MTV, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, Others Disappear From DirecTV

As we reported early Tuesday morning, contract negotiations between DirecTV and Viacom had broken down in recent days, meaning nearly 20 million satellite subscribers could be without 26 channels, including basic cable mainstays like MTV, Vh1, Comedy Central, and Nickelodeon. The deadline has come and gone, and those channels have vanished from DirecTV.

Reads a statement from Viacom:

We are deeply disappointed that DirecTV dropped Viacom’s channels before our midnight deadline this evening, severing our connection with its nearly 20 million subscribers nationwide. We proposed a fair deal that amounted to an increase of only a couple pennies per day, per subscriber, and we remained willing to negotiate that deal right up to this evening’s deadline. However, DirecTV refused to engage in meaningful conversation. We are hopeful that DirecTV will work with us toward a resolution, and stop denying its subscribers access to the networks they watch most.

The broadcaster says the last time it heard from DirecTV was around 11 a.m. on Tuesday morning, and that its channels went off the air or DirecTV users around 11:50 p.m. ET on Tuesday night.

Meanwhile, all the blacked-out channels have been replaced with a loop of DirecTV CEO Mike White explaining his company’s side of the story and claiming that the interruption is only temporary.

DirecTV claims that Viacom is asking for an additional $1 billion over what the satellite provider paid on the recently expired contract.

It has also joined its voice to the growing chorus of cable and satellite providers who opposed broadcasters’ bundling of higher-rated channels with barely watched offshoots and niche networks. DirecTV says customers shouldn’t have to pay for channels no one watches.

Of course, no cable or satellite companies are willing to let customers make a la carte choices for their cable packages, so it seems like a bit of a double standard.


Edit Your Comment

  1. lawnmowerdeth says:

    Please, just turn off MTV and MTV2, will that save enough money?

    • incident_man says:

      Who the hell watches MTV anymore anyway, in any of it’s myriad of forms? It surely isn’t for all the music.

      • beanycecil1 says:

        They have an audience about ten times that of CNN, counting all their channels of each combined. The demographic changes during the day but their key group is 16 to 24 year old sexually active young persons.

        A friend of mine in high school was a VJ on VH1 for a while, I watched then.

        • incident_man says:

          Heh. well I’d say it’s not too hard to beat CNN; even Fox Noise does that, and I wouldn’t call Fox Noise a credible news source.

          I can remember when MTV and MTV2 actually showed MUSIC videos, y’know because of its name…….Music Television. Now it’s just a collection of crap that no other network would air. The size and type of it’s demographic doesn’t speak well for the future of the Nation.

          • Anne Noise says:

            MTV hasn’t been “music television” in forever, and they’ve since dropped the “Music” from the name and are using the non-acronym MTV officially. They changed their core concept a decade ago, let’s all get over it.

            • incident_man says:

              Actually, I’ve been “over it” for several years now, ever since they stopped playing music videos and adopted their current trashy format. I don’t have the time anymore to sit in front of the tv to watch music videos anyway (or much of anything else for that matter); I just wanted to point out that they’re merely an empty shell compared to what they used to be ;).

              But then again, there are a lot of things that aren’t what they used to be.

    • akronharry says:

      I receive only barebones broadcast basic. The only “extra” station is the MTC Classics channel.
      Even it being “free”, I have never watched it.

  2. Jawaka says:

    “We proposed a fair deal that amounted to an increase of only a couple pennies per day, per subscriber,”

    PER DAY. $.03 cents a day for a year comes out to another $.90 per month for channels that I couldn’t give a rats ass about and $10.95 a year. Now multiply that by 20 million customers

    • Jawaka says:

      My kingdom for an edit button…

      • sayahh says:

        Nice catch. You can edit comments on Facebook now, why can’t we do that on here yet?

        • Opdelt says:

          This isn’t Facebook. This is a WordPress-powered website.

          • Draw2much says:

            I wish they’d implement that feature too. I’ve seen website that let you edit only once after posting or only after a certain amount of time. I don’t see why Consumerist is so against it. (Now that they have WordPress as their foundation it should definitely be possible.)

            Maybe some day……

    • nopirates says:

      viacom wanted an increase in the $1 billion range. they are being offered 1/5 of that which is why they are pissed.

      • CrazyEyed says:

        Yeah but how do you know they aren’t tossing figures out of their ass either. I could demand 100 Billion and pretend like I’m pissed if DirecTV only offered me 10 Billion.

  3. Pickin Grinnin says:

    “Of course, no cable or satellite companies are willing to let customers make a la carte choices for their cable packages, so it seems like a bit of a double standard.”

    That’s the part that makes both parties equally bad.

    • StarKillerX says:

      Well how could the cable companies offer it when they get the channels bundled to begin with?

      Using this as an example, I’d love to dtich all the MTV and other worthless stuff but keep comedy central, but how can my provider do that if they recieve them bundled?

  4. LordXar says:

    As a DirecTV customer I find this really annoying as I will miss Comedy Central while they work this out. Of course, its the only channel in their package I care about and would much rather be able to ONLY pay for it.

  5. sayahh says:

    It’s hard choosing which side/corporation to support. They both suck, but since I can get my fix of Comedy Central shows that I care about online (for now), I say good for you DirecTV for sticking to your guns.

    • NeverLetMeDown2 says:

      This is a big part of why Directv is being so aggressive here. So much of the Viacom content is available online for free or lower cost (especially Nick shows at Netflix), that it’s really annoying the cable and satellite guys.

  6. Rexy does not like the new system says:

    I have DirecTV, but nothing I’ll miss. Most programming sucks now anyways.

  7. CrackedLCD says:

    What sucks about this is the service provider is always in a lose-lose situation. Either they cave and pay the extra money (and pass it on to customers) or they take the hardball route and face torrents of angry customers over the loss of programming. MTV may be on the way down but Nick and CC alone generate huge viewership numbers. Angry people will blame DirecTV not Viacom, apologetic “setting the record straight” ads or not.

    And don’t think a la carte is the answer. If Viacom is contributing, say, $8 a month to your total cable/satellite bill for that bundle of channels, they’re going to price a la carte in such a way that you’re going to wind up paying $8 for ONE channel or $10 for the entire bundle. They will get theirs one way or the other and it’s going to be even more expensive to watch fewer, less interesting but more mainstream channels. Frankly, I’m OK with the bundling thing because it means the channels I like, but have little viewership, will stick around.

    The point is, you’re going to pay $120 for cable no matter what. The mega media companies will see to it while they simultaneously unplug your ability to legally watch stuff online for free.

    • LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese says:

      I dunno. It looks to me like DirecTV is winning the PR war via social media, especially since the aggregated cost of the fee increase comes up to a provocative figure ($1 billion). I hate those channels anyway so I’m glad they’re gone from DirecTV. My house is safe from Snooki!

    • LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese says:

      Forgot to mention that trade journals are reporting that ratings for most of Viacom’s programming have been flat or seen steep declines – the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch site says that according to Nielson, the average number of viewers aged 2 to 11 watching SpongeBob at any given time dropped 29% in the first quarter, from a year earlier.

  8. The hand that feeds, now with more bacon says:

    “We proposed a fair deal that amounted to an increase of only a couple pennies per day, per subscriber, and we remained willing to negotiate that deal right up to this evening’s deadline.”

    In other words millions of dollars a month. My guess is that is a couple pennies per channel per customer per day or a few dollars per customer per month…

  9. Blueskylaw says:

    It’s nice to see that corporate Ameri(k)a is headed towards the right direction: squabbling amongst themselves over pennies, proclaiming they are working/fighting for the “benefit” of their customers while the consumer is actually hurt by their actions and can only sit back and watch this
    “pay-per-view” like debacle.

  10. kathygnome says:

    DirecTV’s glacial pace on adding basic channels demonstrate how little they care about basic cable. If you don’t pay extra, it’s just not a priority. This opens up new space for lots of shiny new HD PPV!

    • dpeters11 says:

      We’re getting TCMHD this month and they have been increasing their bandwidth (one more HD channel per “slot”.) But yes, it certainly has slowed down for now.

  11. Sorta Kinda Lucky Soul says:

    And where is there any mention of a credit to subscribers who are being inconvenienced? Did I, perhaps, miss that part of the CEO’s statement???

    • Blueskylaw says:

      It’s buried in the fine print. Page 38,947. Paragraph J.
      Sub-paragraph 13. Section 8. Sentence 2. In comic sans font.

  12. palace_gypsy says:

    I don’t have DirecTV, how much lower will your bill be now that they don’t provide the channels you originally contracted for?

  13. nopirates says:

    viacom realizes that most people don’t give a damn about most of their channels. this is why they are bundled and you have to pay for CMT or BET or logo if all you care about is comedy central. this will never change.

    • Joedragon says:

      spike and comedy is all I really want and NO bevis and butthead = no MTV

      • BigDragon says:

        Sp – *commercial**commercial**commercial**commercial**commercial* – ik – *commercial**commercial**commercial**commercial**commercial* – e TV you say? I don’t see how that network is even watchable without a DVR with tons of storage capacity. Of all the networks in my lineup that is one of the worst when it comes to commercials and editing programming for time constraints.

        • Demoliiton Man says:

          This must be the same Spike TV that ran all the major E3 conferences commercial free, right?

          • Anne Noise says:

            One three day conference does not make up for a decade of terrible programming habits.

          • Jawaka says:

            Isn’t E3 just one big commercial anyway?

          • BigDragon says:

            Spike made that look like a booth babe exhibition. I’m not a fan of E3. Too much of the same rehashed stuff coming from the big dinosaur publishers. Too many products for antiquated consoles. I’d really like it if they shut E3 down and put the money saved from all the ridiculous marketing into reducing game prices. For everything other than E3, Spike is more than happy to put on more commercials than programming.

  14. techstar25 says:

    Hey, if you don’t like that you just lost 26 channels you can always cancel and pay the $250 early termination fee. So see, you do have other options.

    • Opdelt says:

      It’s actually $20 for each month left in your contract.

      • stellapurdy says:

        Haven’t the terms of the contract changed since the original channel line up you signed up for is no longer available, allowing the subscriber to opt out without a fee?

  15. bben says:

    The original premise of cable – the way they sold it to us when it first started up. NO commercials. you pay for the content with a monthly fee so commercials will never be seen. A channel for any niche. If you like Opera or Ballet instead of SitComs there will be a channel that shows opera or ballet, plus one just for the SitComs too. Sports from any sport and any team will be available live while the game is being played. And you get all this for about $20 a month! While at the same time you get to remove that unsightly TV antenna from your home. Of course, first run movies will cost a little extra. But older movies will included as part of the package on a separate movie channel. MTV was supposedly one of the first of the niche channels – a new idea. Watching recordings of the musicians playing their hit music. Just like the radio but for TV?

    They lied.

    I cut the cable. I have found I can actually live without the limited stuff that I did like and without the hundred or so channels of crap that I never watched but still had to pay for. I now get 21 channels of FREE over the air broadcasting, including 2 local weather channels, 2 local news channels, 2 old movie channels and 4 etv channels along with ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX. There are even 2 religious channels if you are into that.

    • Red Cat Linux says:

      I came here to say this, but you already said it. So, +1 to you.

      My Dish bill was up to $120 a month before I went to over the air HD. I woke up to the realization that I was paying for 200 channels of reality TV in all its sad forms, while the stuff I did want to watch made it to Netflix or Amazon Prime, sooner or later.

    • Jenny8675309 says:

      We pulled the plug about six years ago. We get about 40 open air channels, all our local (Providence and Boston) channels ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox’s, four different PBS, ION Tv, ME Tv, RTV, NBC Shopping Network, three Spanish channels, etc most in HD. We supplement with Amazon Prime, $79.00 for a year. I just purchased the entire second season of Breaking Bad for $10.99. I know that I’m behind on seasons but it’s not a deal breaker for us.

    • Not Given says:

      When I first got cable, we had 3 OTA network affiliates, cable added an NBC affiliate, a CBS affiliate, PBS and a local access channel. Nobody ever said anything about no ads except for HBO. For an extra monthly fee we got the box that sat on top of the tv with an on/off switch. You would put the tv on channel 4 and turn the box on to get HBO. I can’t remember if the first regular cable station we got after that was WGN or TBS.

    • lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

      Exactly. I remember when MTV came on the air. I begged my parents to get a cable box so we could receive MTV. They gave in, but I had to pay the extra fee from my summer job money. At that time, I think our cable company consisted of CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS (we are in a pretty dead OTA area), plus three NYC stations. That was it. BUT – you could get a little set top box, and buy just MTV or HBO if memory serves. We didn’t have to buy a bundle of channels.

      So, in my mind, we used to have ala carte service, but that’s long gone. It’s time to bring it back and let the marginal channels die.

    • momoftwokids says:

      Great that you get all those OTA channels. Now try living 100+ miles from the nearest town of over 50,000 people and see how many channels you get.

    • Draw2much says:

      That’s what bugs me worst of all. Why are people paying to watch commercials? The whole point of cable was to pay *so you didn’t have to watch commercials*. The fact that people slid so easily into paying to be advertised at makes me all types of sad….

      I don’t have cable, satellite or antenna either. I found most of the stuff I wanted went to DVDs, which I bought or rented, was already available legally online, or so niche I couldn’t find it on a cable channel anyway. So not only do I not understand why I should pay to be advertised at, I also don’t understand why I should pay for things I’ll never watch anyway.

      That being said, there is obviously SOMETHING appealing to the cable setup. People still use it. I believe folks like me and you are still something of a rarity.

  16. Jenny8675309 says:

    Why are people still paying for cable and satellite service? The majority of programming is crap. Get an antenna and supplement your watching with Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu, etc. You can buy a la carte and save big bucks.

    • Opdelt says:

      This is exactly what I do! I cut the cord (DirecTV) a few months ago. A $20 HD Antenna from and a few streaming subscriptions through my Roku (Amazon and Hulu). Crackle is a great free option as well.

      • Jenny8675309 says:

        And I bet that you are not sad with the extra money that you are saving while watching exactly what you want! We’ve saved thousands of dollars cutting that cord.

        • sock says:

          We cut DirecTV 2.5 years ago. I continued to put the amount we would have spent on DirecTV into a travel savings account and that money paid for a bike tour of the Netherlands.

          Never going back to cable or satellite TV.

      • HogwartsProfessor says:

        I’m happy with it too, or I would be if my stupid AT&T DSL would stay consistent. I’m sick of the Roku cutting out for hours when my speed hiccups. At least I can still watch stuff on the computer. But I wanted to watch on the TV; that’s why I GOT the thing.

        I can’t switch ISPs now because there isn’t a cheaper option.

        • frank64 says:

          I have Verizon DSL for $32 a month and it streams great. I know I am lucky because I get OTA channels great and get inexpensive internet. I haven’t had cable way before it was fashionable, at least 10 years.

    • VintageLydia says:

      Not everyone has an option to get OTA local channels because they live in a valley or a basement apartment or some place else where it’s almost impossible to get a signal or use a decent antenna.

      • frank64 says:

        I think most in that situation can get basic cable for around $20 a month?

        • HogwartsProfessor says:

          I was trying to do that with DirecTV, but they kept jacking it up. I would have to call and get them to adjust it. Finally I called to cancel (because still no job) and they talked me into suspending it instead. The suspension is up in November, but I’m thinking about going ahead and canceling before then. It’s not costing me anything now and I’m not missing anything. When I do get a job, if it’s a decent one, I might just go ahead and ditch the DSL and landline, and go smartphone and cable internet (assuming I can get good service). The phone will be my backup just in case.

  17. JJFIII says:

    1. There was not a loss of 26 channels. That is the Viacom number because they double count stations that are broadcast in standard definition and HD.
    2. A couple of pennies a day means .02 per day for 365 days a year or $146 MILLION a year.
    3. Viacom brought this on themselves when they decided selling to Netflix was another revenue stream. They cheapened their product. Apple would be an example of a company that keeps distribution in check to increase value.
    4. Every single Viacom station is available for FREE a day later.
    5. Every singe Viacom station is losing ratings over what they did in the past.

    • psm321 says:

      As long as we’re throwing entire subscriber base numbers around in an attempt to make things sound larger than they are, you might want to mention that DirecTV made a profit of 4.6 BILLION (that’s 4,629 MILLION) dollars last year. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the company that actually makes the content to want a small price increase after 7 years (inflation and all) when the distributor is making large profits.

      • LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese says:

        Sorry, but I firmly blame Viacom for this one. I hate most of their channels anyway and I don’t want to pay that extra $10 per year for crap I’ll never watch. My kids don’t need Nick anyway; they can watch Disney. Good for DirecTV, IMO.

      • frank64 says:

        They are asking for a very large increase on declining ratings. They are also asking to be paid on channels DirectTV doesn’t want because relativity few subscribers watch.

        Also, Viacom is selling the content to Netflix and Hulu, and is even streaming on its own sites. This dilutes the value to DirectTV. The company that makes the content is selling the same content over and over, increasing their profits.

      • frank64 says:

        You must be biased or you will change your mind after looking at the financials of both companies. Direct TV actually has lower profit margins than Viacom. Direct TV is 9.54% compared to 12.89% for Viacom.

        Throwing out just profits when you don’t take into account size of company is extremely misleading.

      • frank64 says:

        psm321, You also are throwing around numbers to seem larger than they are. You used operating income instead of net income. Operating income doesn’t take into account interest and taxes. Interest is an extremely high number and needs to be taken into account. Net income is only 2.6 Billion. Paying a billion dollars extra would be catastrophic if they did as you said and ate it.

        You are justifying a MORE profitable company to become extremely profitable, and the less profitable company to just eat it and to lose their shirt?

        • psm321 says:

          Sorry, I was unfamiliar with the distinction between operating profit and net income. Regardless, I see one company that hadn’t raised its rate on its customer in 7 years and claims to be giving that customer the lowest rate of all customers, versus another company that increases its rates on customers all the time citing increasing costs, and then complains about actually paying increased costs. And arguments about “channels I don’t want” hold no weight with me because I’m a fan of some niche channels and the bundling that enables them to exist.

          • frank64 says:

            Based on your income argument though, you would thing that DTV should not have to pay an increase because Viacom actual marks up their product more than DTV. Shouldn’t(based on your argument) Viacom not charge more for it, and eat any increases they think they deserve, thus saving us the price increase? Based on your past arguments Viacom is being more greedy, and their profit would only go up more if the price increase were to hold.

            Viacom has commercials, many, many commercials. I don’t know if it is actually true if they did not raise rates in 7 years, but DirectTV and others provide a transmission service that allows Viacom to charge for commercials. Perhaps the price was high enough that they did real well without raising prices, so raising them now would still be unfair. If you look Viacom profits are up way up from last year. Probably due to increased commercial sales, and Hulu, Netflix and streaming revenue. This increased revenue that Viacom has made on other sales, is what actually dilutes the value to DirectTV. Viacom is selling what used to be an exclusive in a market to others and wants an increase?

            The argument of channels I don’t want is that DirecTV should be allowed to make the determination of what channels to include based on what its customer want. Now they are forced to carry, and pay for unpopular channels just to get the ones people are screaming for. This raises the prices for everyone. If you think your satellite bill is worth itnand will be worth it as prices increase, then you should be happy. Most would like a way to try to keep prices down, and forcing the cable and satellite companies to pay whatever the networks wants isn’t going to do that.

            DirectTV is not saying the will not pay any increase, they are saying the increase is too large. Decreased ratings and dilution of product due to loss of exclusivity does lead to decreases in value. You seem to be saying ANY increase is fine, as long as you get the channels?

          • frank64 says:

            Also, they didn’t raise prices before because they had a 7 year contract which just expired. They weren’t doing it to be nice.

  18. Chuft-Captain says:

    As usual, the sequence is holding up while both companies pretend to fight in order to fleece us.

    1) Network demands increase too high to be reasonable
    2) Cable company refuses
    3) Network tells everyone how sorry they are that the cable company is not being reasonable, manages to somehow call the cable company greedy for not ponying up assloads of cash.
    4) Channels may or may not get yanked briefly
    5) Cable Co and network come back hand in hand and express how happy they are on both sides to have worked out a deal in your best interests, one which costs much less than the network demanded, but still gets the network a brand new metric fuckton of money.
    6) Cable company jacks rates by approximately double the actual cost, ensuring that they also receive tons of cash
    7) Both companies call it a win for you.

    • Sorta Kinda Lucky Soul says:

      well stated.

    • frank64 says:

      The process is hitting a ceiling thought, the cost of cable satellite is getting to a tipping point.

      I think the cable cos realize this so they are at least going to start trying harder. The networks are causing their own downfall.

  19. Fred says:

    I’ll say it again, another example of why we need a la carte pricing. If the raise the price enough then consumers will vote by cancelling the channel.

    • frank64 says:

      I don’t think the networks will let it happen. How about a special Viacom tier where all tier channels are offered. I don’t think Viacom would allow that to happen, but it would allow the consumer to make the choice about price/value.

    • rugman11 says:

      Nobody wants a la carte pricing except for the people who either don’t have cable or who haven’t done enough research to know exactly what it would do to prices.

      • frank64 says:

        There needs to be a mechanism for the consumer can have some input in the pricing/value of channels. Like more tiers where higher priced channels go. Something need to happens because the costs are rising and so are our options. The cable and satellite companies know they need to do something I am sure. More options for the consumer is some way will help to slow the cutting of the cord. Maybe there can be some way for the networks to be not allowed to bundle?

      • Fred says:

        I looked at getting Dish, but for the one channel I really want Speed Channel I have to pay $70. For that I get about 100 channels I’m going to block, another 100 I’ll only watch occaisionally, so maybe 6 channels I really want and maybe a few more. Really you think I’d have to pay $70 for 6 channels?

  20. crispyduck13 says:

    Sigh. Well maybe this will break me of my TV habit and I can finally get back to doing meaningful, productive shit like spackling and painting. Thank god Southpark streams free on

  21. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    Same old, same old. Two mega companies fighting over their share of the pie and trying to gain sympathy for their side from the very customers they are both trying to gouge.

  22. Smiling says:

    This makes me so glad we cut the cord. It just isn’t worth it anymore.

  23. eldergias says:

    I don’t have Direct TV, but if I did, I would drop it if they lost Comedy Central.

  24. Joedragon says:

    Viacom likely wants directv to add EPIX as part of this deal.

  25. Will Print T-shirts For Food says:

    My nephew is going to call me crying so hard when he gets out of school later today. He calls me all the time, we used to watch Spongebob together before I went off to college. I’m not ready for this. :(

  26. noahproblem1 says:

    I’ve said this before (here?), but that DirecTV guy looks a lot like former MA Governor and failed Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis.

    • GrandizerGo says:

      Not even close if you count the hair…
      I see it in the scrunch of the eyes and the bushy of the eyebrows.
      But then I think that George S on GMA looks more like Michael Dukakis then anyone.

  27. esc27 says:

    I’d love to see some sort of democratic/coop cable provider.
    Release a monthly statement showing exactly how much each “member” pays for each content provider’s channels and allow all customers to vote on these issues.

    • frank64 says:

      Google municipal cable and municipal internet. They do exists. There are also stories of the big cable corps lobbying and suing to stop or limit them.

  28. lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

    I can honestly say if my Comcast franchise dropped these channels, I wouldn’t even notice.

  29. NorthAlabama says:

    another pleasant side effect of my dropping directv…i get to keep daily and colbert!

    directv seems to go through these public fights every six months or so, and it gets really old for consumers…

    • frank64 says:

      Do you know that these costs will get passed on to consumers, so they are indirectly fighting for you? I am not trying to make them out like great people, it is just that costs are passed on to us, and since we cannot directly have any input to Viacom we need DirectTV to do it?

      How much more would you like to pay for these channels? Would you like to pay more for channels you don’t even watch? You are just looking at the company you deal with and not the real source of the increase. There must be some way for reduce the networks huge pricing power, and that would be the consumer understanding the issue enough to at least in these instance supporting the cable/satellites companies.

      • NorthAlabama says:

        these companies are not fighting for consumers, they are fighting for profit. if they pass along the cost, and i can no longer justify the expense, i’ll cut the service. it’s only tv.

  30. Kestris says:

    Next we’re going to hear that Directv filed for bankruptcy because its subscribers are leaving enmass.

    • frank64 says:

      If what you say is true it means that Viacom has a gunt to DirectTV’s head. Pay up or die! Do you think that would be right? If that is the case Viacom can charge whatever it wants, at least much more than would be normal.

      The reality is DirectTV is very concerned that the price increases are being asked by every network, and these increases are causing pay TV to be so expensive we are cutting the cord and using the internet. This would mean DirectTV would really end up filing for bankruptcy.