It's Dec 7 and Verizon just notified us via email that Bloomberg TV (ch 604) would be dropped. on Dec 8!
I like this station and it is not the same as their mobile offerings. I am disturbed that Verizon is reducing my service
I just received email informing of the above change...you must be kidding!!! Bloomberg TV has some of the best quality business, technology and other news content available. I watch Bloomberg TV live on various TVs throughout my house for hours every day, and to have to mess around with an app that only easily permits viewing on small iPad/ computer screens is ridiculous. I pay Verizon so I can access good content, and if you need to pay Bloomberg some reasonable price to access content so be it. You guys need to rethink/ reverse this.
Agree completely.
I agree. The online Live TV feed does not have the scrolling news banner on the right of the tv screen, nor does it have the financial banner across the bottom that alternates the current values of the various indices that alternates with the 2 day trend chart. And staring at the little screen is not comparable to watching on the TV. If the TV is on in the background, one can catch a story that interests, rather than having to be staring at one's phone all day in case something of interest occurs. The content and depth of this channel is not matched by any other alternative "like" channels offered. It's the first channel I put on in the morning and view often throughout the day. Please reverse this decision immediately. There are dozens and dozens of channels of little or no value in your offering, cut them if you are looking to reduce costs and keep this one whose value is unmatched. And for verizon to suggest what amounts to cutting the cord seems to be not in their own best interest. Is this the first salvo fired in the net neutrality discussion ??
I totally agree...I taped most of my Bloomberg shows to watch whenever I was available. Streaming does not offer that...there are many quality shows on Bloomberg that many viewers will miss.
Take away Bloomberg. Takeaway Weather Channel. I have an expired Triple Play with Extreme HD, 75 Mbps and unlimited digital voice. Verizon takes away two of my primary channels. I like to flip between CNBC and Bloomberg without going from one source to another. I am annoyed to the limit. Comcast is beckoning. Verizon see the light and give us back Bloomberg TV.
We need Net Neutrality NOW. This is just the beginning.
@Dave41 wrote:
We need Net Neutrality NOW. This is just the beginning.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with this.
That governs how ISPs carry content.
Not cable providers
Totally, totally agree. Verizon's logic makes no sense and seems very self serving. I watched Bloomberg more than any other station. Boo to Verizon.
Bloomberg TV is a true Business information program. As a Verizon stock holder I am deeply disapointed that Verizon would choose to drop a legitiment business content program instead of negotiating a settlement in order to satisfy its customers. So if I read this note on the TV screen where Bloomberg used t be featured. Verizon was previously receiving Bloomberg content for free, but charging us Verizon customers for broad casting the content. Now that Bloomberg wants to charge Verizon, Verizon has chosen to what amounts to breaking its contract with its customers by removing Bloomberg content from the contracted Fios package. Is there a monthly price reduction coming our way? I would love to hear the Verizon spin on that one. Continuing to broadcast CNBC and MSNBC are poor substitutes for the Bloomberg content. I am looking into switching to Comcast and getting rid of Verizon Fios, and that statement is coming from a Verizon stock holder. Listen up Verizon.
As a stockholder, wouldn't you be concerned about Verizon taking on additional costs while having to delay revenue increases (can't raise rates on those with contracts).
As for number of viewers, Verizon, like most other providers know exactly how many subacribers are watching each channel and for how long. That's how they make nth cost justifications for knowing when to drop or move channels from plans.
And it is allowed under contracts (as it is with most providers)
^^^No - I am not concerned about such things as a stock holder because cutting service(s) aka "cost cutting" is not a viable long-term growth strategy; it does nothing to increase PVGO, which is what really drives valuation. Instead, it is used to meet the Street's quarterly earnings expectations so that executives can hit bonus thresholds and cash-in their ESOs or whatever compensation scheme they have "earned."
Yeah, Bloomberg is great, and no, the "free" version does not cut it as others have pointed out. But on the brightside, thank you Verizon for continuing to provide us with "sophistcated" finance/business offerings such as Fox Business and CNBC.
However, with regards to managing costs, I think that the $/perks Verizon is expensing on PR for its online feedback/discussion forums would be better spent retaining critical content such as Bloomberg TV. And as I sarcastically quipped above, Fox Business and CNBC are not viable alternatives, nor is the "free" version on other platforms.
And finally, why would Verizon want its customers to turn off their Fios boxes and plug into other platforms to watch content it no longer provides? That makes absolutely zero sense. Verizon's goal should be to keep its customers locked into their Fios settop boxes for as long as possible, so that they are exposed to the the maximum amount of opportunities to purchase upgrades and on-demand content. Why was I not offered the chance to pay Verizon for Bloomberg? Does management not understand that the people complaining about the Bloomberg drop have the disposable income to pay them for it?
Poor management all-around. This really was an absurd decision.
Offering a channel for a fee is not something you can do at the drop of a hat.
There are two types of costs when providing content.
1) Fixed costs - there is a fixed cost associated with connectivity to the content provider.
2) Per subscriber costs - Cable companies pay for every customer that has a channel in their package. Whether they watch it or not.
So in order to offer content on a pay per subscriber model, you have to be fairly certain that you will get enough subscribers to cover both costs. And know that you are competing against a free, although lesser, version of the content you are trying to sell.
And finally, I would assume, you have to get the content provider to agree with the arrangement. And hope they don't want an even larger fee. Keep in mind that the reason it was dropped is because they were going from offering the content for free, albeit only on subscriber basis not fixed cost if I had to guess, to one where there was a per subscriber fee. Verizon did what any company would do and look at costs and revenue and make a business decision.
Only time will tell if they lose customers strictly because of this content is dropped. If they can even tell for sure.
You falsely assume that Verizon did what “any company” would do given the circumstances you presented. Sustained profitability is not a simple function of revenue less costs; factors such as the value derived from branding/image and the potential of future growth opportunities, despite their one-period negative impact to earnings, must be considered. The “cut and run” messaging as delivered by your Company is simply unintelligent, especially given it’s message to get the content from “somewhere else.” Why any company would want to direct eyeballs elsewhere is fatal thinking in this day and age.
Couple of thigns:
1) Not sure what you mean by Verizon being my company. I am a customer just like you and have no ties to Verizon otherwise.
2) As for assuming they did what other companies would do, I have seen other cable companies act similarly. Maybe not telling people to seek out content on the Internet, but they all drop and change packages for content. Go to the Comcast forums and you will see complaints there that look similar to the ones posted here. All providers are struggling with the increasing demands of the content providers.
Verizo states:
Bloomberg is proposing that we pay for content that they make available to all consumers for free on their website and mobile app
Why are they only taking this stand now with a channel we cannot easily get on our TVs but yet have no problems paying carriage fees for content like CBS - content CBS makes available to all consumers for free over the air?
If Bloomberg is asking for too much VZ be honest and say that. To imply it’s a principle not to pay for something freely available elsewhere is outrageous when the lineup is full of channels in similar scenarios.
As a Verizon customer and stockholder I am not happy with the decision to remove Bloomberg TV. I watch(ed) Bloomberg TV on a regular basis on my TV and don't want to watch it on my phone or laptop. Haven't checked bill but will we be getting some sought of refund?
We lost the Weather Channel for lesser quality AccuWeather. We don't get QVC2, HSN2, CNBC Worldwide, HLN or SSpan channels in HD widescreen. It is 2018. Come on Verizon! Verizon Fios in NY should be the premier cable tv provider.
Agreed, this is a terrible decision. What is more, the message from Verizon implies the problem is Bloomberg has a free livestream online. The Verizon telling networks they can't offer a free livestream and still be part of the Verizon channel line up?
Verizon is clealy LYING I can not download an app and receive Bloomberg for Free.
Now I have to dump them and subscribe to Comcast.
What a useless company Verizon.
I am appalled that we are losing Bloomberg because verizon doesn't want to pay for its content. Really? I don't want sports and yet I have to a huge fee every month for a bunch of football and other games which I never watch and yet one of the best news channels is being cancelled. You are appallling. Why don't you start asking your clients what we want to watch and give us some choices.
This appears to be a NY area only issue.
I ahve not received an email about Bloomberg being dropped.
As for sports, you can choose pacakages that don't have sports to avoid those fees.
We all have to pay for channels that are part of our package we don't want or watch.
Verizon makes these choices (like they did with Weather channel) based on their costs and the amount of people that watch.
To tell you the truth, I didn't even realize we had Bloomberg.
And it may be the same with channels I watch and you don't.
Start a new topic or ask questions in the open forum.
