divisions that make it up.
@CRobGauth wrote:ATT is the largest telecom company in the world.
They actually own Southwestern Bell not the other way around.
It to owns lots of smaller divisions that make it up.
Nope from the web site:
quote โ SBC purchased former parent AT&T Corporation and took on its branding, with the merged entity naming itself AT&T Inc. and using the iconic AT&T logo and stock-trading symbolโ
full article is here, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T
it bought out its parent (Southwestern Bell was diversified from AT&T it then changed its name to SBC Corporation which is southwestern bell Corporation with just using their initials)
AT&T went belly up in bankruptcy and was bought out. The AT&T of yesterday is gone.
@CRobGauth wrote:ATT is the largest telecom company in the world.
They actually own Southwestern Bell not the other way around.
It to owns lots of smaller divisions that make it up.
Pops I forgot, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/030216/worlds-top-10-telecommunications-companies.asp
AT&T is not the largest telecom company in the world. See list at link.
@jonjones wrote:
@CRobGauth wrote:ATT is the largest telecom company in the world.
They actually own Southwestern Bell not the other way around.
It to owns lots of smaller divisions that make it up.
Pops I forgot, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/030216/worlds-top-10-telecommunications-companies.asp
AT&T is not the largest telecom company in the world. See list at link.
Should say โoopsโ not pops. I hate spell check ๐
Funny how the article says market value is the discriminator but then lists att 3rd even though it has the largest market value.
@CRobGauth wrote:Funny how the article says market value is the discriminator but then lists att 3rd even though it has the largest market value.
That is true, 245 billion versus Verizonโs 161 billion. Although the numbers donโt jive they would be number 2 in the world behind China Telecom.
They are in terms of market cap but not customers served.
Start a new topic or ask questions in the open forum.
