# Dish drops AMC (+WeTV, IFC & Sundance)



## lparsons21

or is this just courtroom shenanigans???

http://www.multichannel.com/article...MC_Networks_Following_Ruling_In_Voom_Case.php


----------



## RAD

That could put the brakes on getting new customers due to wanting Hopper/Joey hardware.


----------



## MysteryMan

lparsons21 said:


> or is this just courtroom shenanigans???
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/article...MC_Networks_Following_Ruling_In_Voom_Case.php


Not a very wise decision if they choose to do so.


----------



## Ira Lacher

This constant brinksmanship is why I keep asking myself, "Do I really want to commit to two years of not knowing if the channels I watch will be there tomorrow?"

Maybe I'm paying higher prices for DirecTV but it could be considered insurance!


----------



## epokopac

MysteryMan said:


> Not a very wise decision if they choose to do so.


'Not a very wise' = 'Real stupid' (in my book) .

"AMC Networks has some of the most acclaimed programming on television, with shows like Mad Men, The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad."

Got to have my Walking Dead! Let's hope things can get worked out.


----------



## dpeters11

Ira Lacher said:


> This constant brinksmanship is why I keep asking myself, "Do I really want to commit to two years of not knowing if the channels I watch will be there tomorrow?"
> 
> Maybe I'm paying higher prices for DirecTV but it could be considered insurance!


Unless one of your favorite channels is dropped from DirecTV. It happens with all providers at some point, even if it's temporary.


----------



## satcrazy

Pity.

IFC is one of the more interesting channels on TV.

Theses AMC programs can be accessed via torrent, however.


----------



## sigma1914

satcrazy said:


> Pity.
> 
> IFC is one of the more interesting channels on TV.
> 
> Theses AMC programs can be accessed via torrent, however.


Pretty much all relatively known shows can, that doesn't make it right or legal.


----------



## harsh

For those who follow the less than 2 hours per week per year that's interesting on the aforementioned channels, I hope it doesn't come to a shutdown.

For me, I pretty much couldn't care less as I'm not invested in any of the four channels. Anything that they show that might be of interest to me is already (or will soon be) available on disc and/or by download.

I think the world needs a lot fewer channels with a lot better content overall.


----------



## oldschoolecw

I love AMC with shows like the Walking Dead and Breaking Bad, but I don't have AMC at this time because Dish only allows you to have access in the 2 highest packages Dish offers. And money is very tight for me right now. I am sure this will only hurt Dish in the long run, as I myself like many others are cord cutting. My 2 year commitment is up next January and Streaming full time is on my horizon.


----------



## Paul Secic

harsh said:


> For those who follow the less than 2 hours per week per year that's interesting on the aforementioned channels, I hope it doesn't come to a shutdown.
> 
> For me, I pretty much couldn't care less as I'm not invested in any of the four channels. Anything that they show that might be of interest to me is already (or will soon be) available on disc and/or by download.
> 
> I think the world needs a lot fewer channels with a lot better content overall.


I never watch them either. They'll return. I really liked VOOM though.


----------



## Chihuahua

*I haven't cared for the network formerly known as American Movie Classics since they began screwing up with their former classic movies format. No sad loss for me.*


----------



## dpeters11

oldschoolecw said:


> I love AMC with shows like the Walking Dead and Breaking Bad, but I don't have AMC at this time because Dish only allows you to have access in the 2 highest packages Dish offers. And money is very tight for me right now. I am sure this will only hurt Dish in the long run, as I myself like many others are cord cutting. My 2 year commitment is up next January and Streaming full time is on my horizon.


Which is why there's talk about requiring paid cable/sat service to access Hulu. Obviously there are other ways, especially if you don't mind waiting or have an Amazon Prime subscription.


----------



## oldschoolecw

dpeters11 said:


> Which is why there's talk about requiring paid cable/sat service to access Hulu. Obviously there are other ways, especially if you don't mind waiting or have an Amazon Prime subscription.


Oh yeah, I know
Where talking about that BS over at DBSTalks sister site http://www.iptvconnection.com/index.php?/topic/664-no-cable-subscription-no-hulu-for-you/ come join us


----------



## Michael P

How does E* know that their subs are not watching the AMC networks? While my DVR is connected via broadband my router broke. The phone line is also dead to the 622. I'm sure there are many others in a similar situation. 

If they are going by Nielsen data, again they never polled my viewing habits. Even if Nielsen did poll me, does Nielsen track which provider you use?

And another thing, what other networks will E* provide as a substitute? They mention that E* will make "alternative high-value channels available to our customers as replacements."
What "high value" channels are not already available on E*? I can't think of many if any.

In the past they put some AT250 channels into lower tiers, big deal! I'm already an AT 250 sub so in my case that would mean no "alternate high-value" channels" for me.


----------



## phrelin

lparsons21 said:


> or is this just courtroom shenanigans???
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/article...MC_Networks_Following_Ruling_In_Voom_Case.php


It may be courtroom "shenanigans" but Charlie holds a grudge and put a lot of money into Voom.

On the other hand, if they drop AMC June 1 that will leave the final two episodes of "Mad Men" season unavailable to Dish subscribers like me. And I will hold a grudge.


----------



## oldschoolecw

phrelin said:


> It may be courtroom "shenanigans" but Charlie holds a grudge and put a lot of money into Voom.
> 
> On the other hand, if they drop AMC June 1 that will leave the final two episodes of "Mad Men" season unavailable to Dish subscribers like me. And I will hold a grudge.


The only good thing is, streaming it from NetFlix and they will probably have this season up in a few months since they stream the series


----------



## SayWhat?

I've had AMC blocked out of my channel guide for years, so I wouldn't miss it a bit.

Are there other channels involved?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Unless I'm wrong... of the four channels in question (AMC, IFC, Sundance, WeTV) isn't AMC the only one in HD on Dish?

The only show I watch on AMC is the Walking Dead... so honestly I can't say I would miss these channels most of the time.

Rainbow is their own worst enemy... Rainbow killed their own Voom channels not Dish. Voom would have failed completely without Dish carrying those Voom channels for a while when the Voom subscription service died.

I wish that whole mess would end... but it really sounds like the people at Rainbow aren't that bright.

Consider the Walking Dead... the highest rated AMC show, and set some cable/satellite TV ratings records as well... and yet AMC pulled back the budget for the 2nd season and ran off the producer from season one!


----------



## SayWhat?

IFC runs some oddball reruns that I watch, but I wouldn't miss it if it were gone.

I have Sundance locked out also.

I can't remember watching much on WE other than Frasier once in a while.


----------



## CCarncross

The Walking Dead, The Killing, Mad Men, Hell on Wheels, Breaking Bad...some of the best tv on tv right now....


----------



## nmetro

I was wondering why DISH have AMC, IFC and We, the SD versions to 393, 393 and 391 respectively, with Sundance (389). Make sone wonder if these channels are moving into an upper tier package. Look at the Uplink Reports this week. These channels are live for me right now on the channels noted above..

I thought they were moving all the movie channels together, until I saw this thread.

At any rate, why I one in a while watch AMC and IFC, they are less entertaining then when they were commercial free networks. 

Cablevision aka Rainbow aka AMC NEtworks ruined AMC, IFC and Sundance, just teh way the ruined Voom. THey were more inclined to make profits, but not invest. Yes, AMC has some hit shows, but over 95% of its programming is avaliable on other channels. This will not be much of a loss.

But, DISH will need to step up and offer suitable replacements fro 4 lost channels.


----------



## hilmar2k

nmetro said:


> I was wondering why DISH have AMC, IFC and We, the SD versions to 393, 393 and 391 respectively, with Sundance (389). Make sone wonder if these channels are moving into an upper tier package, as opposed to being dropped. Look at the Uplink Reports this week. These channels are live for me right now on teh channels noted above..
> 
> I thought they were moving all the movie channels together, until I saw this thread.


Looks like they're being dropped altogether.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304746604577384080305759926.html


----------



## Willh

i see that this is just the latest in the fued between Charlie and the Dolans. remember why Fuse and the MSG RSNs were removed from Dish 2 years ago, this is why. Dish could had removed the AMC networks around the same time, but they were already under contract and didn't want another lawsuit. even if the AMC networks and MSG networks are spun off of CableVision, they are still Dolan owned, and as long as they are Dolan owned, chances are unless the lawsuit is dropped. these networks won't be on dish anymore. same goes with Disney, unless they settle in court, these channels that got removed are gone.


----------



## MysteryMan

hilmar2k said:


> Looks like they're being dropped altogether.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304746604577384080305759926.html


Yeah, I read on Yahoo they are dropping AMC, IFC, WETV, and Sundance at the end of June due to high renewal cost.


----------



## RAD

MysteryMan said:


> Yeah, I read on Yahoo they are dropping AMC, IFC, WETV, and Sundance at the end of June due to high renewal cost.


According to http://www.detroitnews.com/article/...rop--Mad-Men--network--citing-poor-viewership is a combination high renewal cost vs. the number of viewers:



> Dish Network Corp., the second-largest U.S. satellite-TV provider, says it will drop AMC Networks Inc. channels including AMC, WE tv, IFC and Sundance Channel from all packages, citing poor viewership.
> 
> Dish, based in Englewood, Colo, will no longer carry the networks because AMC is demanding a "high renewal cost when compared to their low viewership," the company said Friday.


----------



## MysteryMan

RAD said:


> According to http://www.detroitnews.com/article/...rop--Mad-Men--network--citing-poor-viewership is a combination high renewal cost vs. the number of viewers:


Interesting. Different articles posting different reasons.


----------



## lparsons21

Well, that sucks for you E* subs. 

As for me, well that pretty much scotches my plan to switch this August to save a couple bucks and get BBCA-HD back. Now I guess I'll just have to hope D* adds BBCA-HD before Doctor Who starts up again, and maybe (slim chance) get Epix.


----------



## RAD

MysteryMan said:


> Interesting. Different articles posting different reasons.


Guess it depends on who's doing the talking. From the same link later on:

AMC says


> AMC said Dish was dropping the networks as a response to a court ruling last month that denied the satellite-TV company the right to appeal an outstanding lawsuit, according to a separate statement today.


While Dish says


> Dish says the litigation is a separate matter and not related to its decision to drop AMC Networks.


----------



## Ira Lacher

lparsons21 said:


> Well, that sucks for you E* subs.
> 
> As for me, well that pretty much scotches my plan to switch this August to save a couple bucks and get BBCA-HD back. Now I guess I'll just have to hope D* adds BBCA-HD before Doctor Who starts up again, and maybe (slim chance) get Epix.


Mediacom Des Moines carries AMC nets, plus BBCA-HD. Cable in my future after 18-year absence?


----------



## RasputinAXP

Maybe this is just Dish playing hardball with Cablevision.


----------



## lparsons21

Ira Lacher said:


> Mediacom Des Moines carries AMC nets, plus BBCA-HD. Cable in my future after 18-year absence?


Mediacom here doesn't carry BBCA-HD, not sure about AMC HD. Unfortunately in our area, they haven't gone all digital, so we only have about 25 HD channels total.

And it is sad 'cause they just sent me a sweet offer!


----------



## mreposter

What's the underlying issue in the court case? The articles mention that Dish is being spanked for destroying documents, but not what the actual case is about? Is AMC claiming that Voom didn't pay them all they were owed or something?


----------



## lparsons21

Back in the day, as the story goes. Voom and Dish had a deal that Dish would keep it if Voom would improve the programs and massive rerunning they were doing. Voom didn't, so Dish first reduced the # of Voom channels and finally just said to hell with it and jerked them all.

IMO, Voom didn't do what they were supposed to do.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

mreposter said:


> What's the underlying issue in the court case? The articles mention that Dish is being spanked for destroying documents, but not what the actual case is about? Is AMC claiming that Voom didn't pay them all they were owed or something?


The parent company (Rainbow media) has several claims against Dish... mostly due to Dish dropping all the Voom channels while Rainbow said they had a contract with Dish.

I'm not sure who to side with for sure on that specific issue... but it is clear to most that followed back then that Rainbow wasn't trying to get anyone else to carry the channels that Dish was carrying... and Dish was wanting to carry a smaller package of 5-6 of the core Voom channels instead of the 12 or so, most of which didn't have a strong following.

Meanwhile, at that time, nobody else in the US carried any of the Voom channels... and only a couple were available internationally. Rainbow decided that it was "all or nothing" so Dish said "ok, nothing then"... and the lawsuit began.

Rainbow still didn't try to get anyone else to carry the channels... so Rainbow blames Dish for the failure of Voom rather than their own failure to market them. Truth be told, the Voom service itself failed (probably was ahead of its time really) and would have gone away entirely on its own IF Dish hadn't stepped in and bought one of their satellites and agreed to carry the core Voom channels at that time.

I miss some of the channels, but I'm more angry at Rainbow for not consolidating their content and trying to make a solid 5-6 channel HD package that would have been ahead of its time with nice HD content 24/7 rather than their spreading that content out over twice as many channels with too many repeats.

I frankly was surprised when we got AMC in HD a while back... thinking for sure we would never see that happen given the lawsuit. I suspect that Rainbow is trying to get more for channels like AMC now that they have some hot series, and hoping to get back some money that they squandered in the past.

But... I can live without those channels... I'll find the Walking Dead elsewhere either on iTunes or wait for the Blu-rays since I like the show enough to buy it... and maybe cross my fingers that Dish adds some good channels to fill the spots.


----------



## ronton3

I could care less about AMC and the others that are not it HD at any rate. I am still pissed about VOOM they were the best TV available then, and nothing replaces them now. ron


----------



## phrelin

Well, losing the last three episodes of the season of "Mad Men" and "The Killing" would irk me. And I'd also not get the next season of "Hell on Wheels." 

But actually, now that I've considered the matter, it would work out ok for me. As near as I can tell, I'm only in the top 200 because of shows on AMC and BBCA.

I could use the $15 a month I'd save by dropping to the top 120.

And I guess if I really want to see the shows I could watch them through Amazon. Last Sunday's "Mad Men" and "The Killing" are available there right now. Not free, of course.


----------



## domingos35

i have those channels on comcast


----------



## dlt

domingos35 said:


> i have those channels on comcast


And your paying a lot more for them.


----------



## domingos35

dlt said:


> And your paying a lot more for them.


why?


----------



## homeron

So dish says because of low ratings they are dropping AMC though AMC has the most consistent high ratings of shows of any non-pay satellite channels. It's very simple, just look up the ratings on AMC for the walking dead, mad men, hell on wheels,breaking bad and the killing. Dish network saying that AMC has low ratings is ridiculous. dropping channels with low ratings ? in that case dish should be dropping. OWN, RFDTV,RURAL,prst,ovatn,reelz and 31 channels of shopping networks. This happened just after I sign a two-year contract to get the very inconsistently working hopper.


----------



## homeron

The only other way to watch these legally is just wait for them to get on Netflix but that could take a year or two or switch to cable or DirecTV


----------



## phrelin

dlt said:


> And your paying a lot more for them.


Not necessarily. AMC is part of the Comcast Limited Basic Package.


----------



## domingos35

comcast is included in my HOA


----------



## Stewart Vernon

homeron said:


> So dish says because of low ratings they are dropping AMC though AMC has the most consistent high ratings of shows of any non-pay satellite channels. It's very simple, just look up the ratings on AMC for the walking dead, mad men, hell on wheels,breaking bad and the killing. Dish network saying that AMC has low ratings is ridiculous. dropping channels with low ratings ? in that case dish should be dropping. OWN, RFDTV,RURAL,prst,ovatn,reelz and 31 channels of shopping networks. This happened just after I sign a two-year contract to get the very inconsistently working hopper.


You have to read that again, though...

Dish said the ratings aren't high enough to warrant the increase AMC is asking for... Now, we don't know the details... but channels with lower ratings that only ask for pennies are going to be more likely to stay on Dish than a semi-popular channel that asks for dollars.


----------



## Inkosaurus

Stewart Vernon said:


> You have to read that again, though...
> 
> Dish said the ratings aren't high enough to warrant the increase AMC is asking for... Now, we don't know the details... but channels with lower ratings that only ask for pennies are going to be more likely to stay on Dish than a semi-popular channel that asks for dollars.


This. +1

Not to mention AMC really only gets all the views on the weekend anyway. There day time and weekday programming is really lacking. Its not like there USA or TBS when it comes to pumping out quality programming back to back on a weekly basis.

I will miss watching the Walking Dead conveniently. Luckily, on another message board theres a group of people who stream the episodes, So i guess next season ill be joining the streaming gang. On the upside it comes with a chat box :hurah:


----------



## sregener

Everyone speaks as though this is a done deal and AMC will be gone for good. It's a negotiating tactic, just like pulling any other channel is. AMC wants Dish viewers for their advertisers, and Dish wants AMC viewers for their monthly fees. I sincerely doubt AMC will be turned off, but if it is, will only last a few weeks. Remember that many of us chose Dish to save some green, and one way this is possible is that Dish plays hardball on contract agreements to keep costs down.

Maybe we need a new thread on the channels we'd like to see Dish replace AMC with...


----------



## Inkosaurus

Shoot I dont know, its definitely a possibility that it will go for awhile or indefinetly.
Just look at MSG, and lets think back to that FX fiasco. I worked at Dish when FX went down, it was a nightmare lol.


----------



## Shades228

People said the same thing about the Disney channels. Dish rarely makes public statements and then backtracks. With that said I think they also know that losing AMC would reverse any positive growth they've and just set them up for some negativity they don't need.

I'm sure if you called in or asked a DIRT member you would get a much less hard nosed stance in terms of protecting your interests and they want to keep them but due to unreasonable requests. This leaves the door open for them to say "they came down to an acceptable level" to save face.


----------



## BillJ

Of course Dish would deny the move is related to Voom lawsuit, but that doesn't mean it isn't. Of the four channels AMC is only one I watch much and I'd like it back. As for the Voom people, you put up some crappy channels, you didn't promote them beyond Dish, they failed. Get over it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Disney is a different animal.

Dish was carrying HD feeds and not paying Disney for them. Disney said "you can't do that" and Dish replied "yes we can"... and Disney got an injunction... so Dish had to drop those channels if they were going to fight in court OR they would have owed Disney back-fees for the time they had been carrying them.

Now... the other ABC/Disney/ESPN channels already had contracts that were not due for renewal... and neither company likes to renew early... so we will next see whenever the rest of the Disney family comes up for renewal.

Odds are that Dish could not easily survive a loss of ALL the Disney channels... and similar odds against Disney renewing that didn't get the other channels + ESPNU and maybe ESPN3D onto Dish as well.

So expect a fight and either Dish to make a major mistake OR eventually we get everything back and prices go up.

The Rainbow family is different... because they don't have the same pull as Disney. Outside of the handful of good programs AMC has (some on hiatus right now anyway), there hasn't been mad demand for those channels.

So I kind of think Dish might have a good strategy here... if Rainbow wants to play hardball in court over the spilt milk of Voom... they risk Dish becoming disinterested in the other Rainbow media channels. And while some of us wouldn't like it... I'm not leaving Dish over these few channels if they go away. I didn't leave over the Disney channels that I actually miss far more!


----------



## Ira Lacher

sregener said:


> Everyone speaks as though this is a done deal and AMC will be gone for good. It's a negotiating tactic, just like pulling any other channel is. AMC wants Dish viewers for their advertisers, and Dish wants AMC viewers for their monthly fees. I sincerely doubt AMC will be turned off, but if it is, will only last a few weeks.


As another poster, pointed out, the Disney HD channels along with ESPNU and ESPNNews have been off for months, with no indication they will return.

The scenario with DISH vs. AMC seems to be playing out as it has before: DISH announces they will not pay a demanded increase are pulling the channels instead; no agreement is reached before the contract expires; DISH pulls the channels.

And considering the animosity surrounding the court case, you have to believe that if those channels go -- and I believe they will -- they'll be gone for a very, very long time.


----------



## MysteryMan

Ira Lacher said:


> As another poster, pointed out, the Disney HD channels along with ESPNU and ESPNNews have been off for months, with no indication they will return.
> 
> The scenario with DISH vs. AMC seems to be playing out as it has before: DISH announces they will not pay a demanded increase are pulling the channels instead; no agreement is reached before the contract expires; DISH pulls the channels.
> 
> And considering the animosity surrounding the court case, you have to believe that if those channels go -- and I believe they will -- they'll be gone for a very, very long time.


+1


----------



## James Long

Ira Lacher said:


> As another poster, pointed out, the Disney HD channels along with ESPNU and ESPNNews have been off for months, with no indication they will return.
> 
> The scenario with DISH vs. AMC seems to be playing out as it has before: DISH announces they will not pay a demanded increase are pulling the channels instead; no agreement is reached before the contract expires; DISH pulls the channels.


The ABC/Disney HD channels are different ... DISH never had a contract to carry the channels and assumed that their SD contract allowed them to carry the HD versions. They were wrong, they lost in court. The SD channels continue so the customers are not completely lost when it comes to providing the content ... and DISH has enough other HD that not having those channels doesn't end the value of their service.

AMC is at the point where HD is part of the SD contract and the carriage contract for the SD is ending. If the AMC channels go away the content is lost in HD and SD. DISH has completely pulled good channels when the contracts ended before - and I agree that the channels are likely to be pulled this time as well. For how long is the question.

It could be one of those bad weekend channel pulls or it could go on for a month. DISH believes that their subscribers are watching AMC less than their subscribers did in the past - so despite the number of subscribers still watching they don't want to pay as much more for the channel as AMC is requesting/demanding. Thus begins the negotiation.

The tie to Voom makes this issue more ominous. There is a lot of bad blood between the companies and DISH has completely pulled "forever" channels that AMC's owners would like to see returned. So there is a good chance that the AMC channels will be gone "forever" as well. Or this might be the pivot point that gets all the other related feeds on DISH Network.

Stay tuned!


----------



## sigma1914

Inkosaurus said:


> This. +1
> 
> Not to mention AMC really only gets all the views on the weekend anyway. There day time and weekday programming is really lacking. Its not like there USA or TBS when it comes to pumping out quality programming back to back on a weekly basis.
> 
> ...


AMC was the 18th ranked cable channel in 2011 for total daily viewers and 15th for primetime viewers. A top 20 channel is fairly significant.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76679201/Cable-Time-Period-Rank-2011


----------



## Inkosaurus

sigma1914 said:


> AMC was the 18th ranked cable channel in 2011 for total daily viewers and 15th for primetime viewers. A top 20 channel is fairly significant.
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/76679201/Cable-Time-Period-Rank-2011


Yeah but as well all know Dish will play Hardball with anyone, even top 5 channels. :lol:


----------



## sacflies

Wait...no ESPNU HD or ESPN News HD (didn't know that), and now maybe no AMC?! Well, that pretty much throws a wrench in my plans to jump to Dish and the Hopper from D*. Looks like I may be staying with D* and their sloooooooooooooooooow HD DVR's.


----------



## James Long

sigma1914 said:


> AMC was the 18th ranked cable channel in 2011 for total daily viewers and 15th for primetime viewers. A top 20 channel is fairly significant.


2010 AMC 1,091,000 total viewers +5% over 2009
2011 AMC 1,182,000 total viewers +8% over 2010

Apparently that 8% increase in viewership wasn't reflected in DISH viewers.
(Or perhaps when DirecTV finally added the HD those DISH customers left. )


----------



## phrelin

As this proceeds, keep in mind that Dish has not allowed AMC into the Top 120 tier. It is in a similar tier at DirecTV and Comcast. That may account for the "low ratings" statement which means its true by Dish's choice.

Dish had better be careful here as AMC is a scripted programming critics darling and, for me and a lot of cable/satellite subscribers, one of the few sources of quality scripted drama series.

If I lose it, then the bottom tiers of both DirecTV and Comcast will become viable choices. And the advantages of External Hard Drives and Echostar equipment would have to go up against Comcast's On-Demand system and potential bundling savings.


----------



## Mojo Jojo

"phrelin" said:


> As this proceeds, keep in mind that Dish has not allowed AMC into the Top 120 tier. It is in a similar tier at DirecTV and Comcast. That may account for the "low ratings" statement which means its true by Dish's choice.
> .


Similar tiers? Do not buy into those DirecTV ads of AMC not being in a basic Dish base package. Currently, it is available in the $14.99 Welcome Pack, the $44.99 Dish Latino Dos with HD Dos Free, and the $59.99 America's Top 200 with HD 200 Free.

Recently, DirecTV added the Entertainment Package with AMC in it which I believe is $54.99 without the HD feed (which would be another $10). So, that would be $64.99.


----------



## Shades228

Just to clarify I didn't mean to imply that the reason the Disney channels were pulled is similiar to this. I meant to imply that DISH's attitude will be similiar that once they have dug their heels in it takes an appellate court to pull em out. 

(Yes I know that court, at this time, cannot order DISH to carry AMC nor was I implying that one would.)


----------



## phrelin

Mojo Jojo said:


> Similar tiers? Do not buy into those DirecTV ads of AMC not being in a basic Dish base package. Currently, it is available in the $14.99 Welcome Pack, the $44.99 Dish Latino Dos with HD Dos Free, and the $59.99 America's Top 200 with HD 200 Free.
> 
> Recently, DirecTV added the Entertainment Package with AMC in it which I believe is $54.99 without the HD feed (which would be another $10). So, that would be $64.99.


I'm not really making an apples-to-apples case. If Dish drops AMC it won't have it in any tier.

Ominously, AMC (along with IFC, etc.) are no longer listed in the America's Everything Pak web page, much less the Welcome Pak. But....

It used to be that my combination of Dish with AT200, AT&T measured land line, Comcast ISP, and Pioneer long distance was at least 10% cheaper than Comcast bundled. That margin has dropped to 4%. If I have to pay to view important (to me) award winning shows through Amazon or Netflix - "Mad Men," "The Killing", "Breaking Bad", and "Hell on Wheels" - then Comcast becomes cheaper.

Right now DirecTV says on their web site that HD and an HD-DVR is free with their packages. If I have to pay to view important (to me) award winning shows through Amazon or Netflix - "Mad Men," "The Killing", "Breaking Bad", and "Hell on Wheels" - then DirecTV becomes cheaper.

However, it may be cheaper to save the $15/mo by dropping down to the AT120 and streaming those shows through Amazon and/or Netflix.

The problem here is that the VOOM dispute became personal between Charles Ergen and Charles Dolan. That's what happens when Charles is in charge.


----------



## sregener

"phrelin" said:



> Right now DirecTV says on their web site that HD and an HD-DVR is free with their packages. If I have to pay to view important (to me) award winning shows through Amazon or Netflix - "Mad Men," "The Killing", "Breaking Bad", and "Hell on Wheels" - then DirecTV becomes cheaper.


I wouldn't take a DirecTV DVR if they paid me to use it. I got stuck with a pokey HR22 for my contract period, and rain falls up faster than it would respond. From reading the DirecTV forums, the problem does not exist on every receiver, even the same model number, but I wouldn't take a chance that they won't break the ones that work trying to fix the ones that don't.

I'd rather lose AMC and gain BBC America than have to watch the awful SD DirecTV puts out. SD on DirecTV makes worn out VHS look good. Compare your channel lists carefully before switching, and be sure it's worth it to keep AMC...

And for your reference, I switched from DirecTV to Dish on April 21.


----------



## phrelin

Again, for me TV is all about access to the content I want. Equipment can be an issue, but without the content, equipment that feeds 3-D life size appearing video and live-sounding audio directly to my brain is useless.


----------



## SayWhat?

There is not a show on TV that I cannot live without. I might be annoyed if one I liked disappeared in a contract dispute, but it would not make me change carriers.

I do not tolerate content providers extorting money from carriers. Period. I would more than likely stop watching a show I liked if it became a pawn in this kind of silliness.

I hate hype and the ratings race. The more a show is hyped, the less likely I am to watch it. I cut AMC out of my viewing many, many years ago when they dropped the 'no commercials' format. Same with FoxMo. I no longer watch it at night when they interrupt films. If they start doing it during the day, I will block them from the channel guide.

That said, I don't watch any of the shows mentioned anyways. None of them make any sense to me.


----------



## tampa8

lparsons21 said:


> *Mediacom here doesn't carry BBCA-HD, not sure about AMC HD. Unfortunately in our area, they haven't gone all digital, so we only have about 25 HD channels total.*
> 
> And it is sad 'cause they just sent me a sweet offer!


And that's why they sent you a sweet offer.


----------



## klang

I record, but so far have never watched The Killing. That's it for me on AMC so I don't really care much about this particular fight. As others have mentioned, if I decide at some point to watch The Killing, I can get it legally various ways on the net. 

For me, if it weren't for the convenience of an HD DVR, 'cutting the cable' is becoming a viable alternative.


----------



## JW7677

I really hope this works itself out somehow. I watch Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Killing, and my favorite show is The Walking Dead - all of them are on AMC. I've been with E* for 9 years but if the channel that airs 40% of my favorite shows is taken away I will go elsewhere.


----------



## SayWhat?

^^ Well, then you might want to contact AMC and demand they be more reasonable.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> As this proceeds, keep in mind that Dish has not allowed AMC into the Top 120 tier. It is in a similar tier at DirecTV and Comcast. That may account for the "low ratings" statement which means its true by Dish's choice.


DISH negotiates package placement with the providers. When AMC was placed in what is now DISH's most popular level they knew their channel would not be available to all customers. AT200 is the most popular due to the inclusion of additional channels one cannot get in AT120 or AT120 plus. The popularity of AT200 channels among DISH customers is demonstrated by customer being willing to pay more to receive them (although as a package one cannot say if people are paying more specifically for AMC, BBC America, Speed or any of the other channels - 29 in HD - that make up the step between AT120 Plus and AT200).

A channel that argued "we're not viewed because we're not in the lowest tier" is basically admitting that their programming is not good enough to convince people to upgrade their tier.

It should also be noted that DirecTV did not have a "AT120" similar tier until this past February, and it could be argued that they still don't have one. Their lowest tier based package was Choice which is an "AT200" similar tier. The new "Entertainment" tier removes RSNs and a few sports channels but does not get down to the price level of AT120.


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> It should also be noted that DirecTV did not have a "AT120" similar tier until this past February, and it could be argued that they still don't have one. Their lowest tier based package was Choice which is an "AT200" similar tier. The new "Entertainment" tier removes RSNs and a few sports channels but does not get down to the price level of AT120.


That's true. But it does have AMC.

My point wasn't about price, though. If you can't get AMC through Dish, you can't get it through Dish no matter what you're willing to pay.

And like I say, I'll drop to AT120. I have an Amazon App on my Panasonic Blu-ray player to watch the last two episodes of the seasons of "Mad Men" and "The Killing". I'll have to learn how to use it, though.

Thing is, if they do drop AMC then cut a deal two weeks later I won't be paying the $15 ever again. I will have been forced to make a decision I was too lazy to make. In addition to AMC and Dish, the losers of $2 or $3 or $4 a year will be Bravo, BET, and a bunch of other channels I don't watch.

I will say this. AMC has done a good job of offering quality scripted programming. Certainly it is not the volume of HBO which gets $13 a month from me. But on this list...








...they apparently were getting 23¢ a month. If they asked for double that they still wouldn't be getting as much as TBS.

I don't for one moment believe this is about money for Charlie Ergen and Dish. It's about VOOM and Ergen holds a grudge. He can do real harm to AMC. And Rainbow Media has Charles Dolan as Chairman of the Board, so I don't expect any give there.

But I've been wrong before. We'll see.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> That's true. But it does have AMC.
> 
> My point wasn't about price, though. If you can't get AMC through Dish, you can't get it through Dish no matter what you're willing to pay.


I thought your point was what I quoted ... that DISH's placement of AMC in a higher tier reduces the ratings among DISH viewers.



> I will say this. AMC has done a good job of offering quality scripted programming. Certainly it is not the volume of HBO which gets $13 a month from me. But on this list...


That list is old and a lot of networks (including AMC) have changed since it was published.

We may be seeing a move of the AMC channels to a la carte ... or at least DISH pushing that as an option. If people want those channels they can pay for them specifically.


----------



## Jhon69

I'm too busy watching the channels I do have,that I haven't any time to worry about channels I may not have.


----------



## StringFellow

If you want AMC, make sure you contact Dish Network! Follow the link below and voice your opinion. Posts here won't get the attention of Dish. Based on the various news articles, it appears that Dish has already made the decision to drop AMC and “Dish will make alternative high-value channels available to our customers as replacements.” What does this really mean???

Contact Dish: /www.dish.com/chat

“AMC Networks’ very limited popular programming is nonexclusive, and available to our customers through multiple other outlets such as Amazon.com, iTunes and Netflix,” 

Now that is funny considering that Hell on Wheels is not on Netflix and NF only has the first 6 episodes of The Walking Dead. And with Dish pushing their [email protected] service you would figure Dish wouldn't want to push people to Netflix (even though the content of NF is much larger).

And Dish pays more subscriber fess for the Sundance channel than AMC??? WTF?  Maybe to get one you have to purchase all the entire AMC family of channels.

If Dish does drop AMC, that is a lot of money that AMC will lose (and potential reduction in viewers for their shows) and potential lose of Dish subscribers.... definitely not a win/win situation for Dish or AMC.

Seems like situations like this occur quite often on all the providers when negotiating contract renewals and subscriber fees.


----------



## domingos35

i will NOT miss AMC 
but i do have it on comcast to


----------



## sigma1914

domingos35 said:


> i will NOT miss AMC
> but i do have it on comcast to



You sure changed your tune. You relished in the idea Dish had AMC in HD when DirecTV didn't.



domingos35 said:


> and i am enjoying BBC HD ,AMC HD, NATGW HD





domingos35 said:


> cypherx said:
> 
> 
> 
> AMC Renews "Walking Dead" for season 2
> http://www.deadline.com/2010/11/amc-renews-walking-dead-for-season-2/
> 
> And yet DirecTV STILL does not see the value of this popular series enough to carry it in HD.
> 
> HD Leader my ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Dish does
Click to expand...




domingos35 said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't enjoy Sunday Ticket if I had it for free.
> (But there are 15 basic cable channels that could be named.)
> 
> domingos35 (and other DISH subs), DirecTV subs can handle the disappointment without help.
> Let's move along ...
> 
> 
> 
> not a problem
> i have to go watch AMC HD now :lol::hurah:
Click to expand...




domingos35 said:


> AMC HD is now up and running in glorious HD on DISHNETWORK





domingos35 said:


> AMC HD is now up and running on channel 130 showing The Terminator


----------



## SayWhat?

StringFellow said:


> If you want AMC, make sure you contact AMC! Follow the link below and voice your opinion. Posts here won't get the attention of AMC.
> 
> http://www.amctv.com


There. Fixed that for you.

When it comes to these issues, it is _ALWAYS_ the provider that needs to be brought into line.


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> I thought your point was what I quoted ... that DISH's placement of AMC in a higher tier reduces the ratings among DISH viewers.


That's sort of a given. If it were in the lower tier more people would be watching.



> That list is old and a lot of networks (including AMC) have changed since it was published.


Yes, that's true. I wish SNL Kagen would make a new list public.

Here's the most recent set of numbers I've seen which is the top 20 and seems to indicate about a 20%-25% increase since the 2009 list:

ESPN ($5.06)
ESPN 3D ($2.71)
3net ($1.29)
TNT ($1.21)
Disney Channel ($0.97)
NFL Network ($0.84)
Fox News ($0.82)
ESPN2 ($0.67)
USA Network ($0.62)
TBS ($0.59)
MGM HD ($0.58)
CNN en Espanol ($0.58)
CNN/HLN ($0.57)
Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite ($0.52)
HDNet ($0.47)
FX ($0.46)
Fox College Sports ($0.39)
MTV ($0.39)
HDNet Movies ($0.38)
Big Ten Network ($0.37)
Discovery Channel ($0.37)



> We may be seeing a move of the AMC channels to a la carte ... or at least DISH pushing that as an option. If people want those channels they can pay for them specifically.


I wish we could get all the "groups" of channels by ownership that way, and all in HD.

It would force the big media conglomerates into the capitalist world rather than the near-socialist approach they now use. For instance, I could do without the entire Disney/ABC/ESPN group of channels including the ABC local. It appears it would save me $15± at today's prices and, using a rough guess at what number of subscribers would pay what, if there weren't any mandatory basic packages they would have to charge $35+ a month to generate between 40% to 60% of the revenue the Disney folks now rip all of us off for.

But I don't see this type of approach happening anytime soon. Rainbow Media is a weak group. And as I said, by dropping access to their channels Dish could cause them significant harm. And that's what tends to happen when you have two intransigent Charlie's in charge.


----------



## Jon J

What's 3net?


----------



## phrelin

Jon J said:


> What's 3net?


From their web site:


> Launched on February 13, 2011, 3net, the joint venture of Sony Corporation, Discovery Communications and IMAX Corporation brings together three of the world's leading media, technology and entertainment companies to provide the nation's first and only fully programmed, 24/7 3D network. The three partners deliver an extraordinary collection of award-winning 3D content....


----------



## SayWhat?

^^ Still don't know what it is.



phrelin said:


> I wish we could get all the "groups" of channels by ownership that way, and all in HD.


I've been touting that for a long time (except for the HD part --- don't care about that), but it would still mean Disney/ABC would be bloated by the unreasonably, ridiculously overpriced ESPN.


----------



## RAD

Jon J said:


> What's 3net?





phrelin said:


> From their web site:


It's on DIRECTV channel 107.


----------



## phrelin

Right now DirecTV is the only provider in our area that carries it. I supposed when 3D TV sets become more popular we'll see them on other providers.


----------



## Paul Secic

ronton3 said:


> I could care less about AMC and the others that are not it HD at any rate. I am still pissed about VOOM they were the best TV available then, and nothing replaces them now. ron


I agree what you said.


----------



## harsh

phrelin said:


> Right now DirecTV is the only provider in our area that carries it. I supposed when 3D TV sets become more popular we'll see them on other providers.


While it is easy to pin the problem on hardware and useability issues, I submit that the real problem is a distinct lack of attractive content.

The same goes for AMC. Good content but not enough variety and with the addition of commercials, some serious useability issues.


----------



## Paul Secic

sigma1914 said:


> You sure changed your tune. You relished in the idea Dish had AMC in HD when DirecTV didn't.


It's just TV. People think it's a world conflict.


----------



## satcrazy

since this looks like a real possibility, what "replacement channels" do you speculate dish will give us?

Obviously nothing premium, and if you already have the 250 or everything package, what would be of value?

just wondering..........


----------



## harsh

sigma1914 said:


> You sure changed your tune. You relished in the idea Dish had AMC in HD when DirecTV didn't.


One could argue that AMC has changed substantially (to its detriment in some general ways) since then.


----------



## sigma1914

harsh said:


> One could argue that AMC has changed substantially (to its detriment in some general ways) since then.


How so in the last 20 months? By adding even better original programming and higher ratings? Yeah, that's such a "detriment." It had commercials when those posts were made.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_Friendly moderator note... Please don't discuss each other, please discuss the topic of the thread. Thanks._


----------



## StringFellow

SayWhat? said:


> There. Fixed that for you.
> 
> When it comes to these issues, it is _ALWAYS_ the provider that needs to be brought into line.


Why the provider? I would expect the issue is the subscriber fees and what Dish is willing to pay.

"...decision to drop AMC channels is due to viewership declines and the programmer's "high renewal price."

Based on that statement Dish isn't willing to pay the high subscriber fees. So I should contact AMC to tell them to reduce their subscriber fees for Dish??  Doubt that will EVER happen. Dish should just step up and continue to negotiate the subscriber fees....which is why contacting Dish would make the most sense. Seems like Dish is the one backing out of negotiations.

Not to mention I am a customer of Dish, NOT AMC.


----------



## sacflies

phrelin said:


> Right now DirecTV is the only provider in our area that carries it. I supposed when 3D TV sets become more popular we'll see them on other providers.


IMO 3D TV will never become very popular. It is probably just a fad that will fade away. Well, unless they come out with a glasses free version that works well. Even then I would have little to no interest. As it is now I have no desire at all to buy a 3D TV. And no longer have a desire to see 3D movies in the theater. It was OK the first time or two, but the thrill is gone.


----------



## SayWhat?

StringFellow said:


> Not to mention I am a customer of Dish, NOT AMC.


Which is exactly why you should be grateful to Dish for taking a hard line on unreasonable rate increases.


----------



## StringFellow

SayWhat? said:


> Which is exactly why you should be grateful to Dish for taking a hard line on unreasonable rate increases.


Don't get me wrong, I don't want Dish to just roll over and take the high subscriber fees! If they did not, our rates would surely increase.

I do hope Dish continues to work with AMC and they come to an agreement to continue broadcasting AMC.


----------



## markfp

satcrazy said:


> Pity. IFC is one of the more interesting channels on TV.


It use to be until they went commercial and started showing edited films. I knew when I tuned in late one night and they were showing 3 Stooges shorts that the end was near. There's certainly a place for the Stooges on TV but IFC wasn't it.


----------



## Billzebub

phrelin said:


> I wish we could get all the "groups" of channels by ownership that way, and all in HD.
> 
> It would force the big media conglomerates into the capitalist world rather than the near-socialist approach they now use. For instance, I could do without the entire Disney/ABC/ESPN group of channels including the ABC local. It appears it would save me $15± at today's prices and, using a rough guess at what number of subscribers would pay what, if there weren't any mandatory basic packages they would have to charge $35+ a month to generate between 40% to 60% of the revenue the Disney folks now rip all of us off for.
> 
> But I don't see this type of approach happening anytime soon. Rainbow Media is a weak group. And as I said, by dropping access to their channels Dish could cause them significant harm. And that's what tends to happen when you have two intransigent Charlie's in charge.


I think you have a basic misunderstanding of capitalism. In fact, a provider forcing you to buy their channels in groupings is capitalism at its finest. It's their product, they can sell it any way they want and no one, least of all the government, can tell them any different.
I'm not defending this, just explaining it.


----------



## harsh

sigma1914 said:


> How so in the last 20 months? By adding even better original programming and higher ratings? Yeah, that's such a "detriment." It had commercials when those posts were made.


Remembering that the three shows that you cite bring only 39 hours of programming per year (and beauty is in the eye of the beholder), they are a qualified plus.

The commercials seem to be more frequent now and that's an unqualified minus.


----------



## Laxguy

Billzebub said:


> I think you have a basic misunderstanding of capitalism. In fact, a provider forcing you to buy their channels in groupings is capitalism at its finest. It's their product, they can sell it any way they want and no one, least of all the government, can tell them any different.
> I'm not defending this, just explaining it.


The Justice Department and the FCC might disagree with you here.


----------



## satcrazy

markfp said:


> It use to be until they went commercial and started showing edited films. I knew when I tuned in late one night and they were showing 3 Stooges shorts that the end was near. There's certainly a place for the Stooges on TV but IFC wasn't it.


Yeah, your right. I should have said WAS interesting. IFC use to show some off beat stuff that made it interesting, but as the commercials became more frequent, and the content more common place, it lost it's charm.

Too bad about AMC tho, I really got into hell on wheels, and breaking bad is one of my favs


----------



## Paul Secic

SayWhat? said:


> ^^ Still don't know what it is.
> 
> I've been touting that for a long time (except for the HD part --- don't care about that), but it would still mean Disney/ABC would be bloated by the unreasonably, ridiculously overpriced ESPN.


It's a 3D channel. I'm fine with HD.


----------



## phrelin

Well, the battle is on and I fear our Charlie has made up his mind. Reporting on the today's quarterly financials conference call, AdAge tells us:


> Dish Chairman-CEO Charles Ergen elaborated today on the assertion that digital outlets were undermining the AMC channels' value. "Those particular channels are also available to our customers through a variety of other sources, like iTunes, Amazon and Netflix," Mr. Ergen said during Dish Network's earnings call.
> 
> The networks "devalued their programming content" by making it available on multiple outlets, he said.
> 
> ...The network has been vocal about its view that it is undervalued. It has been seeking about 75 cents a subscriber from cable and satellite companies, which would be a significant increase from the roughly 40 cents in carriage fees that analysts estimate the network receives now.


The article is full of information. But it is wrong on one point, at least in terms of Amazon:


> AMC provides Netflix and other streaming video services only with library content; it doesn't make episodes of series available until nearly a year after they appear on TV. Most other cable networks operate the same way.


In fact, last night's "Mad Men" and "The Killing" episodes are available right now at Amazon, for example:


----------



## satcrazy

I'd still like to know how dish determine's AMC's "low,low,low viewership.


Anyone have any idea?


----------



## Mojo Jojo

"satcrazy" said:


> I'd still like to know how dish determine's AMC's "low,low,low viewership.
> 
> Anyone have any idea?


I always thought it was In bold on the channel lineup cards as a popular channel.


----------



## coldsteel

Mojo Jojo said:


> I always thought it was In bold on the channel lineup cards as a popular channel.


It is on my copy...


----------



## Michael P

phrelin said:


> Well, the battle is on and I fear our Charlie has made up his mind. Reporting on the today's quarterly financials conference call, AdAge tells us: The article is full of information. But it is wrong on one point, at least in terms of Amazon:In fact, last night's "Mad Men" and "The Killing" episodes are available right now at Amazon, for example:


At the same time Charlie is complaining about the availability of "cable" programs via broadband, he himself pushed the Dish On Line feature. Did he forget that it costs $1.99 to view via Amazon? I'd rather get the channel full time as part of my AT-2xx package on my 622 than pay $1.99 per episode!


----------



## phrelin

Regarding the Dish On Line feature, I'm not sure that matters much to Charlie. But making Blockbuster competitive could be an element in this mix.

It's really hard to tell how much bluster there is here. Obviously when weighing where to cut to keep package costs down, the Rainbow Media channels won't attract subscriber numbers like the Disney/ESPN/ABC group which Dish has to deal with in the future.

Realistically, AMC, IFC, etc., don't have the audience numbers that Disney and ESPN do. But the Rainbow Media channels do attract their own niche viewers.

And whether Dolan's Rainbow Media can afford to lose all the Dish viewers is a big question.


----------



## maartena

satcrazy said:


> I'd still like to know how dish determine's AMC's "low,low,low viewership.


Data collection from internet connected receivers. Now, I am a DirecTV customer, and with DirecTV you have to manually opt out datacollection in your account settings if you don't want DirecTV keep track of your viewing habits, but I would bet over 50% doesn't. And that is a pretty accurate sample size still.

Now, I don't know if Dish receivers are connected to the internet or to phone lines at all, I have never had Dish.

In addition to that data collection, they may poll/survey Dish customers. Maybe you get an email with your latest bill (if electronic) that invites you to take a survey online. Only customers would take the survey, so they would get a good idea how many people watch certain channels.

Then there is Nielsen. They collect viewing data with a device in your house that is either connected to a phone line (and calls in between 3 and 4 AM to transmit viewing info for that day) or an internet connection. How the technology exactly works is unclear to me, but they get data from roughly 30.000 people every day, all across the nation, and all across different TV systems. That is a pretty good sample size.

(To give you an idea about sample size, usually political polls are held among 500 to 1500 people, and usually they have an error margin of less then 3%, with 30k people you can make a pretty accurate, give or take 1%, list of ratings for television shows)


----------



## Michael P

maartena said:


> Data collection from internet connected receivers. Now, I am a DirecTV customer, and with DirecTV you have to manually opt out datacollection in your account settings if you don't want DirecTV keep track of your viewing habits, but I would bet over 50% doesn't. And that is a pretty accurate sample size still.
> 
> *Now, I don't know if Dish receivers are connected to the internet or to phone lines at all, I have never had Dish.*
> 
> In addition to that data collection, they may poll/survey Dish customers. Maybe you get an email with your latest bill (if electronic) that invites you to take a survey online. Only customers would take the survey, so they would get a good idea how many people watch certain channels.
> 
> Then there is Nielsen. They collect viewing data with a device in your house that is either connected to a phone line (and calls in between 3 and 4 AM to transmit viewing info for that day) or an internet connection. How the technology exactly works is unclear to me, but they get data from roughly 30.000 people every day, all across the nation, and all across different TV systems. That is a pretty good sample size.
> 
> (To give you an idea about sample size, usually political polls are held among 500 to 1500 people, and usually they have an error margin of less then 3%, with 30k people you can make a pretty accurate, give or take 1%, list of ratings for television shows)


Yes they do have a broadband connection! I had mine connected until my router died.

This gives me an idea (perhaps too late). For those of you that like the Rainbow networks, and have the broadband connection to your E* DVR, keep tuned to AMC when you are not watching anything else. Keep it on 24/7. in other words SKEW their data!


----------



## Laxguy

Michael P said:


> Yes they do have a broadband connection! I had mine connected until my router died.
> 
> This gives me an idea (perhaps too late). For those of you that like the Rainbow networks, and have the broadband connection to your E* DVR, keep tuned to AMC when you are not watching anything else. Keep it on 24/7. in other words SKEW their data!


Won't that give AMC more fodder to raise rates higher?


----------



## MCHuf

phrelin said:


> Well, the battle is on and I fear our Charlie has made up his mind. Reporting on the today's quarterly financials conference call, AdAge tells us: The article is full of information. But it is wrong on one point, at least in terms of Amazon:In fact, last night's "Mad Men" and "The Killing" episodes are available right now at Amazon, for example:


Well then, Charlie gonna have to devalue a whole lot more networks then. Because nearly every network has shows for sale on Amazon and iTunes.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

MCHuf said:


> Well then, Charlie gonna have to devalue a whole lot more networks then. Because nearly every network has shows for sale on Amazon and iTunes.


There's still a problem with people disconnecting parts of the story.

Dish said that Rainbow wants more money for AMC than is currently feasible for the current subscribers of that channel.

This isn't saying the channel isn't popular... it is saying AMC wants more money than Dish feels such popularity warrants.

Making up numbers, since we don't know fully what the deal is...

Say Dish is paying 40 cents per subscriber... and AMC wants 80 cents per subscriber. Dish realizes that this not only effects AMC but every other channel in that package... so if they let AMC double, then every other channel will start asking for double in that same package because every channel in the same package has the same # of Dish subscribers.

So... Dish has to weigh that... and knows they can't just give everybody double their current rates at the next negotiating table.

Do you want your package to double in price every other year?

So... Dish isn't saying AMC sucks... Dish isn't even saying they aren't willing to pay more for AMC... Dish has simply said that AMC has asked for too much more than they are willing to pay. AMC has to decide if they are willing to lose Dish entirely vs taking a smaller increase.


----------



## mdavej

Stewart Vernon said:


> There's still a problem with people disconnecting parts of the story.


I see your point that AMC's alternate distribution channels theoretically devalue it. But since everybody's content is ubiquitous, they're all devalued, hence by Dish's logic, if any network asks for any increase at all, then they have grounds to drop them. Such a move against AMC seems very arbitrary and disingenuous, and more likely just sour grapes over the lawsuit.

The biggest disconnect will be the one between me and Dish in June. My cable company now has more HD than Dish and DirecTV combined. I couldn't say that a few weeks ago or at any time in the past 10 years. So the timing couldn't be better.


----------



## phrelin

mdavej said:


> The biggest disconnect will be the one between me and Dish in June. My cable company now has more HD than Dish and DirecTV combined. I couldn't say that a few weeks ago or at any time in the past 10 years. So the timing couldn't be better.


When I looked at it, I learned our cable company Comcast could provide us with everything we want to see with much of it on demand, but not for $44.99 a month.

For a "scripted-series-for-people-over-30" junkie, Dish's AT120 offers USA, TNT, FX, A&E, Syfy, and Lifetime. That also gets us ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, and The CW.

The media companies and Dish have convinced me that it really does boil down to money, our household's money. And in our case we have been paying $15.00 a month or $180.00 a year to have AMC and BBCA shows conveniently recorded. We regularly watch 3 series of 13 episodes a year on AMC. We can watch them from Amazon for $74.00, albeit less conveniently. The stuff on BBCA is more problematic. But it isn't worth $106.00 a year.

By subscribing to premiums like HBO, Showtime, and Starz only when they are airing scripted series we want to watch, we get to record all the movies released last year we want to see. The rest of the time we don't have to pay for the premiums.

Subscribing to AT200 (rather than AT120) for $15 a month gave us AMC and BBCA, but no extras like movies. I realize I've been lazy in managing our home entertainment budget.

As one customer, we aren't going to show up as an important item in any media company's balance sheet. But they do show up in ours. I guess that's where we need to be focused when it comes to home entertainment.


----------



## sregener

Michael P said:


> Did he forget that it costs $1.99 to view via Amazon? I'd rather get the channel full time as part of my AT-2xx package on my 622 than pay $1.99 per episode!


That $1.99/episode is for SD. HD is $2.99/episode, or about $30/season according to the Season 4 pricing. Assuming the $0.75/customer number is correct, only 1/40 customers need to watch the show once a month to break even on the numbers. And that's just one show that some have mentioned here.

Now, I do not watch any of the scripted series on AMC, but I might occasionally watch a movie on it if one comes up that I care to watch. That'd be pretty infrequent, and I could probably get the same movie on-demand for free, without the commercials (which I skip with the 30-second button.) So I'm one of the 39 customers who don't watch it.

Frankly, I don't see the increase as an issue. I expect my bill to go up a few dollars a year as programming costs increase. I look at my bill now at $85/month (without discounts) and compare it to the $30 I paid DirecTV when I signed up back in 1995. That's about a 4% annual increase. However, that $30 didn't include the USSB stations, an HD DVR, or nearly the number of quality channels I get now. I could actually get a very similar package from Dish today for $45/month, which is less than inflation.

What I do see is that a small number of customers, probably more than 1/40, will leave Dish to keep AMC. I'm sure somebody at Dish has crunched the numbers and knows what it would cost them to drop AMC and concluded that the cost is less than the cost to keep them at that price. I guess we'll find out in June. If enough people cancel and cite the lack of AMC as their reason, that will get somebody's attention and maybe things would change. If not, then the bean counters win.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

mdavej said:


> I see your point that AMC's alternate distribution channels theoretically devalue it. But since everybody's content is ubiquitous, they're all devalued, hence by Dish's logic, if any network asks for any increase at all, then they have grounds to drop them. Such a move against AMC seems very arbitrary and disingenuous, and more likely just sour grapes over the lawsuit.


Yes... but again, we don't know all the numbers (do we, maybe I missed them?)...

In these kinds of negotiations Dish would love status quo... Rainbow would love to get double. Rainbow will say "We can't continue to offer quality programming unless we get more money" and Dish will say "We can't continue to carry this channel at the cost they demand with the number of subscribers we have"... and both might be truthful statements.

The two companies will have to meet somewhere in the middle. If Dish truly has zero interest in the channel at any price, then they will hold the line and demand no increase... and Rainbow will either cave and decide status quo is better than losing whatever the number of Dish subscribers is.

If Rainbow takes the hard line, then there will be no amount Dish can offer short of their maximum demand... and we lose the channel.

The only way the channel stays is if Dish is willing to pay a little more and Rainbow is willing to accept that as better than the alternative.

This is how negotiations go.

Now... this wouldn't apply across the board to all channels. Dish's negotiations here might indeed be jaded by the court case with Rainbow and Dish might figure that they will be paying enough to Rainbow over the court costs and can't stomach paying even more to keep their channels.

But... that doesn't mean Dish feels similarly to other channels when their time comes up. Other channels might make more reasonable (in the eyes of Dish) request for increases and have less trouble renewing the contracts.


----------



## Billzebub

Laxguy said:


> The Justice Department and the FCC might disagree with you here.


Adam Smith, on the other hand, would agree with me.


----------



## Laxguy

The two statements are not incompatible!


----------



## zer0cool

I can get Game of Thrones, Weeds, Californication, etc. on amazon / iTunes, not to mention thousands of movies.
Guess Dish better think about dropping HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

zer0cool said:


> Guess Dish better think about dropping HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc.


They might... if those channels want to raise their rates higher than Dish thinks its customers would continue to pay!

Do you want your channels to double in price every time negotiations are renewed?


----------



## zer0cool

Stewart Vernon said:


> They might... if those channels want to raise their rates higher than Dish thinks its customers would continue to pay!
> 
> Do you want your channels to double in price every time negotiations are renewed?


Nah, I just want the right to cancel without penalty if they stop providing me with the services I had when I signed the contract. (Of course, by that token, Dish would have the right to increase my bill every time they added a new channel).

Or just give me the choice on whether I want to pay extra for AMC...

I understand why Dish has to negotiate the way it does, I just wish both sides could be more honest about it.


----------



## MCHuf

Stewart Vernon said:


> They might... if those channels want to raise their rates higher than Dish thinks its customers would continue to pay!
> 
> Do you want your channels to double in price every time negotiations are renewed?


You mention negotiations, but it looks to me that even though there is about seven weeks left in the contract, there are no negotiations going on. All AMC Networks have already been removed from the Channel Line-up Card PDF's. How is that helping their customers? And the timing of the announcement, right after Dish losing a court ruling, makes it look like a personal vendetta by Dish towards AMC Networks. Once again, that isn't helping Dish's customers either.

Dish mentions that AMC isn't worth it's perceived value due to it's programing being available through alternate sources. But what is Dish's value if they aren't carrying a top 20 cable network (AMC), don't have a top network (Disney channels) in HD or have 24/7 HD RSN's (or in NYC any RSN's at all)? That's like the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## hilmar2k

zer0cool said:


> Nah, I just want the right to cancel without penalty if they stop providing me with the services I had when I signed the contract. (*Of course, by that token, Dish would have the right to increase my bill every time they added a new channel*).
> 
> Or just give me the choice on whether I want to pay extra for AMC...
> 
> I understand why Dish has to negotiate the way it does, I just wish both sides could be more honest about it.


They don't have that right currently?


----------



## phrelin

zer0cool said:


> I can get Game of Thrones, Weeds, Californication, etc. on amazon / iTunes, not to mention thousands of movies.
> Guess Dish better think about dropping HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc.


 This is where economic analysis is important. HBO and Showtime together cost $26 a month or $312 a year. Right now "Game of Thrones" season 1 is $28.99 to stream at Amazon. Season 7 of "Weeds" is $20.99.

It appears one could stream from Amazon after the season is over 14± series a year from these two premium channels. But if you watch fewer series shows, you can order the premium when a series starts and cancel when their are no series on that you want to watch. While you are subscribed, you can pretty much record all the "premier" movies you missed. Careful scheduling can save you money and get you extra content for the same dollar.

Plus, from Dish's point of view and mine, these premiums don't increase the cost of a package for people don't want the content. This is an important issue as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## inazsully

To me it seems that Dish saying that they do not want to pay a higher rate to AMC because they don't want to raise our rates, yet if they in turn dump AMC and save X amount of dollars for Dish, they will not pass that savings on to us. I'm just sayin.


----------



## SayWhat?

So, when does the plug get pulled? Is there a set date, or just 'sometime in May or June'?


----------



## Inkosaurus

inazsully said:


> To me it seems that Dish saying that they do not want to pay a higher rate to AMC because they don't want to raise our rates, yet if they in turn dump AMC and save X amount of dollars for Dish, they will not pass that savings on to us. I'm just sayin.


Did your rates go up when you got a new channel? (MLB) nope.


----------



## Jaspear

MCHuf said:


> All AMC Networks have already been removed from the Channel Line-up Card PDF's. How is that helping their customers?


It's helping prospective customers by not giving them false expectations if the channels are removed. It's helping Dish by reducing the chance a new customer will run to a law firm to file a class action suit.


----------



## StringFellow

Jaspear said:


> It's helping prospective customers by not giving them false expectations if the channels are removed. It's helping Dish by reducing the chance a new customer will run to a law firm to file a class action suit.


But the channel line up cards in hopper boxes still state AMC is part of the T200 package. So it is a little misleading regardless.

Lets see.....they (Dish) removes AMC and I get no reduction in fees. I have no options to pay more for the channel. Then, if I do want to watch some of the new AMC shows I have to pay $2 or $3 a show through Amazon, etc........screw that! AMC you have lost a customer.

I personally think the streaming video pricing model is a rip off. For $3 (HD) you can only watch an episode only once. You can buy the entire season blu ray for the same price (entire season watched online once). Not to mention you have to deal with internet quotas if you stream too much.

And what about all the people that don't have internet connections that can support streaming video......


----------



## dough_boy747

i drop the price of the packeges if they do drop them.


----------



## MCHuf

Jaspear said:


> It's helping prospective customers by not giving them false expectations if the channels are removed. It's helping Dish by reducing the chance a new customer will run to a law firm to file a class action suit.


That part of my post goes with the part that was before it. In other words, Dish has already decided to the pull those channels without any negotiations. Now how is Dish not trying to keep those channels for their customers helping their customers? You would think that they would try until the last minute to keep them.

And the argument about Dish doing their best to keep prices down for their customers is pretty naive. Dish is always doing their best to keep their costs down. A subtle difference. But in this case, I believe that Dish is doing their best to hurt AMC Networks over the VOOM lawsuit.


----------



## domingos35

inazsully said:


> To me it seems that Dish saying that they do not want to pay a higher rate to AMC because they don't want to raise our rates, yet if they in turn dump AMC and save X amount of dollars for Dish, they will not pass that savings on to us. I'm just sayin.


does dish raise your rates every time they add a new HD channel? NOOOO
But i don't see you ***** about that .


----------



## sliderbob

Why don't they offer it as an a la carte movie channel. I'm sure that those, who want it, will spend a couple of extra buck to have it.


----------



## sliderbob

I've noticed on Dish's web site that if you look at the channels on the packages...AMC is gone from the Welcome Pack, the AT200 and the AT250...IFC is also gone and a couple of others. I guess they really mean it when those channels will be gone.


----------



## StringFellow

sliderbob said:


> I've noticed on Dish's web site that if you look at the channels on the packages...AMC is gone from the Welcome Pack, the AT200 and the AT250...IFC is also gone and a couple of others. I guess they really mean it when those channels will be gone.


Yeah, it is a done deal. AMC is gone for good.


----------



## tampa8

phrelin said:


> Plus, from Dish's point of view and mine, these premiums don't increase the cost of a package for people don't want the content. This is an important issue as far as I'm concerned.


A very important distinction.


----------



## Inkosaurus

sliderbob said:


> I've noticed on Dish's web site that if you look at the channels on the packages...AMC is gone from the Welcome Pack, the AT200 and the AT250...IFC is also gone and a couple of others. I guess they really mean it when those channels will be gone.


Nah. I worked for Dish during the FX takedown and many other potential takedowns. They learned there lesson with the FX channels takedown, call volume increased dramatically during that time, for a ton of reasons. 
Alot of it was new customers looking to use it as a way out of there contract, citing that the website listed the Channels as available before they signed up.

Ofcourse they didnt hold any legal ground but they still called in and call escalations to supervisors, loyalty department and even specialty departments like ERT were at an all time high.

I wouldnt use there takedown on the website as an indicator that there playing hardball in the negotiations. Fact is we have just under 2 months or so before the possible take down and theres plenty of time for this to be resolved, regardless of what the online line up lists.

I'd reckon there just getting prepared for the worst, I wouldnt be surprised in the slightest if the agents werent already briefed with quick uptraining regarding it and scripts regarding the whole situation and all the potential variables are probably already saved and bookmarked by most competent agents.


----------



## tampa8

StringFellow said:


> Yeah, it is a done deal. AMC is gone for good.


Guessing you don't negotiate?


----------



## hilmar2k

sliderbob said:


> Why don't they offer it as an a la carte movie channel. I'm sure that those, who want it, will spend a couple of extra buck to have it.


AMC would have to agree to that, which I doubt they would.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

sliderbob said:


> Why don't they offer it as an a la carte movie channel. I'm sure that those, who want it, will spend a couple of extra buck to have it.





hilmar2k said:


> AMC would have to agree to that, which I doubt they would.


Exactly... Dish would probably be game to set a much higher price for any channel IF that channel could be delivered a la carte because then Dish only pays when someone specifically wants that channel at that price.



sliderbob said:


> I've noticed on Dish's web site that if you look at the channels on the packages...AMC is gone from the Welcome Pack, the AT200 and the AT250...IFC is also gone and a couple of others. I guess they really mean it when those channels will be gone.


Naah... don't read too much into that. It takes less than a few minutes to make those modifications to the Web site and keep the old data as a backup... so within seconds they could restore all the stuff they just edited out IF a new contract is signed.

But... Dish gives more of an appearance of being serious if they go ahead and start taking down the info.


----------



## inazsully

domingos35 said:


> does dish raise your rates every time they add a new HD channel? NOOOO
> But i don't see you ***** about that .


Please! Dish can ad any channel they want without asking me. I didn't ask for it nor did I agree to pay for it. But I did agree to pay for a package that included AMC. It was their special package and I agreed to pay for that package. They offered that package. They chose the specific stations for that package. Those included stations were designed to entice customers to choose that package. So you think it's OK for them to just drop channels from that package at their whim? Sure they can do it. But that don't make it right. As far as me not *****ing about Dish adding a station, you're correct there. I don't ***** when I get a raise either because hey, maybe they think I deserve it. I think most of us would ***** if they, out of the blue, lowered our wage though. Same thing here. They lowered the value of my package and increased the value of their package.


----------



## mdavej

inazsully said:


> Please! Dish can ad any channel they want without asking me. I didn't ask for it nor did I agree to pay for it. But I did agree to pay for a package that included AMC. It was their special package and I agreed to pay for that package. They offered that package. They chose the specific stations for that package. Those included stations were designed to entice customers to choose that package. So you think it's OK for them to just drop channels from that package at their whim? Sure they can do it. But that don't make it right. As far as me not *****ing about Dish adding a station, you're correct there. I don't ***** when I get a raise either because hey, maybe they think I deserve it. I think most of us would ***** if they, out of the blue, lowered our wage though. Same thing here. They lowered the value of my package and increased the value of their package.


Well said.


----------



## Laxguy

I don't think either company employs whimsy when adding or dropping a channel or group of them.


----------



## sacflies

Well, looks like I'll be staying with D*. And I was so close to switching to Dish. But with no Disney (little one loves Disney channels), no ESPNU and ESPN News, and now probably no AMC...it ain't happenin. Guess I will call D* and have them set me up with 2 more HD boxes and whole home DVR and get locked into another 2 year contract (sigh). Hopefully I can get them to set me up with an HR34 for a good price, as my HR23's are super slow.


----------



## sregener

sacflies said:


> Well, looks like I'll be staying with D*. And I was so close to switching to Dish. But with no Disney (little one loves Disney channels), no ESPNU and ESPN News, and now probably no AMC...it ain't happenin.


To be clear, Dish carries Disney East/West, ESPNU and ESPN News, just in SD. And Dish's SD is quite watchable, unlike DirecTV's. They apparently will not carry AMC in HD or SD.

The a la carte idea is one worth considering. The argument has long been that packages make channels cheaper. AMC would have to see the glass as half-full; some carriage is better than no carriage. Dish could drop the channel from their packages, and not lose customers who really wanted AMC. Back-of-the-envelope calculations put the break-even price around $2.50/month.

The problem, of course, is that AMC makes more than that if people buy their episodes on Amazon or iTunes. AMC may actually want to be removed from packages to increase their bottom line.


----------



## BillJ

sacflies said:


> Well, looks like I'll be staying with D*. And I was so close to switching to Dish. But with no Disney (little one loves Disney channels), no ESPNU and ESPN News, and now probably no AMC...it ain't happenin. Guess I will call D* and have them set me up with 2 more HD boxes and whole home DVR and get locked into another 2 year contract (sigh). Hopefully I can get them to set me up with an HR34 for a good price, as my HR23's are super slow.


Let's be accurrate here. Dish has Disney, ESPNU, and ESPN News. ABC Family too. Don't have them in HD but they are available to view in SD. I'll agree I'd rather have them HD. Suspect when contracts come up for renewal again we will, but it's not like life ends because I can only see them in SD.


----------



## sregener

inazsully said:


> Those included stations were designed to entice customers to choose that package. So you think it's OK for them to just drop channels from that package at their whim? Sure they can do it. But that don't make it right.


I think you're overstating your position. Frankly, I believe that the real issue is the 2-year commitment they insist on in order to get customer discounts. You sign the agreement, you accept the early termination fee, but then they change the game on you. If you could drop the commitment (sending back all equipment and paying a termination fee equal to the installation cost), you could drop the company and keep the programming you want until...

All the providers work the same way. They drop channels from the lineup if price increases make it too expensive to keep them. DirecTV may drop AMC come next negotiating session. Your local cable company might drop them, too. There's no promises that a channel that is here today will still be around come next contract term.

The reality is that if AMC is that important to you, that one channel above and beyond all else, then you will either pay the ETF and go to a provider that carries it (and I recommend cable, since they seem to be the only ones without a commitment) or pay an online provider to give you the episodes you want. Someone else has done the math and figured dropping their package to Top120 and buying the shows they watch is cheaper than paying the ETF or switching to another provider. YMMV.


----------



## James Long

hilmar2k said:


> sliderbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't they offer it as an a la carte movie channel. I'm sure that those, who want it, will spend a couple of extra buck to have it.
> 
> 
> 
> AMC would have to agree to that, which I doubt they would.
Click to expand...

Agreed ... AMC wants 10-14 million DISH customers to pay 40/80 cents per household - whether or not they actually watch AMC. On the low end they walk away with $4 million per month, $48 million a year. Make the channels a la carte and they would have to sell a lot of subscriptions at a higher price just to break even.

Channels know they are better off in packages sold to people who don't want them as well as the people who will make a lot of noise if the channel wasn't there. Very few channels have decided to allow a la carte sales. Most of them are not very popular or are very expensive a la carte.


----------



## Inkosaurus

> If you could drop the commitment (sending back all equipment and paying a termination fee equal to the installation cost)


You do realize that the ETF charge, even if you canceled in the first month is still no where close to the actual cost of acquisition and installation right? If the contract was 4 years you'd be right on the money 



> The a la carte idea is one worth considering. The argument has long been that packages make channels cheaper. AMC would have to see the glass as half-full; some carriage is better than no carriage. Dish could drop the channel from their packages, and not lose customers who really wanted AMC. Back-of-the-envelope calculations put the break-even price around $2.50/month.


Yeah but when it comes to a la carte they gun for profit and not to break even on past earnings, especially if there going a la carte because Dish said no to there increase negotiations. Thats assuming the majority of the 14million customers decided to add AMC a la carte.

There going to factor there price to over compensate and its going to be much higher then 2.50$ , just look at the current a la carte offerings that are on Dish to get an Idea of some of the extremes the a la carte price could be. 
Personally I think the price would be about 5-7$


----------



## dmspen

> I personally think the streaming video pricing model is a rip off. For $3 (HD) you can only watch an episode only once. You can buy the entire season blu ray for the same price (entire season watched online once).


This isn't quite true. When I bought Downton Abbey Season 2 in BluRay from Amazon, I was also given the HD streaming rights along with it. Technically I could sell the BluRay discs. That would cut my cost in half. There's also no limitation to how many times I can watch it.

There must be some way to record these streaming movies to be able to watch them again.


----------



## Inkosaurus

dmspen said:


> This isn't quite true. When I bought Downton Abbey Season 2 in BluRay from Amazon, I was also given the HD streaming rights along with it. Technically I could sell the BluRay discs. That would cut my cost in half. There's also no limitation to how many times I can watch it.
> 
> There must be some way to record these streaming movies to be able to watch them again.


Just use a screen capture program , like camtasia studio, just make sure it has options to record audio too (some surprisingly dont have that option).

Qualities usually pretty decent if you choose the right compression and conversion options.


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> The Justice Department and the FCC might disagree with you here.


I think you'll agree that they've done precious little to date to indicate such a leaning. We would expect them to intervene, but that hasn't been a well traveled path of late.


----------



## zer0cool

> Originally Posted by zer0cool
> Nah, I just want the right to cancel without penalty if they stop providing me with the services I had when I signed the contract. (Of course, by that token, Dish would have the right to increase my bill every time they added a new channel).
> 
> Or just give me the choice on whether I want to pay extra for AMC...
> 
> I understand why Dish has to negotiate the way it does, I just wish both sides could be more honest about it.





hilmar2k said:


> They don't have that right currently?


Of course they do, and sometimes they exercise that right. My point was that I, like the vast majority on here, tend to whine about wanting certain channels added, but we don't want our bills raised. ("Dish better add channel blah-blah, in HD or I'm switching. "Dish better increase my monthly bill or i'm switching"):lol:

If I buy a car, I select the options I want it to have and work out a price structured to require me to make a payment of, we'll say $300 per month.
If six months later, the car dealership decides to remove my windshield wipers, whether I use them or not, I'm going to be pissed off. Maybe they did this because Windshield Wipers Inc. notified the dealership they were going to charge them an extra $1000 for every car they sold with windshield wipers installed. So, the dealership, knowing I'm not going to be willing to pay an extra $1500 (gotta' figure in some markup), just removes the option.
Still, I don't care why they did it, I still need my wipers! And I'm angry at both the dealership and the makers of the wipers in equal measure, because they should just work it out so their most important asset, the customer, continues to get what they paid for.


----------



## akw4572

I'll weigh in here. I'm on the fence about switching over from D, and I thought this might make me not want to switch. Then, after thinking about it, it's no big deal as I have netflix alreaday. The fact that I'll get FSC in HD with the 250 pack will still probably entice me. But it does make me nervous for the future as far as what I may lose channel wise within my 2 year commitment.


----------



## Jhon69

Ira Lacher said:


> This constant brinksmanship is why I keep asking myself, "Do I really want to commit to two years of not knowing if the channels I watch will be there tomorrow?"
> 
> Maybe I'm paying higher prices for DirecTV but it could be considered insurance!


Could it? don't think it helped when it came to G4 on DirecTV,G4 went bye bye.

Facts are both satellite providers have reserved the right to change programming or prices if they have to.


----------



## sigma1914

Jhon69 said:


> Could it? don't think it helped when it came to G4 on DirecTV,G4 went bye bye.
> 
> Facts are both satellite providers have reserved the right to change programming or prices if they have to.


While I like G4, it's nowhere near as popular as AMC.


----------



## Darcaine

Jhon69 said:


> Could it? don't think it helped when it came to G4 on DirecTV,G4 went bye bye.
> 
> Facts are both satellite providers have reserved the right to change programming or prices if they have to.


While its true that both carriers reserve the right to drop channels, G4 was an extremely insignificant channel with a miniscule viewership. Its akin to the hypothetical situation of D* dropping QVC (IMO G4 was so bad it should have had to pay Directv to carry them like QVC does) vs Dish dropping something like USA networks.

Fact of the matter is, D* has shown a lot less willingness to drop popular channels than Dish. But I still commend Dish for having the guts to stand up against the excessive price increases by the content providers who over value their content.


----------



## zer0cool

Maybe this is all stemming from the producers of Mad Men paying $250,000 to use a Beatles song in last week's episode. :lol:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55558


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Dish can't charge you for a channel they don't have. But Dish dropping AMC is just one channel in a package... If Dish dropped the whole package, then you have a point.

You can drop AT250 or whatever as soon as AMC goes dark... so you won't be paying for a channel/package they dropped!

IF Dish ever lost something like HBO, then you wouldn't be able to subscribe to that a la carte channel.

So... the arguments over "they can't charge me for something they dropped" really are strawman arguments.

IF the only reason you are on AT200 or AT250 or whatever is for one particular channel... then when Dish drops that channel, you drop that tier, and you are missing a channel BUT you aren't paying for it either. Done and done.


----------



## Laxguy

zer0cool said:


> Maybe this is all stemming from the producers of Mad Men paying $250,000 to use a Beatles song in last week's episode. :lol:
> 
> http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55558


Maybe. See this.


----------



## Ira Lacher

Darcaine said:


> _ still commend Dish for having the guts to stand up against the excessive price increases by the content providers who over value their content._


_

And what happens when every provider starts charging "excessive price increases" to gain their share of the pie? Does DISH just shut down?_


----------



## Laxguy

Ira Lacher said:


> And what happens when every provider starts charging "excessive price increases" to gain their share of the pie? Does DISH just shut down?


It's a tightrope! Both sides need each other, but not at the extreme.


----------



## inazsully

akw4572 said:


> I'll weigh in here. I'm on the fence about switching over from D, and I thought this might make me not want to switch. Then, after thinking about it, it's no big deal as I have netflix alreaday. The fact that I'll get FSC in HD with the 250 pack will still probably entice me. But it does make me nervous for the future as far as what I may lose channel wise within my 2 year commitment.


The real concern for me is not that Dish is dropping AMC, or that they no longer have ESPN News in HD, or that they no longer have Disney in HD or that they said they would have the RSN's in HD 24/7. But, do you see a pattern? That's my concern. When Dish ads a channel at no cost increase to us I feel that they consider that a good marketing vs. customer relations move and falls within their profit structure. I certainly appreciate it even if I never watch that channel. Maybe they could develop another Platinum Package and include AMC. Just a thought.


----------



## mdavej

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> Dish can't charge you for a channel they don't have. But Dish dropping AMC is just one channel in a package... If Dish dropped the whole package, then you have a point.
> 
> You can drop AT250 or whatever as soon as AMC goes dark... so you won't be paying for a channel/package they dropped!
> 
> IF Dish ever lost something like HBO, then you wouldn't be able to subscribe to that a la carte channel.
> 
> So... the arguments over "they can't charge me for something they dropped" really are strawman arguments.
> 
> IF the only reason you are on AT200 or AT250 or whatever is for one particular channel... then when Dish drops that channel, you drop that tier, and you are missing a channel BUT you aren't paying for it either. Done and done.


Not so. They're dropping the whole network, which is 4 channels not 1. It's a big deal.

Sad part is I'll have to quit satellite entirely because now my cable company is the only place left that has all the channels I want.


----------



## akw4572

inazsully said:


> The real concern for me is not that Dish is dropping AMC, or that they no longer have ESPN News in HD, or that they no longer have Disney in HD or that they said they would have the RSN's in HD 24/7. But, do you see a pattern? That's my concern. When Dish ads a channel at no cost increase to us I feel that they consider that a good marketing vs. customer relations move and falls within their profit structure. I certainly appreciate it even if I never watch that channel. Maybe they could develop another Platinum Package and include AMC. Just a thought.


The good thing is, I've been with D a long time, so I'm not under contract with anyone at the moment. Honestly, going under contract with any provider makes me nervous, the way they seem to play russian roulette with channels.


----------



## Ira Lacher

mdavej said:


> Sad part is I'll have to quit satellite entirely because now my cable company is the only place left that has all the channels I want.


I went to satellite for several reasons:


Satellite had a clear picture; cable was crummy
Satellite had channels my cable system didn't have.
Satellite was less expensive.
Now that Mediacom has gone digital, 1 does not apply. 2 still does; see below, and so does 3. But there's less a reason for me to avoid cable than there has been.

And in my case, no provider has all the channels I want. DirecTV doesn't have BBCA, HLN, H2, NGeoW in HD or all my locals in HD. DISH doesn't have ESPNU in HD, GOL-TV at all, and soon the AMC networks, unless things change. Mediacom doesn't have MLB, NBA, NHL networks. So I guess I go with the provider that has the fewest omissions!


----------



## braven

So happy I didn't switch to Dish a couple weeks ago. (I really wanted the Hopper system)


----------



## SayWhat?

Tick-tick-tick..........


Nobody knows when D-Day is? I wanna see the fireworks around here.


----------



## mdavej

Ira Lacher said:


> I went to satellite for several reasons:
> 
> 
> Satellite had a clear picture; cable was crummy
> Satellite had channels my cable system didn't have.
> Satellite was less expensive.
> Now that Mediacom has gone digital, 1 does not apply. 2 still does; see below, and so does 3. But there's less a reason for me to avoid cable than there has been.
> 
> And in my case, no provider has all the channels I want. DirecTV doesn't have BBCA, HLN, H2, NGeoW in HD or all my locals in HD. DISH doesn't have ESPNU in HD, GOL-TV at all, and soon the AMC networks, unless things change. Mediacom doesn't have MLB, NBA, NHL networks. So I guess I go with the provider that has the fewest omissions!


Those were my main reasons for switching to satellite years ago as well. Cable will cost me more in the long run, but at least it has all the HD Dish has plus AMC, Disney, and a few others, and no contract or equipment to buy. DirecTV isn't in the ballpark anymore due to the channels you listed and several others like G4, DIY and TCM. If I were a big sports fan it would be a different story. But in my case, cable has the fewest omissions, unfortunately.

With the SDV conversions, my cable system has added a huge number of channels. I wouldn't have even considered cable a few months ago. But the situation has changed very dramatically, very quickly.

I love my new Hopper, so I hate to leave. But losing AMC, IFC and Sundance is too much. I did the math, and the new customer deal will cover my ETF and what I wasted on my Hoopper and will continue to be cheaper over all until about the 5 year mark.

And If anyone one thinks this isn't already a done deal, just download the latest channel lineup cards. AMC, IFC, Sundance and WE are nowhere to be found. And the promised replacements for them are also nowhere to be found.


----------



## Jhon69

Ira Lacher said:


> And what happens when every provider starts charging "excessive price increases" to gain their share of the pie? Does DISH just shut down?


Don't know but what I do know is when you lose 14 million subscribers the advertisers will start to ask for a rebate on the price they paid for commercials on those networks.

There will be losers on both sides,churn for DISH, loss of viewership and revenue for the networks.

But someone has to make a stand and normally it's been DISH,if not now,when?.

That's why I support DISH and I have no plans to go elsewhere,it's only TV.


----------



## Inkosaurus

mdavej said:


> And If anyone one thinks this isn't already a done deal, just download the latest channel lineup cards. AMC, IFC, Sundance and WE are nowhere to be found. And the promised replacements for them are also nowhere to be found.


As stated multiple times already this is in no way , shape or form a Indicator that the negotiations are over, or as you say "a done deal".

This information can be edited, redacted and backed up in seconds. Dish is just preparing for the worst, the last thing they want is people calling in in 2 months time citing the AMC take down and it being online in a line up chart as a way out of there contract.

My suggestion is, dont look for insignificant little changes to the website as an indicator that the negotiations are over. Hell if the channels taken down that doesnt mean much, as we've seen in the past they can still pop right back up.

For those of you considering leaving over this I suggest just waiting till the fat lady sings, instead of getting up and leaving when shes walking to the stage.
By the time this is over atleast your ETF will be a tad bit cheaper should the worst happen.


----------



## SayWhat?

In a way, I hope AMC does get dropped and takes a major financial hit. Then in a few months, they'll come crawling back, willing to accept pennies.


----------



## Jim5506

This is the tactic that providers like Dish And DirecTV and cable outlets MUST adhere to if they are going to stem the tide of unreasonable price increases.

Stick to your guns and make and example of AMC - somebody's gotta go down!


----------



## tampa8

sacflies said:


> Well, looks like I'll be staying with D*. And I was so close to switching to Dish. But with no Disney (little one loves Disney channels), no ESPNU and ESPN News, and now probably no AMC...it ain't happenin. Guess I will call D* and have them set me up with 2 more HD boxes and whole home DVR and get locked into another 2 year contract (sigh). Hopefully I can get them to set me up with an HR34 for a good price, as my HR23's are super slow.


Thanks for that info. Dish will be crushed.


----------



## tampa8

inazsully said:


> The real concern for me is not that Dish is dropping AMC, or that they no longer have ESPN News in HD, or that they no longer have Disney in HD or that they said they would have the RSN's in HD 24/7. But, do you see a pattern? That's my concern. When Dish ads a channel at no cost increase to us I feel that they consider that a good marketing vs. customer relations move and falls within their profit structure. I certainly appreciate it even if I never watch that channel. Maybe they could develop another Platinum Package and include AMC. Just a thought.


I think it's fair to say at least at this point Dish is more prone to these disputes. I would also say other providers are starting to make noise to do the same thing if needed. Most channels do return, as you point out not all or with Disney not in HD.
Putting all AMC into something like the platinum package is not a far fetched idea, here's the problem. Would AMC actually do that, and does Dish want to try and keep them by working things out.


----------



## Tiny

I dont watch AMC ,sundance ,ifc , I thought amc:eek2: was a movie channel but they got away from the theme that made them but now i dont care its greed plain and simple.


----------



## inazsully

AMC shows plenty of movies. Tonight they are showing 2 or 3 of the Die Hard movies. It shouldn't matter if you watch it, it was in your package and now you're losing it. Are you getting any money back? Just because they can do it doesn't mean they should. And who says AMC is asking for an unreasonable increase? They are one of the few channels that is actually coming up with new in house programming. Which by the way. quite a few people must like.


----------



## domingos35

i think they will reach a new deal


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inazsully said:


> AMC shows plenty of movies. Tonight they are showing 2 or 3 of the Die Hard movies. It shouldn't matter if you watch it, it was in your package and now you're losing it. Are you getting any money back? Just because they can do it doesn't mean they should. And who says AMC is asking for an unreasonable increase? They are one of the few channels that is actually coming up with new in house programming. Which by the way. quite a few people must like.


I watched Walking Dead... I also watched the Talking Dead afterwards. I know some watch Mad Men and the Killing.

I think maybe I watched a made-for-TV movie once or twice... but that's about it.

If there are 20 channels in a package tier and each of them want a 40 cent increase per channel... then you have an $8 increase every year for that tier. Worse for tiers like the basic tier that have more channels in them.

The problem with Dish is that cable and DirecTV haven't been as much in the fight as Dish has. IF all the providers would balk a little at the negotiating table, our prices might be lower than they are.

You gripe when your bill goes up... why shouldn't Dish gripe when theirs goes up?


----------



## Darcaine

inazsully said:


> AMC shows plenty of movies. Tonight they are showing 2 or 3 of the Die Hard movies. It shouldn't matter if you watch it, it was in your package and now you're losing it. Are you getting any money back? Just because they can do it doesn't mean they should. And who says AMC is asking for an unreasonable increase? They are one of the few channels that is actually coming up with new in house programming. Which by the way. quite a few people must like.


If this happens, your bill isn't going up because of AMC, so while you may not be getting any money put back into your pocket, you aren't having anymore taken out of it, either.

Its not as if AMC is asking for the same price they got two years ago, and Dish decided to dump them so they could save money and not pass that savings onto you.

AMC is asking for more money that is ultimately going to come out of the customers pocket. Dish doesn't feel like they have enough customers who watch AMC to justify an unreasonable price increase for all their customers who don't, and the few that do, have alternatives, though not exactly very desirable (3 bucks per episode is insane), but at least the costs would be shouldered by the people who consume the content and not those who don't.

A la carte would achieve that too, but AMC isn't very likely to agree to it

As for unreasonable increase, that's up to each individual to decide based on how much they value AMC's content (though I'd argue that any price increase is unreasonable for people who don't watch the channels). But assuming this is even partly because of money and not solely about company egos, Dish determined the price increase was unreasonable for their business and majority of their customers.


----------



## LOCODUDE

CCarncross said:


> The Walking Dead, The Killing, Mad Men, Hell on Wheels, Breaking Bad...some of the best tv on tv right now....


I agree 100%.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Darcaine said:


> AMC is asking for more money that is ultimately going to come out of the customers pocket. Dish doesn't feel like they have enough customers who watch AMC to justify an unreasonable price increase for all their customers who don't, and the few that do, have alternatives, though not exactly very desirable (3 bucks per episode is insane), but at least the costs would be shouldered by the people who consume the content and not those who don't.


If only more of you thought the same regarding ESPN. I've seen analyst reports indicating that the a-la-carte price would be anywhere from 25 to 35 dollars per month.


----------



## dlt

What everyone is failing to get, it is to much of a Coincidence that DISH is being sued for a ton of money by the same company that owns the channels being dropped. I think chances are the DISH is punishing them instead of the so called unreasonable price increase that they claim is happening. In the end, the customer gets less channels to choose from and less channels in the package that we are paying for.


----------



## Darcaine

dlt said:


> What everyone is failing to get, it is to much of a Coincidence that DISH is being sued for a ton of money by the same company that owns the channels being dropped. I think chances are the DISH is punishing them instead of the so called unreasonable price increase that they claim is happening. In the end, the customer gets less channels to choose from and less channels in the package that we are paying for.


More than likely there is an element of vendictiveness on Dishes part, its also no secret that AMC wants more money for their improved content offerings (but the problem is they want it from everyone in the package, not just the people who watch it, which could very well be a very insignificant portion of the Dish subscriber base. AMCs highest rated series, on for only 12 weeks out of the year, drew 8 million viewers across Directv, Verison, Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, ATT, and Dish, etc. With that many companies offering AMC how many Dish subscribers are watching? At what point does Dish concern itself with the costs for the majority over the content desires of the minority)?

Going by past negotiations, Dish most likely feels like AMC is asking to much, and the lawsuit just added more fuel to Dishes desire not to do business with AMC under current conditions.


----------



## bnborg

If all four channels disappear, I would only notice because of the gap they would leave in the EPG. I do not watch them and I would not miss them.


----------



## inazsully

But what's to say the next four channels they dump are ones you watch? Same with ESPN. Of course there are people that hate sports and hate to subsidize the sports lovers. Dish recognizes where the majority of the viewers desires lie and its sports. The point is if they take away AMC and you don't care and then they take away The Discovery Channel and you do care but I don't, we both lose our channel. United we stand, divided we fall.


----------



## James Long

inazsully said:


> But what's to say the next four channels they dump are ones you watch? Same with ESPN. Of course there are people that hate sports and hate to subsidize the sports lovers. Dish recognizes where the majority of the viewers desires lie and its sports. The point is if they take away AMC and you don't care and then they take away The Discovery Channel and you do care but I don't, we both lose our channel. United we stand, divided we fall.


I do not believe television is worth invoking Martin Niemöller.

While it is good to respect that someone else's favorite channel being "lost" is important and not be totally self focused and not care, the channel lineup is not shrinking with every negotiation.

Most negotiations go fine. The channels stay and no one gets hurt. Something goes wrong with a provider and panic sets in?

If AMC offers or accepts a fair price for carriage their channels will remain on DISH Network. If they don't then they can go away. Hopefully something will be worked out (as is usually the case).


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Gloria_Chavez said:


> If only more of you thought the same regarding ESPN. I've seen analyst reports indicating that the a-la-carte price would be anywhere from 25 to 35 dollars per month.


A la carte (as we've discussed many times on this forum) would kill most channels... and we'd be left with the choice to pay the same for far less channels. Today, that same proposed $25-$35 for ESPN gets you ESPN and a ton of other channels.

I know people like to blame ESPN for the cost of their packages... but even if ESPN is $5-$6 as some people have claimed, that is still a small part of the package that they are contained within... and it is a fairly popular suite of channels.

Also... the interesting twist that nobody considers... ESPN bids high for sports events because they are getting a lot of money from being in basic tiers...If you taken them out of a basic tier and go a la carte, they would have to charge more... but people wouldn't be willing to pay too much more... so ESPN would then start bidding lower for those same sports to reduce their costs. So... when projecting how much they would need to charge a la carte, you have to factor that in.

Personally... I'm thinking $15-$20... basically in the neighborhood of what HBO and other premium channel suits cost a la carte is where ESPN would settle. That would actually be fair to me and I would probably still subscribe at that price though I would drop something else that I don't watch... which would mean some other lower charging channel wouldn't be getting money from me anymore.



dlt said:


> What everyone is failing to get, it is to much of a Coincidence that DISH is being sued for a ton of money by the same company that owns the channels being dropped. I think chances are the DISH is punishing them instead of the so called unreasonable price increase that they claim is happening. In the end, the customer gets less channels to choose from and less channels in the package that we are paying for.


No failure here... I'm sure it is related... and there's no reason why it can't be. What makes you think Rainbow isn't asking for a price increase to pay for the money they think Dish owes them per the lawsuit? I'm sure Rainbow's request for a price increase is not a coincidence either.



inazsully said:


> But what's to say the next four channels they dump are ones you watch? Same with ESPN. Of course there are people that hate sports and hate to subsidize the sports lovers. Dish recognizes where the majority of the viewers desires lie and its sports. The point is if they take away AMC and you don't care and then they take away The Discovery Channel and you do care but I don't, we both lose our channel. United we stand, divided we fall.


They already took away some HD feeds that I watched (DisneyXD, ESPNNews) and don't have ESPNUHD because of their Disney dispute... so, yeah, I'm already feeling the pain of missing a channel or two... I also liked 5-6 of those Voom channels that Rainbow wouldn't let Dish keep.


----------



## SayWhat?

Gloria_Chavez said:


> If only more of you thought the same regarding ESPN. I've seen analyst reports indicating that the a-la-carte price would be anywhere from 25 to 35 dollars per month.


I'd love to see ESPN go away, especially if it would result in a fee reduction.



dlt said:


> What everyone is failing to get, it is to much of a Coincidence that DISH is being sued for a ton of money by the same company that owns the channels being dropped. I think chances are the DISH is punishing them instead of the so called unreasonable price increase that they claim is happening.


Work for me. The suit seems off-base to me anyways.


----------



## Ira Lacher

Gloria_Chavez said:


> If only more of you thought the same regarding ESPN. I've seen analyst reports indicating that the a-la-carte price would be anywhere from 25 to 35 dollars per month.


Frankly, there's not that much on ESPN I watch until college football season begins. And nothing I couldn't live without. So heck, ESPN, start charging a la carte and see how many subs you get!


----------



## Laxguy

SayWhat? said:


> I'd love to see ESPN go away, especially if it would result in a fee reduction.


You make it go away by creating a custom channel list. If they were pulled or dropped, you'd not see a fee reduction in the near term, if ever; other costs will continue to rise.

I came to DIRECTV® to get lacrosse games that stupid Comcast wouldn't carry. They were mostly on ESPN.....


----------



## sregener

"Ira Lacher" said:


> Frankly, there's not that much on ESPN I watch until college football season begins. And nothing I couldn't live without. So heck, ESPN, start charging a la carte and see how many subs you get!


The issue is this: Disney owns ESPN. They also own ABC. When contract time comes up, they play the "if you want to carry your local ABC station, you have to carry ESPN, Disney, and ABC Family in such-and-such a tier" game. That is really why local stations disappear from lineups over contract disputes. It is Disney/Fox/etc that force the bundling.

I highly suspect that many of you who do not want ESPN would find the loss of ABC or Disney to be unacceptable - after all, ABC's programming is much higher rated than anything on AMC (same for ESPN) but there are plenty of howlers out there who will leave Dish over losing AMC.


----------



## inazsully

Like it or not, sports drives the television market. Advertising rates are highest for NFL games, College football games, NBA games etc. Take ESPN off the lower tiers and the complaining will be coming from the advertisers because they would be losing a huge amount of viewers. It's all about the $$$$!


----------



## Chihuahua

As I have posted earlier, I haven't much cared for AMC in recent years. They have even began airing infomercials!


----------



## nmetro

If AMC and IFC would go back to being commercial free, then I would noy have problems with a fee increase; I do not think DISH would either. We, the channel, had commercials from day one and Sundance is still commercial free. 

Before the days of TCM, and a few years afterwards, AMC (American Movie Classics) was a good source for commercial free movies; from the 30s - 60s. But, Rainbow Media decided that commercials, newer movies and reruns was a better route. IFC (Independent Film Channel) was a great source for independent and foreaign films; all commercial free, then Rainbow turned to commercials, and reuns. Though, it is a good source for The Three Stooges in the afternoon. But, these changes drove me away. Just like, FxM did with Fox Movie Channel; another bastion that is no longer commercial free.

The end result, for the most part, AMC, IFC, and We really do not differ much from what is available on USA, TNT, OWN, A&E, Lifetime, Spike, etc. Recent reruns and recent movies cut to pieces, with commercials, and infomercials at the wee hours of the morning. Rainbow just took a page from ViaCom and NBC Universal; show recent reruns, infomercials and extend a movie almost an hour with commercials.


----------



## Darcaine

nmetro said:


> If AMC and IFC would go back to being commercial free, then I would noy have problems with a fee increase; I do not think DISH would either. We, the channel, had commercials from day one and Sundance is still commercial free.
> 
> Before the days of TCM, and a few years afterwards, AMC (American Movie Classics) was a good source for commercial free movies; from the 30s - 60s. But, Rainbow Media decided that commercials, newer movies and reruns was a better route. IFC (Independent Film Channel) was a great source for independent and foreaign films; all commercial free, then Rainbow turned to commercials, and reuns. Though, it is a good source for The Three Stooges in the afternoon. But, these changes drove me away. Just like, FxM did with Fox Movie Channel; another bastion that is no longer commercial free.
> 
> The end result, for the most part, AMC, IFC, and We really do not differ much from what is available on USA, TNT, OWN, A&E, Lifetime, Spike, etc. Recent reruns and recent movies cut to pieces, with commercials, and infomercials at the wee hours of the morning. Rainbow just took a page from ViaCom and NBC Universal; show recent reruns, infomercials and extend a movie almost an hour with commercials.


And at the same time started creating original programming, one series of which has gone on to be the highest rated show in cable history, and another that is one of the most buzzed about shows on TV.

Well worth the trade off for a lot of people, and is giving AMC the ammunition to ask for fee increases (though like all providers I wish they'd be more reasonable about what they ask for).


----------



## Michael P

Stewart Vernon said:


> A la carte (as we've discussed many times on this forum) would kill most channels... and we'd be left with the choice to pay the same for far less channels. Today, that same proposed $25-$35 for ESPN gets you ESPN and a ton of other channels.
> 
> I also liked 5-6 of those Voom channels that Rainbow wouldn't let Dish keep.


If you need an example of how much A la carte would cost all you have to do is look at the foreign channels. Have you ever read the posts by Hindi subs who suddenly "lost" one channel out of their pack. The channel was still available if you paid about $35 extra! What the tier-based packs give us is an economy of scale. If you add up what the per-sub costs would be for any tier you would see that we actually get a good bang for our buck.

As for Voom, I stand behind Dish. Even though I never subbed to the pack (I did not have any HD programming at the time) I observed that the content was diluted. Too many repeats that could have delivered on fewer channels. Dish was right Rainbow was wrong. But it was Rainbow's choice as the content producer to offer those channels in that format. Without any other MSO's (other than Rainbow's own Cablevision) the whole concept was doomed from the start. Voom needed Dish more than Dish needed VOOM in order to survive. Also the timing was not right for VOOM. As one of the first HD nets they should have had an SD counterpart as there were not enough HD ready households that could subscribe.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Michael P said:


> As for Voom, I stand behind Dish. Even though I never subbed to the pack (I did not have any HD programming at the time) I observed that the content was diluted. Too many repeats that could have delivered on fewer channels. Dish was right Rainbow was wrong. But it was Rainbow's choice as the content producer to offer those channels in that format. Without any other MSO's (other than Rainbow's own Cablevision) the whole concept was doomed from the start. Voom needed Dish more than Dish needed VOOM in order to survive. Also the timing was not right for VOOM. As one of the first HD nets they should have had an SD counterpart as there were not enough HD ready households that could subscribe.


To be sure... I am with Dish on the Voom decision too. Rainbow was running the company like clowns the color of the rainbow! 

I was just noting that I did like some of those Voom channels, along with the Disney HD feeds, that we have lost due to dispute... so I have some skin in the game in that I supported Dish's stance against Rainbow Media and lost some channels I liked as a result.

But you know...

Wouldn't it be cool (albeit entirely unlikely of course) IF the potential drop of the rest of Rainbow's channels forces some re-thinking at Rainbow?

I used to argue that IFC could have had an HD feed incorporating a couple of the Voom channels that showed Independent films... In a dream world, someone would wake up at Rainbow and realize that if they stopped the lawsuit nonsense and negotiated in good faith... Dish might be interested in those 5 HD channels + the current AMC, IFC, etc. ones all in HD... and Rainbow could have a nice well-rounded suite of channels to sell to DirecTV and other cable companies to boot.

It won't happen... but I can dream.


----------



## nmetro

Darcaine said:


> And at the same time started creating original programming, one series of which has gone on to be the highest rated show in cable history, and another that is one of the most buzzed about shows on TV.
> 
> Well worth the trade off for a lot of people, and is giving AMC the ammunition to ask for fee increases (though like all providers I wish they'd be more reasonable about what they ask for).


I do not remember when "Mad Men" premeiered, but it certainly wasn't back in 2000 when AMC started adding commercials. It was effectively, a limited TCM, but with commercials. First run programming, on AMC, is a relatively recent devlopment. But, for the few hours of original programming, they are not HBO or Showtime either. AMC is a premium wannabe. But, they won't get there with The Three Stooges and 30 to 60 minutes of commercials for the movies they do show.

DISH is doing the right thing here. While I do not like losing channels, I think what Rainbow is asking for will not only be refused by DISH, but other carriers as well. AMC, IFC, We and Sundance may go the way of VOOM. Putting greed ahead of content.


----------



## Jhon69

Jim5506 said:


> This is the tactic that providers like Dish And DirecTV and cable outlets MUST adhere to if they are going to stem the tide of unreasonable price increases.
> 
> Stick to your guns and make and example of AMC - somebody's gotta go down!


In my personal opinion it should always be a commercial/subscription channel.


----------



## Darcaine

nmetro said:


> I do not remember when "Mad Men" premeiered, but it certainly wasn't back in 2000 when AMC started adding commercials. It was effectively, a limited TCM, but with commercials. First run programming, on AMC, is a relatively recent devlopment. But, for the few hours of original programming, they are not HBO or Showtime either. AMC is a premium wannabe. But, they won't get there with The Three Stooges and 30 to 60 minutes of commercials for the movies they do show.
> 
> DISH is doing the right thing here. While I do not like losing channels, I think what Rainbow is asking for will not only be refused by DISH, but other carriers as well. AMC, IFC, We and Sundance may go the way of VOOM. Putting greed ahead of content.


Ok so it took them a few years to get their ducks in a row and be able to start producing original programming. My point was that they may have alienated a few viewers such as yourself, but they've made a whole lot of viewers happy, and have found new success that they never had before.

Them not being on the same level as HBO and Showtime is your opinion. Again, highest rated show in cable history (one of the most awarded shows in cable history as well), you may not like it, but a lot of other people do. Besides, I don't really see what that has to do with anything since they aren't a pay channel, they are on the same playing field as TBS, TNT, Syfy etc. Critically, and prestige wise, they have all those channels beat hands down.

At any rate, I would take 12 hours of TWD a year over a lifetime of commercial free catalog films, most of which are likely available in other places. Everything else AMC offers is gravy. I'm sure I'm not alone (infact I know I'm not).


----------



## James Long

Good shows end ... even "the best shows" end. And it seems that the end is nearer for shows these days than it was for the best shows of the past.

Signing a long term contract with AMC for the apparently good shows they have today commits DISH to a price regardless of what AMC does in the future. Is AMC committed to continuing at least the same quality of programming as they have now? Of replacing shows as they end with shows equally or more popular?

That is where Rainbow failed with Voom. DISH paid big bucks with written assurances that Rainbow would spend a certain amount of money maintaining and improving their programming. The channels turned into video loops with little new programming. One can read the complaints about the repetitiveness of Voom. DISH heard those complaints from their customers and didn't see the return on the investment they made to keep Voom alive nor Rainbow keeping their promise to spend on program development.

So now AMC has a few good programs - and they want to leverage them to raise their rates. Can AMC promise that they will always have the same level (or better) of good programs? And what about WE and IFC? Anything special there or is AMC pulling the old "if you want our good channel you must take our other channels too" trick? Will AMC try to piggyback Fuse and other network properties?


----------



## sregener

Darcaine said:


> Again, highest rated show in cable history (one of the most awarded shows in cable history as well), you may not like it, but a lot of other people do.


3.5 million viewers watched the season 5 premiere of Mad Men. If you call ESPN's Monday Night Football a "show", it averaged over 13 million viewers over the entire 2011 season. Yet look at how many people are howling over having to pay for ESPN on another thread here.

Doing some back of the envelope math, about 600,000 Dish viewers watched that premiere. 2.2 million watched MNF over its entire season.

Sorry, not buying the "highest rated in cable history" argument.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

NBC is a good example too...

They were once the #1 network and had lots of the best shows on TV... random examples like the Cosby Show, Cheers, and Seinfeld are classic TV that garnered high ratings.

But now NBC is in the basement ratings-wise... Imagine how advertisers would feel if they were paying 1980s/1990s NBC ratings money to NBC today!

That's why these contracts are short and renewable... to keep the prisoner-of-the-moment stuff to a minimum.

And even if the court case leaks in (Dish is mad at Rainbow so wants to pay less for other channels, meanwhile Rainbow is mad at Dish and wants to stick it to them and charge more)... that's just how people, unfortunately, work on BOTH sides of the table.

Eventually this will all settle out. IF Dish loses the Rainbow channels, it will not result in a mass-exodus from Dish nor their ruination. Dish does have the upper hand here.


----------



## sigma1914

sregener said:


> 3.5 million viewers watched the season 5 premiere of Mad Men. If you call ESPN's Monday Night Football a "show", it averaged over 13 million viewers over the entire 2011 season. Yet look at how many people are howling over having to pay for ESPN on another thread here.
> 
> Doing some back of the envelope math, about 600,000 Dish viewers watched that premiere. 2.2 million watched MNF over its entire season.
> 
> Sorry, not buying the "highest rated in cable history" argument.


You're correct ... The Walking Dead season 2 premier was the highest rated drama on cable. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/walking-dead-season-2-premiere-249340

The highest cable rating (I believe) was the Auburn vs Oregon BCS game on ESPN. http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2011...le-game-is-highest-rated-cable-show-ever.html


> ...last night's Auburn win over Oregon was the highest rated show in cable TV history. The BCS title game was watched by just over 27.3 million viewers, which is about 5.5 million more viewers than the previous all-time cable high - a 2009 MNF game between Green Bay and Minnesota.


----------



## Laxguy

> "That The Walking Dead is now the most-watched drama in the history of *basic cable is staggering, just like our zombies,*" he added.
> The series' Halloween night 2010 premiere drew 5.3 million viewers and a 2.7 rating in 18-49, the l*argest demo audience* for any series premiere on cable last year.


From the link Sigma put in.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

From adweek...

-------------------
http://www.adweek.com/news/television/dish-network-threatens-drop-amc-140066

While DISH argues that AMC is overpriced-the carrier says AMC's asking price for a new carriage deal is high "when compared to their low viewership"-the current rates are actually moderate. SNL Kagan estimates that AMC earns 26 cents per subscriber per month, for an annual haul of $298.6 million in fees. Cable's average carriage fee is 25 cents.

If Josh Sapan has his way, AMC will triple its sub fee. in December, the president and CEO of AMC Networks told investors that "our rates on AMC are particularly out of whack," adding that the channel is worth as much as 75 cents per subscriber per month. (He went on to add that the hypothetical fee "is not necessarily the rate we will be paid tomorrow.")
-------------------

If ESPN is worth 5 +dollars, then AMC is certainly worth at least 75 cents.

And I'll say what I've said for over a year. The problem isn't WGN or AMC. The problem is ESPN and its enablers.

You want to rationalize carriage pricing? Then have the distributors stand up to ESPN.

When the ESPN contract is up for renewal, have them tell ESPN, we'll give you 2 dollars a sub, take it or leave it.


----------



## sregener

"Gloria_Chavez" said:


> When the ESPN contract is up for renewal, have them tell ESPN, we'll give you 2 dollars a sub, take it or leave it.


And Disney will say, goodbye, and you can't carry ABC either. Or the Disney channel. Or ABC Family. Or Lifetime.

No cable or satellite provider could afford the mass customer exodus the loss of all those channels would bring.


----------



## inazsully

sregener said:


> And Disney will say, goodbye, and you can't carry ABC either. Or the Disney channel. Or ABC Family. Or Lifetime.
> 
> No cable or satellite provider could afford the mass customer exodus the loss of all those channels would bring.


So in other words we're being black mailed? Are we supposed to be OK with that just because we may like ESPN? Now we were OK when Dish stood up to Disney to champion our best interest. Now we're going to be OK if Dish stands up to AMC to champion our best interest. So, will Dish stand up to ESPN and champion our best interest? Not a chance. In reality the only best interest Dish is ever championing is their own pockets. Nothing wrong with that at all, just call a spade a spade.


----------



## Darcaine

sregener said:


> 3.5 million viewers watched the season 5 premiere of Mad Men. If you call ESPN's Monday Night Football a "show", it averaged over 13 million viewers over the entire 2011 season. Yet look at how many people are howling over having to pay for ESPN on another thread here.
> 
> Doing some back of the envelope math, about 600,000 Dish viewers watched that premiere. 2.2 million watched MNF over its entire season.
> 
> Sorry, not buying the "highest rated in cable history" argument.


Umm yeah, Monday Night football is a sports telecast, its not a scripted show, this seems rather obvious. That's apples to oranges.

The Walking Dead attracted more than 8 million viewers which is indeed the highest rated (scripted) show in cable history.

"New York, NY - February 13, 2012 - Last night, AMC's mid-season premiere of "The Walking Dead" became the strongest telecast for any drama in basic cable history against key demos including 5.4 million adults 18-49 and 4.4 million adults 25-54. These results shatter the previous record, which was held by the series two premiere from October 16th with increases of +12% and +6% respectively. The show delivered 8.1 million viewers for its 9pm premiere and delivered 10.1 million viewers for the night (9pm premiere and 11pm and 12:30 am encores)."

http://tvpressfeed.com/2012/02/the-walking-dead-mid-season-premiere-attracts-over-8-million-viewers/

If you wanna play the semantics game, then call it the "highest rated drama in cable history against key demographics (the ones advertisers care about) in cable history." Either way, my original point still stands.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Gloria_Chavez said:


> While DISH argues that AMC is overpriced-the carrier says AMC's asking price for a new carriage deal is high "when compared to their low viewership"-the current rates are actually moderate. SNL Kagan estimates that AMC earns 26 cents per subscriber per month, for an annual haul of $298.6 million in fees. Cable's average carriage fee is 25 cents.
> 
> If Josh Sapan has his way, AMC will triple its sub fee. in December, the president and CEO of AMC Networks told investors that "our rates on AMC are particularly out of whack," adding that the channel is worth as much as 75 cents per subscriber per month. (He went on to add that the hypothetical fee "is not necessarily the rate we will be paid tomorrow.")


So... they are looking to triple their fee? I was being conservative then in guessing they were looking to double it.

So... what happens when every channel in the package wants to triple their fee? OR what if they all just want 50 cents more per channel? How much would your bill go up if EVERY channel wanted just that "modest" increase?



Gloria_Chavez said:


> If ESPN is worth 5 +dollars, then AMC is certainly worth at least 75 cents.


It is all about perspective. I watch ESPN way way more than AMC. As I've said before... I watched the Walking Dead, Talking Dead, and maybe one or two movies or mini-series over the many years I've had the channel.

Those shows were 6 and 13 episode seasons over the last two years... so I've paid for two years for that channel and only watched it in about 25 or less nights!

Counter that with ESPN... which I watch Monday-Friday for at least 1-2 hours every day... then the sports I watch + weekend sports... I watch way more ESPN.

I watch a bunch of stuff on USA too... also TNT... I don't know what those channels cost, but they are easily worth way more to me than AMC is.



Gloria_Chavez said:


> And I'll say what I've said for over a year. The problem isn't WGN or AMC. The problem is ESPN and its enablers.
> 
> You want to rationalize carriage pricing? Then have the distributors stand up to ESPN.


You don't think Dish does? I'm sure Disney would love to get even more if they could... but Dish at least does push back some.

Also... why single out ESPN? Even if you think it is the most expensive non-premium channel... and even if it is the most expensive... what about all the other channels in those tiers that many of us don't watch? Why not gripe about the 10 channels at 50 cents each you don't watch as much as you gripe about the ESPN channels that cost as much?



Gloria_Chavez said:


> When the ESPN contract is up for renewal, have them tell ESPN, we'll give you 2 dollars a sub, take it or leave it.


You're going the wrong way here.

Dish isn't asking AMC to take 12 cents instead of 25 cents... Dish is either asking to stay at 25 cents OR probably something slightly above that but nowhere near 75 cents.

I'm not aware of Dish going to any of these channel negotiations and saying "cut your price or we are gone"... even when Dish is being unreasonable, they at least haven't been trying to go backwards.

I would support Dish saying to Disney "no increase" next time the ESPN channels are up for negotiation... but going backwards? That makes no business sense for anybody.



Darcaine said:


> The Walking Dead attracted more than 8 million viewers which is indeed the highest rated (scripted) show in cable history.


Ok... lets mash some numbers.

Gloria quoted "...estimates that AMC earns 26 cents per subscriber per month, for an annual haul of $298.6 million..."

That translates to roughly 95.7 million subscribers.

8 million viewers watched that Walking Dead episode that set the ratings record we have been throwing out there.

So... on their best night for one episode of one show... not even 10% (8.36% roughly) of the people who pay for AMC were watching it even for just that one hour. And all of those people didn't tune in the week after because the ratings didn't stay level.

Now... for AMC to make that same money for the year (and mind you the Walking Dead isn't on for even half the year) they would have to charge more than $3 per subscriber (roughly $3.12) per month.

IF they get to increase from 26 cents to 75 cents, they would be going to almost $1 billion dollars per year! All based upon one show, that most of their subscribers didn't watch... and it was their highest rated show ever.

So, ask me again how they deserve to triple their rates based on being "hot" right now?


----------



## Laxguy

sregener said:


> And Disney will say, goodbye, and you can't carry ABC either. Or the Disney channel. Or ABC Family. Or Lifetime.
> 
> No cable or satellite provider could afford the mass customer exodus the loss of all those channels would bring.


There are laws against bundling, but not sure they've ever been enforced in this field, nor who would do the enforcing. Justice? FCC? Either?


----------



## sregener

"Laxguy" said:


> There are laws against bundling, but not sure they've ever been enforced in this field, nor who would do the enforcing. Justice? FCC? Either?


The laws on bundling do not apply because the products being bundled are of the same type. And the only monopoly Disney has is on copyright, which the government created and enforced. Regardless, case law is very murky on bundling.


----------



## Laxguy

sregener said:


> The laws on bundling do not apply because the products being bundled are of the same type.


What is the source or cite for this assertion, please?


----------



## RHytonen

CCarncross said:


> The Walking Dead, The Killing, Mad Men, Hell on Wheels, Breaking Bad...some of the best tv on tv right now....


True, MadMen and Hell On Wheels (along with Justified on FX and OnceUpon a Time and Lost Girl on SYFY) are our few "Never miss" shows.

For this reason alone I just pulled up short of pulling the trigger on DiSH (we have DTV, NO CONTRACT) - somrthing we had been planning for years.

And yes, wih Deadwood gone, Hell On Wheels IS *that* important. Mad Men just cinches it. With my fascination for politics (and I would SUE to break my contract if they pulled either msnbc, LINK, or Current those AMC shows and the others mentioned are the only things we can watch together.

So by allowing this cancellation of AMC, and the new nonconsentual DTV contracts hitting on the 15th, either DISH is suicidally inept or they're fools who have been one-upped by a conspiracy (IMO illegal "competition," BTW) between DTV and AMC. And that makes them fair game by others in the future, hardly arguing for dumping DTV for a 2 year contract with them.

That said, I still have questions about the rental prices of various receivers and services (like DVR) and most importantlly about the exact date of "automatic billing," and the REAL total of the first payment they demand for installation (and then, of course, when the next bill is due/charged.)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Laxguy said:


> What is the source or cite for this assertion, please?


You weren't talking to me... but here's one:

*http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/pay-tv-bundles-are-ok-even-if-they-hurt-consumers-court-rules/*

I recommend you read the comments as well... there is a very good comment from someone making an analogy with computers that I honestly never thought of.

The gist of the comparison is... What if I want to buy a computer to only do simple word processing? I don't need lots of RAM or hard drive space or even a fancy graphics card. But... Apple won't sell me such a barebones computer, they will only sell me a computer way more powerful than I need. Further, no computer manufacturer will sell me a model that meets my specific barebones needs... so, can I sue them and say they are unfairly bundling things in my purchase that I do not want? The answer is no.


----------



## jdskycaster

^Not a good analogy at all. Like saying the maximum speed limit in my state is 65mph so why do I have to pay the automakers for cars and trucks that go over 100mph? They are charging me for HP that I do not need.


----------



## Rduce

Darcaine said:


> Ok so it took them a few years to get their ducks in a row and be able to start producing original programming. My point was that they may have alienated a few viewers such as yourself, but they've made a whole lot of viewers happy, and have found new success that they never had before.
> 
> Them not being on the same level as HBO and Showtime is your opinion. Again, highest rated show in cable history (one of the most awarded shows in cable history as well), you may not like it, but a lot of other people do. Besides, I don't really see what that has to do with anything since they aren't a pay channel, they are on the same playing field as TBS, TNT, Syfy etc. Critically, and prestige wise, they have all those channels beat hands down.
> 
> At any rate, I would take 12 hours of TWD a year over a lifetime of commercial free catalog films, most of which are likely available in other places. Everything else AMC offers is gravy. I'm sure I'm not alone (infact I know I'm not).


Your argument is subjective to your personal taste and uses very inaccurate information.

First, the ratings are modest at best for Mad Men; generally, they are in the middle of the pack. In fact, last Sunday's rating placed them well below many of those channels you indicated are nowhere near their level and essentially tied with Mythbusters on Discovery.

Secondly, while it is true that it is the first basic cable program to have won an Emmy award and is a hit with the critics it has never been the most watched cable program in history. It was once the highest rated show on AMC, but lost that title to The Walking Dead. American Pickers has a larger viewing audience by about 6 million viewers!

The reason is very simply in that AMC is not really in that many American homes. If you were to believe AMC's claims to their advertisers, they reach 77 million American households. Then compare that to TNT's 100 million and you can see why and how it has been the #1 ranked cable channel for the past 3 years. The actual most ever-watched scripted cable program is in fact a TNT program from almost 2 years ago called Rizzoli and Isles with 8.4 million viewers. Therefore, as you can easily see Dish's assertion is correct that not that many people watch this channel. Clearly, however, those that do are passionate about the programming offered.

Never allow your passion to weaken your contention; it only makes you look silly when you use incorrect information as a basis for your assertions.


----------



## Laxguy

Stewart Vernon said:


> You weren't talking to me... but here's one:
> I recommend you read the comments as well... there is a very good comment from someone making an analogy with computers that I honestly never thought of.<< Snipped bits out >>


Interesting. I was addressing only the unique content provider-> wholesaler (distributor), which has a different set of attributes from retail distribution or computer sales (which analogy I don't find fitting for either).


----------



## mike1977

If they drop AMC, I guess I'm going to have to get my TWD fix by buying them from itunes.


----------



## sregener

Laxguy said:


> What is the source or cite for this assertion, please?


http://www.pepperlaw.com/publications_article.aspx?ArticleKey=997


----------



## tampa8

Laxguy said:


> There are laws against bundling, but not sure they've ever been enforced in this field, nor who would do the enforcing. Justice? FCC? Either?


After reading the links provided of court cases, I would say it's the opposite. Bundling is very legal and can be beneficial to the consumer. What could be illegal is the result of the bundling, or another way to say it how they are structured. If the result is a monopoly for instance, then perhaps _that particular_ bundling packge is not allowed but not because bundling is not legal but becase of what it caused.


----------



## Jon W

I actually upgraded from AT-120 to AT-200 mostly to get Mad Men. If this happens I will immediately downgrade my package.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jdskycaster said:


> ^Not a good analogy at all. Like saying the maximum speed limit in my state is 65mph so why do I have to pay the automakers for cars and trucks that go over 100mph? They are charging me for HP that I do not need.


Actually... that too is a similar argument. Car manufacturers "bundle" all sorts of stuff that you can't refuse OR even if you do refuse them the price does not go down. I'm pretty sure radios, air conditioners, cigarette lighters, cup-holders, etc. are examples of things that are standard in all cars and you can't refuse them.

Similarly, cars are made to travel at speeds far greater than you can legally drive them in the US... so, you could possibly even make the analogy you proposed with regards to how much extra you might be paying for that performance you will never be able to use and yet have to pay for it.

The point, though, is that while those are examples of "bundling" they are perfectly legal examples of bundling that you can't sue for.


----------



## Laxguy

sregener said:


> http://www.pepperlaw.com/publications_article.aspx?ArticleKey=997


Many thanks. It makes the following point, inter alia:



> An invalid tying arrangement conditions the purchase of one product to the purchase of a second product that the buyer either does not want or would have preferred to purchase elsewhere. In contrast, a bundling arrangement offers discounted prices or rebates for the purchase of multiple products, although the buyer is under no obligation to purchase more than one item.[8]


So I should have written*tying arrangements* all along, although the author quoted notes that even courts and lawyers sometimes (incorrectly) interchange the two, bundling and tying.


----------



## Laxguy

tampa8 said:


> After reading the links provided of court cases, I would say it's the opposite. Bundling is very legal and can be beneficial to the consumer. What could be illegal is the result of the bundling, or another way to say it how they are structured. If the result is a monopoly for instance, then perhaps _that particular_ bundling packge is not allowed but not because bundling is not legal but becase of what it caused.


After reading the link provided by regener, bundling is legal as defined to mean one can avail oneself of a group discount, as long as individual bits are offered separately. Tying is the term when you have to take something you don't want along with that which you do.


----------



## Paul Secic

James Long said:


> Agreed ... AMC wants 10-14 million DISH customers to pay 40/80 cents per household - whether or not they actually watch AMC. On the low end they walk away with $4 million per month, $48 million a year. Make the channels a la carte and they would have to sell a lot of subscriptions at a higher price just to break even.
> 
> Channels know they are better off in packages sold to people who don't want them as well as the people who will make a lot of noise if the channel wasn't there. Very few channels have decided to allow a la carte sales. Most of them are not very popular or are very expensive a la carte.


WOW:eek2::eek2::eek2::eek2::eek2::eek2:


----------



## Paul Secic

SayWhat? said:


> In a way, I hope AMC does get dropped and takes a major financial hit. Then in a few months, they'll come crawling back, willing to accept pennies.


AMC isn't worth eating ETFS. Think people!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

There are different levels of bundling that I think are confusing people.

Dish, for example, couldn't legally require you to sign up for their satellite-internet connection in order to get Dish TV. Similarly, AT&T can't require you to get their phone or TV service to get their internet.

These companies can provide you with bundled discounts, but by law they have to allow you to buy their individual offerings separately... otherwise Dish would be unfairly preventing you from getting AT&T internet services and AT&T would be unfairly preventing you from getting Dish satellite.

HOWEVER...

Once you sign up for Dish satellite TV... Dish doesn't have to sell you channels a la carte or any particular kind of package. Dish can structure their satellite TV service any way they want.

Similarly, Disney can choose to sell Dish each ABC, ESPN, and Disney channel separately OR bundle them into groups that require Dish to take all or none of them.

Some folks, I think, are confusing the illegal bundling issues with legally protected bundling.


----------



## Laxguy

I think it's more that folks have been saying "bundling" when they should have been saying "tying". At least I was.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Stewart Vernon said:


> Similarly, Disney can choose to sell Dish each ABC, ESPN, and Disney channel separately OR bundle them into groups that require Dish to take all or none of them.


AMC, at 75 cents a sub, provides much more value-added than ESPN at 5 dollars.

Now, if Dish tells ESPN, we'll give you 2 dollars a sub, take it or leave it, and Disney pulls all programming, so what.

ABC: get it free on Hulu or OTA antenna.

Disney: so much substitute programming available.

I don't blame AMC for asking for 75 cents a sub. Everything is priced off ESPN, and if ESPN is worth 5+ dollars a month, AMC is certainly worth at least 75 cents.


----------



## Davenlr

Gloria_Chavez said:


> AMC, at 75 cents a sub, provides much more value-added than ESPN at 5 dollars.


Depends. Id pay $10 a month for the ESPN suite before Id pay a dime for AMC, since I never watch AMC. ESPN is on my tv every day.


----------



## SayWhat?

Gloria_Chavez said:


> AMC, at 75 cents a sub, provides much more value-added than ESPN at 5 dollars.
> 
> Now, if Dish tells ESPN, we'll give you 2 dollars a sub, take it or leave it, and Disney pulls all programming, so what.


Split ESPN from ABC/Disney, pay ESPN $4, Disney $1 and AMC $1, but make ESPN optional and I'd be happy.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I get the feeling nobody read my earlier post extrapolating from the current cost of AMC vs their actual number of viewers.

It's worth reminding again that based on the numbers posted earlier in this thread, less than 10% of the people paying for AMC watched their highest rated episode ever.... and the number of regular viewers from night to night falls well below even that the rest of the week, month, and year.

If every single channel in the packages got the 50 cent increase AMC appears to be looking for, we would almost all have to drop pay TV tomorrow because we couldn't afford it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Gloria_Chavez said:


> AMC, at 75 cents a sub, provides much more value-added than ESPN at 5 dollars.


Not for me they don't... not by far.

Also... once again we have a different quote for the cost of ESPN.

Between this and the other thread, I have now seen $5, $6, $10, and $12 thrown around as the cost of ESPN. Does anybody actually have any real data?


----------



## sregener

"Gloria_Chavez" said:



> AMC, at 75 cents a sub, provides much more value-added than ESPN at 5 dollars.


AMC runs how many hours a year of original (not previously shown anywhere) content? Yes, ESPN does rerun SportsCenter and a few other things, but 90% of the time, the programming is original. How much does it cost ESPN to cover a sporting event? Toss out fees to leagues. The transportation and setup of equipment, the need for many cameras and camera operators, the production truck, the backhaul. Play-by-play, color, on-field reporter. And they don't cover an event a few times a year - they're doing multiple events every day.

You may personally not like ESPN and their programming, but the reality is they are producing much more content, at a much higher cost, by far more than 10-1 compared to AMC. It is ESPN that is the bargain.


----------



## sigma1914

sregener said:


> AMC runs how many hours a year of original (not previously shown anywhere) content? Yes, ESPN does rerun SportsCenter and a few other things, but 90% of the time, the programming is original. How much does it cost ESPN to cover a sporting event? Toss out fees to leagues. The transportation and setup of equipment, the need for many cameras and camera operators, the production truck, the backhaul. Play-by-play, color, on-field reporter. And they don't cover an event a few times a year - they're doing multiple events every day.
> 
> You may personally not like ESPN and their programming, but the reality is they are producing much more content, at a much higher cost, by far more than 10-1 compared to AMC. It is ESPN that is the bargain.


I read profit margins are a lot smaller for sports channels because of what you describe.


----------



## Laxguy

sigma1914 said:


> I read profit margins are a lot smaller for sports channels because of what you describe.


Makes sense, and thanks for the take on that, both of you.

As a very current point of reference, ESPN is, bless their souls!, airing all 8 NCAA D1 lacrosse games this weekend, and may be producing them as well, though I don't know a good source to check as to who's doing the field work. All in HD, and all pretty well done, in 8 locations. Plus the odd softball or college baseball game, poker games (is card playing really _*a sport*_??) The they are airing a Rangers BB game, which is probably produced by others, though, again, dunno. And Sports Center, oft repeated, but not cheap to do.


----------



## domingos35

i think dish should reconsider this move .
theres going to be a lot of pissed customers and its going to make future customers rethink dish as an option
bad move dish


----------



## Shades228

domingos35 said:


> i think dish should reconsider this move .
> theres going to be a lot of pissed customers and its going to make future customers rethink dish as an option
> bad move dish


DISH has already determined that if it's removed it's an acceptable loss of customers compared to cost of programming. If they didn't think it was they would have just made an agreement.


----------



## James Long

Gloria_Chavez said:


> I don't blame AMC for asking for 75 cents a sub. Everything is priced off ESPN, and if ESPN is worth 5+ dollars a month, AMC is certainly worth at least 75 cents.


Ok, following that logic ESPN isn't worth $5 per month ... the several channels of ESPN are probably worth $5 per month (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPN Classic, ESPN U and the alt ESPN channels for regional blackouts). Based on the bulk account pricing $5 covers all the ESPN channels.

If AMC wants 75c for AMC, WE, IFC and Fuse (and perhaps other channels) it might be a deal. But 75c for just AMC? No thank you.

So if you're willing to pay 75c for just AMC does that mean every higher rated network would get more than 75c? AMC is NOT the top rated network on cable. They didn't end up in the top 15 in prime time last year. It seems that giving AMC their "75c" would just lead to the lesser paid more popular channels demanding more ... and our bills would continue to go up.

AMC needs to stay at the 40c or less level.


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> Ok, following that logic ESPN isn't worth $5 per month ... the several channels of ESPN are probably worth $5 per month (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPN Classic, ESPN U and the alt ESPN channels for regional blackouts). Based on the bulk account pricing $5 covers all the ESPN channels.
> 
> If AMC wants 75c for AMC, WE, IFC and Fuse (and perhaps other channels) it might be a deal. But 75c for just AMC? No thank you.
> 
> So if you're willing to pay 75c for just AMC does that mean every higher rated network would get more than 75c? AMC is NOT the top rated network on cable. They didn't end up in the top 15 in prime time last year. It seems that giving AMC their "75c" would just lead to the lesser paid more popular channels demanding more ... and our bills would continue to go up.
> 
> AMC needs to stay at the 40c or less level.


I have no idea what any of these channels are worth to viewers because we don't get a chance to buy them individually or even by ownership group.

But we do have some information from the 2009 chart and from the 2012 top 20 list which shows the following:








I guess I think that in a retransmission agreement for the next five years if I were AMC I'd simply have my fee set at whatever the provider is paying for ESPN2. Seems fair to me.


----------



## tampa8

Lol, yep.


----------



## StringFellow

phrelin said:


> I have no idea what any of these channels are worth to viewers because we don't get a chance to buy them individually or even by ownership group.
> 
> But we do have some information from the 2009 chart and from the 2012 top 20 list which shows the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I think that in a retransmission agreement for the next five years if I were AMC I'd simply have my fee set at whatever the provider is paying for ESPN2. Seems fair to me.


ESPN 3D $2.71??? WTF?  They are arguing over subscriber fees for AMC yet they are willing to pay $2.71 for ESPN 3D?? And the 3D market isn't mainstream yet either!!

I think Dish needs to get their priorities straight!


----------



## RAD

StringFellow said:


> ESPN 3D $2.71??? WTF?  They are arguing over subscriber fees for AMC yet they are willing to pay $2.71 for ESPN 3D?? And the 3D market isn't mainstream yet either!!
> 
> I think Dish needs to get their priorities straight!


Dish doesn't have ESPN 3D.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> I have no idea what any of these channels are worth to viewers because we don't get a chance to buy them individually or even by ownership group.


Cost and value are not equivalent to the customer. Even with a la carte the customer is not paying the exact cost of the channel ... they are usually paying the cost plus a mark up (DISH is not a not for profit company). In some cases the charged price may not cover the actual cost of provision (such as locals) but the additional cost can be covered in the regular package prices or other required base package.


----------



## Paul Secic

James Long said:


> Good shows end ... even "the best shows" end. And it seems that the end is nearer for shows these days than it was for the best shows of the past.
> 
> Signing a long term contract with AMC for the apparently good shows they have today commits DISH to a price regardless of what AMC does in the future. Is AMC committed to continuing at least the same quality of programming as they have now? Of replacing shows as they end with shows equally or more popular?
> 
> That is where Rainbow failed with Voom. DISH paid big bucks with written assurances that Rainbow would spend a certain amount of money maintaining and improving their programming. The channels turned into video loops with little new programming. One can read the complaints about the repetitiveness of Voom. DISH heard those complaints from their customers and didn't see the return on the investment they made to keep Voom alive nor Rainbow keeping their promise to spend on program development.
> 
> So now AMC has a few good programs - and they want to leverage them to raise their rates. Can AMC promise that they will always have the same level (or better) of good programs? And what about WE and IFC? Anything special there or is AMC pulling the old "if you want our good channel you must take our other channels too" trick? Will AMC try to piggyback Fuse and other network properties?


Are AMC IFC AMC in AT 200?


----------



## thomasjk

> Are AMC IFC AMC in AT 200?


Yes.


----------



## tampa8

StringFellow said:


> ESPN 3D $2.71??? WTF?  They are arguing over subscriber fees for AMC yet they are willing to pay $2.71 for ESPN 3D?? And the 3D market isn't mainstream yet either!!
> 
> I think Dish needs to get their priorities straight!


More like getting the information correct I think. Dish does not think it is worth it, and does not carry it. So do you agree Dish does have their priorities straight?


----------



## RasputinAXP

StringFellow said:


> ESPN 3D $2.71??? WTF?  They are arguing over subscriber fees for AMC yet they are willing to pay $2.71 for ESPN 3D?? And the 3D market isn't mainstream yet either!!
> 
> I think Dish needs to get their priorities straight!


:blackeye::blackeye:


----------



## satcrazy

RHytonen said:


> True, MadMen and Hell On Wheels (along with Justified on FX and OnceUpon a Time and Lost Girl on SYFY) are our few "Never miss" shows.
> 
> For this reason alone I just pulled up short of pulling the trigger on DiSH (we have DTV, NO CONTRACT) - somrthing we had been planning for years.
> 
> And yes, wih Deadwood gone, Hell On Wheels IS *that* important. Mad Men just cinches it. With my fascination for politics (and I would SUE to break my contract if they pulled either msnbc, LINK, or Current those AMC shows and the others mentioned are the only things we can watch together.
> 
> So by allowing this cancellation of AMC, and the new nonconsentual DTV contracts hitting on the 15th, either DISH is suicidally inept or they're fools who have been one-upped by a conspiracy (IMO illegal "competition," BTW) between DTV and AMC. And that makes them fair game by others in the future, hardly arguing for dumping DTV for a 2 year contract with them.
> 
> That said, I still have questions about the rental prices of various receivers and services (like DVR) and most importantlly about the exact date of "automatic billing," and the REAL total of the first payment they demand for installation (and then, of course, when the next bill is due/charged.)


what is meant by the "new nonconsentual DTV contracts"?


----------



## dough_boy747

I guess its gone for now lol, this keeps up no one can buy any tv from any provider at all, they will price there selfs out of exits, or be so high no one can afford it.


----------



## Mojo Jojo

I noticed that on Channel 389, Sundance Channel, the following:

This channel is no longer available.

We hope you continue to enjoy the other great movie entertainment DISH offers as part of [email protected] like, MGM, HDNet Movies, Movieplex, Epix 1 & Epix 2.


----------



## SayWhat?

IFC's still on.


----------



## Mojo Jojo

"SayWhat?" said:


> IFC's still on.


IFC along with We TV and AMC are still on.

Sundance Channel's contract may have ran out sooner due to being part of the Showtime package before being acquired by AMC Networks (formerly Rainbow Networks).


----------



## Paul Secic

Mojo Jojo said:


> IFC along with We TV and AMC are still on.
> 
> Sundance Channel's contract may have ran out sooner due to being part of the Showtime package before being acquired by AMC Networks (formerly Rainbow Networks).


Hopefully Sundance Channel is in HD when it comes back on, along with the rest of ENCORE suite.


----------



## Mojo Jojo

"Paul Secic" said:


> Hopefully Sundance Channel is in HD when it comes back on, along with the rest of ENCORE suite.


It would be nice for the channel to come back in HD; maybe they could get a deal to have IFC HD and WE HD (while keeping AMC HD of course).

I think only 2 other Encores are in HD and would be most welcomed as we have the Encore Movie Pack.


----------



## StringFellow

I highly doubt an agreement will be made to keep the AMC suite of programming. Be prepared to watch your AMC programs elsewhere.

Hopefully we will get some good channel/HD upgrades in return for losing the AMC suite or programming.


----------



## phrelin

Unfortunately, this is a case of no news is bad news.

It does appear that the two Charles in charge will force me to purchase from Amazon (streaming) the last two episodes of this season's "Mad Men" and "The Killing" and probably all ten episodes of "Hell on Wheels" beginning in August. I'll easily recover those costs by having dropped down to AT120. I may have to find and purchase the 10 episodes of "Copper" which will be aired on BBCA beginning in August.

This will be an inconvenience. But Charlie Ergen's willfulness will force me, a 24-year Echostar/Dish customer and lazy senior citizen, to get used to streaming premium content from other sources. That's probably good for me, but not for Dish. I will learn what monthly costs I can avoid and still readily watch the relatively few shows I want to watch outside the AT-120 package.


----------



## satcrazy

phrelin said:


> Unfortunately, this is a case of no news is bad news.
> 
> It does appear that the two Charles in charge will force me to purchase from Amazon (streaming) the last two episodes of this season's "Mad Men" and "The Killing" and probably all ten episodes of "Hell on Wheels" beginning in August. I'll easily recover those costs by having dropped down to AT120. I may have to find and purchase the 10 episodes of "Copper" which will be aired on BBCA beginning in August.
> 
> This will be an inconvenience. But Charlie Ergen's willfulness will force me, a 24-year Echostar/Dish customer and lazy senior citizen, to get used to streaming premium content from other sources. That's probably good for me, but not for Dish. I will learn what monthly costs I can avoid and still readily watch the relatively few shows I want to watch outside the AT-120 package.


I think more people do this than you realize. Since you have good internet speed, it should be a breeze...
At some point I may do the same, I just need to bump up my dsl, or go to road runner and loose my landline. Lowering the base package will easily cover the extra cost.


----------



## Darcaine

Rduce said:


> Your argument is subjective to your personal taste and uses very inaccurate information.
> 
> First, the ratings are modest at best for Mad Men; generally, they are in the middle of the pack. In fact, last Sunday's rating placed them well below many of those channels you indicated are nowhere near their level and essentially tied with Mythbusters on Discovery.
> 
> Secondly, while it is true that it is the first basic cable program to have won an Emmy award and is a hit with the critics it has never been the most watched cable program in history. It was once the highest rated show on AMC, but lost that title to The Walking Dead. American Pickers has a larger viewing audience by about 6 million viewers!
> 
> The reason is very simply in that AMC is not really in that many American homes. If you were to believe AMC's claims to their advertisers, they reach 77 million American households. Then compare that to TNT's 100 million and you can see why and how it has been the #1 ranked cable channel for the past 3 years. The actual most ever-watched scripted cable program is in fact a TNT program from almost 2 years ago called Rizzoli and Isles with 8.4 million viewers. Therefore, as you can easily see Dish's assertion is correct that not that many people watch this channel. Clearly, however, those that do are passionate about the programming offered.
> 
> Never allow your passion to weaken your contention; it only makes you look silly when you use incorrect information as a basis for your assertions.


I wasn't referring to Mad Men.

"New York, NY - February 13, 2012 - Last night, AMC's mid-season premiere of "The Walking Dead"* became the strongest telecast for any drama in basic cable history against key demos including 5.4 million adults 18-49 and 4.4 million adults 25-54. These results shatter the previous record, which was held by the series two premiere from October 16th with increases of +12% and +6% respectively. The show delivered 8.1 million viewers for its 9pm premiere and delivered 10.1 million viewers for the night (9pm premiere and 11pm and 12:30 am encores)."*

http://tvpressfeed.com/2012/02/the-w...llion-viewers/

Why don't you try reading my posts before responding to them? Also maybe you should take your own advice and check your info before you accuse someone else of being wrong. 2 year old info? really?


----------



## harsh

Paul Secic said:


> Hopefully Sundance Channel is in HD when it comes back on, along with the rest of ENCORE suite.


1. There is no relationship between AMC and Encore.

2. You shouldn't make everything about your personal jonesing for Encore in HD; especially when over half the channels aren't available in HD.


----------



## oldschoolecw

phrelin said:


> Unfortunately, this is a case of no news is bad news.
> 
> It does appear that the two Charles in charge will force me to purchase from Amazon (streaming) the last two episodes of this season's "Mad Men" and "The Killing" and probably all ten episodes of "Hell on Wheels" beginning in August. I'll easily recover those costs by having dropped down to AT120. I may have to find and purchase the 10 episodes of "Copper" which will be aired on BBCA beginning in August.
> 
> This will be an inconvenience. But Charlie Ergen's willfulness will force me, a 24-year Echostar/Dish customer and lazy senior citizen, to get used to streaming premium content from other sources. That's probably good for me, but not for Dish. I will learn what monthly costs I can avoid and still readily watch the relatively few shows I want to watch outside the AT-120 package.


I have been buying shows from Amazon VOD for years now. Breaking Bad, The Killing, Sons of Anarchy and The Walking Dead. It's just cheaper for me then paying to have the FX and AMC channels with Dish's ridiculous packaging.


----------



## Mojo Jojo

FX is in AT120 while AMC is in AT200. Both are in Dish Latino Dos.


----------



## oldschoolecw

Mojo Jojo said:


> FX is in AT120 while AMC is in AT200. Both are in Dish Latino Dos.


I failed Spanish back in the 80's:lol:


----------



## Mojo Jojo

"oldschoolecw" said:


> I failed Spanish back in the 80's:lol:


LOL You do not need to learn Spanish. Dish Latino Dos has both English and Spanish channels. Although I took two Spanish classes in high school and four Spanish classes in college, I am not fluent in Spanish. All one really needs to do is make a favorites list.


----------



## speedy4022

"Jim5506" said:


> This is the tactic that providers like Dish And DirecTV and cable outlets MUST adhere to if they are going to stem the tide of unreasonable price increases.
> 
> Stick to your guns and make and example of AMC - somebody's gotta go down!


You might be right but since dish is on its own here I don't think any tv provider can do it alone. I think Dish needs to learn to pick their battles better you need to fight someone multiple providers are unhappy with.Dish will lose as long as all the cable companies and Directv keep AMC.


----------



## domingos35

i still have AMC HD


----------



## mdavej

domingos35 said:


> i still have AMC HD


Yes, we all do. Contract doesn't end until the end of June, at which time Dish will drop AMC, IFC and WE. They dropped Sundance already.

I'm convinced they are doing this to punish Rainbow and don't care what impact it will have on their customers. Only the most die-hard AMC fans will leave, and there probably aren't that many of us.


----------



## domingos35

in addition to dish i have comcast and they carry AMC HD


----------



## phrelin

mdavej said:


> Yes, we all do. Contract doesn't end until the end of June, at which time Dish will drop AMC, IFC and WE. They dropped Sundance already.
> 
> I'm convinced they are doing this to punish Rainbow and don't care what impact it will have on their customers. Only the most die-hard AMC fans will leave, and there probably aren't that many of us.


Again, it will simply save me $15 a month because AMC and BBCA are the only channels keeping me in the AT200 package. In the future I'll stream from Amazon the few AMC shows I want to watch.

Dish is correct when they said in the article linked in the OP: "AMC Networks' very limited popular programming is non-exclusive, and available to our customers through multiple other outlets such as Amazon.com, iTunes and Netflix."

That is true for a multitude of cable channels. Here is what one will lose by dropping from AT200 to AT120 thereby saving $15 a month or $180 a year (you can add the sports channels back in for $5 a month with AT120+):

Animal Planet
BBC America
BET
Big Ten Network 
Bravo
CBS Sports Network
Current TV
Disney XD 
Fox Business Network
G4
Galavision
Golf Channel
GSN
Hallmark Channel
Investigation Discovery
Lifetime Movie Network
MLB Network
msnbc
National Geographic Channel
NBA TV
NFL Network
NHL Network
Nick Jr. 
nuvoTV
Ovation
OWN (Oprah Winfrey Network)
Oxygen
Regional Sports Networks
RFD-TV
Science
Sí TV
SOAPnet
Speed Channel
Style
TeenNick
Telefutura (East)
Telefutura (West)
Telefutura HD (West)
truTV
Turner Classic Movies
Univision (East)
Univision (West)
Univision Deportes
WGN America


----------



## SayWhat?

I watch probably 40% of those.


----------



## phrelin

SayWhat? said:


> I watch probably 40% of those.


Many people do. We on occasion will watch something on that list. But for us, there is no "must see TV" on any of those channels other than BBCA. It then becomes a question of value and finding access via other sources as Dish noted.


----------



## Ira Lacher

phrelin said:


> It then becomes a question of value and finding access via other sources as Dish noted.


Why, though, would any business want to intentionally divest itself of something of perceived value?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Ira Lacher said:


> Why, though, would any business want to intentionally divest itself of something of perceived value?


Because that perceived value is lower than the perceived cost?

Because the perceived value is lower than the perceived gain by taking a stand?

There are probably more, but those are the easy answers.


----------



## mdavej

phrelin said:


> Again, it will simply save me $15 a month because AMC and BBCA are the only channels keeping me in the AT200 package. In the future I'll stream from Amazon the few AMC shows I want to watch.


Sounds like a good plan. Won't work for me though. All those episodes in perpetuity for 5 or 6 series will cost a fortune, more than my savings if I were to drop a tier (which I don't want to do). Plus I have other motives as well. Going back to cable, I not only get AMC back but also IFC in HD and the Disney channels as well.


----------



## jdskycaster

This is a tough one as I too like a couple of the series on AMC but will ultimately learn to live without them and just watch something else. There are so many options today I just cannot get bent out of shape over a series or two. I have also learned not to get attached to any series as the networks seem to drop them at any time without notice and without ever providing their loyal fans with a proper ending. Sad state of affairs but it is the world we now live in.


----------



## Ira Lacher

Stewart Vernon said:


> Because that perceived value is lower than the perceived cost?
> 
> Because the perceived value is lower than the perceived gain by taking a stand?
> 
> There are probably more, but those are the easy answers.


Sure, the business is always right, not the customer.

:nono:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Ira Lacher said:


> Sure, the business is always right, not the customer.
> 
> :nono:


But in this case, we aren't the customer.

We are Dish's customer... Dish is Rainbow media's customer...

We pay Dish to deliver Rainbow channels like AMC to us... Dish pays Rainbow Media to get AMC.

You can't argue "the customer is always right" without recognizing there are different levels of customer in play here.

IF AMC was something you subscribed and paid directly to Rainbow media, and they came to you every 6-12 months and wanted to raise the rates... would you say "yay, your shows are worth it" or would you say "I don't know if it is worth more than I already pay" ?

Think Netflix... remember the problems they had raising their rates by about a dollar last summer? They still haven't recovered as a company from that... and that was a dollar for lots of content.

Here we are talking about potentially 50 cents (going from 26 to 76 cents) for just one channel (AMC)... We don't even know if there are increase requests in play for IFC, WeTV, or Sundance... what if Rainbow is asking for 25-50 cents more per channel for each of those channels?

OR what if they are piling all of the increase onto AMC and forcing those other channels that are less popular on Dish for the privilege of carrying AMC?

There is more than one customer here. How about maybe Rainbow is the bad guy in this scenario instead of Dish.


----------



## Ira Lacher

Stewart Vernon said:


> IF AMC was something you subscribed and paid directly to Rainbow media, and they came to you every 6-12 months and wanted to raise the rates... would you say "yay, your shows are worth it" or would you say "I don't know if it is worth more than I already pay" ?


You make a good point, Stewart -- and that's my point exactly. The individual subscriber isn't given an opportunity to make that choice!

Subscriber-centric solution: DISH compromise with Rainbow for a rate increase agreeable to both, with DISH passing on the cost to the subscriber in the form of higher price for AT250, noting that the increase is because of Rainbow channels. Then let the sub decide if AT250 continues to be worth it or if it's time to switch to another, lower-cost package.


----------



## Grandude

Ira Lacher said:


> Subscriber-centric solution: DISH compromise with Rainbow for a rate increase agreeable to both, with DISH passing on the cost to the subscriber in the form of higher price for AT250, noting that the increase is because of Rainbow channels. Then let the sub decide if AT250 continues to be worth it or if it's time to switch to another, lower-cost package.


Shucks, that just doesn't work for me. I seldom watch AMC but a higher price for AT250 just because of AMC would not be fair as I do watch many other channels in AT250.


----------



## Laxguy

Grandude said:


> Shucks, that just doesn't work for me. I seldom watch AMC but a higher price for AT250 just because of AMC would not be fair as I do watch many other channels in AT250.


I think that illustrates one reason while even semi ala carte offerings are difficult.


----------



## SayWhat?

Ira Lacher said:


> Subscriber-centric solution: DISH compromise with Rainbow for a rate increase agreeable to both, with DISH passing on the cost to the subscriber in the form of higher price for AT250, noting that the increase is because of Rainbow channels. Then let the sub decide if AT250 continues to be worth it or if it's time to switch to another, lower-cost package.


Ummmm, NO!!

AT250 is already overpriced. I have it for the various other channels in that package, but I never watch AMC and only rarely watch IFC.

I say tell Rainbow to stick it.

What about dropping it to a lower package like AT120 where more people would have access. Rainbow would get a lower amount per channel, but more overall because of more subscribers.


----------



## sregener

"Ira Lacher" said:


> Subscriber-centric solution: DISH compromise with Rainbow for a rate increase agreeable to both, with DISH passing on the cost to the subscriber in the form of higher price for AT250, noting that the increase is because of Rainbow channels. Then let the sub decide if AT250 continues to be worth it or if it's time to switch to another, lower-cost package.


No, subscriber-centric would be to offer AT246 for $1 less than AT250.

Oh, gee, no big takers on saving a dollar? Yeah folks, this is peanuts they are arguing over. Sorry, but going from $0.35 to $0.75 doesn't excite me. Given inflation of about 3% a year, my bill should be going up by $1-2 a year.

Even though I almost never watch these channels, I'd like to see them keep it for those rare times when it would be worth watching. I am happy with the value of AT250.


----------



## Laxguy

sregener said:


> Oh, gee, no big takers on saving a dollar? Yeah folks, this is peanuts they are arguing over. Sorry, but going from $0.35 to $0.75 doesn't excite me. Given inflation of about 3% a year, my bill should be going up by $1-2 a year.


From .35 to .75 is over 100%, and yeah, that *alone* won't do diddley to your bill, but it's one of hundreds that will increase. Just a question of how much. If they hold a line on most, perhaps your bill won't go up more than 5% per annum average over time.


----------



## Ira Lacher

SayWhat? said:


> Rainbow would get a lower amount per channel, but more overall because of more subscribers.


That would follow if more subs had, say, AT200 or AT120 than the top tier. And of course, DISH won't let that info out.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Ira Lacher said:


> Subscriber-centric solution: DISH compromise with Rainbow for a rate increase agreeable to both, with DISH passing on the cost to the subscriber in the form of higher price for AT250, noting that the increase is because of Rainbow channels. Then let the sub decide if AT250 continues to be worth it or if it's time to switch to another, lower-cost package.


The problem with that is illustrated by the next post I am quoting...



Laxguy said:


> From .35 to .75 is over 100%, and yeah, that *alone* won't do diddley to your bill, but it's one of hundreds that will increase. Just a question of how much. If they hold a line on most, perhaps your bill won't go up more than 5% per annum average over time.


Exactly. What if every channel in that package wanted a 50 cents per channel increase? The package price would be out of hand in a hurry.

That's why Dish has to draw a line each time so that the next time they don't continue to cave into big increases over and over.

I also did some nice math earlier about how many viewers actually watched the highest rated program ever aired on AMC vs how many subscribers they are actually getting money from each year. Less than 10% of the people who pay for AMC watched their highest rated program ever!

Think about that when evaluating whether or not you think they deserve to double or triple their rates!


----------



## sregener

"Laxguy" said:


> From .35 to .75 is over 100%, and yeah, that alone won't do diddley to your bill, but it's one of hundreds that will increase. Just a question of how much. If they hold a line on most, perhaps your bill won't go up more than 5% per annum average over time.


I see no reason to assume percentages. Absolutes make more sense. And Rainbow isn't one channel, it's four. So we're talking $.10 more per channel over the next 3-5 years the agreement would be in place. But not all channels get paid for carriage. Shopping channels pay for carriage, so we can't include them in the pricing, even if they count as channels in the package. In other words, we're talking about 10-15 channel groups that may ask for more money over the next few years, and at $0.40 per group, I don't see the price as being worth worrying over. It certainly is not the 5% increase per year you fear.

I remember paying $29.95 to DirecTV in 1995 for about 70 channels. None in HD, and no DVR. For 250 channels today, plus locals, HD and a DVR, I'm at $85. I don't see this as an outrageous increase. I'm getting much more. At 5% per year since 1995, it would take over 21 years to reach today's price. Except that I'd still only be getting 70 channels in SD and no DVR. Since I get 3.5x the channels, the price should be over $106, assuming a 0% increase in per channel costs. And at 5% per year, that's be over $242/month.

AMC may be out of line asking for $0.40/subscriber, but I'd pay it without blinking. Even though I won't miss it.


----------



## Shades228

Stewart Vernon said:


> The problem with that is illustrated by the next post I am quoting...
> 
> Exactly. What if every channel in that package wanted a 50 cents per channel increase? The package price would be out of hand in a hurry.
> 
> That's why Dish has to draw a line each time so that the next time they don't continue to cave into big increases over and over.
> 
> I also did some nice math earlier about how many viewers actually watched the highest rated program ever aired on AMC vs how many subscribers they are actually getting money from each year. Less than 10% of the people who pay for AMC watched their highest rated program ever!
> 
> Think about that when evaluating whether or not you think they deserve to double or triple their rates!


There is a point where customer churn exceeds the cost increase payout amount. That number will be much lower as well if DISH is willing to give a discount to "compensate" people who are upset about the loss.

DISH has always been known to have more disputes and channel blackouts than any other provider. However in the past it was due to "working" on it to keep costs low. Now they're publicly stating they're done with this channel. That is a different perception issue in of itself and some customer's aren't going to think about business ends they're just going to see that and then once it happens believe DISH and move on.


----------



## mdavej

Shades228 said:


> DISH has always been known to have more disputes and channel blackouts than any other provider. However in the past it was due to "working" on it to keep costs low. Now they're publicly stating they're done with this channel. That is a different perception issue in of itself and some customer's aren't going to think about business ends they're just going to see that and then once it happens believe DISH and move on.


Exactly!

This is Dish's Netflix moment IMO, vastly different from other disputes. It won't be as damaging, but it's just as short-sighted and arrogant.


----------



## DoyleS

Hell on Wheels is the one I really want to watch. It doesn't start up again until Aug 12 so I have some time to figure out what to do. Might have to have one of my kids with Comcast record it for me. But after looking at Phrelin's list of what I would lose by dropping from AT200 to AT120, that is also tempting. 

I see Hell on Wheels is available in HD from Amazon Prime. If you signup for the $79/year Amazon Prime deal would this be free streaming from Amazon?
---------
OK, I found the FAQ and can answer my own question. Prime Instant Videos are free to stream if you have the $79/yr membership which also gives 2 day shipping on Amazon Orders. That is less than $7/month and would work for me, especially if I drop AT200 and pickup AT120. I can always switch back to AT200 if I saw the need. Sounds like a plan!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Shades228 said:


> DISH has always been known to have more disputes and channel blackouts than any other provider. However in the past it was due to "working" on it to keep costs low. Now they're publicly stating they're done with this channel. That is a different perception issue in of itself and some customer's aren't going to think about business ends they're just going to see that and then once it happens believe DISH and move on.


On what are you basing this conclusion of difference?

Dish has a lawsuit ongoing with Rainbow Media over Voom.

Dish also has contracts to carry existing Rainbow channels. Those contracts are about to expire.

Dish recently lost a portion of the lawsuit.

Dish recently announced that Rainbow is asking too much of an increase so they will be dropping AMC and other Rainbow channels when those contracts expire.

Now... Dish is saying these two things are unrelated. Rainbow is saying Dish is retaliating by dropping their channels... but Rainbow is also not denying they want a price increase.

So... IF one wants to say "coincidence" doesn't apply and Dish only wants to drop the channels because of the lawsuit... then that should apply to Rainbow as well, and one should similarly conclude that the only reason Rainbow wants more money is because of the lawsuit Dish has been fighting.

Goose and gander situation here.

IF you choose to believe these two events (lawsuit and channel negotiations) are related... then it works both ways.

IF you choose to believe that the two events are unrelated... then it's no different than any other channel negotiation.

Bottom line... I don't see this as any different than any other situation in the past. Sometimes the channels go, sometimes they don't... when they go, sometimes they come back, sometimes they don't. Nothing new here really.


----------



## Shades228

Stewart Vernon said:


> On what are you basing this conclusion of difference?
> 
> Dish has a lawsuit ongoing with Rainbow Media over Voom.
> 
> Dish also has contracts to carry existing Rainbow channels. Those contracts are about to expire.
> 
> Dish recently lost a portion of the lawsuit.
> 
> Dish recently announced that Rainbow is asking too much of an increase so they will be dropping AMC and other Rainbow channels when those contracts expire.
> 
> Now... Dish is saying these two things are unrelated. Rainbow is saying Dish is retaliating by dropping their channels... but Rainbow is also not denying they want a price increase.
> 
> So... IF one wants to say "coincidence" doesn't apply and Dish only wants to drop the channels because of the lawsuit... then that should apply to Rainbow as well, and one should similarly conclude that the only reason Rainbow wants more money is because of the lawsuit Dish has been fighting.
> 
> Goose and gander situation here.
> 
> IF you choose to believe these two events (lawsuit and channel negotiations) are related... then it works both ways.
> 
> IF you choose to believe that the two events are unrelated... then it's no different than any other channel negotiation.
> 
> Bottom line... I don't see this as any different than any other situation in the past. Sometimes the channels go, sometimes they don't... when they go, sometimes they come back, sometimes they don't. Nothing new here really.


I didn't attempt to draw a conclusion as to why because it's not relevant to the people who want to watch the channel and it goes dark.

The point of my post is that the announcement of this is different than any in the past regarding a price increase. Normally they say they're negotiating in good faith on behalf of their customers interest. The normal PR line. This time they said they have chose to not persue a renewal of this channel. They indicated pricing but didn't state that they would lose it while negotiating a fair rate they just said they're done. Now I'm sure that doesn't mean that if AMC came up with a proposal that DISH thought was fair to them they wouldn't take it, but the average customer who reads an article from DISH saying they're done and the channel goes black will just leave if they want it.


----------



## phrelin

DoyleS said:


> Hell on Wheels is the one I really want to watch. It doesn't start up again until Aug 12 so I have some time to figure out what to do. Might have to have one of my kids with Comcast record it for me. But after looking at Phrelin's list of what I would lose by dropping from AT200 to AT120, that is also tempting.
> 
> I see Hell on Wheels is available in HD from Amazon Prime. If you signup for the $79/year Amazon Prime deal would this be free streaming from Amazon?
> ---------
> OK, I found the FAQ and can answer my own question. Prime Instant Videos are free to stream if you have the $79/yr membership which also gives 2 day shipping on Amazon Orders. That is less than $7/month and would work for me, especially if I drop AT200 and pickup AT120. I can always switch back to AT200 if I saw the need. Sounds like a plan!


As a long time Prime member, I have to tell you that they offer many videos free to Prime members, but not all by any stretch of the imagination. AMC shows cost $1.99 per episode.



mdavej said:


> Exactly!
> 
> This is Dish's Netflix moment IMO, vastly different from other disputes. It won't be as damaging, but it's just as short-sighted and arrogant.


This isn't Dish's Netflix moment IMHO.

AMC is a cable channel that has four (?) critically acclaimed one hour shows that run 13 weeks a year each and regularly pull less than 10% of the 9:00 Fall Sunday broadcast ratings. The rest of the 21 hours of prime time a week and the 168 total hours a week AMC ratings are hardly noticeable. The entire Rainbow group doesn't make a ratings blip on an annual basis.

Whatever else, IMHO at its core the dispute is about Voom. At some point it got to be personal for Charles Ergen and maybe for Charles Dolan. And I do think Ergen got screwed in the Voom deal even it it may have been his own fault for getting into the deal.

If it were just about retransmission fees for a cable channel that has become more popular, Dish would negotiate, and negotiate, and negotiate. They are doing no such thing.

Dish has used this particular battle to make a point: "AMC Networks' very limited popular programming is non-exclusive, and available to our customers through multiple other outlets such as Amazon.com, iTunes and Netflix." It's a point that has forced me to go through a process of discovery I shared here. I'm probably wasting money by being in the AT200 tier rather than the substantially less expensive AT120 tier even if AMC isn't dropped.

The only question I have is that I have read that they'll drop the Rainbow Media group of channels on June 1 and I have read that the contract is up at the end of June.

The article in the OP says "Dish told the programmer of its intention to drop the four channels by June 30." A New York Times article says: "Dish did not specify when the channels could be dropped, but the current contract expires at the end of June."

If they don't have to drop AMC until the last episodes of the current seasons of "Mad Men" and "The Killing" are aired - the latter being June 17 - but they do drop it, now _that_ might be a near-Netflix moment for me.:sure:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Shades228 said:


> The point of my post is that the announcement of this is different than any in the past regarding a price increase. Normally they say they're negotiating in good faith on behalf of their customers interest. The normal PR line. This time they said they have chose to not persue a renewal of this channel. They indicated pricing but didn't state that they would lose it while negotiating a fair rate they just said they're done. Now I'm sure that doesn't mean that if AMC came up with a proposal that DISH thought was fair to them they wouldn't take it, but the average customer who reads an article from DISH saying they're done and the channel goes black will just leave if they want it.


Dish has done this before.

Remember the Smithsonian HD channel?

Remember the Lifetime Channel?

Smithsonian wanted more money than Dish wanted to pay and Dish said that and dropped the channel. It hasn't come back.

Lifetime happened similarly, only after a bit they came to a new agreement and the channels came back.

I'm pretty sure this is how the last couple of rounds with FOX and other LiLs went too...

It really isn't new.


----------



## DoyleS

Thanks Phrelin, I doubt I would choose to pay $2/episode or $3/episode for HD. That surely wasn't clear when I looked at their site. Sounds like I might need a Plan which might be a Netflix thing after the season is released to DVD.


----------



## Shades228

Stewart Vernon said:


> Dish has done this before.
> 
> Remember the Smithsonian HD channel?
> 
> Remember the Lifetime Channel?
> 
> Smithsonian wanted more money than Dish wanted to pay and Dish said that and dropped the channel. It hasn't come back.
> 
> Lifetime happened similarly, only after a bit they came to a new agreement and the channels came back.
> 
> I'm pretty sure this is how the last couple of rounds with FOX and other LiLs went too...
> 
> It really isn't new.


I don't recall them coming out prior to a contract ending that they said we're done. I know they have chosen to not renew just not in such a firm statement prior to losing the station.


----------



## mike1977

DoyleS said:


> Thanks Phrelin, I doubt I would choose to pay $2/episode or $3/episode for HD. That surely wasn't clear when I looked at their site. Sounds like I might need a Plan which might be a Netflix thing after the season is released to DVD.


I sure don't want to wait until Fall 2013 to watch season 3 of The Walking Dead on DVD or Netflix...I can hardly wait now! lol

download them all from itunes or Amazon..$2.99 x 16 = $47.84

...or just say adios to Dish and switch to Directv.


----------



## sregener

mike1977 said:


> download them all from itunes or Amazon..$2.99 x 16 = $47.84
> 
> ...or just say adios to Dish and switch to Directv.


I did the same kind of math the other way with BBCA's Top Gear, after I got tired of not being able to make out the hosts' faces with DirecTV's lo-resolution SD. If AMC's shows are very important to you, and you're getting enough good programming at a good price, then switch. But if you only watch that one show on AMC, you'll need to save $4.16/month with DirecTV's programming prices in order to break even. And heaven help you if you get one of their slow DVRs.

Preventing churn like this is why I'd take the $0.40/month increase without blinking for a channel I don't watch. I'd rather Dish keep a lot of customers than lose them over a channel that cannot be classified as niche.


----------



## SayWhat?

> NEW YORK (AP) - Profits at big U.S. companies broke records last year, and so did pay for CEOs.
> 
> The head of a typical public company made $9.6 million in 2011, according to an analysis by The Associated Press using data from Equilar, an executive pay research firm.
> 
> That was up more than 6 percent from the previous year, and is the second year in a row of increases. The figure is also the highest since the AP began tracking executive compensation in 2006.


http://www.windstream.net/news/read.php?rip_id=<[email protected]>&ps=1018

Not likely I'll support any rate increase of any kind for any reason. AMC, et-al can go dark for all I care.


----------



## Ira Lacher

Stewart Vernon said:


> Exactly. What if every channel in that package wanted a 50 cents per channel increase? The package price would be out of hand in a hurry.


Out of hand to whom, Stewart? Both DISH and DirecTV routinely raise the prices of their packages every 12 to 18 months or so in what they say is response to higher rates charged by providers. So instead of a $5 increase for AT250 it would be $6 or $6.50. Is that truly a bank-breaker, as far as you're concerned?


----------



## DoyleS

There was a Dish ad in the San Jose Mercury News this morning showing all of the packages and AMC was not listed. I guess it could be a problem signing up new customers and then dropping a channel from the ad you ran.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Ira Lacher said:


> Out of hand to whom, Stewart? Both DISH and DirecTV routinely raise the prices of their packages every 12 to 18 months or so in what they say is response to higher rates charged by providers. So instead of a $5 increase for AT250 it would be $6 or $6.50. Is that truly a bank-breaker, as far as you're concerned?


$6.50 wouldn't come close to cover 50 cents per channel increases.

If there are 100 channels in the bottom tier, 50 cents per channel would be $50.

That's why this has to be reigned in... and a channel that (as I keep repeating) only had 9% of the number of paying customers actually watch its highest rated show ever on one night.


----------



## sregener

Stewart Vernon said:


> If there are 100 channels in the bottom tier, 50 cents per channel would be $50.


Last I checked, religious channels are practically free. Shopping channels pay to be included in the packages, so they shouldn't count either. And while AMC is only one channel, I haven't seen anyone saying that IFC is also demanding a $0.50 increase, WeTV also wants $0.50, or that Sundance wants $0.50. From what I can see, we're talking about a $0.35 increase for all 4 of those channels. So we're down under a dime per channel in increases, and after we subtract out the channels that don't charge anything or pay, and we take into account that these contracts last 4-5 years, I'm willing to bet we'd be under the $5/year increase in price.

AMC's demand for double seems unreasonable to me. They aren't twice as good as they used to be. But I'd rather see this negotiated and brought to a reasonable $0.15-$0.20 increase to keep churn down.


----------



## SayWhat?

> From what I can see, we're talking about a $0.35 increase for all 4 of those channels.


I'm not sure anybody really knows that for sure. I think that was just a speculative number.

For Charlie to put his foot down, there must have been more to it.


----------



## Ira Lacher

SayWhat? said:


> For Charlie to put his foot down, there must have been more to it.


Right. And his well-documented ego had nothing to do with it.


----------



## inazsully

Stewart Vernon said:


> $6.50 wouldn't come close to cover 50 cents per channel increases.
> 
> If there are 100 channels in the bottom tier, 50 cents per channel would be $50.
> 
> That's why this has to be reigned in... and a channel that (as I keep repeating) only had 9% of the number of paying customers actually watch its highest rated show ever on one night.


It will never be reigned in. If there is anything history has taught us, prices will always go up. Costs go up, advertising costs go up, gas prices go up, housing costs go up, food prices go up, tuition costs go up, utility costs go up. One of the few things that have stayed about the same is the cost of TV's.


----------



## Laxguy

inazsully said:


> It will never be reigned in. If there is anything history has taught us, prices will always go up. Costs go up, advertising costs go up, gas prices go up, housing costs go up, food prices go up, tuition costs go up, utility costs go up. One of the few things that have stayed about the same is the cost of TV's.


Prices fluctuate over the long run, and TVs have declined in price over the last 50 years or so. Waning natural resources are likely to have few meaningful declines, so, yes, the trend is up, way up for gas, oil, fertilizers; all of which affect food prices.

As to satellite pricing of content from the providers, it will trend up, but if it goes up too far too fast, they damage the golden goose (the machine that induces us to pay and pay more). Reining in is necessary.


----------



## Marlin Guy

All of this talk about AMC made me actually look at the channel in the guide.
I thought maybe I was missing something. I wasn't.


----------



## sigma1914

Marlin Guy said:


> All of this talk about AMC made me actually look at the channel in the guide.
> I thought maybe I was missing something. I wasn't.


You should check out Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Mad Men, The Killing, & Hell On Wheels.


----------



## Dish97

Marlin Guy said:


> All of this talk about AMC made me actually look at the channel in the guide.
> I thought maybe I was missing something. I wasn't.


You haven't missed anything in at least a dozen years. Garbage channel. I say drop it!


----------



## Laxguy

It's been asked of all of us to not denigrate any channel. Tastes differ, families differ, and it helps keep things civil here when we don't make crap-on posts. Please.


----------



## Chihuahua

Dish97 said:


> You haven't missed anything in at least a dozen years. Garbage channel. I say drop it!


As I have stated earlier, I pretty much gave up on *American Movie Classics *about a decade ago.


----------



## phrelin

"Marlin Guy" said:


> All of this talk about AMC made me actually look at the channel in the guide.
> I thought maybe I was missing something. I wasn't.


 In recent years they have had some of the best written and produced original scripted drama on TV, on a par with HBO and the other premiums. But, the number of shows has been limited and most lack mass appeal compared to the cost of production, also much like premiums.

But the critics love the AMC effort, just as they do HBO. Unfortunately they are trying to survive as a regular cable channel.


----------



## onebadmofo

All I know is I was close to a switch to Dish the last few days til I saw this. Sorry, not giving up Walking Dead...


----------



## Mojo Jojo

"onebadmofo" said:


> All I know is I was close to a switch to Dish the last few days til I saw this. Sorry, not giving up Walking Dead...


You may wait to see if the channels will get dropped as we are getting closer to June or if the channels stay probably due to a last-minute agreement.


----------



## SayWhat?

onebadmofo said:


> All I know is I was close to a switch to Dish the last few days til I saw this. Sorry, not giving up Walking Dead...


See, I don't get that kind of thinking. There has never been a show on TV in my entire viewing history that I absolutely had to see no matter what. And I've been around for some of the biggest shows in television history including MASH, Dallas and Star Trek.

I can't fathom the idea that someone would make a financial decision based on a television show. Especially now when shows come out on disc in a few months (or weeks). Then you can watch them as often as you want.


----------



## Laxguy

And that's O.K. Diff strokes diff folks......


----------



## Jaspear

phrelin said:


> In recent years they have had some of the best written and produced original scripted drama on TV, on a par with HBO and the other premiums. But, the number of shows has been limited and most lack mass appeal compared to the cost of production, also much like premiums.
> 
> But the critics love the AMC effort, just as they do HBO. Unfortunately they are trying to survive as a regular cable channel.


I do believe you've hit upon the solution. AMC re-brands as a premium, goes ad free and charges an appropriate rate for doing so. Charlie moves it to the Blockbuster package and sticks it right next to Epix. Since the mass appeal for the original content (for the most part) does not exist, why beat a dead horse trying to survive as basic service? I'd much rather watch their original content without commercial interruption and I'd be willing to pay a premium to do it.


----------



## inazsully

SayWhat? said:


> See, I don't get that kind of thinking. There has never been a show on TV in my entire viewing history that I absolutely had to see no matter what. And I've been around for some of the biggest shows in television history including MASH, Dallas and Star Trek.
> 
> I can't fathom the idea that someone would make a financial decision based on a television show. Especially now when shows come out on disc in a few months (or weeks). Then you can watch them as often as you want.


Mash, Dallas, and Star Trek were never dropped. They just ended production, as did long running popular shows like Cheers, Mary Tyler Moore, Gun Smoke, Bonanza, House, CSI MIami, etc.Losing any of those shows would never cause me to jump ship but if they were dropped during their hey day by a provider it would have ticked me off.


----------



## chris83

inazsully said:


> Mash, Dallas, and Star Trek were never dropped. They just ended production, as did long running popular shows like Cheers, Mary Tyler Moore, Gun Smoke, Bonanza, House, CSI MIami, etc.Losing any of those shows would never cause me to jump ship but if they were dropped during their hey day by a provider it would have ticked me off.


The original Star Trek WAS cancelled in February of 1969


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inazsully said:


> Mash, Dallas, and Star Trek were never dropped. They just ended production, as did long running popular shows like Cheers, Mary Tyler Moore, Gun Smoke, Bonanza, House, CSI MIami, etc.Losing any of those shows would never cause me to jump ship but if they were dropped during their hey day by a provider it would have ticked me off.


Umm... Star Trek was in fact dropped... during its heyday. It barely made it to a third season... heck, it barely made it to air in the first place.

But I don't think that was entirely the point.


----------



## chris83

inazsully said:


> Mash, Dallas, and Star Trek were never dropped. They just ended production, as did long running popular shows like Cheers, Mary Tyler Moore, Gun Smoke, Bonanza, House, CSI MIami, etc.Losing any of those shows would never cause me to jump ship but if they were dropped during their hey day by a provider it would have ticked me off.


Gunsmoke, Bonanza & CSI Miami were all cancelled as well...


----------



## maartena

Mojo Jojo said:


> You may wait to see if the channels will get dropped as we are getting closer to June or if the channels stay probably due to a last-minute agreement.


Thing is though..... in the last 2 weeks before a carriage is ending between a carrier and a tv channel, you will usually start seeing the ad-blasts from both sides. The channels will splatter their front page with "let your carrier know you want to keep us" type ads and links, and the carrier will have an information page regarding the channel explaining how they are want to pay a fair amount of money.

Through history, this is what I have seen with all carriers and channels. Between Dish and AMC Networks..... there is dead silence. No mudslinging. No smear campaigns. No nothing. That tells me they aren't even talking, or getting close to any kind of deal. With the dropping of NY-area sports channels that are owned by AMC, I think Dish has made the decision to be "done" with AMC, and is not looking back.

Additionally, the fact that they had to change their ads to NOT include AMC owned networks on the list of "look-at-all-the-great-channels-you-get" is even more telling that they don't expect AMC to be around.

This seems no longer a "we want a fair deal and we are negotiating" thing, as we would have seen a lot of mud slinging by now. This is a "we're done" thing, and the call has been made.


----------



## jetfan1

In my Sunday paper today, Dish has a full page ad touting their various packages. AMC, IFC and WE are nowhere to be found on the channel listing. Barring some deal between Dish and AMC, the end is indeed near. Breaking Bad starts on July 15. Mad Men ends on June 10. We'll see if they pull the plug before then. But you Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, The Killing, Hell on Wheels and IFC fans should start looking for alternatives to get your shows, especially if you plan on keeping Dish.


----------



## MysteryMan

maartena said:


> Thing is though..... in the last 2 weeks before a carriage is ending between a carrier and a tv channel, you will usually start seeing the ad-blasts from both sides. The channels will splatter their front page with "let your carrier know you want to keep us" type ads and links, and the carrier will have an information page regarding the channel explaining how they are want to pay a fair amount of money.
> 
> Through history, this is what I have seen with all carriers and channels. Between Dish and AMC Networks..... there is dead silence. No mudslinging. No smear campaigns. No nothing. That tells me they aren't even talking, or getting close to any kind of deal. With the dropping of NY-area sports channels that are owned by AMC, I think Dish has made the decision to be "done" with AMC, and is not looking back.
> 
> Additionally, the fact that they had to change their ads to NOT include AMC owned networks on the list of "look-at-all-the-great-channels-you-get" is even more telling that they don't expect AMC to be around.
> 
> This seems no longer a "we want a fair deal and we are negotiating" thing, as we would have seen a lot of mud slinging by now. This is a "we're done" thing, and the call has been made.


It does appear to look that way.


----------



## Inkosaurus

Dish doesnt put ad's in the paper. That was done by a local retailer and I can promise you there not "in the know". 
Though things do look grim I wouldnt use second hand evidence like news paper ads as a basis for an assumption.


----------



## Laxguy

Inkosaurus said:


> Dish doesnt put ad's in the paper. That was done by a local retailer and I can promise you there not "in the know".
> Though things do look grim I wouldnt use second hand evidence like news paper ads as a basis for an assumption.


The immediate deletion of those channels is telling, regardless of who placed the ads.


----------



## RAD

IIRC, while local retailers have the ad placed the copy comes from corporate offices.


----------



## mike1977

maartena said:


> Thing is though..... in the last 2 weeks before a carriage is ending between a carrier and a tv channel, you will usually start seeing the ad-blasts from both sides. The channels will splatter their front page with "let your carrier know you want to keep us" type ads and links, and the carrier will have an information page regarding the channel explaining how they are want to pay a fair amount of money.
> 
> Through history, this is what I have seen with all carriers and channels. Between Dish and AMC Networks..... there is dead silence. No mudslinging. No smear campaigns. No nothing. That tells me they aren't even talking, or getting close to any kind of deal. With the dropping of NY-area sports channels that are owned by AMC, I think Dish has made the decision to be "done" with AMC, and is not looking back.
> 
> Additionally, the fact that they had to change their ads to NOT include AMC owned networks on the list of "look-at-all-the-great-channels-you-get" is even more telling that they don't expect AMC to be around.
> 
> This seems no longer a "we want a fair deal and we are negotiating" thing, as we would have seen a lot of mud slinging by now. This is a "we're done" thing, and the call has been made.


Yeah, I know.  Didn't Directv put out a commercial, something like "We have Comedy Central, Dish doesn't" several years back when they dropped it for like a couple of days?

The only thing good about TWD starting up in October is that there is plenty of time to see what happens before jumping the gun on switching to Directv or cable.


----------



## SayWhat?

mike1977 said:


> The only thing good about TWD starting up in October is that there is plenty of time to see what happens before jumping the gun on switching to Directv or cable.


Which would be giving in to the production company's extortion. Not a wise move.

The way to handle this is to stand firm and make the production company suffer severe losses. That would be a signal to other production companies that their reign of terror is over.

It would be great if Direct would flip the switch on Rainbow the same day Dish does as a show of solidarity.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Laxguy said:


> The immediate deletion of those channels is telling, regardless of who placed the ads.


Not really. As we have noted before... it takes mere minutes to make these kinds of changes and similar mere minutes to put the channel logos back. It might seem important for Dish to take the channels down from their Web site, but it is a minimal effort kind of thing.


----------



## jetfan1

I wonder how many Dish subscribers really know about this dispute. Can't believe there aren't subscribers out there who like the AMC shows but have no idea what's about to happen. What will happen when they tune in to AMC and they aren't there? That's when we'll find out if subscriber complaints will have any sway. I've been with Dish for 15 years, and have seen them go to the brink with many channels. 
I would imagine DirecTV will advertise heavily about Dish dropping AMC.


----------



## tampa8

jetfan1 said:


> What will happen when they tune in to AMC and they aren't there?


That alone is an assumption. 

Not that it won't be there, but that people will actually tune to that channel or IFC. The Wives/Girlfriends might miss WE...... Sundance is already a fuzzy memory. All indications from ratings say not too many watch them regularly. If it's someone's favorite channel or one they watch alot I don't want them to lose it. If that important, that's why there are other providers. If you're hinting there will some big uprising or exodus, there won't be.

Niche channels have a double edged sword. They can have loyal viewers and make someone go to a provider. But the numbers are small, and they can't demand much. AMC is by all accounts demanding now and later alot. They're no USA.


----------



## sigma1914

tampa8 said:


> That alone is an assumption.
> 
> Not that it won't be there, but that people will actually tune to that channel or IFC. The Wives/Girlfriends might miss WE...... Sundance is already a fuzzy memory. All indications from ratings say not too many watch them regularly. If it's someone's favorite channel or one they watch alot I don't want them to lose it. If that important, that's why there are other providers. If you're hinting there will some big uprising or exodus, there won't be.
> 
> Niche channels have a double edged sword. They can have loyal viewers and make someone go to a provider. But the numbers are small, and they can't demand much. AMC is by all accounts demanding now and later alot. They're no USA.



Are you actually saying AMC has very small viewership? As was pointed out earlier, The Walking Dead was one of the highest rated cable shows EVER. Mad Men is still pulling about 2 million live/same day viewers every Sunday


----------



## Stewart Vernon

sigma1914 said:


> Are you actually saying AMC has very small viewership? As was pointed out earlier, The Walking Dead was one of the highest rated cable shows EVER. Mad Men is still pulling about 2 million live/same day viewers every Sunday


I am definitely saying that. Compared to the number of people who subscribe to a package that includes AMC, its actual viewership is VERY low.

I went through the math a while back... but the summation was that the Walking Dead episode that set that record was about 9% of the number of actual subscribers... so on the best night ever, more than 90% of the people paying for AMC weren't watching.

All the other nights are even worse statistically than that... which means that even the people who loved AMC that one night don't love AMC most of the time! So their most vocal loyal viewers don't even watch AMC most nights.

So... if all the customers who want AMC on a regular basis were to leave Dish tomorrow over this dispute, I'm not even sure it would make much difference in their quarterly churn.

I watch the Walking Dead too... but that's all I watch on that channel... and while I would miss it, I also know I can buy the Blu-rays which I will want to buy anyway... so losing AMC won't hurt my feelings too much.


----------



## SayWhat?

sigma1914 said:


> Are you actually saying AMC has very small viewership?





Stewart Vernon said:


> *I am definitely saying that. * Compared to the number of people who subscribe to a package that includes AMC, its actual viewership is VERY low.


Me too. Definitely a niche' channel.

I wouldn't be too surprised if WE had more viewers.


----------



## lparsons21

I'd say there are about 5 shows that garner a good viewership, the rest of the time it isn't a very good channel unless you like movies with lots, and I do mean LOTS, of ads.

Walking Dead, The Killing, Hell on Wheels, Mad Men and Breaking Bad are all considered excellent. The 3 I'm interested in are the first 3 and I can buy (not rent) a season pass for :

Walking Dead : $35 in HD, or $25 in SD
The Killing : $32 in HD, or $22 in SD
Hell On Wheels : $26 in HD, or $17 in SD

Note the SD is DVD quality, better than both D* and E*'s SD, and quite enjoyable too.

So the total would be $93 for the 3, or about $7.75/month if you figured that way. Figure another $70 for Mad Men+Breaking Bad and your up to $163 or $14 approx per month. All those figures are less than a switch would probably cost to go to D* after the rebates expire, and you lose BBCA-HD because D* not only doesn't have it, I'm not betting on them getting it anytime soon.

All figures from iTunes store.


----------



## sigma1914

Stewart Vernon said:


> I am definitely saying that. Compared to the number of people who subscribe to a package that includes AMC, its actual viewership is VERY low.
> 
> I went through the math a while back... but the summation was that the Walking Dead episode that set that record was about 9% of the number of actual subscribers... so on the best night ever, more than 90% of the people paying for AMC weren't watching.
> 
> All the other nights are even worse statistically than that... which means that even the people who loved AMC that one night don't love AMC most of the time! So their most vocal loyal viewers don't even watch AMC most nights.
> 
> So... if all the customers who want AMC on a regular basis were to leave Dish tomorrow over this dispute, I'm not even sure it would make much difference in their quarterly churn.
> 
> I watch the Walking Dead too... but that's all I watch on that channel... and while I would miss it, I also know I can buy the Blu-rays which I will want to buy anyway... so losing AMC won't hurt my feelings too much.


Then, let's just start dropping any channel. No big deal since it's just a few of the 14 million subs who watch...no biggie. In 2011, AMC was the *18th *rated cable channel total for day/night viewers and *15th *for primetime. It's ridiculous to think a top 20 channel can just be expendable.

HBO has huge ratings only Sunday nights...Dish should quit carrying them, too.


----------



## sigma1914

SayWhat? said:


> ...
> 
> I wouldn't be too surprised if WE had more viewers.


You're very wrong.


----------



## tampa8

sigma1914 said:


> Are you actually saying AMC has very small viewership?


Yes, exactly. But not just me, take a look at the ratings....... One show does not a network make. To be fair, I do see some weeks where they do better than others.


----------



## sigma1914

tampa8 said:


> Yes, exactly. But not just me, take a look at the ratings....... One show does not a network make.


As I said ... . In 2011, AMC was the 18th rated cable channel total for day/night viewers and 15th for primetime.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76679201/Cable-Time-Period-Rank-2011


----------



## tampa8

I do want to add, I'm not saying it's good or there will be no problem with the AMC channels leaving. Can Dish replace them with channels people want more? I don't know, but in the end it will indeed hurt AMC more than DISH.


----------



## sigma1914

tampa8 said:


> I do want to add, I'm not saying it's good or there will be no problem with the AMC channels leaving. Can Dish replace them with channels people want more? I don't know, but in the end it will indeed hurt AMC more than DISH.


It's obviously not going to punch Dish in the gut, but not even having a top 20 channel isn't a good thing. We have plenty of users here who won't go to DirecTV or pick Dish for BBCA HD. You'd think BBCA was a top 5 channel just reading here, but it's not even close. So a few people here might not think AMC is popular, but it is top 20.


----------



## inkahauts

SayWhat? said:


> Which would be giving in to the production company's extortion. Not a wise move.
> 
> The way to handle this is to stand firm and make the production company suffer severe losses. That would be a signal to other production companies that their reign of terror is over.
> 
> It would be great if Direct would flip the switch on Rainbow the same day Dish does as a show of solidarity.


I think that is actually useless in this situation. I think this has more to do with other things than trying to negotiate a price for the channels that Dish likes.

With that said, it did take forever for AMC to agree to terms with Directv just for the HD version of the channel, so who knows...


----------



## Inkosaurus

jetfan1 said:


> I wonder how many Dish subscribers really know about this dispute.


Probably less then the amount of employees that know.
Talked to my friend who works in the training department of our local Dish call center (its echo star/dish owned and not out sourced). And he says Dish still hasnt given him any material to go over, nor have they issued any BOLT's (brief online training) courses for the CSR's.

Pretty strange, when I worked there if there was even a potential take down of something as small as a local you could bet we had enough scripts, info and prices to cover most questions weeks before the contract ended.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

sigma1914 said:


> Then, let's just start dropping any channel. No big deal since it's just a few of the 14 million subs who watch...no biggie. In 2011, AMC was the *18th *rated cable channel total for day/night viewers and *15th *for primetime. It's ridiculous to think a top 20 channel can just be expendable.
> 
> HBO has huge ratings only Sunday nights...Dish should quit carrying them, too.


Nobody said we should just drop any channel. The argument is... AMC said (quoted in an article I read) that they are currently getting about 25 cents but feel like they should be getting 75 cents. They think they are as good as USA or TNT.

So... if AMC gets their 75 cents... then USA and TNT are going to say that they need to triple their fees too because they get far better average ratings than AMC does...

And then we all will cancel out satellite because every channel triples its fees overnight.

Nobody said that AMC was horrible, that it should be dropped, or that it is worthless... What has been argued, however, is just what that worth is... and when your best rated show ever is about 3 times your average ratings for your next best show... and those shows are only one night of the week's worth of ratings... and all that is under 10% of the number of people currently paying to get your channel... I don't think you are in a position to be trying to demand triple your current rates!

To be blunt... this is kind of what happened with Voom. Dish agreed to pay Voom a bunch for their 15 channel suite... and Voom agreed to invest that money in better programming and more variety... only, that never happened... so Dish wanted to cut back to the 5 most popular channels... and Rainbow Media then said "all or nothing"... so then Dish said, ok nothing.

Rainbow sued Dish and that has been going for a few years now.

Meanwhile... Rainbow spun off the "AMC Networks" as a separate company... but it sure looks like AMC is running things the same old screwed up way.

Walking Dead was the highest rated cable show ever, by AMC's own reporting... and yet they wanted to slash the budget for that show and essentially ran off the successful showrunner Frank Darabondt... Other AMC shows have had some similar head-butting negotiations.

And now they want to triple their charge to Dish at the next negotiations?

I'll miss Walking Dead... but I'll buy that on Blu-ray anyway... so I might actually save money if Dish drops the channel!


----------



## inkahauts

Frankly, there are a few to many channels in general right now. We'd all be better off dropping about 15% of the channels out there and consolidating channels and having more good programming on fewer channels than spreading it out on so many channels. That would also cut down on costs some. AMC has too few good shows to be demanding so much money, but if they combined all their channels, then they could charge more for a channel, less for all channels, and make more money overall.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Stewart Vernon said:


> So... if AMC gets their 75 cents... then USA and TNT are going to say that they need to triple their fees too because they get far better average ratings than AMC does...


If ESPN is worth 5+, then AMC is certainly worth 75 cents a month. You want AMC at 25 cents?

Let's have Dish tell ESPN, we'll pay you 2 dollars a sub, take it or leave it.


----------



## Inkosaurus

Gloria_Chavez said:


> If ESPN is worth 5+, then AMC is certainly worth 75 cents a month. You want AMC at 25 cents?
> 
> Let's have Dish tell ESPN, we'll pay you 2 dollars a sub, take it or leave it.


lol no. Looks like you just copy and pasted this post from the past, want us to copy and paste the answer too?


----------



## Shades228

SayWhat? said:


> Me too. Definitely a niche' channel.
> 
> I wouldn't be too surprised if WE had more viewers.


Funny because "niche" channels are what made DISH stand out for a long time as they didn't carry many of the more popular stations but had a plethora of niche channels that were cheaper to carry.


----------



## domingos35

give it up.
dish is droping AMC HD, end of story


----------



## James Long

Gloria_Chavez said:


> If ESPN is worth 5+, then AMC is certainly worth 75 cents a month. You want AMC at 25 cents?
> 
> Let's have Dish tell ESPN, we'll pay you 2 dollars a sub, take it or leave it.


AMC pulling a "take it or leave it" will be left. They are not ESPN. They are not even 1/6th of an ESPN.

Your IF THEN still fails ... ESPN is not $5 for one channel. It is $5 for a small package of channels. Just the main channel might be "worth" $2 but ESPN packages the several channels together.

AMC wants a 200% increase so they can collect 75c on one channel. And based on their past performance with Voom I would certainly not sign any such contract without a clause that would not drop it right back down to 25c if they did not maintain the ratings they have today.



domingos35 said:


> give it up.
> dish is droping AMC HD, end of story


Perhaps it will be dropped. There is still a chance AMC will come to their senses and stop overvaluing their product.


----------



## jerbear4

For those who think they are immune because they have another cable or satellite provider may want to think again on this. Sure Dish may drop AMC but most likely they end up getting their channel back in a contract negotiation. However, for the ones thinking that their provider does not do this may want to really examine the big picture. Right now I hear Directv customers complaining because they don't have G4.


----------



## inkahauts

"jerbear4" said:


> For those who think they are immune because they have another cable or satellite provider may want to think again on this. Sure Dish may drop AMC but most likely they end up getting their channel back in a contract negotiation. However, for the ones thinking that their provider does not do this may want to really examine the big picture. Right now I hear Directv customers complaining because they don't have G4.


Hw many exactly are complaining about g4?

And how many on DIRECTV where complaining abut amc not in Hi Definition?

I agree that no company is immune to any of this, but at some point, you have to question the tactics of a company, and dish is making a lot of strange and underhanded moves lately. I'd be more on dishes side and say drop them if I thought they where doing this solely because of what they feel is to large an increase. That needs to be stopped, but I wonder if they have even tried to negotiate.


----------



## Ira Lacher

G4 didn't have Emmy-award-winning, critically acclaimed programs.


----------



## mdavej

As one of the few who will apparently drop Dish when they drop AMC, I considered for a few seconds going back to DirecTV since they have AMC, great new customer deals and nice, albeit slow, DVRs. But the latest national HD comparison HERE on AVSForum was the final nail in the coffin. I was saddened to see that DirecTV is now 10th out of the 12 providers listed there. Sure they have everybody beat in sports, but that doesn't help me find a replacement for Dish in terms of national HD. I have no choice but to go through with my initial plan of going back cable (yuck).

All in all, satellite tv has served me well the past 12 years or so, but both providers have been surpassed by cable companies in terms of HD content. I never thought I'd see the day. So I'm quite disgusted with both Dish and DirecTV for letting their sizable lead in HD slip away and leaving us formerly loyal subs with no options. Although I hate cable with a passion, at least I'll get the Disney channels back and gain IFC in HD (I'm a huge Portlandia fan).


----------



## inazsully

domingos35 said:


> give it up.
> dish is droping AMC HD, end of story


Give what up? We know Dish is dropping AMC. We also know that our complaints here will have no effect on that decision nor will it have the slightest influence on changing their mind. We rant and we inform, not necessarily in that order.


----------



## inkahauts

"mdavej" said:


> As one of the few who will apparently drop Dish when they drop AMC, I considered for a few seconds going back to DirecTV since they have AMC, great new customer deals and nice, albeit slow, DVRs. But the latest national HD comparison HERE on AVSForum was the final nail in the coffin. I was saddened to see that DirecTV is now 10th out of the 12 providers listed there. Sure they have everybody beat in sports, but that doesn't help me find a replacement for Dish in terms of national HD. I have no choice but to go through with my initial plan of going back cable (yuck).
> 
> All in all, satellite tv has served me well the past 12 years or so, but both providers have been surpassed by cable companies in terms of HD content. I never thought I'd see the day. So I'm quite disgusted with both Dish and DirecTV for letting their sizable lead in HD slip away and leaving us formerly loyal subs with no options. Although I hate cable with a passion, at least I'll get the Disney channels back and gain IFC in HD (I'm a huge Portlandia fan).


But does your local cable company carry Hi Definition channels that DIRECTV and/or dish don't that you actually watch? And how many hours does that add up teach week. No one has everything, so you can't simply look at Hi Definition Channel count as a final determining factor. Its a great starting point, but not a finishing point.

I don't see many people leaving dish because of amc getting dropped. Just like I didn't see many people actually leave DIRECTV because they had amc in sd only for so long.


----------



## StringFellow

mdavej said:


> As one of the few who will apparently drop Dish when they drop AMC, I considered for a few seconds going back to DirecTV since they have AMC, great new customer deals and nice, albeit slow, DVRs. But the latest national HD comparison HERE on AVSForum was the final nail in the coffin. I was saddened to see that DirecTV is now 10th out of the 12 providers listed there. Sure they have everybody beat in sports, but that doesn't help me find a replacement for Dish in terms of national HD. I have no choice but to go through with my initial plan of going back cable (yuck).
> 
> All in all, satellite tv has served me well the past 12 years or so, but both providers have been surpassed by cable companies in terms of HD content. I never thought I'd see the day. So I'm quite disgusted with both Dish and DirecTV for letting their sizable lead in HD slip away and leaving us formerly loyal subs with no options. Although I hate cable with a passion, at least I'll get the Disney channels back and gain IFC in HD (I'm a huge Portlandia fan).


Uh...that AVS Forum listing is vastly INCORRECT for my local provider, Comcast. Just make sure you verify that your local cable provider provides what you are expecting. Just because you local provider has the same name as a national provider (Comcast in my case) doesn't mean you get the same service as everyone else. My local Comcast is a perfect example.

Ex. Based on the AVS Forum post my local Comcast should provide HD channels for all HBO East channels. In actuality I have access to only ONE HBO East channel in HD. BBCA, DIY, all NOT in HD in my local area...I could go on....

The more I look the more I find errors in that list...missing channels, channels in/not in HD, etc. :nono2:


----------



## mdavej

"inkahauts" said:


> But does your local cable company carry Hi Definition channels that DIRECTV and/or dish don't that you actually watch? And how many hours does that add up teach week. No one has everything, so you can't simply look at Hi Definition Channel count as a final determining factor. Its a great starting point, but not a finishing point.
> 
> I don't see many people leaving dish because of amc getting dropped. Just like I didn't see many people actually leave DIRECTV because they had amc in sd only for so long.


I realize I'm definitely in the minority. I left DirecTV in large part due to no AMC HD, and will now leave Dish for the same reason.

I have a specific list of about 20 must have channels, some more important than others. Up to now Dish had most of them. DirecTV is missing several, like BBCA and G4. A few months ago my cable company had very few of my top 20, but they now have them all. Even if some are rarely watched, if my provider removes that content entirely, they no longer get my money.


----------



## Davenlr

mdavej said:


> A few months ago my cable company had very few of my top 20, but they now have them all.


Exactly the reason I hooked up Xfinity, and bought a second Tivo. They simply have all the channels I watch in HD, and several I would have to pay extra for on DirecTv as part of the base package. They also give me all the Cardinals games I would have to pay $12.99 a month for on D*, and SEC college sports that isnt available on D*.

I upgraded to the HR34 (hence contract) before I realized there was a Tivo XL4 4 tuner DVR available, so now I have to wait another year and a half before deciding which one to keep at full price.


----------



## mdavej

"StringFellow" said:


> Uh...that AVS Forum listing is vastly INCORRECT for my local provider, Comcast. Just make sure you verify that your local cable provider provides what you are expecting. Just because you local provider has the same name as a national provider (Comcast in my case) doesn't mean you get the same service as everyone else. My local Comcast is a perfect example.
> 
> Ex. Based on the AVS Forum post my local Comcast should provide HD channels for all HBO East channels. In actuality I have access to only ONE HBO East channel in HD. BBCA, DIY, all NOT in HD in my local area...I could go on....
> 
> The more I look the more I find errors in that list...missing channels, channels in/not in HD, etc. :nono2:


Since cable has huge regional differences, it's tough to list those. That's why they have the limited/wide designation. Otherwise it's a very good list and is spot on for my cable company and the sat companies. I keep my own list anyway. It happens to agree with the AVS list at the moment. Regardless, my point is while sat companies have dropped some channels and failed to add others, cable HD additions have exploded, surpassing sat in most markets. But cable is still way behind in terms of equipment, cost, service and reliability, in my area at least. So I wish sat was still an option.


----------



## coldsteel

Is the ETF worth that channel?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

A link of relevance to shed some light on things...

*http://www.multichannel.com/article/473920-AMC_Eyeing_75_Cents_Monthly_Subscriber_Fee_Sapan.php*

Probably missed and forgotten since it was so long ago... but for those wanting to tie the current negotiations for AMC channels to the Voom lawsuit... don't do it.

Last September, AMC's CEO talked about wanting 75 cents for AMC... no mention of what he wants for the other 3 channels.

The same article also mentioned the missteps AMC has had in trying to simultaneously raise/renegotiate higher rates AND cut production costs on their high-rating series... resulting in the loss of one showrunner and almost losing Breaking Bad... plus probably the big reason why Mad Men essentially skipped a year on the air because of contract negotiations.

That AMC wants to try and tie this to the Dish lawsuit kind of shows their true colors a bit... because they setup for this last September, long before the latest appeal denial of Dish that AMC says is "directly related" to Dish wanting to drop AMC.


----------



## StringFellow

mdavej said:


> Since cable has huge regional differences, it's tough to list those. That's why they have the limited/wide designation. Otherwise it's a very good list and is spot on for my cable company and the sat companies. I keep my own list anyway. It happens to agree with the AVS list at the moment. Regardless, my point is while sat companies have dropped some channels and failed to add others, cable HD additions have exploded, surpassing sat in most markets. But cable is still way behind in terms of equipment, cost, service and reliability, in my area at least. So I wish sat was still an option.


To be honest if Comcast had decent hardware I would still be with them. My local provider hasn't added any new channels or upgraded any to HD in well over 3 years. Sad, but that isn't the end of the world. The software running on the hardware must have been developed in the early 90s and not updated since. And lets not forget the hardware looks like it was dragged behind a vehicle for several miles and then given to me. TiVo is an option but dealing with cable card issues sucks and then there is the TiVo monthly fees.

I do watch a couple shows (Hell on Wheels and Walking Dead) on AMC, but it isn't the end of the world. With show cancellations so common lately, it won't be long before these end or be cancelled and then I won't know what I am missing.

As for DirecTV...I will never be one of their customers ever again. They have screwed me out of hundreds of dollars, their DVR/receiver guides contain ads, and they provide just plain horrible customer service.

The frustrating part is channel negotiations are going to become very heated over the coming years (with any provider) in order to keep prices down. Paying $3 an episode for an HD TV show isn't the option either....


----------



## demsd

I don't remember DISH using sub viewership as a reason for dropping a series of channels. Has anyone?

If DISH had made that claim prior to the last court decision, I'd believe DISH. After reading how underhanded DISH has been prior to and throughout the suit, I say they are losing credibility.

Its unfortunate.


----------



## mdavej

coldsteel said:


> Is the ETF worth that channel?


Probably not to most. But what little ETF I'll have next month is more than offset by the new customer savings from another provider. I did the math, and even with the ETF, my break even is about 7 years out (point at which total cost of new provider exceeds staying with Dish). But I probably won't be able to tolerate cable more than a year or two. Hopefully by then Dish will get AMC back.


----------



## demsd

mdavej said:


> I have a specific list of about 20 must have channels, some more important than others. Up to now Dish had most of them. DirecTV is missing several, like BBCA and G4. A few months ago my cable company had very few of my top 20, but they now have them all. Even if some are rarely watched, if my provider removes that content entirely, they no longer get my money.


I am with you there. There are many channels I can do without, but AMC is not one of them. I just checked my local cable providers channel lineup, and fortunately, they have all the channels on my must have list. The cost difference is about $42/month more, but it includes Internet.


----------



## SayWhat?

StringFellow said:


> With show cancellations so common lately, it won't be long before these end or be cancelled


True. These shows everybody has their panties in bunches over may not even exist come fall.


----------



## SayWhat?

mdavej said:


> my break even is about 7 years out


You're going to get into something it will take you *seven* years to get out of over a couple of shows that may or may not get new episodes?

I've heard of the seven year itch, but c'mon.......


----------



## demsd

SayWhat? said:


> I can't fathom the idea that someone would make a financial decision based on a television show. Especially now when shows come out on disc in a few months (or weeks). Then you can watch them as often as you want.


Some shows are easy to get hooked on. As for the financial decision, you are already paying for it, why pay again by buying the DVD's.

Doesn't it take almost year before shows are released on disc? Falling Skies season one won't be out until June 5th.


----------



## SayWhat?

> you are already paying for it, why pay again


It? *It* is not AMC or any specific show. *It* is service from a satellite carrier who states the channel lineup may change from time to time.


----------



## maartena

SayWhat? said:


> It would be great if Direct would flip the switch on Rainbow the same day Dish does as a show of solidarity.


They really can't. They would be in breach of their contract. (And there is probably lots of legalese in those contracts that would require them to complete the current contract terms against ridiculously high penalties that every court would have to uphold).

I don't know when DirecTV's contract is ending, but I am fairly sure they renewed AMC in 2011, when they finally added AMC in HD. Typically these kinds of contracts last 3 to 5 years or so, putting the next chance that DirecTV can drop AMC around 2014 to 2016 or so.


----------



## maartena

jerbear4 said:


> Right now I hear Directv customers complaining because they don't have G4.


There was a little grumbling when it was dropped. But mostly people didn't care. And DirecTV didn't lose any customers over it either, at least not many. Over AMC not being in HD however.... I think they did lose some customers. But since it is in HD now, that also is more or less a moot point.


----------



## mdavej

"SayWhat?" said:


> You're going to get into something it will take you seven years to get out of over a couple of shows that may or may not get new episodes?
> 
> I've heard of the seven year itch, but c'mon.......


Cable is cheaper until the 7 year mark. The loss of AMC is just the catalyst. I get a lower bill (for the first 7 years), and gain several other channels like IFC HD, Disney, Smithsonian, etc. Even if I never watch AMC again, it doesn't matter. I'm paying Dish to carry it and they stopped.

People keep saying why switch over one show. It's not really that in my case. When I signed up I did so based on the line up. If I didn't care about the line up, I'd still have DirecTV. Dish made a very significant change to the line up, dropping 4 channels, and did nothing to make up the loss (I've seen the new lineup cards), so I drop them. Even though the contract says they can do that, it's not right, and it's unacceptable to me.


----------



## lparsons21

demsd said:


> Some shows are easy to get hooked on. As for the financial decision, you are already paying for it, why pay again by buying the DVD's.
> 
> Doesn't it take almost year before shows are released on disc? Falling Skies season one won't be out until June 5th.


It does take some time to have the disks out for these shows, but that isn't the only way to get them.

I use iTunes on my Mac gear and can get most of the TV shows while they are in the current lineup by subscription. All bought, not rented. The cost is a bit high compared to most TV shows disks, but if it is important to watch when it is current, that's the price of admission.

But come one, if the show is really good and one you just have to have, isn't that same show just as good a bit later too?


----------



## DoyleS

I think my Plan B may just be watching other shows and Blockbuster Movies until Hell on Wheels comes out on disk. It will be just as enjoyable 6 months later. Reminds me of waiting for the next season to start on 24 or Prison Break. I really like Dish and the equipment is great so what happens, happens.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

*'The Walking Dead' Pilot in Black-and-White*

"_AMC has announced that it will air a special "black-and-white" version of The Walking Dead pilot as a tribute to Robert Kirkman's comic book series, which is published in black-and-white._"

More at the *link*.

This is supposed to happen in July... Who thinks that there is no coincidence to this newly announced marathon and the fact that Dish is probably dropping them the end of June?


----------



## mike1977

Stewart Vernon said:


> *'The Walking Dead' Pilot in Black-and-White*
> 
> "_AMC has announced that it will air a special "black-and-white" version of The Walking Dead pilot as a tribute to Robert Kirkman's comic book series, which is published in black-and-white._"
> 
> More at the *link*.
> 
> This is supposed to happen in July... Who thinks that there is no coincidence to this newly announced marathon and the fact that Dish is probably dropping them the end of June?


Yeah, with no news right now on an agreement the date sucks. They drop AMC on the first next month and you wait a couple days after that to see what happens and if still no restoration of the channels, there's no time really to schedule a switch to cable/Directv in time to catch the marathon with the special info bits.


----------



## nmetro

As of today, IFC is no longer at 131. But, for some reason, when DISH announced dropping AMC, IFC, We and Sundance, they added replicants at 392, 393 and 391 respectively. And right now, IFC is up at 393. The AMC feed at 392 is SD only. Of course, as everyone knows, Sundance did go a couple weeks ago.


----------



## StringFellow

mike1977 said:


> Yeah, with no news right now on an agreement the date sucks. They drop AMC on the first next month and you wait a couple days after that to see what happens and if still no restoration of the channels, there's no time really to schedule a switch to cable/Directv in time to catch the marathon with the special info bits.


If AMC planned it this way because of the on-going negotiations, then AMC can go pound sand!!


----------



## mike1977

nmetro said:


> As of today, IFC is no longer at 131. But, for some reason, when DISH announced dropping AMC, IFC, We and Sundance, they added replicants at 392, 393 and 391 respectively. And right now, IFC is up at 393. The AMC feed at 392 is SD only. Of course, as everyone knows, Sundance did go a couple weeks ago.


Yeah...I'll still switch if they only keep the SD feed.


----------



## James Long

nmetro said:


> The AMC feed at 392 is SD only.


DISH could add another set of HD channels up high and map it down to 392 so both the current and the new location can be HD ... but remapping the HD feed to 392 when the lower channel goes away is not hard.

I didn't try to watch IFC before the removal of channel 131. Did it have a "channel moving" display or did 131 just go dark?


----------



## Jhon69

James Long said:


> DISH could add another set of HD channels up high and map it down to 392 so both the current and the new location can be HD ... but remapping the HD feed to 392 when the lower channel goes away is not hard.
> 
> I didn't try to watch IFC before the removal of channel 131. Did it have a "channel moving" display or did 131 just go dark?


I remember Sundance had a warning,but I never saw one for IFC plus I just checked the guide and IFC is gone from 131,but it's still on 393.


----------



## Michael P

Moving IFC off 131 put AMC next to TCM (with FOX Movie right after). So now all the "classic movie channels" are together (and AMC is in HD on 130).


----------



## nmetro

James Long said:


> DISH could add another set of HD channels up high and map it down to 392 so both the current and the new location can be HD ... but remapping the HD feed to 392 when the lower channel goes away is not hard.
> 
> I didn't try to watch IFC before the removal of channel 131. Did it have a "channel moving" display or did 131 just go dark?


No. It was there yesterday and nothing there today.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

StringFellow said:


> If AMC planned it this way because of the on-going negotiations, then AMC can go pound sand!!


That was my thoughts... I heard ZERO mention of this marathon + extras + new Talking Dead episode until today suddenly announcing what looks like the July 4th weekend (July 4th is in the middle of the week).

Using AMC's own logic that there are no such thing as coincidences (how they tied the Dish negotiations to the failing lawsuit over Voom HD)... then one has to conclude that this too is no coincidence, and that IF Dish drops the AMC channels, then we will see promos touting how you can "only see" these "special features" on DirecTV or some other provider.

All is fair in love and war of course... but I do so hate when one company says the other is playing dirty pool only to have them turn right around and snooker you


----------



## domingos35

i still have AMC HD


----------



## tampa8

mike1977 said:


> Yeah...I'll still switch if they only keep the SD feed.


Why not just switch now? Obviously this is a very important channel for you.


----------



## mdavej

I've got a few years on mike1977, but I'm with him. I'm planning to switch if/when AMC HD goes dark, but not until actually does and not if I think there is a chance it will be back soon. It would be stupid to make a move now.


----------



## sigma1914

tampa8 said:


> Why not just switch now? Obviously this is a very important channel for you.


Possibly because deals get done at the last minute.


----------



## The Merg

Deleted


----------



## Davenlr

The Merg said:


> i luv xxxxx


Did I miss something?


----------



## The Merg

"Davenlr" said:


> Did I miss something?


A buddy of mine decided to have some fun with me since I left my computer unattended.

- Merg


----------



## Davenlr

The Merg said:


> A buddy of mine decided to have some fun with me since I left my computer unattended.
> 
> - Merg


Give your buddy some chocolate brownies made with Exlax and call it even


----------



## onebadmofo

AMC is only in SD on Dish?

That is brutal. That alone should be enough for some of you fella's to jump ship!


----------



## James Long

onebadmofo said:


> AMC is only in SD on Dish?


No.

AMC has been and still is HD on DISH. Since August 18th, 2010.


----------



## onebadmofo

James Long said:


> No.
> 
> AMC has been and still is HD on DISH. Since August 18th, 2010.


Ahh, gotcha. Musta misread that then. Thought I saw someone say it was in only SD a few pages back....


----------



## tampa8

onebadmofo said:


> Ahh, gotcha. Musta misread that then. Thought I saw someone say it was in only SD a few pages back....


How could you get confused with only 400 posts? 

Dish put the channels to be all together in a different place. They are all SD there. AMC continues to also be in it's normal place in HD.


----------



## dmspen

AMC may be touted as HD but many of the shows are not in HD. Mad Men is definitely not in HD. My daughter came home from college a couple of weeks ago. We were watching Mad Men and she asked, "How come the picture is so crappy?"


----------



## tampa8

dmspen said:


> AMC may be touted as HD but many of the shows are not in HD. Mad Men is definitely not in HD. My daughter came home from college a couple of weeks ago. We were watching Mad Men and she asked, "How come the picture is so crappy?"


Are you saying when she watches at college there it is HD and not on Dish? Or that AMC isn't sending a good/HD signal?


----------



## sigma1914

dmspen said:


> AMC may be touted as HD but many of the shows are not in HD. Mad Men is definitely not in HD. My daughter came home from college a couple of weeks ago. We were watching Mad Men and she asked, "How come the picture is so crappy?"


 It's definitely in HD.


----------



## mdavej

If Mad Men looks crappy, something is seriously wrong with your system, or you are watching the SD channel. It's absolutely stunning in HD.


----------



## Laxguy

mdavej said:


> If Mad Men looks crappy, something is seriously wrong with your system, or you are watching the SD channel. It's absolutely stunning in HD.


Well, it is HD, and overall stunningly shot and presented, but the picture seems a bit soft, esp. in the darker indoor scenes. 
Was going to say in the indoor scenes when I realized that 90% is shot indoors to begin with!


----------



## Paul Secic

nmetro said:


> As of today, IFC is no longer at 131. But, for some reason, when DISH announced dropping AMC, IFC, We and Sundance, they added replicants at 392, 393 and 391 respectively. And right now, IFC is up at 393. The AMC feed at 392 is SD only. Of course, as everyone knows, Sundance did go a couple weeks ago.


I never watch any of the Rainbow junk.


----------



## lparsons21

Paul Secic said:


> I never watch any of the Rainbow junk.


I don't either, I watch only the good stuff they show and let the junk just rot! :lol:


----------



## phrelin

I guess it's now reasonable to assume that we'll be getting the full seasons of "Mad Men" and "The Killing".:righton:

It also appears to be reasonable to assume that we won't be getting AMC after June 30 since that is exactly what Dish said.


----------



## inkahauts

And I think that they don't have to notify customers until about a week on advance right?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inkahauts said:


> And I think that they don't have to notify customers until about a week on advance right?


Actually... I'm pretty sure they don't have to notify customers until 5 minutes after you call them to ask why you just lost the channel


----------



## inkahauts

I don't think that's right. I do believe that the FCC passed a rule a while back saying they had to give some notice now so disputes didn't catch people by surprise. I'll have to look and see if I can find where I read abut that.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I tried to find something... but couldn't find anything.

The closest I could come to finding something was a rule about cable (didn't say pay tv or satellite, so it may not apply) having to, as of April 2008, notify customers within 30 days of a programming change under their control.

The thing is... that rule, as written, wouldn't apply in a case like this because if a channel says "I want more money" and Dish says "no" then it is the channel who calls the shots and forces Dish to drop the feed if Dish doesn't sign a new agreement... in which case Dish has no control, effectively.

I think it would be a hard thing to enforce legally though I certainly wish cable and satellite were better at informing customers of changes.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> I tried to find something... but couldn't find anything.
> 
> The closest I could come to finding something was a rule about cable (didn't say pay tv or satellite, so it may not apply) having to, as of April 2008, notify customers within 30 days of a programming change under their control.
> 
> The thing is... that rule, as written, wouldn't apply in a case like this because if a channel says "I want more money" and Dish says "no" then it is the channel who calls the shots and forces Dish to drop the feed if Dish doesn't sign a new agreement... in which case Dish has no control, effectively.


If I remember the cable rule correctly (at least how it is followed) the cable operators notify their customers of potential loss of channels. They cannot pretend to be blind as they approach a contract end date. If they know a contract is ending (duh) and they know there is no renewal (duh, again) they have to notify of the possibility of a programming change.

The excuse would apply if the programming suddenly became unavailable (for example, the programmer dropping a channel or going out of business) not for predictable programming changes.



> I think it would be a hard thing to enforce legally though I certainly wish cable and satellite were better at informing customers of changes.


I have not looked through the FCC's enforcement pages to see who got what fine for violations. Where the rule applies (cable) it is enforced.

It would be harder to follow on channels where contract renewals were expected but not signed. Then the operator would have to make the decision to put out a notice that would make people worry about channels they won't lose or miss a warning deadline. I believe most operators would error on the side of not missing the warning deadline.


----------



## Paul Secic

lparsons21 said:


> I don't either, I watch only the good stuff they show and let the junk just rot! :lol:


In the 90's they were great with infomercials at night and movies during the day. I watched AMC a lot..The sad thing is they have the rights to White Christmas.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

In this case... Dish might also be able to argue (if the FCC came calling) that their press release already announced the possibility of AMC channels going dark to their customers. I mean it was a press release, which one assumes is an attempt to notify the public.

Still don't know if there is a hard & fast notification rule, though... but I could get behind such a rule since I am constantly disappointed that companies don't notify of channel drops OR even channel adds in a timely manner.


----------



## demsd

lparsons21 said:


> It does take some time to have the disks out for these shows, but that isn't the only way to get them.
> 
> I use iTunes on my Mac gear and can get most of the TV shows while they are in the current lineup by subscription. All bought, not rented. The cost is a bit high compared to most TV shows disks, but if it is important to watch when it is current, that's the price of admission.
> 
> But come one, if the show is really good and one you just have to have, isn't that same show just as good a bit later too?


I can't see paying for another subscription.

I wouldn't mind waiting if I hadn't started the season. What sucks is getting into a new season and then DISH cutting the cord.


----------



## mike1977

The recent posts at https://www.facebook.com/dish are on fire about it now.


----------



## RasputinAXP

seriously. it makes my eyes bleed.


----------



## phrelin

Well, AMC ran ads and a crawl on "Mad Men" tonight telling people to protest. We'll see how that goes.


----------



## mike1977

They also put it up in a red box on their (AMC's) site.


----------



## James Long

IFC is now channel 9607
WE is now channel 9608
AMC is now channel 9609

AMC HD has not moved yet but I assume that is the next Uplink Activity update (posting soon).

The former channels have been replaced by Style, HDNet and Indiplex.


----------



## mike1977

And it appears they did the change during programming, without warning. I don't blame people for being really upset at that.


----------



## BillJ

James Long said:


> IFC is now channel 9607
> WE is now channel 9608
> AMC is now channel 9609
> 
> AMC HD has not moved yet but I assume that is the next Uplink Activity update (posting soon).
> 
> The former channels have been replaced by Style, HDNet and Indiplex.


Interesting. I wonder if these moves were made to guage the reaction of Dish customers? Or was it intended to hide the channels where Dish viewers wouldn't find them and ratings for these channels would drop as a warning of what happens when they go away completely on DISH?


----------



## SayWhat?

HDNet looks like the JAG/Smallville channel.


----------



## Hunter844

SayWhat? said:


> HDNet looks like the JAG/Smallville channel.


Yeah, we're getting some high quality programming as a replacement. Who wants to watch Mad Men when Cheers is on?


----------



## SayWhat?

I don't really care about that as along as AMC gets smacked back to reality.


----------



## MysteryMan

Hunter844 said:


> Yeah, we're getting some high quality programming as a replacement. Who wants to watch Mad Men when Cheers is on?


:lol:


----------



## plasmacat

AMC is gone already. $%%^%$$#
No Mad Men finale!
No Killing final 2 eps. 

I hate you DISH


----------



## RAD

plasmacat said:


> AMC is gone already. $%%^%$$#
> No Mad Men finale!
> No Killing final 2 eps.
> 
> I hate you DISH


Go look up at channels 9607-9610.


----------



## plasmacat

RAD said:


> Go look up at channels 9607-9610.


Ok - thank you for that info. It is still there on those channels. 
I can't even log in to the Dish website this morning - must be overwhelmed with pissed customers.
AMC ran lots of crawls and notifications during Mad Men last night about Dish.


----------



## Jaspear

phrelin said:


> Well, AMC ran ads and a crawl on "Mad Men" tonight telling people to protest. We'll see how that goes.


I protested by setting a timer for "Mad Men" on my alternative DBS source for AMC so I wouldn't have to watch Rainbow's special Dish Network feed next week. Interesting that Rainbow left last night's episode of "The Killing" unmolested.


----------



## Paul Secic

plasmacat said:


> AMC is gone already. $%%^%$$#
> No Mad Men finale!
> No Killing final 2 eps.
> 
> I hate you DISH


It'll be over in two weeks, not that I care.


----------



## MCHuf

Moving those AMC Network channels to the 9xxx wasteland is really a childish move by Dish. Hopefully people can get their timers straightened out before Mad Men and The Killing finish up. 



Paul Secic said:


> It'll be over in two weeks, not that I care.


You care enough to comment.


----------



## DoyleS

Interesting post by Michael H. at Dish in reply to one of the Facebook complaints about dropping AMC.
---------------------
You absolutely have the option to do that, however, you are able to still watch your programming on DISH AMC (9609/9610 HD), IFC (ch.9607) and WeTV (ch.9608). We regret any inconvenience this will cause you and share your desire to end this unfortunate situation quickly. We appreciate your support as we seek to continue to offer the best value, technology, and customer service in the pay TV industry. Also, be aware that many of their top shows — including Mad Men, Walking Dead, and Breaking Bad, are all available on Amazon.com and iTunes. Nonetheless, dialogue is ongoing and we hope we can reach a resolution. -Michael H.


----------



## MCHuf

DoyleS said:


> Interesting post by Michael H. at Dish in reply to one of the Facebook complaints about dropping AMC.
> ---------------------
> You absolutely have the option to do that, however, you are able to still watch your programming on DISH AMC (9609/9610 HD), IFC (ch.9607) and WeTV (ch.9608). We regret any inconvenience this will cause you and share your desire to end this unfortunate situation quickly. We appreciate your support as we seek to continue to offer the best value, technology, and customer service in the pay TV industry. Also, be aware that many of their top shows - including Mad Men, Walking Dead, and Breaking Bad, are all available on Amazon.com and iTunes. Nonetheless, dialogue is ongoing and we hope we can reach a resolution. -Michael H.


He forgot to mention that the AMC channels are also available on Comcast, TWC, Charter, Direct TV, etc. I mean if your going to steer your customers to alternate services, you may as well go all the way.


----------



## nmetro

So, after a grand shuffle this morning:

AMC HD 9610
AMD SD 9609
IFC SD 9608
WE SD 9607

130 now has HDnet
128 now has Style (SD)
131 is now empty

This confirms the message above.

One has to guess this is the last gasp for The AMC channels. Of course, if people do not read these blogs, they will never know where the channels were relocated.


----------



## SayWhat?

MCHuf said:


> He forgot to mention that the AMC channels are also available on Comcast, TWC, Charter, Direct TV, etc.


Maybe AMC is about to disappear from those too.


----------



## DoyleS

It is going pretty viral over on Facebook. Close to a hundred negative comments in just about 30 minutes as people are figuring it out. Michael H. from Dish is kind of repeating the corporate Mantra about trying to resolve the issue. Meanwhile, AMC is helping to pour gasoline on the fire with links to Facebook and a campaign to get as many as possible to email or phone Dish.


----------



## Shades228

SayWhat? said:


> Maybe AMC is about to disappear from those too.


Not even close.


----------



## MCHuf

SayWhat? said:


> Maybe AMC is about to disappear from those too.


Wishful thinking on your part. :lol:


----------



## Ira Lacher

DoyleS said:


> It is going pretty viral over on Facebook. Close to a hundred negative comments in just about 30 minutes as people are figuring it out. Michael H. from Dish is kind of repeating the corporate Mantra about trying to resolve the issue. Meanwhile, AMC is helping to pour gasoline on the fire with links to Facebook and a campaign to get as many as possible to email or phone Dish.


Hm. If DISH thought they could make AMC out to be the bad guy in this, they've been effectively pink-slimed.


----------



## damondlt

Ira Lacher said:


> Hm. If DISH thought they could make AMC out to be the bad guy in this, they've been effectively pink-slimed.


 Pink Slimed!:lol:


----------



## zer0cool

DoyleS said:


> Interesting post by Michael H. at Dish in reply to one of the Facebook complaints about dropping AMC.
> ---------------------
> You absolutely have the option to do that, however, you are able to still watch your programming on DISH AMC (9609/9610 HD), IFC (ch.9607) and WeTV (ch.9608). We regret any inconvenience this will cause you and share your desire to end this unfortunate situation quickly. We appreciate your support as we seek to continue to offer the best value, technology, and customer service in the pay TV industry. Also, be aware that many of their top shows - including Mad Men, Walking Dead, and Breaking Bad, are all available on Amazon.com and iTunes. Nonetheless, dialogue is ongoing and we hope we can reach a resolution. -Michael H.


So, are they going to point out that almost all Dish programming is available elsewhere if you want to combine OTA, Streaming sites, DVD's, etc.?
Seems like kind of a stupid response.
"Sure, you already pay $XXX.XX per month for "America's Everything Pak (in my case), but since we are dropping channels from that package, just pay an extra $100 bucks or so to get Mad Men, The Killing, Breaking Bad, and The Walking Dead". 
I doubt That's cheaper than the increase would have been.


----------



## SayWhat?

^^ You still don't get that Rainbow is the bad guy here, do you?


----------



## steveT

I'm one of the people who didn't find out about this AMC dispute until last night, when I noticed the channel was gone from 130. Checked dbstalk this morning, and was shocked to find out what's going on. I called Dish immediately. I've been with Dish for probably 15 years, pay a huge monthly rate for almost every channel they've got, but I swear, if they drop AMC, I will drop Dish, guaranteed. AMC has the best scripted dramas on television right now, and no way am I being consigned to watching them on a PC screen.

When I called Dish, at first the agent said it was only a channel reassignment to 9610, but when I pressed him on what I'd learned here about the dispute, then he started talking about it. I then pressed him to make sure that if they are logging calls, to make sure I was recorded as someone who WILL cancel service if they drop AMC. He spent a minute or so logging my comments, saying they also had a way to log topics that were "trending" with Dish.

Anyone who cares about this issue should absolutely call, and press them to log their concerns.

As to the dispute itself, I couldn't care less if they have to raise the rates to keep AMC. I'm already paying for all the networks like ESPN, which I couldn't care less about. Let the ESPN watchers finally subsidize people like me, for a change.


----------



## SayWhat?

steveT said:


> but I swear, if they drop AMC, I will drop Dish, guaranteed.
> 
> to make sure I was recorded as someone who WILL cancel service if they drop AMC.


SeeYaLaterBye.


----------



## steveT

SayWhat? said:


> SeeYaLaterBye.


Thanks for the concern. I guess you only care about issues that affect only you.


----------



## steveT

So what are the odds that this dispute will end up like others in the past, resolved at the last hour, or maybe after a few days of AMC going dark? So many of these disputes have arisen and been resolved in the past, that I would've thought it would happen again this time, but given that it appears to be wrapped up with this lawsuit, the situation seems to be worse.


----------



## SayWhat?

I'm concerned about saving money, not filling some network fatcat's pockets.


----------



## Shades228

SayWhat? said:


> I'm concerned about saving money, not filling some network fatcat's pockets.


Then you should just cancel your service because that's what you would do rather than what you are doing.


----------



## sigma1914

SayWhat? said:


> I'm concerned about saving money, not filling some network fatcat's pockets.





Shades228 said:


> Then you should just cancel your service because that's what you would do rather than what you are doing.


Exactly and get off the grid because you're constantly filling tons of fatcat's pockets. You're hypocritical SayWhat?


----------



## kc1ih

I’m now getting “Indie” on 393, which I didn’t think was in my package (AT200).


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Ira Lacher said:


> Hm. If DISH thought they could make AMC out to be the bad guy in this, they've been effectively pink-slimed.


People just like to rant about stuff. Imagine if all those people ranting on Dish about AMC were actually to get together and try to help poverty or hunger or health issues or something important... but naahh... they will freak out over AMC.

Meanwhile... IF AMC would agree to no price increase or a moderate one, none of this would be happening. Those same people mad at Dish are the same people who will be mad at Dish when their price goes up to subscribe to Dish... so I really wish people would pay attention to these things and not freak out. It really doesn't help get the deal done any faster and for the short term it gives AMC some false hope to stick to their guns.


----------



## damondlt

Stewart Vernon said:


> so I really wish people would pay attention to these things and not freak out. It really doesn't help get the deal done any faster and for the short term it gives AMC some false hope to stick to their guns.


 If you want them to pay attention to whats going on the Dish Needs to inform 14 million of its customers.

And give them the details,
right now they hear is AMC is charging too much, well thats Dishes excuse every other day. So what! Customers are getting tired of hearing that too.
Your getting paid to provide a service based on whats in the line up when a customer signs up.

As far as the customers freaking out, well they are paying for a service they they may not provide them with while locked into a commmiment.

They aren't going to throw a party.:lol:


----------



## steveT

Stewart Vernon said:


> who will be mad at Dish when their price goes up to subscribe to Dish...


I wouldn't be mad in the slightest if they raised my bill by $1, $5, or $10 to keep AMC. That's totally worth it to me to watch "Breaking Bad", "Walking Dead", "The Killing", "Hell on Wheels", and whatever new scripted dramas are in development. Breaking Bad is probably one of the best 5 series EVER on TV. Maybe I'm in the minority, but at least some of us out here don't mind paying for quality. Especially since I have no choice in NOT paying for so many channels I couldn't care less about.

And yeah, we should all be saving our ammo for the important issues. But let's face it, life is tough, most people are doing their best to survive out here; so what we're talking about here is the little bit of relaxation/entertainment time people have to take their minds off the rest of it...


----------



## phrelin

"steveT" said:


> I'm one of the people who didn't find out about this AMC dispute until last night, when I noticed the channel was gone from 130. Checked dbstalk this morning, and was shocked to find out what's going on. I called Dish immediately. I've been with Dish for probably 15 years, pay a huge monthly rate for almost every channel they've got, but I swear, if they drop AMC, I will drop Dish, guaranteed. AMC has the best scripted dramas on television right now, and no way am I being consigned to watching them on a PC screen.
> 
> When I called Dish, at first the agent said it was only a channel reassignment to 9610, but when I pressed him on what I'd learned here about the dispute, then he started talking about it. I then pressed him to make sure that if they are logging calls, to make sure I was recorded as someone who WILL cancel service if they drop AMC. He spent a minute or so logging my comments, saying they also had a way to log topics that were "trending" with Dish.
> 
> Anyone who cares about this issue should absolutely call, and press them to log their concerns.
> 
> As to the dispute itself, I couldn't care less if they have to raise the rates to keep AMC. I'm already paying for all the networks like ESPN, which I couldn't care less about. Let the ESPN watchers finally subsidize people like me, for a change.


The problem is ESPN watchers are getting their channel on every provider's lowest tier. Don't think this about retrans fees.



"steveT" said:


> So what are the odds that this dispute will end up like others in the past, resolved at the last hour, or maybe after a few days of AMC going dark? So many of these disputes have arisen and been resolved in the past, that I would've thought it would happen again this time, but given that it appears to be wrapped up with this lawsuit, the situation seems to be worse.


IMHO this is a very personal dispute between Charles Ergen and Charles Dolan and if Dolan doesn't blink on Rainbow Media's side AMC is gone. The Dolan family rarely blinks, so while the employees will be working to get Dish to a table anywhere....

Ergen sincerely believes the Dolan's cheated him out of millions and at the time it looked to me he was right. So nobody at Dish is working to get anyone at Rainbow to a table....

And the difference is that Dish can lose the Rainbow channels and will be able to keep the percentage price increase for all tiers above the AT120 down next February. AMC is either going to have to say to advertisers that not being available to Dish subscribers doesn't matter thereby confirming Dish's assertion or they're facing an income loss beyond the Dish retrans fees.


----------



## SayWhat?

steveT said:


> I wouldn't be mad in the slightest if they raised my bill by $1, $5, or $10 to keep AMC.


Which is why many have suggested making AMC a premium channel. Let those that want it pay for it.

I've never watched any of the shows you mentioned. Not even once. I can breathe just fine since my life doesn't depend on any of them.


----------



## Shades228

phrelin said:


> And the difference is that Dish can lose the Rainbow channels and will be able to keep the percentage price increase for all tiers above the AT120 down next February. AMC is either going to have to say to advertisers that not being available to Dish subscribers doesn't matter thereby confirming Dish's assertion or they're facing an income loss beyond the Dish retrans fees.


That's some pretty large conjecture. Sure for this channel let's say they paid the rate increase of $0.50 per sub for easy math and they currently pay $0.25. That's a 200% increase however with other channels that are losing market share they could start paying less or nothing but give them some advertising space. This is done a lot of the times. This reduces the cost of that channel significantly. So at the end of the year the total retrans cost goes up say 10% and they increase their packages by 4%. The other money is made up in other areas.

Now in your scenario you're saying that the rate increase won't be as impacting due to this but really all it's going to do is allow them to increase packages 4% while only having a retrans cost go up say 9.5% overall.


----------



## Mojo Jojo

"kc1ih" said:


> I'm now getting "Indie" on 393, which I didn't think was in my package (AT200).


Where did 393 go? 131 is not there...if Dish forgot


----------



## phrelin

Remembering here that Dish will not have had an increase in its tier rates for two years, I'm saying Charlie Ergen is viewing the loss of the Rainbow Media package of channels as an opportunity to get even with the Dolan's and keep the cost of the tiers above AT120 a little bit lower than otherwise might have been the case.

Dish competes on price more than any other provider. If The Great Recession caused no pain to a viewer, that probably doesn't matter. But for many price does.


----------



## mdavej

HERE's an excellent piece from Bloomberg today. Much of it has been reported before, but there are a few new details:



> "We chose to move AMC, IFC and We TV to an area that reflects their ratings," said Bob Toevs, a spokesman for the Englewood, Colorado-based company, which ranks second to DirecTV in U.S. satellite customers. HDNet replaces the AMC channel on the dial. The Style channel will be in We's position, and Indieplex replaces IFC.
> 
> Dish says the issue is ratings, not the lawsuit. AMC programming has a "very, very, very low viewership" outside of a few popular shows, which are already available through Apple Inc.'s iTunes and Netflix Inc., Ergen said during a conference call last month.


Really? Since their ratings were much lower in the past, why haven't they been in the 9000's all along? Why aren't networks with even lower ratings than AMC also only in the 9000's. I call BS.

At least we now know for sure when they'll be pulled:


> Dish customers will be able to see this season's final episodes before the contract runs out, Toevs said. The signal is set to go off the air around midnight on July 1.


They're really negotiating hard to keep these horrible channels on the air, aren't they?

How can anyone still believe this isn't 100% about the lawsuit or that any number of customer complaints will change the outcome?


----------



## DoyleS

In the end, it looks a lot like a threeway lose. 
Both Dish and AMC will likely lose some revenue over this. All unhappy subscribers will not change services. AMC loses a bunch of revenue based on Dish's total number of subscribers. Dish loses whoever decides to move or downgrade plus some amount of goodwill similar to the Netflix Ill Will. Subscribers that care about AMC and don't switch to another provider lose the show or wind up having to pay a lot more from Amazon or iTunes for these few shows. But, it all gets pretty personal based on one's preferences. For AMC, losing that revenue means there is just that much less money to fund some of these original shows. In this poor economy AMC's stock could also tank just like Netflix did. Not sure it would affect Dish the same way. Kind of like watching one of those high stakes Poker matches.


----------



## goinsleeper

If AMC is asking for a ridiculous amount compared to their last agreement then, agreed, it should be dropped. They should be told 'No'. If they can do it to one provider, they will try it with all providers.

What i don't like about the situation is how each Charlie has a reason for what they're saying; that either sounds false or is being used to cover up the real issue... a lawsuit.


----------



## sigma1914

> AMC programming has a "very, very, very low viewership" outside of a few popular shows,


That's the case for most networks. Each top 20 cable network (AMC included) has a couple shows that keep it's ratings up. FX has Sons of Anarchy, Justified, and maybe 1 or 2 more. History has Pawn Stars, American Pickers & Swamp People.


----------



## Hunter844

Maybe they will give us Starz for free for a year.


----------



## goinsleeper

Sorry to repost, but the reason most providers won't let their customers know about the channels dropping prior to them actually going off air is to keep from raising an alarm. If E* sent a message to all customers about it now, many may try jumping ship. Then, if the negotiations actually work out, they have already lost the subs. Not to mention the subs who would disconnect for the 'principle of it' even if they do not watch AMC. And yes, they're out there.


----------



## damondlt

goinsleeper said:


> Sorry to repost, but the reason most providers won't let their customers know about the channels dropping prior to them actually going off air is to keep from raising an alarm. If E* sent a message to all customers about it now, many may try jumping ship. Then, if the negotiations actually work out, they have already lost the subs. Not to mention the subs who would disconnect for the 'principle of it' even if they do not watch AMC. And yes, they're out there.


Then don't expect them to not complain. They have a right regaurdless!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

mdavej said:


> How can anyone still believe this isn't 100% about the lawsuit or that any number of customer complaints will change the outcome?


Did you read the link I posted earlier which was from last September where AMC was already talking about wanting to triple their average rates from ~25 cents to 75 cents?

Then AMC tries to say this year it is about the lawsuit... but last year AMC was talking about tripling their rates... so Dish knew this day was coming where AMC was going to want to raise the rates unreasonably and then try and blame the lawsuit as a smoke screen.

I like how people want to link Dish and the lawsuit to these negotiations BUT don't want to think AMC might have similar motives. Maybe AMC wants money that Dish didn't pay because the lawsuit isn't settled, so AMC wants to raise rates because of that.

Why is it only "blame the lawsuit" for one side and not the other?

Meanwhile... I wish the other companies would fight the rate increases like Dish does. Maybe DirecTV and cable could join these fights when their terms are up and it would mean lower prices for all.


----------



## phrelin

mdavej said:


> How can anyone still believe this isn't 100% about the lawsuit or that any number of customer complaints will change the outcome?


It isn't about the lawsuit. It is about what happened leading up to the lawsuit. Billionaires don't mind playing games, sometimes winning, sometimes losing. They don't like another billionaire stealing from them. That's what Charlie Ergen believes the Dolan operation did.


----------



## satcrazy

Well, if we do lose Amc and the rest, Dish cannot call hdnet and style a replacement as I already get these channels[ 250 package].

Maybe charlie's got something better up his sleeve.......

Hope so.

Thanks to those that posted the channels the move was made to. I never thought to look there.

As an added thought, I was so interested in History's "Hatfield & McCoys" I forgot to watch "madmen". So glad I did.


----------



## bnewt

Stewart Vernon said:


> Did you read the link I posted earlier which was from last September where AMC was already talking about wanting to triple their average rates from ~25 cents to 75 cents?
> 
> Then AMC tries to say this year it is about the lawsuit... but last year AMC was talking about tripling their rates... so Dish knew this day was coming where AMC was going to want to raise the rates unreasonably and then try and blame the lawsuit as a smoke screen.
> 
> I like how people want to link Dish and the lawsuit to these negotiations BUT don't want to think AMC might have similar motives. Maybe AMC wants money that Dish didn't pay because the lawsuit isn't settled, so AMC wants to raise rates because of that.
> 
> Why is it only "blame the lawsuit" for one side and not the other?
> 
> Meanwhile... I wish the other companies would fight the rate increases like Dish does. Maybe DirecTV and cable could join these fights when their terms are up and it would mean lower prices for all.


Big deal.........what is .50. I will gladly pay an additional .50 each month.

When I started with Dish........the sports package was an extra 5.00 per month..........now it is 8.00........that is almost double in 10 years. When I added the hd package, I had several channels.....espn news, disney, abc family & others that were included. Now they are not.......but Dish has not reduced my monthly charge & they won't with the AMC situation. I just want what I pay for....nothing more & nothing less.

So if someone could supply a phone # or an email address so that I can voice my displeasure, it would be greatly appreciated


----------



## SayWhat?

bnewt said:


> So if someone could supply a phone # or an email address so that I can voice my displeasure, it would be greatly appreciated


Anybody got the number for the Dolans?

At least this is bringing the old members out of the woodwork.


----------



## Shades228

Stewart Vernon said:


> Did you read the link I posted earlier which was from last September where AMC was already talking about wanting to triple their average rates from ~25 cents to 75 cents?
> 
> Then AMC tries to say this year it is about the lawsuit... but last year AMC was talking about tripling their rates... so Dish knew this day was coming where AMC was going to want to raise the rates unreasonably and then try and blame the lawsuit as a smoke screen.
> 
> I like how people want to link Dish and the lawsuit to these negotiations BUT don't want to think AMC might have similar motives. Maybe AMC wants money that Dish didn't pay because the lawsuit isn't settled, so AMC wants to raise rates because of that.
> 
> Why is it only "blame the lawsuit" for one side and not the other?
> 
> Meanwhile... I wish the other companies would fight the rate increases like Dish does. Maybe DirecTV and cable could join these fights when their terms are up and it would mean lower prices for all.


I think it plays a factor in how willing they are to make concessions with each other though and the dynamic of the relationship. I would say you can't say it doesn't matter but I would also say that it's probably not the main reason for this either. If that were the case DISH wouldn't have any Rainbow programming that has come up for contract renewal.


----------



## satcrazy

Indie's gone. [ was on 393]

that sucks


----------



## steveT

phrelin said:


> ...I'm saying Charlie Ergen is viewing the loss of the Rainbow Media package of channels as an opportunity to get even with the Dolan's...


You're probably right. The more time goes on, the more it seems like Charlie Ergen runs his business based on emotion and personal beliefs, and less like a proper business targeting revenue and profitability. I used to watch those "Charlie Chats" every month religiously. Charlie really came across as a nice, decent guy, someone you'd want to have a beer with.

But over time, watching his actions in all these disputes, it seems to me that the guy can't separate his personal feelings from the business. And worst of all, he appears to have forgotten his customers entirely.


----------



## damondlt

satcrazy said:


> Indie's gone. [ was on 393]
> 
> that sucks


 Where did it go? Thats a Starz channel . Not Rainbow media


----------



## satcrazy

damondlt said:


> Where did it go? Thats a Starz channel . Not Rainbow media


Well, it was there after they moved AMC & the lot. I watched it.

Interesting that you say it's a "starz" channel, as I sub to starz currently, and it was never in the line up.

I think Dish made it part of the BB package.


----------



## damondlt

satcrazy said:


> Well, it was there after they moved AMC & the lot. I watched it.
> 
> Interesting that you say it's a "starz" channel, as I sub to starz currently, and it was never in the line up.
> 
> I think Dish made it part of the BB package.


 Yes correct It is in the HD add on pack, not starz superpack.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Shades228 said:


> I think it plays a factor in how willing they are to make concessions with each other though and the dynamic of the relationship. I would say you can't say it doesn't matter but I would also say that it's probably not the main reason for this either. If that were the case DISH wouldn't have any Rainbow programming that has come up for contract renewal.


Exactly... I can agree with that.

The AMC dispute is over one thing and one thing only... AMC wants more money than Dish wants to pay, period.

BUT... the ongoing lawsuit is a mitigating factor for BOTH sides. Dish isn't as likely to cave for higher rates because they don't have a good working relationship already with AMC... and AMC isn't likely to cave because they are mad that Dish has been fighting the lawsuit.

That's why I don't like when people operate as if only Dish might be "mad" over the lawsuit... BOTH sides are mad or the lawsuit would have gone away years ago...

This current AMC dispute is purely over price... but each side is looking to dig in harder than usual. That's why it is naive to think only Dish might be thinking about the lawsuit and why it was poor of AMC to try and spin this as if the only reason Dish might disagree with tripling their fee is because of the lawsuit.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bnewt said:


> Big deal.........what is .50. I will gladly pay an additional .50 each month.


IF it ended there, I might agree with you. But if AMC can get that kind of price increase, then all the channels above them will be asking for even more... and many below them will be saying "hey, we have 3 good shows too" and before you know it everybody is asking for a price increase and nobody can afford satellite.

That's why I support Dish drawing lines in the sand.



bnewt said:


> When I started with Dish........the sports package was an extra 5.00 per month..........now it is 8.00........that is almost double in 10 years.


Firstly... You're comparing 10 years vs 1 year here and saying that if something doubles in 10 years it would be ok to double in one year?

Secondly... using what math is going from 5 to 8 "almost double"? That's a 60% increase... Doubling would be a 100% increase.

AMC, by the way, asking from 25 cents to 75 cents would be 200% increase.

Your sport package going from $5 to $15 would be a comparison similar to the increase AMC is asking for...


----------



## mdavej

Stewart Vernon said:


> Did you read the link I posted earlier which was from last September where AMC was already talking about wanting to triple their average rates from ~25 cents to 75 cents?


Yep. But Dish has taken pre-emptive, punitive action a full month before the contract is even out. Just because AMC wants higher rates is no indication of what they actually asked for yet. Others have asked for even more in the past and never been treated this way. Banished to the 9000's a full month ahead (essentially hidden with no notice whatsoever), a decree of no contract renewal nearly 2 months ahead, bogus reasons for dropping (poor ratings, availability on iTunes and Netflix). I've never seen Dish being this nasty and belligerent in other disputes. They're behaving like children.


----------



## Shades228

mdavej said:


> Yep. But Dish has taken pre-emptive, punitive action a full month before the contract is even out. Just because AMC wants higher rates is no indication of what they actually asked for yet. Others have asked for even more in the past and never been treated this way. Banished to the 9000's a full month ahead (essentially hidden with no notice whatsoever), a decree of no contract renewal nearly 2 months ahead, bogus reasons for dropping (poor ratings, availability on iTunes and Netflix). I've never seen Dish being this nasty and belligerent in other disputes. They're behaving like children.


I don't know about being nasty. DIRECTV dealt with Fox in a similar manner and I think it cost them the PR battle much like this is with DISH.


----------



## mdavej

I don't know how nasty that one got, but it was only days, maybe a week, before the contract expired. My point is this is highly unusual, so there is much more to it than renewal costs. In fact Dish has already shifted their position in recent facebook posts. They no longer state that the channels were moved due to poor ratings, rather AMC wants them to pay for other low rated channels as well (presumably We, IFC, etc.), which they don't want to buy. Since no one is buying their other bogus excuses, they're floating this one for the first time. Every network tries to bundle their unpopular channels with the popular ones. There is no logical reason to single out AMC for bundling, just like there is no logical reason to single them out for ratings or alternate delivery methods. None of these hold water.

It will be interesting to see what creative thing they come up with next.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

mdavej said:


> Yep. But Dish has taken pre-emptive, punitive action a full month before the contract is even out. Just because AMC wants higher rates is no indication of what they actually asked for yet. Others have asked for even more in the past and never been treated this way. Banished to the 9000's a full month ahead (essentially hidden with no notice whatsoever), a decree of no contract renewal nearly 2 months ahead, bogus reasons for dropping (poor ratings, availability on iTunes and Netflix). I've never seen Dish being this nasty and belligerent in other disputes. They're behaving like children.


I think Dish has an ulterior motive here. That being... AMC says "we deserve more money because we are popular"... Dish says "only on Sunday nights, the rest of the week nobody watches you"...

A slick move here by moving the channels and then logging the responses to see how many Dish customers actually notice and complain. IF that number is low, then Dish knows they are right and uses that against AMC claims of how popular their channels are.

I'm willing to bet that outside of AMC itself, the other 3 channels get barely noticed as having been moved by the larger non-DBSTalk-forum customer base.

I also bet nobody notices AMC until the next time their popular shows are scheduled to come on... so outside of these online minority of customers like you or I... I bet Dish CSRs field very few calls on this channel move.

I don't think that will help AMC at all if that proves to be true.


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> I think Dish has an ulterior motive here. That being... AMC says "we deserve more money because we are popular"... Dish says "only on Sunday nights, the rest of the week nobody watches you"...


I don't know how many of Dish's 14 million customers subscribe to tiers above AT120, but I have to believe it would be at least a third. That's 4.6 million. At 25¢ a month ... well, you do the math. It does seem like a lot of cash gets into the Sunday collection plate. Are the sermons really that good?

One problem is that there are four Rainbow Media stations - AMC, IFC, WE tv, and Sundance Channel. Genuinely decent creative programming on all of them wouldn't fill the 1,100 hours a year one of these stations has to fill in the evenings. Why exactly are there four? Would we suffer if the original evening programming currently on these channels was shifted to just one?

As some of you know, I write reviews of "Mad Men", perhaps my favorite show. I'll be happy to pay $26 to stream the 13 episodes each season for the next two years. In fact there are three shows total on AMC I'll pay for.

In the meantime, we Americans need to see some serious thought given to the whole hundreds of cable channels thing and to the role of broadcast networks.


----------



## oldbud

James Long said:


> If I remember the cable rule correctly (at least how it is followed) the cable operators notify their customers of potential loss of channels. They cannot pretend to be blind as they approach a contract end date. If they know a contract is ending (duh) and they know there is no renewal (duh, again) they have to notify of the possibility of a programming change.
> 
> The excuse would apply if the programming suddenly became unavailable (for example, the programmer dropping a channel or going out of business) not for predictable programming changes.
> 
> I have not looked through the FCC's enforcement pages to see who got what fine for violations. Where the rule applies (cable) it is enforced.
> 
> It would be harder to follow on channels where contract renewals were expected but not signed. Then the operator would have to make the decision to put out a notice that would make people worry about channels they won't lose or miss a warning deadline. I believe most operators would error on the side of not missing the warning deadline.


I believe Dish has made their decision and have done so a couple weeks ago. The downloadable channel guides were changed on 5/17 with the AMC channels being omitted. So much for giving customers warning for known network cancelling.


----------



## sregener

phrelin said:


> In the meantime, we Americans need to see some serious thought given to the whole hundreds of cable channels thing and to the role of broadcast networks.


I think we could live with fewer channels if everyone had a DVR. Many of these channels air the same programs over and over again. However, what I don't think we want to live with is fewer viewing options.


----------



## Mike109

I gave up on AMC a long time ago. Every time I watched a movie it was stretched & distorted.


----------



## SayWhat?

> Losing Dish's 14 million subscribers for several months or more would be "a big deal" for AMC shareholders, said Brett Harriss, an analyst at Gabelli & Co. in Rye, New York. AMC, whose chairman is cable magnate Charles Dolan, probably charges every Dish subscriber about 50 cents for its networks per month, Harriss said. That's about $21 million of "high margin" revenue if a blackout lasts three months, he said.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-04/dish-s-mad-men-blackout-threatens-to-cost-amc-millions


----------



## dmspen

It seems clear the Dolan stands to lose more money here. If AMC is dropped from DISH, that contract money is gone in it's entirety to the tune of $7 million dollars per month. DISH will lose what? Maybe a few people will switch to D* or Comcast, etc, but they will not lose $7 million dollars worth of customers per month.

The loser is Dolan and the AMC investors and the customers of DISH who really have very little say in what will happen. This situation is fast becoming like our government. It's not about what's best for the people, it's a personal "I'm going to win" or "I'm against it because you're for it" situation.


----------



## damondlt

dmspen said:


> It seems clear the Dolan stands to lose more money here. If AMC is dropped from DISH, that contract money is gone in it's entirety to the tune of $7 million dollars per month. DISH will lose what? Maybe a few people will switch to D* or Comcast, etc, but they will not lose $7 million dollars worth of customers per month.
> 
> The loser is Dolan and the AMC investors and the customers of DISH who really have very little say in what will happen. This situation is fast becoming like our government. It's not about what's best for the people, it's a personal "I'm going to win" or "I'm against it because you're for it" situation.


 Clearly AMC is the one with more to lose, you get that impression the minute you go on AMC facebook page/ website.

Well then AMC cut the s#$% and stike a deal.


----------



## inazsully

There are a couple of channels these days showing up with pretty good original programing. Lifetime and A&E come to mind. Do they deserve more money? They may think so but I seriously doubt Dish will agree. Will they be next to be dumped? Time will tell but like AMC, the cost of producing original programing is a real thing. They can't do it for free. It's always a crap shoot when any channel offers a new show but it seems to me that most of the new shows offered on these channels are actually pretty good. The nice thing is that if they are not over night blockbuster successes they won't necessarily get dumped as quickly the majors do. Quite a few good shows got cancelled this year from the big four that would most likely been given more of a chance on the so called lesser channels.


----------



## SayWhat?

inazsully said:


> the cost of producing original programing is a real thing. They can't do it for free.


Maybe the head cheeses shouldn't take so much (money) home.


----------



## lparsons21

inazsully said:


> There are a couple of channels these days showing up with pretty good original programing. Lifetime and A&E come to mind. Do they deserve more money? They may think so but I seriously doubt Dish will agree. Will they be next to be dumped? Time will tell but like AMC, the cost of producing original programing is a real thing. They can't do it for free. It's always a crap shoot when any channel offers a new show but it seems to me that most of the new shows offered on these channels are actually pretty good. The nice thing is that if they are not over night blockbuster successes they won't necessarily get dumped as quickly the majors do. Quite a few good shows got cancelled this year from the big four that would most likely been given more of a chance on the so called lesser channels.


Yes, the cost of doing original programming is a real thing. But the problem overall is that the subscription costs keep going up and up, with no end in sight. Where do you draw the line? If Dish says OK and just pays whatever they all want to ask and passes that cost on to us, then we ***** about the cost to watch TV. If they say, no, then we ***** when they get dropped for a bit while they fight and feud over the rates. Kind of a not-much-of-a-win for all of us, including the producers and providers.

And the reason original shows get a longer run from the 'cable' type channels is that the audience needs for them is always smaller. What is great viewer numbers for them isn't the same as what it is for the big 4.


----------



## DoyleS

Sooner or later this all becomes ripe fruit for the iTunes, Hulu Plus, Vudu, Amazon and other major streamers. They have the ability to offer these shows upon release at a la carte pricing or eventually at reasonable subscription rates. As more of this becomes available and price competition on a la carte increases, it would seem there would be more cable cutting of the top tier cable and Sat tiers. The Sirius music channels via Sat are already challenged by all of the free online music streaming sites that tailor the music to your personal preferences. Who knows, there is always another Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or Zuck on the sidelines just looking to create a paradigm change and completely change a market.


----------



## goinsleeper

damondlt said:


> Then don't expect them to not complain. They have a right regaurdless!


I don't think the customer really has a 'right' to complain. They will take it upon themselves to complain but only those with stake in the company should technically have the 'right' to complain(and I mean share holders).

Customers have the 'right' to leave the company while meeting the agreement they signed. They also have the 'right' to pay their bill as E* is still sending programming(though it may not be everything they were sending the day before).


----------



## steveT

I wonder how much Dish pays for the CNN networks. If Dish's complaint was really about paying too much for networks with too few viewers, how do they feel about a network like CNN, which averages something like 400,000 viewers in primetime? Which is maybe a third of what AMC averages, and barely a tenth of AMC's high-rated scripted dramas. 

I'm sure there are many more examples like that. If Dish claims this is truly about subscriber fees versus ratings, let's see them lay out what they're paying for all of their channels.


----------



## puckwithahalo

Stewart Vernon said:


> I think Dish has an ulterior motive here. That being... AMC says "we deserve more money because we are popular"... Dish says "only on Sunday nights, the rest of the week nobody watches you"...
> 
> A slick move here by moving the channels and then logging the responses to see how many Dish customers actually notice and complain.


I'm not going to comment on the motives behind what E* is doing vs. what AMC is doing, and what everyone wants. Not really my place as an employee of E* to do so. But, I will say, I worked yesterday, and I took a grand total of 1 call about the moved channels.


----------



## dough_boy747

It's all about the money my friends lol


----------



## Paul Secic

Stewart Vernon said:


> People just like to rant about stuff. Imagine if all those people ranting on Dish about AMC were actually to get together and try to help poverty or hunger or health issues or something important... but naahh... they will freak out over AMC.
> 
> Meanwhile... IF AMC would agree to no price increase or a moderate one, none of this would be happening. Those same people mad at Dish are the same people who will be mad at Dish when their price goes up to subscribe to Dish... so I really wish people would pay attention to these things and not freak out. It really doesn't help get the deal done any faster and for the short term it gives AMC some false hope to stick to their guns.


I agree with you. It's just TV! People should worry about hunger, instead of a TV channel


----------



## inazsully

It is all about the money. As my provider of choice I would like Dish to look at who deserves a pay raise based on what they are offering my customers. Who among us does not want new original programing? Not crap programing but stuff that would generally appeal to most of us. I recorded "The Killing" last night and just watched it. I've never watched it before and it was very good. Good story line, excellent HD PQ, actors that I recognized. I consider myself pretty average in what I like and I think the VAST majority of people that like cop/mystery/political suspense type shows would really get into "The Killing". If Dish really thinks that AMC is not bringing enough to the table to warrant a pay hike then so be it. But they are sending a message to other companies to reign in spending on original programing and we will be the losers in the end because many new shows that we would probably like will never come to light. If a bunch of folks here would watch a few of these AMC offerings they may be surprised. I was with "The Killing".


----------



## steveT

puckwithahalo said:


> I'm not going to comment on the motives behind what E* is doing vs. what AMC is doing, and what everyone wants. Not really my place as an employee of E* to do so. But, I will say, I worked yesterday, and I took a grand total of 1 call about the moved channels.


Really. So please tell us how many calls Dish took overall yesterday about the AMC issue.


----------



## Inkosaurus

> I'm not going to comment on the motives behind what E* is doing vs. what AMC is doing, and what everyone wants. Not really my place as an employee of E* to do so. But, I will say, I worked yesterday, and I took a grand total of 1 call about the moved channels..


Not sure how long you have been working for E* but as a former employee and one whos been around for the big drops (FX and what not anyone?) I can promise you its going to get worse.

Have fun with the mandatory 6th day shifts and extended shifts/Mandatory 1 hour ET tacked onto every shift :lol:


----------



## Paul Secic

phrelin said:


> I don't know how many of Dish's 14 million customers subscribe to tiers above AT120, but I have to believe it would be at least a third. That's 4.6 million. At 25¢ a month ... well, you do the math. It does seem like a lot of cash gets into the Sunday collection plate. Are the sermons really that good?
> 
> One problem is that there are four Rainbow Media stations - AMC, IFC, WE tv, and Sundance Channel. Genuinely decent creative programming on all of them wouldn't fill the 1,100 hours a year one of these stations has to fill in the evenings. Why exactly are there four? Would we suffer if the original evening programming currently on these channels was shifted to just one?
> 
> As some of you know, I write reviews of "Mad Men", perhaps my favorite show. I'll be happy to pay $26 to stream the 13 episodes each season for the next two years. In fact there are three shows total on AMC I'll pay for.
> 
> In the meantime, we Americans need to see some serious thought given to the whole hundreds of cable channels thing and to the role of broadcast networks.


I went down from AT 250 to 200 to save some money & I hardly noticed..


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inazsully said:


> If Dish really thinks that AMC is not bringing enough to the table to warrant a pay hike then so be it. But they are sending a message to other companies to reign in spending on original programing and we will be the losers in the end because many new shows that we would probably like will never come to light.


To be fair... IF you've been reading about AMC in recent history, they are the ones making bad decisions about spending money on original programming.

After season 1 of Walking Dead, they essentially ran off the hit showrunner over budget issues... asking him to cut the budget for season 2 for a show that was setting ratings records on AMC.

Mad Men also had budget issues, with AMC slashing that budget... negotiations ran so long that it essentially resulted in skipping a year of production/airing of the show.

So... the recent Dish dispute has nothing to do with AMC cutting spending on its original programming... They were doing that on their own!


----------



## steveT

Stewart Vernon said:


> To be fair... IF you've been reading about AMC in recent history, they are the ones making bad decisions about spending money on original programming.
> 
> After season 1 of Walking Dead, they essentially ran off the hit showrunner over budget issues... asking him to cut the budget for season 2 for a show that was setting ratings records on AMC.
> 
> Mad Men also had budget issues, with AMC slashing that budget... negotiations ran so long that it essentially resulted in skipping a year of production/airing of the show.
> 
> So... the recent Dish dispute has nothing to do with AMC cutting spending on its original programming... They were doing that on their own!


You're right about all that. For awhile there, AMC was the network that could do no wrong. Putting out one Emmy-winning series after another. But then they went a little nuts, started trying to cut costs (rumor was that Breaking Bad also suffered last season from budget cutting), and messing with their top shows.

But, despite all that, they're still WAY out-performing the major networks in creating new dramas. None of the big 4 are coming out with anything as intelligent and well-written as the AMC dramas. And AMC's pipeline is still at work; last year there was a rumor that they may finally develop a scifi show, which would be great since the SyFy network has abandoned scifi and moved big time into cheap reality shows.

AMC used to be a joke of a network, airing heavily edited feature films, with commercial breaks every 5 minutes (remember the acronym, "Always Mostly Commercials"?...) But they've now turned into the best new source for scripted drama on television, blowing away the major networks from a creative standpoint. I'd say that's worth 75 cents per subscriber.


----------



## inazsully

I agree with you there Stewart. Over budgeting and unattainable expectations on AMC's part really hurt their bottom line. Channels like AMC, Lifetime, A&E, and FX can't afford to make mistakes. They have very little margin for error. They do however usually give a new show more than a year to garner an audience and that gives us a chance to get on the bandwagon of a good show. In today's market the major networks require almost instant gratification or the show is gone gone gone. Several good shows were cancelled that were new last year and a few may even be picked up by one of the lesser channels. If a show like "Mash" or "Cheers" were to come out now in 2012 they would not make it through the first year. Which they almost didn't back in the day. But look how they turned out. Not sure if CW is affiliated with someone else but they have several really good shows, "Supernatural", "Nikita", "Vampire Diaries".


----------



## Inkosaurus

Stewart Vernon said:


> To be fair... IF you've been reading about AMC in recent history, they are the ones making bad decisions about spending money on original programming.
> 
> After season 1 of Walking Dead, they essentially ran off the hit showrunner over budget issues... asking him to cut the budget for season 2 for a show that was setting ratings records on AMC.


They also completely threw out Darabonts prequel to the pilot which was a story arc about the soldier found in the tank early on in the series. It was going to cover his final days as the fort fell and how exactly he ended up in the tank, and putting more emphasis on how lucky Rick was over all to get that grenade that saved everyones lives at the end of Season 1.

There was a ton more that they scrapped for the series that would have been truly nice to see, including a ton of stuff from the comic that didnt make it into season 2. Why do you think they spent most of the time at the farm? It was cheaper.


----------



## goinsleeper

inazsully said:


> I agree with you there Stewart. Over budgeting and unattainable expectations on AMC's part really hurt their bottom line. Channels like AMC, Lifetime, A&E, and FX can't afford to make mistakes. They have very little margin for error. They do however usually give a new show more than a year to garner an audience and that gives us a chance to get on the bandwagon of a good show. In today's market the major networks require almost instant gratification or the show is gone gone gone. Several good shows were cancelled that were new last year and a few may even be picked up by one of the lesser channels. If a show like "Mash" or "Cheers" were to come out now in 2012 they would not make it through the first year. Which they almost didn't back in the day. But look how they turned out. Not sure if CW is affiliated with someone else but they have several really good shows, "Supernatural", "Nikita", "Vampire Diaries".


One quite popular show this happened to was Family Guy. I watched the very first episode after the Superbowl (don't remember which Superbowl). The show was hilarious. I loved it. Then Fox started changing the day and time it came on. After three changes I couldn't keep up with when it was coming on. Eventually the show was dropped and the rights were up for sale. Adult Swim picked up those rights and redeemed the popularity of the show. Fox starting writing the show again and look at it now. Even though the show was not sold to a 'lesser' channel, the distribution rights were sold until it was popular again.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inazsully said:


> I agree with you there Stewart. Over budgeting and unattainable expectations on AMC's part really hurt their bottom line. Channels like AMC, Lifetime, A&E, and FX can't afford to make mistakes.


Exactly... and I can't help but think some of AMC's sudden desire to raise rates has more to do with their own poor financial decisions than their trying to spin the value of their network.

It really is a lot like what the Dish vs Voom lawsuit is about... with Dish alleging that they agreed to carry Voom HD if the money they paid to Rainbow Media was spent to improve the programming... but Rainbow squandered the money (definitely didn't put it into creating new programs or buying new ones back then)... so ultimately Dish cried "foul" and pulled support.

Deja vu all over again as AMC (spun off from Rainbow) has several popular programs but is refusing to spend money on them even though viewers are willing to watch and spend money to do so.



inazsully said:


> Several good shows were cancelled that were new last year and a few may even be picked up by one of the lesser channels. If a show like "Mash" or "Cheers" were to come out now in 2012 they would not make it through the first year. Which they almost didn't back in the day.


True. Seinfeld falls into that category as well. Their initial 6-episode run was all but certain to be canceled until an 11th hour reprieve... and Seinfeld was sure they wouldn't get another after that 1st full season order... but it went 9 total seasons and was one of NBC's best shows and highest rated for quite a while.



inazsully said:


> But look how they turned out. Not sure if CW is affiliated with someone else but they have several really good shows, "Supernatural", "Nikita", "Vampire Diaries".


UPN was a Paramount endeavor... WB was a Warner endeavor... They sort-of merged (the channels, not the parent companies), and WB is kind of a joint venture between CBS/Viacom & Warner.

So there should be some deep pockets... and they can afford (should they choose to do so) to give a show a chance, especially since they don't yet have a full primetime lineup all week... so they have room to grow IF the suits decide to keep the network afloat.



Inkosaurus said:


> They also completely threw out Darabonts prequel to the pilot which was a story arc about the soldier found in the tank early on in the series. It was going to cover his final days as the fort fell and how exactly he ended up in the tank, and putting more emphasis on how lucky Rick was over all to get that grenade that saved everyones lives at the end of Season 1.
> 
> There was a ton more that they scrapped for the series that would have been truly nice to see, including a ton of stuff from the comic that didnt make it into season 2. Why do you think they spent most of the time at the farm? It was cheaper.


Yep... they made a point of casting a known actor for the dead soldier in the tank... and it's just money thrown away now that they didn't go back and tell his story. The point of casting that actor (his name is escaping me at the moment, but he was on Smallville and the US version of Being Human) was to setup for having him in the episode that was the flashback to that story.


----------



## coldsteel

Sam Witwer, Stewart.


----------



## inazsully

I don't doubt that AMC is trying to raise rates to compensate for poor financial choices. But I also think they are spending on solid original programing. The problem is that not enough viewers have discovered that programing. Sort of like Sienfeld, Mash, Cheers etc. W Once they were discovered they ended up being monster hits. Don't drop them, give them a raise because they are the only channel out there that is trying to offer us something of substance. Please, enough of the crap storm of idiotic realty shows being shoved down our throats. I'll happily support (with more $$$) the creation of something that doesn't insult my intelligence and actually makes me think. I'm a TV nut, aren't we all?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

coldsteel said:


> Sam Witwer, Stewart.


Thanks... it was bugging me that I couldn't remember his name!



inazsully said:


> I don't doubt that AMC is trying to raise rates to compensate for poor financial choices. But I also think they are spending on solid original programing.


Perhaps... but who should you be more inclined to give money to... a company that spends wisely or one that squanders what you give them?

Had AMC been managed better, they would have had more money to put into their programming without asking for a rate increase.

It's kind of like when your kid spends all his allowance on candy and then wants more money for something he needs... you could keep throwing money at him, or you could try and teach him the value of a dollar so he makes better choices and takes care of his needs before his budget runs out.

Giving AMC a rate increase might be borderline irresponsible given how they throw money down the toilet apparently instead of giving it to the people who are actually creating their quality shows!


----------



## Shades228

inazsully said:


> I don't doubt that AMC is trying to raise rates to compensate for poor financial choices. But I also think they are spending on solid original programing. The problem is that not enough viewers have discovered that programing. Sort of like Sienfeld, Mash, Cheers etc. W Once they were discovered they ended up being monster hits. Don't drop them, give them a raise because they are the only channel out there that is trying to offer us something of substance. Please, enough of the crap storm of idiotic realty shows being shoved down our throats. I'll happily support (with more $$$) the creation of something that doesn't insult my intelligence and actually makes me think. I'm a TV nut, aren't we all?


I would say that it's part of it. If they never made bad financial mistakes they would be a number 1 rated channel all of the time. However this business is about taking risks and cutting losses. It also goes a long with you have to spend money to make money. So in theory more money could mean more shows like the ones people like or it could mean more piles of steamy crap reality shows.

With all of that said I don't think AMC has licensed out any of their repeat rights to other stations and that would help them gain viewership as well. I could be wrong as I don't watch USA and channels like them that are usually just second tier providers. Even AMC is like that but if they could get their shows on more channels that's more people wanting the original content which is more ad revenue.


----------



## jrseh

steveT said:


> I'm one of the people who didn't find out about this AMC dispute until last night, when I noticed the channel was gone from 130. Checked dbstalk this morning, and was shocked to find out what's going on. I called Dish immediately. I've been with Dish for probably 15 years, pay a huge monthly rate for almost every channel they've got, but I swear, if they drop AMC, I will drop Dish, guaranteed. AMC has the best scripted dramas on television right now, and no way am I being consigned to watching them on a PC screen.


I'm another who "just happened to notice", after watching last Sunday's DVR'd episode of _The Killing_, that next Sunday's part 1 of the 2 part finale was not scheduled to record in my DVR schedule, since some other show was now in that time slot on channel 130. Then I found that 130 was no longer AMC, but HDNET. No notice from Dish at all (thanks a pantload, Dish. You're going to have a LOT of angry subscribers who haven't caught on to the channel switch next Sunday - hope you're ready for them). Only after I searched for _The Killing_ did I find it on 9609 and 9610.

Now I'm here learning of all the nonsense that's been going on. At least in the past, Dish posted notices before making such foolish moves. This one takes the cake! AMC is my favorite Dish channel. If it goes, so do I.

John


----------



## inazsully

Stewart there are many here that would say that Dish has squandered money given them as much as AMC has. Besides, if we stopped supporting every company that made financial mistakes or poor investments there wouldn't be any company's left to support. Look at NBC for instance. Every year for quite some time now NBC has finished dead last in viewer popularity among the big 4. CBS has been #1 for most of those years. I can't help but feel that we should support the channels that are offering us new original programing, like AMC, A&E,USA,TNT, FX, CW, Lifetime, plus a few others. We all complain about the hanger on channels that we never watch but get shoved into a package. They are the reason we still talk about a-la-cart. AMC, whether you watch them or not, is not a hanger on but an innovator.


----------



## Laxguy

In what ways, and about how much, has Dish squandered money?


----------



## SayWhat?

jrseh said:


> AMC is my favorite Dish channel. If it goes, so do I.


AMC isn't a Dish channel, but anyways, BuhBye!


----------



## steveT

Hopefully the activity on Dish's Facebook page are an indicator of the backlash Dish is receiving over their actions in the AMC dispute. Dish could have at least claimed taking the high ground if they hadn't moved the channel right during the middle of "The Killing". Or insulting customer's intelligence by claiming the move was due to "low ratings", when that whole section of the channel line-up in the 100's is chock full of lower-rated networks. It still amazes me that Dish is acting in such a childish manner.


----------



## inazsully

Laxguy said:


> In what ways, and about how much, has Dish squandered money?


There may be a few here that can answer that question but for you ask someone like me that question is ridiculous. I'm hardly an insider, just an observer as 99% here are.


----------



## Laxguy

inazsully said:


> There may be a few here that can answer that question but for you ask someone like me that question is ridiculous. I'm hardly an insider, just an observer as 99% here are.


Uh, sorry, but you made the statement. That you're ducking the question and calling me ridiculous is.... uh, ironic.


----------



## phrelin

inazsully said:


> I can't help but feel that we should support the channels that are offering us new original programing, like AMC, A&E,USA,TNT, FX, CW, Lifetime, plus a few others. We all complain about the hanger on channels that we never watch but get shoved into a package. They are the reason we still talk about a-la-cart. AMC, whether you watch them or not, is not a hanger on but an innovator.


I would agree and be much more disturbed with Dish over this if it wasn't for the fact that there are four Rainbow Media stations - AMC, IFC, WE tv, and Sundance Channel - at issue.

I'm an advocate for cleaning house - the cable channel industry and the broadcast channel industry is operating like immature 50-year-olds. They need to grow up.

For purposes of argument there are at least 3 prime time hours 7 days a week 52 weeks a year - or 1092 hours. Allowing for holidays and convenience for counting purposes, let's just call it 1,000 hours a year. AMC's innovation over the past three years has averaged 4 "innovative" shows x 13 episodes, or 52 hours, a year. Maybe there's something I missed so let's say some years they've offered 5 innovative shows or 65 hours a year. So they've allocated about 6% of their *prime* time to innovation.

Now what have they done with the other 21 non-prime time hours 7 days a week 52 weeks, or 7,644 hours a year? I notice that nobody here is arguing for IFC, WE tv, and Sundance Channel. I'm willing to pretend that they've all done as well innovating as AMC. So if combined, Rainbow Media has stepped up to 24% of prime time for one channel.

It seems USA has a lot of original programming. But if you combined all the NBCU-owned non-sports cable channel original programming - USA, Bravo, Chiller, Cloo, CNBC, E!, G4, Oxygen, MSNBC, Style Network, Syfy - you almost might get confused enough to think you are watching a broadcast channel because of the amount of waking hours original programming, almost.

In other words, I'm in for paying a 50¢ retransmission fee for one non-sports advertising-supported cable channel per multinational humongous media company or billionaire-owned media company, limited to 10 channels. And I'll spring for a 50¢ retransmission fee for one advertising-supported broadcast channel per multinational humongous media company or billionaire-owned media company limited to 5 channels. And I'll spring for a 50¢ retransmission fee for one local PBS station. IMHO that's enough total air time to cover the overall interests of the American public including all age groups, particularly with the nearly universal availability of DVR's.

Recognizing that 16 channels 24/7/52 just isn't enough air time, I'm an advocate for premium packages, including the ones we have now, ones for sports channels, ones for news channels, ones for other special interests, whether advertising supported or not.

The internet which includes your own web site plus the likes of Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, Hulu, YouTube, etc. now is offering sufficient innovation opportunities. Remember that it's time for TV to grow up and the internet just moved into the neighborhood.

So no, I'm not interested in paying a 15¢ retransmission fee to support a channel for basket weavers or for another endless run of old movies and/or old syndicated TV shows. If you want them, you can stream them from a number of sources.


----------



## satcrazy

inazsully said:


> Stewart there are many here that would say that Dish has squandered money given them as much as AMC has. Besides, if we stopped supporting every company that made financial mistakes or poor investments there wouldn't be any company's left to support. Look at NBC for instance. Every year for quite some time now NBC has finished dead last in viewer popularity among the big 4. CBS has been #1 for most of those years. I can't help but feel that we should support the channels that are offering us new original programing, like AMC, A&E,USA,TNT, FX, CW, Lifetime, plus a few others. We all complain about the hanger on channels that we never watch but get shoved into a package. They are the reason we still talk about a-la-cart. AMC, whether you watch them or not, is not a hanger on but an innovator.


Something to be said for this.

for me, I can only think of one series I follow on a local [ cbs] that is once a week, period. I look to the above stations and some others, for something other than being a continuous amateur hour. [The locals don't have to worry about me skipping commercials] I have yet to view more than 5 minutes of any of these boring reality type programs.


----------



## inkahauts

What all broadcasters need to do is eliminate about 20% of their channels and funnel the programs from those stations to their other channels. That would severely cut costs without adding overhead. That would allow everyone to simply not change the prices they charge overall for several years, making most people generally happy.


----------



## phrelin

The Morning Bridge noted this morning:


> Reports say DISH covertly moved AMC, IFC and WeTV to a different channel on its line-up after the network began notifying DISH subs that they could lose AMC if the two sides don't reach a new carriage deal by the end of the month.


----------



## inazsully

Stewart I think your last statements pretty much nails the problem. Now if we can just find the magic wand and sprinkle some common sense dust on (they know who they are). Problem solved.


----------



## Laxguy

inkahauts said:


> What all broadcasters need to do is eliminate about 20% of their channels and funnel the programs from those stations to their other channels. That would severely cut costs without adding overhead. That would allow everyone to simply not change the prices they charge overall for several years, making most people generally happy.


I'm sure all but the most hopeless of managements has done cost/benefit analysis on just that, and concluded that they'll muddle on same ole, same ole. Plus not everyone has 5 channels or more to cut 20%.

But I'd guess there's at least 70% cruft for my viewing druthers.


----------



## SayWhat?

phrelin said:


> or for another endless run of old movies and/or old syndicated TV shows.


Hey, now wait just a minute there, that's the stuff i watch most of the time. With one or two exceptions, I rarely watch new stuff.


----------



## phrelin

I noticed James Long reported in the Uplink Activity thread a change at 131. Here's what's there now:


----------



## StringFellow

phrelin said:


> I noticed James Long reported in the Uplink Activity thread a change at 131. Here's what's there now:


channels in the 9000s???


----------



## phrelin

StringFellow said:


> channels in the 9000s???


The 9000's are full of channels, but they're mostly ones that show up at a three digit number.


----------



## Kevin Brown

phrelin said:


> I noticed James Long reported in the Uplink Activity thread a change at 131. Here's what's there now:


Yet one more example of Dish's thoughtfulness towards their customers.

Not.

:nono2:


----------



## James Long

It would be nice to have a routine run on the receivers to MOVE timers when channels move. The only people this message is going to help are those who watch AMC for more than just the top shows.

The whole point of a DVR timer is to be able to set up your favorite shows and not have to think about them. I have timers on my 622 from years ago that last from season to season ... even some cancelled shows (every once in a while they come back). Once I have chosen a favorite show and know the channel I just wait until it appears in the recorded show list and watch it.

A "check your timers" message on the wrong channel (AMC was on 130) is not helpful for the subscriber who is using timers and not watching AMC at other times. Hopefully people check their timers regularly and catch the "wrong program" skipped recordings on the old channel numbers.


----------



## inkahauts

That just kind of sucks what dish is doing there. I don't think they have any intention of signing to keep that channel on even if it's free based on what they just did. Moving it to what appears to be no mans land so people won't see the "this change Is abut to get dropped" scrolls is down right sleezy IMHO. 

I am surprised that timers don't follow change changes. They do on DIRECTV. Of course in this case, dish doesn't care, they don't want you seeing anything else on this channel ever again it appears.


----------



## SayWhat?

inkahauts said:


> They do on DIRECTV. Of course in this case, dish doesn't care, they don't want you seeing anything else on this channel ever again it appears.


Yeah, yeah, yeah, Dish sucks and Direct rules, yadda, yadda, yadda, we gotch'a


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> It would be nice to have a routine run on the receivers to MOVE timers when channels move.


Agree. I've said this before, and even asked Dish about it... Seems like they could write an algorithm that looks for the changes and fixes timers behind the scenes for these kind of known situations... send some extra data down in the uplink that moves everything around so the receivers know to repair the broken timers.



James Long said:


> The only people this message is going to help are those who watch AMC for more than just the top shows.


I really think that is the point Dish is looking to drive home. That almost nobody watches AMC... and the few who do like the handful of popular shows don't care about the channel the rest of the time.

IF AMC was a popular channel, more people would notice immediately... but since their award-winning programming isn't on until the weekend... Dish makes a big change on Monday-Wednesday and nobody notices until Sunday night when their timer (note not watching live even then) messes up.

I agree its a crappy thing Dish is doing to Dish subscribers... but I kind of get the point they are trying to drive home.

I guarantee if they took ESPN, for example, or TNT or something down like this WAY more people would notice much sooner.

I am sure Dish is noting what they've done and noting how few calls they are getting.... and will be using that to counter the claims that AMC deserves more money. Dish will respond with "nobody noticed when we moved the channels around so exactly how popular are you?"


----------



## mike1977

They have been noticed since the second it happened, on their Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/dish


----------



## jdskycaster

What's facebook?


----------



## mike1977

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...er-saved-photo-posted-facebook-221729050.html


----------



## James Long

Facebook doesn't fix the timers on one's DVR.

There are several programs I have timers set for on networks I generally don't watch. I rely on those timers to catch the show when it goes in season and back out again. Some of those programs I'd have to check the timer to tell you what network they are on.


----------



## cj9788

Two words: DISH PASS.........


----------



## James Long

cj9788 said:


> Two words: DISH PASS.........


DISHPass works great if you want to risk a DVR full of incorrect matches or KNOW that the program could change channel. The way that DISH makes it easiest to set a timer is channel specific.

Knowing a channel will move is important. Not everyone follows DBS discussion on the Internet or "likes" satellite providers on Facebook and their moves are not pre-announced via their satellite feeds (at best the old channel gets a messed up EPG/slate).


----------



## inazsully

Stewart Vernon said:


> Agree. I've said this before, and even asked Dish about it... Seems like they could write an algorithm that looks for the changes and fixes timers behind the scenes for these kind of known situations... send some extra data down in the uplink that moves everything around so the receivers know to repair the broken timers.
> 
> I really think that is the point Dish is looking to drive home. That almost nobody watches AMC... and the few who do like the handful of popular shows don't care about the channel the rest of the time.
> 
> IF AMC was a popular channel, more people would notice immediately... but since their award-winning programming isn't on until the weekend... Dish makes a big change on Monday-Wednesday and nobody notices until Sunday night when their timer (note not watching live even then) messes up.
> 
> I agree its a crappy thing Dish is doing to Dish subscribers... but I kind of get the point they are trying to drive home.
> 
> I guarantee if they took ESPN, for example, or TNT or something down like this WAY more people would notice much sooner.
> 
> I am sure Dish is noting what they've done and noting how few calls they are getting.... and will be using that to counter the claims that AMC deserves more money. Dish will respond with "nobody noticed when we moved the channels around so exactly how popular are you?"


Nice to know Dish considers me a nobody. It also looks like I'm not alone. And I think we all kind of get the point Dish is driving home. We just differ on what that point is.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inazsully said:


> Nice to know Dish considers me a nobody. It also looks like I'm not alone. And I think we all kind of get the point Dish is driving home. We just differ on what that point is.


Hey, I said it was a crappy move... because Dish is sticking it to their own customers...

But how many have called to complain really? Relative to the 14 million subscribers, who wants to guess even a half of a percent of Dish customers know the AMC channels moved?

I'm not saying you don't count... I just recognize my place in the fishbowl... and I know I don't count for much in the scheme of things.

To be blunt... IF I weren't a DBSTalk member, I still wouldn't know that AMC moved or was in danger of being dropped because all I watch on that channel is the Walking Dead and that won't be back until October with new episodes... so honestly, I would be in the dark if not for this forum.

AMC could go off for the entire summer and get a last-minute reprieve renewal in time for October airings of the Walking Dead... and I would be none the wiser.

Heck, when Dish first got AMC in HD... I didn't know until coming here! And I had not watched the SD channel in years prior to Walking Dead season 1.

I'm not saying the channel has no value... but it is one of those channels I only watch a specific program and don't browse it at all for other shows.


----------



## master

I think that dish and direct tv should drop AMC. AMC programming is one of the worst of all. AMC takes a movie that most other stations run in two hours and turns it into a three hour program in order to get more commercials for for the same movie. This should be against the law as I am tired of watching so many commercials. I pay to watch tv and should not have to pay to watch this many commercials. Get rid of AMC!!!!


----------



## Hunter844

master said:


> I think that dish and direct tv should drop AMC. AMC programming is one of the worst of all. AMC takes a movie that most other stations run in two hours and turns it into a three hour program in order to get more commercials for for the same movie. This should be against the law as I am tired of watching so many commercials. I pay to watch tv and should not have to pay to watch this many commercials. Get rid of AMC!!!!


Ok Charlie, we got it.


----------



## MCHuf

Stewart Vernon said:


> I really think that is the point Dish is looking to drive home. That almost nobody watches AMC... and the few who do like the handful of popular shows don't care about the channel the rest of the time.
> 
> IF AMC was a popular channel, more people would notice immediately... but since their award-winning programming isn't on until the weekend... Dish makes a big change on Monday-Wednesday and nobody notices until Sunday night when their timer (note not watching live even then) messes up.


Err, AMC is a popular channel. It is in the Top 20, around 15/16 in viewership. DVR's have spoiled most of us. I rarely watch a channel live. I think most people wouldn't miss it until a day or two after their program was suppose to be recorded. I think this argument could be used on nearly all cable channels.


> I agree its a crappy thing Dish is doing to Dish subscribers... but I kind of get the point they are trying to drive home.
> 
> I guarantee if they took ESPN, for example, or TNT or something down like this WAY more people would notice much sooner.


 Well, I only watch TNT during the NCAA Basketball tournament. So I wouldn't miss it until next March. And that channel only has a few hours per week of original programming. Move it to the 9000's and I bet many people wouldn't miss it until they had time to watch their TNT recorded program. You're right about ESPN. But very few people watch recorded sports.


inazsully said:


> Nice to know Dish considers me a nobody. It also looks like I'm not alone. And I think we all kind of get the point Dish is driving home. We just differ on what that point is.


Yes, I get the point too. If Dish is so concerned about pricing so their service is affordable to their customers, then why did they just dump a load on those same customers? This is personal between Charlie and the Dolans. Customers be damned!


----------



## bnewt

inazsully said:


> Nice to know Dish considers me a nobody. It also looks like I'm not alone. And I think we all kind of get the point Dish is driving home. We just differ on what that point is.


I also want to thank Dish for considering me a nobody...........well this nobody is quickly tiring of these games. I want what I pay for. I have been paying for AMC for 10 years & as far as I know, my monthly charge will stay the same. Instead they HDNET in the channel lineup twice or add a great channel like Viera or RFDTV or better yet, add another shopping channel.

I read on another forum, that AMC is gone as of 07/01


----------



## crabtrp

If they do drop it at the start of July then they have 2 weeks until Breaking Bad starts. 2 weeks to sign an agreement. 2 weeks to keep me.

I am sure they are not taking a lot of these threats seriously. We will see. We have seen these spats before from Dish and DTV. They all eventually got resolved.


----------



## MCHuf

crabtrp said:


> If they do drop it at the start of July then they have 2 weeks until Breaking Bad starts. 2 weeks to sign an agreement. 2 weeks to keep me.
> 
> I am sure they are not taking a lot of these threats seriously. We will see. We have seen these spats before from Dish and DTV. They all eventually got resolved.


Dish already decided to drop AMC Networks when they removed those channels from their pdf line-up cards. That was a full 7 weeks before the deadline. When Dish removed those channels from the line-up cards so quickly, it became apparant to me that they weren't negotiating in good faith. Those 2 weeks between the deadline and the start of Breaking Bad aren't going to matter unless Rainbow completely caves in (which is possible if too many advertisers get po'd).


----------



## Ira Lacher

MCHuf said:


> This is personal between Charlie and the Dolans.


I agree. I believe his ego too frequently gets in the way of regard for customers. Not the best way to run a business involving millions of customers.


----------



## damondlt

Hunter844 said:


> Ok Charlie, we got it.


:lol:

I bet quite a few of them 14 million customers have called or will be calling.:lol:

Hope Dish had a very big 14 million customer celebration, Hopefully better then the First one, 
The Next one will be 13,12,11,10 :nono:


----------



## mdavej

MCHuf said:


> Dish already decided to drop AMC Networks when they removed those channels from their pdf line-up cards. That was a full 7 weeks before the deadline. When Dish removed those channels from the line-up cards so quickly, it became apparant to me that they weren't negotiating in good faith. Those 2 weeks between the deadline and the start of Breaking Bad aren't going to matter unless Rainbow completely caves in (which is possible if too many advertisers get po'd).


Exactly. I was going to try to wait and see if there was a last minute deal. But I think the chances of that are zero. Plus I'd miss out on a cable deal that's about to expire. So I've got the cable guy coming tomorrow. I'll really miss my Hopper, but at least I keep AMC HD and gain IFC HD, Disney/ABC Fam HD and several others, and save a few hundred bucks. I hope enough of us switching sends the message that we're tired of these disputes and legal and personal spats.

Even if you couldn't care less about AMC, you have to realize that one of your favorite channels may be the next to go. I just want my provider to give me what I signed up for and keep all the drama and disputes in the board rooms where it belongs.


----------



## steveT

Stewart Vernon said:


> I am sure Dish is noting what they've done and noting how few calls they are getting.... and will be using that to counter the claims that AMC deserves more money. Dish will respond with "nobody noticed when we moved the channels around so exactly how popular are you?"


I would say the deluge of negative comments on Dish's Facebook page would indicate otherwise, with comments coming in about every 30 seconds since Sunday from angry customers, most of whom are saying that they have called Dish to threaten dropping them if they drop Dish.

I've been pretty loyal to Dish for 15+ years, my only real complaint being that my DVR's never last more than 2 years. I've followed every one of Charlie's instructions to call and write Congress in every battle he's fought, going back to the distant network signal battles. I've recommended Dish to tons of people, bringing them many new customers. But I am disgusted by Dish's actions this time around. They way they've treated their customers in this has been reprehensible.


----------



## zer0cool

Stewart Vernon said:


> Hey, I said it was a crappy move... because Dish is sticking it to their own customers...
> 
> But how many have called to complain really? Relative to the 14 million subscribers, who wants to guess even a half of a percent of Dish customers know the AMC channels moved?
> 
> I'm not saying you don't count... I just recognize my place in the fishbowl... and I know I don't count for much in the scheme of things.
> 
> To be blunt... IF I weren't a DBSTalk member, I still wouldn't know that AMC moved or was in danger of being dropped because all I watch on that channel is the Walking Dead and that won't be back until October with new episodes... so honestly, I would be in the dark if not for this forum.
> 
> AMC could go off for the entire summer and get a last-minute reprieve renewal in time for October airings of the Walking Dead... and I would be none the wiser.
> 
> Heck, when Dish first got AMC in HD... I didn't know until coming here! And I had not watched the SD channel in years prior to Walking Dead season 1.
> 
> I'm not saying the channel has no value... but it is one of those channels I only watch a specific program and don't browse it at all for other shows.


Well, that could be said for just about any channel, for me anyway.
ABC- Apartment 2, which I only took notice of thanks to PTAT (Wife watches Grey's).
CBS- Nothing.
NBC- Nothing.
TBS- Nothing.
FX- SOA, Justified, American Horror Story.(didn't we almost lose FX a few years back?).
AMC- Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Walking Dead, The Killing.
HBO- True Blood, GoT
Starz- Boss, Spartacus
Sho- Californication, Weeds, House of lies, Shameless, Episodes.
USA- White Collar, Burn Notice, Covert Affairs
Sure, the wife enjoys her HGTV, and Cooking channel, but you see the bulk of what we watch is on a channel being dropped (AMC), a channel that could be next to be dropped (FX, USA), or a channel we pay a premium for (HBO, SHO, Starz,). The disappearance of AMC is a good percentage of my "must see tv" gone.
Dish has "trained" me over the years to randomly check in with DBSTALK to see what is going on, just in case i need to start cleaning off the DVR in anticipation of a new piece of hardware, or the need to switch providers due to a catastrophic (for me, relatively speaking) programming change.


----------



## SayWhat?

steveT said:


> I would say the deluge of negative comments on Dish's *Facebook* page


I wouldn't take anything on, or about that place seriously.

I'd say Dish has a greater chance of being around in 10 years than FB.


----------



## sigma1914

SayWhat? said:


> I wouldn't take anything on, or about that place seriously.
> ...


Yeah, no one cares about social media trends.


----------



## Laxguy

master said:


> I think that dish and direct tv should drop AMC. AMC programming is one of the worst of all. AMC takes a movie that most other stations run in two hours and turns it into a three hour program in order to get more commercials for for the same movie. This should be against the law as I am tired of watching so many commercials. I pay to watch tv and should not have to pay to watch this many commercials. Get rid of AMC!!!!


First, welcome to DBSTalk! Pretty sure legislation of free market stuff like ads ain't ever going to happen, and you don't have to watch that channel, as you know.

I watch it only for original programming, right now Mad Men and The Killing. Besides, all movies I record, then FF as desired.


----------



## Paul Secic

Inkosaurus said:


> Not sure how long you have been working for E* but as a former employee and one whos been around for the big drops (FX and what not anyone?) I can promise you its going to get worse.
> 
> Have fun with the mandatory 6th day shifts and extended shifts/Mandatory 1 hour ET tacked onto every shift :lol:


I thought you were a former employee of Dish.


----------



## Laxguy

mdavej said:


> Even if you couldn't care less about AMC, you have to realize that one of your favorite channels may be the next to go. I just want my provider to give me what I signed up for and keep all the drama and disputes in the board rooms where it belongs.


Well, we'd all like that, but unless the sat. co's just rollover and pay what is demanded, it ain't going to happen. I know you understand the consequence of paying ever high costs to content providers; perhaps a few don't.


----------



## SayWhat?

mdavej said:


> I just want my provider to give me what I signed up for and keep all the drama and disputes in the board rooms where it belongs.


I want SiFFy to go back to being SciFi and stop running wrestling, HLN to go back to news instead of gossip and so on.


----------



## Paul Secic

satcrazy said:


> Something to be said for this.
> 
> for me, I can only think of one series I follow on a local [ cbs] that is once a week, period. I look to the above stations and some others, for something other than being a continuous amateur hour. [The locals don't have to worry about me skipping commercials] I have yet to view more than 5 minutes of any of these boring reality type programs.


I'm like you I don't watch network programs. It's just junk to me.


----------



## MCHuf

Maybe it's me, but when I looked for AMC's schedule for tonight it is nowhere to be found from Dish. I looked at the live schedules on both Dish Online and at dish.com. IFC and WE are missing also.


----------



## Paul Secic

SayWhat? said:


> I want SiFFy to go back to being SciFi and stop running wrestling, HLN to go back to news instead of gossip and so on.


Me too!


----------



## steveT

For those who don't think this AMC issue isn't a big deal for Dish internally, I have to disagree. It's been a PR disaster for them, and I bet there are major recriminations going on inside the company. It all stemmed from the unannounced channel move in the middle of Sunday night programming. A google news search turns up well over 50 articles in the last few days, in major news publications around the country, all with titles like "Dish kicks AMC to Siberia". Dish has come across almost universally negative in the coverage, and AMC has come across smelling like a rose. It's the kind of situation that PR departments work their whole careers to avoid.

They were a month away from dropping the channel, and usually these disputes don't hit the major media outlets until the final few days. Instead, Dish now has huge visibility a month in advance, which I'm sure has alerted many more advertisers long before they normally would've noticed, again threatening Dish's bargaining position.

And probably worst of all, all the coverage has highlighted the judge's ruling in the Voom case that Dish intentionally destroyed data relevant to the suit, which is just a major slam on Dish. That's an issue that probably never would've made the mainstream press, only known to those who follow the industry closely, and now it's given Dish a huge black eye in public.

All of this just because someone internally made a petty, last-minute decision to yank the channel right in the middle of "The Killing", because they got PO'd by AMC's warning ad to Dish customers. It strikes me as the kind of decision that was made so last-minute, that I bet no one internally even contacted the PR and Communications folks on a Sunday night. I'd also bet those PR/Comm folks were totally pissed when they came to work Monday morning, being handed a steaming load to deal with in damage control mode.

I would bet Dish is getting more calls internally about this than any other threatened channel droppage they've ever had, and I'm guessing there are huge political battles and finger-pointing going on internally at the company right now. I've been on the business side in the high-tech sector for 25+ years, and I can tell you this is how it plays out.


----------



## DoyleS

I have to say that as a spectator to this battle, it is becoming quite interesting to watch. Lots of gasoline being tossed on the fire. Great Media exposure. This is Reality TV at its best! LOL!!


----------



## jdskycaster

^And as everything else goes be it in the tech world or the business side of tech the black eye will heal and this will all be a distant memory. What will really sting is the millions of dollars in revenue that evaporate from dolan's balance sheets beginning July 1st.


----------



## SayWhat?

steveT said:


> It's been a PR disaster for them, and I bet there are major recriminations going on inside the company.
> 
> I would bet Dish is getting more calls internally about this than any other threatened channel droppage they've ever had, and I'm guessing there are huge political battles and finger-pointing going on internally at the company right now.


Your source?


----------



## Laxguy

steveT said:


> They were a month away from dropping the channel, and usually these disputes don't hit the major media outlets until the final few days. Instead, Dish now has huge visibility a month in advance, which I'm sure has alerted many more advertisers long before they normally would've noticed, again threatening Dish's bargaining position.


Would not the loss of advertisers hit AMC much more frontally than Dish? I sure see it that way, but if wrong, please elaborate.


----------



## DoyleS

From http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/i bet/i'll bet/you can bet

You use the term, "I bet" or "I'll bet" in reply to a statement to show that you agree with it or that you expected it to be true, usually when you are annoyed or amused by it.

I think in this case, some of us are clearly amused by this.


----------



## Laxguy

DoyleS said:


> You use the term, "I bet" or "I'll bet" in reply to a statement to show that you agree with it or that you expected it to be true, usually when you are annoyed or amused by it.
> 
> I think in this case, some of us are clearly amused by this.


You=Steve? I presume so, but it's a good practice to quote just enough of a distant post to be sure and save others from having to go search.

"I bet" has so many interpretations that I bet we can't always divine what it means, except in context, and then not always.

I bet the Dodgers will lose the next game. Neither annoying or amusing, just a guess. Unless they're playing the Giants, then it's a hope and a guess.


----------



## steveT

Laxguy said:


> Would not the loss of advertisers hit AMC much more frontally than Dish? I sure see it that way, but if wrong, please elaborate.


True, but in the end it's going to hurt both companies. AMC will lose advertising dollars for their lower-rated programming without having Dish onboard, but I seriously doubt they'll lose a dime on the higher-rated ones. You have to realize what a huge success "The Walking Dead" is for the 'cable' networks. If I recall correctly, that show is getting something like twice the ratings of the previous highest-rated scripted drama on a non-network channel. Advertisers know the Dish viewers amongst those 7.5M people aren't going to just give up their show because Dish drops it.

Doesn't dish have something like 15% market share in the US? If true, then that's over a million dish viewers. Let's just say even half of them decide they want to still keep watching the show without the hassle of downloads or waiting to buy DVDs. That's a half million customers bailing from Dish. Let's say I'm off on that number by a factor of 10, and only 50K customers leave. Assuming an average monthly fee of $60, that's $36M/year in lost revenue for Dish. That's not chump change.

And at this point, if anything, AMC is getting even more free promotion about their high profile scripted dramas over this dispute, so I'm guessing they're not in too bad of a shape with the advertisers for those 5 or 6 top shows.


----------



## jdskycaster

Impossible to tell how many people will go through the hassle and expense of switching to another provider but it is easy math to determine how much revenue AMC loses when Dish stops writing checks. The advertising revenue losses for AMC are also nearly impossible to guesstimate but the fact is they will not go up on this news.

Subs come and go for many reasons every day. It would be simple minded to think Dish has not done their own math on the business side of this equation.


----------



## MCHuf

jdskycaster said:


> Subs come and go for many reasons every day. It would be simple minded to think Dish has not done their own math on the business side of this equation.


I agree that Dish has probably done it's homework. But seeing as how they moved the AMC channels to the 9xxx area in the manner they did, I wonder how rational they are in dealing with AMC?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

MCHuf said:


> Err, AMC is a popular channel. It is in the Top 20, around 15/16 in viewership.


Popularity is relative. Someone would be in the top 20 even if the numbers across the board were horrible! So... that statement alone means nothing.

I've done the math. Even at their highest ratings, less than 10% of the people who pay to have AMC as a channel watched their highest rated program ever. The ratings drop sharply when not on that night... so virtually all of the AMC customers could bail and Dish wouldn't notice but a blip in their subscribers.



steveT said:


> I would say the deluge of negative comments on Dish's Facebook page would indicate otherwise, with comments coming in about every 30 seconds since Sunday from angry customers, most of whom are saying that they have called Dish to threaten dropping them if they drop Dish.


Even on a forum like this... we have some 50,000+ members (I haven't checked in a while) and look how few are actually posting here.

Dish has 14 million customers... for those of you watching Facebook, how many of those 14 million customers have posted about AMC? Even if there are a lot of Facebook posts, how many are from unique Dish customers? Heck, I'm willing to bet some of the negative comments are pot-stirrers who aren't even Dish subscribers.



SayWhat? said:


> I wouldn't take anything on, or about that place seriously.
> 
> I'd say Dish has a greater chance of being around in 10 years than FB.


Off-topic for this thread, but I have to say I agree with you there. Facebook has more serious problems looming than Dish does.



MCHuf said:


> I agree that Dish has probably done it's homework. But seeing as how they moved the AMC channels to the 9xxx area in the manner they did, I wonder how rational they are in dealing with AMC?


As I've said... I get the message Dish is hoping to send to AMC, but they are sending it at the expense of Dish customers. While I think the number of complaints will be low relative to the 14 million Dish subscribers... those customers who do complain are just as valid as anyone else, and Dish is throwing those customers under the bus too.


----------



## SayWhat?

Anybody feel we're going around in circles?

Dish bad. AMC Good.

AMC bad. Dish Good.

Dish bad. AMC Good.

AMC bad. Dish Good.


Repeat as needed.


----------



## steveT

jdskycaster said:


> It would be simple minded to think Dish has not done their own math on the business side of this equation.


You'd think so, wouldn't you? But the reality is that many, many business decisions are not made based on the math, and are instead made based on emotions and egos of the people in power (people are people, after all...) I've seen it a million times. Maybe I just worked for dysfunctional companies, but people at the top will easily reject the fact-based, mathematical argument if their gut wants them to go a different way. I've seen entire businesses started up or ejected, despite the math being against them. And in this case, this dispute has all the markings of a battle of egos between the two Charlies involved.

(As a side note, if JP Morgan Chase had followed the math, they probably wouldn't have accidentally lost $3B this quarter. Whoops...)


----------



## inazsully

OhOh Stewart. You used the word Bet.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

steveT said:


> You'd think so, wouldn't you? But the reality is that many, many business decisions are not made based on the math, and are instead made based on emotions and egos of the people in power (people are people, after all...) I've seen it a million times.


The thing is... people who are complaining about the possible loss of AMC are arguing from an emotional perspective too!

Most customers argue "I want channel X" or "I better not lose channel Y"... some customers even say "I would pay anything, money is no object, to get channel Z"... and yet, if their bill goes up $5 after getting channel Z, you can bet those same customers will react emotionally again with "why did my bill go up?"

So... yeah, companies react to negotiations emotionally sometimes rather than rationally... but they are dealing with their own customers whom they know will react more emotionally than rationally... so it kind of makes sense for a business to be emotional in these cases.


----------



## phrelin

From Entertainment Weekly's Inside TV:


> AMC has enlisted Don Draper in its carriage battle against Dish TV. The network will run this full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal tomorrow (below), smacking the satellite service for its threat to remove AMC from its channel lineup.
> 
> Dish and AMC Networks (which includes AMC, WE, IFC and Sundance) are in a nasty fight over a distribution contract that expires at the end of June. Dish recently moved the company's channel locations into the Siberian nether regions of its listings. It seems pretty unlikely Sunday's Mad Men finale will be impacted by the standoff, but the Breaking Bad fifth season premiere that's set for July 15 is fair game. Don't get too worried, though - these types of public distribution clashes tend to result in last-minute resolutions. Here's the ad:


Thing is, I think this will not "result in last-minute resolution."


----------



## puckwithahalo

Inkosaurus said:


> Not sure how long you have been working for E* but as a former employee and one whos been around for the big drops (FX and what not anyone?) I can promise you its going to get worse.
> 
> Have fun with the mandatory 6th day shifts and extended shifts/Mandatory 1 hour ET tacked onto every shift :lol:


I've been here for 7 years, I know how it goes. I was just noting that on day 1 of the move of the channels, I had one call, and I haven't actually had another since then.



steveT said:


> Really. So please tell us how many calls Dish took overall yesterday about the AMC issue.


I don't have access to that information. I can only tell you what I've experienced.


----------



## phrelin

It is unfortunate that the two Charlie's are having this dispute.

I'm pretty sure that AMC took out that ad in the _Wall Street Journal_ because a correlation between the paper's readership and "Mad Men" viewers. And that's the problem. My guess is that Dish's Heartland package sells surprisingly well.

AMC should be beating Dish up with the fact that last July its shows got 29 Emmy nominations, the most for any basic cable network for the fourth year in a row.

Regarding viewers, of 168 hours in an _*average*_ week, AMC is not going to attract many folks for over 3 hours. USA gets lots of folks watching "NCIS" reruns for hours on end, along with their top-rated non-award-winning programming.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

That "keepamc" Web site is interesting.

On their own Web site, they mention Dish is dropping four channels... and yet they (AMC) can only come up with 6 programs to put graphics up and list as programs you would miss.

When you (AMC) can only find 6 programs on your 4 channels worth mentioning... doesn't that say something?

Meanwhile, they have a statement that I can't believe is true:

"*In fact, AMC's "The Walking Dead" is the number one scripted drama with DISH subscribers.*"

I don't see how that is possible. Just off the top of my head I know a show like NCIS gets far more viewers every week... and I daresay NCIS is a scripted drama!

AMC is smoking something if they think that is a valid statement... and mind you, I like the Walking Dead.

Even better... if you keep following the links, there is a link to their "Terms and conditions" page. I'm bored so I took a spin, and imagine my surprise to see this little nugget buried in there:

"*We do not represent or endorse the accuracy, reliability, appropriateness or truthfulness of any advice, opinion, statement or other information or images displayed or distributed through our website or site services.*"

So... for those who think of Dish as the evil empire vs the nice AMC... Consider that by their own Web site policy, they don't stand behind anything they say on their own Web site! So... they have a Web site claiming Dish is playing dirty pool and lying to its customers, whilst simultaneously disavowing themselves of the "reliability" and "truthfulness" of any of the content of that statement. Awesome!


----------



## retiredTech

I do watch AMC, but I don't think any channel deserves a "huge" price increase.

However, I also think HDNET is a poor substitute for AMC.
I see nothing on HDNET that is similar to AMC. No programs that interest me.

TCM or FOXmovies would be a far better replacement.


----------



## inkahauts

"SayWhat?" said:


> Yeah, yeah, yeah, Dish sucks and Direct rules, yadda, yadda, yadda, we gotch'a


My only point is they could do it if they wanted. I am not saying dish sucks. They just don't offer me the solutions I like. I have no problem with them dumping channels, and I think DIRECTV may have to start doing that here and there as well to get channels to start reigning in their asking prices.


----------



## inkahauts

I for one think amc is more evil in this mess, and I would not be surprised if they don't make some big changes if not only dish drops them, but say Comcast the next time their deal with them is up. I think DIRECTV just re uped last year, so it will be a while before they have a chance to drop them.


----------



## phrelin

Popularity and the ratings game are a poor way for a provider to pick channels to carry. Here's two lists of basic cable channels, one is the ratings average top 30 prime time and one is the ratings average top 30 for the whole programming day, Sun - Sat, for one week in March.








One obvious thing is that if you chose to offer only channels in the Top 30 Prime Time List you would not carry the most popular basic cable channel - Nickelodeon. In fact, if you look at the asterisked channels on each list which are those not on the other list, you would be much better off to use the whole day list. But...

What if you could only offer 20 channels? If you go by either ratings list you lose Comedy Central, Bravo, MTV, Hallmark, TVLand, BET.... Drop those channels and you will lose significant blocks of customers.

But ratings do count.

If this dispute were about viewer interest versus price, both sides would work towards a solution because its Dish and AMC. Except it isn't.

AMC is the only one of the Rainbow Media channels on either list, and it's on both. If Dish said ok to AMC at 50¢ but we're not going to carry IFC, WE tv, and Sundance Channel would Rainbow Media's Charles Dolan say yes? The level of loss of support for the other three would likely kill them. But it would be a reasonable offer by Dish IMHO based on ratings.

When one says "it's complicated", that's because it is.


----------



## inkahauts

"phrelin" said:


> Popularity and the ratings game are a poor way for a provider to pick channels to carry. Here's two lists of basic cable channels, one is the ratings average top 30 prime time and one is the ratings average top 30 for the whole programming day, Sun - Sat, for one week in March.
> 
> One obvious thing is that if you chose to offer only channels in the Top 30 Prime Time List you would not carry the most popular basic cable channel - Nickelodeon. In fact, if you look at the asterisked channels on each list which are those not on the other list, you would be much better off to use the whole day list. But...
> 
> What if you could only offer 20 channels? If you go by either ratings list you lose Comedy Central, Bravo, MTV, Hallmark, TVLand, BET.... Drop those channels and you will lose significant blocks of customers.
> 
> But ratings do count.
> 
> If this dispute were about viewer interest versus price, both sides would work towards a solution because its Dish and AMC. Except it isn't.
> 
> AMC is the only one of the Rainbow Media channels on either list, and it's on both. If Dish said ok to AMC at 50¢ but we're not going to carry IFC, WE tv, and Sundance Channel would Rainbow Media's Charles Dolan say yes? The level of loss of support for the other three would likely kill them. But it would be a reasonable offer by Dish IMHO based on ratings.
> 
> When one says "it's complicated", that's because it is.


Very true. Unfortunately, I think what a lot of companies are doing now is trying to add more channels to their nest,and the spread their series out over many channels to try and get more money overall and then they like to only offer the channels in a package deal, rather than say you can pick up amc for this price, we for this price, etc.

Rainbow and others are trying to say, all channels at this price, and if dish says we only want amc at price x, rainbow will probably say no, we will only negotiate for all of them as a package, figuring they will get more money that way. Heck, same thing happen between DIRECTV and FOX last year. Part of their issue was that FOX wanted locals included in the deal, and DIRECTV wasn't going to overpay in their opinion for all the channels in one package.

I wouldn't be surprised if that is the same as this situation. The sad part is rainbow probably can't afford any of them with out all of them being picked up, because they spend a lot on so few shows for all those channels. Others I think probably do a better job of having every channel support itself which gives them a little more leverage on to package channels and actually get providers to agree to that.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

phrelin said:


> AMC is the only one of the Rainbow Media channels on either list, and it's on both. If Dish said ok to AMC at 50¢ but we're not going to carry IFC, WE tv, and Sundance Channel would Rainbow Media's Charles Dolan say yes? The level of loss of support for the other three would likely kill them. But it would be a reasonable offer by Dish IMHO based on ratings.
> 
> When one says "it's complicated", that's because it is.


This just became the most interesting thread in the world...

Phrelin and I don't always agree... but when we do... we agree about this! 

And coincidentally... your suggestion of a way out of this scenario (Dish offering to keep the most popular channel and drop the others) is EXACTLY what happened in the Voom situation... Rainbow had a suite of 15 channels, Dish found that only 5 of them had high interest... so Dish offered to keep those 5 and let the others go... but Rainbow said "all or none"... and Dish said "ok, then... none"... and then the lawsuit.

So... here we are again... an AMC suite of channels where one of them is way more popular than the other 3... Dish might be willing to pay more for AMC if they could drop the other 3... but I suspect you are absolutely correct and AMC would not put that on the table... just like last time.


----------



## oldengineer

I haven't seen this mentioned much but I already get the channels that E* is substituting for the AMC channels as part of my AEP/BBMP package.


----------



## dmspen

Pretty soon DISH will drop ANY channel that has a price increase and we'll be left with no channels at all. OK, a bit of hyperbole...

So what do I do now?
D* or UVerse or Comcast?


----------



## jdskycaster

Needed to speak with Dish customer service this morning about an unrelated issue but asked the csr if they were getting a lot of calls about AMC and the response was a resounding "yes."

I can live without it but agree that a resolution of some sort would save quite a few headaches for many viewers even though that is a minority group.

FYI the csr was great and took care of my unrelated issue to my complete satisfaction. I continue to be a satisfied customer AMC or not and if I decide a have to watch their shows will wait to view them via my netflix account or my amazon account or my itunes account or ......


----------



## bnewt

retiredTech said:


> I do watch AMC, but I don't think any channel deserves a "huge" price increase.
> 
> However, I also think HDNET is a poor substitute for AMC.
> I see nothing on HDNET that is similar to AMC. No programs that interest me.
> 
> TCM or FOXmovies would be a far better replacement.


I agree about HDNET. I already receive TCM & FOXmovies. FOXMovies is not a fair subsitute either, it isn't HD.


----------



## Mojo Jojo

"bnewt" said:


> I agree about HDNET. I already receive TCM & FOXmovies. FOXMovies is not a fair subsitute either, it isn't HD.


HDNet is in AT120 which means that AT200 customers already get this channel (unless they are SD only subs). Style is also an AT200 channel. Why not provide the HD feed of Style when adding the HD feed of HDNet later? We TV is an AT200 channel. The high-quality replacements make me furious as they are a slap in the face especially to AT 200 (Dish's most popular package according to them) subs.

Welcome Pack subs and Dish Latino Plus subs would be the ones to really benefit from these replacements. Dish Latino Dos subs would get Style SD as a new channel. Again, SD only subs that had AMC at 130 would gain HDNet SD (soon to be AXS which Dish planned to carry in SD and HD anyway).


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> This just became the most interesting thread in the world...
> 
> Phrelin and I don't always agree... but when we do... we agree about this!
> 
> And coincidentally... your suggestion of a way out of this scenario (Dish offering to keep the most popular channel and drop the others) is EXACTLY what happened in the Voom situation... Rainbow had a suite of 15 channels, Dish found that only 5 of them had high interest... so Dish offered to keep those 5 and let the others go... but Rainbow said "all or none"... and Dish said "ok, then... none"... and then the lawsuit.
> 
> So... here we are again... an AMC suite of channels where one of them is way more popular than the other 3... Dish might be willing to pay more for AMC if they could drop the other 3... but I suspect you are absolutely correct and AMC would not put that on the table... just like last time.


I don't know whether you will agree with this, but I started a thread HBO - Still the trailblazer in the 21st Century because I believe that the economic model they are developing offers a meaningful alternative for the 21st Century to get us out of these disputes where the burden is carried by the middleman - cable and satellite TV providers.


----------



## gor88

Given how content providers seem to ask for increases above the rate of inflation and to carry low rating channels in order to carry the higher rated ones, I think Dish, DirecTV, Uverse, Verizon FIOS, Comcrap, Time Warner, et. al. will have to start playing hardball and just simply say we're not going to carry your channels anymore if you can't keep the renewal terms reasonable.

We're seeing that more recently with AT&T Uverse refusing to bring back Hallmark and HMC after two years of being absent and from DirecTV in dropping G4.

I believe we're going to see more of this "hardball" among cable, satellite and phone companies, especially against some of the smaller content provider groups like crown media and the group controlling AMC.

Even with the big content providers, if enough of the cable/satellite/phone providers decide not to renew the agreements for one of them, it could cause that provider significant economic heartburn...


----------



## lparsons21

Since I was considering switching in August to Dish so I can save a few bucks and get BBCA in HD, this thread has been one I've been watching closely.

I was certain that I would be making the change, but now with the AMC issue, the choice is stay with D* and have AMC, but have BBCA in SD. Or change to Dish and get BBCA in HD but lose AMC altogether. Not the choice I was hoping for.


----------



## Jon J

lparsons21 said:


> Since I was considering switching in August to Dish so I can save a few bucks and get BBCA in HD, this thread has been one I've been watching closely.
> 
> I was certain that I would be making the change, but now with the AMC issue, the choice is stay with D* and have AMC, but have BBCA in SD. Or change to Dish and get BBCA in HD but lose AMC altogether. Not the choice I was hoping for.


I'm in exactly the same situation. Knowing your current thought process would be very helpful.


----------



## Laxguy

The top shows on AMC you can get in HD via other means; not sure about BBC stuff, or how immediately you wish to view programming from either source, but that could help decide, no?


----------



## mike1977

Laxguy said:


> The top shows on AMC you can get in HD via other means; not sure about BBC stuff, or how immediately you wish to view programming from either source, but that could help decide, no?


True...and Directv is one of those other means. 

*gets up to push the reset button on the VIP 612 because it froze...again.*


----------



## tampa8

phrelin said:


> AMC is the only one of the Rainbow Media channels on either list, and it's on both. If Dish said ok to AMC at 50¢ but we're not going to carry IFC, WE tv, and Sundance Channel would Rainbow Media's Charles Dolan say yes? The level of loss of support for the other three would likely kill them. But it would be a reasonable offer by Dish IMHO based on ratings.
> 
> When one says "it's complicated", that's because it is.


That scenario is very likely exactly what happened. Dish offered to pay more for AMC, in exchange not carry the channels no one watches or reduce those costs. It's one of the very reasons Dish does not carry MSG, (Fuse - ironically formally a Rainbow channel!)and as mentioned Voom.


----------



## lparsons21

Jon J said:


> I'm in exactly the same situation. Knowing your current thought process would be very helpful.


Here's kind of the way I'm looking at it. First the math for the 2 services with only the sub level I would use, no premiums as they come and go.

Current (well, in August when rebates expire) = DirecTV
Choice Xtra Classic = $69
3 HRs Lease = $12
DVR+MRV = $11

Total = $92

Switch to Dish:
T200 = $60
Hopper + Joey = $7
DVR+MRV = $11

Total = $78, but after $25/month rebates = $53

Apparent savings of $39/month, but there would be a $240 ETF to cancel, which would bring it down to an actual $228 savings total.

Assuming E* drops AMC, there are 5 shows I would want @$35/series = $175

That would make the net savings only $53 total in my case, until I add back in a series purchase of Doctor Who, the only show I actually care enough about to buy, figure that would be $35, making the net savings $88 or $7.33/month.

Hmmm... That most likely will mean that if E* drops AMC, I'll not switch. If there were no ETF in there, or in the very unlikely event that E* would pay the ETF, I probably would.

Figures for buying the series are from iTunes, might be somewhere else for slightly less. I don't think the 5 series from AMC can be rented, I think they have to be bought.


----------



## Arya Stark

I don't know how many people like me there are (hopefully a lot), but I'm in the group that is out of my contract with Direct and waiting to see what happens with Dish/AMC. If they bring back AMC, I'm switching to Dish immediately because I want to get a Hopper. If they don't, I'm sticking with DirecTV.


----------



## puckwithahalo

lparsons21 said:


> Switch to Dish:
> T200 = $60
> Hopper + Joey = $7
> DVR+MRV = $11


DVR+MRV = $10 not $11 with E*. Not that that makes a huge difference.


----------



## Laxguy

Arya Stark said:


> I don't know how many people like me there are (hopefully a lot), but I'm in the group that is out of my contract with Direct and waiting to see what happens with Dish/AMC. If they bring back AMC, I'm switching to Dish immediately because I want to get a Hopper. If they don't, I'm sticking with DirecTV.


What draws you to the Hopper?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

phrelin said:


> I don't know whether you will agree with this, but I started a thread HBO - Still the trailblazer in the 21st Century because I believe that the economic model they are developing offers a meaningful alternative for the 21st Century to get us out of these disputes where the burden is carried by the middleman - cable and satellite TV providers.


I didn't post in it, but I saw that thread. I agree with your assessment of the situation. I would only add, related to this discussion... HBO is a far better deal now than it originally was, so they are going in the right direction whereas many other channels are going opposite.

How so?

HBO was originally 1 channel, for a while 2 if you counted east + west coast feeds. I'm pretty sure I remember when it was $10 for just that single channel. That was a hard pill to swallow BUT they were also the only game in town for a while in terms of what they showed... so they could command that premium for movie lovers.

As time went by, and they had to compete with other networks both movie and TV program... HBO began creating original content AND adding channels to their suite. So... the HBO that now costs $16 with Dish includes 9 channels and most of them are in HD as well.

So... today's HBO has far more content, original and otherwise, and costs far less per channel than it originally did (i.e. the price over time has come down per-channel).

So, I could argue that IF companies like AMC that have a suite of channels and want Dish, DirecTV, etc. to take "all or none" were to go a la carte like HBO with their suite... then they could name their price and see what the market would bear.

Unfortunately, as we all know, companies like AMC know they wouldn't get as much money a la carte OR they would already be asking for that.. instead they want to be in the lowest tier where customers always subscribe so they can get a few pennies from everyone instead of trying for dollars from targeted users.

I did the math before... based on their highest rated program, to figure out how much those viewers would have had to pay per month IF AMC was a la carte and wanted the same money they get today. That's the game. AMC wants to brag about their viewership and yet simultaneously knows they are better off with 25 cents for every Dish subscriber in a tier than asking $1 or more from their "loyal" viewers.

It is a conscious choice... and while HBO puts the money and the quality in to pull it off and be able to attract customers to the price they demand... many other suites simply know they cannot pull this off.

And that's where we are... AMC complains that Dish doesn't want them, but Dish likely offers them these different alternatives (a la carte, suite a la carte, or higher money for 1 channel but drop lower-rated ones) and AMC wants its cake and to eat it too.


----------



## damondlt

lparsons21 said:


> Here's kind of the way I'm looking at it. First the math for the 2 services with only the sub level I would use, no premiums as they come and go.
> 
> Current (well, in August when rebates expire) = DirecTV
> Choice Xtra Classic = $69
> 3 HRs Lease = $12
> DVR+MRV = $11
> 
> Total = $92
> 
> Switch to Dish:
> T200 = $60
> Hopper + Joey = $7
> DVR+MRV = $11
> 
> Total = $78, but after $25/month rebates = $53
> 
> Apparent savings of $39/month, but there would be a $240 ETF to cancel, which would bring it down to an actual $228 savings total.
> 
> .


 1 Hopper vs 3 HD DVRs is a big equipment step down!
Sure it cost less, but it functions less too.

I'd rather Whole home DVR with 3 HD DVRs on it , Then a 1 hopper system.


----------



## mike1977

One good thing about independent machines, one breaks down, you have backups.


----------



## StringFellow

"damondlt" said:


> 1 Hopper vs 3 HD DVRs is a big equipment step down!
> Sure it cost less, but it functions less too.
> 
> I'd rather Whole home DVR with 3 HD DVRs on it , Then a 1 hopper system.


I guess you have never seen or experienced a Hopper setup. Far superior to the Directv whole home DVR. I have used both and the Hopper is by far the superior setup. Off topic for this thread though.


----------



## domingos35

StringFellow said:


> I guess you have never seen or experienced a Hopper setup. Far superior to the Directv whole home DVR. I have used both and the Hopper is by far the superior setup. Off topic for this thread though.


i agree


----------



## domingos35

lparsons21 said:


> Here's kind of the way I'm looking at it. First the math for the 2 services with only the sub level I would use, no premiums as they come and go.
> 
> Current (well, in August when rebates expire) = DirecTV
> Choice Xtra Classic = $69
> 3 HRs Lease = $12
> DVR+MRV = $11
> 
> Total = $92
> 
> Switch to Dish:
> T200 = $60
> Hopper + Joey = $7
> DVR+MRV = $11
> 
> Total = $78, but after $25/month rebates = $53
> 
> Apparent savings of $39/month, but there would be a $240 ETF to cancel, which would bring it down to an actual $228 savings total.
> 
> Assuming E* drops AMC, there are 5 shows I would want @$35/series = $175
> 
> That would make the net savings only $53 total in my case, until I add back in a series purchase of Doctor Who, the only show I actually care enough about to buy, figure that would be $35, making the net savings $88 or $7.33/month.
> 
> Hmmm... That most likely will mean that if E* drops AMC, I'll not switch. If there were no ETF in there, or in the very unlikely event that E* would pay the ETF, I probably would.
> 
> Figures for buying the series are from iTunes, might be somewhere else for slightly less. I don't think the 5 series from AMC can be rented, I think they have to be bought.


u know u want dish and dish wants you.perfect marriage :cuttle:
so stop giving excuses ,ask directv for a divorce:lol: and move out to dish


----------



## coldsteel

Domingo, no offense, but let's not be so fanboi-ish...


----------



## James Long

A reminder to everyone ...

This is a discussion about DISH and AMC. If DirecTV has problems with AMC or another provider there is an entire forum where that can be discussed. So let us get away from the DISH vs DirecTV discussion.


----------



## domingos35

coldsteel said:


> Domingo, no offense, but let's not be so fanboi-ish...


:nono:


----------



## fudpucker

I would guess that the biggest hit to Dish on this might be from the nice PR DirectTV will be able to get.

I would be preparing ads right now, along the lines of "Want to watch Mad Men? Not if you have Dish. Want to watch the top show on Cable, Breaking Bad? Sorry, not on Dish. Excited about new shows like Hell on Wheels? Whoops - not on Dish. If you want to watch these Emmy winning shows, the only Satellite provider to see them is DirectTV."

Those are the kind of ads that sway people. I just had a chat with some people at work that are thinking about switching from cable to sat. They are really worried about making the right choice and give me all kinds of "But does Dish carry as many channels as DirecTV? As many HD?" etc.

This kind of ad would sway them, even if they don't watch Mad Men. "What? Dish doesn't carry those shows? I read about them all the time in TV Guide and see them on Entertainment Tonight, and John Hamm was just on so and so show! Wow I guess I'd better go with DirectTV!"

I'd love to be a PR guy for DirecTV right now.


----------



## lparsons21

damondlt said:


> 1 Hopper vs 3 HD DVRs is a big equipment step down!
> Sure it cost less, but it functions less too.
> 
> I'd rather Whole home DVR with 3 HD DVRs on it , Then a 1 hopper system.


Because of my households viewing/recording patterns, it isn't a step down in the functionality i need.


----------



## damondlt

lparsons21 said:


> Because of my households viewing/recording patterns, it isn't a step down in the functionality i need.


 That may be True, But it is still less equipment and function.

So of course your price would be less is all I'm saying.


----------



## damondlt

StringFellow said:


> I guess you have never seen or experienced a Hopper setup. Far superior to the Directv whole home DVR. I have used both and the Hopper is by far the superior setup. Off topic for this thread though.


 Let me rephase that and put it in Dish terms

I would Rather have 3 VIP 610s, then drop it for 1 hopper and 2 joeys.
Atleast then all 3 rooms can watch and record live tv at the same time any time!
My point is your stepping down in function, I wasn't compairing Dish to Directv except on price.


----------



## Laxguy

domingos35 said:


> :nono:


Or, if you have to troll, or respond thereto, please use English!


----------



## Laxguy

fudpucker said:


> I would guess that the biggest hit to Dish on this might be from the nice PR DirectTV will be able to get.
> 
> I would be preparing ads right now, along the lines of "Want to watch Mad Men? Not if you have Dish. Want to watch the top show on Cable, Breaking Bad? Sorry, not on Dish. Excited about new shows like Hell on Wheels? Whoops - not on Dish. If you want to watch these Emmy winning shows, the only Satellite provider to see them is DirectTV."
> 
> I'd love to be a PR guy for DirecTV right now.


I hope DIRECTV® shows restraint in this. The shoe will soon enough be on the other foot, and sat services should be railing against cable, not each other.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> I would be preparing ads right now, along the lines of "Want to watch Mad Men? Not if you have Dish. Want to watch the top show on Cable, Breaking Bad? Sorry, not on Dish. Excited about new shows like Hell on Wheels? Whoops - not on Dish. If you want to watch these Emmy winning shows, the only Satellite provider to see them is DirectTV."
> 
> Those are the kind of ads that sway people. I just had a chat with some people at work that are thinking about switching from cable to sat. They are really worried about making the right choice and give me all kinds of "But does Dish carry as many channels as DirecTV? As many HD?" etc.
> 
> This kind of ad would sway them, even if they don't watch Mad Men. "What? Dish doesn't carry those shows? I read about them all the time in TV Guide and see them on Entertainment Tonight, and John Hamm was just on so and so show! Wow I guess I'd better go with DirectTV!"
> 
> I'd love to be a PR guy for DirecTV right now.


And yet we have a whole other thread devoted to how nobody watches commercials anymore... so I wonder, just who would be seeing those DirecTV commercials that advertise IF no one watches commercials?

It's a catch-22 of a sort...


----------



## Darcaine

Laxguy said:


> I hope DIRECTV® shows restraint in this. The shoe will soon enough be on the other foot, and sat services should be railing against cable, not each other.


Just saw a commercial a few minutes ago by D* claiming AMC as one of the channels "gone" from Dish.

So it's already started.

But it's competition, they aren't in business together. To them Dish is as big a threat as cable, bigger in some markets.


----------



## Laxguy

Darcaine said:


> Just saw a commercial a few minutes ago by D* claiming AMC as one of the channels "gone" from Dish.
> 
> So it's already started.
> 
> But it's competition, they aren't in business together. To them Dish is as big a threat as cable, bigger in some markets.


Yes, I saw that, too, but it's not really pushing it in the face....and hope it stays that way.

Dish isn't a threat, cable isn't a threat, but I'd rather see them go after cable than other sat. service.


----------



## oldengineer

When I was with D* last year the last channel they updated to HD was AMC. There were probably more votes for TCM or BBCA but they picked AMC. Is it possible that they did this in anticipation of the current situation? I'd like to expand on this but first I've got to find my tinfoil hat.


----------



## SayWhat?

Is DBSTalk cranking up the popcorn machine early to have enough on hand for the end of June?


----------



## patmurphey

damondlt said:


> Let me rephase that and put it in Dish terms
> 
> I would Rather have 3 VIP 610s, then drop it for 1 hopper and 2 joeys.
> Atleast then all 3 rooms can watch and record live tv at the same time any time!
> My point is your stepping down in function, I wasn't compairing Dish to Directv except on price.


You are still off topic, but I can't let it stand how ridiculous it is to make that comparison to a one Hopper system. Hoppers have the same fees as Joeys.


----------



## akw4572

Laxguy said:


> What draws you to the Hopper?


I'm in the exact same boat as him, and the lag on my current DVR's and the whole home set up attracts me. I'm waiting on the AMC dispute to see how it goes as well.


----------



## damondlt

patmurphey said:


> You are still off topic, but I can't let it stand how ridiculous it is to make that comparison to a one Hopper system. Hoppers have the same fees as Joeys.


 I didn't make the comparison, someone else did. Why do you think I was ripping it apart.
Maybe you should read then entire thread. Then you would at lease know what was going on. Thanks!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_This is not a Hopper/Joey thread nor is it a Dish vs DirecTV thread. Please stay on topic with Dish vs AMC. Thanks!_


----------



## shadough

WeTV keeps announcing that WeTV will soon be off Dish network. Has anyone heard about this and/or knows the date of this cut off??


----------



## damondlt

June 30th


----------



## phrelin

Scroll down to the "Dish to drop AMC" thread. Along with IFC and The Sundance Channel, they are owned by Rainbow Media.


----------



## domingos35

will not be missed :eek2:


----------



## fishhead65

By moving AMC to 9610 last night it F'ed up my recording of The Killing and Mad Men!! If they drop AMC ....I'm am GONE after 14 years of being a customer. Lost my MSG, lost my SNY..still no YES..ahhh how much can I take!? Esp with the final season of Breaking bad coming..

I mean come-on...how immature, they hurt Charlies feelings so they moved the channel....BS!


----------



## lparsons21

fishhead65 said:


> By moving AMC to 9610 last night it F'ed up my recording of The Killing and Mad Men!! If they drop AMC ....I'm am GONE after 14 years of being a customer. Lost my MSG, lost my SNY..still no YES..ahhh how much can I take!? Esp with the final season of Breaking bad coming..
> 
> I mean come-on...how immature, they hurt Charlies feelings so they moved the channel....BS!


Something in your post makes me comment. They moved the channels over a week ago, yet you didn't notice until last night? Pretty much demonstrates that AMC's popularity is nearly solely defined by their 5 original dramas that occur over the year and all on Sunday night.

Not tweaking your nose here, just making an observation. The channel has such a weak lineup that most wouldn't know it was gone until one night a week, and then no more than a 2 hour stretch.


----------



## SayWhat?

Yeah, that pretty much makes the argument FOR dropping AMC.


----------



## lparsons21

SayWhat? said:


> Yeah, that pretty much makes the argument FOR dropping AMC.


Well I wouldn't go that far. But I would say it certainly makes an argument for a much smaller increase than AMC seems to want to get. And given that the other Rainbow channels are even weaker, I can't see a big increase happening.

But AMC's originals are good enough to make people talk like AMC has a great lineup, when it is really only a great Sunday night lineup. Otherwise it is 2 hour movies stretched to 3 hours and beyond...


----------



## John Strk

lparsons21 said:


> Pretty much demonstrates that AMC's popularity is nearly solely defined by their 5 original dramas that occur over the year and all on Sunday night.


I only record this channel on Sunday nights. I could care less to be bombarded with commercials and non-OAR movies the rest of the week.

Why doesn't Dish just cancel the channel already instead of confusing and pissing off customers? Keeping up with posts for the Killing on Facebook I see a lot of angry people that did not know about the channel move, have missed episodes and now want to switch to D* :lol:


----------



## SayWhat?

John Strk said:


> Keeping up with posts for the Killing on Facebook I see a lot of angry people that did not know about the channel move,


Even more proof of the low popularity.


----------



## StringFellow

I think AMC is basing their rate increase on the popularity of a few shows. Based on that popularity AMC is trying to increase their subscriber rates. If Dish doesn't agree, AMC doesn't get their subscriber fees AND subscriber numbers drop (which drive advertisment commitments) for these popular shows. Doesn't make sense why AMC is risking Dish subscriber fees and viewership numbers. 

I like some of these popular shows on AMC, but I also agree that Dish needs to play hardball. Four channels, higher subscriber fees and a long term contract, all based on 2 or 3 shows on ONE channel. And there is no guarantee that these shows will be renewed!

And renting shows through Amazon and Netflix doesn't make sense either...$3 an episode for an HD rental. Expensive for the renter and AMC doesn't get the ad revenue. Again, not a good situation for AMC.

I guess we will know for sure in a few weeks..l


----------



## inazsully

SayWhat? said:


> Even more proof of the low popularity.


Even more proof of how stupidly Dish is handling the situation. So they only have 5 prime time type shows. And so what if somebody only records one of them. Who the hell else if offering any decent original programming (that requires actual writers) once you get past the Big 4 and TNT,USA, SCFI? At least they offer us something. If you like AMC or not, we are all losing a channel that steps up and takes a chance.


----------



## Laxguy

*If* Dish is being "stupid", I think it comes more from the lingering bad taste of the Voom fiasco. Any doubt about that? Look at the web page they've put up about how "bad AMC is acting". "What it's really about" leads in with the Voom situation.

Beyond that, probably no one on this board can really know how well or poorly it's being handled internally.


----------



## inkahauts

"SayWhat?" said:


> Even more proof of the low popularity.


Or to say it another way, proof their popularity is tied only to a couple shows. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the negotiations room when they where actually trying to negotiate.

Amc... We have awsome programing...

Dish (or anyone else)... You mean you have an awsome program...

Amc... No programing, one program repeated over and over makes us popular....

Dish... We have DVRs for that....


----------



## inkahauts

"inazsully" said:


> Even more proof of how stupidly Dish is handling the situation. So they only have 5 prime time type shows. And so what if somebody only records one of them. Who the hell else if offering any decent original programming (that requires actual writers) once you get past the Big 4 and TNT,USA, SCFI? At least they offer us something. If you like AMC or not, we are all losing a channel that steps up and takes a chance.


Yeah, but taking chances on a couple shows, does that really translate to getting paid like channels like TNT and USA, that take ten times the chances and offer ten times the programing or more? It's all relative, and rainbow has always seemed to think their chances are more expensive and should be better compensated than most others who do the same amount.

The only thing I'd say dish has done poorly is change the channels and screwed up peoples recordings while they still have the channel. There really isn't much point in what they did.

I wonder who the next carrier to do this is Going to be though.


----------



## fishhead65

understood...but a simple notice on the program guide "this channel is moving or has been moved to blah blah blah" maybe they did ...but i didn't see it. nevertheless...i cant go without my NY sports AND AMC so I have no option but to leave DISH ...i will miss WFN tho!



lparsons21 said:


> Something in your post makes me comment. They moved the channels over a week ago, yet you didn't notice until last night? Pretty much demonstrates that AMC's popularity is nearly solely defined by their 5 original dramas that occur over the year and all on Sunday night.
> 
> Not tweaking your nose here, just making an observation. The channel has such a weak lineup that most wouldn't know it was gone until one night a week, and then no more than a 2 hour stretch.


----------



## fishhead65

well said Ina! they may only a have few shows, BUT IMO, all more creative and cutting edge than the sea of reality show crap out there!



inazsully said:


> Even more proof of how stupidly Dish is handling the situation. So they only have 5 prime time type shows. And so what if somebody only records one of them. Who the hell else if offering any decent original programming (that requires actual writers) once you get past the Big 4 and TNT,USA, SCFI? At least they offer us something. If you like AMC or not, we are all losing a channel that steps up and takes a chance.


----------



## Jaspear

inkahauts said:


> Yeah, but taking chances on a couple shows, does that really translate to getting paid like channels like TNT and USA, that take ten times the chances and offer ten times the programing or more? It's all relative, and rainbow has always seemed to think their chances are more expensive and should be better compensated than most others who do the same amount.


Everything _is_ relative. I can't think of a single show on TNT or USA that takes a chance on anything; nothing that rises above predictable run-of-the-mill stuff you can find anywhere, including most of what airs on the OTA networks. So yeah, if you have programming that clearly rises above the mediocre, you do have a case for a rate adjustment at contract renewal time



> The only thing I'd say dish has done poorly is change the channels and screwed up peoples recordings while they still have the channel. There really isn't much point in what they did.


They did it as retaliation for the obnoxious crawl AMC ran in the programming. That point was received _exactly_ where DISH wanted it to be received.


----------



## Inkosaurus

inazsully said:


> Even more proof of how stupidly Dish is handling the situation. So they only have 5 prime time type shows. And so what if somebody only records one of them. Who the hell else if offering any decent original programming (that requires actual writers) once you get past the Big 4 and TNT,USA, SCFI? At least they offer us something. If you like AMC or not, we are all losing a channel that steps up and takes a chance.


By taking chances you mean, taking a chance on the idea that viewers wouldnt notice money cuts on top shows like the walking dead?
If it didnt get cut the second season would have had the crew at the prison by the second portion of the season, Shane would probably be dead alot sooner and they wouldnt stick to cliched drama stories through out most of the season (lori, carl, andrea being retarded).

In the comic they spent less then 2 issues at the farm, the whole part of the series between the camp and the prison was to show how difficult it was to live on the move, having an entire camp of people cramped into 1 RV (there only vehicle in the comic). The second season entirely missed this and because of it the importance of the Prison, why Rick goes insane and many other things will be entirely lost on the TV audience.
Not to mention since there barely finding the Prison and "The Governor" has already been confirmed I can promise you there going to blaze right through the prison, straight to woodburry and completely ruin one of the most significant story arcs in the entire comic series.


----------



## RasputinAXP

Inkosaurus said:


> By taking chances you mean, taking a chance on the idea that viewers wouldnt notice money cuts on top shows like the walking dead?
> If it didnt get cut the second season would have had the crew at the prison by the second portion of the season, Shane would probably be dead alot sooner and they wouldnt stick to cliched drama stories through out most of the season (lori, carl, andrea being retarded).
> 
> In the comic they spent less then 2 issues at the farm, the whole part of the series between the camp and the prison was to show how difficult it was to live on the move, having an entire camp of people cramped into 1 RV (there only vehicle in the comic). The second season entirely missed this and because of it the importance of the Prison, why Rick goes insane and many other things will be entirely lost on the TV audience.
> Not to mention since there barely finding the Prison and "The Governor" has already been confirmed I can promise you there going to blaze right through the prison, straight to woodburry and completely ruin one of the most significant story arcs in the entire comic series.


As long as what happens at the end of the prison storyline happens, I honestly don't care.

And yeah, the money issue on TWD was clearly obvious this season from the moment they fired Darabont.


----------



## bnewt

fishhead65 said:


> well said Ina! they may only a have few shows, BUT IMO, all more creative and cutting edge than the sea of reality show crap out there!


If that is the basis for carrying any channel...........how do any survive. FX, BET, LOGO, MAVTV, HDNET, imo are all in the same situation. I do watch AMC. I like the older movies, + I like to watch the 3 stooges. They were my favorite as a kid & I still get a laugh out of them.


----------



## Inkosaurus

RasputinAXP said:


> As long as what happens at the end of the prison storyline happens, I honestly don't care.
> 
> And yeah, the money issue on TWD was clearly obvious this season from the moment they fired Darabont.


Im still kind of peeved that there hasn't been any hints, or mentions of Tyrese showing up in the Tv series, I feel like a lot of the weight that the Prison Arc carries will be lost without Tyrese present in the show.
Ill be even more peeved if they try to use T-Dog as his replacement.

And agreed if they can pull off the end of the Arc well (I.E. AMC green lights Kirkmans "I dont care who dies" spin) then it will be good. Im just afraid to see what they come up with before the end, if Season 3 is cliched and silly as Season 2 I dont think ill be able to watch it.


----------



## StringFellow

"Jaspear" said:


> Everything is relative. I can't think of a single show on TNT or USA that takes a chance on anything; nothing that rises above predictable run-of-the-mill stuff you can find anywhere, including most of what airs on the OTA networks. So yeah, if you have programming that clearly rises above the mediocre, you do have a case for a rate adjustment at contract renewal time.


Disagree. First, rate increases are based on viewership and ad sponsorship.. You could have the best programs, but if no one watches them there is no justification for a rate increase.

Also, what happens if those top tier shows get cancel right after a contract renewal? Actors get greedy and viewership can drop, which are the reasons shows get cancelled.

You opinion regarding the criteria for rate increases is flawed.


----------



## 62Lincoln

lparsons21 said:


> Pretty much demonstrates that AMC's popularity is nearly solely defined by their 5 original dramas that occur over the year and all on Sunday night.
> 
> Not tweaking your nose here, just making an observation. The channel has such a weak lineup that most wouldn't know it was gone until one night a week, and then no more than a 2 hour stretch.


Not tweaking _your_ nose here, just making an observation. I pay $14 a month for HBO, and watch it in exactly the manner you describe above. I simply don't have enough viewing hours to watch nonstop - but I am able to watch HBO's "destination" programs, which is ample for me and my wife.

AMC has been able to carve a similar niche with its destination programs: Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, etc.. We find ourselves watching those programs in the same manner as the HBO programs. That is adequate unto itself for the amount of time we have.

I will drop DISH if they don't resolve the issue with AMC.


----------



## lparsons21

62Lincoln said:


> Not tweaking _your_ nose here, just making an observation. I pay $14 a month for HBO, and watch it in exactly the manner you describe above. I simply don't have enough viewing hours to watch nonstop - but I am able to watch HBO's "destination" programs, which is ample for me and my wife.
> 
> AMC has been able to carve a similar niche with its destination programs: Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, etc.. We find ourselves watching those programs in the same manner as the HBO programs. That is adequate unto itself for the amount of time we have.
> 
> I will drop DISH if they don't resolve the issue with AMC.


I watch HBO and Showtime primarily for the series and the boxing, the movies are just a nice addition imo. Either of those have way more original programming and certainly many more movies, newer with no ads. If AMC wants to do away with ads, or go to 1/2 a movie, ad, then the last 1/2 and come up with more than 5 series in a year and wants a big rate increase, I would be conducive to that.

Or let them be a 'premium' channel and let the user pay what they think AMC is worth. As it sits today, AMC deserves some rate increase, but nowhere near the 200% that has been bandied about.


----------



## SayWhat?

StringFellow said:


> Also, what happens if those top tier shows get cancel right after a contract renewal? Actors get greedy and viewership can drop, which are the reasons shows get cancelled.


That's one of the big points here that has been brought up a number of times, but the pro-AMC gang doesn't want to touch on it.

Suppose Dish gives in and lets AMC/Rainbow have the $1/mo or whatever they ask for. What guarantee is there that AMC/Rainbow won't cancel one or more of those series at any time? How would Dish know if any of those shows would come back at all? Or that Rainbow wouldn't drop one or more of the other three channels in dispute?

Apparently Rainbow has a history of doing this very kind of thing and has made Dish wary of their motives and intentions.


----------



## tampa8

SayWhat? said:


> That's one of the big points here that has been brought up a number of times, but the pro-AMC gang doesn't want to touch on it.
> 
> Suppose Dish gives in and lets AMC/Rainbow have the $10/mo or whatever they ask for. What guarantee is there that AMC/Rainbow won't cancel one or more of those series at any time? How would Dish know if any of those shows would come back at all? Or that Rainbow wouldn't drop one or more of the other three channels in dispute?
> 
> Apparently Rainbow has a history of doing this very kind of thing and has made Dish wary of their motives and intentions.


+1


----------



## Ira Lacher

Doesn't every network, OTA and sat/cable, have only a few popular shows? Do any of us truly believe that EVERY program on CBS, NBC, Fox, Showtime, HBO, is popular? What makes AMC different in that regard?


----------



## Inkosaurus

Ira Lacher said:


> Doesn't every network, OTA and sat/cable, have only a few popular shows? Do any of us truly believe that EVERY program on CBS, NBC, Fox, Showtime, HBO, is popular? What makes AMC different in that regard?


Well on a number of other channels I can tune in any night of the week and find something that is unique and original to the network.

That really cant be said for AMC. 5 Shows which are pretty good doesn't really cut it.


----------



## SayWhat?

Wonder if AMC would agree to a performance clause? If any of the 5 'acclaimed' shows are cancelled within the duration of the Dish/Rainbow contract, Rainbow would be required to refund the increase in total retroactive to the signing date.







Ha! Yeah, right!!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Ira Lacher said:


> Doesn't every network, OTA and sat/cable, have only a few popular shows? Do any of us truly believe that EVERY program on CBS, NBC, Fox, Showtime, HBO, is popular? What makes AMC different in that regard?


If you extrapolate to the extreme, you aren't wrong... but AMC only has a few shows and they pretty much all air on Sunday nights (when they do air)... and it sure seems like nobody watches AMC very much the rest of the time, including fans of those shows who didn't notice until Sunday night that AMC had been moved!

Meanwhile... the "big 4" have primetime shows every night of the week except Saturdays usually... and have other programming during the day that gets watched too.

Everything isn't mega-popular on any channel... but being honest, AMC can't say they are trying really hard when they only have a few shows that they rotate through on one night of the week.

Think about it this way... Remember UPN and the WB? Those OTA networks had some primetime M-F but only could muster a few really popular shows... and those networks basically folded and re-emerged as a unified CW... and CW isn't doing that much better to be frank.

So... if you like Supernatural (I do) would you think the CW should get to triple their rates to be carried? the CW actually has more original programming than AMC and airs more of this programming on more nights of the week... and personally last season I watched more CW shows since I also watched Ringer on the CW... whereas on AMC I was only watching the Walking Dead.

But I wouldn't argue in favor of the CW getting to double their rates either.

USA has a lot of syndicated stuff... and way more original shows that I watch right now (Psych, Covert Affairs, Suits jump to mind)... TNT has Leverage, The Closer, Rizzoli & Isles, Franklin & Bash, and probably some other stuff that I'm forgetting.

Syfy is going in the wrong direction. I like Eureka, but the final season is airing now. I like Warehouse 13 too, but I have to think it is close to the home stretch with Syfy bailing on Eureka. Been DVRing Lost Girl but have head mixed reviews so don't know about that one.

Syfy and AMC are really close to having the same value to me (one show, one night, for about 13 weeks of the year).... and by "value" I mean not much.

Channels that try to cheap out and not spend their money on quality, and cancel shows (or try to be difficult with them as is the case with AMC) that people like... well, those channels aren't high on my "I'll be mad if Dish dropped them" list.

I like sports... but I don't like baseball. I like basketball and football primarily. Right now, while I'm on DBSTalk... my tv is on ESPN and a baseball game is airing. Let me repeat, I don't like baseball.

I will be watching Eureka at 9pm tonight... but right now I don't have my tv on Syfy... nor do I have it on AMC. I have it on ESPN where something is airing that I don't care for (baseball)... and I find that to be the case more than I ever find myself leaving it on Syfy or AMC after a show airs that I like.

I also leave my tv on TBS or TNT or Cartoon Network extended periods... because I find other things I like. Sometimes BBC America as well.

Where I don't linger beyond the show I watch that I like... AMC, Syfy, and similar channels.


----------



## phrelin

I am an avid "Mad Men" fan as many know. But with that said, let's don't overstate what AMC has accomplished in original series. Here's what they list on their web site:

Scripted Series:

Mad Men began 5/3/07, season 5 just ended 6/10/12, renewed for two more seasons
Breaking Bad - began 1/27/08, season 5 begins 7/15/2012 
Rubicon - began 6/13/10, not renewed for second season 
The Walking Dead - began 10/31/10, renewed for season 3
The Killing - began 4/3/11, season 2 final episode will air next Sunday 6/17/2012
Hell on Wheels - began 11/6/11, season 2 begins 8/12/2012

Reality Shows:

Comic Book Men - Season 1 began 2/12/12 and has been renewed
The Pitch - Season 1 began April 8 and likely will not be renewed 
Small Town Security - Season 1 will begin July 15, 2012

Mini-series:

Broken Trail 2006
The Prisoner 2009

Both Fox and NBC have cancelled more shows than these in the last couple of years.:sure:


----------



## Laxguy

Maybe in the last couple of months! :sure:


----------



## Inkosaurus

My buddies who still work at Dish are now complaining on there FB status's about how many AMC related calls there taking xD


----------



## Darcaine

I'm sure AMC could go the USA route and have cheaper generic original programming on 3 or 4 nights a week, but they choose quality over quantity. 

If you care about quantity, USA, TNT etc have you covered, if you care about quaility, then AMC, HBO, Showtime etc are your destination. If you like wrestling...well there's Syfy.

Only the broadcast networks can afford to do both (on occasion), but mostly they just focus on quantity as well. But they are in a completely different situation. They cater to a bigger, more mainstream audience, and have to fill up 12 (Fox) to 18 hours (the big 3) of primetime a week with original programming, they don't have the luxury of buying someone elses syndicated programming to fill their schedule with. 

Cable on the other had does have the luxury of targeting one or two nights a week with quality original programming, or quantity and syndication if they choose.

Either way, given the choice of a la carte, USA, Syfy TNT and TBS would be the first channels I dumped, they are the ghetto of the cableverse.


----------



## Rduce

lparsons21 said:


> Something in your post makes me comment. They moved the channels over a week ago, yet you didn't notice until last night? Pretty much demonstrates that AMC's popularity is nearly solely defined by their 5 original dramas that occur over the year and all on Sunday night.
> 
> Not tweaking your nose here, just making an observation. The channel has such a weak lineup that most wouldn't know it was gone until one night a week, and then no more than a 2 hour stretch.


+1


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Darcaine said:


> I'm sure AMC could go the USA route and have cheaper generic original programming on 3 or 4 nights a week, but they choose quality over quantity.


Not exactly. As has been noted... AMC didn't choose quality when they ran the showrunner of Walking Dead away and cut that budget... they also didn't choose quality when they delayed Mad Men over a budget dispute for an entire season.

Also... quantity vs quality is a valid argument BUT not when you're trying to ask for a raise.

Go tell your boss that you don't want to work Monday through Thursday but you will work really hard on Friday and that you want to be paid for the other 4 days you don't work.

We all want quality... but even AMC's own Web site doesn't brag about having very much quality. I noted earlier about how they only had 6 things on their own "keep AMC" Web page... so even AMC knows they don't have much to brag about.


----------



## Rduce

Darcaine said:


> I'm sure AMC could go the USA route and have cheaper generic original programming on 3 or 4 nights a week, but they choose quality over quantity.
> 
> If you care about quantity, USA, TNT etc have you covered, if you care about quaility, then AMC, HBO, Showtime etc are your destination. If you like wrestling...well there's Syfy.
> 
> Only the broadcast networks can afford to do both (on occasion), but mostly they just focus on quantity as well. But they are in a completely different situation. They cater to a bigger, more mainstream audience, and have to fill up 12 (Fox) to 18 hours (the big 3) of primetime a week with original programming, they don't have the luxury of buying someone elses syndicated programming to fill their schedule with.
> 
> Cable on the other had does have the luxury of targeting one or two nights a week with quality original programming, or quantity and syndication if they choose.
> 
> Either way, given the choice of a la carte, USA, Syfy TNT and TBS would be the first channels I dumped, they are the ghetto of the cableverse.


When you use the term "quality content", you must realize how subjective the term is. Clearly, those people who are fans of the already mention shows are upset about the prospect of the loss of their shows, but you cannot just offer the blanket statement that other channels only supply quantity.

I can honestly say I do not watch a single program on AMC or any other of the channels in dispute, they simply are not my cup of tea. I like a great many original programs on FX, TNT and TBS and that is where I spend my viewing time.

The owners of AMC felt that they had the advantage with their weak lineup because of the popularity of a smaller list of hits than FOX had their first year on the air. Mad Men routinely is not in the top 25 cable channels ratings for the night and is regularly beaten by The Mythbusters in the same time slot. You are not going to win a battle rate increase with viewership based on those kinds of numbers and only Rainbow's hubris allowed them to think they were in a position they could.

Ultimately, AMC will be dropped and possibly never to return; a few of Dish's customers will flee to higher ground to view their precious shows that were taken from them. However, eventually if Rainbow were to win this fight every single other provider would be held hostage, why stop at a dollar, why not two or three? You can damn sure bet that if they win here each and every other carrier will have a target painted on them.

Nope, I have nothing to lose or gain in this battle but I do believe it is one that needs to be fought and I stand behind Dish's decision to fight it, just as they did against FOX a couple of years ago. We lost FX for about a month, but it was back with a rate increase apparently everyone could live with.

Nevertheless, in the end we are only talking about television shows and how shallow have we become when we need to feel our lives are richer because of something we watch on television.


----------



## kucharsk

Personally, now that _Mad Men_ is over for the year, I'm pretty much done watching AMC for the year anyway save for putting on the occasional film until I tire of how thoroughly they've added commercials to it.


----------



## Wilf

kucharsk said:


> Personally, now that _Mad Men_ is over for the year, I'm pretty much done watching AMC for the year anyway save for putting on the occasional film until I tire of how thoroughly they've added commercials to it.


<with a very big grin>, then you might be interested in this:
http://pro.gigaom.com/books/cut-the-cord/ !rolling!rolling!rolling


----------



## inazsully

Today on ENGADGET they are talking about the Neilson ratings being recalculated to show the significance of DVR's in today's viewing habits. According to them over 40% of households have and use DVR's and that many shows are being recorded and watched within 6 days of the recording. Many of these shows are from the lower tier channels. I think they said that Modern Family (not a lower tier show) jumped 70+% for that 6 day watching window. Because of a lack of viewing time allowed I record the entire seasons of "Walking Dead" and end up watching it on a marathon weekend of my choosing. I do this with several shows like "Merlin", Dr. Who", "Warehouse 13", "Suits", "Fairly Legal", "Lost Girl", "House", "CSI:Miami". In the past I did this with "Lost" and "24". Just because some of these shows don't get great weekly ratings doesn't mean they are not being watched. This DVR thing is making the networks think twice about what to cancel and what not to.


----------



## zer0cool

I wish the broadcast networks each had "5 Pretty good Shows". As a consumer, I applaud AMC for their perceived commitment to quality (although their poor negotiations with Frank Darabont contradict that perception). I'd much rather get the high quality programming of Mad Men, The Walking Dead, The Killing, and Breaking Bad, than a full week's prime time lineup of S##T My Dad S##T, CSI: Scranton, Rollerblading with the "Stars", America's got Singin', etc.
However, If I was a corporate sponsor, I'd want the network I invested my advertising dollars in to crank out as much filler around their few hit shows as possible, to keep my ads in front of the masses for multiple hours every night of the week.
As a Dish customer, who entered into a contract in good faith that they would provide me with the content I was seeking, I'm pissed off that AMC, a network whose programming I get two to three quality hours from every week, will not be available to me. (Hell, I'd rather lose any of the broadcast networks).
Still, when looking at the big picture, I understand there are millions more people out there who would be outraged if they couldn't see America pick their next favorite singer/dancer/Kardashian husband, than if they couldn't see if Don Draper actually survives the sixties. And these are the same people who will raise Holy Hell if Dish raises their monthly bill a couple of bucks, despite the fact they spent nine bucks last night voting with their cell phone for Clay Aiken...


----------



## Joe Bernardi

+1


----------



## inkahauts

"Jaspear" said:


> Everything is relative. I can't think of a single show on TNT or USA that takes a chance on anything; nothing that rises above predictable run-of-the-mill stuff you can find anywhere, including most of what airs on the OTA networks. So yeah, if you have programming that clearly rises above the mediocre, you do have a case for a rate adjustment at contract renewal time
> 
> They did it as retaliation for the obnoxious crawl AMC ran in the programming. That point was received exactly where DISH wanted it to be received.


I am talking about the amount of money they put into their programing, and how much original programing they provide, not the quality of shows. There is no way on earth you could ever get a consensus on the true quality of all shows n any one network.


----------



## inkahauts

"inazsully" said:


> Today on ENGADGET they are talking about the Neilson ratings being recalculated to show the significance of DVR's in today's viewing habits. According to them over 40% of households have and use DVR's and that many shows are being recorded and watched within 6 days of the recording. Many of these shows are from the lower tier channels. I think they said that Modern Family (not a lower tier show) jumped 70+% for that 6 day watching window. Because of a lack of viewing time allowed I record the entire seasons of "Walking Dead" and end up watching it on a marathon weekend of my choosing. I do this with several shows like "Merlin", Dr. Who", "Warehouse 13", "Suits", "Fairly Legal", "Lost Girl", "House", "CSI:Miami". In the past I did this with "Lost" and "24". Just because some of these shows don't get great weekly ratings doesn't mean they are not being watched. This DVR thing is making the networks think twice about what to cancel and what not to.


I forsee a day when networks sell commercials in three types of groups for shows. One for shows watched live, one for shows watched within a week, and one for shows watched within six months. There are plenty of commercials that can fall into any of those, if not a combination up to all of those three slots. And I see shows selling commercials in different slots based on when they are usually watched.


----------



## DoyleS

The interesting thing with commercials is that as far as I know there is not an easy way to skip streamed commercials over the internet unless they give you a skip button. Going to a website to watch a show often involves watching whatever commercials they have inserted. Also pretty much eliminates the DVR. Not sure I would want 100% streamed TV. I'll pay Dish or whoever to give me a good supply of channels I want for a reasonable price. For the case in point, I would like them to come to a reasonable compromise to keep AMC and do it before Hell on Wheels starts season 2 on Aug 12.


----------



## Hunter844

How much does AMC stand to lose over this really? According to a recent wall street article, AMC Reported 20% higher profits than the prior year mainly due to ad revenue increases. 

There are 14 million dish subs roughly...is AMC on the lowest tier? There are an estimated 313,000 million Americans...how many viewers out of that number? How many viewers that subscribe to some type of television service? Is losing Dish really going to hurt all that much?


----------



## DoyleS

If there are 14 mil Dish subscribers and AMC is in the lowest tier then it sounds like it would be about 3.5 Million/month at the current rate of $0.25/Dish Subscriber.


----------



## Laxguy

DoyleS said:


> If there are 14 mil Dish subscribers and AMC is in the lowest tier then it sounds like it would be about 3.5 Million/month at the current rate of $0.25/Dish Subscriber.


That sounds high, though I have no way of getting figures on this. What's the source of the quarter per sub at Dish? Please!


----------



## RasputinAXP

AMC is in the 2nd tier, not 1st.


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> That sounds high, though I have no way of getting figures on this. What's the source of the quarter per sub at Dish? Please!





Gloria_Chavez said:


> From adweek...
> 
> -------------------
> http://www.adweek.com/news/television/dish-network-threatens-drop-amc-140066
> 
> While DISH argues that AMC is overpriced-the carrier says AMC's asking price for a new carriage deal is high "when compared to their low viewership"-the current rates are actually moderate. *SNL Kagan estimates that AMC earns 26 cents per subscriber per month, for an annual haul of $298.6 million in fees. Cable's average carriage fee is 25 cents.*


Emphasis added. The current rates being moderate, what AMC wants to continue being not so moderate.


----------



## jdskycaster

DoyleS has to be really close in that estimate as someone had posted a link to an article which stated AMC stands to lose $20M in the first six months once Dish flips off the switch.


----------



## inazsully

Hunter844 said:


> How much does AMC stand to lose over this really? According to a recent wall street article, AMC Reported 20% higher profits than the prior year mainly due to ad revenue increases.
> 
> There are 14 million dish subs roughly...is AMC on the lowest tier? There are an estimated 313,000 million Americans...how many viewers out of that number? How many viewers that subscribe to some type of television service? Is losing Dish really going to hurt all that much?


Nope, the only ones that gets hurt is us, as usual.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Still worth noting that while 4 channels are affected here, neither this forum nor the AMC Web site is making a big deal out of the potential loss of WeTV, IFC, or Sundance.

Even AMC is only pushing the AMC channel.

I don't know what the rates for WeTV, IFC, or Sundance are... by "rates" I mean what Dish pays per subscriber.

As others have noted, maybe if AMC was willing to negotiate the AMC channel separate, maybe Dish would pay more for that channel and drop the other 3 that even now have no big screams about them having been moved and potentially gone (Sundance is already gone I believe anyway).

Dish could probably give AMC their 75 cents for the AMC channel if the other 3 channels went away... but of course I'm sure that AMC wouldn't dare put that option on the table for negotiation.

It's going to be "you want our good programs, you have to take our crap channels too" and then "or we'll tell all your customers how you don't care about them even though we kind of don't really care about them either"...


----------



## Laxguy

jdskycaster said:


> DoyleS has to be really close in that estimate as someone had posted a link to an article which stated AMC stands to lose $20M in the first six months once Dish flips off the switch.


Yes, but every link I've seen are estimates or guesses. Even the one posted by James Long is an analyst's guess. He-the Kagan analysts- mentions the average is ca. .26, but averages can be very misleading, what with ESPN most likely over $5.00, and some channels free or next to nothing.


----------



## phrelin

One can guestimate revenue losses.

To make an educated guess about AMC retransmission fee revenue, one not only has to know the payment amount per subscriber but how many Dish subscribers actually get AMC which is not in the lowest tier of the AT's tiers - AT120, nor in DishFAMILY, nor in the Welcome Pack, nor in the two bottom tiers of the DishLATINO packages, the International Packages, etc.

With that said, we know Dish has 14 million total subscribers and AMC is probably getting around 25¢-30¢ a month or $3.00-$3.60 a year for each subscriber receiving the channel.

We're looking at $3+ million a year for each 1 million subscribers lost, plus the ratings loss for AMC's top five shows which affects ad revenue.

It's also reasonable to assume Dish will lose $600+ a year in revenue for each subscriber it loses. That's about $3+ million a year in revenue for each 5,000 subscribers it loses.

The issue is when Dish flips the switch AMC will lose all the retransmission fee revenue. Dish will lose some subscribers over a period of time, but they don't think the numbers will be significant.

And that doesn't count the other three channels retransmission fee revenue.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

From an article last September that I posted earlier in this thread (see post *http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=3025042#post3025042*):

"_CEO Josh Sapan, speaking at an investor conference for the first time since AMC Networks was spun off as a public company from Cablevision Systems, said AMC is worth 75 cents a month per subscriber, about double what the network gets now._"

So... that implies 37 cents or so as of last September, but since he also says "about double" it is possible he overestimated what their channel was getting at that time.

In any event, that is from the horse's mouth, so to speak, since it was the CEO of AMC Networks.


----------



## Hunter844

Stewart Vernon said:


> From an article last September that I posted earlier in this thread (see post *http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=3025042#post3025042*):
> 
> "_CEO Josh Sapan, speaking at an investor conference for the first time since AMC Networks was spun off as a public company from Cablevision Systems, said AMC is worth 75 cents a month per subscriber, about double what the network gets now._"
> 
> So... that implies 37 cents or so as of last September, but since he also says "about double" it is possible he overestimated what their channel was getting at that time.
> 
> In any event, that is from the horse's mouth, so to speak, since it was the CEO of AMC Networks.


That may be close to right considering all four channels, the weak three probably can't scratch together very much making the aforementioned 26 cents a month for AMC per sub about right.

I was shocked when I read what these news networks are getting. Fox News gets like 73 cents per sub, CNN is around 52 cents...think that was in a wall street article.


----------



## Jaspear

inkahauts said:


> I am talking about the amount of money they put into their programing, and how much original programing they provide, not the quality of shows. There is no way on earth you could ever get a consensus on the true quality of all shows n any one network.


You can't separate the two. In your original quote, you said _"It's all relative, and rainbow has always seemed to think their chances are more expensive and should be better compensated than most others who do the same amount."_ They make that assumption precisely because of the widely held view that their original programming _is_ a cut above the stuff on USA or TNT or any other channel on basic cable. Maybe I missed something, but I can't member the last time I heard any buzz about anything on USA. TNT may have spent boatloads on "Falling Skies", but a critical success on the level of "Mad Men" or "Breaking Bad" it was not. Those perceptions of quality do have an impact on the negotiations at renewal time.

When I was with DirecTV, I subscribed to an additional program supplier primarily to get AMC. I would never have done that if the missing channel had been TNT or USA.


----------



## phrelin

Jaspear said:


> You can't separate the two. In your original quote, you said _"It's all relative, and rainbow has always seemed to think their chances are more expensive and should be better compensated than most others who do the same amount."_ They make that assumption precisely because of the widely held view that their original programming _is_ a cut above the stuff on USA or TNT or any other channel on basic cable. Maybe I missed something, but I can't member the last time I heard any buzz about anything on USA. TNT may have spent boatloads on "Falling Skies", but a critical success on the level of "Mad Men" or "Breaking Bad" it was not. Those perceptions of quality do have an impact on the negotiations at renewal time.
> 
> When I was with DirecTV, I subscribed to an additional program supplier primarily to get AMC. I would never have done that if the missing channel had been TNT or USA.


IMHO the critics don't add tangible monetary value for a channel. Your choice and my choice to watch content on that channel does. That's measurable, even if our choices are influenced by the critics. Unfortunately, far more people watch "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars" than "Mad Men" or "Breaking Bad."


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I was bored.... so today I clicked the Facebook and Twitter links from the "keepamc" page.

Wow... textbook broken record!

The Twitter page is obnoxiously repetitive of about 2-3 different texts over and over and over and over and (yes) over... for days now... that's all they have to say.

Meanwhile, on Facebook all they have to say is "Dish is doing this because of an unrelated lawsuit" and "there has been no rate discussion"... meanwhile their CEO certainly has been public about talking about rates, and definitely had a rate dispute with a cable company last year.

I don't normally find these things to be one-sides... I usually see fault on both sides... but AMC isn't doing anything to make me believe their position.

IF there was no rate negotiations, then I doubt Dish would drop these channels. For AMC to keep saying this is borderline absurd to me... Dish wouldn't gain anything by dropping a channel that didn't want more money except for bad press... so I don't think AMC is being honest here.

AMC is the one who keeps screaming about the other lawsuit... not Dish. I'm sure that lawsuit makes Dish harder to deal with... but not impossible, if the terms were reasonable.

And honestly... their own Twitter page has been hijacked by themselves! And their Facebook page is not exactly littered with truly positive and committed fans.

If AMC is bluffing here, don't bank on Charlie blinking.


----------



## inkahauts

"phrelin" said:


> IMHO the critics don't add tangible monetary value for a channel. Your choice and my choice to watch content on that channel does. That's measurable, even if our choices are influenced by the critics. Unfortunately, far more people watch "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars" than "Mad Men" or "Breaking Bad."


Id say what you said slightly different. The networks like to think it adds tangible monetary value, but the providers know it doesn't add squat. 

In order for critically acclaimed shows to add actual value, they have to drive customers to the channels. If they aren't driving customers to the channel in large droves, then they are more niche programing, and deserve nothing more than niche compensation, as harsh as that sounds. But far to many channels think that they should get network type compensation for a very few quality shows. Amc is not the only channel doing this, just look at fox and the fx channel. The more dish and others tell these networks to pound sound, the sooner things will hopefully fall into more realistic pricing ranges.


----------



## SayWhat?

SayWhat? said:


> Wonder if AMC would agree to a performance clause? If any of the 5 'acclaimed' shows are cancelled within the duration of the Dish/Rainbow contract, Rainbow would be required to refund the increase in total retroactive to the signing date.
> 
> Ha! Yeah, right!!


No comment? :sure:


----------



## StringFellow

inkahauts said:


> Id say what you said slightly different. The networks like to think it adds tangible monetary value, but the providers know it doesn't add squat.
> 
> In order for critically acclaimed shows to add actual value, they have to drive customers to the channels. If they aren't driving customers to the channel in large droves, then they are more niche programing, and deserve nothing more than niche compensation, as harsh as that sounds. But far to many channels think that they should get network type compensation for a very few quality shows. Amc is not the only channel doing this, just look at fox and the fx channel. The more dish and others tell these networks to pound sound, the sooner things will hopefully fall into more realistic pricing ranges.


Well said!! 

And it is interesting that AMC is telling Dish subscribes to contact Dish to keep AMC as one of the broadcasted channels. No one is worried about WeTV, IFC or Sundance. AMC needs to ditch the 3 unwanted channels, reevaluate valid subscriber fees for AMC only and re-approach Dish.


----------



## retiredTech

phrelin said:


> ...
> "but how many Dish subscribers actually get AMC which is not in ....
> , nor in the Welcome Pack"
> 
> AMC actually IS in the welcome pack.


----------



## inkahauts

"StringFellow" said:


> Well said!!
> 
> And it is interesting that AMC is telling Dish subscribes to contact Dish to keep AMC as one of the broadcasted channels. No one is worried about WeTV, IFC or Sundance. AMC needs to ditch the 3 unwanted channels, reevaluate valid subscriber fees for AMC only and re-approach Dish.


How do we know that amc hasn't said, ok we want x for amc, and we will through in the others for free? Their idea of a discount may not be the same as dish's.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inkahauts said:


> How do we know that amc hasn't said, ok we want x for amc, and we will through in the others for free? Their idea of a discount may not be the same as dish's.


There is no such thing as free, though... Those "free" channels would still be taking bandwidth... bandwidth that might prevent Dish from adding another channel that it would rather have.


----------



## Paul Secic

Ira Lacher said:


> Doesn't every network, OTA and sat/cable, have only a few popular shows? Do any of us truly believe that EVERY program on CBS, NBC, Fox, Showtime, HBO, is popular? What makes AMC different in that regard?


No.


----------



## steveT

Inkosaurus said:


> My buddies who still work at Dish are now complaining on there FB status's about how many AMC related calls there taking xD


I've tried to steer people on Dish's FB page to call Dish, not just complain on Facebook. And now Dish is deleting any post I make on their page. Class act, Dish.


----------



## steveT

Hunter844 said:


> Is losing Dish really going to hurt all that much?


I seriously doubt AMC will lose much in way of advertising dollars on their original scripted dramas, but probably will on the rest of their programming.

Dish stock, however, has lost 15% of it's value since they announced they were dropping AMC on May 4th. That's a loss of over $2.2 Billion in market cap. Charlie Ergen isn't nearly as rich today as he was 2 months ago.

Dish stock had almost climbed back to where it was before the market crash in '08, prior to this AMC dispute. Now it's only $2 away from where the plunge began back then.


----------



## steveT

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm sure that lawsuit makes Dish harder to deal with... but not impossible, if the terms were reasonable.


It's probably hard for AMC to deal with a company like Dish, after hearing that the judge in the lawsuit ruled that Dish had intentionally destroyed data relevant to the suit. Tough to sit down at the negotiating table with a party willing to resort to that, and feel like you can count on them to negotiate fairly.


----------



## mdavej

steveT said:


> I seriously doubt AMC will lose much in way of advertising dollars on their original scripted dramas, but probably will on the rest of their programming.
> 
> Dish stock, however, has lost 15% of it's value since they announced they were dropping AMC on May 4th. That's a loss of over $2.2 Billion in market cap. Charlie Ergen isn't nearly as rich today as he was 2 months ago.
> 
> Dish stock had almost climbed back to where it was before the market crash in '08, prior to this AMC dispute. Now it's only $2 away from where the plunge began back then.


Due to Dish's arrogance in this matter, I said early on this may be their Netflix moment. According to those stock prices and the overwhelmingly negative response on social media, it looks very much like that's the case.

I don't understand why smart guys like Charlie and Reed purposely sabotage their own companies with stupid stunts like this. The lesson which no one seems to ever learn is when you're doing well, don't start taking away things your customers like.


----------



## steveT

mdavej said:


> Due to Dish's arrogance in this matter, I said early on this may be their Netflix moment. According to those stock prices and the overwhelmingly negative response on social media, it looks very much like that's the case.
> 
> I don't understand why smart guys like Charlie and Reed purposely sabotage their own companies with stupid stunts like this. The lesson which no one seems to ever learn is when you're doing well, don't start taking away things your customers like.


It just reeks of a dispute ruled by emotion rather than math. As discussed earlier, Dish is probably paying twice as much for a network like CNN, which can't even manage 400K viewers in primetime, versus AMC which can draw 7M for "The Walking Dead".

Sad fact is, most companies only focus on customer satisfaction while they're young and growing. Once they get established and the top execs are all set for life with fat pay packages, they really couldn't care less about the customers.


----------



## SayWhat?

steveT said:


> I've tried to steer people on Dish's FB page to call Dish, not just complain on Facebook.


AMC/Rainbow is the one at fault here, call them.


----------



## Ira Lacher

mdavej said:


> I don't understand why smart guys like Charlie and Reed purposely sabotage their own companies with stupid stunts like this.


Ego. Hubris. Arrogance. They feel they're bigger than their businesses.


----------



## steveT

SayWhat? said:


> AMC/Rainbow is the one at fault here, call them.


People following this thread have seen both sides laid out as clearly as we non-insiders can probably get. I personally come down on the side of the company which has succeeded in increasing their brand value through the creation of quality programming, and I believe in the kind of capitalism where you can price your product to the value provided. I don't support companies that intentionally destroy data in advance of pending court cases.

My original point was about Dish's actions on their Facebook page in reference to this dispute. Just how many people are they now banning from posting their displeasure at the prospect of losing AMC? Last week, the anti-Dish postings were blazing in every minute. Now it's posts like "I love my Dish!" Dish is now likely banning anyone highlighting the dispute.


----------



## SayWhat?

steveT said:


> People following this thread have seen both sides laid out as clearly as we non-insiders can probably get.


I reiterate, Rainbow/AMC is the problem here. Complain to them about their unreasonable demands.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

steveT said:


> It just reeks of a dispute ruled by emotion rather than math. As discussed earlier, Dish is probably paying twice as much for a network like CNN, which can't even manage 400K viewers in primetime, versus AMC which can draw 7M for "The Walking Dead".


Worth noting that the Walking Dead airs on Sunday nights... not exactly going up against most networks strongest primetime lineup. I wonder if the Walking Dead would do so good if it played M-F?

Don't get me wrong... I like the show... but it isn't exactly airing against the strongest competition in its timeslot.

As for CNN and primetime... I wouldn't expect ANY of the newschannels to do boffo ratings during primetime UNLESS there was some major news event. Say during a hurricane doing major damage or a terrorist attack or basically some big news story... the rest of the time, CNN and other news groups just aren't going to compete in primetime because that's when the other networks take over with escapism programming for viewers.



steveT said:


> ...and I believe in the kind of capitalism where you can price your product to the value provided.


Capitalism works differently than that... you can only charge what people are willing to pay, and that may or may not be as much as you want or need to charge.



steveT said:


> My original point was about Dish's actions on their Facebook page in reference to this dispute. Just how many people are they now banning from posting their displeasure at the prospect of losing AMC? Last week, the anti-Dish postings were blazing in every minute. Now it's posts like "I love my Dish!" Dish is now likely banning anyone highlighting the dispute.


It depends on how people post their displeasure... if people are rude or spam the site posts like that would get deleted anywhere. You have the right to express displeasure but not to harass.


----------



## inazsully

SayWhat? said:


> I reiterate, Rainbow/AMC is the problem here. Complain to them about their unreasonable demands.


You can reiterate all you want but it seems that the vast majority here and on Facebook don't agree with you.


----------



## jdskycaster

^Then count me in the minority as well. This is all on AMC and they are doing their best to make Dish out to be the bad guy in this dispute. Lawsuits aside Rainbow/AMC does not deserve a raise of any kind. Their best programming is already starting to slip.


----------



## domingos35

why don't u people that want AMC so bad,call them and and ask them not to be so greedy 
and come to terms with dish at a fair price?


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

This has nothing to do with AMC and everything to do with ESPN. Everything is priced off ESPN. The more ESPN extracts from every subscriber, the more every other major channel will demand a significant percentage of same.

Don't believe me. Six months ago, this ran in the NYT...

------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/b...stay-there.html?ref=business&pagewanted=print

December 18, 2011

In Top Tier, History Channel Fights to Stay There

By BRIAN STELTER

History's revenues are not disclosed, but to date most of its growth has come from charging more for ads, not from charging more to distributors who carry the channel. That will largely come later, when A&E renegotiates its contracts with distributors. It will aim to have History become a must-have channel, as ESPN has been for years. 
------------------------------


----------



## mdavej

SayWhat? said:


> I reiterate, Rainbow/AMC is the problem here. Complain to them about their unreasonable demands.





domingos35 said:


> why don't u people that want AMC so bad,call them and and ask them not to be so greedy
> and come to terms with dish at a fair price?


First, Dish announced they were dropping AMC long before AMC "demanded" anything. Second, we know how much AMC wants, but not how how much they've demanded from Dish. It may be quite reasonable for all we know. It's Dish that's been unreasonable and dishonest from all the bogus reasons they've given. In any case I've already cancelled Dish over this fiasco, so I have won't be calling anyone to complain.


----------



## Marlin Guy

Breaking Bad is the only program they have that interests me, and I can get that elsewhere. I really don't care what they do.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

So... if Dish kept quiet and then AMC went dark the end of the month when no new contract was signed, people would blame Dish for not warning them...

BUT

Dish warns everyone a month early that AMC wants more than Dish feels the viewership warrants... and that too is something to blame on Dish for "complaining" before negotiations were complete.

Just want to be sure I understand that no matter who is at fault, Dish will be blamed.


----------



## domingos35

mdavej said:


> First, Dish announced they were dropping AMC long before AMC "demanded" anything. Second, we know how much AMC wants, but not how how much they've demanded from Dish. It may be quite reasonable for all we know. It's Dish that's been unreasonable and dishonest from all the bogus reasons they've given. In any case I've already cancelled Dish over this fiasco, so I have won't be calling anyone to complain.


to bad


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_Please stay on-topic. Off-topic posts have been removed._


----------



## sregener

Gloria_Chavez said:


> This has nothing to do with AMC and everything to do with ESPN. Everything is priced off ESPN. The more ESPN extracts from every subscriber, the more every other major channel will demand a significant percentage of same.
> 
> Don't believe me. Six months ago, this ran in the NYT...


I read the whole article, looking for some nefarious intent on the part of History Channel (or AMC or anyone else for that matter.) I just don't see it. According to the article, History is the 5th-highest rated cable channel, and they want to build on that such that they are as in demand as ESPN. Obviously, creating programming that has that kind of popularity is more expensive than reruns of documentaries, so they'll get paid more.

What I didn't see in the article is any discussion of how they want to get ESPN prices for their channel. Just that they want to be as watched as ESPN.

ESPN takes a lot of heat for how expensive they are. The reality is that their costs are probably greater than any other channel. Covering live events is not cheap, and that doesn't include rights to cover events. They produce more hours of first-run content than any other channel in the top 10 in ratings. Only the news channels produce more hours of first-run content, much of which is fairly inexpensive. Rachael Maddow wishes she could earn as much as ESPN pays the NFL for a single season of MNF.


----------



## Hunter844

Once thing is obvious...these decisions are too important to be left up to the people being paid to make them. :lol:


----------



## steveT

Stewart Vernon said:


> I wonder if the Walking Dead would do so good if it played M-F?
> 
> Don't get me wrong... I like the show... but it isn't exactly airing against the strongest competition in its timeslot.
> 
> Capitalism works differently than that... you can only charge what people are willing to pay, and that may or may not be as much as you want or need to charge.
> 
> You have the right to express displeasure but not to harass.


The networks used to air their strongest programming on Sunday night, with the idea that it would be "water-cooler" conversation on Monday morning to generate buzz and ratings. But that model gave way to the Thursday night model, where they can charge more for advertisers wanting to get to customers prior to weekend shopping. So that left a hole on Sundays. If you were a network like AMC, your target would be to fill that hole, not go up against the tougher competition on Thursdays...

As for pricing, that's correct. Most people assume things should be priced based on cost, but the truth is that they should be priced on market value (what people are willing to pay). And the starting point in figuring out that price is estimating the value you bring to your consumer. Then you put it out there and see if you can get people to pay. In this case, Dish is the middleman between the ultimate customer and the content provider. And we've seen that Dish hasn't made any efforts to see what their customers are willing to pay.

As for Facebook, I only expressed displeasure, and pointed people to calling Dish. I never once harassed or spammed. Yet my posts were still deleted. At every turn in this dispute, Dish is doing whatever it can to avoid addressing their customer's concerns directly.


----------



## steveT

Gloria_Chavez said:


> This has nothing to do with AMC and everything to do with ESPN. Everything is priced off ESPN.


Amen! Thanks for saying that. But God forbid we do anything in this country to push back against the sports machine. Sports is the true religion in this country. You would never see a dispute play out like this AMC fiasco is, between Dish and ESPN. If there was one threat to ESPN being removed from Dish, people would be marching with pitchforks and torches into Englewood, Colorado.


----------



## phrelin

Gloria_Chavez said:


> This has nothing to do with AMC and everything to do with ESPN. Everything is priced off ESPN. The more ESPN extracts from every subscriber, the more every other major channel will demand a significant percentage of same.
> 
> Don't believe me. Six months ago, this ran in the NYT...
> 
> ------------------------------
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/b...stay-there.html?ref=business&pagewanted=print
> 
> December 18, 2011
> 
> In Top Tier, History Channel Fights to Stay There
> 
> By BRIAN STELTER
> 
> History's revenues are not disclosed, but to date most of its growth has come from charging more for ads, not from charging more to distributors who carry the channel. That will largely come later, when A&E renegotiates its contracts with distributors. It will aim to have History become a must-have channel, as ESPN has been for years.
> ------------------------------


I agree with you. And I have very strong opinions about the big picture here.

AMC is a channel I would like to support because of the content it has been developing. But philosophically I can't justify people who don't watch it being taxed to support it, or ESPN, or the History Channel, or OWN, or....

Historically societies through government have used taxation to make all citizens contribute to a greater good. The most frequent greater good has been for common defense. But over time, this has included providing for the unfortunate so we don't have to watch them die in the street from starvation or illness.

Here we are in the 21st Century and we're talking about a product not available to people 100 years ago because it isn't a human necessity - television. In our situation, multinational corporations decided to create "packages" that help fund "startup" and "low audience appeal but important" channels, a common good as defined by the multinational corporations.

In most homes today where the channel is in nearly every package, we pay over $7 a month for ESPN and some of its sister channels - a tax on everyone (particularly resented by those who don't watch sports) in order to be certain professional athletes, media corporate executives, and billionaire team owners can become richer. Multinational media companies have decided this is a common good. As the article indicates, this is a policy which needs to be emulated for the History Channel which is also in most homes today.

I have found it startling that people who rant about paying taxes for "entitlement" programs that provide health care for children get upset when people like me say I resent paying "taxes" supporting ESPN and Disney so I can access shows on USA and FX, particularly when those tax rates are set by multinational corporations and billionaires, not government.

In 2012 TV channels should be a commodity I buy directly, which is then delivered to me through a cable, satellite, or telcom company that I pay for access to bandwidth, exactly as I do on the internet.

If I don't watch a channel, I shouldn't have to pay for some common good mutually defined by Rupert Murdoch and Charles Ergen.

And at some point, this could be reduced down to whatever content I want to buy, as opposed to a "channel." Right now I can buy episodes of "Mad Men" for $1.99 each through Amazon. Maybe that is the best approach.

The question is, what will a Monday Night Football game cost if it is priced separately? I know, I know, Colosseum-type entertainment is a common good we all should be taxed for, a policy that has historical precedent as far back as Imperial Rome.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

steveT said:


> If you were a network like AMC, your target would be to fill that hole, not go up against the tougher competition on Thursdays...


I suppose... but then you have to be careful claiming how high your ratings are and how high quality your product is...when you knowingly put that product in a timeslot with far less competition.

IF they put their product against the best and did good ratings, then that's easy to brag about... but winning a Sunday timeslot doesn't mean much these days... same thing for Fridays...

Again, I'm not knocking these particular shows, I like Walking Dead at least on AMC... but it does muddy up the water a bit when they stack all of their original series on one of the two easiest nights to win.

Imagine if the other networks put their good product on Sunday nights again... would AMC still do good ratings if people had more choices?



steveT said:


> In this case, Dish is the middleman between the ultimate customer and the content provider. And we've seen that Dish hasn't made any efforts to see what their customers are willing to pay.


That's hard to say... Dish knows how many subscribers it has to the tier that AMC is included... and Dish knows historically how its customers responds to price increases for any reason.

There's also the offer usually on the channel that a channel can demand whatever it wants IF it is a la carte. IF AMC truly cared about its fans and wanted to make sure they got the channel AND AMC wanted to demand their own price... go a la carte.

Make the AMC channels available for a standalone price that fans could choose to pay or not. The thing is, AMC wouldn't want this option... because they know they would get less money that way... which is why you hear companies like AMC wanting tier placement and better per-subscriber rates in those tiers as opposed to pulling from a package and going it alone like HBO.

So... it's hard to blame this stuff on Dish, when AMC pretty much always has that a la carte option IF they truly wanted to see what their channel is worth to their fans. You'd also see how many people would be willing to pay every month for channels that air new programming less than half the year and only have a handful of original programs anyway.


----------



## Ira Lacher

phrelin said:


> If I don't watch a channel, I shouldn't have to pay for some common good mutually defined by Rupert Murdoch and Charles Ergen.


Do you feel the same way about taxes? "I or my family don't use food stamps or attend public schools, so therefore I don't feel I should pay my money so others can use them."


----------



## lparsons21

Ira Lacher said:


> Do you feel the same way about taxes? "I or my family don't use food stamps or attend public schools, so therefore I don't feel I should pay my money so others can use them."


Not a good comparison at all. Taxes have the force of law, it isn't a choice unless you like jail a lot.

Get another business comparison since we don't have to subscribe to any of it. And there is no real penalty involved other than loss of something to watch on TV. Hardly comparable.


----------



## Ira Lacher

I think it is a valid comparison because it brings into play the question of everyone paying the same as every other member of the community, whether you use all features available. But if you're looking for a business comparison:


Say you're paying a flat rate for land-line phone service, which includes unlimited long distance. Let's further say you never call outside your local calling area. Should you demand a lower rate because you're not using the long distance feature?

You and your neighbor each pay the same wireless company for data access, say $30 for 5 gb. You use only 3.5 gb per month while your neighbor uses nearly all 5 each month. Should you demand a lower rate because you're not using all 5 gb?


----------



## lparsons21

I don't like the word 'demand' in there, as I can't recall any time I ever demanded a discount.

But in both those instances you describe, yes I would definitely ask for a discount. If they refused to give one, then I would evaluate whether or not the price they were getting from me represented good value to me, AND I would see if there were a competing service that was more conducive to my needs.


----------



## SayWhat?

Ira Lacher said:


> Do you feel the same way about taxes? "I or my family don't use food stamps or attend public schools, so therefore I don't feel I should pay my money so others can use them."


Yes. I resent that part of my taxes go to schools when they will never again be used by me. I especially resent that at least some part of them go to state universities and their sports programs.


----------



## DoyleS

Moving HDNET (soon to be AXS) into the 130 slot where AMC was looks to be part of the plan to really push the new AXS and Ryan Seacrest deal offering more concerts and an emphasis on Live Programming. HDNET gets renamed to AXS on Aug 1 and moved into the Top120 and above tier just as AMC is being dropped. I would expect some pretty good programming at the launch of AXS on Dish. Possibly overshadowing the AMC drop and helping customers feel they are getting more new programming.


----------



## Mojo Jojo

HDNet is in AT120 already, though.


----------



## phrelin

Ira Lacher said:


> Do you feel the same way about taxes? "I or my family don't use food stamps or attend public schools, so therefore I don't feel I should pay my money so others can use them."


No. I support taxation and don't think we pay enough. I have been extremely critical of the "Guns & Butter" approach invented by Lyndon Johnson and embraced by George Bush.

I'm currently campaigning against the Jerry Brown - California Teachers Association tax measure. I'm currently campaigning for the Molly Munger - California PTA tax measure, even though the latter would cost me more, because it gives the money directly to local school districts.

But I do get to vote on taxes or for people who establish taxes. It's an imperfect system. But I wouldn't vote to allow Rupert Murdoch and Charles Ergen to decide anything about my taxes, and they're just two of the names in the media business I wouldn't vote for.


----------



## James Long

Ummm ... when did this become the political forum?

Let's get back to discussing DISH and AMC. Further political posts will be vetoed.


----------



## retiredTech

DoyleS said:


> Moving HDNET (soon to be AXS) into the 130 slot where AMC was looks to be part of the plan to really push the new AXS and Ryan Seacrest deal offering more concerts and an emphasis on Live Programming. HDNET gets renamed to AXS on Aug 1 and moved into the Top120 and above tier just as AMC is being dropped. I would expect some pretty good programming at the launch of AXS on Dish. Possibly overshadowing the AMC drop and helping customers feel they are getting more new programming.


I watch AMC programing but have found nothing worth watching on HDNET.

Some may like HDNET and consider concerts & live programing better than what is on AMC.

However, it is extremely clear to me that HDNET (or AXS) is NOTHING like AMC.

As a replacement for AMC,
HDNET is the WRONG choice!

TMC or FOXmovies would be a better substitute.


----------



## russ9

My decision will be to drop the tier the same day AMC is dropped. There are basically three channels in the 200 tier that I watch - AMC for Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead and Hell on Wheels. Bravo for Top Chef(s). BBC America mostly for Doctor Who. I just can't justify $15 a month for what is left. After last years price increase, I dropped HBO, and resolved to wait until the programs I like were available streaming or on DVD. I may waver on the 200 tier IF 3 or so programs I want are showing at the same time, but likely, I will just wait.


----------



## Galaxie6411

Just found out about this today while watching last weeks The Killing, after reading a few pages and skimming a few I haven't seen what the shut off date is. Has either company announced that? Have to say after 4 months of no FOX or local ABC from disputes I am getting sick of this, didn't use to bother me when it lasted a few days and I watch a lot of shows on AMC. Guess I'll start looking into online viewing as well as Direct's packages, I am sure Direct has the same problems and I do not like their support as much as Dish. Might even be cheaper just to sign back up with netflix and wait 6 months to watch new seasons and get rid of my full $130 Dish package and go down tot he entry level stuff.

The future is going to be online and the providers will be on the short end of the stick when that happens so the are either going to have to try and, for the lack of a better term, extort as much money now as they can because they won't be in business in 5-10 years. I already had to watch the NFC playoffs online and had no issues so this won't be a big deal for me.


----------



## satcrazy

Soooo,

If C.E. stands his ground, and there are no more contract renewals comming up [ are there?] between now and Feb 2013 [ price freeze lifted] the increase should be very small, correct?

As I stated in an earlier post, for those of us who already get HDnet, what is "our" replacement? [ Ryan Seacrest, oh please]:lol:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't find this season's Madmen all that interesting.

What should be a big concern is the dominoe effect though. What is to stop the next/or any other renewal from demanding the same increase, using AMC as a example if they got what they wanted?

As it is, the 250 package is becomming less bang for your buck, and if replacement channels are the same as what I'm already getting, I'll be dropping down a tier or two, and go with streaming for the difference.


----------



## hdaddikt

If Dish thinks AMC is not popular enough, how come they only carry it in their top 2 tiers? 
I notice Direct carries AMC across the board, all levels of programming. Unless, Direct just made that change, to make point.


----------



## James Long

hdaddikt said:


> If Dish thinks AMC is not popular enough, how come they only carry it in their top 2 tiers?


AMC is not popular enough to put in their most basic regular tier where all subscribers would have to pay for it. Lower tiers are generally core channels everyone wants. Higher tiers are generally more specialty channels.



> I notice Direct carries AMC across the board, all levels of programming. Unless, Direct just made that change, to make point.


DirecTV's lowest tier prior to February of this year was equivalent to AT200 ... a package with local RSNs and more than just the entry level channels. In February DirecTV introduced a lower level package without regional sports at a cost between what DISH charges for AT120 and AT200. It is still not as basic as AT120.


----------



## phrelin

hdaddikt said:


> If Dish thinks AMC is not popular enough, how come they only carry it in their top 2 tiers?
> I notice Direct carries AMC across the board, all levels of programming. Unless, Direct just made that change, to make point.


Here you're back to my tax analogy.

Both on a 24/7/52 and a 3/6/52-prime-time basis AMC is not a popular channel. Dish chose to put it in the AT200 tier (and higher tiers) which also includes BBCA, another channel I watch but isn't very popular. In making those choices Dish chose not to tax people who watch USA, which is very popular.

The regular price for the Dish AT120 tier with a ViP722DVR included is $50.99 per month. Any channel added to that tier will add to the price.

Because of the AMC dispute, I have carefully checked both DirecTV and Comcast trying to match tier packages and include all costs for an HD DVR capable of recording two shows at the same time. Ignoring short term new customer incentives, Dish is about 15%-20% cheaper. That's Dish's thing.

Regarding AMC, Dish has pointed out the truth.

Yes, AMC does offer 5 one-hour per episode 13 episodes per year shows that, for a cable channel, range from very popular to somewhat popular. That's 65 hours of programming a year.

Unfortunately there are 8,760 hours in a year, 2,912 daytime programming hours a year and 936 prime time hours (3 hours x 6 days x 52 week) a year. To offer programming that fills 7% of the annual prime time hours means that AMC isn't even trying compared to USA, much less CBS.

In this context "trying" means spending money, in this case Charles Dolan a billionaire, spending money. The other billionaire Charles Ergen has simply pointed out the Dolan has made a half-hearted gamble with AMC, keeping his risks relatively low - come on, not even 10% of the prime time hours in a year??? And Dolan want's Ergen to either reduce his company's profit or charge millions of people more.

Yeah, I'll be inconvenienced if I have to stream AMC shows from Amazon. But I'll save $180 a year dropping down to the AT120 tier, which leaves plenty of money to pay for that streaming.

Now if Ergen could come up with an "AT118" that doesn't include ESPN or Disney channels and save me another $10, I'd be a very happy customer.


----------



## hdaddikt

So those of us willing to pay for a higher tier that carries less popular specialty channels, get penalized for doing so. 

Good point on the Amazon streaming and dropping down a couple of tiers. If only BB/Home offered such a similar streaming option for the same shows so you would not have to go to Amazon.


----------



## satcrazy

hdaddikt said:


> So those of us willing to pay for a higher tier that carries less popular specialty channels, get penalized for doing so.
> 
> Good point on the Amazon streaming and dropping down a couple of tiers. If only BB/Home offered such a similar streaming option for the same shows so you would not have to go to Amazon.


I doubt that would happen, Dish would be shooting themselves in the foot!


----------



## Mojo Jojo

AMC was also listed in the $14.99 Welcome Pack, $37.99/month Dish Latino Plus, $44.99/month Dish Latino Dos, and $57.99/month Dish Latino Max. While AMC is in SD in the Welcome Pack, it is in HD as well as SD in the Dish Latino packages. 

America's Top 200 is $59.99/month; America's Top 250 is $69.99/month.


----------



## James Long

hdaddikt said:


> So those of us willing to pay for a higher tier that carries less popular specialty channels, get penalized for doing so.


The reward of buying a higher tier is the additional specialty channels.

Take AT120, add $5 and one gets their local RSNs. Add $10 more and one gets 40 more channels, 29 of them available in HD. Another $10 nets 40 more channels, 17 of them available in HD.

Most DISH customers subscribe to AT200 ... but there is a level down and a level up for those who want to save a few dollars or get a few more channels. If you are willing to pay for a higher tier you are rewarded by dozens of channels.

The people who are penalized are those who are NOT willing to pay for a higher tier who miss out on a channel that they may like, not those who are willing to pay.


----------



## bnewt

retiredTech said:


> I watch AMC programing but have found nothing worth watching on HDNET.
> 
> Some may like HDNET and consider concerts & live programing better than what is on AMC.
> 
> However, it is extremely clear to me that HDNET (or AXS) is NOTHING like AMC.
> 
> As a replacement for AMC,
> HDNET is the WRONG choice!
> 
> TMC or FOXmovies would be a better substitute.


except that both of these are included in the package that I already pay for. So what is the next option..........I'm sure a price reduction is not one of them!!!!!!!!



Galaxie6411 said:


> Just found out about this today while watching last weeks The Killing, after reading a few pages and skimming a few I haven't seen what the shut off date is. Has either company announced that? Have to say after 4 months of no FOX or local ABC from disputes I am getting sick of this, didn't use to bother me when it lasted a few days and I watch a lot of shows on AMC. Guess I'll start looking into online viewing as well as Direct's packages, I am sure Direct has the same problems and I do not like their support as much as Dish. Might even be cheaper just to sign back up with netflix and wait 6 months to watch new seasons and get rid of my full $130 Dish package and go down tot he entry level stuff.
> 
> The future is going to be online and the providers will be on the short end of the stick when that happens so the are either going to have to try and, for the lack of a better term, extort as much money now as they can because they won't be in business in 5-10 years. I already had to watch the NFC playoffs online and had no issues so this won't be a big deal for me.


Don't agree with the online thing.........it might work ok for the younger generation, but the older folks will not understand this type of set up...most of them have a hard enough time using a dvd recorder + the fact that there are still many areas that do not have high speed internet service.


----------



## hdaddikt

James Long said:


> The people who are penalized are those who are NOT willing to pay for a higher tier who miss out on a channel that they may like, not those who are willing to pay.


Not in the case of AMC. Those who are paying for a higher tier to watch AMC are the same ones who will lose it.


----------



## hdaddikt

satcrazy said:


> I doubt that would happen, Dish would be shooting themselves in the foot!


Why? It is not free if you stream it from Amazon. I'm sure Dish rather not lose a customer to Amazon if they can offer the same thing for similar cost.


----------



## James Long

hdaddikt said:


> Not in the case of AMC. Those who are paying for a higher tier to watch AMC are the same ones who will lose it.


There will still be 39 other channels in the tier. If the tier isn't worth the money _to you_ without AMC drop the tier. I'm paying for the tier AMC is in for other channels.



hdaddikt said:


> Why? It is not free if you stream it from Amazon. I'm sure Dish rather not lose a customer to Amazon if they can offer the same thing for similar cost.


The issue of carriage deals still has to be solved. Amazon has permission to resell the programming ... DISH would have to get permission to resell the programming. If Rainbow/AMC has anything to say about it DISH won't get permission unless they also carry the AMC channel. That is how they roll.


----------



## hdaddikt

James Long said:


> There will still be 39 other channels in the tier. If the tier isn't worth the money _to you_ without AMC drop the tier. I'm paying for the tier AMC is in for other channels.


Yes, I'm considering that option depending on how things works out. I suspect there may be a fair number of tier droppers if AMC is lost


----------



## phrelin

Last night I watched the finale of "The Killing". As of this morning I dropped to the AT120 tier. I feel richer already.:sure:


----------



## satcrazy

hdaddikt said:


> Why? It is not free if you stream it from Amazon. I'm sure Dish rather not lose a customer to Amazon if they can offer the same thing for similar cost.


I could be wrong, but Dish is all about "package" offerings, and this borders ala carte. IMO.

Not to say this is a bad idea.


----------



## hdaddikt

satcrazy said:


> I could be wrong, but Dish is all about "package" offerings, and this borders ala carte. IMO.
> 
> Not to say this is a bad idea.


I was just thinking older AMC series could be streamed via [email protected] but as mentioned, it could still be a conflict.


----------



## dunkonu23

I feel screwed by this choice. I have a two hoppers, two joeys, and a two year contract. A contract that isn't worth the electronic ink it's written on. When I went to satellite TV it was because the local cable provider didn't offer Speed. 

Now, six years later I (we) are once again embroiled in something we should NEVER have happen: Petty arguments which are best kept private between the arguing parties. If Dish goes through with dropping AMC, I will gladly stream The Walking Dead online, but I will cancel Dish at the end of my two year contract. I am sick this stuff. Since the Hopper came out three months ago, I have been without EHD use amid the constant promise legacy EHD's will be fixed. It's nearly summer, are we any closer to a fully meshed viewing environment? Nope. And now another petty argument. 

I'm a level headed guy, but what Dish and AMC are doing is just plain wrong. It hurts the viewers. It's wrong.

Scott


----------



## steveT

hdaddikt said:


> Why? It is not free if you stream it from Amazon. I'm sure Dish rather not lose a customer to Amazon if they can offer the same thing for similar cost.


In their statements to the press after this issue hit the fan a few weeks ago, Dish actually encouraged people to just switch to watching AMC's programming on Amazon or iTunes. So they would definitely rather lose customers than pay more to AMC. It's so short-sighted. They have to know their business model is toast once streaming becomes more ubiquitous and user-friendly. I pointed that out in my email to Dish, but of course the point wasn't addressed in their canned response.

(It's so pathetic; the first line of Dish's email response to me said, "We value your business and the opportunity to discuss this situation with you", and yet the rest of the email just repeats the same statements they've made elsewhere, and doesn't address one point in my email. So much for "valuing" the discussion with me.)


----------



## steveT

Anyone notice that the scrawl at the bottom of AMC's picture changed a few days ago? Now it's says something like, thanks for the overwhelming support, but Dish isn't listening to you, so go ahead and switch to DirectTV or cable.

I'd say there's probably a less than 10% chance this dispute gets resolved. AMC looks to be a goner.


----------



## RasputinAXP

dunkonu23 said:


> Since the Hopper came out three months ago, I have been without EHD use amid the constant promise legacy EHD's will be fixed. It's nearly summer, are we any closer to a fully meshed viewing environment?


Off-topic, but:

1. My EHD worked perfectly fine, and I transferred 95% of what I had without issue. I'm not aware of any problems with the EHD's other than long fsck times on boot for drives full of programming.

2. Summer has barely started. They said "summer" not "June."

I mean, really.


----------



## hdaddikt

steveT said:


> In their statements to the press after this issue hit the fan a few weeks ago, Dish actually encouraged people to just switch to watching AMC's programming on Amazon or iTunes. So they would definitely rather lose customers than pay more to AMC. It's so short-sighted. They have to know their business model is toast once streaming becomes more ubiquitous and user-friendly. I pointed that out in my email to Dish, but of course the point wasn't addressed in their canned response.


I had not heard that, one thing to drive the knife in, now to twist it.
Despite all the reasoning and rationalization on the part of Dish and it's supporters, it does come down to screwing the consumer, taking something away while offering no real compensation in return. 
I am preparing to jump down a couple of tiers, at least 120+ and get my other kicks via streaming, etc. and if I can't get it conveniently at my TV, then eventually change providers. 
I thought [email protected] was a smart move, and I never liked Blockbuster, but after Netflix's last big poke in the rear, it suddenly looked pretty good when linked with Dish.
The same goes for the Hopper/Joey system. Quite pleased and settled in with that now. I guess this is what I get for getting too comfortable.


----------



## steveT

hdaddikt said:


> I had not heard that, one thing to drive the knife in, now to twist it.


Sad, but true. This was from an adWeek article:"[The] AMC Networks&#8230;overall have had significant declines in viewership among DISH subscribers," the satellite provider said in a statement. DISH went on to say that the most popular AMC programming is readily available via Amazon.com, iTunes and Netflix.


----------



## James Long

AMC is expecting DISH to shell out as much as $750 million dollars each month so a few of their customers can watch 65 hours worth of good programming per year. It is bad enough that DISH is shelling out $250 million now for so little programming ... AMC wants more money.
(Totals estimated based on package placement and previous posts in this thread.)

It is certainly a lot cheaper for those who want the programming to find a legal streaming source than for DISH to pay to transmit it to millions of people who could care less about AMC - including the 65 hours a year AMC is using as leverage.


----------



## akw4572

James Long said:


> AMC is expecting DISH to shell out as much as $750 million dollars each month so a few of their customers can watch 65 hours worth of good programming per year. It is bad enough that DISH is shelling out $250 million now for so little programming ... AMC wants more money.
> (Totals estimated based on package placement and previous posts in this thread.)
> 
> It is certainly a lot cheaper for those who want the programming to find a legal streaming source than for DISH to pay to transmit it to millions of people who could care less about AMC - including the 65 hours a year AMC is using as leverage.


I'm not a Dish customer yet, but I was wondering. IF they do go dark on these channels, will monthly bills decrease?


----------



## hdaddikt

And to think when AMC started, they were just a classic movie channel. 
I have no issue jumping down a couple of tiers, and using Amazon to pick up the series. Fire up my Roku and go to town. At least I'll save something in the long run.


----------



## hdaddikt

akw4572 said:


> I'm not a Dish customer yet, but I was wondering. IF they do go dark on these channels, will monthly bills decrease?


When life ceases exist as we know it, on 12/12/12


----------



## James Long

akw4572 said:


> I'm not a Dish customer yet, but I was wondering. IF they do go dark on these channels, will monthly bills decrease?


DISH usually "compensates" with alternate programming ... and sometimes with temporary credits depending on what channels are lost in a dispute. If the AMC channels stay gone it could make the annual price increase a little less next year.

Providers typically do not reduce prices. Look at what happened with your current provider when Versus was off nearly seven months and G4 went away. Any price cut or did prices still go up a little each year?


----------



## akw4572

James Long said:


> DISH usually "compensates" with alternate programming ... and sometimes with temporary credits depending on what channels are lost in a dispute. If the AMC channels stay gone it could make the annual price increase a little less next year.
> 
> Providers typically do not reduce prices. Look at what happened with your current provider when Versus was off nearly seven months and G4 went away. Any price cut or did prices still go up a little each year?


Interesting..........I wondered how they did that.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

akw4572 said:


> I'm not a Dish customer yet, but I was wondering. IF they do go dark on these channels, will monthly bills decrease?


Just as fair of a question would be...

When all of AMC's "award winning" programming goes on hiatus for several months, does AMC reduce their asking price?

IF their justification is the quality programming demands higher rates, then the reverse becomes true as well... sell me AMC for less money when you show a repeat instead of a new episode.


----------



## inkahauts

"James Long" said:


> AMC is expecting DISH to shell out as much as $750 million dollars each month so a few of their customers can watch 65 hours worth of good programming per year. It is bad enough that DISH is shelling out $250 million now for so little programming ... AMC wants more money.
> (Totals estimated based on package placement and previous posts in this thread.)
> 
> It is certainly a lot cheaper for those who want the programming to find a legal streaming source than for DISH to pay to transmit it to millions of people who could care less about AMC - including the 65 hours a year AMC is using as leverage.


That's just ridiculous. There is no way I can see dish losing enough subs to equate to anything close to losing $500 million dollars a month in profit, which by your math is what amc wants from dish above and beyond what dish is paying them now. If amc used their brains they would see why dish is telling them to pound sand.


----------



## inkahauts

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> Just as fair of a question would be...
> 
> When all of AMC's "award winning" programming goes on hiatus for several months, does AMC reduce their asking price?
> 
> IF their justification is the quality programming demands higher rates, then the reverse becomes true as well... sell me AMC for less money when you show a repeat instead of a new episode.


How dare push the idea of being logical at amc! 

If they based their rates on that type of scheme for how much they are asking over the course of a year, they are asking for literally hundreds of millions of dollars for every new episode of programing they produce' which is likely more than they spend to produce that hour,if we use Jason's math. Mind boggling.


----------



## dunkonu23

RasputinAXP said:


> Off-topic, but:
> 
> 1. My EHD worked perfectly fine, and I transferred 95% of what I had without issue. I'm not aware of any problems with the EHD's other than long fsck times on boot for drives full of programming.
> 
> 2. Summer has barely started. They said "summer" not "June."
> 
> I mean, really.


It's an older 500mb disk drive. Dish knows about it and constantly says it will be fixed in an update. Well, I've had lots of updates since March and no go.

Yep... Summer. Listen, I'm just PO'ed. I made the move, it's my fault, but really...

Scott


----------



## SayWhat?

steveT said:


> Anyone notice that the scrawl at the bottom of AMC's picture changed a few days ago?


Well, considering I haven't watched AMC in close to 10 years, I guess I didn't notice that. :grin:


----------



## steveT

James Long said:


> AMC is expecting DISH to shell out as much as $750 million dollars each month so a few of their customers can watch 65 hours worth of good programming per year. It is bad enough that DISH is shelling out $250 million now for so little programming ... AMC wants more money.
> (Totals estimated based on package placement and previous posts in this thread.)


I'm unclear about the math here. It's been reported that AMC gets about 25 cents per subscriber per month. If Dish were paying $250M per month right now, that would mean there were 1 Billion Dish subscribers. Dish only has something in the neighborhood of 15 million subscribers. What am I missing?


----------



## Laxguy

steveT said:


> I'm unclear about the math here. It's been reported that AMC gets about 25 cents per subscriber per month. If Dish were paying $250M per month right now, that would mean there were 1 Billion Dish subscribers. Dish only has something in the neighborhood of 15 million subscribers. What am I missing?


Pretty sure Jame meant per annum, not/month. Also, 25 cents is an estimate, as is $250MM on any basis.


----------



## DoyleS

I think the reference was to post 679 back on page 28.


----------



## Paul Secic

phrelin said:


> Last night I watched the finale of "The Killing". As of this morning I dropped to the AT120 tier. I feel richer already.:sure:


When did Cooking Channel got placed in AT 200?


----------



## steveT

Laxguy said:


> Pretty sure Jame meant per annum, not/month. Also, 25 cents is an estimate, as is $250MM on any basis.


From Dish's 1Q12 report: "DISH Network ended the latest quarter with approximately 14.071 million subscribers"

And from Dish's 2011 full year annual report:

Total revenue: $14,048,393,000
Total profit: $1,515,907,000
Subscriber-related expenses: $6,845,611,000

(It's also interesting to note that although they claim in the 2011 summary that "We added more than 2.5 million gross new subscribers in 2011", the detailed results state that "DISH lost approximately 166,000 net subscribers during the year" (see page 48 of the annual report). So 2.5M new subscribers, but 2.7M subscribers cancelled with Dish.)

So if one were to assume that they've been paying AMC $0.26 per subscriber per month, that is a total annual payment of $43.9M. Which is still almost an order of magnitude difference from the $250M figure.

Also interesting to note that $43.9M is equal to about 2.9% of their reported $1.5B profit last year. So it's not like even a doubling of that number is going to seriously hurt Dish's profitability.

But probably the more relevant comparison is to subscriber-related expenses (which according to the report, include programming costs, customer retention costs, call center costs, etc. Unfortunately programming costs alone are not split out...)

So $43.9M to AMC is equal to 0.64% of total subscriber-related expenses. Once again, even a doubling of that amount is therefore not a substantial hit to Dish's bottom line.

Another interesting note, on page 56, they report that subscriber-related expenses increased by "$169 million or 2.5% compared to the same period in 2010. The increase in "Subscriber- related expenses" was primarily attributable to higher programming costs and an increase in customer retention expense, partially offset by reduced costs related to our call centers. The increase in programming costs was driven by rate increases in certain of our programming contracts, including the renewal of certain contracts at higher rates."

They then go on to state that the ratio of subscriber-related expense to subscriber-releated revenue actually DROPPED from 2010 to 2011, from 53.2% to 52.8%. Therefore even though their programming costs had gone up, they were able to make up ALL of that increase and more in other ways.

Finally, look at Dish's reported earnings per share, which for 2011 were $3.39. This is the number that drives stock price, which then drives the net worth of Dish execs like Charlie Ergen. Assume an addition of an extra $43.9M in programming cost, if Dish really were to pay them double the current rate, would directly reduce their profit by that amount. That would translate to an earnings per share reduction to $3.29 (see eps calculations on page F-16 of their report). A ten cent reduction in annual eps is hardly even going to impact investor perception of the stock. And Dish has already stated that it has been successful in offsetting subscriber-related expenses with additional subscriber-related revenue, EVEN IN A YEAR WHERE THEY LOST NET SUBSCRIBERS.

Any way you look at this financially, there is no way that paying AMC a higher rate, even double the current amount, is going to hurt Dish, their stockholders, or the net worth of Dish execs. But not paying it will hurt their customers, even those of us that only care about those 65 hours of programming.


----------



## Paul Secic

James Long said:


> AMC is expecting DISH to shell out as much as $750 million dollars each month so a few of their customers can watch 65 hours worth of good programming per year. It is bad enough that DISH is shelling out $250 million now for so little programming ... AMC wants more money.
> (Totals estimated based on package placement and previous posts in this thread.)
> 
> It is certainly a lot cheaper for those who want the programming to find a legal streaming source than for DISH to pay to transmit it to millions of people who could care less about AMC - including the 65 hours a year AMC is using as leverage.


That's a lot of money to a two bit company.


----------



## steveT

Paul Secic said:


> That's a lot of money to a two bit company.


Read the post above. From Dish's own financial reports, it's $43.9M, not $750M, to that "two bit company".


----------



## steveT

steveT said:


> Read the post above. From Dish's own financial reports, it's $43.9M, not $750M, to that "two bit company".


And that's per year, not per month.


----------



## DoyleS

Very interesting to jump over and read the 2011 Annual Report from AMCX. They had the following statements.
"In 2011, Comcast and DirecTV each accounted for at least 10% of our consolidated revenues, net. The loss of any significant distributor could have a material adverse effect on our revenues."

"Approximately 41% of our subscribers are under affiliation agreements that expire prior to December 31, 2013. Failure to renew these affiliation agreements, or renewal on less favorable terms, or the termination of those agreements could have a material adverse effect on our business. A reduced distribution of our programming networks would adversely affect our affiliation fee revenue, and impact our ability to sell advertising or the rates we charge for such advertising. Even if affiliation agreements are renewed, we cannot assure you that the renewal rates will equal or exceed the rates that we currently charge these distributors."

AMCX total revenue in thousands was $ 1,187,741 
There profit in thousands was $ 126,454


----------



## lparsons21

steveT said:


> Any way you look at this financially, there is no way that paying AMC a higher rate, even double the current amount, is going to hurt Dish, their stockholders, or the net worth of Dish execs. But not paying it will hurt their customers, even those of us that only care about those 65 hours of programming.


While I don't disagree with your conclusion, it is a very short sighted one. It really isn't just about how much of an increase E* is willing to agree to with AMC, but how it affects the other rate negotiations going forward. You can bet your bippy that if AMC gets the rumored 200% increase, other channels will be revising their rate requests upwards. And that darned well does affect what we will be paying to get the same things we get now.

Assuming AMC is asking for that much of an increase without really bringing anything to the table that warrants that big an increase, I think E* will dig their heels in. And given the relative profits of the two companies involved, AMC has much more to lose if/when E* drops them. Both in direct dollars from E* and in advertising rates.


----------



## SayWhat?

I haven't seen any of the AMC fans address the question of cancellations.

If Dish gives in and pays Rainbow/AMC what they're asking, then some or all of the 'popular' shows are cancelled prior to next season, then what?


----------



## lparsons21

SayWhat? said:


> I haven't seen any of the AMC fans address the question of cancellations.
> 
> If Dish gives in and pays Rainbow/AMC what they're asking, then some or all of the 'popular' shows are cancelled prior to next season, then what?


Then they and you, will be paying more for less!


----------



## DoyleS

AMC has made a nice turn around from being unprofitable in 2007 and 2008 to continually improving sales and profits in 2009, 2010 and 2011. A key factor in that has been their original programming which has allowed them to increase revenue from advertisers. It would be hard to imagine they would cancel the successful shows which would seriously hurt advertisers who pay a premium to have their ads placed on the popular shows. Clearly losing Dish as a distributor will affect their revenue in loss of total subscribers and also in reduced rates for Ads because of the loss in subscribers.


----------



## SayWhat?

DoyleS said:


> It would be hard to imagine they would cancel the successful shows ...


Yeah, that's never happened before. :sure:


----------



## steveT

lparsons21 said:


> While I don't disagree with your conclusion, it is a very short sighted one. It really isn't just about how much of an increase E* is willing to agree to with AMC, but how it affects the other rate negotiations going forward. You can bet your bippy that if AMC gets the rumored 200% increase, other channels will be revising their rate requests upwards. And that darned well does affect what we will be paying to get the same things we get now.
> 
> Assuming AMC is asking for that much of an increase without really bringing anything to the table that warrants that big an increase, I think E* will dig their heels in. And given the relative profits of the two companies involved, AMC has much more to lose if/when E* drops them. Both in direct dollars from E* and in advertising rates.


And that's really the only argument Dish legitimately has, that this would be the beginning of a slippery slope that would lead to many more such increases in the future. But how many other networks can come in with arguments on their side about increased ratings, especially in the demographics targeted by advertisers, critical acclaim, emmy nominations, etc? There are VERY few networks in the hundreds carried by Dish that could make such a claim. So pay your suppliers who bring value, and hold the line on the ones who don't. Dish claims to be a major US corporation. If so, they should have some decent negotiating talent on their side to manage this. If not, then clean house there and bring in some people with skills.

I'm sure some of Dish's position comes down to their place on the corporate food chain. As a previous poster noted, AMC's revenue and profits are less than 1/10th of Dish. So part of Dish's position in this just to be a corporate bully, trying to steamroll over the little guy.


----------



## bobukcat

SayWhat? said:


> Yeah, that's never happened before. :sure:


Mad Men skipped an entire year because of a dispute between the producers and the network over the price of the show, did it not?


----------



## lparsons21

steveT said:


> I'm sure some of Dish's position comes down to their place on the corporate food chain. As a previous poster noted, AMC's revenue and profits are less than 1/10th of Dish. So part of Dish's position in this just to be a corporate bully, trying to steamroll over the little guy.


You may have missed the news, but the Dolans are not exactly 'little guys' when it comes to money!


----------



## 356B

Apologies for not reading the entire thread, but how much money are we talking about here?


----------



## RasputinAXP

They're already treading dangerously close to killing The Walking Dead by nuking their budget and running off the main production team.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

steveT said:


> And that's really the only argument Dish legitimately has, that this would be the beginning of a slippery slope that would lead to many more such increases in the future. But how many other networks can come in with arguments on their side about increased ratings, especially in the demographics targeted by advertisers, critical acclaim, emmy nominations, etc? There are VERY few networks in the hundreds carried by Dish that could make such a claim. So pay your suppliers who bring value, and hold the line on the ones who don't. Dish claims to be a major US corporation. If so, they should have some decent negotiating talent on their side to manage this. If not, then clean house there and bring in some people with skills.
> 
> I'm sure some of Dish's position comes down to their place on the corporate food chain. As a previous poster noted, AMC's revenue and profits are less than 1/10th of Dish. So part of Dish's position in this just to be a corporate bully, trying to steamroll over the little guy.


You're still not looking at the big picture.

IF AMC is in the top 25... then bet on all of those other channels asking for a similar rate increast if AMC gets to double their rates... then we aren't talking about pennies.

It isn't like this happens in a vacuum. The next channel will say "but people like us too" and people will post here "I'll leave Dish if they drop the yoga channel, how dare they" and then that channel goes up too... and on and on...

AMC doesn't have much to stand on to "demand" more money... just a handful of shows that they seem to be trying to strangle too. AMC is basically strangling for money at both ends here... Asking providers for more money AND asking their showrunners/producers to spend less money on those "award winning" shows... then the AMC folk get to pocket the difference.

People like to say that Dish doesn't care about the customers/viewers... Please don't make the mistake of thinking that AMC cares for you any more than Dish does. AMC probably cares less, since they get money by being in a tier whether you watch or not.


----------



## phrelin

If the critics and the Emmys mattered to people who don't get paid to watch TV, the high rated shows on broadcast networks would be on NBC. They're not.

The problem AMC has is that it only offers "Breaking Bad", "Hell on Wheels", "Mad Men", "The Killing", and "The Walking Dead" that get any discussion about ratings.

Last season, of course, "The Walking Dead" finale got record live+same day ratings for AMC with 9 million total viewers and 6 million in the 18-49 demo.

"Hell On Wheels" finished its season as the second highest rated series on AMC. The premiere and same night encore delivered a total of 3.8 million viewers 1.3 million adults 18-49. That's ok, but nothing to write home about. Last Thursday on the History Channel the 9 pm showing of "Swamp People" pulled 3.9 million viewers and 1.3 million adults 18-49. And in other weeks, "Hell on Wheels" didn't do as well, a fact that's true for all AMC shows.

And if you want to discover how AMC wins the "let's say stupid things to weaken our position with cable and satellite providers" award, read this article which states:


> While many channels and studios seem to see online streaming as a killer of business, the AMC Network seems to be, well, pretty happy with it. Last year, Netflix secured the exclusive rights to stream every back episode of the AMC shows Mad Men and Breaking Bad. The first season of The Walking Dead is also on the streaming service. The deal appears to be a success. AMC reports that its revenues were up about 40 percent in the first three months of 2012, and profits were up 20 percent thanks to strong ratings and performance of the new seasons of Mad Men and The Walking Dead. Part of the reason for their success? According to CEO Josh Sapan, Netflix and Amazon definitely helped.
> 
> ...In a conference call with investors yesterday, Sapan was a bit more explicit, according to WSJ: "New viewers are finding these shows on a digital service, catching up on prior seasons and then tuning into AMC for new seasons in greater numbers, many for the first time."
> 
> He argues that because AMC struck its content deals with companies like Netflix and Amazon in an "extremely careful" way (via THR), it hasn't hurt the network, but is actually helping to drive the pay TV ecosystem for AMC. Other media companies like Viacom, which owns VH1, Nickelodeon, and other networks, have blamed recent ratings declines on the Internet.


So while Viacom sees streaming as a problem, AMC sees streaming as a good choice for its viewers. So does Dish. So everyone's in agreement. Isn't that great!:sure:


----------



## SayWhat?

Here's another angle to consider. If these shows are as hot and in demand as some think they are, who's to say TBS, USA or some other network won't outbid AMC? It's not like shows have never jumped networks before.


----------



## James Long

Corrected:


James Long said:


> AMC is expecting DISH to shell out as much as $7.5 million dollars each month so a few of their customers can watch 65 hours worth of apparently good programming per year. It is bad enough that DISH is shelling out $2.5 million now for so little programming ... AMC wants more money.
> (Totals estimated based on package placement and previous posts in this thread.)


I've got to stop doing math when I'm tired. :sure:
It is still a lot of money each month.


----------



## steveT

Stewart Vernon said:


> You're still not looking at the big picture.
> 
> IF AMC is in the top 25... then bet on all of those other channels asking for a similar rate increast if AMC gets to double their rates... then we aren't talking about pennies.


Don't get me wrong Stewart, because I do find your posts here both interesting and compelling, but I do believe I am looking at the big picture, and particularly from a corporate management standpoint. I posted a fairly lengthy top level look at Dish's finances based on their own reporting (see post 771 in this thread), but I've yet to see anyone post any counterpoints here based on those actual financials. Dish's profits and stock price probably wouldn't be significantly impacted even if they had multiple similar disputes. It would take more than that to make a significant dent in that $1.5B in profits Dish banked last year.

Look at another number from Dish's 2011 report (page 55). Dish reports average monthly revenue per subscriber of $76.93. Comparing the 25 cents AMC is asking for to that number, it's 0.3% of that total. So even if they had to shell out that much extra in 5 similar disputes in one contract year (very unlikely given the duration of these contracts), that would still only be an impact of 1.5% of revenue per subscriber. Once again, not a significant financial threat to Dish.

Also let's compare the total AMC is asking for versus the cost of customers canceling if they drop AMC. At that monthly revenue per subscriber, Dish would only have to lose 47,554 customers over this dispute to make up the entire $43.9M additional fee AMC is asking for (assuming a doubling of the 25 cent rate). From Dish's own report, they lost 2.7M customers last year total (166,000 net). So if only 1.7% additional subscribers cancel over losing AMC, Dish has already lost more money than they would've if they'd just paid the extra 25 cents.

Combine the risk of that, with the risk Dish has already taken publicly by advocating that people switch to viewing these programs on amazon or iTunes, and Dish is the one that isn't thinking big picture here, not me. It's almost like they're advocating for the destruction of their own business model.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

You can spin math however you want... If Dish had to give every channel 25 cents more per month, then say just 200 channels at that price means $50 per month.

You might say "but, every channel won't ask for that"... ok, but where do you draw the line? 100 channels? 50 channels? 25 channels? Wherever you draw that line, then the next channel that asks for that increase will bring us right back to this same discussion for that channel... and you'll try to say once again that it isn't a big deal to do it for just that one channel.

So... drawing the line in the sand is somewhat arbitrary... and Dish has chosen to draw it here.

Also... to argue Dish is the only one "risking" here... ignores that AMC is playing with their customers too... AMC is risking losing customers that they have been counting in their ratings... not all customers will leave Dish even if they support AMC's side in the dispute. Every time people say "there will be a mass exodus" there actually isn't a mass exodus at all... so for every point of "Dish is not being smart" there is a counterpoint "neither is AMC"... and while Dish might lose some customers who actually watch AMC... AMC will DEFINITELY lose all of the Dish revenue from that tier if the contract ends.

Dish knows that way more people are paying for AMC than are actually watching it. I've done the math before too... less than 10% of the people who pay for AMC each month watched its highest rated program... usually it is more like 5% of the people paying for it. AMC could decide to go a la carte and charge what they want and only customers who want to watch would have to pay... but you can be guaranteed that AMC does NOT want to go that route.


----------



## cj9788

I hope Dish Network does not cave on this. Breaking Bad will begin it's final season July 15th and to stretch it out AMC is only airing 8 episodes this summer and the final 8 episodes in the summer of 2013. 

I am still wondering which way The third season of the Killing is going to go and that won't air til next year. 

Mad Men just ended their season and other than Breaking Bad and The upcoming season of The Walking Dead I do not see what value AMC has for me as a Dish subscriber. I never watch any of their movies and could careless if Dish does drop them for good. 

I do not mind waiting for the DVD's or using alternative mediums to watch the shows that I like. 

Dish stand your ground AMC needs you more than you need them.


----------



## James Long

steveT said:


> Comparing the 25 cents AMC is asking for to that number, it's 0.3% of that total.


AMC isn't asking for 25c ... they are reportedly getting around 25c and _asking_ for around 75c.

And while it is easy to look at a $1.5 billion profit and say DISH makes enough money to absorb AMC wanting $60 million more next year Stewart has a point ... if all the allegedly top channels get a 200% increase it simply drives costs up.

The $1.5 billion is also misleading as it was DISH's best year ever. They almost made more money in 2011 than they did in 2009 and 2010 combined. There is no guarantee that the level of profit will continue (and 1st Quarter 2012 was 35% down from 1st Quarter 2011).



> Also let's compare the total AMC is asking for versus the cost of customers canceling if they drop AMC.


The funny thing about losing customers is DISH doesn't have to pay for their programming. Yes, one could say that every lost customer is $76.71 (1Q 2012) less in revenue ... but it is also a reduction in expenses. For a more realistic number, look at the profits.

In DISH's best year yet DISH made $9.10 per subscriber per month. The year before was $5.81 per month (the best in five years) with their worst year since 2006 being $3.76 per month profit per subscriber. There are fixed costs that are not reduced by losing customers, but losing customers also saves DISH money.

Look at last year, DISH's best year for profit ever ... they lost 166,000 customers, their highest annual loss ever. 2008 was a good financial year, making $903 million dollars and losing 102,000 customers.

So, why should DISH panic as much as some people here do about losing customers? A customer count is a point of pride, but customers are expensive!


----------



## steveT

Stewart Vernon said:


> You can spin math however you want... If Dish had to give every channel 25 cents more per month, then say just 200 channels at that price means $50 per month.


I am not "spinning" the numbers. They are all easy and straightforward conclusions to draw from calculations taken directly from Dish's own financial reporting. Please point out where the "spin" is.

And saying this would happen for "200 channels" is purely a straw man argument. Given how contracts are determined in this industry, that outcome is utterly impossible.

Where to draw the line? A channel that can show ratings increase, particularly in the 18-49 demographic desired by advertisers, has a legitimate argument that their product has more value, and therefore justifies a higher price (this is how capitalism is supposed to work, for what its worth...)

And you would hold the line at networks that have no such argument. For those who think that a deluge of networks would roll into Dish's headquarters, saying "you gave AMC a price increase, so you have to do it for me!", just think about that. They'd be laughed out of the building. This process is supposed to operate by business rules, not schoolyard rules.


----------



## steveT

James Long said:


> AMC isn't asking for 25c ... they are reportedly getting around 25c and _asking_ for around 75c.


Understood. My estimates were based on AMC getting an incremental 25 cents.



James Long said:


> And while it is easy to look at a $1.5 billion profit and say DISH makes enough money to absorb AMC wanting $60 million more next year Stewart has a point ... if all the allegedly top channels get a 200% increase it simply drives costs up.


Without ever seeing this reported in detail, it appears that these contracts with providers have terms on the order of 3-4 years. So at most, you'd only have renewals of 1/3 to 1/4 of the top channels each year. Then you have to add in a factor for which networks have legitimate claims based on ratings to ask for a large price increase. Then you'd have to factor in the percentage of the asked-for increase is actually agreed to. By the time all those factors are included, the net result would be far from 200% across the board increases (call it the "Drake equation" of the media provider industry...)

And if AMC is asking for a 200% increase, does anyone really think that's their "red line" in negotiations, and they aren't willing to settle for something less? When one makes an offer on a buying a car, don't we expect to be meeting the dealer somewhere in the middle? Asking for 200% (which we're all assuming just based on media reports, not on any known facts), isn't it likely AMC is really shooting for an end result somewhere between 50-100%?



James Long said:


> The $1.5 billion is also misleading as it was DISH's best year ever. They almost made more money in 2011 than they did in 2009 and 2010 combined. There is no guarantee that the level of profit will continue (and 1st Quarter 2012 was 35% down from 1st Quarter 2011).


The fact that they had their best year ever in such a bad economy shows that Dish has more control of their operations than people must believe. It also probably demonstrates that in bad economies, consumers are more willing to pay for home entertainment, versus retail purchases, trips, etc.



James Long said:


> The funny thing about losing customers is DISH doesn't have to pay for their programming. Yes, one could say that every lost customer is $76.71 (1Q 2012) less in revenue ... but it is also a reduction in expenses. For a more realistic number, look at the profits.
> 
> In DISH's best year yet DISH made $9.10 per subscriber per month. The year before was $5.81 per month (the best in five years) with their worst year since 2006 being $3.76 per month profit per subscriber. There are fixed costs that are not reduced by losing customers, but losing customers also saves DISH money.
> 
> Look at last year, DISH's best year for profit ever ... they lost 166,000 customers, their highest annual loss ever. 2008 was a good financial year, making $903 million dollars and losing 102,000 customers.
> 
> So, why should DISH panic as much as some people here do about losing customers? A customer count is a point of pride, but customers are expensive!


I'd feel bad for any company that takes the attitude that customers are too expensive. We're the ones that made Charlie and his buddies rich. After 25 years on the tech industry, dealing with hundreds of companies, my conclusion has been that a very small percentage of established companies truly focus externally on customers, versus internally on their own politics and priorities. And the companies who are customer-focused are always the huge winners long-term, while the others sit back scratching their heads, wondering why it hasn't worked out for them, despite all their best laid plans.


----------



## hdaddikt

It seems in all the years I've been with Dish, things get settled, very few issues like this end up with us losing a channel of interest. You can argue about how little interest there is in AMC, but just the fact if it generated this much controversy just on this and similar forums, leads me to believe it is a popular network.

I guess we are being told Dish is being held hostage to fork over more money, and we should not expect the same case for other providers? Like Direct who will continues to offer AMC across all tiers.

The fact Dish puts it only to the top tiers tells me _they_ place more value on it. But no I'm told it is a specialty channel that's why it is not taking up space in the lower tiers. It's is in the higher tiers because of less general interest.

Of course, no one who would only consider lower tier programming would have any interest in AMC, SPEED, COOKING, NAT GEO, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Blankman2k5

steveT said:


> Don't get me wrong Stewart, because I do find your posts here both interesting and compelling, but I do believe I am looking at the big picture, and particularly from a corporate management standpoint. I posted a fairly lengthy top level look at Dish's finances based on their own reporting (see post 771 in this thread), but I've yet to see anyone post any counterpoints here based on those actual financials. Dish's profits and stock price probably wouldn't be significantly impacted even if they had multiple similar disputes. It would take more than that to make a significant dent in that $1.5B in profits Dish banked last year.
> 
> Look at another number from Dish's 2011 report (page 55). Dish reports average monthly revenue per subscriber of $76.93. Comparing the 25 cents AMC is asking for to that number, it's 0.3% of that total. So even if they had to shell out that much extra in 5 similar disputes in one contract year (very unlikely given the duration of these contracts), that would still only be an impact of 1.5% of revenue per subscriber. Once again, not a significant financial threat to Dish.
> 
> Also let's compare the total AMC is asking for versus the cost of customers canceling if they drop AMC. At that monthly revenue per subscriber, Dish would only have to lose 47,554 customers over this dispute to make up the entire $43.9M additional fee AMC is asking for (assuming a doubling of the 25 cent rate). From Dish's own report, they lost 2.7M customers last year total (166,000 net). So if only 1.7% additional subscribers cancel over losing AMC, Dish has already lost more money than they would've if they'd just paid the extra 25 cents.
> 
> Combine the risk of that, with the risk Dish has already taken publicly by advocating that people switch to viewing these programs on amazon or iTunes, and Dish is the one that isn't thinking big picture here, not me. It's almost like they're advocating for the destruction of their own business model.


This is definitely an interesting arguement and a great read. I have no dog in this fight but I understand where dish is coming from. I feel that AMC deserves to make a decent amount per customer but a .50 increase is not fair, in my humble opinion.


----------



## DoyleS

Putting AMC in all tiers would mean Dish would pay the fee for all of their subscribers. Having it only in the top tiers means they pay for the subscribers that get it and maybe that is a slightly higher fee than if it is in all tiers. Simple price volume situtation. We do not know when the Direct/AMC contract expires. Based on the AMC 2011 report, it could be next year.


----------



## steveT

DoyleS said:


> Putting AMC in all tiers would mean Dish would pay the fee for all of their subscribers. Having it only in the top tiers means they pay for the subscribers that get it and maybe that is a slightly higher fee than if it is in all tiers. Simple price volume situtation. We do not know when the Direct/AMC contract expires. Based on the AMC 2011 report, it could be next year.


If that's true (that Dish only has to pay AMC based on subscribers only in that tier), then all of the recent discussions we've been having here on the economics of this have been wrong! And it means that the cost of keeping AMC to Dish is substantially LESS than we've estimated, weakening Dish's case even further!


----------



## DoyleS

We could just be watching a Hatfields and McCoys event here with Dish taking their revenge for the whole Voom fiasco and AMC trying to stick it to Dish on cost.


----------



## satcrazy

SayWhat? said:


> Yeah, that's never happened before. :sure:


Anyone remember Deadwood on HBO? [ one of my all time favs]



Stewart Vernon said:


> You're still not looking at the big picture.
> 
> IF AMC is in the top 25... then bet on all of those other channels asking for a similar rate increast if AMC gets to double their rates... then we aren't talking about pennies.
> 
> It isn't like this happens in a vacuum. The next channel will say "but people like us too" and people will post here "I'll leave Dish if they drop the yoga channel, how dare they" and then that channel goes up too... and on and on...
> 
> AMC doesn't have much to stand on to "demand" more money... just a handful of shows that they seem to be trying to strangle too. AMC is basically strangling for money at both ends here... Asking providers for more money AND asking their showrunners/producers to spend less money on those "award winning" shows... then the AMC folk get to pocket the difference.
> 
> People like to say that Dish doesn't care about the customers/viewers... Please don't make the mistake of thinking that AMC cares for you any more than Dish does. AMC probably cares less, since they get money by being in a tier whether you watch or not.


+1
I don't understand why some just don't get this. If everyone jumped on the "AMC got their increase, what about me" bandwagon, Dish could really become unaffordable for many.

Yeah, pay for performance would be ideal, I've Always thought sports should be handled the same, if you have a great season, you get a great salary. AFTER the season is overwith! Paying millions upfront guarantees nothing.


----------



## hdaddikt

We could take tidbits of what Dish says, AMC says, what the media says, and piece it all together.

But let's face, unless we are flies on the wall in the negotiating room it's all conjecture.


----------



## steveT

DoyleS said:


> We could just be watching a Hatfields and McCoys event here with Dish taking their revenge for the whole Voom fiasco and AMC trying to stick it to Dish on cost.


I'd say that, more than anything, truly explains this whole fiasco.


----------



## SteveRS

If Dish drops AMC they would be dumber than Netflix.
Look what happened to Netflix when they messed with their programming. Their customers left and Netflix stock dropped like a rock.

I looked at my DVR Timers List and 5 of my top 10 programs are AMC.
I have been with Dish for about 12 years since the 6000 HD receiver.

If Dish drops AMC their stock will drop just like Netflix.
Big mistake because I will be gone along with thousands more.
Sorry Charlie.


----------



## James Long

steveT said:


> I'd feel bad for any company that takes the attitude that customers are too expensive. We're the ones that made Charlie and his buddies rich.


Please don't take any post as reflecting the attitude of DISH ... I am just reflecting the common sense of the matter.

The people here that want to "stick it to the man" and hurt Mr Ergen and his company are only in a position to hurt themselves. They would be better off staying with DISH as they work this issue out with AMC.



steveT said:


> If that's true (that Dish only has to pay AMC based on subscribers only in that tier), then all of the recent discussions we've been having here on the economics of this have been wrong! And it means that the cost of keeping AMC to Dish is substantially LESS than we've estimated, weakening Dish's case even further!


Not ALL of the economics posted are wrong ... some has been based on the less than 100% distribution of AMC by DISH to their subscribers.

There are solutions beyond AMC accepting their value and keeping their price low. They could move to a higher tier, which would save DISH a couple of million dollars and (if AMC is right) would encourage people to step up a tier. Or they could take up DISH's standard challenge of becoming an a la carte channel and make those interested in watching the channel pay for it themselves.

But there is value for AMC to being in as many DISH households as possible. If they allow their channel to be moved into AT250 they will have to reduce the number of households they claim when selling advertising. If DISH drops them they lose all of DISH's households. It doesn't matter if those customers want AMC or not ... if it is in a package it is "in" the homes of the customer.

It is a different number than ratings which reflects people actually watching. The Weather Channel nearly lost DISH's then 13 million customers a couple of years ago until they came to their senses and accepted a deal.


----------



## SayWhat?

SteveRS said:


> Big mistake because I will be gone along with thousands more.


Thousands? You really think that?



James Long said:


> The Weather Channel nearly lost DISH's then 13 million customers a couple of years ago until they came to their senses and accepted a deal.


Which somebody renegged on since we still don't have the promised second channel and they are still not weather focused like they used to be.


----------



## steveT

James Long said:


> Please don't take any post as reflecting the attitude of DISH ... I am just reflecting the common sense of the matter.
> 
> The people here that want to "stick it to the man" and hurt Mr Ergen and his company are only in a position to hurt themselves. They would be better off staying with DISH as they work this issue out with AMC.


Honestly, I've been one of Dish's biggest fans over the years. My only complaint comes around every 2 years, when my DVR craps out, like clockwork. And I've always thought Dish's support has generally been great, with a few exceptions. I posted a problem awhile back here, and Ray from Dish Network got me all fixed up in no time.

And every time Charlie Ergen asked us to write and call Congressmen, I always did, because I always believed he was right in those cases (I still miss my distant network signals...) Including the DirectTV acquisition, which the government ended up blocking.

So this is the first time in my 15+ years with Dish that I've actually been on the opposite side from them. I've read all the arguments, looked at it multiple ways, and I'm convinced Dish is the one in the wrong here. And I have been PARTICULARLY angered by Dish's public comments (which they again posted on their Facebook page today), that programs like "Breaking Bad", which I consider to be one of the top 5 programs of all time, are just "fringe," "niche," or "extraneous programming". How insulting to fans of those shows.

I would bet that the various options you detailed have been discussed in the negotiations, but it sure seems like the sides are so entrenched, that this is the one dispute that's not going to be resolved. I mean, AMC is now just running commercials telling people to just switch to DirectTV now. I'm sure that's not going over well in Charlie's living room. I'll be shocked if they actually come to terms.


----------



## SayWhat?

steveT said:


> that programs like "Breaking Bad", ... are just "fringe," "niche," or "extraneous programming".


Sounds pretty accurate to me.


----------



## Hunter844

It sounds like Dish is trying a Jedi mind trick on their subscribers. You don't need to watch that show...these aren't the droids you're looking for. This may not go over real well but you have to stand on their side of the fence. What are they supposed to say? That they are working really really hard to resolve the dispute? What then would be the bigger lie? 

As has been discussed ad nauseum here...Dish is clearly willing to call AMC's bluff and is prepared to move forward without them. In reality most people's memory isn't that good...heading into a summer dead period will the masses remember that they are missing a channel in six to eight months? I'd bet AMC won't be missed nearly as much as some on her suggest. Personally I do enjoy that network and hope it stays and I don't watch a single one of their original content shows. I enjoy the old movies. Since these same old movies are bound to show up on other networks by default I'm not losing sleep over any of this stuff.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

steveT said:


> And saying this would happen for "200 channels" is purely a straw man argument. Given how contracts are determined in this industry, that outcome is utterly impossible.


Which is why I suggested other points... 100, 50, 25 channels... the line would get drawn somewhere. IF AMC is in the top 25, and AMC gets a rate increase of 200%... why would you not expect all the other channels in the top 25 to start talking about similar increases?



steveT said:


> Where to draw the line? A channel that can show ratings increase, particularly in the 18-49 demographic desired by advertisers, has a legitimate argument that their product has more value, and therefore justifies a higher price


That's where you draw the line... but even at that, has AMC met your expectations?

Yes, they had one of the highest rated cable shows ever... but that was 9 million viewers roughly. That was a spike, not a maintained average... and it isn't even close to that on any other night than Sunday when their best shows air.

NCIS regularly pulls in 30 million viewers I believe on CBS... and that's on a Tuesday night. Just to have something to compare to...

So... AMC has increased their ratings for their best shows on one night a week for less than half of the year... but what has AMC done the rest of the week and year? Not much. Even AMC doesn't brag about anything outside of their 5 or so big programs.

Also... this dispute is about AMC, IFC, WeTV, and Sundance. Sundance went dark on Dish weeks ago and except for me and a couple of others reminding folk, there seems to have been ZERO complaints about that channel gone... and people only seem to be worrying about losing AMC... and yet, AMC wants you and I to pay for those other 3 channels for the right to get the stuff on AMC.

IF AMC cared, why wouldn't they ask Dish for more money on AMC and let Dish reject those other unpopular channels?



steveT said:


> (this is how capitalism is supposed to work, for what its worth...)


Not exactly.

Capitalism allows you to ask whatever you want... and if you think you have something worth more, you can ask for more... but there is NO guarantee you will get more. Even if your product is worth more, if people don't want to pay it... then you can't get it.

AMC can always ask for more... Dish can always say "no"... that is how capitalism works.



steveT said:


> And you would hold the line at networks that have no such argument.


We're getting into opinion here, though... which is fine... but it is opinion moreso than fact. How popular AMC (or any other channel) is largely is a discussion of opinion... especially since ratings aren't counted by official count but are extrapolated by samplings.

We know how many pay for AMC because we know what their revenue is and we can count the number of subscribers to pay TV from the various quarterly reports... and by AMC's own accounts, even their best rated show on one record-setting night only had about 10% or less of the number of people paying for AMC watching that night.

So... 90% of the people paying for the tier that includes AMC deserve to pay double for AMC that they don't ever watch? So that the 10% of people can still watch? How does that work?



steveT said:


> For those who think that a deluge of networks would roll into Dish's headquarters, saying "you gave AMC a price increase, so you have to do it for me!", just think about that. They'd be laughed out of the building. This process is supposed to operate by business rules, not schoolyard rules.


Maybe... but then AMC is being laughed out of the building now and yet somehow has found supporters... so why do you think the next channel asking for a rate increase wouldn't also find online supporters like yourself to justify things?

And you can bet... every company does have "you did this for the other guy" in their back pocket at negotiations. If you go into Dish asking for a rate increase knowing that they just gave an increase to another top 25 channel... you have to feel your chances are better than IF they just denied them. Don't you?

And if Dish turns you down... you wouldn't mention that?

Imagine yourself... if one of your co-workers asks for and gets a raise... and you feel like you do just as much and just as good of a job... don't you also think about asking for a raise? And if your boss turns you down, you wouldn't ask why someone else just got a raise who you feel doesn't do as much work as you?

We aren't part of the business... so we are very much in the schoolyard here anyway 



steveT said:


> And I have been PARTICULARLY angered by Dish's public comments (which they again posted on their Facebook page today), that programs like "Breaking Bad", which I consider to be one of the top 5 programs of all time, are just "fringe," "niche," or "extraneous programming". How insulting to fans of those shows.


But they are niche shows. Why does that offend you? I like the Walking Dead... but its best airing only got 9 million of the 100+ million possible payTV customers in the US... that seems niche to me.

When NCIS gets 30 million (nearly a third of pay TV customers)... by comparison, shows on AMC are niche shows.

Shows on Syfy (like Eureka and Warehouse 13 that I enjoy) are also niche shows.

Battlestar Galactic and Doctor Who are niche shows.

Nobody should be offended by something being called "niche"... its actually a complement in a way, because often niche shows have more devoted fans and mainstream shows do... Mainstream shows also have a lot of casual fans who watch because nothing else is on... whereas a Niche show has dedicated viewers who seek out and wait for the next episode.



steveT said:


> I would bet that the various options you detailed have been discussed in the negotiations, but it sure seems like the sides are so entrenched, that this is the one dispute that's not going to be resolved. I mean, AMC is now just running commercials telling people to just switch to DirectTV now. I'm sure that's not going over well in Charlie's living room. I'll be shocked if they actually come to terms.


Exactly... which is why you can't make this a Dish-is-evil one-sided thing.

AMC is telling people to ditch Dish and go to DirecTV or elsewhere... now, imagine in a couple of weeks IF they agree to an extension and Dish doesn't drop the channels... is AMC going to go on a "sign up for Dish, we are buddies now" campaign? Somehow I doubt it.

AMC is being every bit as petty as Dish has been accused of being... Dish didn't have to move the channels and screw up timers... AMC didn't have to start running scrolls telling people to bail on Dish and change providers. Those are both immature moves if you ask me.

I suspect Dish is unwilling to negotiate because of the lawsuit over Voom (it feels like deja vu to Dish... AMC says we make good programs and need more money to invest... but Dish remembers this deal with Voom and the money never went to improving content)... I also suspect AMC is unwilling to negotiate because of the lawsuit because AMC thinks Dish screwed them and doesn't want to get screwed again.

In truth the lawsuit shouldn't have anything to do with this... but I'm sure it is in the back of BOTH parties' minds... how could it not be?

But... Dish negotiated and paid for AMCHD a couple of years back at a time when they were still fighting with AMC/Rainbow over Voom... so clearly both parties were able to negotiate a fair deal back then even with the lawsuit ongoing... so no reason they couldn't now... but IF AMC digs in on a price increase, then I tilt the blame more to their side.

AMC's own financials show they made more money recently than ever before... without a price increase... so they can't argue a price increase is necessary... just desired... so they have to decide where they want to draw the line in the sand. Dish might pay more than they do now, but not if AMC digs in at double.


----------



## phrelin

steveT said:


> And I have been PARTICULARLY angered by Dish's public comments (which they again posted on their Facebook page today), that programs like "Breaking Bad", which I consider to be one of the top 5 programs of all time, are just "fringe," "niche," or "extraneous programming". How insulting to fans of those shows.


Yeah....

I start threads here with reviews of "Mad Men" which is a show I love. But I have no delusions about its appeal as something other than "niche" or "cult." By cult I mean like movies that have strong cult followings, but aren't popular with the general public just to a particular fringe of the viewing public.

Nothing on AMC gets ratings even remotely comparable to "American Idol" or "NCIS".

So it's not insulting to me to use "fringe" or "niche." "Extraneous" on the other hand, seems like an odd adjective.


----------



## 356B

If it were not for "Mad Men" and "Hell on Wheels" I would not mourn the passing. Others have mentioned, "Breaking Bad", "The Walking Dead" and "The Killing" as favorites.
If AMC is dropped by Dish I imagine an online source perhaps already existing will be ready and able to feed the craving in some way....
As has been mentioned perhaps many times, AMC's programing is not mainstream stuff. They present interesting, provocative and thought provoking series, not really mainstream American shows, or so it seems to me...."Idol" or "Dancing with the stars" they ain't. In some cases AMC reminds me of a limited budget HBO, that could why they want the more money.


----------



## MCHuf

SayWhat? said:


> Sounds pretty accurate to me.


Same thing could be said for all pay-tv programming, just like all the other examples you use to knock AMC. It puzzles me that you have such strong opinions about AMC programming when you've admitted that you haven't watched the channel for ten years. Say what you want about it's original programs and all the commercials the channel airs. But their popularity is higher now than when they were showing their commercial-less, but old and tired movies.


----------



## mike1977

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118055731?refCatId=14


----------



## phrelin

"mike1977" said:


> http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118055731?refCatId=14


While the article gets to the core of the matter, Sapan is still just a minion. We haven't heard from AMC until we hear from Charles Dolan.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

phrelin said:


> Nothing on AMC gets ratings even remotely comparable to "American Idol" or "NCIS".


Phrelin, I think you're wrong regarding Walking Dead.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...american-idol-the-voice-modern-family/135747/

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...th-9-million-viewers-for-9pm-telecast/125039/

Walking Dead, season 2, 18-49, average viewership of 4.6M

NCIS, last season, 18-49, average viewership of 5.1M.

Walking Dead outperformed NCIS:LA and House, among many others, in that key demo, over the last year.

In fact, if AMC didn't have Walking Dead, it would not be attempting to get that 75 cents a month.

I'm a HUGE fan of Mad Men (and I so love your analysis of each episode, Phrelin), but I will concede that it's a niche show (what were NBC and ABC thinking with Playboy Club and Pan Am!!!).

Walking Dead is not a niche show.


----------



## inazsully

SayWhat? said:


> Sounds pretty accurate to me.


Since I had not ever watched Breaking Bad I thought that since they are showing the first 2 years over the next week or so I'd go ahead and record all 40 some shows anticipating that my wife and I would most likely enjoy it. We watched episode 1 tonight and I must say we were very impressed and greatly looking forward to watching the rest of them. They are doing this repeat thing again so you all might want to record a few or all and see what you think.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

phrelin said:


> While the article gets to the core of the matter, Sapan is still just a minion. We haven't heard from AMC until we hear from Charles Dolan.


I'm unclear what the Dolans' role is since the split. Since AMC Networks was split from Rainbow/Cablevision... I'm not sure if Charles Dolan is officially in charge of AMC Networks like he was Rainbow Media.

I'm trying to find some clarification, but it is all kind of murky.



Gloria_Chavez said:


> Phrelin, I think you're wrong regarding Walking Dead.
> 
> http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...american-idol-the-voice-modern-family/135747/
> 
> http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...th-9-million-viewers-for-9pm-telecast/125039/
> 
> Walking Dead, season 2, 18-49, average viewership of 4.6M
> 
> NCIS, last season, 18-49, average viewership of 5.1M.
> 
> Walking Dead outperformed NCIS:LA and House, among many others, in that key demo, over the last year.


Going by the source of your numbers... NCIS last season averaged 19.4 million across total viewership (all ages) vs Walking Dead 6.9 million across all ages.

So... if you cherry pick one demographic, they are close... but you are choosing to ignore nearly 15 million other viewers of NCIS when you declare Walking Dead = NCIS in ratings by only counting your "key" demographic.

When the number of people you choose not to count (15 million outside that "key" demographic) are nearly 3 times the amount you choose to count in your key demographic... something says you aren't looking at the numbers correctly.


----------



## phrelin

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Phrelin, I think you're wrong regarding Walking Dead.
> 
> http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...american-idol-the-voice-modern-family/135747/
> 
> http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...th-9-million-viewers-for-9pm-telecast/125039/
> 
> Walking Dead, season 2, 18-49, average viewership of 4.6M
> 
> NCIS, last season, 18-49, average viewership of 5.1M.
> 
> Walking Dead outperformed NCIS:LA and House, among many others, in that key demo, over the last year.
> 
> In fact, if AMC didn't have Walking Dead, it would not be attempting to get that 75 cents a month.
> 
> I'm a HUGE fan of Mad Men (and I so love your analysis of each episode, Phrelin), but I will concede that it's a niche show (what were NBC and ABC thinking with Playboy Club and Pan Am!!!).
> 
> Walking Dead is not a niche show.


Guess what, I don't watch "Walking Dead" probably because I'm outside its appeal zone - that 18-49 niche.

Remember, "NCIS" got its ratings for the season on 34 telecast (including reruns) of 24 new episodes pulling an average 5.12 million 18-49 demo viewers and 19.49 million total viewers.

The "Walking Dead" ratings are 4.6 million 18-49 demo viewers and 6.9 total million total viewers.

That kind of indicates an age niche in appeal. In its 13 new episodes "encored" in the same week it can only find an average 2.3 million over the age of 49, while "NCIS" averages 16.48 million over the age of 49 while getting 11% higher 18-49 ratings.

Not that it matters, but that's only 13 hours a year of new episodes out of 936 hours of available prime time.

I don't criticize AMC for their efforts. In fact, I really am not criticizing AMC.

What I recognize is that this is a fight between Rainbow Media's Charles Dolan and Dish Network's Charles Ergen. And personally, the way I see it Dolan cheated Ergen on the Voom deal and then is suing Ergen for $2.5 billion. That's my opinon and I'm sticking to it.

Of course this is the side effect of having billionaires own so much stuff in our country.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> Going by the source of your numbers... NCIS last season averaged 19.4 million across total viewership (all ages) vs Walking Dead 6.9 million across all ages.
> 
> So... if you cherry pick one demographic, they are close... but you are choosing to ignore nearly 15 million other viewers of NCIS when you declare Walking Dead = NCIS in ratings by only counting your "key" demographic.


That pretty much defines "niche" show vs wide audience show.
Yes, the niche that Walking Dead attracts is a good one ... but better, non-niche shows appeal outside of the narrow definitions.


----------



## hdaddikt

inazsully said:


> Since I had not ever watched Breaking Bad I thought that since they are showing the first 2 years over the next week or so I'd go ahead and record all 40 some shows anticipating that my wife and I would most likely enjoy it. We watched episode 1 tonight and I must say we were very impressed and greatly looking forward to watching the rest of them. They are doing this repeat thing again so you all might want to record a few or all and see what you think.


If you are into good drama and suspense, I find Breaking Bad a hard show to resist. Nothing flashy, no special fx, etc. just great acting and story line. 
With all I've seen and enjoyed, from premium as well as 'cable' channels, I still find great appeal in BB and look forward to the new season. Only difference will be a few bucks, depending on whether AMC is still around, or I jump down a tier or two and stream from Amazon. Gets down to a minor convenience or inconvenience.


----------



## SteveRS

AMC is showing gritty, thought provoking, cutting-edge drama for a mature audience. Similar to dramas you would see on HBO and Showtime in prime-time.

AMC doesn't care about the major network programming that has to cater to family oriented content with youngsters. This brings in the numbers but dulls the senses.

Oh yeah. I'm still ticked at Dish for no ESPN News HD. Having to watch in SD is Nuts.
No AMC is the Last Straw because I know there will be more cutbacks.


----------



## sregener

SteveRS said:


> If Dish drops AMC they would be dumber than Netflix.
> Look what happened to Netflix when they messed with their programming. Their customers left and Netflix stock dropped like a rock.


Yeah, let's look at what Netflix did. They doubled the price for their existing service, from $8 to $16, overnight. Sure, they kept an $8 tier, but it only had half the value it had before. I think that's a pretty clear example of what Dish would have to do if they gave in to AMC's demands. Other channels, channels with much more original, popular programming, would demand similar increases.

In the end, Dish would probably end up doubling or tripling the price of equivalent packages. They might be able to hold the line on the limited packages, though they'd probably have to drop some channels to do so. In other words, they'd have to make the mistake Netflix made to get Netflix-like results. They see the future, they anticipate it, and they're cutting it off now, before that future arrives.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind if AT120+ jumped to $100/month, but I bet a lot of other people would. And they'd leave in droves. A la Netflix.


----------



## lparsons21

Absolutely! Netflix's problems were started by the rate change more than any other factor by a huge margin.

As to the 5 shows that AMC produces, it is not sure at all that the Killing will be around much anymore. I read somewhere yesterday that this season is down 20% from previous seasons. While I like it very much, I can understand that. How long can you have a show about a single crime?

The others are all niche shows. I love Walking Dead and Hell on Wheels, and like Breaking Bad, never did like Mad Men. And I'm 68, well out of the niche demo that Walking Dead seems to cater to.


----------



## RasputinAXP

sregener said:


> Yeah, let's look at what Netflix did. They doubled the price for their existing service, from $8 to $16, overnight. Sure, they kept an $8 tier, but it only had half the value it had before. I think that's a pretty clear example of what Dish would have to do if they gave in to AMC's demands. Other channels, channels with much more original, popular programming, would demand similar increases.


Says you. I never used the DVD's from Netflix. As soon as they had a streaming-only option, I took it.


----------



## sigma1914

lparsons21 said:


> Absolutely! Netflix's problems were started by the rate change more than any other factor by a huge margin.
> 
> As to the 5 shows that AMC produces, it is not sure at all that the Killing will be around much anymore. I read somewhere yesterday that this season is down 20% from previous seasons. While I like it very much, I can understand that. How long can you have a show about a single crime?
> 
> The others are all niche shows. I love Walking Dead and Hell on Wheels, and like Breaking Bad, never did like Mad Men. And I'm 68, well out of the niche demo that Walking Dead seems to cater to.


Did you catch Rubicon? IMO, it was AMC's best show & I love them all. It was "too smart" for the general population who loves weekly "who done it" criminal shows.


----------



## lparsons21

sigma1914 said:


> Did you catch Rubicon? IMO, it was AMC's best show & I love them all. It was "too smart" for the general population who loves weekly "who done it" criminal shows.


No I didn't catch that one. Now I'll have to buy at least one episode to see if it is something I'll like. Thanks for the recommendation.


----------



## sigma1914

lparsons21 said:


> No I didn't catch that one. Now I'll have to buy at least one episode to see if it is something I'll like. Thanks for the recommendation.


Give it a couple episodes ... it's kinda deep. It's one of those watch-all-in-a-row type shows.


----------



## lparsons21

sigma1914 said:


> Give it a couple episodes ... it's kinda deep. It's one of those watch-all-in-a-row type shows.


Looks like I'll have to dig around to even find it. iTunes has one episode, Amazon has none. And those are the two I usually go to.

edit: oops, looks like no DVD and no streaming anywhere legal.

http://www.amctv.com/shows/rubicon/where-to-watch


----------



## sigma1914

lparsons21 said:


> Looks like I'll have to dig around to even find it. iTunes has one episode, Amazon has none. And those are the two I usually go to.


It wasn't popular enough I guess. Here's the crappy DVD for $18... http://www.amazon.com/Rubicon-Simon...e=UTF8&qid=1340289088&sr=8-5&keywords=rubicon

EDIT: Oops... NOT the tv show.


----------



## hdaddikt

lparsons21 said:


> Absolutely! Netflix's problems were started by the rate change more than any other factor by a huge margin.
> 
> As to the 5 shows that AMC produces, it is not sure at all that the Killing will be around much anymore. I read somewhere yesterday that this season is down 20% from previous seasons. While I like it very much, I can understand that. How long can you have a show about a single crime?
> 
> The others are all niche shows. I love Walking Dead and Hell on Wheels, and like Breaking Bad, never did like Mad Men. And I'm 68, well out of the niche demo that Walking Dead seems to cater to.


I'm 68, like the Mad Men but not to the degree of BB. HOW is great too. Pardon the acronyms. As to the Walking Dead, still one of my favorites. I may be out the demographics for TWD, or maybe just out of my mind! Have always been a horror movie addict. 
I tend to agree on the Killing.. it is about a homicide being solved v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y. Just enough suspense to keep me going. One season would had been enough. After all the rain (yeah, I know it rains a lot in Seattle but come on) and dark scenes I thought I might have to call my doc for an antidepressant. Would have been a good flick for a B&W comeback.

I was sorry to see Rubicon cut short. Not a great series, but enough to keep my interest. Seems to be a big deal when cable shows are dropped, on the big 3 networks, it's business as usual.


----------



## steveT

inazsully said:


> Since I had not ever watched Breaking Bad I thought that since they are showing the first 2 years over the next week or so I'd go ahead and record all 40 some shows anticipating that my wife and I would most likely enjoy it. We watched episode 1 tonight and I must say we were very impressed and greatly looking forward to watching the rest of them. They are doing this repeat thing again so you all might want to record a few or all and see what you think.


You're in for a treat. I have never once heard someone pick up Breaking Bad, and not say it's amazing. Just wait until you get to the middle of the second season, around episodes 12-14. It'll blow you away. I've never watched any series that literally made my jaw drop as many times as this one. It can get fairly graphic and intense though, if that kind of stuff bothers you...


----------



## steveT

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm unclear what the Dolans' role is since the split. Since AMC Networks was split from Rainbow/Cablevision... I'm not sure if Charles Dolan is officially in charge of AMC Networks like he was Rainbow Media.
> 
> I'm trying to find some clarification, but it is all kind of murky.
> 
> Going by the source of your numbers... NCIS last season averaged 19.4 million across total viewership (all ages) vs Walking Dead 6.9 million across all ages.
> 
> So... if you cherry pick one demographic, they are close... but you are choosing to ignore nearly 15 million other viewers of NCIS when you declare Walking Dead = NCIS in ratings by only counting your "key" demographic.
> 
> When the number of people you choose not to count (15 million outside that "key" demographic) are nearly 3 times the amount you choose to count in your key demographic... something says you aren't looking at the numbers correctly.


Stewart, you're not recognizing how the ad environment has changed. TV advertising dollars are now almost exclusively set by the 18-49 demographic. Spent a bit of time on tvbythenumbers.com, and you'll see why. Once you're 50 and over, you don't count to advertisers anymore. Even though that demographic is the wealthiest in the country, they don't spend and impulse buy, like the younger ages do.

And by the way, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox would KILL these days to get 9M viewers on any new show. The days of 20M viewers (even total) have passed. American Idol didn't even get 20M this season. 9M is a raging hit for the major networks today, guaranteeing renewal.


----------



## Jaspear

Stewart Vernon said:


> Going by the source of your numbers... NCIS last season averaged 19.4 million across total viewership (all ages) vs Walking Dead 6.9 million across all ages.
> 
> So... if you cherry pick one demographic, they are close... but you are choosing to ignore nearly 15 million other viewers of NCIS when you declare Walking Dead = NCIS in ratings by only counting your "key" demographic.
> 
> When the number of people you choose not to count (15 million outside that "key" demographic) are nearly 3 times the amount you choose to count in your key demographic... something says you aren't looking at the numbers correctly.


Aren't those 15 million people the same ones the advertising agencies choose to ignore when deciding which shows to buy ad time on?


----------



## ehilbert1

steveT said:


> Stewart, you're not recognizing how the ad environment has changed. TV advertising dollars are now almost exclusively set by the 18-49 demographic. Spent a bit of time on tvbythenumbers.com, and you'll see why. Once you're 50 and over, you don't count to advertisers anymore. Even though that demographic is the wealthiest in the country, they don't spend and impulse buy, like the younger ages do.
> 
> And by the way, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox would KILL these days to get 9M viewers on any new show. The days of 20M viewers (even total) have passed.  American Idol didn't even get 20M this season. 9M is a raging hit for the major networks today, guaranteeing renewal.


You are so right about that. NBC canceled their 2nd most poular show Harrys Law because it did not meet the 18 to 49 numbers. They had around 9 million viewers too. Their 2nd most popular show!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/harrys-law-canceled-kathy-bates_n_1510785.html

Why are you guys even comapring broadcast TV to cable? I know a lot of people that that cut the cord and watch broadcast because its free. So please tell me what cable show gets over 9 to 10 million viewers regularly? I would say none or not many. AMC is just now getting its crap together and they put on damn good shows.


----------



## DoyleS

inazsully said:


> Since I had not ever watched Breaking Bad I thought that since they are showing the first 2 years over the next week or so I'd go ahead and record all 40 some shows anticipating that my wife and I would most likely enjoy it. We watched episode 1 tonight and I must say we were very impressed and greatly looking forward to watching the rest of them. They are doing this repeat thing again so you all might want to record a few or all and see what you think.


Thanks for the tip. I just set the DVR to catch them. On my iPad Dish Remote, it doesn't tell me the episode numbers so not sure how many of them have been broadcast so far. At this point the first one I can get of BB is the May23,2010 episode. It would help if someone could tell me what episode that is so I know which ones I have to pickup on Netflix or iTunes.

looks like I better move some old programs off onto the EHD to make room for these.


----------



## TBoneit

Jaspear said:


> Aren't those 15 million people the same ones the advertising agencies choose to ignore when deciding which shows to buy ad time on?


I do not believe that the over 50s are ignored as much as some seem to think. If that is the case why am I seeing so many commercials aimed at seniors?

COPD, that insurance ad with Alex Trebek and so on.


----------



## lparsons21

TBoneit said:


> I do not believe that the over 50s are ignored as much as some seem to think. If that is the case why am I seeing so many commercials aimed at seniors?
> 
> COPD, that insurance ad with Alex Trebek and so on.


Do you see that many of them in prime time? I seldom see any ads these days is why I ask.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

steveT said:


> Stewart, you're not recognizing how the ad environment has changed. TV advertising dollars are now almost exclusively set by the 18-49 demographic. Spent a bit of time on tvbythenumbers.com, and you'll see why. Once you're 50 and over, you don't count to advertisers anymore. Even though that demographic is the wealthiest in the country, they don't spend and impulse buy, like the younger ages do.


But we have a whole other thread in this very forum where people are arguing that they don't watch commercials... so I wonder which it is? AMC gets ratings "where it counts" in the demographic that watches commercials? OR isn't that the same demographic arguing in the other thread that they don't like or watch commercials? 



TBoneit said:


> I do not believe that the over 50s are ignored as much as some seem to think. If that is the case why am I seeing so many commercials aimed at seniors?
> 
> COPD, that insurance ad with Alex Trebek and so on.


Glad you asked that... because I too was wondering. I see a LOT of advertising that clearly targets the 50+ crowd... so IF that demographic isn't being counted for commercial ads... then who do they think those commercials are for?


----------



## John Strk

DoyleS said:


> Thanks for the tip. I just set the DVR to catch them. On my iPad Dish Remote, it doesn't tell me the episode numbers so not sure how many of them have been broadcast so far. At this point the first one I can get of BB is the May23,2010 episode. It would help if someone could tell me what episode that is so I know which ones I have to pickup on Netflix or iTunes.
> 
> looks like I better move some old programs off onto the EHD to make room for these.


I've been catching up with the Breaking Bad marathon for two weeks now and it's currently in the middle of season three.

AMC is restarting the marathon again late Thurs June 28. Beginning with the Pilot episode from Season One to the end of Season Four just in time for the new Season Five episode on Sun July 15.

I'm watching for the first time and I'm totally hooked. Averaging around 3-4 episodes per night to keep up. Great show. My new favorite on AMC. 

AMC's Breaking Bad TV Schedule

List of Breaking Bad episodes


----------



## ehilbert1

John Strk said:


> I've been catching up with the Breaking Bad marathon for two weeks now and it's currently in the middle of season three.
> 
> AMC is restarting the marathon again late Thurs June 28. Beginning with the Pilot episode from Season One to the end of Season Four just in time for the new Season Five episode on Sun July 15.
> 
> I'm watching for the first time and I'm totally hooked. Averaging around 3-4 episodes per night to keep up. Great show. My new favorite on AMC.
> 
> AMC's Breaking Bad TV Schedule
> 
> List of Breaking Bad episodes


Everyone I know that starts watching it gets hooked real quick. Same with The Walking Dead.


----------



## mdavej

You guys are cruel, trying to get everybody hooked on these great shows, only to have Dish yank them away next week.

If anyone out there is considering cancelling, THIS is the offer you'll get the day after you cancel. It's nowhere near as good as offers from other providers, but not too shabby either. You could probably get as much just threatening to cancel.

BTW, Dish CSR's have apparently been told to lie about dropping AMC. I spoke to at least 4 different ones who emphatically stated that their supervisors have told them that Dish will NOT drop AMC. Any quotes in the press from Dish spokesmen I presented to the CSRs, they called "falsehoods". So I guess they are saying their own media spokespeople are lying. By contrast, all my queries about AMC to several DIRT members remain unanswered. So I guess they'd rather keep silent than confirm in writing or have to lie about keeping AMC.


----------



## tsmacro

mdavej said:


> BTW, Dish CSR's have apparently been told to lie about dropping AMC. I spoke to at least 4 different ones who emphatically stated that their supervisors have told them that Dish will NOT drop AMC. Any quotes in the press from Dish spokesmen I presented to the CSRs, they called "falsehoods". So I guess they are saying their own media spokespeople are lying. By contrast, all my queries about AMC to several DIRT members remain unanswered. So I guess they'd rather keep silent than confirm in writing or have to lie about keeping AMC.


Technically Dish probably won't drop AMC. What usually happens is the channel will pull permission from Dish to show their channel once the contract has expired. Then Dish can say hey we offered to keep said channel on the air while we continued to negotiate a new agreement but they wouldn't allow it. Therefore Dish can say they aren't dropping the channel because technically it's AMC that's pulling the rights to broadcast it. So that's how they can get away with saying they aren't dropping AMC without lying - technically .


----------



## inazsully

ENGADGET ran an article last week regarding the Neilson ratings and how they are being looked at from a different angle now. Or at least they will be in the future. The culprit behind all this, the DVR. They have found that to really get a perspective on what viewers watch they need to see how many shows are watched during the 6 days after the original broadcast. They discovered that some shows are showing a 75% viewer increase during that period. So now consider how many record a entire season and watch it later or like I and a few others here are doing by recording all 4 seasons of Breaking Bad and watching them at their leisure. Right now on my EHD I have 2 seasons of Merlin, 2 seasons of The Practice, 2 seasons of Greys Anatomy, 2 seasons of Glee, 1 season of The Firm, 1 season of Falling Skies, and 1 season of The Walking Dead. Why do I have all these shows recorded and not watched yet. Because I'm retired and my wife is not. She would kill me if I watched these shows without her. We are true die hard TVaholics. I would venture to say that NOBODY watches more TV than I do. Not sure that's something to brag about but it is what it is.


----------



## DoyleS

So far my DVR is scheduled to catch HD episodes 30-46 followed by 1-6. The 6th episode was as far as my guide schedule goes so hopefully I can catch a few more episodes before it all goes dark on July 1, but that may be doubtful as it is only 3 days and they are on the weekend. The good news is that I can get seasons 1,2,3 all on Blockbuster, Not BluRay but at least I can get them easily.


----------



## fudpucker

OK, my two cents....

Will other channels ask for big increases if they increase AMC's fee? Maybe. But not many of them will be channels that have shows that win Best Drama, Best Actor, etc. When you pull a channel that provides your subscribers shows that are that high a quality, the kind of high profile shows that regularly get multipage coverage in TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly and the TV entertainment shows, that's a lot different that pulling a channel where subscribers will not be missing Jo Jo' Hair Salon reality show. These are VERY high profile, VERY high quality shows.

To compare them to NCIS is not appropriate. There's a reason a lot of people subscribe to Dish (or DirectTV) and one major reason is access to shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, True Blood (on HBO) and so on. I don't need Dish to watch NCIS or How I Met You Mother. I can watch a lot of big 4 network shows OTR or free on their websites.

I subscribe and pay over $100 per month to Dish to have access to more than just the most popular shows that the masses watch on their OTR antenna or crappy cable lineup. I pay that kind of money to have the option to watch shows that may not be the kind of crap that appeals to the masses, like Two Broke Girls or the Kardashian train wreck, but high quality stuff and yeah, some niche stuff. When I'm paying over $100 per month and get told by my provider I no longer have access to these Emmy winning shows, and that I should instead pay Amazon or someone another $60 or more to watch them on top of my hefty Dish bill, I feel ripped off. I also feel like Dish is not providing me the service that is the reason I subscribe to them. 

BTW - I notice they no longer even have the info channel that tells you where AMC is.

You wanna charge me $127.75 per month instead of $127 and let me keep access to the kind of high quality programs AMC provides? Fine. You want to argue, well if we pay them an extra 20 cents per subscriber (not what they were asking but everything is a negotiation) then next thing, home shopping channel is going to ask for more, or Lifetime, fine, draw the line with them, i.e. draw the line with channels that don't provide differentiated, high quality shows.


----------



## Jhon69

fudpucker said:


> OK, my two cents....
> 
> Will other channels ask for big increases if they increase AMC's fee? Maybe. But not many of them will be channels that have shows that win Best Drama, Best Actor, etc. When you pull a channel that provides your subscribers shows that are that high a quality, the kind of high profile shows that regularly get multipage coverage in TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly and the TV entertainment shows, that's a lot different that pulling a channel where subscribers will not be missing Jo Jo' Hair Salon reality show. These are VERY high profile, VERY high quality shows.
> 
> To compare them to NCIS is not appropriate. There's a reason a lot of people subscribe to Dish (or DirectTV) and one major reason is access to shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, True Blood (on HBO) and so on. I don't need Dish to watch NCIS or How I Met You Mother. I can watch a lot of big 4 network shows OTR or free on their websites.
> 
> I subscribe and pay over $100 per month to Dish to have access to more than just the most popular shows that the masses watch on their OTR antenna or crappy cable lineup. I pay that kind of money to have the option to watch shows that may not be the kind of crap that appeals to the masses, like Two Broke Girls or the Kardashian train wreck, but high quality stuff and yeah, some niche stuff. When I'm paying over $100 per month and get told by my provider I no longer have access to these Emmy winning shows, and that I should instead pay Amazon or someone another $60 or more to watch them on top of my hefty Dish bill, I feel ripped off. I also feel like Dish is not providing me the service that is the reason I subscribe to them.
> 
> BTW - I notice they no longer even have the info channel that tells you where AMC is.
> 
> You wanna charge me $127.75 per month instead of $127 and let me keep access to the kind of high quality programs AMC provides? Fine. You want to argue, well if we pay them an extra 20 cents per subscriber (not what they were asking but everything is a negotiation) then next thing, home shopping channel is going to ask for more, or Lifetime, fine, draw the line with them, i.e. draw the line with channels that don't provide differentiated, high quality shows.


Home Shopping Networks pay DISH to be on satellite.

Another observation these channels in question from 3AM to 6AM run paid programming commercials,plus commercials inbetween programs except IFC&Sundance.I find that fact interesting also.


----------



## fudpucker

Jhon69 said:


> Home Shopping Networks pay DISH to be on satellite.
> 
> Another observation these channels in question from 3AM to 6AM run paid programming commercials,plus commercials inbetween programs except IFC.I find that fact interesting also.


Ok, but you get my point. Pick any other Minor" channels.


----------



## Jhon69

fudpucker said:


> Ok, but you get my point. Pick any other Minor" channels.


I understand and do hope DISH can negotiate a price everyone can live with,so no one loses their shows that they like.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Jhon69 said:


> Another observation these channels in question from 3AM to 6AM run paid programming commercials,plus commercials inbetween programs except IFC&Sundance.I find that fact interesting also.


That's a great point. Wonder why AMC runs those paid advertising infomercials at 3am instead of repeats of their "award winning" programming?

I mean... if people love their programming, wouldn't they love more opportunities to catch up on it late night instead of an infomercial?

Doesn't seem like AMC really cares about its viewers either really.

Maybe AMC can charge more for those infomercials instead of asking Dish for a rate increase?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> You want to argue, well if we pay them an extra 20 cents per subscriber (not what they were asking but everything is a negotiation) then next thing, home shopping channel is going to ask for more, or Lifetime, fine, draw the line with them, i.e. draw the line with channels that don't provide differentiated, high quality shows.


But you're playing the "I want my channel, screw you and your channel" game that most people play.

You like AMC and want them to stay... and would be happy if Dish cuts Lifetime... but back when Dish did drop Lifetime a few years ago people then were complaining about that and back then probably AMC would have been a channel they would have said to cut instead.

Which is why these mini-battles are important. Dish fights all of them... otherwise they couldn't fight any of them. Today it is AMC, yesterday it was FOX, a few years ago it was Lifetime. Who will be next?

Disney is still in limbo too... Dish plays hardball with everyone, but especially so when the ratings and average viewership are below other channels that didn't ask for a rate increase.

You say cut Lifetime if they ask for money... but people watch Lifetime too.

That's why I think people like me are giving the only unbiased/consistent positions. I like Walking Dead, and I will miss it IF Dish hasn't resolved this by October... so I do have skin in this game, unlike Lifetime which I had no skin in... but I take the same position with AMC that I did with Lifetime. I'm glad Dish is trying to keep the costs down.

I know Dish isn't my buddy and doesn't "pass the savings" to me... but I also know every time a channel goes up, that directly translates to the next price increase from Dish.

And given how AMC seems to be running things and treating its own people and handling its own popular shows... I can't in good faith take their side even if I will miss some of their programming if the channel goes and stays dark.

But you know... I'll find other things to watch if AMC goes away... and I'll be buying the Blu-rays of Walking Dead anyway so eventually I won't miss things.

Oh... and speaking of how AMC loves its fans... I'm personally still a bit unhappy that they released season 1 of the Walking Dead twice... the second time with a bunch of extra features (including a black & white version of the pilot) that they already had but chose to hold back from the initial Blu-ray release.

So, AMC will take the chance to squeeze its customers when they can... I have to believe they are trying to squeeze Dish right now too.


----------



## James Long

fudpucker said:


> Fine. You want to argue, well if we pay them an extra 20 cents per subscriber (not what they were asking but everything is a negotiation) then next thing, home shopping channel is going to ask for more, or Lifetime, fine, draw the line with them, i.e. draw the line with channels that don't provide differentiated, high quality shows.


It is your opinion that the (current) 65 hours per year of good programming that AMC distributes is "differentiated, high quality shows". Perhaps it is good enough that DISH should pay 25c per month ... even in months when that quality of programming is nowhere to be found. AMC is asking for more ... much more.

You say everything is a negotiation ... only the negotiators know if AMC has lowered their expectations of an increase to only 20 cents more. Perhaps if they did DISH would not have a problem agreeing to the increase. But the 20 cents more you suggest is still an 80% increase. How about 10 cents more (a 40% increase)? It seems like a lot more to pay for 65 hours a year in programming. Especially when AMC has worked to REDUCE the value of those 65 hours by not fully funding those shows.

Most of the time AMC is worth no where near the 25 cents they are getting now. If it were not for those 65 hours a year the would be dropped - and even you would not care (since the "differentiated, high quality shows" would not be there to lose). If AMC gets an 80% to 200% increase they will need to guarantee that they will maintain or improve their programming - which is a difficult promise due to Rainbow/AMC's history of not keeping such promises.

The channel provider has overvalued their channel. They need to come back to earth.


----------



## TBoneit

Stewart Vernon said:


> That's a great point. Wonder why AMC runs those paid advertising infomercials at 3am instead of repeats of their "award winning" programming?
> 
> I mean... if people love their programming, wouldn't they love more opportunities to catch up on it late night instead of an infomercial?
> 
> Doesn't seem like AMC really cares about its viewers either really.
> 
> Maybe AMC can charge more for those infomercials instead of asking Dish for a rate increase?


My understanding is that infomercials pay very low and get on the air only because the airtime can't get regular advertisers.

If AMC's shows were (Are) so good, then reruns overnight would attract an audience and advertisers.

Infomercials from midnight to 8AM may become more common on more channels as DVR penetration increases.

If AMC's shows were so good I wouldn't have stopped watching them.

One reason I stopped watching HBO and Showtime was the increase of scripted shows and lack of movies as a result.

Instead of scripted junk HBO used to have specials that were interesting. They showed Burlesque shows for example, And before MTV they had the Video Jukebox that showed music videos. HBO used to do some innovation, Now they are a Me too channel.


----------



## SayWhat?

Yeah, see I don't get the whole bit about 'movie' channels going to scripted series. And I never understood the overnight scam-o-mercial bit on any channel. There are a lot of people who work non-daytime schedules and are up most of the night for one reason or another.

Either way, we're down to just a few days before the internet explodes (according to some), so we'll see how it goes.


----------



## Paul Secic

TBoneit said:


> My understanding is that infomercials pay very low and get on the air only because the airtime can't get regular advertisers.
> 
> If AMC's shows were (Are) so good, then reruns overnight would attract an audience and advertisers.
> 
> Infomercials from midnight to 8AM may become more common on more channels as DVR penetration increases.
> 
> If AMC's shows were so good I wouldn't have stopped watching them.
> 
> One reason I stopped watching HBO and Showtime was the increase of scripted shows and lack of movies as a result.
> 
> Instead of scripted junk HBO used to have specials that were interesting. They showed Burlesque shows for example, And before MTV they had the Video Jukebox that showed music videos. HBO used to do some innovation, Now they are a Me too channel.


Next Month George Lopez will have a new comedy special on HBO. They need more specials.


----------



## fudpucker

Perhaps it's "Wrong" but I grow weary of all of the mudslinging on who is evil and who is the white knight in all of this. Like most Dish subscribers I just want to watch TV. 

And again, part of why I subscribe and pay a big 100+ dollar bill is to be able to have a lot of options, including the option to watch very high quality shows that don't draw as much or have as much appeal as "Two and a half men" or "The Bachelor." I don't care if they are niche' or not, and in fact, the reason I subscribe to Dish is to have access to high quality shows that may be very "niche'." Again, most of the drivel like The Bachelor or Two and a Half Men and America's Got Talent, that DO get huge ratings, I can watch OTR or on the network web sites. I pay a ton for Dish to be able to view shows like Mad Men or Breaking Bad etc. that are very high quality yet outside the "mainstream" in terms of big ratings.


----------



## 356B

fudpucker said:


> Perhaps it's "Wrong" but I grow weary of all of the mudslinging on who is evil and who is the white knight in all of this. Like most Dish subscribers I just want to watch TV.
> 
> And again, part of why I subscribe and pay a big 100+ dollar bill is to be able to have a lot of options, including the option to watch very high quality shows that don't draw as much or have as much appeal as "Two and a half men" or "The Bachelor." I don't care if they are niche' or not, and in fact, the reason I subscribe to Dish is to have access to high quality shows that may be very "niche'." Again, most of the drivel like The Bachelor or Two and a Half Men and America's Got Talent, that DO get huge ratings, I can watch OTR or on the network web sites. I pay a ton for Dish to be able to view shows like Mad Men or Breaking Bad etc. that are very high quality yet outside the "mainstream" in terms of big ratings.


+1.....


----------



## phrelin

fudpucker said:


> Perhaps it's "Wrong" but I grow weary of all of the mudslinging on who is evil and who is the white knight in all of this. Like most Dish subscribers I just want to watch TV.
> 
> And again, part of why I subscribe and pay a big 100+ dollar bill is to be able to have a lot of options, including the option to watch very high quality shows that don't draw as much or have as much appeal as "Two and a half men" or "The Bachelor." I don't care if they are niche' or not, and in fact, the reason I subscribe to Dish is to have access to high quality shows that may be very "niche'." Again, most of the drivel like The Bachelor or Two and a Half Men and America's Got Talent, that DO get huge ratings, I can watch OTR or on the network web sites. I pay a ton for Dish to be able to view shows like Mad Men or Breaking Bad etc. that are very high quality yet outside the "mainstream" in terms of big ratings.


I also used to pay money to watch shows like "Mad Men". As of last Monday I'm paying $15 a month less to Dish. While its inconvenient, I can watch "Mad Men" via Amazon albeit for $1.99 an episode. In fact, most "niche" programming is available this way so I don't have to impose extra costs on folks who don't want it.


----------



## mdavej

phrelin said:


> I also used to pay money to watch shows like "Mad Men". As of last Monday I'm paying $15 a month less to Dish. While its inconvenient, I can watch "Mad Men" via Amazon albeit for $1.99 an episode. In fact, most "niche" programming is available this way so I don't have to impose extra costs on folks who don't want it.


That's very nice of you. I wish sports fans would do the same for their niche programming. That would have a much bigger impact than AMC's 25-75 cents. And you can bet that roughly $10 million / month savings will go in Dish's pockets, not yours.


----------



## fudpucker

phrelin said:


> I also used to pay money to watch shows like "Mad Men". As of last Monday I'm paying $15 a month less to Dish. While its inconvenient, I can watch "Mad Men" via Amazon albeit for $1.99 an episode. In fact, most "niche" programming is available this way so I don't have to impose extra costs on folks who don't want it.


If I follow that logic, then everyone who watches shows on Dish that EVERYONE else doesn't watch is "imposing extra costs on folks who don't want them." Dish could be really cheap if all they carried were the networks and a handful of the biggest channels.

Again, my point is that Dish is less effective in serving my needs - yeah, MY needs, which I agree are different than other people's needs (otherwise we'd only have one channel package that everyone subscribed to) - when I can no longer use their service to watch a number of Emmy award winning shows. I'd happily pay an extra $0.30 a month if I had the option.


----------



## Jaspear

phrelin said:


> I also used to pay money to watch shows like "Mad Men". As of last Monday I'm paying $15 a month less to Dish. While its inconvenient, I can watch "Mad Men" via Amazon albeit for $1.99 an episode. In fact, most "niche" programming is available this way so I don't have to impose extra costs on folks who don't want it.


It's available if you have sufficient bandwidth. I'll be on the lookout for my savings from your switch to Amazon.


----------



## inazsully

It's just human nature. Nobody likes having something taken away from them. No matter how we try and rationalize the whys and excuses, it just sticks in our craw. It started in kindergarten when some little snot tried to take away our blanky. Just because we're now adults, you better leave my blanky alone.


----------



## puckwithahalo

fudpucker said:


> If I follow that logic, then everyone who watches shows on Dish that EVERYONE else doesn't watch is "imposing extra costs on folks who don't want them." Dish could be really cheap if all they carried were the networks and a handful of the biggest channels.
> 
> Again, my point is that Dish is less effective in serving my needs - yeah, MY needs, which I agree are different than other people's needs (otherwise we'd only have one channel package that everyone subscribed to) - when I can no longer use their service to watch a number of Emmy award winning shows. I'd happily pay an extra $0.30 a month if I had the option.


But, would you happily pay $.30 more a month for every single channel that has a show you like on it? What if every channel that had popular shows asked for a 200% increase? Would you be happy paying 200% what your bill is now?


----------



## fudpucker

puckwithahalo said:


> But, would you happily pay $.30 more a month for every single channel that has a show you like on it? What if every channel that had popular shows asked for a 200% increase? Would you be happy paying 200% what your bill is now?


I'd rather my bill be $40 per month today than $135. But I have the option and if that's what it costs, I have the choice. I can always just purchase the most basic of channel offerings, or for that matter drop Dish and just watch OTA.

If ten more channels asked for .30 more and I had to pay an extra $3 per month, I doubt I would notice it in all of the service charges, taxes, etc. If twenty more channels requested a .20 increase and my bill went up $4 per month I also doubt it would be a big deal. I would be much happier paying a few dollars more and keeping the options than losing options and shows.

I already get charged $10 each for my 2 HD DVRs. Then they tag on another $6 for "DVR service" as if it costs them anything for me to record the shows on the DVR I already am paying for. They charged me a nice chunk of change just to allow me to hook up my EHDs to the DVRs that already have the USB ports and capabilities built in.

I already pay well over $100 for the service of them delivering TV shows and options to my TV. Including things like "DVR service." So no, I would have no problem paying another .20 per month to be able to keep watching Emmy award winning TV shows. And yeah, I'd be fine with paying an extra $10 per month if the unlikely even occurred that 50 channels demanded an extra .20 each. I would certainly prefer that to Dish just dropping 50 channels. At least give me, the consumer. the option of paying more rather than making the decision for me.


----------



## James Long

fudpucker said:


> If ten more channels asked for .30 more and I had to pay an extra $3 per month, I doubt I would notice it in all of the service charges, taxes, etc.


They better be the top channels. That is where I believe AMC fails ... they are asking way too much for their channel(s). How about a nickel more? Do you believe AMC would settle for an increase of five cents?



> I already get charged $10 each for my 2 HD DVRs. Then they tag on another $6 for "DVR service" as if it costs them anything for me to record the shows on the DVR I already am paying for. They charged me a nice chunk of change just to allow me to hook up my EHDs to the DVRs that already have the USB ports and capabilities built in.


Developing those features was not free ... they are recouping the money already spent to develop the DVR and the EHD - and focusing those charges on the people who actually use the service developed.

Look at the bright side ... DISH has gone from charging $5/$6 per DVR to $3 per additional DVR plus the per account fee (the remaining $7 of your additional DVR fees being the mirror/lease fee for programming).

DISH absorbs a lot of costs in their price ... but those who consume more of the system by having more outputs are charged for the service they consume. The only way to reduce fees is to bury that cost in ALL accounts ... making the person with the smallest SD non-DVR system pay for your multiple output HD DVR system. Is that fair? Would it still be fair if you had the one receiver no DVR system?


----------



## fudpucker

James Long said:


> Developing those features was not free ... they are recouping the money already spent to develop the DVR and the EHD - and focusing those charges on the people who actually use the service developed.
> 
> Look at the bright side ... DISH has gone from charging $5/$6 per DVR to $3 per additional DVR plus the per account fee (the remaining $7 of your additional DVR fees being the mirror/lease fee for programming).
> 
> DISH absorbs a lot of costs in their price ... but those who consume more of the system by having more outputs are charged for the service they consume. The only way to reduce fees is to bury that cost in ALL accounts ... making the person with the smallest SD non-DVR system pay for your multiple output HD DVR system. Is that fair? Would it still be fair if you had the one receiver no DVR system?


Being pretty familiar with the hardware and software side of the world, I am pretty confident they are making a ton on what they charge to allow me to plug in my EHD and interface with it. That is, even with their proprietary system, a pretty trivial development.

In terms of "fair" I think that is where they sell cotton candy and have a ferris wheel.  The market tends to determine what is fair. If people with one SD non-DVR receiver have to pay too much on Dish to help subsidize me (though I doubt this is true when I have a $135 bill and pay $10 per month for my DVRs and an additional $6 per month to be able to actually USE them - and we're all arguing about an extra .20 - .30 per month for actual TV shows) then they will leave and go to a company that provides a value they find more "fair."

Just give me the option to pay an extra $4 per year for AMC. I want them to deliver TV shows to me. That's what I pay them for.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> Just give me the option to pay an extra $4 per year for AMC. I want them to deliver TV shows to me. That's what I pay them for.


AMC is the one not giving you this option, though.

AMC wants to be in a tier so that it gets money from every subscriber to that tier whether they watch AMC or not (and the records clearly show that most people don't watch AMC yet are paying for it).

I'm sure Dish would let AMC be a la carte if AMC would go for that... then AMC can charge whatever it wants and you can pay $4 or whatever AMC asks.

Dish would let this happen... but AMC doesn't want to be on its own. They know they make more money with the status quo.


----------



## fudpucker

Stewart Vernon said:


> AMC is the one not giving you this option, though.
> 
> AMC wants to be in a tier so that it gets money from every subscriber to that tier whether they watch AMC or not (and the records clearly show that most people don't watch AMC yet are paying for it).
> 
> I'm sure Dish would let AMC be a la carte if AMC would go for that... then AMC can charge whatever it wants and you can pay $4 or whatever AMC asks.
> 
> Dish would let this happen... but AMC doesn't want to be on its own. They know they make more money with the status quo.


Well sure, I'm sure that in the tier AMC is in there are numerous channels a lot of us never watch. And I'm also pretty sure if there was no big PR fight and they raised the price of that tier .20 most people would never even notice. Nor care.

Which takes us back to the same arguments people have been making for however pages this thread is long. My only point is to state that I disagree with the point of view that Dish no longer giving me the option to watch shows that win Emmys for Best Drama, Best Actor, etc. is not OK by me just because they don't draw the ratings of The Bachelorette. Mad Men alone has gotten 15 Emmys and 4 Golden Globes, including the Emmy for Best Drama 4 years in a row. This isn't Storage Wars they are dropping.

I pay $135 or so specifically to be able to watch shows that are high quality but not necessarily huge ratings hits (although, as some have pointed out, some of these do very well in key demographics, and when you look at time shifting some are in the top 10.)


----------



## phrelin

So I wrote:


phrelin said:


> I also used to pay money to watch shows like "Mad Men". As of last Monday I'm paying $15 a month less to Dish. While its inconvenient, I can watch "Mad Men" via Amazon albeit for $1.99 an episode. In fact, most "niche" programming is available this way so I don't have to impose extra costs on folks who don't want it.


 And some of you responded:


mdavej said:


> That's very nice of you. I wish sports fans would do the same for their niche programming. That would have a much bigger impact than AMC's 25-75 cents. And you can bet that roughly $10 million / month savings will go in Dish's pockets, not yours.





fudpucker said:


> If I follow that logic, then everyone who watches shows on Dish that EVERYONE else doesn't watch is "imposing extra costs on folks who don't want them." Dish could be really cheap if all they carried were the networks and a handful of the biggest channels.
> 
> Again, my point is that Dish is less effective in serving my needs - yeah, MY needs, which I agree are different than other people's needs (otherwise we'd only have one channel package that everyone subscribed to) - when I can no longer use their service to watch a number of Emmy award winning shows. I'd happily pay an extra $0.30 a month if I had the option.





Jaspear said:


> It's available if you have sufficient bandwidth. I'll be on the lookout for my savings from your switch to Amazon.


I empathize with everything you all said. It's frustrating and it's really not fair, particularly since we all pay for ESPN and Disney - I don't watch sports and there are no kids in my household.

IMHO the problem here is the economic model that is the system. The problem is we're supporting a system designed when cable channels were finding their way, plus the 1958 broadcast channel model.

If everyone through every provider had to subscribe to an America's Everything Pak _Plus_ that included all the channels, it would make the cost of that cheaper as many of the channels would be able charge less per subscriber. But it still would be very expensive, probably $120+ a month. That's what the corporations that own the channels want.

If everything were a la carte, many viewers think they would be happy. But many, many channels would die including all the Rainbow Media channels unless they could find at least 10 million subscribers for AMC willing to pay $15 a month. Practically every channel that would be left producing original programming would cost more than $5 a month.

It's 2012. Almost every channel out there is owned by a big media corporation. As I have suggested before, maybe it's time for customers to pay the providers - cable and satellite - like we pay for an ISP. And then we buy directly from the channel owners.

If Disney want's to package ABC locals, ESPN's many channels, Disney's many channels, and ABCFamily into a "take it or leave it" package for about $30/month - great. But I have a feeling they would soon discover that they'd have to design smaller packages or even have some a la carte.

I also think Rainbow Media would have to shut down everything but one channel and market it initially for about $2 a month. And they would have to deliver programming. I'm not sure they could find a stable financial base.

But right now the system of negotiating retransmission agreements is all wrong because it is not between the consumer and the producer of the product.

It is rather like having all the restaurants in town negotiate a monthly price with the road department. Then you pay the road department monthly for a car to get to any one you might want to get to plus pay a monthly retransmission fee for every restaurant.

And while you don't eat pizza, you have to pay $10 a month to the ESPN pizza parlor and $4 a month to the Disney pizza parlor. Your favorite restaurant just closed because they needed more than $0.25 a month to survive but most people just don't like Czech food that often. Plus the government says you have to pay for a group of restaurants that opened in 1958 and all serve spaghetti - each somewhat different - but its still spaghetti.

It is a truly weird system and I don't know why we tolerate it. In the end, its a system that could kill everything but streaming individual shows which will be even more expensive.

The truly sad thing is this particular situation is déjà vu reminding us of when Rainbow killed the Voom package by refusing to negotiate in good faith with Dish, which was asking Rainbow to reduce the number of stations and get some newer programming. The economic facts were there.

In this situation, Rainbow could combine all the channels involved into one HD channel, use all the original programming, and still run a variety of old movies from the film vaults they use for Sundance, IFC, and AMC. The economic facts are again there.


----------



## sregener

phrelin said:


> It is a truly weird system and I don't know why we tolerate it. In the end, its a system that could kill everything but streaming individual shows which will be even more expensive.


We tolerate it because of two reasons:

1) Copyright law says that the producers of content have sole discretion in distribution of their content.
2) On the whole, we find that buying a package is better than doing without.

Economics says that the consumer always wants the most product for the lowest cost. And the producer wants the most money for the least product. Where the two meet is where free exchange takes place. Cable/satellite is one area in which most people express their discontent, but their actions speak otherwise. They still subscribe, which suggests that they find the price for the product to be reasonable.

What seems to happen, however, is that consumers go to the government and demand that prices are unfair and that the law must force the producers to charge less or change the way they do business. This is not a free market, but a coerced one. In the end, free exchange cannot take place, and there are consequences to this which are not altogether pleasant for either producers or consumers.

You always have a choice: unplug. And that choice is not nearly as limiting as it was a decade ago. Especially if you don't watch sports.


----------



## James Long

fudpucker said:


> Being pretty familiar with the hardware and software side of the world, I am pretty confident they are making a ton on what they charge to allow me to plug in my EHD and interface with it. That is, even with their proprietary system, a pretty trivial development.


It is easy to insult the work of others. Perhaps they should not have bothered developing the interface since to get an ROI a high price needed to be charged. End innovation.



> The market tends to determine what is fair.


The market has determined that fees for additional equipment and features is fair.

BTW: You are NOT paying DISH an additional $10 per month for DVRs ... most of that $10 is the $7 per month RECEIVER mirror/lease fee that applies per output on all but the primary receiver on the account, even non-DVRs.



> Just give me the option to pay an extra $4 per year for AMC. I want them to deliver TV shows to me. That's what I pay them for.


If AMC would allow it I'm sure DISH would be happy to offer the channel in that manner. But AMC won't allow it. They want $7.5 million dollars per month ... and at a $4 per subscriber rate they would have to convince a lot of people to actually choose to subscribe to their channel. I'd guess they would have to convince a million people to actively subscribe to break even with what they get now.

AMC is better off relying on a few thousand (at best) noisy people who will push to keep their channel on DISH. If AMC were to agree to a DISH offer of a la carte subscription AMC would lose money.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> I empathize with everything you all said. It's frustrating and it's really not fair, particularly since we all pay for ESPN and Disney - I don't watch sports and there are no kids in my household.


ESPN and Disney have a near unique position in the mix ...
1) They are considered core channels. A system without ESPN/ABC/Disney channels is missing something that even people who do not watch the channels expect to see on their dial
2) They are tied to a major broadcast network that provides leverage to keep the channels on the system lest they lose ABC television

FOX is in the same position with a few cable channels, Fox Sports and owned and operated stations across the country that are expected to be carried.

We can push for a la carte all we want ... unless DISH can get the channels from the providers a la carte they cannot pass those channels on to us on a per channel basis.

AMC is in an interesting position. They are not at the bottom or the top of the barrel ... and no matter how critically acclaimed those 65 hours of programming are they simply are not worth the price of a more popular channel.


----------



## fudpucker

"James Long" said:


> It is easy to insult the work of others. Perhaps they should not have bothered developing the interface since to get an ROI a high price needed to be charged. End innovation.
> 
> The market has determined that fees for additional equipment and features is fair.
> 
> BTW: You are NOT paying DISH an additional $10 per month for DVRs ... most of that $10 is the $7 per month RECEIVER mirror/lease fee that applies per output on all but the primary receiver on the account, even non-DVRs.
> 
> If AMC would allow it I'm sure DISH would be happy to offer the channel in that manner. But AMC won't allow it. They want $7.5 million dollars per month ... and at a $4 per subscriber rate they would have to convince a lot of people to actually choose to subscribe to their channel. I'd guess they would have to convince a million people to actively subscribe to break even with what they get now.
> 
> AMC is better off relying on a few thousand (at best) noisy people who will push to keep their channel on DISH. If AMC were to agree to a DISH offer of a la carte subscription AMC would lose money.


Not insulting anyone. I'm pretty sure if you talked to the folks who were in charge of the project to allow you to plug in a drive to the USB port and move files back and forth on it they would tell you it didn't taken many project hours at all. Of course, since my cousin is one of those engineers I'd be cheating if we made that bet. 

Um ok. I paid Dish a pretty decent price upfront for those extra receivers and then I send them an extra $10 per receiver every month. The bottom line is they get that extra income from me every month. And another $6 for the "oh you are paying for dvrs each month? Would you like to be able to actually record on them? That'll cost you extra.". My point being that when I look at my bill there are all kinds of extra fees they tag on beyond just my at250 fees. If I take, for example, the $6 per month they charge me to actually be able to record on the dvr I have already paid them for (even though I don't get to keep it and I'm paying a fee for it each month) and multiply that by total subscribers using dvrs each month I guarantee you they've gotten back their roi a long time ago.

On the $4 per month AMC is actually asking for more like an extra .30 per month. But now I'm just nit picking and the cost piece has been argued ad nauseum.

At the end of the day what I am looking at as a consumer is that I pay $135 plus taxes to Dish to be able to watch TV and they are now telling me if I want to watch a number of high quality, Best Drama Emmy award winning shows that I currently watch I should go spend a couple of hundred dollars to watch them somewhere else. That is really the nutshell impact to me as a higher end subscriber to dish.


----------



## lparsons21

fudpucker said:


> On the $4 per month AMC is actually asking for more like an extra .30 per month. But now I'm just nit picking and the cost piece has been argued ad nauseum.
> 
> At the end of the day what I am looking at as a consumer is that I pay $135 plus taxes to Dish to be able to watch TV and they are now telling me if I want to watch a number of high quality, Best Drama Emmy award winning shows that I currently watch I should go spend a couple of hundred dollars to watch them somewhere else. That is really the nutshell impact to me as a higher end subscriber to dish.


I believe the $4/month was a guess of what it might cost if it went to an individual selection option. And based on the fact that as a standalone channel, they would only get those that actually wanted it, which is a far smaller number of subscribers than any of the sub packages have. And the last I heard, AMC wanted $.50 increase from $.25 to $.75, but of course those are all somewhat guesses as to actual figures.

But assume for the moment that AMC is gone and you want all 5 of their original dramas. A quick check at Amazon shows that you can get the latest season for a total of $107 or about $9/month. If the only reason you are at T200 (or above) is because of AMC, you can save a buck dropping to 120+ and getting those from Amazon.

If I were with Dish, it would cost me $40-$60 to get the 2 or 3 dramas that interest me enough to pay for them.


----------



## phrelin

sregener said:


> We tolerate it because of two reasons:
> 
> 1) Copyright law says that the producers of content have sole discretion in distribution of their content.
> 2) On the whole, we find that buying a package is better than doing without.
> 
> Economics says that the consumer always wants the most product for the lowest cost. And the producer wants the most money for the least product. Where the two meet is where free exchange takes place. Cable/satellite is one area in which most people express their discontent, but their actions speak otherwise. They still subscribe, which suggests that they find the price for the product to be reasonable.


I don't know about reasonable. People just do things out of habit or because it's easy



> What seems to happen, however, is that consumers go to the government and demand that prices are unfair and that the law must force the producers to charge less or change the way they do business. This is not a free market, but a coerced one. In the end, free exchange cannot take place, and there are consequences to this which are not altogether pleasant for either producers or consumers.


My constant harping about the 1958 broadcast model is mostly about the government interference that was because of the OTA radio frequency licensing system, necessary at the time it was instituted (1920's), but kind of irrelevant to home entertainment today.



> You always have a choice: unplug. And that choice is not nearly as limiting as it was a decade ago. Especially if you don't watch sports.


I've started my move into "cord trimming" (see the thread Cord Trimming: the alternative to cord cutting). I began by "trimming" off the premiums when one has no series programming I want to watch - turning them back on when there are series and recording the movies I've missed. Now I "trimmed" back to AT120 (saved $14.50 on the June bill already).

But the subscriber "Authentication" economic model for streaming will require me to plan more. I'm retired so I have time to screw around with this. I could not have done this when I was working because of time constraints, so it isn't a great approach for everyone.


----------



## fudpucker

"lparsons21" said:


> I believe the $4/month was a guess of what it might cost if it went to an individual selection option. And based on the fact that as a standalone channel, they would only get those that actually wanted it, which is a far smaller number of subscribers than any of the sub packages have. And the last I heard, AMC wanted $.50 increase from $.25 to $.75, but of course those are all somewhat guesses as to actual figures.
> 
> But assume for the moment that AMC is gone and you want all 5 of their original dramas. A quick check at Amazon shows that you can get the latest season for a total of $107 or about $9/month. If the only reason you are at T200 (or above) is because of AMC, you can save a buck dropping to 120+ and getting those from Amazon.
> 
> If I were with Dish, it would cost me $40-$60 to get the 2 or 3 dramas that interest me enough to pay for them.


But that is the point. I pay Dish $135plus tax each month for TV. I don't pay for the tier I am at purely for any one channel but for a variety of shows between them. For the options. Now I get told hey no big deal just go spend another $100 or more for hd to watch some of the high profile award winning shows you are watching now. It's just that simple for me as a consumer of their product. You want to watch those shows you are watching now? Come up with an additional hundred bucks or more. Oh btw you lose the ability to dvr those and have them on your play lists also. And that sunroom where you only have a Dish receiver and no streaming device? Guess you need to also spend more money to set that up too.


----------



## lparsons21

I can understand your position as if I were with Dish, I wouldn't like not having AMC either.

I have Direct so anywhere I have a TV I also have a streaming device that can talk to my DLNA server. D* doesn't have BBCA in HD, so I get the very few shows I want from that channel via either Amazon or iTunes depending on who has the best price and I get them in SD as the SD both of those provide is as good as the HD on both AMC and BBCA is via satellite.

From Amazon I can record the shows to my Playon/Playlater combo and it will show up on all my D* HRs just fine. From iTunes, I am limited to the AppleTV in the main viewing area or on the PS3 my son has in his room. Works quite well.


----------



## James Long

fudpucker said:


> But that is the point. I pay Dish $135plus tax each month for TV.


You are paying DISH that much for multiple TV viewing and recording and anything else they are supplying you. The price of receiving the programming that you pay for is absolutely NOT $135. One can get AT250 for $70 per month (including HD). If you are paying more than $70 per month plus taxes then you are getting more than just the programming of AT250. Additional features that one is NOT required to subscribe to to get the programming in AT250.

When you signed up did DISH promise you everything? DISH does not provide every channel in the $70 programming package you subscribe to ... they don't even provide every channel in the "America's Everything Package" that costs $35 more (they don't even provide every channel they carry in AEP - which is why some of us call it the "almost everything package").

This is well known, and anyone who has been a subscriber for any reasonable length of time should have figured it out. There are channels DISH does not carry. No provider carries all channels.



> I don't pay for the tier I am at purely for any one channel but for a variety of shows between them.


Apparently you accepted the limited channel availability in AT250 until it came down to AMC? The one channel that you don't want to lose?

Sorry ... but the "I pay $135 I should get what I want" argument only goes so far. DISH never promised you every program ever created in every room of your house for $135.


----------



## SayWhat?

James Long said:


> One can get AT250 for $70 per month (including HD).


I'm actually paying something less than that, but I'm still at a point with no added fees.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> Not insulting anyone. I'm pretty sure if you talked to the folks who were in charge of the project to allow you to plug in a drive to the USB port and move files back and forth on it they would tell you it didn't taken many project hours at all. Of course, since my cousin is one of those engineers I'd be cheating if we made that bet.


Off-topic a bit, but IF you are arguing inside knowledge that not much time was spent developing this specific feature... a quick read of problems reported with various receivers and external hard drive problems says maybe they NEED to spend many project hours on it. To say "it didn't take much effort" to do something, implies that you did it successfully too... so either they have spent a lot of time on it OR you are correct and they didn't, but surely need to do so because it isn't as easy as your cousin is making you think.



fudpucker said:


> Um ok. I paid Dish a pretty decent price upfront for those extra receivers and then I send them an extra $10 per receiver every month. The bottom line is they get that extra income from me every month.


How are you determining what is "extra"? Do you know all of Dish's expenses? They employ a lot of people... they have to take out loans to launch eat satellite into space, so they are almost constantly in a position of paying back that money.

As a company they also have a right to profits beyond their expenses... if it were not profitable, why would they continue?

So... how are you determining that they are getting "extra income" from you?



fudpucker said:


> But that is the point. I pay Dish $135plus tax each month for TV. I don't pay for the tier I am at purely for any one channel but for a variety of shows between them. For the options.


And those options are subject to change without notice... if you read the service agreement. You're paying for what channels were in that package last month... no guarantee those channels stay in that package forever... and you are permitted to stop taking that higher tier at any point if channels you watch are no longer in it.



fudpucker said:


> Now I get told hey no big deal just go spend another $100 or more for hd to watch some of the high profile award winning shows you are watching now. It's just that simple for me as a consumer of their product. You want to watch those shows you are watching now? Come up with an additional hundred bucks or more. Oh btw you lose the ability to dvr those and have them on your play lists also. And that sunroom where you only have a Dish receiver and no streaming device? Guess you need to also spend more money to set that up too.


You're acting as if evil Dish is doing all this to you... and you're completely blind to AMC in this scenario. AMC wants more money, AMC is offering this at higher prices elsewhere (why aren't you complaining about that?)... AMC is the one who will sever the contract and not allow Dish to broadcast IF a new agreement isn't in place. AMC doesn't want a la carte so they can charge whatever they want AND make sure their fans like you can watch.

But all your posts are about how you pay Dish and Dish owes you... Please take a look at what AMC is offering in this scenario... only a handful of "award winning" shows that are on for way less than half a year, only one day a week... and yet they want you to pay them as if they have solid programming on 7 days a week 52 weeks a year. Why no flags raised on that?

You're asking Dish not to drop a channel... Why not ask AMC not to drop content? AMC is driving some of their best programs away by cutting budgets and playing hardball with the producers... even with reporting higher profits the last year because of those new programs. Instead of re-running those "quality" programs at night for their fans, AMC sells multiple hours of paid programming infomercials. AMC doesn't care about you as a fan, or they would give you more programming during the overnight.

Sounds to me like AMC is the channel getting "extra income" already since they made money last year... but they are greedy asking you to pay more for their channel... but you don't see it that way. Somehow you see Dish not wanting to pay more as Dish being greedy?


----------



## RVRambler

I am a recently 'hooked' viewer of breaking bad, but I 'unhooked' myself from The walking Dead, as it seemed just like all the other Zombie shows that have been around for years & years.

Hey the ONLY Zombie I want to see (not really) are those elected Zombies, You Know the One's who are obviously Dead 'from the neck up' !!  Liar Zombies!! 



ehilbert1 said:


> Everyone I know that starts watching it gets hooked real quick. Same with The Walking Dead.


----------



## steveT

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm sure Dish would let AMC be a la carte if AMC would go for that... then AMC can charge whatever it wants and you can pay $4 or whatever AMC asks.
> 
> Dish would let this happen... but AMC doesn't want to be on its own. They know they make more money with the status quo.


I SERIOUSLY doubt that "Dish would let this happen". Dish will continue to do everything they can to fight any move towards a la carte programming. Because they know that if that option ever becomes available, their business model would collapse. They know most people would prefer to pay just for the channels they watch, and Dish wouldn't be able to charge $100-200/month like they do now, for people who really just want a few extra channels.

But then again, Dish has been short-sighted enough to encourage people to start downloading their favorite programs off of Amazon, so maybe I'm underestimating the stupidity of their business planners.


----------



## steveT

lparsons21 said:


> I can understand your position as if I were with Dish, I wouldn't like not having AMC either.
> 
> I have Direct so anywhere I have a TV I also have a streaming device that can talk to my DLNA server. D* doesn't have BBCA in HD, so I get the very few shows I want from that channel via either Amazon or iTunes depending on who has the best price and I get them in SD as the SD both of those provide is as good as the HD on both AMC and BBCA is via satellite.
> 
> From Amazon I can record the shows to my Playon/Playlater combo and it will show up on all my D* HRs just fine. From iTunes, I am limited to the AppleTV in the main viewing area or on the PS3 my son has in his room. Works quite well.


Can you describe a bit more about how that setup works? I see the website for the playon/playlater DVR; but are you saying that the playlist from that DVR then integrates into the playlist on your DirectTV DVR?


----------



## inkahauts

"steveT" said:


> Can you describe a bit more about how that setup works? I see the website for the playon/playlater DVR; but are you saying that the playlist from that DVR then integrates into the playlist on your DirectTV DVR?


It doesn't integrate into the same playlist as what you have recorded on the DVR. Their is a menu option for media share on the DIRECTV DVRs and when you select that,you can choose a pc or media server to control, and then what to view or listen to from that device thorough your DIRECTV DVR.


----------



## inkahauts

"steveT" said:


> I SERIOUSLY doubt that "Dish would let this happen". Dish will continue to do everything they can to fight any move towards a la carte programming. Because they know that if that option ever becomes available, their business model would collapse. They know most people would prefer to pay just for the channels they watch, and Dish wouldn't be able to charge $100-200/month like they do now, for people who really just want a few extra channels.
> 
> But then again, Dish has been short-sighted enough to encourage people to start downloading their favorite programs off of Amazon, so maybe I'm underestimating the stupidity of their business planners.


I actually don't think a la cart would destroy dish or any other provider. They would have to charge so much per channel that people would generally be getting far less channels for close to the same prices that they pay today. It's the broadcasters that would suddenly have to decide if they want to keep some channels afloat strictly through the back end sharing of revenues from one channel to another, or it they wanted to consolidate to few channels with more new programing. I actually think that we'd all end up paying more for the channels we want in the long run.


----------



## steveT

A lot of posts here seem to imply that Dish is somehow struggling, hurting for cash, and are somehow protecting us from the greedy networks. Look back at my post #771 where I dig into Dish's financial reporting. They grew their profits up to $1.5B last year, in a year where they LOST net customers and had INCREASED costs. Just think about that; even in tough conditions like that, they still had increasing profits.

I also hope all those that could care less about losing AMC won't be counting on the support of other viewers once Dish starts dropping channels they do watch.


----------



## steveT

inkahauts said:


> It doesn't integrate into the same playlist as what you have recorded on the DVR. Their is a menu option for media share on the DIRECTV DVRs and when you select that,you can choose a pc or media server to control, and then what to view or listen to from that device thorough your DIRECTV DVR.


Interesting, thanks! I'm looking into ways to get BBCA HD content once I switch to DirectTV if this dispute isn't resolved.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

steveT said:


> I SERIOUSLY doubt that "Dish would let this happen". Dish will continue to do everything they can to fight any move towards a la carte programming. Because they know that if that option ever becomes available, their business model would collapse.


Dish and specifically Charlie has gone on record many times saying a la carte was always an option. Dish has repeatedly offered a la carte as a negotiation option when channels have asked for more money than Dish wanted to pay in a tier.

You just haven't been paying attention if you don't think Dish is in favor of a la carte.

Now, I personally am not in favor of it... I believe it would cost me the same or more per month for far less channels... but it is undeniably an option on the table IF AMC or any other channel wanted it to be. They are the ones preventing it, not Dish.



steveT said:


> But then again, Dish has been short-sighted enough to encourage people to start downloading their favorite programs off of Amazon, so maybe I'm underestimating the stupidity of their business planners.


You mean like how AMC has been the same kind of stupid in running "go to DirecTV or cable" crawls? So that when this dispute ends, if they are still on Dish, they will have to backtrack from telling people to cancel Dish?



steveT said:


> A lot of posts here seem to imply that Dish is somehow struggling, hurting for cash, and are somehow protecting us from the greedy networks. Look back at my post #771 where I dig into Dish's financial reporting. They grew their profits up to $1.5B last year, in a year where they LOST net customers and had INCREASED costs. Just think about that; even in tough conditions like that, they still had increasing profits.


I never said they are "hurting"... but they don't have the kind of operating margins that let them just continually eat price increases. Dish has routinely had tiers where they freeze prices to the consumer... and usually doesn't raise prices as soon as a new channel is added.

Dish is a for-profit company after all... not a non-profit entity. I like how you (and others) equate one company (Dish) as evil for not wanting to pay more... and another company (AMC) as righteous and deserving of more... when the bottom line is each company is in the exact same boat...

AMC had profits too... without a pay increase, AMC already had a profitable year... so why do they "need" more money?

By your own logic, AMC should be giving money back to Dish because they aren't "hurting" either, right?



steveT said:


> I also hope all those that could care less about losing AMC won't be counting on the support of other viewers once Dish starts dropping channels they do watch.


I'm not. I'm already on record for having this same position whether I like the channel or not. I didn't care about Lifetime, I actually watch a couple of shows on AMC... but my position is the same.


----------



## Inkosaurus

Yeah Im a big fan of TWD (im sure my posts here have made that very obvious) and also love the other hits AMC has to offer.

But Rainbows past is to hard to ignore, Backing out on there deal with Dish regarding Voom (offering new content frequently instead of reruns). Cutting show costs despite the show being awesome and forcing us to deal with a less then stellar second season (im looking at you TWD!).

And much more over the years. Honestly, AMC/Rainbow has dicked us over more over the years lol.


----------



## James Long

steveT said:


> A lot of posts here seem to imply that Dish is somehow struggling, hurting for cash, and are somehow protecting us from the greedy networks. Look back at my post #771 where I dig into Dish's financial reporting. They grew their profits up to $1.5B last year, in a year where they LOST net customers and had INCREASED costs. Just think about that; even in tough conditions like that, they still had increasing profits.


Apparently you are forgetting the replies where it was pointed out that 2011 was not a typical year for DISH profits. Your characterization of "struggling" is incorrect ... but one of the ways DISH got to the position where they are is not caving to the increases programmers demand. They could say yes to more demands, raise their rates and perhaps even make more money ... and it would be all at our expense. (Pay the other company an average $16 more per month and watch them make a lot more in profit than DISH makes.)



> I also hope all those that could care less about losing AMC won't be counting on the support of other viewers once Dish starts dropping channels they do watch.


This seems to be a common threat ... and yes, there have been past issues where channels I care more about than AMC have been part of a negotiation dispute. AMC has a particular hard line stance against DISH due to their own previous problems that do not affect other channels on DISH.

In simpler words, this problem is with AMC ... not all channels.


----------



## harsh

steveT said:


> Dish will continue to do everything they can to fight any move towards a la carte programming.


Charlie Ergen is perhaps the nation's most vocal proponent of ala carte programming.

You need to do some serious homework on the subject before you dig a deeper hole.

http://www.onetouchintelligence.com...insights/view/dishs-a-la-carte-stalking-horse


----------



## ehilbert1

RVRambler said:


> I am a recently 'hooked' viewer of breaking bad, but I 'unhooked' myself from The walking Dead, as it seemed just like all the other Zombie shows that have been around for years & years.
> 
> Hey the ONLY Zombie I want to see (not really) are those elected Zombies, You Know the One's who are obviously Dead 'from the neck up' !!  Liar Zombies!!


Hey I get that. I've unhooked myself from some shows too. Now I have no idea what other Zombie shows your talking about.

By the way I still haven't seen anyone tell me what series on cable gets 7 to 9 million viewers each week. Again my guess is hardly any. So by that all cable shows are "niche" right?. I have no idea how you guys can compare OTA TV shows to cable when lots and I mean lots of people get those OTA channels free.

I really wanted to drop Direct and go with Dish. I have read these forums for a while and you guys really do know your stuff. Your very helpful and guys like myself who want to jump appreciate that. That being said I am so scared to jump to Dish. I don't want to loose AMC and I would be scared to death that Charlie will one day drop ESPN during college football season. I would agree with what Dish is doing now if it wasn't for the fact they got busted for destroying evidence in the other dispute. Now you guys can't defend that. It really looks and seems like what Dish is doing is in retaliation.

Also The Hopper is one amazing DVR. I have checked it out on youtube and lots of your reviews!


----------



## akw4572

ehilbert1 said:


> Hey I get that. I've unhooked myself from some shows too. Now I have no idea what other Zombie shows your talking about.
> 
> By the way I still haven't seen anyone tell me what series on cable gets 7 to 9 million viewers each week. Again my guess is hardly any. So by that all cable shows are "niche" right?. I have no idea how you guys can compare OTA TV shows to cable when lots and I mean lots of people get those OTA channels free.
> 
> I really wanted to drop Direct and go with Dish. I have read these forums for a while and you guys really do know your stuff. Your very helpful and guys like myself who want to jump appreciate that. That being said I am so scared to jump to Dish. I don't want to loose AMC and I would be scared to death that Charlie will one day drop ESPN during college football season. I would agree with what Dish is doing now if it wasn't for the fact they got busted for destroying evidence in the other dispute. Now you guys can't defend that. It really looks and seems like what Dish is doing is in retaliation.
> 
> Also The Hopper is one amazing DVR. I have checked it out on youtube and lots of your reviews!


I'm right there with you. Although, it's getting very tempting with the extra money off they have going right now. I'm debating calling tomorrow. I really want to. But I hate the LTC, and am afraid some channel gets yanked that I watch a lot (regional FSN), or something similar.


----------



## James Long

ehilbert1 said:


> By the way I still haven't seen anyone tell me what series on cable gets 7 to 9 million viewers each week. Again my guess is hardly any.


Last week (ending June 17th) nothing broke the 7 million mark ... the week before (ending June 10th) the only shows that broke 7 million were sports on ESPN and TNT.

AMC was nowhere to be found on either list ... and that is the problem. 7 million for one hour for 13 weeks isn't a consistent audience. Channels that can offer a show with 3+ million viewers each week, and a different show when that one is not on the air are much more worth while than a "one hit wonder".

And, more on point to your question ... cable has a lot of niche shows. Better cable channels make sure that they have a strong niche show on the air every week possible.


----------



## ehilbert1

James Long said:


> Last week (ending June 17th) nothing broke the 7 million mark ... the week before (ending June 10th) the only shows that broke 7 million were sports on ESPN and TNT.
> 
> AMC was nowhere to be found on either list ... and that is the problem. 7 million for one hour for 13 weeks isn't a consistent audience. Channels that can offer a show with 3+ million viewers each week, and a different show when that one is not on the air are much more worth while than a "one hit wonder".
> 
> And, more on point to your question ... cable has a lot of niche shows. Better cable channels make sure that they have a strong niche show on the air every week possible.


That's kinda my point. No cable shows are getting kick ass ratings. No networks are dominating so why single AMC out? I love a few shows on FX but again they don't have top tier shows all the time either. It just looks like Dish is using the low viewership as an excuse to get back at them. Dish was the one the F'D up and destroyed evidence in the previous case.


----------



## James Long

ehilbert1 said:


> No networks are dominating so why single AMC out?


There are networks that do better than AMC on a regular basis. I wish AMC's top shows would move to one of them. AMC singled themselves out by asking for such a large increase.

If DISH did anything wrong in their dealing with Voom that is for the courts to sort out via the court process. AMC should not be holding their programming ransom and using AMC viewers as leverage.

Channels should charge an appropriate market based fee for their programming. AMC is already above the average cost for a channel. The fee they want puts them in the range where only true every week of the year content providers are.


----------



## paja

In this area, XFINITY has really put the hard sell on trying to get disaffected DISH customers. This morning while walking my dog, I heard 3 commercials in about 45 minutes on the radio reminding DISH customers that they are about to lose AMC, IFC , Mad Men etc. and offering a special to switch to XFINITY.


----------



## SayWhat?

paja said:


> In this area, XFINITY has really put the hard sell on trying to get disaffected DISH customers.


Why?

I could see them trying to get affected customers.


----------



## PCampbell

paja said:


> In this area, XFINITY has really put the hard sell on trying to get disaffected DISH customers. This morning while walking my dog, I heard 3 commercials in about 45 minutes on the radio reminding DISH customers that they are about to lose AMC, IFC , Mad Men etc. and offering a special to switch to XFINITY.


XFINITY's contract will run out with AMC someday then switch back?? There turn will come.


----------



## crabtrp

My knee-jerk reaction was that I will dump Dish. The hassle of doing this outweighs the hassle of getting the few shows I will miss elsewhere.


----------



## acostapimps

I also hear radio commercials too about every 15 minutes or so for E* Customers to switch to Xfinity (Comcast) because of the AMC dispute, which is annoying to say the least here in Illinois.


----------



## steveT

Inkosaurus said:


> Yeah Im a big fan of TWD (im sure my posts here have made that very obvious) and also love the other hits AMC has to offer.
> 
> But Rainbows past is to hard to ignore, Backing out on there deal with Dish regarding Voom (offering new content frequently instead of reruns). Cutting show costs despite the show being awesome and forcing us to deal with a less then stellar second season (im looking at you TWD!).
> 
> And much more over the years. Honestly, AMC/Rainbow has dicked us over more over the years lol.


The TWD fiasco wasn't due to AMC as much as it was due to the "Mad Men" producers and stars. They're the ones who held out for so long, and so much money, that it cost AMC big time to get them back into production. Even though Mad Men isn't AMC's highest rated show, it's their highest profile show, so AMC eventually caved. They then had to start looking at their other programs to cut costs.

And I've been hesitant to bring this up, because I know there are a lot of Walking Dead fans here (me included), but the problem with the second season seemed to be more due to Frank Darabont. The first 5-6 episodes of the season were already in the can before they fired Darabont. I know he had to make due with less money, but those episodes were nowhere near up to first season quality. After they fired him, the remaining episodes of the season definitely improved (and turned up in the ratings). I liken it to the Gene Roddenberry years on Trek. Roddenberry was a great visionary to get Star Trek going, but all the shows/movies were generally better when he wasn't involved in the day-to-day.

Bottom line, AMC didn't really have any choice but to give in to the Mad Men guys, and it then steamrolled into cost-cutting at their other scripted dramas, and maybe even contributed to this battle with Dish.


----------



## steveT

harsh said:


> Charlie Ergen is perhaps the nation's most vocal proponent of ala carte programming.
> 
> You need to do some serious homework on the subject before you dig a deeper hole.
> 
> http://www.onetouchintelligence.com...insights/view/dishs-a-la-carte-stalking-horse


The article is about a la carte in hotels and businesses, not for the home consumer (although the author speculates that it could get there eventually). That's a different market segment.

I'm trying to look at this big picture. Look at what happened to the recording industry when they "unbundled" music sales from full CDs to selling individual songs. It almost destroyed the whole industry, before a new model was settled upon. But a lot of people in that chain are making much less money than they used to (which is why artists are on tour almost constantly now, because they make so much less money from music sales than they used to.)

That's the closest real-life example I can think of to unbundling Dish/Cable packages to an a la carte model. Pricing on individual channels will inevitably drop due to market forces, and customer choice will drive lower revenue/month per consumer.


----------



## steveT

ehilbert1 said:


> Hey I get that. I've unhooked myself from some shows too. Now I have no idea what other Zombie shows your talking about.
> 
> By the way I still haven't seen anyone tell me what series on cable gets 7 to 9 million viewers each week. Again my guess is hardly any. So by that all cable shows are "niche" right?. I have no idea how you guys can compare OTA TV shows to cable when lots and I mean lots of people get those OTA channels free.
> 
> I really wanted to drop Direct and go with Dish. I have read these forums for a while and you guys really do know your stuff. Your very helpful and guys like myself who want to jump appreciate that. That being said I am so scared to jump to Dish. I don't want to loose AMC and I would be scared to death that Charlie will one day drop ESPN during college football season. I would agree with what Dish is doing now if it wasn't for the fact they got busted for destroying evidence in the other dispute. Now you guys can't defend that. It really looks and seems like what Dish is doing is in retaliation.
> 
> Also The Hopper is one amazing DVR. I have checked it out on youtube and lots of your reviews!


Good luck with your decision. It is interesting how every time it's brought up, no dish supporters (for this dispute), chime in on the fact that the judge ruled that Dish had intentionally destroyed evidence in the lawsuit.

From what we've seen of Charlie Ergen personally during all of his years on the Charlie Chats, I could say the two channels you'd never have to worry about losing are ESPN and FoxNews. Charlie is from Tennessee, and would never lose a channel that shows the Vols, and he's definitely a Foxnews type guy.


----------



## steveT

James Long said:


> And, more on point to your question ... cable has a lot of niche shows. Better cable channels make sure that they have a strong niche show on the air every week possible.


The difference here is between reality shows, which cost almost next to nothing to produce, and scripted dramas, which are expensive. No non-network channel has more than a few scripted dramas on at any time. Not USA, not TNT, not SyFy, none of them. None of those networks could afford to produce 12-15 scripted programs, 9 months out of the year, like the major networks do. Not unless they start finding major new sources of revenue. Or by trying to slowly build up a base of successful ones, like AMC, USA, and TNT are trying to do.


----------



## steveT

James Long said:


> If DISH did anything wrong in their dealing with Voom that is for the courts to sort out via the court process. AMC should not be holding their programming ransom and using AMC viewers as leverage


The judge has already ruled on that issue in this lawsuit. The judge ruled that Dish intentionally destroyed data relevant to the suit, which angered him so much that he went ahead and set the September trial date. Dish might've been able to delay the court date longer if they hadn't been caught in that.

It was after I posted the judge's statement about that on Dish's Facebook page, that Dish banned me from future postings (and deleted my posts). Even though what I posted was factual. I hope that doesn't happen to me here.


----------



## Inkosaurus

Holy Multipost Batman! o.o

Theres an edit button steve :lol:


----------



## steveT

And the battle escalates:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/save-the...in-response-to-dish-decision-to-drop-network/

The situation is truly looking hopeless.


----------



## steveT

Inkosaurus said:


> Holy Multipost Batman! o.o
> 
> Theres an edit button steve :lol:


Sorry... only usually get to check in here once a day or so. I'll try to be more succinct...


----------



## SayWhat?

^^ I don't think you'll find too many converts here. We know the problem is with Rainbow, not Dish.



steveT said:


> The judge has already ruled on that issue in this lawsuit. The judge ruled that Dish intentionally destroyed data relevant to the suit,


Judges aren't always right.


----------



## steveT

SayWhat? said:


> ^^ I don't think you'll find too many converts here. We know the problem is with Rainbow, not Dish.
> 
> Judges aren't always right.


That may be the weakest argument for anything I've seen in this entire thread.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Earlier you had said:



steveT said:


> I've tried to steer people on Dish's FB page to call Dish, not just complain on Facebook. And now Dish is deleting any post I make on their page. Class act, Dish.


Now today you said this:



steveT said:


> The judge has already ruled on that issue in this lawsuit. The judge ruled that Dish intentionally destroyed data relevant to the suit, which angered him so much that he went ahead and set the September trial date. Dish might've been able to delay the court date longer if they hadn't been caught in that.
> 
> It was after I posted the judge's statement about that on Dish's Facebook page, that Dish banned me from future postings (and deleted my posts). Even though what I posted was factual. I hope that doesn't happen to me here.


So... now we know why Dish banned you from their Facebook page. Sounds to me like you were harassing them. You can be truthful and harassing at the same time. IF you were posting over and over and being disruptive on their site, you probably earned the ban.

This site has rules too, so as long as you abide by them you wouldn't have anything to worry about. We don't all have to agree... no point in discussion if we did! But we do have to be civil, not attack personally, and not break rules or harass or generally be a nuisance in our posts.



steveT said:


> And the battle escalates:
> 
> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/save-the...in-response-to-dish-decision-to-drop-network/
> 
> The situation is truly looking hopeless.


Again... to me this is AMC showing their colors again. Dish is no saint... but in this particular dispute, I can't help but side with Dish... and if you look, you'll see I haven't always sided with Dish about things even though I am a happy customer.


----------



## steveT

Stewart Vernon said:


> So... now we know why Dish banned you from their Facebook page. Sounds to me like you were harassing them. You can be truthful and harassing at the same time. IF you were posting over and over and being disruptive on their site, you probably earned the ban.


Yes, in almost every post on FB, I posted the number to tell people to call Dish (Dish's own phone number being posted on Dish's own web page). And yes, several times I also posted the judge's ruling. After being banned, I read every word of Dish's policy for banning FB posters, and I had violated none of them. But it doesn't matter, because many other people there have picked up the banner. There are people on Dish's FB page today just reposting the judge's ruling almost every 30 minutes. It's getting discussed there much more than it has been here.


----------



## James Long

steveT said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> If DISH did anything wrong in their dealing with Voom that is for the courts to sort out via the court process. AMC should not be holding their programming ransom and using AMC viewers as leverage.
> 
> 
> 
> The judge has already ruled on that issue in this lawsuit. The judge ruled that Dish intentionally destroyed data relevant to the suit, which angered him so much that he went ahead and set the September trial date. Dish might've been able to delay the court date longer if they hadn't been caught in that.
Click to expand...

The court battle is irrelevant to the value of AMC as a channel (all 52 weeks a year, not just selected good weeks). If AMC wants compensation for topics covered in court case they need to get it from the court case. Not via unfair price increases on their channels.

BTW: If the appeal has not been rejected by the supreme court it has not made it through the court process. (At least that is how DISH rolls. )


----------



## SayWhat?

steveT said:


> Yes, in almost every post on FB, I posted the number to tell people to call Dish (Dish's own phone number being posted on Dish's own web page). And yes, several times I also posted the judge's ruling.


There would be no reason for you to do that there or anywhere else.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

steveT said:


> Yes, in almost every post on FB, I posted the number to tell people to call Dish (Dish's own phone number being posted on Dish's own web page). And yes, several times I also posted the judge's ruling. After being banned, I read every word of Dish's policy for banning FB posters, and I had violated none of them. But it doesn't matter, because many other people there have picked up the banner. There are people on Dish's FB page today just reposting the judge's ruling almost every 30 minutes. It's getting discussed there much more than it has been here.


Those are examples of why Dish is ignoring and banning, though... you aren't offering thoughtful discourse if all you do is repeatedly post the same thing over and over. That same kind of behavior would get you banned from most forums too, because even people that agree with you would get tired of the repetition.

But... back to topic... the court case only has as much to do with this dispute as AMC wants us to think it does. AMC is the one blowing that horn... Think for a moment.. what good does that actually do them?

IF true, then Dish isn't going to negotiate. IF false, then it just makes Dish mad and then Dish isn't going to negotiate. So... what exactly is AMC hoping to accomplish if not ensuring that they get dropped from Dish at the end of the contract?

Usually in these disputes there is at least a little reason to want to side with the provider vs Dish... but honestly, I'm not finding any ground to side with AMC here... they look like the bad guys even when Dish missteps.


----------



## DoyleS

AMC is clearly pulling out the stops and running a lot of GUY movies right now. Since I had been setting timers, when I turned on the system last night, Collateral Damage was on. Couldn't resist watching Arnold get it on but then we hit a commercial and I poked the Record button and went on to what I had planned on watching from the DVR. Have to say the scrolling message about losing AMC across the bottom of the flick was pretty irritating.


----------



## Marlin Guy

These things always and always will amount to no more than a game of chicken.
AMC doesn't to leave Dish anymore than Dish wants to lose them.

I buy from Dish, so I support their efforts to keep prices down.


----------



## satcrazy

Am I wrong about this, or has direct been pretty quiet about the amc issue?

All I see are their incredibly bad " don't get cable commercials". [ Come on direct, hire some better writers ] :lol:


----------



## hdaddikt

This too shall pass. 

I think it is good that customers give their feedback to Dish if they want to keep a network that is in negotiation. That does not mean it will change the tide, but no response could make it that much easier for Dish to ditch the network sooner. 

One thing for sure, if I only complain about Dish messing with the networks I care about, I will not allude myself into believing anyone else will care enough to complain about the same ones.


----------



## Laxguy

satcrazy said:


> Am I wrong about this, or has direct been pretty quiet about the amc issue?
> 
> All I see are their incredibly bad " don't get cable commercials". [ Come on direct, hire some better writers ] :lol:


Yes, DIRECTV® has been pretty mum on the situation; the right course.

I rather like the commercials you pan. The fact that you wrote about them shows they're effective at some level.

What would you write as a commercial, then?


----------



## 356B

Laxguy said:


> What would you write as a commercial, then?


I rather liked the "Don't just watch TV, Direct TV"....or something like that, and I have Dish. :lol:


----------



## satcrazy

Laxguy said:


> Yes, DIRECTV® has been pretty mum on the situation; the right course.
> 
> I rather like the commercials you pan. The fact that you wrote about them shows they're effective at some level.
> 
> What would you write as a commercial, then?


Well, to each their own.

I mentioned it because I can't believe a company like direct can't do better with their advertising budget. I don't find their stuff interesting or creative, or even mildly amusing, in fact, I have to wonder what group of viewers they are trying to appeal to. I can't get up fast enough to stretch my legs.

What would I create? Well it should have at least two of the three components I mentioned above. It is no suprise to me that the hopper's ability to skip crap is so popular.

Yes,[ I agree] to direct's credit, they haven't jumped on the amc thing.


----------



## Laxguy

satcrazy said:


> I mentioned it because I can't believe a company like direct can't do better with their advertising budget. I don't find their stuff interesting or creative, or even mildly amusing, in fact, I have to wonder what group of viewers they are trying to appeal to. I can't get up fast enough to stretch my legs.


One of the main goals of _some_ advertising is brand recognition and/or stick-in-the-memory ads wherein you at least recall the name. DIRECTV® ads meet those criteria, according to you. (Doesn't have to have any of the attributes you mention.)

Do you like the Hoppah ads?

I still don't know what you'd propose for a better DIRECTV® campaign!


----------



## SayWhat?

satcrazy said:


> Am I wrong about this, or has direct been pretty quiet about the amc issue?


I think Direct knows that if Dish gives in, Rainbow will come after them next. I think they're hoping Dish stands strong and drops Rainbow which should break Rainbow's will to extort other carriers.


----------



## satcrazy

Laxguy said:


> One of the main goals of _some_ advertising is brand recognition and/or stick-in-the-memory ads wherein you at least recall the name. DIRECTV® ads meet those criteria, according to you. (Doesn't have to have any of the attributes you mention.)
> 
> Do you like the Hoppah ads?
> 
> I still don't know what you'd propose for a better DIRECTV® campaign!


Just because something "sticks in your head" doesn't mean I want it there, nor does it mean I will bite off on it. In fact, the more irritating something becomes, the faster I go in the opposite direction.

Hopper ads? Not much.

If it doesn't provoke thought or make me smile [ at least] there is little substance. As for proposing a direct tv ad campaign, well, thats what the people at direct get the big bucks for.

IMO, there are some people here on this forum that could do a better job


----------



## Ira Lacher

SayWhat? said:


> I think Direct knows that if Dish gives in, Rainbow will come after them next. I think they're hoping Dish stands strong and drops Rainbow which should break Rainbow's will to extort other carriers.


Sure -- this way they get the advantage of a weakened adversary AND some collateral customers who jump from DISH.

"You are an excellent tactician, Captain. You let your second-in-command attack while you sit and watch for weakness." _-- Khan Noonien Singh to Captain Kirk, "Space Seed," TOS_


----------



## James Long

356B said:


> I rather liked the "Don't just watch TV, Direct TV"....or something like that, and I have Dish. :lol:


What are commercials? I have a Hopper. 

Just kidding ... I still see the occasional commercial on non-broadcast channels. I also noticed that DirecTV seems to be targeting cable more than DISH ... and DISH seems to be targeting DirecTV. DirecTV has been good in the past about taking DISH's newest campaign and twisting it to their advantage. DISH introduced "better TV for all" and soon we saw "Good TV. Better TV. DirecTV." It seemed like DISH had almost given up when they introduced "Let's Watch TV" instead of saying they were better than a competitor. And DirecTV introduced "Don't just watch TV, DirecTV". Not to say that there isn't an anti-DISH DirecTV ad playing somewhere, but there seems to be a lot of anti-cable ads. They must me working because DirecTV keeps making more.

I don't believe DirecTV's focus on cable has anything to do with AMC. They just signed their "multi-year contract" last year, if I remember correctly.


----------



## satcrazy

> but there seems to be a lot of anti-cable ads. They must me working because DirecTV keeps making more


.

I think one of the reasons I dislike these ads so much is they pander to a kid's mentality.

Well, maybe that's it. [kid] Mom, dad, don't get cable! Bad things will happen!

jeeez.


----------



## Grandude

satcrazy said:


> .
> I think one of the reasons I dislike these ads so much is they pander to a kid's mentality.


Sheesh, I think their ads are clever and entertaining.

PS. I'm a 74 year old kid and a Dish 'fanboy'.

PPS. I don't watch the movies on AMC as they add at least an hour of commercials to a two hour movie.


----------



## Marlin Guy

I love the new ads.
Way better than the Russians.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Interesting things afoot...

If you go to the keepamc.com Web site now... there are two buttons on the main page. One says "Dish" and the other says "AT&T".

Click Dish, and it goes to the same "Read the real reason" rhetoric...

Click AT&T, and it goes to a new page urging U-Verse customers to email AT&T about keeping AMC.

So... Of course this can't be about prices, right? I mean... somehow U-Verse must be threatening to drop AMC as revenge for the Voom lawsuit against Dish too... right? That's the only reason for the Dish dispute... so obviously U-Verse has no cause to be in a dispute!

:eek2::nono2:


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> The court battle is irrelevant to the value of AMC as a channel (all 52 weeks a year, not just selected good weeks).


You mean 78 hours of highly rated programming isn't enough to fill a 24/7/365 schedule???


----------



## inkahauts

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> Interesting things afoot...
> 
> If you go to the keepamc.com Web site now... there are two buttons on the main page. One says "Dish" and the other says "AT&T".
> 
> Click Dish, and it goes to the same "Read the real reason" rhetoric...
> 
> Click AT&T, and it goes to a new page urging U-Verse customers to email AT&T about keeping AMC.
> 
> So... Of course this can't be about prices, right? I mean... somehow U-Verse must be threatening to drop AMC as revenge for the Voom lawsuit against Dish too... right? That's the only reason for the Dish dispute... so obviously U-Verse has no cause to be in a dispute!
> 
> :eek2::nono2:


Interesting indeed. I wonder if the entire voom thing didn't have some effect, maybe in how hard dish bothered to try and negotiate, but I don't think thatd be a reason by itself to dump amc. Maybe jus the cherry on top of the whip cream on top of the giant banana split sundae. In the end, the dollar rules, and if they could keep amc at a price they feel is reasonable I am sure they would, because then they wouldn't have to worry about loosing a single customer do to loosing amc...

I love it. That will likely hurt amc more than it helps their public relations cause, because having two carriers on the same web site just shows everyone what the common denominator is... Amc...


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inkahauts said:


> Interesting indeed. I wonder if the entire voom thing didn't have some effect, maybe in how hard dish bothered to try and negotiate, but I don't think thatd be a reason by itself to dump amc.


Yeah, that's exactly what I've said before. You would be naive to think the suit didn't come up in the AMC dispute... but I doubt it was the reason. As I had noted before, we gained the AMCHD feed during the Voom lawsuit... IF the suit was holding negotiations down, then we never would have gotten AMCHD!

I'm sure the negotiations broke down over the dollar... and Dish in the back of their minds thinking "here we go again". If you have history with a company, that's bound to come up in a new negotiation... but it wouldn't kill a good solid deal.

Dish might be nitpicky and penny-pinching... but they don't usually do things to spite themselves. IF there is high demand and the price is fair, Dish usually signs up with little fanfare.



inkahauts said:


> I love it. That will likely hurt amc more than it helps their public relations cause, because having two carriers on the same web site just shows everyone what the common denominator is... Amc...


That's exactly my thinking too... AMC themselves is drawing attention to a concurrent dispute with two different carries... and it also calls to question their blaming of the lawsuit for the whole thing with Dish, especially when they don't have a similar "read the truth" link on the AT&T page.

Anyone going to that page will not see AMC has two disputes... and can't blame the lawsuit for the AT&T one.

Curiously... I was looking around for more info... and it looks like AMC had a similar dispute with AT&T almost exactly 2 years ago as well... so this is the second time around for U-Verse to have issues with AMC.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Some other places talking about the AT&T news:

"_U-Verse said in a statement issued Wednesday evening that AMC Networks was seeking an "excessive rate increase" for a new carriage deal covering AMC, IFC and We TV. The existing contact expires at 11:59 p.m. EST on Saturday, AT&T said._"

*http://thewalkingdeadrumors.com/zombie/first-dish-now-att-to-drop-amc/*

"_The public tussle between the telco and the programmer comes just two years after their last round of contract talks went bitterly down to the wire._"

*http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118056062*

Looks like the same essential article at both places, so a common source must have released this info. I dug around and it looks like AT&T issued a statement today and that appears to be the source of the common info.

It would appear that much of the time the Dish/AMC dispute has been public, that they have been having the same problem with AT&T. What's different?

Well... AMC went public with the Dish dispute, blaming the Voom lawsuit... and then Dish began firing back. AMC had no similar unrelated beef with AT&T so they didn't go public with that dispute until apparently this week when they added it to their keepamc.com Web site and that has prompted AT&T to say what Dish has been saying all along... Asking for too high of an increase and wanting to negotiate in public instead of in private.


----------



## inkahauts

I just hope neither cave to any price that wouldn't be considered reasonable by the other. That way one agreeing to a contract won't make the other look like they aren't willing to deal.


----------



## phrelin

If they both turned AMC off, Charles Dolan would have a major PR problem that could become a financial disaster over the long term.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm wondering where all the "it's because of the Voom lawsuit" people are going to be as they learn about AMC wanting more money from AT&T as well.

There's some serious crow that needs to be eaten.

Even better... Dish might very well be able to turn the tables on Dolan and use the negative campaigning and the accusations of Dish threatening to drop AMC over the Voom lawsuit and say something like "see what AMC is willing to do, to lie and say they aren't asking for more money but that we are holding a grudge against them even while they are simultaneously also demanding more money from another provider."

Not only might this backfire on the channel negotiations for AMC... but it could have repercussions for the Voom trial that Rainbow had been making some positive headway in the courts... basically AMC keeping their mouths shut would have been better for them. They've just stuck their foot in their mouth and been caught with their pants down.

If Charlie and Dish are smart... they should just sit back now and let this thing dissolve right in front of them as people begin to question everything AMC has been saying the past month.


----------



## SayWhat?

Now if we can just get Comcast and Direct on the train ......


----------



## DoyleS

There goes a big chunk of those funds that AMC was using to develop those new shows. If indeed there is no resolution in the next month, I would expect that there will have to be some cuts in the Original Programming budget.


----------



## lparsons21

DoyleS said:


> There goes a big chunk of those funds that AMC was using to develop those new shows. If indeed there is no resolution in the next month, I would expect that there will have to be some cuts in the Original Programming budget.


They did that already.


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> They've just stuck their foot in their mouth and been caught with their pants down.


That's an image I'm trying to get out of my mind.:lol:


----------



## inkahauts

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> I'm wondering where all the "it's because of the Voom lawsuit" people are going to be as they learn about AMC wanting more money from AT&T as well.
> 
> There's some serious crow that needs to be eaten.
> 
> Even better... Dish might very well be able to turn the tables on Dolan and use the negative campaigning and the accusations of Dish threatening to drop AMC over the Voom lawsuit and say something like "see what AMC is willing to do, to lie and say they aren't asking for more money but that we are holding a grudge against them even while they are simultaneously also demanding more money from another provider."
> 
> Not only might this backfire on the channel negotiations for AMC... but it could have repercussions for the Voom trial that Rainbow had been making some positive headway in the courts... basically AMC keeping their mouths shut would have been better for them. They've just stuck their foot in their mouth and been caught with their pants down.
> 
> If Charlie and Dish are smart... they should just sit back now and let this thing dissolve right in front of them as people begin to question everything AMC has been saying the past month.


I not sure how all this would help them in the voom case? That should have nothing to do with anything happening today. Where they somehow arguing in that case that something going on today is related to that case in court?


----------



## inkahauts

"SayWhat?" said:


> Now if we can just get Comcast and Direct on the train ......


Unfortunately, I have a feeling amc signed a new contract with DIRECTV last fall when they added Hi Definition. That just leaves Comcast, and a slew of other cable operators...


----------



## DoyleS

"Shares of AT&T slipped 0.1% to $35.16 in recent trading, while shares of AMC Networks dropped 4.1% to $35.05. AT&T stock is up 16% so far this year, while AMC Networks is down 7% in the same period."

I think Jim Croce had it right....

"You don't tug on Superman's cape,
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that ol' Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim."


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> I not sure how all this would help them in the voom case? That should have nothing to do with anything happening today. Where they somehow arguing in that case that something going on today is related to that case in court?


AMC's claim was that DISH was refusing to deal because they were losing the Voom case. AMC can't blame their issue with AT&T on the Voom case. 

DISH represents 15% of AMC's distribution. Not having DISH's ~26c per customer isn't good. Not having that distribution to count when selling ads is not good. And while AT&T has less customers it is still one more hit that AMC doesn't need. AMC needs to find a way to stay on DISH (and AT&T).


----------



## Hunter844

Why did Cablevision spin off Rainbow to become a publicly traded company (AMC NETWORKS) and does going public represent a major shift in company philosophy that creates these issues we now see today?


----------



## hdaddikt

Anybody think the advertisers on AMC are not getting a little hot under the collar by now?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inkahauts said:


> I not sure how all this would help them in the voom case? That should have nothing to do with anything happening today. Where they somehow arguing in that case that something going on today is related to that case in court?


As James said... AMC jumped out of the gate with "Dish is mad because of a ruling in the Voom lawsuit, so they are dropping our AMC channels to get back at us"... AMC consistently denied that they were asking for too much money, and denied that there even were any rate negotiations... AMC blamed the Voom lawsuit.

But... now we find out they were also trying to raise rates with AT&T... and AT&T has no ties to the Voom case that I know of... so that means AMC shot themselves in the foot publicly and basically lied in front of millions of people.

The recent problems in the Voom case for Dish stemmed from Dish being accused of destroying evidence and misleading the court... but now that same court will likely see evidence that AMC misleads people too.

The Voom case was unrelated to the current case... but AMC chose to tie the two together in the court of public opinion... so I believe it gives Dish ammunition to go the other way and point to how AMC is behaving now as evidence of how Dish would say Rainbow was behaving back then.

With AMC doing similar things (wanting more money, giving less to its programs, doing one thing privately but saying another thing in public) now as then... it *could* help Dish out in the Voom lawsuit.

A simple "see, they are doing it again Judge" might speak volumes for Dish's side of things.


----------



## inkahauts

"James Long" said:


> AMC's claim was that DISH was refusing to deal because they were losing the Voom case. AMC can't blame their issue with AT&T on the Voom case.
> 
> DISH represents 15% of AMC's distribution. Not having DISH's ~26c per customer isn't good. Not having that distribution to count when selling ads is not good. And while AT&T has less customers it is still one more hit that AMC doesn't need. AMC needs to find a way to stay on DISH (and AT&T).


Again I get all that, but how does any of this help amc win their voom case?



"Stewart Vernon" said:


> As James said... AMC jumped out of the gate with "Dish is mad because of a ruling in the Voom lawsuit, so they are dropping our AMC channels to get back at us"... AMC consistently denied that they were asking for too much money, and denied that there even were any rate negotiations... AMC blamed the Voom lawsuit.
> 
> But... now we find out they were also trying to raise rates with AT&T... and AT&T has no ties to the Voom case that I know of... so that means AMC shot themselves in the foot publicly and basically lied in front of millions of people.
> 
> The recent problems in the Voom case for Dish stemmed from Dish being accused of destroying evidence and misleading the court... but now that same court will likely see evidence that AMC misleads people too.
> 
> The Voom case was unrelated to the current case... but AMC chose to tie the two together in the court of public opinion... so I believe it gives Dish ammunition to go the other way and point to how AMC is behaving now as evidence of how Dish would say Rainbow was behaving back then.
> 
> With AMC doing similar things (wanting more money, giving less to its programs, doing one thing privately but saying another thing in public) now as then... it *could* help Dish out in the Voom lawsuit.
> 
> A simple "see, they are doing it again Judge" might speak volumes for Dish's side of things.


Except I don't see why a judge would take anything happening today into account for either side, because it's really not relevant to the voom case.

And hey, who's to say they aren't offering the same price and just trying to get AT&T to that level because they are paying less. Ok, I highly doubt that, but who knows i have nothing to actually prove either way other than strong circumstantial evidence, and because of that, I don't think a judge can really take any accusations into account from either side. Now if either side can show some sort of proof of their allegations... But again, how can a judge take that into account as evidence about something that happened years ago.

No matter what it's all interesting.


----------



## SayWhat?

Read post 950 just before yours.


One word............ credibility.


----------



## inkahauts

"SayWhat?" said:


> Read post 950 just before yours.
> 
> One word............ credibility.


And that can only be shown with actual proof, not circumstance which is all we have right now. In the court of public opinion amc is screwed ten ways to Sunday, but in court over voom, not so sure, that's all.


----------



## epokopac

harsh said:



> You mean 78 hours of highly rated programming isn't enough to fill a 24/7/365 schedule???


24 * 7 * 365 = 61320 hours. 78 hours of HR programming is just under .0013 percent. Offer them one cent above the current rate.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

It doesn't have to affect anything... but AMC is the one who tried to link the court case over Voom to the current dispute. AMC charged that the "real reason" Dish was going to drop AMC was over the old Voom court case.

Now that AMC has a price dispute with AT&T and seeing AT&T say pretty much the same thing that Charlie/Dish said about the AMC dispute having nothing to do with anything else but AMC wanting too much money... that puts a very public egg-on-face scenario with AMC having a credibility issue.

Dish could absolutely use that as evidence in the Voom case which, frankly, is all about credibility.

The Voom case (if you aren't familiar) hinges on Dish agreeing to carry Voom channels and pay a certain amount for something like 15 years IF Rainbow put money into improving content on the Voom channels. After a couple of years, Dish started asking where the money was going because the Voom channels were re-running the same stuff month after month year after year.

Dish then offered to scale back to 5 Voom channels, but Rainbow said "you have to take all 15, not just the 5 you want"... so Dish dropped them all and cited the contractual obligations of Rainbow to invest in the channel content.

Rainbow is charging that Dish violated the contract and that they did not... Rainbow has accused Dish of destroying evidence, and hence a lack of credibility for Dish...

But now we have some very public AMC lack of credibility... and AMC is the same people once part of Rainbow (before being split off much like Dish split off Echostar years ago)... so I'm sure Dish lawyers are looking for a way to use this current behavior by AMC as examples of a pattern-of-behavior.

IF you can prove pattern-of-behavior, it lends credibility to your side over there.

Example... I accuse you of picking on people smaller than you... but you say "I never do that"... but then you go outside and pick on a kid. That's not directly related to the case BUT if you do it in front of a camera crew and people see it on the news... I can bring it up and say "see, this is the behavior I'm talking about."

So... Dish has likely been pointing out how Rainbow asked for more money with promises of quality programming, but meanwhile didn't spend that money... and then lied about how they spent.

Flash forward to today... and AMC is asking for more money, not spending it on their quality programming... and then lying about it.

That's a pattern of behavior that *could* be used in Dish's favor.

People were sure ready to jump and believe that Dish was mad over Voom and thus dropping AMC to get even... AMC said that on their Web site even... but now the worm has turned, so if Dish wanted they could say this is how Rainbow/AMC operates... sleezy and sneaky.


----------



## inkahauts

If I where dish I'd take the high road with this and the judge. I wouldn't bring it up unless amc did in court, and then id use it purely as rebuttal, because i would have to believe the judge isn't happy with them since he order the trial faster than they wanted after determining they destroyed evidence. Getting caught and then trying to say well they screwed up too and lie about what they do doesn't usually set well with authority figures. 

And if amc did bring it up, they would likely have to start talking about the details of this dispute vs the voom one and I seriously doubt they would ever want to open that door. 

I get everything you are saying, I just think they would both be treading in dangerous waters if they start bringing this all up in court for the voom case. And I don't think this alone would really create enough of a pattern of behavior to sway the judge. They'd need more.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

*DISH to Replace AMC With Commercial-Free HD Movies*

*New Programming Also Slated to Replace IFC, WE*

ENGLEWOOD, CO -- (Marketwire) -- 06/29/12 -- DISH (NASDAQ: DISH) will replace three AMC Networks channels -- IFC, WE and AMC -- tomorrow at 11:59 p.m. ET with what the company believes is stronger movie and entertainment content.

DISH will be providing HDNet Movies to replace AMC, and is offering Style and HDNet to replace WE and IFC.

"HDNet Movies and HDNet are exciting offerings for our customers," said Dave Shull, senior vice president of programming for DISH. "These are networks that will bring great entertainment, including first-run, commercial-free movies in high definition to our customers. DISH is the only pay-TV provider that did not raise its core package prices in 2012. We will continue to fight hard for choice, control, and value in home entertainment."

DISH notified AMC Networks earlier in the year of its decision not to renew its contract due to the channels' high costs compared to their relatively low viewership.

DISH's actions come as AT&T and AMC Networks negotiate over what AT&T this week called an "excessive rate increase."

"A significant portion of any pay-TV bill goes to fees for content providers like AMC Networks," said Shull. "AMC Networks requires us to carry low-rated channels like IFC and WE to access a few popular AMC shows. The math is simple: it's not a good value for our customers." 
AMC Networks has further devalued its programming by making its handful of popular shows available to consumers via iTunes, Netflix and Amazon.com.

"One of AMC's biggest historical draws has been movies. However, their performance has been trumped by other DISH movie offerings, including the many thousands of titles available on Blockbuster @Home and from top-quality providers such as HBO, Showtime, Starz, EPIX, MGM HD, IndiePlex, and RetroPlex," Shull said.

Beginning Saturday, HDNet Movies will be available on Channel 130, Style will be on Channel 128, and HDNet (soon to become a new entertainment and music channel called "AXS.TV") will run on Channel 131.

_About DISH Network_ 
DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH), through its subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., provides more than 14 million satellite TV customers with the highest quality programming and technology with the most choices at the best value, including HD Free for Life. Subscribers enjoy the largest high definition line-up with more than 200 national HD channels, the most international channels, and award-winning HD and DVR technology. DISH Network Corporation's subsidiary, Blockbuster L.L.C., delivers family entertainment to millions of customers around the world. DISH Network Corporation is a Fortune 200 company. Visit www.dish.com.


----------



## SayWhat?

I don't know if I'll even get those with a 512.

Edit.... Guess so. 130's already on, no 131 yet though.


----------



## oldengineer

I have the AEP package and already get those new channels.


----------



## crabtrp

oldengineer said:


> I have the AEP package and already get those new channels.


Yeah, it is very underwhelming to have AMC replaced with something I already have. Awesome.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

oldengineer said:


> I have the AEP package and already get those new channels.


Yeah... that's the bad thing. A lot of customers will actually not be getting "replacement" channels because they already had those channels.

IF Dish really wanted to make a splash, they would try and launch an actual new channel in situations like this.


----------



## harsh

Stewart Vernon said:


> IF Dish really wanted to make a splash, they would try and launch an actual new channel in situations like this.


If you'll recall, they did this when they dropped The Weather Channel a couple of years ago and that didn't go well for the replacement channel in the end.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> IF Dish really wanted to make a splash, they would try and launch an actual new channel in situations like this.


TWC was the first thing I thought of too, but the replacement channel didn't fail as such. Charlie took another sip of the TWC koolaid and tossed the replacement under the bus. I'm still pissed at Charlie for that.


----------



## tsmacro

It is too bad for some people as they will be losing something they enjoy watching. For me however this works out pretty good, I don't watch any of the channels going away and I'm getting HDNet movies which I do like but since I currently don't subscribe to the Blockbuster package I wasn't getting it, so basically I get a channel for free that I enjoy. So there's at least one Dish customer that this has ended up better for.


----------



## Paul Secic

phrelin said:


> If they both turned AMC off, Charles Dolan would have a major PR problem that could become a financial disaster over the long term.


Good! i hope it blows up in Dolan's face.


----------



## Paul Secic

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yeah... that's the bad thing. A lot of customers will actually not be getting "replacement" channels because they already had those channels.
> 
> IF Dish really wanted to make a splash, they would try and launch an actual new channel in situations like this.


But why Styles??


----------



## Inkosaurus

This would be great if HDNet was not being replaced by axs.tv. Seriously I'm going to miss "Drinking Made Easy" thats such a great show lol, the drunks on art man presents are entertaining too.


----------



## SayWhat?

Dish Drops 'Mad Men' for 'Bikini Barbershop' in AMC Feud


----------



## georule

Wow. . .Dolans vs Ergen. Sometimes there's just nobody to cheer for!


----------



## maartena

Well, that's the end of that for AMC fans. I remember from last year that there were several DirecTV subscribers that moved to Dish because AMC was not in HD. Of course, AMC went HD in Q4 of last year, and now those same people might face another decision to switch.....

I mean if having AMC in SD made people switch to get it in HD, how important would having NO AMC be? Of course, some of the switchers are now locked into Dish contracts, and might feel very betrayed about all this.

But then, Dish has BBC America in HD, which DirecTV does not. And G4.


----------



## phrelin

If Dish wanted to do me a favor ( :sure: ) and thumb their nose at Rainbow Media, they'd move BBCA HD to the AT120 tier or make it available à la carte for a dollar or two like the individual Superstations.


----------



## zer0cool

As another AEP sub, I'm getting AMC replaced by something I already have.
And as has been mentioned, those who HDNET will be new to, won't get to enjoy it long, as it willsoon become a live music channel. (I miss the days when HDNET used to program things like "Andy Richter...").
I got an email yesterday, offering free Time Warner TV for a year if I upgraded my internet service from wideband to Ultimate, and thought that might be a way to keep getting AMC, but at the rate they are going, TWC might end up dropping them too. :hurah:


----------



## ernessch

Will those with SD receivers get the new HD net channels?


----------



## hdaddikt

Dish's latest plan should make Amazon.com & Netflix happy.


----------



## hdaddikt

phrelin said:


> If Dish wanted to do me a favor ( :sure: ) and thumb their nose at Rainbow Media, they'd move BBCA HD to the AT120 tier or make it available à la carte for a dollar or two like the individual Superstations.


I agree, I'd like to see some more $2 options for lower tiers. Especially those few networks that don't require accommodations for their entire family of channels.


----------



## phrelin

hdaddikt said:


> I agree, I'd like to see some more $2 options for lower tiers. Especially those few networks that don't require accommodations for their entire family of channels.


Unfortunately, BBC America is distributed in association with Discovery Networks. While the Discovery Channel and TLC are in the AT120 tier, the rest of the Discovery Networks are in higher tiers.

So I don't hold out much hope, but I'm sending inquiries to both Dish and BBCA asking them to consider offering BBCA à la carte.


----------



## retiredTech

ernessch said:


> Will those with SD receivers get the new HD net channels?


Yes ,both 130 & 131 are on my SD receiver.


----------



## ernessch

Thanks.


----------



## SayWhat?

131 is lit up now as well on my 512, but I can already see there is too much MMA and UFC junk.


----------



## SteveinDanville

How come I can't find HDNet on any channel package or HD lising on Dish Network's site? I've been recording shows forever, up until just the other night ("Above the Alps"). Are they hiding it now so that it will be a new "upgrade" now that the AMC channels will be gone? I also had HDNet Movies forever, and it's gone. So I'm getting back two channels I've always had (Americas Top 250 subscriber)?


----------



## SayWhat?

The channels are listed above, more than once.


----------



## Mojo Jojo

"SteveinDanville" said:


> How come I can't find HDNet on any channel package or HD lising on Dish Network's site? I've been recording shows forever, up until just the other night ("Above the Alps"). Are they hiding it now so that it will be a new "upgrade" now that the AMC channels will be gone? I also had HDNet Movies forever, and it's gone. So I'm getting back two channels I've always had (Americas Top 250 subscriber)?


HDNet is in AT120 and Dish Latino Dos on channel 362.

HDNet Movies is in Blockbuster @ Home on channel 383.

Style is in AT200 on channel 115; it is also in free preview as per channel 103.

In terms of the AMC Networks:

Channel 128 which was We TV is Style SD. (not sure why HD channel not provided with HD Free for Life subs)

Channel 130 which was AMC is HDNet Movies. There is an SD and HD feed.

Channel 131 which was IFC is HDNet. There is an SD and HD feed. HDNet is supposed to become AXS TV soon.

Channel 389 which was Sundance Channel is currently not available at all.

For now (probably not much longer):

Channel 9607 is IFC.
Channel 9608 is We TV.
Channel 9609 is AMC SD.
Channel 9610 is AMC HD.


----------



## steveT

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm sure the negotiations broke down over the dollar...


From yesterday's Wall Street Journal article on the dispute: "(AMC) Chief Executive Josh Sapan said the dispute with Dish, however, isn't about fees but about an unrelated lawsuit, adding that Dish "has not engaged in any rate discussions with us at any point." "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577494734177232586.html


----------



## steveT

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm wondering where all the "it's because of the Voom lawsuit" people are going to be as they learn about AMC wanting more money from AT&T as well.
> 
> There's some serious crow that needs to be eaten.


Sorry, I don't see your logic here at all. So there's two disputes. And they're both with distributors whose contracts expired at the same time. Please tell me why the rationale behind one dispute has to the same as the one behind the other dispute. That makes no logical sense at all.

Also, please tell me why it would not be logical that when AMC asks for more money from one distributor, that they wouldn't also ask it from a second distributor? Are you saying that it would be more "normal" for AMC to only ask for more money from Dish at contract renewal time, but not from AT&T?


----------



## James Long

steveT said:


> From yesterday's Wall Street Journal article on the dispute: "(AMC) Chief Executive Josh Sapan said the dispute with Dish, however, isn't about fees but about an unrelated lawsuit, adding that Dish "has not engaged in any rate discussions with us at any point." "


OK, they are sticking with that story ... did they explain their issue with AT&T and blame that on something other than a rate dispute?



steveT said:


> Also, please tell me why it would not be logical that when AMC asks for more money from one distributor, that they wouldn't also ask it from a second distributor? Are you saying that it would be more "normal" for AMC to only ask for more money from Dish at contract renewal time, but not from AT&T?


So you're willing to admit that AMC _*is*_ asking for more money from DISH?

"Oh, we're asking for more money - an increase of about 200% according to some reports - but that isn't why DISH is dropping our channels."


----------



## steveT

DoyleS said:


> "Shares of AT&T slipped 0.1% to $35.16 in recent trading, while shares of AMC Networks dropped 4.1% to $35.05. AT&T stock is up 16% so far this year, while AMC Networks is down 7% in the same period."


Since the dispute went public on May 4th, AMC's stock has dropped 16%. In the same time period, DISH's stock has dropped 11%. The S&P500 is almost flat over that time period. Both companies have been hurt.

The stock of both Dish and AMC had dropped an equal amount up until 4 days ago, when Dish finally turned upwards. The real effect on the Dish stock won't be known until October, once the 3Q results are published and we see if the loss of customers has had a significant effect on Dish's revenue.


----------



## phrelin

steveT said:


> From yesterday's Wall Street Journal article on the dispute: "(AMC) Chief Executive Josh Sapan said the dispute with Dish, however, isn't about fees but about an unrelated lawsuit, adding that Dish "has not engaged in any rate discussions with us at any point." "
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577494734177232586.html


Well, I see it as a "logical result" of the Voom dispute.

The dispute is between billionaires Charles Ergen of Dish and Charles Dolan of AMC Networks (previously known as Rainbow Media). Ergen believes Dolan swindled him out of money on the Voom deal. I agree.

Dolan was dumb enough to ask for more money to renew his contract for all his channels. Ergen simply said "no." Dolan did not come back with an "ok, no increase, we'll continue the current contract terms for a year."

There's nothing to discuss.


----------



## James Long

steveT said:


> The real effect on the Dish stock won't be known until October, once the 3Q results are published and we see if the loss of customers has had a significant effect on Dish's revenue.


If history is a guide then a loss of customers will lead to an increase in DISH's profits ... and that is what people investing in the company for more than sentimental reasons want to see. Increased profits and more dividends and revenue for the investors.

(Plus last year DISH lost 166k net customers and set a new revenue record. DISH revenue has never dropped year to year.)


----------



## steveT

James Long said:


> So you're willing to admit that AMC _*is*_ asking for more money from DISH?
> 
> "Oh, we're asking for more money - an increase of about 200% according to some reports - but that isn't why DISH is dropping our channels."


James, I have spent much of my own time researching this dispute, and as far as I can tell, I'm the only one on this forum who has spent any time digging into the actual financials, and posting sources for all of my numbers. And I have based everything I've said on the reports that AMC is asking for more money from DISH. From my very first post on the issue.

So why would you ask whether I was "willing to admit that AMC is asking for more money"? I've based every comment I've made on the calculation that AMC is asking for $43.9M additional fee per year from DISH. I've posted it many times.

I've been traveling for a few days, just coming back to this forum, and I'm astonished at the sense of joy and glee being expressed now that other Dish customers are going to lose something they cared about. After ten years on this forum, I thought this place was better than that.


----------



## James Long

I'm not happy that AMC, WE, IFC and Sundance are leaving DISH. But the "blame DISH" attitude is wrong. AMC is not innocent in this matter, no matter what they tell the Wall St Journal.

On the plus side, it is nice to see your participation in the forum - 153 posts in 10 years, 53 of them in this thread (so far). I'm glad we finally have a topic on which you feel comfortable sharing your opinion and insight.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

steveT said:


> From yesterday's Wall Street Journal article on the dispute: "(AMC) Chief Executive Josh Sapan said the dispute with Dish, however, isn't about fees but about an unrelated lawsuit, adding that Dish "has not engaged in any rate discussions with us at any point." "
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577494734177232586.html


Hmm... And just what do they blame for the AT&T dispute?



steveT said:


> Sorry, I don't see your logic here at all. So there's two disputes. And they're both with distributors whose contracts expired at the same time. Please tell me why the rationale behind one dispute has to the same as the one behind the other dispute. That makes no logical sense at all.


Sorry, I don't see your logic here at all either. So Dish has two disputes with AMC/Rainbow. Please tell me the rationale behind one dispute (Voom lawsuit) and AMC channel dispute being related?

I mean... if you think AMC isn't asking for more money from Dish and that is not the reason for the dispute... why do you say this other than because AMC is saying it? AMC is asking other companies for more money when their contracts end, but you don't think they are asking Dish for more money?



steveT said:


> Also, please tell me why it would not be logical that when AMC asks for more money from one distributor, that they wouldn't also ask it from a second distributor? Are you saying that it would be more "normal" for AMC to only ask for more money from Dish at contract renewal time, but not from AT&T?


Umm, no. I'm saying AMC has been lying and that they did in fact ask Dish for more money just like they asked AT&T for more money. Dish said no, and then AMC started blaming the unrelated Voom lawsuit. Meanwhile AMC also asked AT&T for more money, but can't blame the Voom lawsuit for that.

AMC is the common issue here in both channel disputes going down this weekend... and since we know AT&T can't be related to the Voom lawsuit, it stands to reason that the Dish dispute probably isn't either... AMC just wants you to drink that kool-aid and some have fallen for it.

IF AMC negotiated properly, we might not be seeing this happen for either company (Dish or AT&T) this weekend.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

It probably bears repeating... still no complaints about Sundance being dropped over a month ago already... and even the most active are not complaining about IFC or WeTV...

So... if you're a fan of AMC, why aren't you mad that AMC only wants to negotiate with Dish and AT&T for carriage of ALL of their channels, rather than individually?

Dish and AT&T have both said things that indicate that part of the problem is being forced to take even less popular channels in order to get AMC and the popular programming.


----------



## DoyleS

I was watching Ramsay on Kitchen Nightmares last night and here was this Chef trying to charge Premium prices in this little town and no one was going to his restaurant. He was heavily in debt and Ramsay had to tweek the guy into much simpler meals at reasonable and profitable prices and suddenly his restaurant was full again instead of just a special occasion restaurant. AMC seems to have a similar problem in over valuing their content and trying to charge more than the market will bear. At this point I think even if they dropped their prices, Charlie would still like to inflict some pain if only because of the irritation factor.


----------



## steveT

Stewart Vernon said:


> I mean... if you think AMC isn't asking for more money from Dish and that is not the reason for the dispute... why do you say this other than because AMC is saying it?
> Umm, no. I'm saying AMC has been lying and that they did in fact ask Dish for more money just like they asked AT&T for more money. Dish said no, and then AMC started blaming the unrelated Voom lawsuit. Meanwhile AMC also asked AT&T for more money, but can't blame the Voom lawsuit for that.


You are the second person who is now saying my position has been that "AMC isn't asking for more money from Dish". Since my very first post on this thread, I have based all my calculations on what has been reported in the media, that AMC is asking for a total of $0.50-$0.75/subscriber, up from the current $0.25/sub. Since apparently I am one of the few left in this forum who believe that Dish is in the wrong on this dispute, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't misquote or miscategorize the points I have been consistently making for weeks.


----------



## satcrazy

> It probably bears repeating... still no complaints about Sundance being dropped over a month ago already... and even the most active are not complaining about IFC or WeTV...


I liked both Sundance and IFC once upon a time.

They strayed too far from their original formats. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, the three stooges programming just doesn't cut it.


----------



## SteveinDanville

"HDNet is in AT120 and Dish Latino Dos on channel 362.

HDNet Movies is in Blockbuster @ Home on channel 383."




I think my point was in asking how can this be an upgrade when the channels have been there all along anyway???


----------



## SayWhat?

Who said it was an upgrade?


----------



## hdaddikt

satcrazy said:


> I liked both Sundance and IFC once upon a time.
> 
> They strayed too far from their original formats. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, the three stooges programming just doesn't cut it.


Maybe because AMC is putting more $$ into their own series productions? Thin out the content of the 'lesser channels', and expect providers like Dish, et al, to buy them up as a package, and tell them they are getting more for their money.


----------



## SteveinDanville

SayWhat? said:


> Who said it was an upgrade?


I don't really mean upgrade. They make it sound like they are replacing channels with something "new", when it's just the same ol' thing but moved to another channel.


----------



## Shades228

I think this is a fair article about the situation:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-29/amc-risks-millions-of-viewers-in-fights-with-dish-at-t.html

It has the AT&T part at the bottom. This article doesn't say it but AT&T is riding the coat tails of DISH considering the contract end date is 2 days away and the communications are just coming out. AMC could have easily put a crawl or something on the channel and they didn't. In fact the last No Dish commercial insert I saw had AT&T on it.

I remember when DIRECTV had VS going on that DISH opened it up for every level. I wonder if DIRECTV or another competitor is going to do the same thing. Would get interesting fast.


----------



## Inkosaurus

SteveinDanville said:


> I don't really mean upgrade. They make it sound like they are replacing channels with something "new", when it's just the same ol' thing but moved to another channel.


Its not exactly easy or quick to get a brand new channel added for Dish.
I think the fact that Dish is replacing the rainbow channels with existing channels (HDnet, ect.) helps prove that they were trying to negotiate.

If Dish knew all along over the last several months or year that they would just straight up refuse to renew the contract with Rainbow dont you think they would have planned to get some actual new channels set up?

Think about it


----------



## James Long

Shades228 said:


> I remember when DIRECTV had VS going on that DISH opened it up for every level. I wonder if DIRECTV or another competitor is going to do the same thing. Would get interesting fast.


DirecTV already has AMC in their lowest package (Entertainment).



Inkosaurus said:


> Its not exactly easy or quick to get a brand new channel added for Dish.


What channel does DISH not carry that is most like AMC?

I don't like duplicating channels ... the placement of HDNet Movies at 130 is acceptable to move it from Blockbuster's range to a normal AT channel range. And HDNet Movies is a channel that reminds people of what AMC once was ... a movie channel.

The best news is for SD subscribers (and yes, they exist). Getting HDNet Movies as HDNet/AXS.TV in SD is something they didn't have.

Perhaps DISH can take the money they were spending on AMC and give Blockbuster subscribers The Smithsonian Channel. It is apparently still testing.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

steveT said:


> You are the second person who is now saying my position has been that "AMC isn't asking for more money from Dish". Since my very first post on this thread, I have based all my calculations on what has been reported in the media, that AMC is asking for a total of $0.50-$0.75/subscriber, up from the current $0.25/sub. Since apparently I am one of the few left in this forum who believe that Dish is in the wrong on this dispute, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't misquote or miscategorize the points I have been consistently making for weeks.


But you have bounced around a bit... here are a few quotes from your past posts which probably led James and myself to question whether or not you were accepting the notion of AMC asking Dish for more money.

Consider:



steveT said:


> If Dish *claims* this is truly about subscriber fees versus ratings, let's see them lay out what they're paying for all of their channels.


Note your use of the word "claims"... you said that as if you didn't believe this was about rates, but only about the court case which you keep bringing up (just like AMC does) and you noted you kept posting the court case on Dish's Facebook page until you were banned.



steveT said:


> It's probably hard for AMC to deal with a company like Dish, after hearing that the judge in the lawsuit ruled that Dish had intentionally destroyed data relevant to the suit. Tough to sit down at the negotiating table with a party willing to resort to that, and feel like you can count on them to negotiate fairly.


Again, blaming the lawsuit and not the rate discussion.



steveT said:


> It just reeks of a dispute ruled by emotion rather than math.


emotion rather than math? That sounds like you aren't buying the notion of a rate dispute at all.



steveT said:


> From yesterday's Wall Street Journal article on the dispute: "(AMC) Chief Executive Josh Sapan said the dispute with Dish, however, isn't about fees but about an unrelated lawsuit, adding that Dish "has not engaged in any rate discussions with us at any point." "
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577494734177232586.html


And the coup de grace... you quoted the AMC executive who says "it isn't about rate"... so, can you see why James and I both questioned whether you believed that AMC was asking for more money?

I mean... you quoted what has to be a bald-faced lie (not your lie) from an AMC executive... the only reason we assume you would quote him is if you agree with his position... and so I think we were rightfully confused.

I've always maintained that the lawsuit plays a factor in BOTH sides and how they approach the table to negotiate... but make no bones about it, IF there was a fair price on the table we wouldn't be dropping AMC tomorrow night.

The AT&T dispute tends to confirm that since AT&T and AMC have no other lawsuit to distract them from the table... and yet, the first we even heard of a dispute was when AMC added scrolls and put it on their "keepamc" Web page.

So, AMC seems to be the one going public and trying to mislead customers about who is to blame.


----------



## Shades228

James Long said:


> DirecTV already has AMC in their lowest package (Entertainment).


Family is the lowest package so those customers could have access to it as well. There is also an international base package without the channel.


----------



## splish

I am not seeing channels 130 or 131 on my DP301 SD receiver.


----------



## inkahauts

"steveT" said:


> Sorry, I don't see your logic here at all. So there's two disputes. And they're both with distributors whose contracts expired at the same time. Please tell me why the rationale behind one dispute has to the same as the one behind the other dispute. That makes no logical sense at all.
> 
> Also, please tell me why it would not be logical that when AMC asks for more money from one distributor, that they wouldn't also ask it from a second distributor? Are you saying that it would be more "normal" for AMC to only ask for more money from Dish at contract renewal time, but not from AT&T?


Um, this post seems to contradict itself. First you are saying that two disputes don't at all need to be about the same thing, but then you go in to say if amc is asking for something that one distributor is having an issue with, it makes sense they'd also be asking for it from another. To which I then say, why do you not think that the other company would also have an issue with that demand?

I think that with AT&T it's all about the money, and with dish, it's a lot about the money, and a bit about voom, in more of a we don't trust you kind of way.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm not a Facebooker or a Twitterer... and I don't even care if that's the right way to say it! 

But... while the names have been changed to protect the innocent, I saw a funny post that I wish more people would send to AMC on their Facebook page:

_*Random User* Attention AMC, you are about to lose *Random User*. To keep this from happening, and to avoid losing a subscriber, call Dish now! Don't let this happen._

The above was awesome 

Meanwhile... the KeepAMC Twitter feed keeps posting over and over and over "_The only rate negotiation is with AT&T._" which means they are continuing to deny they want more money for a new contract even whilst simultaneously having a rate dispute with AT&T that is up on the same day (today)!

That's some arrogance, to be able to do that with any sense of seriousness by AMC.


----------



## speedy4022

Yeah and we all dish isn't arrogant how many lawsuits do they going right now. The real money to be made at dish is made by their lawyers.


----------



## Inkosaurus

speedy4022 said:


> Yeah and we all dish isn't arrogant how many lawsuits do they going right now. The real money to be made at dish is made by their lawyers.


I don't think it has ever been implied in this thread (atleast by the active posters) that Dish isnt arrogant here or anything like that.

We are just pointing out that in this particular case Dish is definitely the lesser of two evils.
Especially all the shady and sleazy tactics Rainbow is using to try and tarnish Dish's name.


----------



## damondlt

crabtrp said:


> Yeah, it is very underwhelming to have AMC replaced with something I already have. Awesome.


 You picked the provider. Remember that!


----------



## damondlt

Inkosaurus said:


> Especially all the shady and sleazy tactics Rainbow is using to try and tarnish Dish's name.


:hurah:

:lol: I needed that!


----------



## Inkosaurus

damondlt said:


> :hurah:
> 
> :lol: I needed that!


What? Rainbow definitely is being pretty shady about all of this I think stevet is the only one here would openly try and deny that.


----------



## Hunter844

Happy to get HD movies back...I'll take that trade.


----------



## satcrazy

SteveinDanville said:


> I don't really mean upgrade. They make it sound like they are replacing channels with something "new", when it's just the same ol' thing but moved to another channel.


Yeah, all of us "250" and "everything" package people are wondering the same. We essentially lost 4 chanels [ dispute aside] and only gained one back. The rest are repeats of what we already have. Ergen is getting more for less with this deal.

Clever guy.:bowdown:

Since I've had hdnet, I never found much on it that was of interest to me. It's great that hdnetM is commercial free, but it looks like alot of repeats [ same movie back to back] hope the content improves.

I think dish should come up with a better plan for the above 2 packages if they want to keep the subs content. Maybe throwing in the "Indie" channel for those of us that pay more. I don't think that's alot to ask.


----------



## steveT

Stewart Vernon said:


> Note your use of the word "claims"... you said that as if you didn't believe this was about rates, but only about the court case which you keep bringing up (just like AMC does) and you noted you kept posting the court case on Dish's Facebook page until you were banned.
> 
> And the coup de grace... you quoted the AMC executive who says "it isn't about rate"... so, can you see why James and I both questioned whether you believed that AMC was asking for more money?


I just used the word "claims" because it seemed like the right grammatical word. Why would I say that in the sense that it wasn't true, when all of the rest of my posts have been based on Dish paying an extra $0.25-0.50/sub?

I posted pretty much only the link from the WSJ (which I personally consider to just be a horrible excuse for a newspaper anyway), without any additional comments, because it was getting to the point where I was being pounded for expressing any of my own analysis. So on that one I just figured I'd post the quote and the link, and avoid the hassle. Didn't work.

You told me before I was wasting my time even discussing any of the conversations going on at Dish's Facebook page, and people all piled on, saying Facebook was irrelevant. Now you're posting comments from AMC's Facebook page.

But that's it for me, I'm out. I thought I could at least be a voice here on the flip side of the debate, and try to put some real analysis based on empirical data on the table. But it's not working, and it doesn't feel like a friendly debate anymore. This will be my last post. I'll be very sadly canceling Dish before the Breaking Bad premiere on July 15 anyway. And you really have no idea how sad that makes me. I've been building my system with the Dish receiver at the core for 15+ years. I loved the days when I had my distant network signals, my superstations, and I know that still today, they have by far the best DVR equipment. I'm also giving up BBCA in HD, which I'm also going to miss big time. But great scripted drama is what I care about most for my entertainment, and AMC, HBO, and Showtime are the only places left to get quality scripted drama anymore. I'll miss this forum too. I've really enjoyed coming here and learning a lot over the past 10 years.


----------



## Rduce

Hunter844 said:


> Happy to get HD movies back...I'll take that trade.


+1


----------



## Rduce

satcrazy said:


> Yeah, all of us "250" and "everything" package people are wondering the same. We essentially lost 4 chanels [ dispute aside] and only gained one back. The rest are repeats of what we already have. Ergen is getting more for less with this deal.
> 
> Clever guy.:bowdown:
> 
> Since I've had hdnet, I never found much on it that was of interest to me. It's great that hdnetM is commercial free, but it looks like alot of repeats [ same movie back to back] hope the content improves.
> 
> I think dish should come up with a better plan for the above 2 packages if they want to keep the subs content. Maybe throwing in the "Indie" channel for those of us that pay more. I don't think that's alot to ask.


Just out of curiosity how many hour of programing do you regularly watch on any of the disputed channels or do you just like to *****?


----------



## hdaddikt

I dropped down to the 200. I would like to see CD/Sirius as a standalone option instead of being integrated in some packages and not others. Call it the 'hotel room' option.

Also, combine some of the Dish America packages,esp. Silver & Gold, with the other similar channel count packages.. Too much duplication and overlap, despite it's possible 'marketing advantages' to DN.

Should be some KISS principles in play.


----------



## puckwithahalo

hdaddikt said:


> Also, combine some of the Dish America packages,esp. Silver & Gold, with the other similar channel count packages.. Too much duplication and overlap, despite it's possible 'marketing advantages' to DN.
> 
> Should be some KISS principles in play.


The Dish America packages don't really overlap. They're meant as an HD only alternative to the America's Top packages (ie, Dish America Silver is roughly the HD only equivalent of America's Top 200).

Also, why would having fewer choices be a good thing?


----------



## jdskycaster

steveT,
It is too bad you take the back and forth here personally. I too read your recent posts and thought you were saying this dispute is only about the lawsuit and not a rate increase.

Regarding your switch to another provider I wish you well and hope they treat you as good or better than Dish. This has not been my experience in the past and all of the positive reasons you state for wanting to be a Dish customer in the first place would appear to more than make up for the loss of a couple of shows available through other outlets.

Good luck and "Stay thirsty my friend."

JD


----------



## lparsons21

to SteveT :

If you decide to go with D*, get the HMC34 as your main box. If you think of it as a Hopper without PTAT and slower, it is a viable solution. Then get whatever else you need to match up. 5 tuners and a big HD make for a very good unit. 

But keep in mind that if you switch you lose the ability to archive to EHD with D*, and that anything recorded is lost if you lose the DVR as each HD, regardless of internal or external, is keyed to the DVR and not per account as it is with Dish.

You might also keep in mind that getting AMC dramas is not all that difficult, even if more expensive than having it as part of the subscription. And my experience says that the SD versions from Amazon and iTunes are as good as the HD AMC provides.


----------



## satcrazy

Rduce said:


> Just out of curiosity how many hour of programing do you regularly watch on any of the disputed channels or do you just like to *****?


FYI, I followed breaking bad, madmen, and hell on wheels every week.

What I stated was my opinion and I'm standing by it.

If you percieve it as a "*****", well, that is your opinion, and I'll take it for what it's worth........................


----------



## Stewart Vernon

steveT said:


> I just used the word "claims" because it seemed like the right grammatical word. Why would I say that in the sense that it wasn't true, when all of the rest of my posts have been based on Dish paying an extra $0.25-0.50/sub?


I don't know... that is why I think we were confused. Some of your posts seemed to contradict others posts of yours.



steveT said:


> I posted pretty much only the link from the WSJ (which I personally consider to just be a horrible excuse for a newspaper anyway), without any additional comments, because it was getting to the point where I was being pounded for expressing any of my own analysis. So on that one I just figured I'd post the quote and the link, and avoid the hassle. Didn't work.


I don't think anyone (myself included) has pounded on you personally. In any forum discussion there will be disagreement and discourse. IF we all agreed, then there would be no point in having threads!

So, my apologies for anything you took personal because I wasn't going for that and I don't think anyone else was either.



steveT said:


> You told me before I was wasting my time even discussing any of the conversations going on at Dish's Facebook page, and people all piled on, saying Facebook was irrelevant. Now you're posting comments from AMC's Facebook page.


I don't think that's what I said... I think I said that IF you were posting the same thing over and over again (As you said you had been) on Facebook, that it probably explained why you were banned from there. I was basing this off of what you posted yourself, not assumptions. You said you had posted the same thing (links and comments about the unrelated Voom lawsuit) over and over and then you were banned. I was just pointing out that it kind of made sense. Posting the same thing over and over and over, especially if it isn't related, is considered spamming and would get you banned at most places.

As for Facebook being irrelevant... Honestly, I don't care two beans about Facebook myself. I really don't see the attraction to it by so many people... but posts there really have about the same effect as posts here. We can post all we want but the Dish/AMC dispute is going to go one way or the other tonight regardless of any of our conversation no matter where we have it.

But... for the folks who do like Facebook and do think it relevant... I thought it worthwhile to note something I saw there that was kind of amusing to me.



steveT said:


> But that's it for me, I'm out. I thought I could at least be a voice here on the flip side of the debate, and try to put some real analysis based on empirical data on the table.


No need to take things so personally... but, what "real analysis" are you talking about? I mean beyond the numbers we were talking about. You have kept pushing the agenda that AMC has pushed that it isn't about numbers, that it is about the unrelated lawsuit... and yet when AT&T came into the mix and appears to have the same channel dispute..

Well, look at it this way. You seem to buy the spin AMC says that "it isn't a coincidence" that the same day Dish got a bad ruling in the Voom lawsuit, Dish said they would be dropping AMC. Ok... so then why is it a coincidence that AT&T is going to drop the channels on the same night as Dish?

I mean... if one isn't a coincidence, then the other isn't either, right?



steveT said:


> But it's not working, and it doesn't feel like a friendly debate anymore. This will be my last post. I'll be very sadly canceling Dish before the Breaking Bad premiere on July 15 anyway. And you really have no idea how sad that makes me. I've been building my system with the Dish receiver at the core for 15+ years. I loved the days when I had my distant network signals, my superstations, and I know that still today, they have by far the best DVR equipment. I'm also giving up BBCA in HD, which I'm also going to miss big time. But great scripted drama is what I care about most for my entertainment, and AMC, HBO, and Showtime are the only places left to get quality scripted drama anymore. I'll miss this forum too. I've really enjoyed coming here and learning a lot over the past 10 years.


I'm not sure why you feel like you have to leave the forum. Frankly, I don't know why you would leave Dish over this when it is just as likely that either Dish and AMC will get something done soon OR DirecTV will have the same dispute when their contract is up. AMC isn't handling this well.


----------



## dough_boy747

ITs about time to see ao company like DISH stand to there guns, and drop AMC and Sundance and WE and IFC. I wish there was more co. like Dish that would do the same thing LIKE Direct TV if so I would still be with Direct tv yet.


----------



## hdaddikt

puckwithahalo said:


> The Dish America packages don't really overlap. They're meant as an HD only alternative to the America's Top packages (ie, Dish America Silver is roughly the HD only equivalent of America's Top 200).
> 
> Also, why would having fewer choices be a good thing?


Maybe overlap is not the right term, actually in some cases it seems like under-lap. 

Why not have 6 tiers? 60, 110, 160, 210, 260 and Everything?

You want more choices, fine.. 30,60,90,110,130,160,190,210,220,260 & E.

Essentially every jump gets you more channels, that's fair.

For example, now I can go to America Gold or America's Top 250.. get most of the same channels with some exceptions in each one. In that case, notice they also use CD/Sirius in balancing out the selection.

Why not have just have _one_ '260' that incorporates *both* tiers.

CD/Sirius can be an option for every tier. Just a thought. I think there are many with home a/v systems that would be using CD, streaming, recordings, direct sat radio, etc. primarily for their music listening, and not a cable or sat. provider except maybe background music during dinner. ...

I realize it's a challenge for any provider to develop programming with the requirement to include member channels for specific networks. And I suspect that factors greatly into the present configuration, esp. when many secondary channels of a network are only in SD. I guess I am essentially answering my own question to a point.


----------



## retiredTech

splish said:


> I am not seeing channels 130 or 131 on my DP301 SD receiver.


Are the channels in the "all channel" list in red?

What package do you subscribe?


----------



## tampa8

hdaddikt said:


> Why not have just have _one_ '260' that incorporates *both* tiers.


Because the cost of that package would be more, and provide less choices. Seems like the opposite of what people want.


----------



## puckwithahalo

"hdaddikt" said:


> Why not have just have one '260' that incorporates both tiers.


The combination of the two is at250 + HD. Its already another option.


----------



## codespy

Hunter844 said:


> Happy to get HD movies back...I'll take that trade.


Love HDNet Movies and AMC for a couple years now. Thank god I have Direct and not Dish....Especially since there is a Walking Dead Marathon next Saturday and Sunday, including highlights from Season 3 on Sunday night.

I lost all my WD episodes when my one of my DVR's died in Spring. A few of my friends have Dish, and they are getting ready to jump ship.


----------



## James Long

The 9600's channels are renamed ... goodbye AMC (et al).


----------



## hdaddikt

Adios AMC! See you on Amazon, now and then.


----------



## Rduce

I fail to understand why people are so upset over a television channel. Specially, a television channel that already bloats a two hour movie into three for the sake of cramming 4 or 5 minutes worth of commercials down your throat after 10 minutes of program viewing…


----------



## maartena

Rduce said:


> I fail to understand why people are so upset over a television channel.


For some people.... television is the only escape they have left in this life.


----------



## StringFellow

"hdaddikt" said:


> Adios AMC! See you on Amazon, now and then.


Which is what AMC wants and is one of the issues Dish had with AMC (content available on the Internet too quickly - devalues AMC being broadcasted by Dish).


----------



## Mojo Jojo

"hdaddikt" said:


> I dropped down to the 200. I would like to see CD/Sirius as a standalone option instead of being integrated in some packages and not others. Call it the 'hotel room' option.
> 
> Also, combine some of the Dish America packages,esp. Silver & Gold, with the other similar channel count packages.. Too much duplication and overlap, despite it's possible 'marketing advantages' to DN.
> 
> Should be some KISS principles in play.


I believe that commercial accounts actually pay $20-$30 for Sirius XM and even have to pay extra for those Dish CD channels. It would be nice to have them a la carte, but I would not pay an outrageous price for them.

Sirius XM channels and some of the Dish CD channels are in Dish Latino Clasico ($32.99), Plus ($37.99), Dos ($44.99), and Max ($57.99) [http://www.dishlatino.com/paquetes_landing/Channels.aspx. AT 120 ($44.99), AT 120 Plus ($49.99), AT 200 ($59.99), AT 250 ($69.99), and AEP ($104.99).


----------



## Marlin Guy

Not worried in the least. I watched the first four seasons of Breaking Bad without AMC. I can sure as heck watch the last one.


----------



## jsray2

I called Dish billing and they told me they will credit your Dish account if you watch AMC shows like Breaking Bad and Walking Dead online (Amazon, iTunes, etc). Just call them before the season starts and let them know how much you will pay to watcrah them online. Breaking Bad had 13 episodes the last couple of years. Amazon charges 1.99, so that would be a $25.87 credit if they have 13 episodes this season.


----------



## mike1977

What's funny is that having Dish and seeing the AMC shows where they say to go equals us spending more money anyway. So I wish they'd just put the AMC networks in a pack like the Epix channels where you can put a check mark on the change programming page for a few bucks more.


----------



## jsray2

According to wikipedia, season 5 of Breaking Bad will have 16 episodes. So call Dish and ask for a credit of 31.84 before the season starts.


----------



## SayWhat?

jsray2 said:


> I called Dish billing and they told me ....


And how will they verify that you actually paid that amount?


----------



## 356B

SayWhat? said:


> And how will they verify that you actually paid that amount?


I just called Dish, got a $35.00 credit to my account, no questions or proof of purchase necessary.  Thank you Dish!


----------



## hdaddikt

Mojo Jojo said:


> I believe that commercial accounts actually pay $20-$30 for Sirius XM and even have to pay extra for those Dish CD channels. It would be nice to have them a la carte, but I would not pay an outrageous price for them.


They have no value there for me, but still think it should be an option only regardless of 'package'. If Dish said they would remove them from my account and reduce my bill $1 a month, I'd likely jump at it.


----------



## hdaddikt

StringFellow said:


> Which is what AMC wants and is one of the issues Dish had with AMC (content available on the Internet too quickly - devalues AMC being broadcasted by Dish).


 They are now losing out in terms of total numbers of subscribers, but that's what happens when you try to get too many eggs in the basket.


----------



## Mojo Jojo

"356B" said:


> I just called Dish, got a $35.00 credit to my account, no questions or proof of purchase necessary.  Thank you Dish!


Wow! What package do you have? In or out of contract? I think it depends on which CSR you get...


----------



## Paul Secic

Rduce said:


> I fail to understand why people are so upset over a television channel. Specially, a television channel that already bloats a two hour movie into three for the sake of cramming 4 or 5 minutes worth of commercials down your throat after 10 minutes of program viewing&#8230;


I agree! It's no big deal.


----------



## Flasshe

jsray2 said:


> According to wikipedia, season 5 of Breaking Bad will have 16 episodes. So call Dish and ask for a credit of 31.84 before the season starts.


Yes, but they are splitting the season (the show's last) and showing 8 episodes this summer and the final 8 next summer.


----------



## justjayce

As soon as I get my dish installed I will have to go after that credit. I do like the walking dead and breaking bad. But that's all I like on AMC. Everything else was just not worth it.


----------



## SayWhat?

356B said:


> I just called Dish, got a $35.00 credit to my account, no questions or proof of purchase necessary.


I have enough integrity NOT to call for something like that.


----------



## 356B

Mojo Jojo said:


> Wow! What package do you have? In or out of contract? I think it depends on which CSR you get...


 I got an e-mail today telling me to call for details about AMC credits.


----------



## 356B

SayWhat? said:


> I have enough integrity NOT to call for something like that.


 If you can't say anything nice...shut the ****up! any questions?


----------



## SayWhat?

If I were to lose Dish completely for 3 or 4 days, I might consider calling for a credit, but not because of a couple of hours of programs that I don't even watch. That just seems opportunistic.


----------



## 356B

SayWhat? said:


> If I were to lose Dish completely for 3 or 4 days, I might consider calling for a credit, but not because of a couple of hours of programs that I don't even watch. That just seems opportunistic.


"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." Thomas A. Edison
Whatever........


----------



## necrocis

My big issue since switching from Direct in May (to save money). I now will have to pay over $60 additional on Amazon to watch my favorite shows on AMC in HD. For myself I add this to my price on the 250 tier w/ HD free per month.


----------



## Davenlr

necrocis said:


> My big issue since switching from Direct in May (to save money). I now will have to pay over $60 additional on Amazon to watch my favorite shows on AMC in HD. For myself I add this to my price on the 250 tier w/ HD free per month.


I thought Amazon Prime was $79 a year. Or are you talking about buying DVD's?


----------



## hdaddikt

A whole season of Breaking Bad is just over $30 in HD. And you don't have to be a prime member.


----------



## 356B

Amazon Prime offers a free month, if you buy in you get 2 day shipping, unlimited streaming, books on line. Since I live in the sticks we order from them often, it's worked out for me.


----------



## lparsons21

At the other site, there are some reporting that Dish is giving them a Roku XD and $60 worth of credits. That would certainly pay for quite a few shows from Amazon or iTunes.

As to Amazon Prime, well not everything is free after you pays your money, including most, if not all of AMC's stuff. Better to get the series or some such.

As a note, I tested out both iTunes and AMC, their SD is every bit as good as the HD provided by AMC and BBCA, imo. So you can save yourself some bucks that way too.


----------



## Slamminc11

SayWhat? said:


> I have enough integrity NOT to call for something like that.


Totally agree!


----------



## 356B

Slamminc11 said:


> Totally agree!


 :lol:


----------



## Marlin Guy

I just chatted with Dish CS and they gave 3 months of Blockbuster @ Home free.

http://www.dish.com/entertainment/blockbuster/#FAQS


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm not knocking anyone here... but I haven't gotten an email from Dish... and while I might would like something... I don't know that I could, in good conscience, call and ask for a credit when all along I've said I supported Dish.

It's one thing for people on the fence... but I'm squarely with Dish on this one, so I couldn't ask for a credit with a straight face I don' think... and certainly not on the order of $30+ and a free Roku. If I'm reading correctly, it sounds like they are giving away the $80 model too... and even if it is a refurb rather than new, that's still a chunk of change.

And people say Dish never gives existing customers anything!


----------



## 356B

Sure you are........and I got one......

DISH will make sure you can still watch Breaking Bad, Hell on Wheels, and The Walking Dead. We have some very rewarding offers in place. Find out how to enjoy your shows on Amazon® and iTunes® on your computer or by streaming through your Xbox®, PlayStation®, Apple TV® or Roku®. Call today at 1-888-581-1972 to learn more. 

Thanks for being a valued DISH customer.

Sincerely,
DISH


----------



## sigma1914

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm not knocking anyone here... but I haven't gotten an email from Dish... and while I might would like something... I don't know that I could, in good conscience, call and ask for a credit when all along I've said I supported Dish.
> 
> It's one thing for people on the fence... but I'm squarely with Dish on this one, so I couldn't ask for a credit with a straight face I don' think... and certainly not on the order of $30+ and a free Roku. If I'm reading correctly, it sounds like they are giving away the $80 model too... and even if it is a refurb rather than new, that's still a chunk of change.
> 
> And people say Dish never gives existing customers anything!


It'll be interesting to see if the posters who didn't care or supported Dish will now "cash in" on the offers.


----------



## Marlin Guy

They gave me [email protected] I just looked through the offerings there and saw nothing I wanted.
I still support Dish and their efforts to keep costs down, but if they're handing out free candy I'll take some.


----------



## sigma1914

Marlin Guy said:


> They gave me [email protected] I just looked through the offerings there and saw nothing I wanted.
> I still support Dish and their efforts to keep costs down, but if they're handing out free candy I'll take some.


You won't use the disc portion? I would.


----------



## Marlin Guy

Not likely.
My TV Fairy delivers way ahead of their schedule.


----------



## 356B

Marlin Guy said:


> They gave me [email protected] I just looked through the offerings there and saw nothing I wanted.
> I still support Dish and their efforts to keep costs down, but if they're handing out free candy I'll take some.


There not giving anything away, this is a form of damage control. If Dish is willing to give I'm willing to take. If that makes me some unethical, immoral, opportunist in someones eyes here...tough.


----------



## hdaddikt

356B said:


> Amazon Prime offers a free month, if you buy in you get 2 day shipping, unlimited streaming, books on line. Since I live in the sticks we order from them often, it's worked out for me.


I agree, Prime is worth it for many, especially if you also order merchandise from Amazon on a regular basis. I buy AND sell on Amazon fairly regularly. Been pleased with downloads also.


----------



## sliderbob

I chatted with a CS rep. and wouldn't even give me an offer--no 3 free months of Blockbuster  --he said that "Well, we are giving everybody a free month on Encore." I thought those were normal perks? Oh well...gonna see Xfinity soon, since they have AMC and a bunch of other channels which Dish doesn't or NO LONGER carries.


----------



## SayWhat?

While I wouldn't mind a Roku box, I'm just not into taking something just because it's offered as compensation for loss when I'm not really out anything.


----------



## SayWhat?

sliderbob said:


> I chatted with a CS rep. and wouldn't even give me an offer--


See, they may be reigning in the offers if they feel people are going overboard.


----------



## 356B

SayWhat? said:


> See, they may be reigning in the offers if they feel people are going overboard.


 :lol:


----------



## damondlt

On satelliteguys they claim Dish is giving out Free ROKU XD's to customers who call and complain, Anyone here heard of this yet?


----------



## SayWhat?

damondlt said:


> On satelliteguys they claim Dish is giving out Free ROKU XD's to customers who call and complain, Anyone here heard of this yet?





lparsons21 said:


> At the other site, there are some reporting that Dish is giving them a Roku XD and $60 worth of credits.


Don't think I'll be doing it though since I'm actually watching more on the replacement channels than I ever did on AMC.


----------



## eric032706

I contacted Dish customer service and told them I was not happy about AMC being dropped, and asked a few times if there was ANY chance of the channel coming back through further negotiations. He said " No ". After that, he offered me the Roku box and 12 months of $10.00 credits. I did not want the streaming device, so he then offered me 3 months of Cinemax, Starz, and Showtime for free, with the credits. At first, I felt guilty taking the offer, but I really did LOVE The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, and liked Hell on Wheels (never saw The Killing, but heard good things about it). My Dad and brother have Direct, so I guess I will be visiting more often on Sundays.


----------



## Inkosaurus

sliderbob said:


> I chatted with a CS rep. and wouldn't even give me an offer--no 3 free months of Blockbuster  --he said that "Well, we are giving everybody a free month on Encore."


There is no such thing as customer equality. Just because some customers get some things does not mean you are guaranteed to get the same or any offer all together.

Just like most other deals and offers in the past you can bet your bottom dollar there are going to be some customers left out (more then most likely due to not being great customers)


----------



## fudpucker

Well, crap. I was hoping that at the last minute Dish and AMC would work out a deal, but from everything I've been able to find online, this looks like two bazillionaires who are now in a position to not lose face. I.e. AMC is not gonna be on Dish.

I know this is heresy here, but I'm not worrying a huge amount over who of the two bazillionaires is right and wrong. Yeah, looks like AMC tried to play a big bluff by asking for more money than they should have, Dish called their bluff, it got nasty and there were no real negotiations. I'm sure the Voom thing added to the bad blood to make it a more "personal" fight than it might be with other companies. Dish's Bazillionaire likely thought AMC would come crawling back when Dish said no to their rate increase, and AMC's bazillionaire likely thought Dish would say "OK, you asked for XX, we'll offer YY, let's see where it will end up." Heard on Bloomberg online that Dish just said no, and there was no negotiation.

Did AMC ask for too much? No doubt. Did Dish try to negotiate with them and get to a number they could both live with? Doesn't sound like it, but none of us on here probably know for sure.

For me, the prime time drama's on AMC are among our top dramas that we watch on TV. I understand that the rest of AMC has really lost their origins, which was commercial free old and classic movies, a role that Turner Classic Movies has taken. I understand that I pretty much only watch AMC for the big name series that they show. 

However, I pay my $135 a month to watch the TV shows we like to watch. It's a very selfish endeavor, I admit. If, say, Fox asked for some outrageous fee (and we can't get Fox OTA here) and Dish stood their ground and said no, and they dropped Fox, then it might be "the right thing to do" but I would be forced to switch providers nonetheless because we pay Dish purely to watch the TV shows we want to watch. That's the only thing I pay them for.

We watch all of the AMC big name dramas so to rent all of those in HD (I did test an SD rental from Amazon, we're Prime members, and it was not at all the same quality as AMC HD when viewed on our 54" plasma) would cost us a lot. 

I had DirectTV from 1995 until 2009. They weren't perfect, but we were happy with them. We would have stayed with them, but when we moved, they did not carry a couple of the local networks in HD, and they did not carry AMC HD. Dish did. So we switched. So we're debating switching back - there are pluses and minuses to both, as all here know. I'm not going to stomp my feet and say Dish is evil, etc. They are a business, and they need to do what a business needs to do, and whether egos are also influencing all of this, I don't know, and frankly, I don't care. And they won't miss my one subscription a bit (unlike DirectTV, they don't seem to care when a subscriber calls to cancel - I haven't done that, but a few friends over the years have switched to DirecTV.) 

Again, switching is a PIA, but now that DirectTV does have all of our locals in HD, as well as AMC HD, comparing packages (and I do subscribe to quite a bit, as a $135 a month bill would indicate) I don't really yet see a reason not to: I would get more of the shows I want to watch, which is the reason I subscribe to any provider.

So - this is NOT a "OHHHH Dish is so evil!" post, just the thought process of one subscriber, who has been a satellite subscriber for about 17 years, and purely FWIW.


----------



## Marlin Guy

Maybe it's in the way you ask about it.

Here's my chat transcript. I have replaced personally identifiable names and information.

Dish CS: Hi, my name is Dish CS. How may I help you?
Dish Customer: I understand that Dish is no longer carrying AMC. What other options do I have to keep Dish and still get AMC programs like Breaking Bad?
Dish CS: I will help you with the AMC information and alternative programming. 
Dish CS: Please give me a moment to access your account.
Dish CS: For security purposes, would you please verify the last four digits of the Social Security Number on the account?
Dish Customer: XXXX
Dish CS: Thank you for verifying. 
Dish CS: I understand you are upset about not being able to watch these movies. The contract between DISH and AMC Networks ended on June 30, 2012. As a result, DISH no longer carries AMC, IFC, or WeTV. The decision was made based on the value DISH customers receive when comparing the high renewal cost to the relatively low viewership. 
Dish CS: Movies on AMC are substantially more popular than its few original series. But customers have better choices than AMC as DISH offers Blockbuster @Home, dozens of movie channels from partners like HBO, Showtime, Starz, EPIX, HD Net, MGM HD, IndiePlex, RetroPlex, PixL and the latest new releases on DISH Cinema.

Dish Customer: I understand that. I am familiar with the situation. But is there some way to stream programming from AMC.. for a fee?
Dish CS: You will get the Breaking Bad series through Blockbuster. 
Dish CS: From the 15th July you can get the Discs through Blockbuster and you can stream that programming online Through Blockbuster. 
Dish Customer: The upcoming series? Is there a delay as to when it appears on Blockbuster?
Dish CS: No, you will get that programming through the Blockbuster. 
Dish CS: You can stream that programming online Through Blockbuster. 
Dish Customer: At what cost?
Dish CS: Blockbuster @ home is just $10 a month, but because of this AMC inconvenience I can offer you Blockbuster @ home free for 3 months to your account.
Dish CS: After 3 months if you want to keep the Blockbuster on your account you can pay $10 a month. 
Dish CS: Shall I add it now? 
Dish Customer: That would be great. Thanks.
Dish CS: My pleasure to help you. 
Dish CS: Your satisfaction is important to us Sir.
Dish CS: I have added the Blockbuster to your account. 
Dish Customer: I'm a fairly new customer. Did I already have BB @ home?
Dish CS: No, you don't have the Blockbuster on your account. 
Dish CS: I have added it now.
Dish Customer: OK. Thanks.
Dish CS: I will provide a link where you can get more information no Blockbuster . 
Dish Customer: Do I access programming through my Hopper or the computer?
Dish CS: You can stream the movies through the Hopper and you can order the DISC through the Blockbuster account. 
Dish Customer: OK.
Dish CS: You can stream the series on the computer through dishonline account. 
Dish Customer: Do I need to go to a website and setup access or are we done?
Dish CS: I will provide a link where you an get the information.
Dish CS: Please give me a minute. 
Dish CS: I am sorry for the delay. 
Dish CS: http://www.dish.com/entertainment/blockbuster/#FAQS
Dish CS: You can go through the above link to get more information on Blockbuster. 
Dish CS: It was nice chatting with you.
Dish CS: To save time in the future, you can view and pay your bill, order Pay-Per-View's with no fees and upgrade your programming at no additional cost with your online account.
Dish CS: Is there anything else I may assist you with?
Dish Customer: That's all. Thanks.
Dish CS: You are welcome.
Dish CS: Thank you for using DISH Chat and have a great day!
Dish CS: Bye!


----------



## SayWhat?

fudpucker said:


> but now that DirectTV does have ..... AMC HD,


But for how long? When does that contract come up? A few months? Then what?

Maybe AMC will give in and come crawling back to Dish.


----------



## Inkosaurus

SayWhat? said:


> But for how long? When does that contract come up? A few months? Then what?
> 
> Maybe AMC will give in and come crawling back to Dish.


IIRC Dtv and AMC re-upped on there contract last year-ish. 
So it will be awhile before they have to negotiate.


----------



## inkahauts

"Inkosaurus" said:


> IIRC Dtv and AMC re-upped on there contract last year-ish.
> So it will be awhile before they have to negotiate.


You know it's funny, I don't think anyone ever actually said, we just all figure they must have since they added Hi Definition finally, and assumed that mean a new deal too.


----------



## inkahauts

"fudpucker" said:


> Well, crap. I was hoping that at the last minute Dish and AMC would work out a deal, but from everything I've been able to find online, this looks like two bazillionaires who are now in a position to not lose face. I.e. AMC is not gonna be on Dish.
> 
> I know this is heresy here, but I'm not worrying a huge amount over who of the two bazillionaires is right and wrong. Yeah, looks like AMC tried to play a big bluff by asking for more money than they should have, Dish called their bluff, it got nasty and there were no real negotiations. I'm sure the Voom thing added to the bad blood to make it a more "personal" fight than it might be with other companies. Dish's Bazillionaire likely thought AMC would come crawling back when Dish said no to their rate increase, and AMC's bazillionaire likely thought Dish would say "OK, you asked for XX, we'll offer YY, let's see where it will end up." Heard on Bloomberg online that Dish just said no, and there was no negotiation.
> 
> Did AMC ask for too much? No doubt. Did Dish try to negotiate with them and get to a number they could both live with? Doesn't sound like it, but none of us on here probably know for sure.
> 
> For me, the prime time drama's on AMC are among our top dramas that we watch on TV. I understand that the rest of AMC has really lost their origins, which was commercial free old and classic movies, a role that Turner Classic Movies has taken. I understand that I pretty much only watch AMC for the big name series that they show.
> 
> However, I pay my $135 a month to watch the TV shows we like to watch. It's a very selfish endeavor, I admit. If, say, Fox asked for some outrageous fee (and we can't get Fox OTA here) and Dish stood their ground and said no, and they dropped Fox, then it might be "the right thing to do" but I would be forced to switch providers nonetheless because we pay Dish purely to watch the TV shows we want to watch. That's the only thing I pay them for.
> 
> We watch all of the AMC big name dramas so to rent all of those in HD (I did test an SD rental from Amazon, we're Prime members, and it was not at all the same quality as AMC HD when viewed on our 54" plasma) would cost us a lot.
> 
> I had DirectTV from 1995 until 2009. They weren't perfect, but we were happy with them. We would have stayed with them, but when we moved, they did not carry a couple of the local networks in HD, and they did not carry AMC HD. Dish did. So we switched. So we're debating switching back - there are pluses and minuses to both, as all here know. I'm not going to stomp my feet and say Dish is evil, etc. They are a business, and they need to do what a business needs to do, and whether egos are also influencing all of this, I don't know, and frankly, I don't care. And they won't miss my one subscription a bit (unlike DirectTV, they don't seem to care when a subscriber calls to cancel - I haven't done that, but a few friends over the years have switched to DirecTV.)
> 
> Again, switching is a PIA, but now that DirectTV does have all of our locals in HD, as well as AMC HD, comparing packages (and I do subscribe to quite a bit, as a $135 a month bill would indicate) I don't really yet see a reason not to: I would get more of the shows I want to watch, which is the reason I subscribe to any provider.
> 
> So - this is NOT a "OHHHH Dish is so evil!" post, just the thought process of one subscriber, who has been a satellite subscriber for about 17 years, and purely FWIW.


Nice post!


----------



## fudpucker

SayWhat? said:


> But for how long? When does that contract come up? A few months? Then what?
> 
> Maybe AMC will give in and come crawling back to Dish.


Maybe forever. Maybe just a couple of years (they signed a contract not long ago.) But for sure, now. And with the egos involved, who knows if AMC will ever be back on Dish - I think that would require some losing face on one side or the other, and I can't see that happening for now. From all I can read, there were no negotiations, a sign of the ego influence. At least IMO.

We've seen changes in channel lineups over the years, but usually not the dropping of a channel with such high profile programming. At least, I don't recall it such in my 14 years watching DirectTV and now 3 on Dish. If that is what Dish feels they want to do or need to do or whatever, more power to them. I understand there are no guarantees on what channels will be where in a year or two years or whatever.

For us, it's just TV. That's it. We just want to turn it on, and watch the shows we like. Love being able to record them and watch them when we want. Would never go back from HD. But bottom line, we just want to see what's on, read in EW and TV Guide and online about our favorite shows and chat about them with our friends, and tune in and watch the shows we like. No more, no less. So we choose our provider purely from that point of view. We'll pay a bit more to get the shows we want because paying less and not seeing the shows we regularly watch isn't why we pay a provider. It may be for some, but obviously at over a hundred a month, not for us.

And everything I say is just about us; not trying to convince anyone we're "right" or anyone else is "wrong."


----------



## jdskycaster

I love this forum!


----------



## Inkosaurus

> We've seen changes in channel lineups over the years, but usually not the dropping of a channel with such high profile programming. At least, I don't recall it such in my 14 years watching DirectTV and now 3 on Dish.


Shoot I dont know. I recall the FX (and other channels) take down for Dish quite vividly. I worked there as a CSR at that time, bunch of mandatory over time and lots of give aways. I must have given away hundreds of dollars in Itunes vouchers back then.
edit:
And IIRC the FX takedown was at the peak of "Sons of Anarchy" popularity and they were either just about to end the season or begin it ( I cant remember since Ive never seen the show) lol.


----------



## fudpucker

Inkosaurus said:


> Shoot I dont know. I recall the FX (and other channels) take down for Dish quite vividly. I worked there as a CSR at that time, bunch of mandatory over time and lots of give aways. I must have given away hundreds of dollars in Itunes vouchers back then.
> edit:
> And IIRC the FX takedown was at the peak of "Sons of Anarchy" popularity and they were either just about to end the season or begin it ( I cant remember since Ive never seen the show) lol.


When did that happen? Not sure I was on Dish at the time, I think I would have recalled it since we used to watch that show.


----------



## Inkosaurus

If my memory serves correctly, It was back in the fall of 2010-ish lol.


----------



## SayWhat?

Dish Vs Fox -- http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=185482

Cablevision Vs Fox -- http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=185368

Direct Vs Fox -- http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=198060

Everybody thinks Direct and AMC signed a year or so back, but if it was a two year contract, there could be only a few months left.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Inkosaurus said:


> IIRC Dtv and AMC re-upped on there contract last year-ish.
> So it will be awhile before they have to negotiate.


AT&T had a dispute almost exactly 2 years ago to the one they resolved (apparently) this weekend. So, if it was a year ago for DirecTV, then it could be a year or less until the next round.


----------



## Inkosaurus

Good points stewart and saywhat.

Im just used to contracts potentially being 4 or so years long but you guys could definitely be onto something.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> From all I can read, there were no negotiations, a sign of the ego influence. At least IMO.


The key here is "from all I can read"...

I don't think anyone has mentioned it, so it's probably long overdue to point this out.

Dish (and DirecTV and AT&T and whomever) are usually contractually obligated to NOT disclose certain aspects of the negotiation publicly, whereas AMC is not.

Consider... both AT&T and Dish said the same thing publicly, almost verbatim, that "AMC wants more than is warranted due to their lower popularity compared to other similar channels."

AMC says Dish didn't negotiate at all... AMC obviously was able to negotiate with AT&T... but note that neither Dish nor AT&T said the amounts being requested, and AMC hasn't disclosed this info either!

AMC, and other channels, know that if the actual values were made public during negotiations it *might* sway the public against them... thus the hand-tie on the companies like Dish.

IF AMC doesn't think they are asking for much, why not say publicly "You only pay, $xx today and we only want $yy" ? Truth be told, they don't want to risk public backlash with actual numbers.

Dish and AT&T are bound by the contract not to discuss.

This is why every time there is a dispute, Dish, AT&T and others give simple statements whereas the channels like AMC or FOX say thing like "we aren't asking for too much" in response which is similarly generic because they would open the floodgates for Dish to say more IF they let the cat out of the bag.

So... AMC gets to sling a lot of dirt about the public lawsuit and trying to blame that... AMC gets to say "Dish isn't even negotiating"... and AMC gets to run scrolls that say "go to DirecTV"... and Dish kind of has to sit there and take it.

Meanwhile... what happens in cases where the negotiation eventually takes place and the channel comes back? You'll never see AMC apologize or take anything back... that is always a curious thing to me.


----------



## cj9788

From AMC's Facebook page......

_AMC
3 hours ago
We're pleased to announce that we've reached an agreement with our partner AT&T to continue airing shows like The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad. We want to thank our loyal fans for your support.

As expected, in a distinctly different situation, Dish Network has dropped us because of an unrelated lawsuit that has nothing to do with our programming. This unprecedented decision to use its customers as pawns in a lawsuit makes DISH the only major TV provider without AMC. DISH
customers should call 1-855-2-DROP-DISH or click www. SwitchfromDish. com
for assistance so they can continue watching AMC._


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Inkosaurus said:


> Good points stewart and saywhat.
> 
> Im just used to contracts potentially being 4 or so years long but you guys could definitely be onto something.


Yeah... I remember longer contracts too. Besides the times changing... I think situations like (wait for it...) the Voom lawsuit have made everyone leery of signing long-term agreements anymore.

Companies like Dish don't want to get burned again by a long-contract where the channel fails to deliver on promises... and channels don't want to get locked into lower rates if their expenses go up.

So I think it has been slowly going down to smaller and smaller contracts more similar to what we as customers agree to in fact.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Let's analyze a bit, shall we...



cj9788 said:


> From AMC's Facebook page......
> 
> _AMC
> 3 hours ago
> We're pleased to announce that we've reached an agreement with our partner AT&T to continue airing shows like The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad._


Only mentioning a couple of shows, one of which isn't even on again until October...

Also, no mention of price. With the whole "we aren't asking too much" wouldn't it be nice if they took that to the public and told everyone what they did ask for and what AT&T agreed to?

AT&T can't reveal those numbers by contract, but AMC could. AMC doesn't want you to know what you will now be paying.


cj9788 said:


> _ We want to thank our loyal fans for your support._


This makes it sound like they "won", and the fans helped them... this puts AT&T in a position of "losing" and means their fans aren't of any value. What's the point of this statement? Is it even necessary?

In a press release, why not just report the facts without editorial?


cj9788 said:


> _As expected_


As expected? So they weren't really trying with Dish either... I mean, IF they were trying and Dish wasn't, then they would say "we were disappointed" or "unfortunately"... but "as expected" is kind of a thumbing your nose message.


cj9788 said:


> _, in a distinctly different situation,_


Hey... since it is "distinctly different" why are they bringing it up? I mean, if the Dish dispute and the AT&T dispute are completely different and not connected in any way... what's the point? Why mention Dish and AT&T in the same release?

If you're letting AT&T customers and your "fans" know that U-Verse resolved the dispute... do that... why bring in a "distinctly different" dispute into the discussion? Unless maybe you just like to connect unconnected things... like oh say that unrelated lawsuit?


cj9788 said:


> _ Dish Network has dropped us because of an unrelated lawsuit that has nothing to do with our programming._


Where to start? Even AMC says it is an "unrelated" lawsuit... so unrelated in fact that AMC keeps bringing it up even when discussing AT&T!

Also... "nothing to do with our programming"?? That "unrelated" lawsuit has everything to do with programming... Voom had agreed to improve programming for a longterm contract, and then didn't improve that programming.

AMC is arguing their programming is so good it deserves more money... Kind of sounds like two sides of the same coin?

Although... notice Dish didn't start talking about the lawsuit in relation to dropping AMC, since it is in fact unrelated. AMC seems to be the only one thinking the "unrelated lawsuit" is somehow related. AMC is the only party relating the two unrelated things.


cj9788 said:


> _ This unprecedented decision to use its customers as pawns in a lawsuit makes DISH the only major TV provider without AMC._


Well... only because an after-the-last-minute negotiation happened with AT&T. You know, the same AT&T that shared a button on the "keepamc" Web site for the last week?

Meanwhile, "unprecedented"? Really? As if AMC wasn't using customers as pawns too. I mean.. all their "don't miss your favorite program" and "cancel Dish" and "Dish is evil" and so forth... that wasn't trying to use their customers to their ends? Please.

I note too... Walking Dead, one of their good and popular new shows... had a Blu-ray release a month or so after season one... then a few months later they announced a "better with more extras" season one release. So much for using customers as pawns! They took advantage of the show's popularity for an early cash grab, and banked on many of those same customers wanting to pay again.

Customers paid once through their Dish or DirecTV or whatever service... then bought season one... then were asked to re-buy season one again later that same year!

Asked by AMC to buy your favorite show three times in the span of 6 months or so? But the customers were only used as pawns by Dish.

Yeah. AMC puts the customer first and agreed to let the channels continue at the current price while negotiations took place instead of yanking the signals once the contract expired. AMC decided accepting the current money was better than zero money AND didn't want to use the customers as pawns.

Oh wait... that's not what happened is it?


cj9788 said:


> _ DISH
> customers should call 1-855-2-DROP-DISH or click www.SwitchfromDish.com
> for assistance so they can continue watching AMC._


This isn't using customers as pawns? Really, AMC? Really?


----------



## eric032706

Just an FYI for Breaking Bad fans. If you purchase the pre-season pass in Itunes, it is only $21.99 ($21.99/16= $1.37 per episode vs $2.99 individually) in HD or $13.99 in SD. According to theinteractive.com (click on watch, then itunes),you can even see it the same day, albeit a few hours later. I tried to post the links, but I don't have enough posts yet.


----------



## crabtrp

Is it for the 16 episodes of parts 1 and 2 of the season or just for the 8 episodes this year? The pricing would seem to indicate just 8 episodes.


----------



## James Long

sigma1914 said:


> Marlin Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They gave me [email protected] I just looked through the offerings there and saw nothing I wanted.
> I still support Dish and their efforts to keep costs down, but if they're handing out free candy I'll take some.
> 
> 
> 
> You won't use the disc portion? I would.
Click to expand...

The portion of the hard drive used for [email protected] is reserved regardless of if the customer subscribe to or uses [email protected] It is also used for other VOD and (on Hoppers) PTA content.


----------



## eric032706

I am quoting from the itunes description for breaking bad season 5, "This Season Pass includes all current and future episodes of BREAKING BAD, SEASON 5. Current episodes will download immediately and future episodes will download as they become available." If according to all the statements made that this is the final season, and even though 8 episodes will air this year, and 8 next year, it should still be interpreted as one season (not season 5 then 6 ). At least that is my interpretation.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

eric032706 said:


> I am quoting from the itunes description for breaking bad season 5, "This Season Pass includes all current and future episodes of BREAKING BAD, SEASON 5. Current episodes will download immediately and future episodes will download as they become available." If according to all the statements made that this is the final season, and even though 8 episodes will air this year, and 8 next year, it should still be interpreted as one season (not season 5 then 6 ). At least that is my interpretation.


I would be careful about that assumption. I have seen iTunes split things up before, especially when there is a long hiatus.

Doctor Who Series 6, for example, is broken into pt 1 and pt 2 even though all of those episodes aired in the same calendar year.

So... put a calendar year between Breaking Bad, and I wouldn't assume unless they explicitly say it will include all 16 episodes.


----------



## MCHuf

No way is Apple selling HD shows for that low a price. That has to be for the first 8 episodes. $2.75 per episode makes more sense since Amazon is selling them for $2.84 per episode with a season pass. I think the reason the iTunes store is less expensive is because you're committed to buying the whole season, with Amazon you're buying them individually and don't have to buy them all. 

I'm planning on buying the sd versions myself. SD quality from Amazon isn't too bad. It's actually better than many networks sd pq.


----------



## Tiny

could u use this loophole to get out of 2yr dish comittment?


----------



## SayWhat?

What loophole?

( And the word is YOu )


----------



## hdaddikt

Tiny said:


> could u use this loophole to get out of 2yr dish comittment?


Doubtful, read the contract. I believe DN is allowed to make program changes as necessary. No doubt the legal team has that well covered.


----------



## Marlin Guy

SayWhat? said:


> ( And the word is YOu )


Made me think of this. :lol:

http://www.sadanduseless.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2012.jpg


----------



## lparsons21

iTunes is just like Amazon in this respect, you can buy the season or just an episode.


----------



## Jhon69

It's being reported over at the other place that those who call and complain to DISH about the loss of the channels in their package.Their requesting to go to DISH's loyalty depatrment and some are receiving a free ROKU.


----------



## jilla

Not all. I was offered only $5 & declined. We have been with Dish for over 8 years but everytime I call , they offer $5 only & we decline. Even on the Hopper upgrade they would not do 2 Hoppers without the extra $200. First I thought, it depends on the rep you get. Then I realized the longer you are with them, they realize you are not going to leave and don't offer you much. It is called "Reverse Loyalty" :d


----------



## catnapped

Jhon69 said:


> It's being reported over at the other place that those who call and complain to DISH about the loss of the channels in their package.Their requesting to go to DISH's loyalty depatrment and some are receiving a free ROKU.


No foolin? :eek2:


----------



## Jhon69

catnapped said:


> No foolin? :eek2:


No foolin.


----------



## Jhon69

jilla said:


> Not all. I was offered only $5 & declined. We have been with Dish for over 8 years but everytime I call , they offer $5 only & we decline. Even on the Hopper upgrade they would not do 2 Hoppers without the extra $200. First I thought, it depends on the rep you get. Then I realized the longer you are with them, they realize you are not going to leave and don't offer you much. It is called "Reverse Loyalty" :d


That is possibility I don't know I have not called nor do I plan to.I support DISH that's just my opinion and my choice,everyone would have to decide on their own if the missing channels are worth a call to DISH.For those who do I say Good Luck!


----------



## Jhon69

jilla said:


> Not all. I was offered only $5 & declined. We have been with Dish for over 8 years but everytime I call , they offer $5 only & we decline. Even on the Hopper upgrade they would not do 2 Hoppers without the extra $200. First I thought, it depends on the rep you get. Then I realized the longer you are with them, they realize you are not going to leave and don't offer you much. It is called "Reverse Loyalty" :d


Also would like to comment that it depends which package you subscribe to,how long has it been since you received and accepted an offer.There are reasons why some get an offer while others don't,This has been what I have seen in a little over 10 years with DISH.I always say it doesn't hurt to ask,they can always tell you No,but if you don't ask you will never know.


----------



## ericsdad

I talked to the loyalty dept. and was offered a free Roku, $10 off for 12 months, and the free hd for life deal without needing to autopay. I accepted, now I'll wait to see if I actually get all that.


----------



## SayWhat?

ericsdad said:


> I accepted, now I'll wait to see if I actually get all that.


Are you actually out anything, or are you just taking it to take something?


----------



## txfeinbergs

Marlin Guy said:


> Made me think of this. :lol:
> 
> http://www.sadanduseless.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2012.jpg


Now that was funny.


----------



## txfeinbergs

SayWhat? said:


> Are you actually out anything, or are you just taking it to take something?


Isn't that pretty much the way all of humanity works though?


----------



## strikes2k

txfeinbergs said:


> Isn't that pretty much the way all of humanity works though?


It's really not. There are still a lot of people who believe character counts, and the best time to show it is when there's no penalty for doing the wrong thing. But no, not everyone does things like that.


----------



## inkahauts

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> Yeah... I remember longer contracts too. Besides the times changing... I think situations like (wait for it...) the Voom lawsuit have made everyone leery of signing long-term agreements anymore.
> 
> Companies like Dish don't want to get burned again by a long-contract where the channel fails to deliver on promises... and channels don't want to get locked into lower rates if their expenses go up.
> 
> So I think it has been slowly going down to smaller and smaller contracts more similar to what we as customers agree to in fact.


I think who it is signing a contract with makes a difference too. If its a broadcast network, they will want longer, if it's a major play like Disney and they are singing on for a lot of high profile channels going no where with pretty predictable budgets, they will go longer, but when it's channels like rainbow medias, that have a couple channels and very little must have programing and no sports that could easily suddenly have no good programs and poor viewership leaving people way overpaying for the channels, I think your absolutely right on. Shorter contracts so they limit their exposure on channels like amc.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of these channels end up or all already doing one year contracts.


----------



## Inkosaurus

jilla said:


> Not all. I was offered only $5 & declined. We have been with Dish for over 8 years but everytime I call , they offer $5 only & we decline. Even on the Hopper upgrade they would not do 2 Hoppers without the extra $200. First I thought, it depends on the rep you get. Then I realized the longer you are with them, they realize you are not going to leave and don't offer you much. It is called "Reverse Loyalty" :d


Nope.
Having worked at Dish in the past I can tell you this isnt true.
Length of time with a company doesnt automatically mean your in good standing with them. Your probably not on one of the higher customer tiers in the hierarchy to get the goods.

Like I said earlier there is no such thing as customer equality, especially at Dish.
Not everyone will get the same thing and some of you wont even get anything so don't call in expecting and demanding things just because "user y" got a roku and a 10$x12m credit. Your entitled to ask but Dish is not entitled to give you anything either especially if your not that good of a customer.


----------



## inkahauts

Unfortunately with amc and AT&T coming to terms, that doesn't make dish look as good as it did when they where also in doubt to the vast majority of people, which I think is what amc was trying to do too.

I believe amc probably started it all with ridiculous pricing, and dish decided to finish it quickly and not waste their time and money anymore, by telling them to pound sand, because they are sick and tired of having to go through ridiculous negotiations for channels that are already overpriced for so few of their customers with this particular broadcaster that they have a poor history with.


----------



## ericsdad

SayWhat? said:


> Are you actually out anything, or are you just taking it to take something?


 Yes I was out AMC. I called Dish to drop to a lower dish package. They asked me why and I told them I was going to get Comcast basic before Breaking Bad came back this month, And Hell On Wheels next month. The lady asked me to talk to loyalty, they explained what a Roku was and how it would be cheaper than getting Comcast. I told her it sounded like a nice deal, she said it was and she would send me a Roku and credit my account $10 a month for 1 year to help the download costs. 
They wanted to keep my full business, made me an offer, and I accepted.


----------



## SayWhat?

Inkosaurus said:


> mean your in good standing with them.
> 
> Your probably not on one
> 
> Your entitled to ask
> 
> if your not that


You're :sure:


----------



## SayWhat?

inkahauts said:


> I believe amc probably started it all with ridiculous pricing, and dish decided to finish it quickly


And then gave in to AT&T for little or no increase.


----------



## jilla

MY monthly bill is like $120 (America's Top 200). I don't know what is considered high tier? Can you clarify?


----------



## SayWhat?

You must have something else in there. AT200 should only be about $50 or so. What do you have in Premium channels or extra equipment?


----------



## jilla

We have the south asian package + HD DVRs (3)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

You know, I'm thinking it so I'm going to say it.

Is it just me... or are there a lot more people in the thread now talking about asking Dish for compensation than we had people talking about the actual dispute before the channels dropped?


----------



## hdaddikt

Does it really matter? Dish is offering compensation for those interested in pursuing it.


----------



## crabtrp

Out of the blue this morning they gave me some free PPV vouchers, I never asked for them. I already have a ROKU so I don't want another one of them. I could call up and threaten to leave but I like my Hoppers too much. I find my Breaking Bad elsewhere.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> a lot more people in the thread now talking about asking Dish for compensation


Seeking compensation? Or taking advantage?

I have yet to see anyone prove they've actually taken a financial loss worth compensation.


----------



## Inkosaurus

jilla said:


> MY monthly bill is like $120 (America's Top 200). I don't know what is considered high tier? Can you clarify?


Theres 5 tiers that you can bounce around in. Its called a star level, 5 star customers are top tier customers, there is also technically a "0" level called adjustment alert who dont get anything ever, once you're on adjustment alert you wont even get ppv coupons.

There are a lot of factors that determine what star level you are in any given month. Things like late payments, billing history (like interruptions or straight up disconnections), package and programming, amount of premiums you subscribe to, how far you are into paying off you're SAC, and even how many credits you have received in the past are all factored in.

Its much easier to be knocked down a tier then it is to start climbing back up. For instance you could get a late payment and go from 5 star down to 4 and it could take months of paying early or on time just to go back up to 5 star.

The star level is one of the biggest reasons why there is such a thing as "your miles may vary" with Dish (and other companies as well  )

If all you ever get offered is 5$ credit or something then you're definitely on a lower level, probably 2 star.


----------



## DoyleS

I received a $30 credit. Basically the cost of renting one season of Hell on Wheels in HD from iTunes.


----------



## jilla

I am never late in payment. Autopay for so many years & never once late in 8 years! Also been out of contract of now the last 3 years as well. Looks like it is YMMV. I only wish someone will offer south asian channells so we can try someone else. Unfortunately Direct who had it now doesn't offer much choice. Comcast is slowly picking up steam in that, may be in a year, I will switch.


----------



## Inkosaurus

jilla said:


> I am never late in payment. Autopay for so many years & never once late in 8 years! Also been out of contract of now the last 3 years as well. Looks like it is YMMV. I only wish someone will offer south asian channells so we can try someone else. Unfortunately Direct who had it now doesn't offer much choice. Comcast is slowly picking up steam in that, may be in a year, I will switch.


Im not claiming your keeping something from us or not providing the full truth or anything of that sort. But there is something there that you may not know about keeping you on a lower tier.

You can call in and ask what star level you are, I'm not sure if the program still out right shows the level (I left the company in january so it could have been modified). But it wouldnt hurt to find out where you stand, the agent might be hesitant to tell you though since there not really supposed to talk about it unless asked by the customer lol.

*out before I get a cease and desist letter from DIRT members for being in breach of the non disclosure agreements I signed when I got the job *


----------



## pghDave3017

So in the theory that if you don't ask, and also because I'm more than a little annoyed at the loss of AMC and the shabby substitutes offered me, I chatted with DISH today. Probably should have called but I needed to be doing several things at once.

Long story short, they have (again) made me wonder why I do business with them. Long time DISH customer, always have had high-end packages, never missed a payment and they offered my a a handful of PPV vouchers to start.

Never got any better than $10/month for 6 months with no Roku. I honestly didn't care all that much until I got treated like a second-class customer. Now I'm in a bad mood and have to start checking out Direct tomorrow as I'm out of contract. 

I shouldn't let this bother me but it's a long history of new customers being recruited with better deals and this is just another example of DISH not valuing long-time customers. Sooner or later we all snap.


----------



## DoyleS

I did the online chat and did not ask for a credit. I indicated I was contacting because AMC had been dropped and now two of my shows that are starting in the next month would be unavailable and I asked what options were available for watching those shows. She asked me if I had Apple TV or Roku and I said I had Apple TV. She mentioned I could get the shows on itunes and I asked at what cost. She offered a $20 credit and I checked and HD was about $3/episode and 10 episodes per show. She then revised the credit to $30 and I thanked her and that was it. Credit will appear on next months bill.


----------



## ehilbert1

SayWhat? said:


> Seeking compensation? Or taking advantage?
> 
> I have yet to see anyone prove they've actually taken a financial loss worth compensation.


I don't agree with people doing it just to do it but who are you to ask for proof?????? Your just some guy on the net. No one has to show you any proof. Jesus guys it's just TV. No need to get pissed at people or have the balls to ask for some kind of proof. I guess it's easy to do when you on the net and not in person.


----------



## fudpucker

Stewart Vernon said:


> Let's analyze a bit, shall we...
> 
> Only mentioning a couple of shows, one of which isn't even on again until October...
> 
> Also, no mention of price. With the whole "we aren't asking too much" wouldn't it be nice if they took that to the public and told everyone what they did ask for and what AT&T agreed to?
> 
> AT&T can't reveal those numbers by contract, but AMC could. AMC doesn't want you to know what you will now be paying.
> This makes it sound like they "won", and the fans helped them... this puts AT&T in a position of "losing" and means their fans aren't of any value. What's the point of this statement? Is it even necessary?
> 
> In a press release, why not just report the facts without editorial?
> 
> As expected? So they weren't really trying with Dish either... I mean, IF they were trying and Dish wasn't, then they would say "we were disappointed" or "unfortunately"... but "as expected" is kind of a thumbing your nose message.
> 
> Hey... since it is "distinctly different" why are they bringing it up? I mean, if the Dish dispute and the AT&T dispute are completely different and not connected in any way... what's the point? Why mention Dish and AT&T in the same release?
> 
> If you're letting AT&T customers and your "fans" know that U-Verse resolved the dispute... do that... why bring in a "distinctly different" dispute into the discussion? Unless maybe you just like to connect unconnected things... like oh say that unrelated lawsuit?
> 
> Where to start? Even AMC says it is an "unrelated" lawsuit... so unrelated in fact that AMC keeps bringing it up even when discussing AT&T!
> 
> Also... "nothing to do with our programming"?? That "unrelated" lawsuit has everything to do with programming... Voom had agreed to improve programming for a longterm contract, and then didn't improve that programming.
> 
> AMC is arguing their programming is so good it deserves more money... Kind of sounds like two sides of the same coin?
> 
> Although... notice Dish didn't start talking about the lawsuit in relation to dropping AMC, since it is in fact unrelated. AMC seems to be the only one thinking the "unrelated lawsuit" is somehow related. AMC is the only party relating the two unrelated things.
> 
> Well... only because an after-the-last-minute negotiation happened with AT&T. You know, the same AT&T that shared a button on the "keepamc" Web site for the last week?
> 
> Meanwhile, "unprecedented"? Really? As if AMC wasn't using customers as pawns too. I mean.. all their "don't miss your favorite program" and "cancel Dish" and "Dish is evil" and so forth... that wasn't trying to use their customers to their ends? Please.
> 
> I note too... Walking Dead, one of their good and popular new shows... had a Blu-ray release a month or so after season one... then a few months later they announced a "better with more extras" season one release. So much for using customers as pawns! They took advantage of the show's popularity for an early cash grab, and banked on many of those same customers wanting to pay again.
> 
> Customers paid once through their Dish or DirecTV or whatever service... then bought season one... then were asked to re-buy season one again later that same year!
> 
> Asked by AMC to buy your favorite show three times in the span of 6 months or so? But the customers were only used as pawns by Dish.
> 
> Yeah. AMC puts the customer first and agreed to let the channels continue at the current price while negotiations took place instead of yanking the signals once the contract expired. AMC decided accepting the current money was better than zero money AND didn't want to use the customers as pawns.
> 
> Oh wait... that's not what happened is it?
> 
> This isn't using customers as pawns? Really, AMC? Really?


I know you really, really want to make AMC as evil as possible, but you're really going over the top taking various phrases and reading so much into them.

You commented on an earlier post I made that "from all I can read" was the key, and neither one can reveal details. The reason I hypothesize that there were never any negotiations is from listening (OK, that's not reading) a Bloomberg short bit where they discussed that insiders from both sides indicated that Dish rejected the initial rate hike and there were zero price negotiations after that. CNN's Headline News also commented that "they had learned from insiders" that the dispute was unlikely to be resolved as there was only an initial price hike request and a rejection, and no negotiations in price beyond that.

And, as I commented earlier, fine. Providers make their choices, customers decide if the providers' offerings match their viewing needs. That's the way the free market works.


----------



## James Long

fudpucker said:


> The reason I hypothesize that there were never any negotiations is from listening (OK, that's not reading) a Bloomberg short bit where they discussed that insiders from both sides indicated that Dish rejected the initial rate hike and there were zero price negotiations after that. CNN's Headline News also commented that "they had learned from insiders" that the dispute was unlikely to be resolved as there was only an initial price hike request and a rejection, and no negotiations in price beyond that.


As long as the industry insiders were with AMC that was their company line, which the media seems to have swallowed and regurgitated to you!


----------



## ehilbert1

fudpucker said:


> I know you really, really want to make AMC as evil as possible, but you're really going over the top taking various phrases and reading so much into them.
> 
> You commented on an earlier post I made that "from all I can read" was the key, and neither one can reveal details. The reason I hypothesize that there were never any negotiations is from listening (OK, that's not reading) a Bloomberg short bit where they discussed that insiders from both sides indicated that Dish rejected the initial rate hike and there were zero price negotiations after that. CNN's Headline News also commented that "they had learned from insiders" that the dispute was unlikely to be resolved as there was only an initial price hike request and a rejection, and no negotiations in price beyond that.
> 
> And, as I commented earlier, fine. Providers make their choices, customers decide if the providers' offerings match their viewing needs. That's the way the free market works.


Also the money hungry AMC made a deal with AT&T. Some people went wild and loved it when AT&T decided to join DISH. Now what do you say? They negotiated and got a deal done. Dish wouldn't even do that. So you guys really believe the Voom thing has nothing to do with that? Right!!!!!!!!


----------



## SayWhat?

fudpucker said:


> I know you really, really want to make AMC as evil as possible,


AMC is doing a fine job of making that point for themselves.


----------



## SayWhat?

ehilbert1 said:


> Also the money hungry AMC made a deal with AT&T.


Like I said above, AMC likely took no increase or a very small one from AT&T just so they wouldn't be off two systems at the same time.


----------



## Inkosaurus

ehilbert1 said:


> Also the money hungry AMC made a deal with AT&T. Some people went wild and loved it when AT&T decided to join DISH. Now what do you say? They negotiated and got a deal done. Dish wouldn't even do that. So you guys really believe the Voom thing has nothing to do with that? Right!!!!!!!!


Dish dropped FX, FSN, Nat geo and was planning on dropping Fox stations the next month back in 2010 and there was no "voom thing" equivalent there.

At the end of the day Dish is a penny pincher if the other end of the table doesnt go low enough they will call the bluff and let the channel drop off.

Voom or not if rainbow didnt go low enough Dish would have dropped them regardless. Its all about that magic number with Dish.


----------



## ehilbert1

Inkosaurus said:


> Dish dropped FX, FSN, Nat geo and was planning on dropping Fox stations the next month back in 2010 and there was no "voom thing" equivalent there.
> 
> At the end of the day Dish is a penny pincher if the other end of the table doesnt go low enough they will call the bluff and let the channel drop off.
> 
> Voom or not if rainbow didnt go low enough Dish would have dropped them regardless. Its all about that magic number with Dish.


I just think the "Voom Thing" sticks in their craw. They wouldn't even negotiate.


----------



## Inkosaurus

Its been noted earlier that no one really knows that. 
Those "insiders" could have just been on the AMC side perpetuating the same story to make Dish look like the bad guy here. Fact is there both pretty bad in this situation but its apparent Dish has been the lesser of two evils through out all of this.


----------



## James Long

ehilbert1 said:


> I just think the "Voom Thing" sticks in their craw. They wouldn't even negotiate.


They being AMC? Yes, I can believe that. Rainbow hates DISH for pulling out of Voom and removing their partnership.


----------



## ehilbert1

James Long said:


> They being AMC? Yes, I can believe that. Rainbow hates DISH for pulling out of Voom and removing their partnership.


No they being Dish. The whole judge rulling thing and so on.


----------



## Eksynyt

Wonder how long it'll be til Dish drops ESPN and goes bankrupt? I'd guess within a couple of years.


----------



## Marlin Guy

Stewart Vernon said:


> You know, I'm thinking it so I'm going to say it.
> 
> Is it just me... or are there a lot more people in the thread now talking about asking Dish for compensation than we had people talking about the actual dispute before the channels dropped?


And if a separate thread about compensation were started wouldn't it likely get merged with this one?


----------



## Marlin Guy

SayWhat? said:


> Seeking compensation? Or taking advantage?
> 
> I have yet to see anyone prove they've actually taken a financial loss worth compensation.


So far, Dish isn't requiring proof, so why should anyone have to provide it?


----------



## ehilbert1

Marlin Guy said:


> So far, Dish isn't requiring proof, so why should anyone have to provide it?


Thank you!!! Why would anyone have to provide it to him on this board anyway? Like I said who is he to ask people for proof! He's just some guy on the net!

By the way your great info about you switching to Dish is really making me think about it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Marlin Guy said:


> And if a separate thread about compensation were started wouldn't it likely get merged with this one?


You, and others, missed my point.

For more than a month many of us have been discussing the likely dropping of these channels on 6/30.

Now, a couple of days after the actual drop, with rumors swirling about Dish offering some "free stuff" to customers who complain... we have had an inrush of new people on the thread who have asked Dish for something to make up for the loss of AMC channels.

My question essentially was... where was everyone the past month? The channels couldn't have been *that* important if it didn't prompt them to join in the discussion once Dish moved the channels around and put up the "this channel has moved" banner a couple of weeks back.

People are coming out of the woodwork, smelling blood in the water, looking for free stuff. Most of the people I see talking about asking for, expecting, and in some cases getting the freebies haven't been a part of this thread discussing it for the past month.

So I was just wondering "wha hoppen" that they suddenly sprang to life once the rumors of a freebie came to light.

People can do whatever they want of course... I'm not commenting on that... I just find it curious that this thread has so many new participants that had been incommunicado for the last month when the rest of us have been discussing things.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Eksynyt said:


> Wonder how long it'll be til Dish drops ESPN and goes bankrupt? I'd guess within a couple of years.


I should have guessed that the "Dish will go bankrupt" posts would find their way here.

AMC has already lost more revenue than Dish will lose over this. Dish won't even notice, that's how few customers will be leaving.


----------



## isuzudave

I just called Dish to see if there was any new news about AMC being dropped. I was transferred to the customer retention department. 

I talked to a very nice lady who asked what AMC shows I watched. I watch Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Walking Dead, and Hell on Wheels. She asked if I had access to Amazon on my TV. I do. I have a Logitech Revue. She offered me $15 a month off my Dish bill for a year to offset the cost of streaming those shows from Amazon. I thought that was a very generous offer and I accepted. 

I also mentioned that I was thinking about upgrading my two 622 receivers for a Hopper/Joey setup. I asked if I could apply my monthly bill credits to the upgrade. She said no, but she could give me two Hoppers and two Joeys for $115. Again, I thought that was a very generous offer and I accepted. 

I have had Dish for about 10 years and I have always been happy with their customer service. I have streamed HD TV shows from Amazon before and I think they look just as good, if not better than what I got from my Dish AMC channel. 

If Dish does reach an agreement with AMC before the new shows start, I will call back and let them know they can cancel my credits. I wish they could reach an agreement, but in the interim, I think Dish is doing (for me anyway) what’s needed to keep customers from leaving.


----------



## DodgerKing

I am surprised there hasn't been more than a couple of posts about the Roku incentive. Other sites are reporting that a lot of subs are getting a free Roku, most of those that talk to the Loyalty Department. Many are getting a free Roku and $10 or more off their bill for 12 months. I would love that offer in place of three channels I never watch if I were a Dish sub.


----------



## Inkosaurus

isuzudave said:


> I just called Dish to see if there was any new news about AMC being dropped. I was transferred to the customer retention department.
> 
> I talked to a very nice lady who asked what AMC shows I watched. I watch Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Walking Dead, and Hell on Wheels. She asked if I had access to Amazon on my TV. I do. I have a Logitech Revue. She offered me $15 a month off my Dish bill for a year to offset the cost of streaming those shows from Amazon. I thought that was a very generous offer and I accepted.
> 
> I also mentioned that I was thinking about upgrading my two 622 receivers for a Hopper/Joey setup. I asked if I could apply my monthly bill credits to the upgrade. She said no, but she could give me two Hoppers and two Joeys for $115. Again, I thought that was a very generous offer and I accepted.
> 
> I have had Dish for about 10 years and I have always been happy with their customer service. I have streamed HD TV shows from Amazon before and I think they look just as good, if not better than what I got from my Dish AMC channel.


Perfect example of the benefits of being a 5 star customer.
Thats some really nice stuff man, good job lol.

@Stewart, I definitely agree. But we all saw it coming too lol.


----------



## Marlin Guy

Stewart Vernon said:


> My question essentially was... where was everyone the past month?


Lurking. Not everyone aspires to make the congratulatory landmark post count thread. Some people simply observe, and then participate when they see fit.
I don't see the problem. Well, I do, but....


----------



## Inkosaurus

Marlin Guy said:


> Some people simply observe, and then participate when they see fit.


You mean after they get rejected on getting a freebie? Some of it is just self serving or riddled with strife because Dish doesn't value them as much as they think they should be.


----------



## Marlin Guy

ehilbert1 said:


> By the way your great info about you switching to Dish is really making me think about it.


Glad to hear it. Feel free to PM me with any questions.
Of course, I'm not on commission or anything, so I can't imagine why I'd help you with no possible means of gaining anything personally. After all, I'm not smelling any blood in the water.


----------



## fudpucker

James Long said:


> As long as the industry insiders were with AMC that was their company line, which the media seems to have swallowed and regurgitated to you!


Note that both news sites said their insiders were from both sides.


----------



## Marlin Guy

Inkosaurus said:


> You mean after they get rejected on getting a freebie? Some of it is just self serving or riddled with strife because Dish doesn't value them as much as they think they should be.


I don't care what the motives of others are. All I know is that if Dish is giving something away, I'm getting in line. It's entirely up to Dish to decide whether or not I'm worthy. I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing. They've been doing it a long time.


----------



## isuzudave

Stewart Vernon said:


> You, and others, missed my point.
> 
> My question essentially was... where was everyone the past month? The channels couldn't have been *that* important if it didn't prompt them to join in the discussion once Dish moved the channels around and put up the "this channel has moved" banner a couple of weeks back.
> 
> discussing things.


Up until recently I did not have anything to discuss. I could have posted about how much I like the shows on AMC and how I hope that Dish and AMC reach an agreement. I could have also talked about how greedy _______ (insert name of the company you think is being unresonable) is, but what good what that have done? I would have just been wasting bandwidth and posting obvious things. Just like like I am doing now.


----------



## Slamminc11

I haven't called and won't call. I didn't watch any of the shows on them and didn't have any plans to do so. I haven't watched any of the channels in years so it was no lose to me. *FOR ME* to call and ask/expect free stuff for something I didn't watch seems rather unethical for *me* to do from the way *I* was brought up. Call me a prude or call me whatever you want, but that's my take on it for me!


----------



## Marlin Guy

isuzudave said:


> I would have just been wasting bandwidth and posting obvious things. Just like like I am doing now.


Congratulations on 75 posts! See, that wasn't a waste after all! :lol:


----------



## Papote

I got $10 off for 6 months. I really didn't haggle at all. BTW, I have never missed a payment since being a customer from 2006 and have had Top 200 with annual sub.


----------



## BarbaraW

Well I did a chat and told them how much I love dish, but that I was upset not by the loss of the channels per se (I didn't watch any of them) but that the replacements were channels I already have in the top 250 and bb @ home pack. At first the csr tried to give me $5 for three months and Starz for 3 months. When I told him that I had cancelled Starz, Showtime, and Cinemax because I found no value in them he transferred me to the Loyalty Dept where they offered me a Roku and $10 a month credit for a year to purchase programming that I would like to replace the four stations I lost. I think that's fair. I never watched them, but I still paid for them all these years. Now they are gone and lower tiers received replacement channels, while I continue to pay the same price and receive no replacement. I think Dish is quite generous to offer something to customers like me


----------



## Stewart Vernon

A month ago, a few weeks ago, and even a couple of days ago... the notion that AMC might get dropped wasn't enough for people to chime in with opinion, discussion, whatever.

I thought for sure that the time when the thread would pick up, if it was going to pick up, was when Dish moved the channels and removed the mapdowns. That forced anyone who watched or DVRed AMC and the other channels to stand up and take notice. And yet, we only got a blip of new activity once that happened.

But now that some customers have been getting retention offers, it is suddenly worth commenting on?

People who weren't mad enough to even post a few days ago, suddenly are mad now.. not at losing the channels, but at not getting as good of a retention offer as someone else they read about.

That tells me that these channels still aren't that popular. In a single day we've had more new activity over the retention offers than we had over the course of several weeks with regard to the actual channels themselves.

Like I said, this is not meant to kick-off a free-for-all attack-the-poster flood... I just find it a very curious observation... and frankly, quite telling to me... that I suspect most people posting have very little actual anger/disappointment over the loss of the channels... just about getting (or not getting) a prize from Dish.

I'm sure Dish takes notice of this as well. They read the forums... they see that not much was going on until they started giving out stuff. Next time around, don't expect Dish to be giving out stuff because I think they will ultimately learn from this that they really didn't have to do anything.


----------



## pitflyer

It's always a risk when you give away the store (Roku, $10 yearly credit, up front credit, Showtime, HBO, Starz, etc) these days, because word WILL get out. I'm a little displeased that I'm paying exactly the same for Dish as I was a few days ago and now getting less.

I did talk to them yesterday, and they offered me half price HBO & Starz, and then transferred me to loyalty chat which after 30 minutes of waiting I gave up. I tried again today and this time they offered me a one time $10 credit, which is just a waste. Told me that you have to have AT200 and higher to get Roku, but that's not true, or different reps make up different rules as they move on. 

Problem is, as a long time customer, they would have better off not offering me ANYTHING than those pathetic incentives above. Comcast sends me a direct mailing every week begging me to come back, and it would actually be cheaper due to the miracle of bundling. But I've been a loyal Dish customer for years and was always treated fairly. I don't think I am here, as someone who has absolutely ZERO promotions on their account (other than HD 4 Life) for the past year, and I do autopay/e-bill, all stuff that likely makes me a profitable customer.

I don't really care for the Roku (I already have one that I honestly don't use) but a recurring credit for a recurring loss would be appropriate. I might give Loyalty a ring, or I might just say this is the sign to move on...


----------



## acostapimps

I think people were observing if an agreement would be reach (at the last minute at least) since it did not happen and got frustrated by calling CSR and got bill credits and free Roku and posted here that's when more and more members decided to post on this thread, besides it's a FREE ROKU and BILL CREDITS


----------



## paja

Slamminc11 said:


> I haven't called and won't call. I didn't watch any of the shows on them and didn't have any plans to do so. I haven't watched any of the channels in years so it was no lose to me. *FOR ME* to call and ask/expect free stuff for something I didn't watch seems rather unethical for *me* to do from the way *I* was brought up. Call me a prude or call me whatever you want, but that's my take on it for me!


Prude


----------



## FTA Michael

On the question of whether it's ethical to ask for an adjustment, well, of course it is. If you don't lie or misrepresent what your viewing habits are, it's always okay to get into chat or call a CSR and ask, "What can you give me for free?"

I've done that with Dish every few months regardless of their programming contract squabbles. Sometimes I get a premium channel for a few months, sometimes I get a few PPV credits, sometimes I get nothing.

It's like comps at a casino: You rarely get anything if you don't ask. Then the business looks at what you're worth to them and what it can afford to give you. It's friendly, voluntary, and ethical.


----------



## Inkosaurus

Stewart Vernon said:


> A month ago, a few weeks ago, and even a couple of days ago... the notion that AMC might get dropped wasn't enough for people to chime in with opinion, discussion, whatever.
> 
> I thought for sure that the time when the thread would pick up, if it was going to pick up, was when Dish moved the channels and removed the mapdowns. That forced anyone who watched or DVRed AMC and the other channels to stand up and take notice. And yet, we only got a blip of new activity once that happened.
> 
> But now that some customers have been getting retention offers, it is suddenly worth commenting on?
> 
> People who weren't mad enough to even post a few days ago, suddenly are mad now.. not at losing the channels, but at not getting as good of a retention offer as someone else they read about.
> 
> That tells me that these channels still aren't that popular. In a single day we've had more new activity over the retention offers than we had over the course of several weeks with regard to the actual channels themselves.
> 
> Like I said, this is not meant to kick-off a free-for-all attack-the-poster flood... I just find it a very curious observation... and frankly, quite telling to me... that I suspect most people posting have very little actual anger/disappointment over the loss of the channels... just about getting (or not getting) a prize from Dish.
> 
> I'm sure Dish takes notice of this as well. They read the forums... they see that not much was going on until they started giving out stuff. Next time around, don't expect Dish to be giving out stuff because I think they will ultimately learn from this that they really didn't have to do anything.


I personally enjoy how quickly the conversation regarding compensation for the loss of AMC went from

"Oh well the new channels replacing the rainbow channels better be worth it!"
to
"They're only offering me 5$ off, what a rip off!"



> I'm a little displeased that I'm paying exactly the same for Dish as I was a few days ago and now getting less.


Oh lord.
Did your price go up when we got the MLB network last year?

No one complains when we get new channels and our price stays the same, but god forbid they take away 4 channels that are barely watched and keep the price the same too!

edit:



> On the question of whether it's ethical to ask for an adjustment, well, of course it is. If you don't lie or misrepresent what your viewing habits are, it's always okay to get into chat or call a CSR and ask, "What can you give me for free?"
> 
> I've done that with Dish every few months regardless of their programming contract squabbles. Sometimes I get a premium channel for a few months, sometimes I get a few PPV credits, sometimes I get nothing.
> 
> It's like comps at a casino: You rarely get anything if you don't ask. Then the business looks at what you're worth to them and what it can afford to give you. It's friendly, voluntary, and ethical.


Ive always been of the opinion that "You're entitled to atleast ask" beyond that your not entitled anything else.
The problem is sometimes we get drive by posters here who hop on and complain because they thought they were entitled to getting credits or free equipment because they were with a company "x" amount of years. 
Then it gets a little annoying.


----------



## inazsully

No, what's annoying is when somebody plays the " you don't complain when they give you a free channel so why ***** when they take one away" card. That argument is beyond lame. If your company gives you a raise I doubt you'd complain but if the docked your pay I guarantee you the *****ing would be epic. If they give me something then they must feel I deserve it (they want to keep me happy and content). That's just good business. They are well aware of the financial benefit of tossing the occasional bone.


----------



## Inkosaurus

inazsully said:


> No, what's annoying is when somebody plays the " you don't complain when they give you a free channel so why ***** when they take one away" card. That argument is beyond lame. If your company gives you a raise I doubt you'd complain but if the docked your pay I guarantee you the *****ing would be epic. If they give me something then they must feel I deserve it (they want to keep me happy and content). That's just good business. They are well aware of the financial benefit of tossing the occasional bone.


Stupid analogy is stupid. If my pay was docked I most definitely did somethign to deserve it 
And im not complaining about people who are asking and getting there dues, thats saywhats job.
Im complaining about those who ask, dont get it, then ***** about not getting it


----------



## James Long

We live in a world where people feel entitled. As if DISH or AMC constantly owes their customers any more than they have paid for. Gotta get the discount and free stuff.


----------



## phrelin

I don't accept the idea that Dish owes anyone anything because they dropped AMC, IFC, WE, and Sundance. If they give you something, great. If they don't, well no harm in trying.

I am a great fan of some of AMC shows and it'll be a hassle to stream them.

But if you became a Dish subscriber just because of AMC, you made a poor decision because AMC provides the equivalent of 1½ hours a week of original programming. Old movies are available on many channels, some even with fewer commercials.

For a small monthly fee paid to Dish you can access with no commercials HBO via Dish plus HBO GO on line, the network that produced these series shows and a bunch of award winning movies and mini-series, as well as movies new and old:








If AMC wants a financial model to consider, maybe they should look at HBO.


----------



## ericsdad

When I first saw the crawl on The Killing about Dish dropping AMC, I came to this site to see what was going on. After reading about 2 pages of posts I could see there wasn't anything worth adding to the conversation that hadn't already been said many times over.
So I did my whining to the only person whose opinion mattered, my wife. I'm retired and monthly fee'd out, so the only way we could add another provider would be to drop to a lower tier on dish to off set the costs.
When I talked to Dish, they made a very generous offer to keep all our business, and we accepted.
In our 12 yrs. with Dish we have never asked for or recieved any credits or anything free.
The only reason I posted today was to let people know that Dish seemed to be going out of their way to keep some of us happy.
So some of the posters on here need to climb off their high horse and quit acting like it's hurting you personally if Dish helps some of us out.


----------



## jrseh

> *Originally posted by James Long*...We live in a world where people feel entitled. As if DISH or AMC constantly owes their customers any more than they have paid for. Gotta get the discount and free stuff.


Not so much. I agree with *fudpucker*. I pay for a service and expect to get the service I paid for. When said service is no longer provided, for whatever reason, I'll look elsewhere, and why not?

Already have a Roku, so don't need a free one. So far have not contacted Dish, though they did send an email giving us a couple of PPV movie passes. I responded with my displeasure over the AMC situation and am considering other options. We'll see if that triggers any sort of response.

Regardless, I'll do what I need to do to restore the programming I've lost, up to and including dumping Dish.

John


----------



## SayWhat?

BarbaraW said:


> Well I did a chat and told them how much I love dish, but that I was upset not by the loss of the channels per se (I didn't watch any of them)
> 
> I never watched them, but I still paid for them all these years. Now they are gone and lower tiers received replacement channels, while I continue to pay the same price and receive no replacement.


Why would you even call? You admit you never watched the three channels.



jrseh said:


> I pay for a service and expect to get the service I paid for. When said service is no longer provided,


The 'service' you pay for is the delivery of a variety of channels, not for any specific channels unless you're paying for Premiums. The 'service' you're paying for is still being provided.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm sure Dish takes notice of this as well. They read the forums... they see that not much was going on until they started giving out stuff. Next time around, don't expect Dish to be giving out stuff because I think they will ultimately learn from this that they really didn't have to do anything.


Hopefully, once they see how people are taking advantage of this, they'll start cancelling some of the offers and credits they've made. This is no longer about AMC/IFC/WeTV. It's 'gimme, gimme, gimme'.

Some people have ethics. Some obviously don't.


----------



## James Long

SayWhat? said:


> Some people have ethics. Some obviously don't.


As long as they are not breaking the law the posts are welcome on this forum.

Let's be careful about getting into name calling. We have a lot of members here. Their option of "the right thing to do" may vary from yours but on this site we try to show some respect for the people behind the opinions - whether or not we agree with their opinion.

And we also try to stay on topic ... which in this thread is DISH vs AMC, not the ethics or morality of DBSTalk members. 

DISH Network is saving an estimated $2.5 million per month not carrying AMC. If they want to throw some of that money at customers who complain it is up to DISH to decide who is "eligible" or not for the giveaways. if people want to drop down to a lower level it is fine ... DISH will collect less money from them but they will also not have to pay the channels in the tier the customers are dropping. And if they leave DISH will deal with that as well.

Perhaps by October AMC will come up with a better price. Unfortunately for them, $2.5 million dollars of lost income each month isn't balanced out by simply paying less for their programming. And losing 15% of the households they were distributed to won't help sell advertisements and infomercials.

Or perhaps AMC will stay off of DISH and survive without the cash and distribution. There is always a chance.


----------



## inkahauts

If dish wants to do something for its customers for the loss of the rainbow channels, they should offer the same thing to everyone that has a package that included those channels, and if someone wants to take theme of their offer, great, if others don't want to call in for it great, but they should announce it on their web site and just offer it to everyone, regardless of how long someone's been a customer, etc. 

That is a very fair way to deal with this situation IMHO. This is not IMHO a situation where people are calling to get a better deal because they are paying more than a new subscriber would, or something of that nature. 

I doubt doing what I suggest would do anything other than make people happy, and probably cost the same or less as making decisions based on individuals requests that will arise from this situation.


----------



## hancox

> Originally Posted by Stewart Vernon
> I'm sure Dish takes notice of this as well. They read the forums... they see that not much was going on until they started giving out stuff. Next time around, don't expect Dish to be giving out stuff because I think they will ultimately learn from this that they really didn't have to do anything.





> Let's be careful about getting into name calling. We have a lot of members here. Their option of "the right thing to do" may vary from yours but on this site we try to show some respect for the people behind the opinions - whether or not we agree with their opinion.


These don't reconcile. Not to mention, the idea that there is more traffic once a channel actually gets dropped is fairly intuitive. "Almosts" happen enough that they're not worth that much discussion. Not sure why anyone's trying to insert any dubious meaning here - this is borderline common sense!


----------



## oldengineer

I wonder how posters who think it's immoral, unethical or beneath their dignity to ask for discounts from D* or E* shop for cars?


----------



## isuzudave

phrelin said:


> I don't accept the idea that Dish owes anyone anything because they dropped AMC, IFC, WE, and Sundance. If they give you something, great. If they don't, well no harm in trying.


What? How many channels is it acceptable for them to drop before I am allowed to shop for new service? Is 5 enough? 10?



> I am a great fan of some of AMC shows and it'll be a hassle to stream them.


A hassle and a added expense. I know I am going to get phone calls from my wife and kids, so I can walk them through the process of streaming AMC shows through Amazon onto the TV.



> But if you became a Dish subscriber just because of AMC, you made a poor decision because AMC provides the equivalent of 1½ hours a week of original programming. Old movies are available on many channels, some even with fewer commercials.


When I became a Dish subscriber AMC was a very different channel than what it was now. It played only old classic movies. I don't remember ever watching it. Now I would estimate that close to 25% of the shows that I consider "must see TV" are AMC shows.



> For a small monthly fee paid to Dish you can access with no commercials HBO via Dish plus HBO GO on line, the network that produced these series shows and a bunch of award winning movies and mini-series, as well as movies new and old:


Yes, HBO produces lots of good shows. I don't subscribe to HBO because I don't want the extra fee. What does that have to do with Dish not having AMC channels?

I don't watch a lot of TV. There are a lot of channels that I never watch. If every sports channel on Dish got dropped today I don't think I would notice. If I did notice, I would not call dish and ask for compensation. It just so happens that AMC carries a lot of the shows I really watch.

Yes I have been a Dish subscriber for many years, but I don't feel like I owe them any particular amount of loyalty, so I started to shop for another provider. DirecTV seems to have a nice whole home DVR setup so I thought I might give them a call. I called Dish first to see if there was any new or behind the scenes information about AMC. They offered to offset the cost of streaming AMC through Amazon and I thought that was fair.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Let's try this another way.

Before the channels were dropped... we had some conversation. Some people sided with Dish, others with AMC.

Those who sided with AMC, some of them said "I watch the good programming on AMC, if Dish drops them then I am gone, bye!"

Ok... so Saturday happens and the channels are dropped.

All the people who said "I will drop Dish"... where did they go? Did they drop Dish?

Then we got an influx of new people... not talking about how they miss AMC... but rather how Dish gave them something or how they heard Dish would give them something or how they were mad that Dish didn't give them something.

IF there was an increase in "where did AMC go" or "I'm going to drop Dish" posts, that would make sense.

But it seems the discussion of the value of AMC has gone altogether. Nobody asking for it back, or saying they will leave Dish... it has become a competition to get the most credit, free stuff, whatever from Dish.

Some posts admittedly said they didn't even watch the channels but called for their free stuff too.

The point I was making here... wasn't about morality, that's a whole different topic... but rather about how this has very little to do with watching AMC.

IF people loved AMC and left Dish over this, that would at least make sense... but IF you truly "love" AMC but stay with Dish because they give you free stuff... then how much did you really love AMC after all?


----------



## isuzudave

SayWhat? said:


> The 'service' you pay for is the delivery of a variety of channels, not for any specific channels unless you're paying for Premiums. The 'service' you're paying for is still being provided.


This is not completely true. If they replaced your "variety of channels" with knitting and basket weaving channels would you be ok with that? There are different programming packages that change up the "variety of channels". For example, I just went to a lower programming package and lost BBC America. I am ok with that because the money I saved more than makes up for the one show on that channel (Top Gear) that I would need to purchase from somewhere else. Now I just lost AMC and it has four shows that I watch. Two of them starting new seasons soon. The amount I spend on streaming is about to go way up.



SayWhat? said:


> Some people have ethics. Some obviously don't.


???


----------



## hancox

Stewart Vernon said:


> Let's try this another way.
> 
> Before the channels were dropped... we had some conversation. Some people sided with Dish, others with AMC.
> 
> Those who sided with AMC, some of them said "I watch the good programming on AMC, if Dish drops them then I am gone, bye!"
> 
> Ok... so Saturday happens and the channels are dropped.
> 
> All the people who said "I will drop Dish"... where did they go? Did they drop Dish?
> 
> Then we got an influx of new people... not talking about how they miss AMC... but rather how Dish gave them something or how they heard Dish would give them something or how they were mad that Dish didn't give them something.
> 
> IF there was an increase in "where did AMC go" or "I'm going to drop Dish" posts, that would make sense.
> 
> But it seems the discussion of the value of AMC has gone altogether. Nobody asking for it back, or saying they will leave Dish... it has become a competition to get the most credit, free stuff, whatever from Dish.
> 
> Some posts admittedly said they didn't even watch the channels but called for their free stuff too.
> 
> The point I was making here... wasn't about morality, that's a whole different topic... but rather about how this has very little to do with watching AMC.
> 
> IF people loved AMC and left Dish over this, that would at least make sense... but IF you truly "love" AMC but stay with Dish because they give you free stuff... then how much did you really love AMC after all?


...and this isn't bad, either. Even non-watchers of AMC *pay* for it. If there is a value proposition in a roku, or anything else Dish offers them, why shouldn't they request it? They have had something they pay for taken away, and they're still paying for it!

Also, at some point, contract disputes get fatiguing, especially for Dish. I'm not shocked by this attitude at all, given a programming erosion over time.


----------



## 356B

oldengineer said:


> I wonder how posters who think it's immoral, unethical or beneath their dignity to ask for discounts from D* or E* shop for cars?


+1, yet I respect those who don't use the service and are electing to forgo the freebees. 
What pisses me off is to be vilified for excepting what Dish is willing to give, I watch the shows...I don't get into anybodies business unless they get in mine, this attitude stuff is boring and IMO does not belong here. 
This AMC deal is nothing new in the world of business. AMC feels it has become a player, not just the little guy peddling old, bad, black and white or Technicolor SD movies. Because of BB, MM, HOW and other shows AMC has moved the dial.
Not unlike a rookie 220 hitter who has a 300 sophomore year...."Show me the money"....they'll work it out, it's just business. :lol:


----------



## isuzudave

Stewart Vernon said:


> Let's try this another way.


Let's do. 



> Before the channels were dropped... we had some conversation. Some people sided with Dish, others with AMC.
> 
> Those who sided with AMC, some of them said "I watch the good programming on AMC, if Dish drops them then I am gone, bye!"


I sided with myself. As long as they came to an agreement it did not matter much to me how they got there. This is not my first rodeo with Dish. What was the last channel they were dropping? Fox? Disney? Anyway they always seemed to reach an agreement at the last minute or a short time after the channel is dropped. Or it was a channel I did not watch and I don't know if it ever came back.



> Ok... so Saturday happens and the channels are dropped.
> 
> All the people who said "I will drop Dish"... where did they go? Did they drop Dish?


Maybe some did. I considered it.



> Then we got an influx of new people... not talking about how they miss AMC... but rather how Dish gave them something or how they heard Dish would give them something or how they were mad that Dish didn't give them something.


I am not sure if you are considering me a new person or not. I have been here since 2006, but don't have a whole lot of postings. Usually my opinion on a topic or contribution to a problem has already been offered by the time I reach a discussion. I like to think I am not much of a "me too" type of person. I don't see a need to talk about how I miss AMC. The whole reason I am in this thread is because I lost AMC. If I did not miss it, I would not be here. I have made some comments in this thread because I feel like some have inferred that calling dish and asking about the AMC situation is a dastardly, cowardice, unethical, act boarding on treason. Ok, I may be embellishing some.



> IF there was an increase in "where did AMC go" or "I'm going to drop Dish" posts, that would make sense.
> 
> But it seems the discussion of the value of AMC has gone altogether. Nobody asking for it back, or saying they will leave Dish... it has become a competition to get the most credit, free stuff, whatever from Dish.


My first post in this thread could have been a "I'm going to drop Dish" post. Instead dish offered to offset the cost of me getting the AMC contend somewhere else. I thought that was awesome and I wanted to share my experience.



> Some posts admittedly said they didn't even watch the channels but called for their free stuff too.


I would not feel comfortable doing that. And I would definitely not post about it. They did offer free HBO. I declined. They asked if I had an Xbox or PS3. I don't have either and then they offered a Roku. I declined. I already have a Logitech revue that does Amazon.



> The point I was making here... wasn't about morality, that's a whole different topic... but rather about how this has very little to do with watching AMC.


For me, It has everything to do with watching AMC. Maybe it does not for others, and I am going to assume that is who your comments are directed towards.



> IF you truly "love" AMC but stay with Dish because they give you free stuff... then how much did you really love AMC after all?


The free stuff they gave me enables me to keep getting my AMC loving.


----------



## Jhon69

There's nothing wrong with accepting something from DISH and believe me DISH is getting a good deal on the price they pay for the ROKUs they give away(cheaper than you can buy one).

The ironic part is AMC said they needed the raise because they show original programming?,excuse me then how come these shows are also available on the ROKU too? guess these shows are not as original to just AMC as AMC thought.

Good Job DISH!


----------



## pitflyer

Definitely way too much name calling from one camp to the other. If you don't want to ask for anything despite your service changing, that's your prerogative. To call those who do ask and then wonder about what they received as 'unethical' is way over the line. 

Life is all about negotiations. And as a non contract customer its up to Dish to decide what I'm worth to them. I'm guessing a low star because of the offers I've gotten vs others. That's their right, that means they care less if I switch, so maybe I will switch. 

Also, I couldn't care less when I got MLB last year because you couldn't pay me to watch baseball. So it wasn't any 'extra' service for me. I do sometimes watch AMC so it is less service for me. And as posted, Dish is now saving X million by not paying AMC. It is not unreasonable to expect some of that savings to be passed on to the customers.


----------



## DoyleS

It's unfortunate for me that AMC is gone. I was clearly looking forward to Hell on Wheels in August and although it can be streamed, I like the ability to record and watch on my own schedule. The Roku box is a nice box and clearly a generous offer to help people get the programming they want. I already had Apple TV and didn't feel the need to try to get a Roku in addition to my apple TV. I have always found Dish helpful and accommodating. Far better than calling ATT or Comcast. I like the fact that we have the DIRT group here on the forum as they are also really helpful. As much as I would like to have AMC as a channel, it is not a big enough deal for me to leave Dish. YMMV


----------



## aa62579

Any suggestions for what someone without internet at home can do? Breaking Bad is my all time favorite tv show. A Roku won't help since we don't have internet.

I didn't post on this thread earlier because I thought it would get resolved at the last minute. I did, though, send emails to dish early in June.

I'd switch right now if we weren't moving later on this year.


----------



## Reggie3

aa62579 said:


> Any suggestions for what someone without internet at home can do? Breaking Bad is my all time favorite tv show. A Roku won't help since we don't have internet.
> 
> I didn't post on this thread earlier because I thought it would get resolved at the last minute. I did, though, send emails to dish early in June.
> 
> I'd switch right now if we weren't moving later on this year.


Just remember D* will move you for free (at least that is what their ads say)


----------



## RAD

aa62579 said:


> I'd switch right now if we weren't moving later on this year.


Does your cable system carry the channels you want, might be worth it for a few months since they usually don't have any commitments. You could also check with DIRECTV to see if their free movers offer can be used a couple months after initial installation. Remember if you do decide to go with DIRECTV find a friend that can get you the $100 referral bonus, just follow the instructions to the letter if you go that way.


----------



## aa62579

If we weren't basically in the middle of a reno at the new (to us) house and at the current house, I'd consider it. But we are just not at a stage where we can have anyone at either house. Also, will be totally different setup in amount of tvs, etc. at the new house.


----------



## aa62579

RAD said:


> Does your cable system carry the channels you want, might be worth it for a few months since they usually don't have any commitments. You could also check with DIRECTV to see if their free movers offer can be used a couple months after initial installation. Remember if you do decide to go with DIRECTV find a friend that can get you the $100 referral bonus, just follow the instructions to the letter if you go that way.


Unfortunately no cable service in our rural location.

Yes, my parents have DirecTV, and we will work with them for the credit when we get moved. It has been up in the air on if we would switch or not, but this seals the deal. Just won't help me in time.


----------



## RAD

aa62579 said:


> Unfortunately no cable service in our rural location.
> 
> Yes, my parents have DirecTV, and we will work with them for the credit when we get moved. It has been up in the air on if we would switch or not, but this seals the deal. Just won't help me in time.


Have you checked with DIRECTV on the movers deal, you take your receivers and they install new hardware where needed. The only question I'd have is how soon you can get this free service after an initial installation.


----------



## Henry

I never watched AMC/IFC/WeTV, at least not knowingly ... and I suppose I've paid for those channels all along. I feel for those who valued and will now have to do without these channels. Oh well, sorry guys. 

I didn't complain when Dish let me watch the three Epic channels without a price adjustment, so I see no reason to complain about AMC/IFC/WeTV being turned off. Besides, how many channels am I paying for now and never watch?

My wonder is what will happen if we get the AMC channels back? Will we then lose the placeholder (HDNet et al) channels they gave us?

You have to hand it to Dish ... they always keep things interesting.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I should probably also note... I don't really care for watching streaming stuff on my computer. I don't have a Roku or AppleTV so I don't know how I might like that. Only a few times when I had missed a show and needed to watch before the next episode have I watched on my Mac via the Web... either a purchase/rental from iTunes or from a network Web site.

I haven't tuned to IFC or Sundance or WeTV in years or ever in the case of WeTV. AMC I only watched for the Walking Dead.

I think AMC is sticking it to us by scheduling the "preview weekend" this weekend because they didn't have that on the schedule until Dish announced the channels were dropping. AMC is only doing this preview to stick it to Dish customers who don't switch... that sticks in my craw a bit.

IF the channel doesn't come back to Dish, I'll just wait for a sale on the Blu-rays and buy the Walking Dead then... that's what I decided pretty early on in this debate.


----------



## ehilbert1

SayWhat? said:


> Hopefully, once they see how people are taking advantage of this, they'll start cancelling some of the offers and credits they've made. This is no longer about AMC/IFC/WeTV. It's 'gimme, gimme, gimme'.
> 
> Some people have ethics. Some obviously don't.


Why are you taking it so personal? Life is to short man. Get off the board for a day or two and have a beer. Take your girlfriend, wife or whatever out and enjoy life. People can do what they want call for a roku or not. No one has to answer to you. Get over it and have some fan man!


----------



## Nightmare

Wow, almost 50 pages.

I watch Walking Dead and Hell on Wheels. I'm not happy to lose those shows.

It sounds like a real good time to call DISH and re-negotiate MY contract 

**(I don't think I'm actually under any contract)


----------



## joyandjerry

:hi: I stumbled upon this nifty forum when researching info on the Dish/AMC dispute. AMC is very important to us, and if it does not return to the provider, we will switch eventually. My husband and I just don't want to "panic" and switch when they will probably play "chicken" with each other for a while, and eventually get the stations back.

It was a poor marketing decision (IMOSHO) for Dish to state that AMC does not have programs that are well rated, or to tell their subscribers that they can stream the stations, thus having to pay for another service. 

That said, we have been satisfied subscribers for eight years, and were offered a $10/mo discount for 12 months. The package is the highest available, with all of the premium stations, so we already get the extra stations that they added. So I didn't feel guilty about asking for a discount. I have found customer service to be excellent. This "savings" could be used to buy the discs of these shows when they come out, but we have the service to get the shows when they are on the air, so I would prefer not to do that. Our contract has another year, and we would have to pay the same monthly fee to terminate our contract early. The DVR is excellent, and we have a lot recorded that we don't want to lose for now. 

If only they gave the subscribers the option of adding these dropped stations for a separate fee instead of jettisoning them.  

Our computer is at work, so we cannot stream at home. Watching on the computer at work is not a comfy option, as I prefer my couch!  For those interested, one can download the shows on iTunes, transfer them to your ipod, a buy composite cables for $15 or so and hook up the ipod to the TV. This will enable you to watch anything (like free podcasts!) on your ipod on your TV. I hope this is helpful to someone. 

DirecTv is about $10 more/mo., after you initial discounts expire. And cable is nearly 50% more than Dish for our stations. It seems as if the public loves to "bash" them all. If this were happening with DirecTV, people would be saying the same things.

JOY

Walking a fine line between intellectual curiosity and information overload!


----------



## catnapped

Apparently people are receiving refurbished units so they're not quite "sticking it to Dish" like some people here are insinuating.


----------



## ehilbert1

joyandjerry said:


> :hi: I stumbled upon this nifty forum when researching info on the Dish/AMC dispute. AMC is very important to us, and if it does not return to the provider, we will switch eventually. My husband and I just don't want to "panic" and switch when they will probably play "chicken" with each other for a while, and eventually get the stations back.
> 
> It was a poor marketing decision (IMOSHO) for Dish to state that AMC does not have programs that are well rated, or to tell their subscribers that they can stream the stations, thus having to pay for another service.
> 
> That said, we have been satisfied subscribers for eight years, and were offered a $10/mo discount for 12 months. The package is the highest available, with all of the premium stations, so we already get the extra stations that they added. So I didn't feel guilty about asking for a discount. I have found customer service to be excellent. This "savings" could be used to buy the discs of these shows when they come out, but we have the service to get the shows when they are on the air, so I would prefer not to do that. Our contract has another year, and we would have to pay the same monthly fee to terminate our contract early. The DVR is excellent, and we have a lot recorded that we don't want to lose for now.
> 
> If only they gave the subscribers the option of adding these dropped stations for a separate fee instead of jettisoning them.
> 
> Our computer is at work, so we cannot stream at home. Watching on the computer at work is not a comfy option, as I prefer my couch!  For those interested, one can download the shows on iTunes, transfer them to your ipod, a buy composite cables for $15 or so and hook up the ipod to the TV. This will enable you to watch anything (like free podcasts!) on your ipod on your TV. I hope this is helpful to someone.
> 
> DirecTv is about $10 more/mo., after you initial discounts expire. And cable is nearly 50% more than Dish for our stations. It seems as if the public loves to "bash" them all. If this were happening with DirecTV, people would be saying the same things.
> 
> JOY
> 
> Walking a fine line between intellectual curiosity and information overload!


Welcome to the board :welcome_s

Usually you will find people here that will bend over backwards to help you. I also hope Dish and AMC work it so I can switch.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

joyandjerry said:


> If only they gave the subscribers the option of adding these dropped stations for a separate fee instead of jettisoning them.


Welcome to DBSTalk!

FYI, Dish has pretty much always given networks the option to be a la carte like you suggest... I'm sure AMC had the option of being a standalone channel and name their own price if they wanted.

Channels usually want to be in a package, though, so that people pay whether they watch or not.

Consider AMC... the highest rated show they had garnered 9 million viewers for one night. There are over 100 million pay tv subscribers in the US... so you can figure a lot of people were paying for AMC that didn't watch.

IF AMC went a la carte, they would have to raise their rate significantly to get the same money they get today by being in a package.


----------



## inkahauts

"aa62579" said:


> Unfortunately no cable service in our rural location.
> 
> Yes, my parents have DirecTV, and we will work with them for the credit when we get moved. It has been up in the air on if we would switch or not, but this seals the deal. Just won't help me in time.


Ok, well this may sound funny, but do the folks live far? Maybe ask them to record your episodes that are new and then visit them to watch your shows once in a while till you can get a permanent solution?

If not, if you have Netflix, you will probably be ok eventually.


----------



## isuzudave

I now this is only mildly related to the topic at hand, and I do plan to pose the question on a more appropriate forum as well as here. 

Does anyone provide closed captioning on their streamed version of Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, or Hell on wheels?

I was planning on streaming streaming them from Amazon on my Google TV device. I have since learned that Amazon does not have closed captioning on their streaming. I know Netflix does, but that does not help me with the upcoming season. What about iTunes? I don't have an apple tv, but I have an iPhone and iPad and I think I have a cable to connect those to my tv. I also have a Sony BD player with apps and a WDTV live hub. 

Anyone have experince with closed captioning or sub-titles on current season streaming shows?


----------



## Nightmare

Apparently I do have 2 Months left on my 2 Year Contract 

I have usually been VERY happy with DISH and the service they provide.

Today was no exception!!

I called the normal Customer Service number to check on my account. The first lady was a little confused on the details of the Amazon purchase process. She was telling me I could watch the AMC shows on Amazon, but wasn't able to explain how (or the fact that I can watch them for free with the Roku). I asked her about an upgrade from the 722k to the Hopper and she sent me to an Account Specialist.

Here is what she offered after I asked about the Summer Sales Event.

-Free Hopper
-$15 off Top200 for 12 mos
-1/2 off HBO/Show for 6 mos
-No New Contract

I told her I was a fan of AMC, Walking Dead and Hell on Wheels.

-Free Roku

She tells me that I can order my AMC shows through Amazon on the Roku. The charges will appear on my DISH bill. Then DISH will credit my bill, allowing me to watch them for free.

Thank you DISH and DBS. I came here to see what was happening and used the information posted by other people to save about $400 today :hurah:


----------



## maartena

joyandjerry said:


> That said, we have been satisfied subscribers for eight years, and were offered a $10/mo discount for 12 months.


The fact that Dish is offering nice monthly discounts and ROKU units for free does seem to indicate that this is not your average carriage dispute, but pretty much a permanent decision.

With other carriage disputes, if you call and complain they often knock $5 or $10 off of that month's bill, or they give you a few free PPV movies, but not a whole year, and certainly no free ROKU device.

It's very cool that Dish offers these discounts and ROKU's by the way, that is definitely a class act. But if AMC is indeed important to you, I would start shopping around for the best deals now, and not wait until after your favorite shows start again.


----------



## Inkosaurus

> -Free Hopper
> -$15 off Top200 for 12 mos
> -1/2 off HBO/Show for 6 mos
> * -No New Contract*


You better double check with another agent at Dish because that last bit stinks of bull ****.
Last I checked you need to do a DIU to upgrade your equipment and DIU's come with a nifty little 2 year contract attached.

@Maartena.
I agree regarding them offering Rokus being peculiar but thats about it.
When I worked at Dish we offered plenty of 10$x12m to 5 star customers who were losing out even 1 local affiliate. If you're a great customer and get with loyalty department (account specialist) its not unheard of for them to atleast throw out a 10x12.

Regarding the Roku hand outs. During the FX, natgeo and FSN takedown of 2010 we were authorized to hand out vouchers for Itunes and if I remember correctly Amazon as well, so that customers could get episodes of Sons of Anarchy for free. I know its not a Roku for free but I think if the same situation happened today rather then 2012 Dish would probably spring for giving out Rokus too. Even though it was only 2 years ago internet streaming has and Roku have become alot more mainstream then they were 2 years ago.


----------



## SayWhat?

Nightmare said:


> She tells me that I can order my AMC shows through Amazon on the Roku. The charges will appear on my DISH bill. Then DISH will credit my bill, allowing me to watch them for free.


You might want to verify that too.


----------



## satcrazy

Inkosaurus said:


> You better double check with another agent at Dish because that last bit stinks of bull ****.
> Last I checked you need to do a DIU to upgrade your equipment and DIU's come with a nifty little 2 year contract attached.
> 
> @Maartena.
> I agree regarding them offering Rokus being peculiar but thats about it.
> When I worked at Dish we offered plenty of 10$x12m to 5 star customers who were losing out even 1 local affiliate. If you're a great customer and get with loyalty department (account specialist) its not unheard of for them to atleast throw out a 10x12.
> 
> Regarding the Roku hand outs. During the FX, natgeo and FSN takedown of 2010 we were authorized to hand out vouchers for Itunes and if I remember correctly Amazon as well, so that customers could get episodes of Sons of Anarchy for free. I know its not a Roku for free but I think if the same situation happened today rather then 2012 Dish would probably spring for giving out Rokus too. Even though it was only 2 years ago internet streaming has and Roku have become alot more mainstream then they were 2 years ago.


I was told today any equipment upgrade is a new contract.

What I am wondering is why poster joy&jerry who has highest package and is a 8 year customer gets 10$/12 mos., while poster nightmare who has the 200 package gets a 12 month credit for 15$? Is it because they upgraded? [ happy for both of them, just wondering how dish calculates these savings, does dish have a formula they work from?]

I read the earlier post about the dish rating system, it just seems to me if you've been with a company for 8 years, you must be paying your bills:lol:


----------



## Inkosaurus

satcrazy said:


> I was told today any equipment upgrade is a new contract.
> 
> What I am wondering is why poster joy&jerry who has highest package and is a 8 year customer gets 10$/12 mos., while poster nightmare who has the 200 package gets a 12 month credit for 15$? Is it because they upgraded? [ happy for both of them, just wondering how dish calculates these savings, does dish have a formula they work from?]
> 
> I read the earlier post about the dish rating system, it just seems to me if you've been with a company for 8 years, you must be paying your bills:lol:


lol. Well It varies I guess. I recall running into 10+ year old accounts that were anywhere from 1-3 stars. Length of time with a company certainly helps but its not some factor that over rides others or makes the company look the other way. Those accounts were also pretty much consistantly late with there payments, ect.

From what I've seen billing history has always taken priority over length of time as a customer in regards to tiering a customer. I really doubt taking an upgrade had anything to do with him getting a 15x12 instead of a 10x12.

There is a formula but it takes alot of stuff into consideration, much of which I already listed here in this thread. And alot more on top of that.

The best way to think of it is Dish (and other companies) Consider everything a loan that you will eventually pay off. Whether or not they will "loan" you anything entirely depends on how well you paid off your earlier loans (your SAC).
When you first sign up Dish "loans" you 700$ to get you all set up and you pay that off over the course of roughly 4 years (due to the way Dish handles its accounting). Now imagine at year 3 a customer asks Dish for a 120$ loan, dont you think they will consider any late payments on there first loan before giving you more "money" ?
Thats just one of the things to consider, its also the main reason why we see multiple prices for equipment upgrades between certain customers. Dish is more readily available to "loan" certain amounts of money to different tiers.


----------



## catnapped

satcrazy said:


> I read the earlier post about the dish rating system, it just seems to me if you've been with a company for 8 years, you must be paying your bills:lol:


I'm assuming they figure if you've been with them for 8+ years, you're probably not leaving so why bother offering anything.


----------



## Inkosaurus

catnapped said:


> I'm assuming they figure if you've been with them for 8+ years, you're probably not leaving so why bother offering anything.


Not at all as has been proven by several long term customers in this very thread as well as through out this section over the last several years.

If you dont get offered anything when you speak to loyalty then you havent really been a great customer.


----------



## sigma1914

Nightmare said:


> ...
> I told her I was a fan of AMC, Walking Dead and Hell on Wheels.
> 
> -Free Roku
> 
> She tells me that I can order my AMC shows through Amazon on the Roku. The charges will appear on my DISH bill. Then DISH will credit my bill, allowing me to watch them for free.
> 
> ...


That's not even how Amazon billing works with streaming.


----------



## braven

I feel bad for the "Walking Dead", "Mad Men" and "Breaking Bad" fans. Hopefully this is temporary.


----------



## unclefister77

I have Directv and glad of it, besides the versus channel dispute, I don't actually remember that last time Directv pulled a national channel, well there was G3tv. Anyway Directv also has AMC On Demand.


----------



## Chihuahua

unclefister77 said:


> I have Directv and glad of it, besides the versus channel dispute, I don't actually remember that last time Directv pulled a national channel, well there was G3tv. Anyway Directv also has AMC On Demand.


I think it's G4TV.


----------



## Jhon69

Stewart Vernon said:


> I should have guessed that the "Dish will go bankrupt" posts would find their way here.
> 
> AMC has already lost more revenue than Dish will lose over this. Dish won't even notice, that's how few customers will be leaving.


I can see the headlines now"DISH goes bankrupt,makes a profit in the process".:eek2:

That's our Charlie.


----------



## Jhon69

Chihuahua said:


> I think it's G4TV.


Correct and I'm sure there's alot of happy DirecTV subscribers who are glad NBC put Ninja Warrior in their programming.Because before without G4 there was no Ninja Warrior on DirecTV.


----------



## cj9788

I am an E* sub since 2001, love them and always will. I am glad they make a stand like this EVERYTIME contracts come up for negotiation. Besides there are other methods to watch Breaking Bad the same night as it airs so I am not too worried about it. 

I want to thank all the cry babies that have posted in this thread since it started I have had some good laughs, keep em coming.......


----------



## inkahauts

If dish gives everyone amazon credits in some way, and a free roku, they might end up spending more money handing these things out than if they had just paid amc what they are asking for!


----------



## Hoosier205

How many total channels have been lost now? I've lost count.


----------



## lparsons21

isuzudave said:


> Does anyone provide closed captioning on their streamed version of Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, or Hell on wheels?
> 
> I was planning on streaming streaming them from Amazon on my Google TV device. I have since learned that Amazon does not have closed captioning on their streaming. I know Netflix does, but that does not help me with the upcoming season. What about iTunes? I don't have an apple tv, but I have an iPhone and iPad and I think I have a cable to connect those to my tv. I also have a Sony BD player with apps and a WDTV live hub.
> 
> Anyone have experince with closed captioning or sub-titles on current season streaming shows?


iTunes has some things with CC, but unfortunately not current seasons.


----------



## lparsons21

Hoosier205 said:


> How many total channels have been lost now? I've lost count.


Learn to count better.


----------



## VDP07

Hoosier205 said:


> How many total channels have been lost now? I've lost count.


Do you mean the net channel count, including the new ones that have been added? And over what time frame?


----------



## Hoosier205

"VDP07" said:


> Do you mean the net channel count, including the new ones that have been added? And over what time frame?


How many channels has Dish lost long-term due to disputes? These and the Disney related channels and whatever else...a grand total. I'm counting 10 so far.


----------



## cj9788

How many channels were taken down then put back up after a contract was reached?


----------



## Jim5506

Satellite TV has too many channels - we need to get rid of some of the trash channels that are included in these programming bundles that programming producers pawn off on us.

If a niche channel cannot survive on its own - let it die.

Dish and DirecTV should start pressing providers to cut the bottom channels off of their packages and keep prices at the same or slightly lower levels.

If there is a demand for a channel it will survive - let the others DIE!

I do not want to subsidize trash channels with my subscription dollars. I probably watch fewer than 15 channels all week and the rest of the family maybe doubles that number.

Who needs 200 or 250 channels - NOBODY.

There is an opening for someone with a bundle of money to start a TV delivery system either by internet streaming or maybe through OTA subchannels that provides a small number of highly watched channels at a rate lower than current providers charge (maybe like 75% of their rates) and make it.

All that stands in the way are the contracts that program providers seem to insist on with large number of garbage channels bundled with those few good channels.

Right now I pay Dish $85 a month and I would be willing to pay $65 a month for a much smaller package of only the channels I want.

Of the 7 or so OTA channels that Dish carries (all SD by the way) here I regularly watch 5.

Of the true satellite channels I watch FOX News, TNT (Dallas and Falling Skies only), History, ESPN (not nearly as much as I once did - to much bla bla bla too little Sports - where's curling when you need excitement), HGTV and Discovery Channel, SciFi (Merlin only and I refuse to misspell it).

So I just watch 6-7 satellite channels... HMMMM maybe I don't need satellite TV after all.

I am constantly thumbing through my 120 channels and finding nothing to watch.

I'm going to have to reconsider whether it is worth the cost - I could better use my time.


----------



## satcrazy

Wow, you sure have alot of gear for 120 channels!


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> How many channels has Dish lost long-term due to disputes? These and the Disney related channels and whatever else...a grand total. I'm counting 10 so far.


The four ABC/Disney HD channels were never under contract ... DISH shouldn't have been carrying them in the first place (or so the court says). The channels themselves remain on DISH, just not in HD.

One hears a lot more about disputes than resolutions. Other providers lose channels as well ... sometimes temporary, sometimes forever (DirecTV lost Versus for several months and G4 "forever"). DISH has lost channels that DirecTV will never carry - so I suppose it all works out even.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> The four ABC/Disney HD channels were never under contract ... DISH shouldn't have been carrying them in the first place (or so the court says). The channels themselves remain on DISH, just not in HD.
> 
> One hears a lot more about disputes than resolutions. Other providers lose channels as well ... sometimes temporary, sometimes forever (DirecTV lost Versus for several months and G4 "forever"). DISH has lost channels that DirecTV will never carry - so I suppose it all works out even.


Just trying to get a total. No need to be defensive.


----------



## Hoosier205

So far, I have the following:


ESPNews
Disney Channel HD
Disney XD HD
ABC Family HD
MSG
MSG+
SportsNet New York
AMC HD
WEtv HD
IFC HD

What am I missing?


----------



## James Long

WE and IFC were never carried in HD. ESPNews remains carried by DISH.

The channels you are missing should be obvious in a thread about AMC. 
(Hint: DirecTV never carried them, and never will.)


----------



## Rduce

Stewart Vernon said:


> You, and others, missed my point.
> 
> For more than a month many of us have been discussing the likely dropping of these channels on 6/30.
> 
> Now, a couple of days after the actual drop, with rumors swirling about Dish offering some "free stuff" to customers who complain... we have had an inrush of new people on the thread who have asked Dish for something to make up for the loss of AMC channels.
> 
> My question essentially was... where was everyone the past month? The channels couldn't have been *that* important if it didn't prompt them to join in the discussion once Dish moved the channels around and put up the "this channel has moved" banner a couple of weeks back.
> 
> People are coming out of the woodwork, smelling blood in the water, looking for free stuff. Most of the people I see talking about asking for, expecting, and in some cases getting the freebies haven't been a part of this thread discussing it for the past month.
> 
> So I was just wondering "wha hoppen" that they suddenly sprang to life once the rumors of a freebie came to light.
> 
> People can do whatever they want of course... I'm not commenting on that... I just find it curious that this thread has so many new participants that had been incommunicado for the last month when the rest of us have been discussing things.


I think it is the epidemic that has helped ruin nearly every Nation and is called GREED! The simple fact is far too many people these days feel they are entitled to something even if they are not. It should become very apparent to DISH in short order that more people are standing with their hands out then every watch the damn channel.

As has been stated previously, it has to with a person's character.


----------



## phrelin

Well, it is true that Dish dumped all 15 of the Voom channels, MSG, and the 4 AMC Neworks channels ... oh, wait ... actually these were all owned by billionaire Charles Dolan.

Listing the Disney-owned channels separately that are carried, just not in HD.

Golly gee, that's a lot of channels, but two owners. There may be a pattern here. :beatdeadhorse:

Yes there are other cable channels over the years that were replaced by equally unwatched cable channels.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> WE and IFC were never carried in HD. ESPNews remains carried by DISH.
> 
> The channels you are missing should be obvious in a thread about AMC.
> (Hint: DirecTV never carried them, and never will.)


What does this have to do with DirecTV? Wrong part of the forum for that.


ESPNews HD
Disney Channel HD
Disney XD HD
ABC Family HD
MSG SD/HD
MSG+ SD/HD
SportsNet New York SD/HD
AMC SD/HD
WEtv SD
IFC SD
Sundance SD

Is that it? Just talking about the more recent deals Dish has failed to come to terms on. (not VOOM)


----------



## James Long

What do other channels DISH has decided to live without have to do with AMC? (Although it is interesting to see how many of those channels are related to AMC.) It seems to be a hint at the stereotypical argument usually posted elsewhere about DISH constantly losing channels. Considering the short list of channels "lost" that argument has lost it's legs.

Channel lineups change ... it is just part of doing business.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> What do other channels DISH has decided to live without have to do with AMC? (Although it is interesting to see how many of those channels are related to AMC.) It seems to be a hint at the stereotypical argument usually posted elsewhere about DISH constantly losing channels. Considering the short list of channels "lost" that argument has lost it's legs.
> 
> Channel lineups change ... it is just part of doing business.


I like the spin you try to put on that...channels Dish decided to live without. 

You seem to be itching for an argument. I was trying to get a solid list of lost channels (now that the AMC channels have been canned) and you've been nothing but defensive and argumentative. Are you just a customer or a shareholder?

You maintain a list of carried channels, but seem a little touchy about the ones no longer being carried. It's just a simple discussion.


----------



## Jhon69

Think one of the most amazing things is we lost AMC which was in HD and we still have more basic channels in HD with DISH,of course having those little channel logos by the channel numbers in my EPG are cool too on the 922 and the Hopper.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> I like the spin you try to put on that...channels Dish decided to live without.
> 
> You seem to be itching for an argument. I was trying to get a solid list of lost channels (now that the AMC channels have been canned) and you've been nothing but defensive and argumentative. Are you just a customer or a shareholder?
> 
> You maintain a list of carried channels, but seem a little touchy about the ones no longer being carried. It's just a simple discussion.


No need to get personal and make false accusations ...

Perhaps you should look back at your OWN questions? Channels lost? Channels DISH failed to come to terms on? Perhaps if one is going to go off topic with a list one should list all the channels DISH managed to come to terms on as well, with a good definition of "recent".


----------



## broeddog

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black and the comment about no need to get defensive. I really like my newer service with dish since leaving D and the other thing I enjoy more was not having to read your dribble on the other provider and how they could do no wrong. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation why don't you go argue about how great D is in their forum.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> No need to get personal and make false accusations ...
> 
> Perhaps you should look back at your OWN questions? Channels lost? Channels DISH failed to come to terms on? Perhaps if one is going to go off topic with a list one should list all the channels DISH managed to come to terms on as well, with a good definition of "recent".


You are still getting defensive and avoiding the issue. I asked a simple question and you've managed to turn it into this. All someone had to do was confirm or correct the list. No need for anything else. It was never about one provider versus another. I have no idea why you've tried to twist it into that.


----------



## SayWhat?

Hoosier205 said:


> All someone had to do was confirm or correct the list.


Your 'list' was addressed in post 1236.

I'm sure there are quite a few channels that have been added that would far outweigh the 4 or 5 that have been dropped.


----------



## Hoosier205

SayWhat? said:


> Your 'list' was addressed in post 1236.
> 
> I'm sure there are quite a few channels that have been added that would far outweigh the 4 or 5 that have been dropped.


No, it was not. All that was confirmed was that I was missing channels from the list. All someone has to do is confirm the revised list. No need for argument. We aren't pitting one provider against another. Both have lost channels. I'm just trying to get an accurate list.


----------



## catnapped

Jim5506 said:


> Satellite TV has too many channels - we need to get rid of some of the trash channels that are included in these programming bundles that programming producers pawn off on us.
> 
> If a niche channel cannot survive on its own - let it die.


Many of them aren't even niche channels anymore...just dumping grounds for big media conglomerate to further amortize that $50 million they spent on a reality show.

"Hey we've got 3 other channels we can show this on!"


----------



## VDP07

Hoosier205 said:


> How many total channels have been lost now? I've lost count.


While you insist your above post was a serious question, considering the tone some of your past Dish related posts (not going to post examples), it is easy to read this one as no more than a quick jab at Dish. You obviously haven't forgotten how many channels Dish has lost over disputes as you have listed them yourself. I don't take yours or any others posts personal but will call a spade a spade. Proceed to spin.


----------



## Hoosier205

VDP07 said:


> While you insist your above post was a serious question, considering the tone some of your past Dish related posts (not going to post examples), it is easy to read this one as no more than a quick jab at Dish. You obviously haven't forgotten how many channels Dish has lost over disputes as you have listed them yourself. I don't take yours or any others posts personal but will call a spade a spade. Proceed to spin.


I had forgotten how many when I posted initially. I had to do a bit of research to come up with the list I posted.


----------



## jdskycaster

I was contacted yesterday directly to discuss the loss of AMC. The rep called and said they were following up on an inquiry I made two weeks ago. They asked if there was anything they could do to make sure I continued to stay a satisfied Dish customer as their records indicate that I have been with them for 12 years now. They also asked if I watched any of the AMC series and which ones. 

The net of the conversation was that they could offer me a Roku if I did not have another streaming device (and a broadband connection) to purchase the shows I have been watching from Amazon. I told them that I already pay for Amazon Prime but do not use the streaming service as I do not have a compatible TV or BR/DVD player to get the service. They said they would happily send me a Roku and apply a credit to my account for 12 months.

I made sure to tell them that I thought this was an example of excellent customer service at a time when most companies appear to care less if you are a customer or not. I thanked them and applauded them for standing up to AMC and at least trying to keep subscriber costs in check to the degree that they can and remain profitable.

Thanks Dish,

JD


----------



## VDP07

Hoosier205 said:


> I had forgotten how many when I posted initially. I had to do a bit of research to come up with the list I posted.


Uh huh...


----------



## Paul Secic

James Long said:


> As long as they are not breaking the law the posts are welcome on this forum.
> 
> Let's be careful about getting into name calling. We have a lot of members here. Their option of "the right thing to do" may vary from yours but on this site we try to show some respect for the people behind the opinions - whether or not we agree with their opinion.
> 
> And we also try to stay on topic ... which in this thread is DISH vs AMC, not the ethics or morality of DBSTalk members.
> 
> DISH Network is saving an estimated $2.5 million per month not carrying AMC. If they want to throw some of that money at customers who complain it is up to DISH to decide who is "eligible" or not for the giveaways. if people want to drop down to a lower level it is fine ... DISH will collect less money from them but they will also not have to pay the channels in the tier the customers are dropping. And if they leave DISH will deal with that as well.
> 
> Perhaps by October AMC will come up with a better price. Unfortunately for them, $2.5 million dollars of lost income each month isn't balanced out by simply paying less for their programming. And losing 15% of the households they were distributed to won't help sell advertisements and infomercials.
> 
> Or perhaps AMC will stay off of DISH and survive without the cash and distribution. There is always a chance.


As I said before I haven't tuned in to all of Raibows channels since the 90's. If they come back I'l continue to ignore them.


----------



## phrelin

Hoosier205 said:


> What does this have to do with DirecTV? Wrong part of the forum for that.
> 
> 
> ESPNews HD
> Disney Channel HD
> Disney XD HD
> ABC Family HD
> MSG SD/HD
> MSG+ SD/HD
> SportsNet New York SD/HD
> AMC SD/HD
> WEtv SD
> IFC SD
> Sundance SD
> 
> Is that it? Just talking about the more recent deals Dish has failed to come to terms on. (not VOOM)


Again, except for one regional sports channel, you are talking about two channel owners:

ESPNews HD - *Disney*
Disney Channel HD - *Disney*
Disney XD HD - *Disney*
ABC Family HD - *Disney*
MSG SD/HD - *Dolan*
MSG+ SD/HD - *Dolan*
SportsNet New York SD/HD
AMC SD/HD - *Dolan*
WEtv SD - *Dolan*
IFC SD - *Dolan*
Sundance SD - *Dolan*
I don't suppose there is any significant blame on the part of the owners. You know them to be altruistic towards viewers, not the greedy thieves I think they are.


----------



## Jhon69

Paul Secic said:


> As I said before I haven't tuned in to all of Raibows channels since the 90's. If they come back I'l continue to ignore them.


Paul:

Think maybe it'e time to change the Platinum under your posts to [email protected]?.


----------



## ehren

I use Roku for MLB tv and it's not working well and out of warranty. Keeps losing my wifi connection. Anyone be willing to send me one? Much much appreciated. PM me thanks again.


----------



## johnp37

epokopac said:


> 'Not a very wise' = 'Real stupid' (in my book) .
> 
> "AMC Networks has some of the most acclaimed programming on television, with shows like Mad Men, The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad."
> 
> Got to have my Walking Dead! Let's hope things can get worked out.


Absolutely the dumbest decision ever! I would pay an extra few bucks to keep The Walking Dead around a long time. I really feel for the Deadheads losing their show.


----------



## bnewt

I also contacted Dish today to voice my displeasure over loosing AMC. I was asked what series that I watched & that I could purchase that from Amazon & they would credit me for the cost or they would send me a Roku. Told the loyalty department that I wanted neither. I do not have wi fi in my home, just hard wired internet connection. She also said that there were no negotiations going on & that AMC would never be back on Dish. I told her if that was true, then I would have to look into changing to DirectTV. Tired of all of the games that Dish plays.......have a channel one day & gone the next. I know that all of the providers have this problem..........just seems like Dish has more.


----------



## sigma1914

bnewt said:


> I also contacted Dish today to voice my displeasure over loosing AMC. I was asked what series that I watched & that I could purchase that from Amazon & they would credit me for the cost or they would send me a Roku. Told the loyalty department that I wanted neither. I do not have wi fi in my home, just hard wired internet connection....


Roku does hard wired, too.


----------



## kucharsk

aa62579 said:


> Any suggestions for what someone without internet at home can do? Breaking Bad is my all time favorite tv show.


Wait for the DVDs to be released - then the show won't be sliced and diced for AMC's (IMHO far too frequent) commercials, either.


----------



## dunkonu23

No TWD = Bye Bye Dish when my current contract expires in 21 months... 

Scott


----------



## RasputinAXP

"We are open to a creative proposal from AMC Networks that would resolve this situation, but at this point it looks like the channels will be down permanently. -Michael H."

Well that's the first time they've ever said that. That ball is so hard it's made out of titanium.


----------



## Jon W

We upgraded to AT-200 when Mad Men started and downgraded back to AT-120 when the season was over. If I had to do it again I would wait until it came out on Amazon Streaming or DVD, this season really wasn't all that great. That being said, I would really not be happy if I lost the channel mid season so I feel the pain of TWD Fans. That show sounds really interesting, glad I didn't get hooked on it (yet)


----------



## satcrazy

jdskycaster said:


> I was contacted yesterday directly to discuss the loss of AMC. The rep called and said they were following up on an inquiry I made two weeks ago. They asked if there was anything they could do to make sure I continued to stay a satisfied Dish customer as their records indicate that I have been with them for 12 years now. They also asked if I watched any of the AMC series and which ones.
> 
> The net of the conversation was that they could offer me a Roku if I did not have another streaming device (and a broadband connection) to purchase the shows I have been watching from Amazon. I told them that I already pay for Amazon Prime but do not use the streaming service as I do not have a compatible TV or BR/DVD player to get the service. They said they would happily send me a Roku and apply a credit to my account for 12 months.
> 
> I made sure to tell them that I thought this was an example of excellent customer service at a time when most companies appear to care less if you are a customer or not. I thanked them and applauded them for standing up to AMC and at least trying to keep subscriber costs in check to the degree that they can and remain profitable.
> 
> Thanks Dish,
> 
> JD


I also give dish a high five
I have not been with dish nearly as long as you, and yet they have been very, very user friendly. Not going for a big bash here, but, IMO, they are far superior to direct in CS relations.

Way to go dish,
I'm not going away anytime soon


----------



## patmurphey

sigma1914 said:


> Roku does hard wired, too.


Not the Roku 2 XD being offered by Dish.


----------



## sigma1914

patmurphey said:


> Not the Roku 2 XD being offered by Dish.


That's true. I guess you could sell the XD & then use the money towards a XS which is $20 more.


----------



## narrod

It's all about programming. I don't care which carrier is better. If they don't carry the programs I want I will not do business with them.


----------



## phrelin

jdskycaster said:


> I was contacted yesterday directly to discuss the loss of AMC. The rep called and said they were following up on an inquiry I made two weeks ago. They asked if there was anything they could do to make sure I continued to stay a satisfied Dish customer as their records indicate that I have been with them for 12 years now. They also asked if I watched any of the AMC series and which ones.
> 
> The net of the conversation was that they could offer me a Roku if I did not have another streaming device (and a broadband connection) to purchase the shows I have been watching from Amazon. I told them that I already pay for Amazon Prime but do not use the streaming service as I do not have a compatible TV or BR/DVD player to get the service. They said they would happily send me a Roku and apply a credit to my account for 12 months.
> 
> I made sure to tell them that I thought this was an example of excellent customer service at a time when most companies appear to care less if you are a customer or not. I thanked them and applauded them for standing up to AMC and at least trying to keep subscriber costs in check to the degree that they can and remain profitable.
> 
> Thanks Dish,
> 
> JD


I agree. I plan on streaming through my Panasonic BD player from Amazon "Hell on Wheels" when it starts in August assuming the episode are available the same week they first air.

That will cost some money. But because I gained $15 a month by dropping down from AT200 to AT120, it's almost an even trade in the long run.

Except I am losing BBCA programming.

So I chatted with a courteous and helpful CSR on line. I asked for a couple of months of free Starz as I don't need anything discussed here. He gave me three free months.

That will give me the movies "Moneyball", "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", and others to watch during the scripted programming summer doldrums, plus most of the new season of "Boss", all for free.

It seems like a fair trade for losing BBCA shows. I'll just have to keep an eye out for streaming opportunities for "Copper."


----------



## pitflyer

I haven't called Dish yet, but I did receive two phone calls from them. The number they have for me is my home phone number, so I'm at work, but caller ID shows its definitely them. 

They don't leave any message but maybe they are being proactive, or saw I had a couple of 'let me transfer you to loyalty' chat sessions that dropped because they were so backed up.


----------



## fudpucker

Sad to see so many posts here either directly attacking people or being passive aggressive in attacking people. It's just TV, no need to get personal, no one here is an owner of AMC or Dish or DirectTV - or so I assume! LOL!

I was surprised to be contacted by Dish. We haven't been with them all that long, and honestly, I'm not looking for anything free from them, I just want to watch the shows we want to watch. I'm provider agnostic: I switched from DirectTV after about 15 years with them because we could not get locals on D* when we moved. There was a dispute, etc. and Dish carried them, so we switched. I watch TV to watch TV, not get involved in ego fights between billionaires. 3 of our favorite shows on TV are on AMC, 3 of our top 10. I can't watch them on Dish any longer. We have a little time on our contract, so we will evaluate a move back to DirectTV - I'm not sure why not? We were very happy with them for our 15 years. (They have the locals now, in HD.) We also liked Dish, but having had both, I can be happy with either. So we'll have to evaluate. Simple. 

Oh, since people are talking about Dish's PR campaign on this, they did offer us a Roku (turned it down) and then $10 a month for a year. They called me, so OK, thanks, I'll accept the discount (since we already pay over $100 a month.) But at the end of the day, as I've said, I'd rather pay a little more to watch our favorite shows than a little less to not be able to see them, since our provider is just our source of shows.

To those who go on about how poorly viewed Mad Men, Breaking Bad, etc. were, they got pretty good ratings. And frankly, if what I wanted/expected in my TV provider is that they only provide the shows with the highest viewership and drop the shows that win all of the critical awards (Emmys, Golden Globes, Best Drama, Best Actor, etc.) then I'd be happy with a provider that just showed The Bachelorette and Two and a Half Men and other such "popular" dreck. So I don't value the shows my provider provides me by the total number of viewers, and that is why I pay for a top end package.

FWIW.


----------



## K E Will

It cost more than the 2.5 mill a month to produce the Walking dead season so I still want my AMC. I Dont want to leave Dish just want to hear about more negotiations the other channels in the package are catching up. Just look at the last two years Hell on wheels. and Walking Dead are just a start of Amc new programing so they deserve a rate increase just please negotiate.


----------



## johnp37

Come on over to Directv. We still have The Walking Dead, Mad Men, and Breaking Bad. No chance they will be back on Dish. Another prime example of screw the customer for the bottom line.


----------



## Inkosaurus

johnp37 said:


> Come on over to Directv. We still have The Walking Dead, Mad Men, and Breaking Bad. No chance they will be back on Dish. Another prime example of screw the customer for the bottom line.


lol wow.

Yeah they totally screwed the customers by preventing a chain reaction that would cause our bills to sky rocket.

Rainbow wants 200% increase, if they get it despite not really offering that much then guess what. All the other little niche channels will want that same 200% increase. Dish has to make that money back one way or another 

There bottom line is maintaining packages at 5$ less then DTV so that they advertise the lowest packages in the business. They cant exactly do that by bending backwards to the whim of every channel owner.


----------



## fudpucker

Inkosaurus said:


> lol wow.
> 
> Yeah they totally screwed the customers by preventing a chain reaction that would cause our bills to sky rocket.
> 
> Rainbow wants 200% increase, if they get it despite not really offering that much then guess what. All the other little niche channels will want that same 200% increase. Dish has to make that money back one way or another
> 
> There bottom line is maintaining packages at 5$ less then DTV so that they advertise the lowest packages in the business. They cant exactly do that by bending backwards to the whim of every channel owner.


Great, they get to offer the lowest price compared to DirectTV. By not providing the shows winning Best Drama, Best Actor, many other Emmys, 15 Golden Globes, and on and on.

We're not talking about dropping being able to watch Pawn Stars or Cajun Justice or Auction Whatevers. Mad Men alone has won the Emmy for Best Drama 4 years in a row. Hell, it has gotten more awards and nominations than most shows on any channel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Mad_Men

Breaking Bad features the Emmy Award winning Best Actor performance, 3 years in a row.

And so on. Again, this may be a small network but it is producing some of the best shows on TV.

Tell ya what, I'll be willing to pay more to any channel that produces TV shows that consistently win the top Emmy awards (and a host of other major awards.) Line them up. All the channels that can claim they have some of the best shows produced on TV, bar none.

And not being able to watch them is, IMO, a real negative for any major TV provider. IMO, of course.


----------



## Inkosaurus

fudpucker said:


> Great, they get to offer the lowest price compared to DirectTV. By not providing the shows winning Best Drama, Best Actor, many other Emmys, 15 Golden Globes, and on and on.
> 
> We're not talking about dropping being able to watch Pawn Stars or Cajun Justice or Auction Whatevers. Mad Men alone has won the Emmy for Best Drama 4 years in a row. Hell, it has gotten more awards and nominations than most shows on any channel:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Mad_Men
> 
> Breaking Bad features the Emmy Award winning Best Actor performance, 3 years in a row.
> 
> And so on. Again, this may be a small network but it is producing some of the best shows on TV.
> 
> Tell ya what, I'll be willing to pay more to any channel that produces TV shows that consistently win the top Emmy awards (and a host of other major awards.) Line them up. All the channels that can claim they have some of the best shows produced on TV, bar none.
> 
> And not being able to watch them is, IMO, a real negative for any major TV provider. IMO, of course.


This has been discussed to death over the last 1k posts here.
That argument doesnt hold water at the negotiation table.

AMC has the shows that has critical acclaim but it doesnt have the shows that is bringing in the viewers. AMC wanted money on par with a channel that consistantly brings in millions more viewers and Dish was smart enough to call them on there BS.

Rainbow is like the Seth Mcfarlane of being channel owners, yeah they got some goods but its all gone to there head and they waaay over evaluated there product.


----------



## phrelin

K E Will said:


> It cost more than the 2.5 mill a month to produce the Walking dead season so I still want my AMC. I Dont want to leave Dish just want to hear about more negotiations the other channels in the package are catching up. Just look at the last two years Hell on wheels. and Walking Dead are just a start of Amc new programing so they deserve a rate increase just please negotiate.


Gee. Do what I'm going to do ... pay Amazon (or iTunes) and stream the video.

The show you want - you know, the one that costs $2.5 mill to produce - will get your revenue because you're targeting the product you want. You get to quit paying for those hundreds and hundreds of hours of old movies you never watch.


----------



## James Long

K E Will said:


> It cost more than the 2.5 mill a month to produce the Walking dead season so I still want my AMC.


$2.75 million per episode for the second season (cut from $3.4 million for the first season).

AMC networks reportedly paid $14.55 million per month for production in 2011 (all shows). If the estimated $2.5 million per month DISH has been paying is the same rate as other providers paid for the show they would have been collecting $16.66 million per month in revenue. Losing DISH puts their revenue below their production costs. (And there are other costs to running a network.)

So how will they pay for Mad Men, Breaking Bad and the Walking Dead? More cuts in production? Breaking Bad is facing it's final 16 episodes ... broken up into two years of delivery ... I suppose that is one way. Make people pay for two years of AMC to get that 16 hours of content?

AMC will need to get that $2.5 million somewhere ... and if it isn't from their other distributors then it will have to come from further cuts. The reality we are facing is that everyone, regardless of provider, will be losing Breaking Bad (the show is ending) and the other shows will be lost as well if AMC can't pay for them. So perhaps AMC might want to get creative and see if they can make an offer that DISH cannot refuse?


----------



## inkahauts

"James Long" said:


> $2.75 million per episode for the second season (cut from $3.4 million for the first season).
> 
> AMC networks reportedly paid $14.55 million per month for production in 2011 (all shows). If the estimated $2.5 million per month DISH has been paying is the same rate as other providers paid for the show they would have been collecting $16.66 million per month in revenue. Losing DISH puts their revenue below their production costs. (And there are other costs to running a network.)
> 
> So how will they pay for Mad Men, Breaking Bad and the Walking Dead? More cuts in production? Breaking Bad is facing it's final 16 episodes ... broken up into two years of delivery ... I suppose that is one way. Make people pay for two years of AMC to get that 16 hours of content?
> 
> AMC will need to get that $2.5 million somewhere ... and if it isn't from their other distributors then it will have to come from further cuts. The reality we are facing is that everyone, regardless of provider, will be losing Breaking Bad (the show is ending) and the other shows will be lost as well if AMC can't pay for them. So perhaps AMC might want to get creative and see if they can make an offer that DISH cannot refuse?


The only problem is, that doesn't really add up does it? We know generally prices are based on subscribers in terms of how much they actually get, so dish would be a big dog, as would DIRECTV and Comcast. Those three together probably pay more than a quarter the rates they get in total from subscribers.

However, I doubt you can say that dish leaving them behind would put them below production costs AND therefore in need of making bigger cuts. You have to add back in ad revenue as well. It's entirely possible that. Amc doesn't make enough in subscription costs alone to break even ever. They may rely on ad dollars every bit as much as they do subscriber rates.

Of course dish being gone also hurts ad dollars, so that also has an effect. There is no easy way to figure out the dollar impact of dish leaving amc behind.

And who knows how much actual profit the networks pull in either. Hollywood accounting is ridiculous. Money is buried behind ever corner. It might be they could lose dish and all it's ad dollars and not need to change anything. Maybe the reason they made all those production pricing cuts in the first place was they wanted to make sure if they lost one of the big three providers, they would still have the same amount of profit coming in afterward, and they just planned far in advance, expecting all this to happen. Those cuts could have also been about the company feeling they where not getting their return on investment, and that it could be done just as well for less money, and therefore higher profits.

I doubt this will really affect either companies bottom line in and of itself over the long haul. It will only hurt amc if they lose another big carriage deal, to DIRECTV or Comcast, or several other providers combined.


----------



## fudpucker

"Inkosaurus" said:


> This has been discussed to death over the last 1k posts here.
> That argument doesnt hold water at the negotiation table.
> 
> AMC has the shows that has critical acclaim but it doesnt have the shows that is bringing in the viewers. AMC wanted money on par with a channel that consistantly brings in millions more viewers and Dish was smart enough to call them on there BS.
> 
> Rainbow is like the Seth Mcfarlane of being channel owners, yeah they got some goods but its all gone to there head and they waaay over evaluated there product.


Almost everything said has been said here before 

I'm just saying that, as someone who pays a lot of money to have options when I watch TV, not being able to see the arguably best shows on TV is a major negative. If all I was interested in we're the shows with the most viewers I'd have a lower tier package and be watching Two Broke Girls and other such crap.

On another note, if I was DirectTV I'd really be planting the ads out there showing these shows and their awards and saying want to watch the Best Drama on TV for 4 years in a row? You can't see it in Dish, etc etc


----------



## Ira Lacher

fudpucker said:


> On another note, if I was DirectTV I'd really be planting the ads out there showing these shows and their awards and saying want to watch the Best Drama on TV for 4 years in a row? You can't see it in Dish, etc etc


They won't because they know there's a good likelihood that they'll be in the same boat -- an ocean liner, really, considering the way content providers do business these days.


----------



## SayWhat?

fudpucker said:


> not being able to see the arguably best shows on TV is a major negative.


Depends on who's arguing. 



> On another note, if I was DirectTV I'd really be planting the ads out there showing these shows and their awards and saying want to watch the Best Drama on TV for 4 years in a row? You can't see it in Dish, etc etc


Is there any guarantee that ANY of them will return for a fifth? No.


----------



## satcrazy

Will we ever find out what AT&T agreed to pay?


Would be interesting to know if they got better rates than than dish, and by how much.


----------



## dbstv

ehren said:


> I use Roku for MLB tv and it's not working well and out of warranty. Keeps losing my wifi connection. Anyone be willing to send me one? Much much appreciated. PM me thanks again.


Never use streaming device with wi fi hard wire is the way to go got my entuire home 8 rooms wired only way i could share media file Blu ray video with out bluffering


----------



## SayWhat?

^^

:sigh:

Sometimes I worry about this civilization.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

satcrazy said:


> Will we ever find out what AT&T agreed to pay?
> 
> Would be interesting to know if they got better rates than than dish, and by how much.


Curious about this myself. As I noted earlier, though... AT&T is likely bound by confidentiality and AMC is highly unlikely to want to go public with what they agreed to. It would either be too high and support Dish's claims OR it would be low, and undermine their ability to negotiate with other companies.

IF AMC truly wanted to put the nail in Dish and say how they refused to negotiate, though, AMC could easily come out and say what Dish was paying and what AMC wanted... as well as what they agreed to with AT&T. But don't hold your breath waiting for that info from AMC. It isn't in their best interest to reveal.


----------



## wildzeke

The world has too many books- we need to get rid of some of the trash books that are included in these book anthologies that book publishers pawn off on us.

If a niche book cannot survive on its own - let it die.
Book publishers should start pressing book stores to cut the bottom books off of their shelves and keep prices at the same or slightly lower levels.

If there is a demand for a book it will survive - let the others DIE!

I do not want to subsidize trash books with my dollars. I probably read fewer than 15 books all year and the rest of the family maybe doubles that number.

Who needs 200 or 250 million books - NOBODY.

(Sorry, couldn't resist)



Jim5506 said:


> Satellite TV has too many channels - we need to get rid of some of the trash channels that are included in these programming bundles that programming producers pawn off on us.
> 
> If a niche channel cannot survive on its own - let it die.
> 
> Dish and DirecTV should start pressing providers to cut the bottom channels off of their packages and keep prices at the same or slightly lower levels.
> 
> If there is a demand for a channel it will survive - let the others DIE!
> 
> I do not want to subsidize trash channels with my subscription dollars. I probably watch fewer than 15 channels all week and the rest of the family maybe doubles that number.
> 
> Who needs 200 or 250 channels - NOBODY.


----------



## Jaspear

> Originally Posted by *fudpucker*
> Great, they get to offer the lowest price compared to DirectTV. By not providing the shows winning Best Drama, Best Actor, many other Emmys, 15 Golden Globes, and on and on.
> 
> We're not talking about dropping being able to watch Pawn Stars or Cajun Justice or Auction Whatevers. Mad Men alone has won the Emmy for Best Drama 4 years in a row. Hell, it has gotten more awards and nominations than most shows on any channel:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ved_by_Mad_Men
> 
> Breaking Bad features the Emmy Award winning Best Actor performance, 3 years in a row.
> 
> And so on. Again, this may be a small network but it is producing some of the best shows on TV.
> 
> Tell ya what, I'll be willing to pay more to any channel that produces TV shows that consistently win the top Emmy awards (and a host of other major awards.) Line them up. All the channels that can claim they have some of the best shows produced on TV, bar none.
> 
> And not being able to watch them is, IMO, a real negative for any major TV provider. IMO, of course.





Inkosaurus said:


> This has been discussed to death over the last 1k posts here.
> That argument doesnt hold water at the negotiation table.


When I was at the "negotiation table" back in the 80's and 90's, sometimes that argument held water, sometimes it didn't, but it was _always_ on the table.

But hey, what do I know?


----------



## TheSpider

maby they will began to sale it as a stand along or pack like the canadgian packs. maby a package with amc sundancse ifc and we. wisht they wood at leest follow up on the pormise to give qwality replacemants. hdnet hello? they shoud give us lifeitme reel women and new chanels that are repacements for each of these lost. it wood be more pricey this way but at leest them that wont it can pay for it sepreteley. im thanking it wont be back sadley. maby im wrong time will tale.


----------



## jostanton

Personally I could never stand for the endless commercial breaks on AMC. I will only watch movies on a commercial channel. Even if it means fuzzy SD. They are no loss for me.


----------



## TheSpider

jostanton said:


> Personally I could never stand for the endless commercial breaks on AMC. I will only watch movies on a commercial channel. Even if it means fuzzy SD. They are no loss for me.


plus won. i felt like ifc lost alot they ofered when they put comercials in. befour that it was won of our most washed chanels.


----------



## ehilbert1

jostanton said:


> Personally I could never stand for the endless commercial breaks on AMC. I will only watch movies on a commercial channel. Even if it means fuzzy SD. They are no loss for me.


That's why I have a DVR. I never set through commercials. I know a lot of people are saying no loss and ha ha but what if next time it's your channel? I hate to say this but I would love to see the people saying no loss and ha ha to lose their favorite channel or channels.



TheSpider said:


> plus won. i felt like ifc lost alot they ofered when they put comercials in. befour that it was won of our most washed chanels.


I agree with you on IFC. They added commercials and it seems like they cut the movies. Again I have a DVR so I'm not worried about commercials but cutting a movie sucks.

Can I ask you guys a question? Why are you all bringing up commercial breaks? I would assume most of us have a DVR. It's not hard to FF through them.


----------



## wi6397

How long do you dry your channels after you wash them????



TheSpider said:


> plus won. i felt like ifc lost alot they ofered when they put comercials in. befour that it was won of our most washed chanels.


----------



## Inkosaurus

> That's why I have a DVR. I never set through commercials. I know a lot of people are saying no loss and ha ha but what if next time it's your channel? I hate to say this but I would love to see the people saying no loss and ha ha to lose their favorite channel or channels.


A lot of us did like the programming AMC provided, I my self am a huge fan of The Walking Dead comics (and because of my fanboyism was mostly disgusted with the terrible second season).

AMC was "one of my channels" , except I'm looking at the bigger picture here. AMC over evaluated there product and got what was coming to them. Its not like we wont be able to see the following seasons of our favorite shows.
edit:



> Can I ask you guys a question? Why are you all bringing up commercial breaks? I would assume most of us have a DVR. It's not hard to FF through them.


Because even with the advent of the DVR (and ad-hopper) there are still instances where you might be stuck watching live tv.

People also bring up commercials to point out how far away from the original product Rainbow takes there channels.
AMC is like the MTV of classic movies but with more annoying commercials.


----------



## ehilbert1

Inkosaurus said:


> A lot of us did like the programming AMC provided, I my self am a huge fan of The Walking Dead comics (and because of my fanboyism was mostly disgusted with the terrible second season).
> 
> AMC was "one of my channels" , except I'm looking at the bigger picture here. AMC over evaluated there product and got what was coming to them. Its not like we wont be able to see the following seasons of our favorite shows.
> edit:
> 
> Because even with the advent of the DVR (and ad-hopper) there are still instances where you might be stuck watching live tv.
> 
> People also bring up commercials to point out how far away from the original product Rainbow takes there channels.
> AMC is like the MTV of classic movies but with more annoying commercials.


Fair enough! Besides sports I don't really watch live TV. I usually wait 15 or so minutes to watch a show that just started.

I really really want to go with Dish. I am so impressed with the Hopper. I'm just kind of afraid of Charlie. It's like what will he do next? Will he go to war with ESPN or will tell The Discovery Channel and The History Channel to go to hell? I'm also scared some high court will rule against The Hopper and they will lose the commercial skip and PTAT.


----------



## mike1977

Has anyone gotten any deals while currently on the Dish America plan? (Roku, Cinemax, HD for life, etc?)


----------



## RVRambler

I for one, think that as long as I am paying for a channel, I do not need to see the Ads, these channels are being paid twice, once is enough!

Hell, I think many of these channels should PAY to be carried, as I assume the shopping channels must have to, right? Who would pay for them? Not me!

Some channels I am completely willing to pay for, but ONLY in HD, SD should be dropped completely, don't watch them at all!!
(1 exception, ESPN-U during college basketball season, DTV has it in HD!!).

Billionaires in a P|*ssing contest, Charlie you have enough money buddy, stop being a chump & settle some of these disputes!!


----------



## Inkosaurus

mike1977 said:


> Has anyone gotten any deals while currently on the Dish America plan? (Roku, Cinemax, HD for life, etc?)


No one can get HD free for life while on a Dish America plan, it would be redundant.


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> The only problem is, that doesn't really add up does it?


Sure it does. Take the various source numbers we have and do the math.

The production budgets for 2011 was published in an article complaining about AMC slashing their productions. Divide by 12 and you get $14.55 million.

Based on numbers noted in previous lawsuits DISH has approximately 10 million customers at AT200 or above (AMC's tier). Based on AMC getting an average 25c per subscriber that's $2.5 million. Some media reports say DISH subscribers were 15% of AMC's subscriber base ... which puts AMC's subscription based revenue (before losing DISH) at $16.66 million and after losing DISH at $14.14 million - which is below the production cost for 2011.

I don't know if large providers pay more than small, but using an industry average for what AMC gets should still come out to the $16.66 million. And if large providers like DISH are paying more that just makes the lost of their subscribers even more painful for AMC.



> However, I doubt you can say that dish leaving them behind would put them below production costs AND therefore in need of making bigger cuts. You have to add back in ad revenue as well.


Ad revenue that you note could drop due to advertisers reaching 15% less households.

I don't see how losing $2.5 million plus each month helps AMC. Do you? ~15% of subscriber revenue is not something that any network would want to see go away.

A couple of years ago The Weather Channel thought better of losing DISH subscribers. They took their carriage for granted and when they wanted more money they found out they could be replaced. Looking at losing nearly ALL of DISH's customers (being in AT120 and other basic packages) and the percentage of their households they would use they came to an agreement - and that agreement helped other providers as well as TWC dropped their il-advised movie nights (featuring any movie with weather in it) and got back to providing the weather. (It is hoping too much to get MTV to return to music videos at the next negotiation. )

When is one of AMC's few good shows back on AMC with new episodes? Breaking Bad with eight episodes starting a week from Sunday? Walking Dead off until October? Mad Men done until next year? Perhaps Breaking Bad will be the test ... AMC can see how it does with 15% of their households gone.


----------



## Shades228

If Dish loses 50k subs, canceling or refusing to sign up, due to AMC at an ARPU of $75 that's 3,750,000 a month loss for them. Then add in the retention offers to placate those who may or may not care, probably around 5 million budgeted, and it's not necessarily a huge savings then. 

It's not going to be good for either company compared to what could be and neither company will go out of business for it. It's easy to vilify companies but in the end it's just business. If AMC got their price increases and created 3 more shows that had the ratings and reviews that Mad Men, BB, and Walking Dead do then people would say that it was a great thing. 

Of course the people who stick around in this thread are going to be the supporters because the people who really care that much about losing AMC will just leave anyways. The glaring difference in this dispute is the simple fact that DISH refused to even bother to negotiate with AMC.


----------



## Rduce

While I can appreciate, the passion of the handful of people that want to watch their programs like “Mad Men” the bottom line is VIEWERS and AMC just does not pull in viewer numbers. 

While Mad Men is perhaps, a critical success it is far from a ratings powerhouse and neither are any of the other programs that have been mentioned here, with the exception being The Walking Dead. 

While the final episode of MM ended on a high note (2.7 million viewers), the program routinely placed in the mid-20 for cable programming on Sunday nights. Last Sunday night at 9 pm finds that HBO’s True Blood had 4.5 million, TNT’s Falling Skies had 3.3 million, while The History Channels Ice Road Truckers drew 2.7 million. Moreover, in what can only show that the survival of the human race is in doubt 2.6 million watched E’s Keeping Up with the Kardashians.

TNT’s new show Dallas had 3.3 million viewers last week, a rerun of NCIS on USA brings in 2.6 million or a rerun of The Big Bang Theory on TBS has 2.5 million. Therefore, critical appeal and awards garnered offer little in the way of defense as to why a carrier should or should not offer programming. 

In the end, it is only a television program. I would hope that the human race could show as much fervor over something that really mattered in the world!


----------



## James Long

Shades228 said:


> If Dish loses 50k subs, canceling or refusing to sign up, due to AMC at an ARPU of $75 that's 3,750,000 a month loss for them. Then add in the retention offers to placate those who may or may not care, probably around 5 million budgeted, and it's not necessarily a huge savings then.


DISH's costs go down when they lose customers. Yes, they don't get to collect the ARPU of $76.93 (FY2011) ... but their profit was only $9.10 per customer per month and it was an abnormally good year for profit (DISH's 2nd highest profit year was $5.81 per customer per month in 2010).

There is a cost savings to DISH when they lose a customer. DISH no longer has to pay the other providers for that customer's subscription. There are fixed costs that are spread out over the millions of customers ... spread out over millions minus 50k raises the per customer average a low percentage but DISH is not losing $75 per customer per month when they lose a customer.

So IF (and that is a big IF) DISH loses 50k customers over not having AMC they might lose $455k (while not paying AMC $2.5 million) each month. In 2011 DISH lost a record 166k net customers - and posted record profits. It may be a hard concept to understand - but you can look at last year's annual reports if you want to see the numbers.



Shades228 said:


> Of course the people who stick around in this thread are going to be the supporters because the people who really care that much about losing AMC will just leave anyways.


Perhaps ... but this thread seems to attract a lot of non-DISH subscribers.


----------



## MysteryMan

James Long said:


> DISH's costs go down when they lose customers. Yes, they don't get to collect the ARPU of $76.93 (FY2011) ... but their profit was only $9.10 per customer per month and it was an abnormally good year for profit (DISH's 2nd highest profit year was $5.81 per customer per month in 2010).
> 
> There is a cost savings to DISH when they lose a customer. DISH no longer has to pay the other providers for that customer's subscription. There are fixed costs that are spread out over the millions of customers ... spread out over millions minus 50k raises the per customer average a low percentage but DISH is not losing $75 per customer per month when they lose a customer.
> 
> So IF (and that is a big IF) DISH loses 50k customers over not having AMC they might lose $455k (while not paying AMC $2.5 million) each month. In 2011 DISH lost a record 166k net customers - and posted record profits. It may be a hard concept to understand - but you can look at last year's annual reports if you want to see the numbers.
> 
> Perhaps ... but this thread seems to attract a lot of non-DISH subscribers.


Same applies to DirecTV threads. They attract a lot of DISH subs.


----------



## SayWhat?

Shades228 said:


> If Dish loses 50k subs, canceling or refusing to sign up, due to AMC


50,000?

I'd be surprised if it was 5,000



MysteryMan said:


> Same applies to DirecTV threads. They attract a lot of DISH subs.


Not me. I have that whole section blocked out using the Forum Options. Just like I had AMC blocked out of my channel guide.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> Based on numbers noted in previous lawsuits DISH has approximately 10 million customers at AT200 or above (AMC's tier). Based on AMC getting an average 25c per subscriber that's $2.5 million. Some media reports say DISH subscribers were 15% of AMC's subscriber base ... which puts AMC's subscription based revenue (before losing DISH) at $16.66 million and after losing DISH at $14.14 million - which is below the production cost for 2011.


Another aspect... I don't know if your source included... If you talk about an average monthly budget for AMC's development... does that factor in that they don't actually produce or air new programming on a monthly basis? As noted in various posts... they have only a handful of original shows anyway, with none more than 16 episodes a season... and at least one of those not airing this year and another on its final season.

So, much like the argument of the consumer paying for AMC 12 months of the year only to watch for about a third of that... Is AMC amortizing their budget over the year? OR are some months they banking cash because they aren't producing anything those months?



Shades228 said:


> If Dish loses 50k subs, canceling or refusing to sign up, due to AMC at an ARPU of $75 that's 3,750,000 a month loss for them. Then add in the retention offers to placate those who may or may not care, probably around 5 million budgeted, and it's not necessarily a huge savings then.


But a contract would be for several years and set the tone for future negotiations...whereas this free Roku business is a temporary expense for Dish. Don't expect Dish to keep doing this freebie stuff for much longer.



Shades228 said:


> It's easy to vilify companies but in the end it's just business. If AMC got their price increases and created 3 more shows that had the ratings and reviews that Mad Men, BB, and Walking Dead do then people would say that it was a great thing.


What evidence do you have to support that this is how AMC will spend its money? We have lots of evidence to the contrary, however...

1. That "unrelated" Voom lawsuit... where Dish paid a lot of money to Rainbow for Voom to improve its programming, only Rainbow didn't spend the money on improved programming.

2. What does AMC do when they have a hit show like Mad Men or Walking Dead? They cut the budgets the next season, cut episodes from Mad Men, and played hardball in negotiations with their other shows too.

3. AMC by its own admission had their best year last year... and that's with spending money to create those good shows and not having a rate increase... so have they already been spending that profit on new shows? Doesn't look like it... with several shows cancelled or on their last season already... long hiatus between shows, and still cutting budgets for those shows while simultaneously looking to increase profit by raising rates.

Bottom line... there's no evidence to support the romantic notion that AMC just wants to create quality programming for its fans... You're right, it is a business... and AMC wants to cut budget and raise rates to line their pockets... just like any other business.



Shades228 said:


> The glaring difference in this dispute is the simple fact that DISH refused to even bother to negotiate with AMC.


According to whom? I know that's what AMC says... but Dish is bound contractually to NOT discuss details of rate negotiations... so AMC has Dish over a barrel here since Dish cannot disclose negotiations, but AMC can pick and choose what to tell the public.

IF you always only believe one side of a story, then yeah... I guess you can choose to believe AMC that Dish didn't negotiate... but we do NOT know that to be factual. We only know that is what AMC says... and as I posted in an earlier message... read the Terms & Conditions on AMC's own Web site where it clearly states that they do NOT guarantee the accuracy of anything on their own Web site... so basically, they reserve the right to lie and exaggerate and if proven wrong, they claim they aren't responsible for their own words on their own Web site anyway.

That doesn't scream trustworthy to me.


----------



## tampa8

SayWhat? said:


> ^^
> 
> :sigh:
> 
> Sometimes I worry about this civilization.


:yesman:


----------



## Shades228

James Long said:


> *There is a cost savings to DISH when they lose a customer.* DISH no longer has to pay the other providers for that customer's subscription. There are fixed costs that are spread out over the millions of customers ... spread out over millions minus 50k raises the per customer average a low percentage but DISH is not losing $75 per customer per month when they lose a customer.
> 
> So IF (and that is a big IF) DISH loses 50k customers over not having AMC they might lose $455k (while not paying AMC $2.5 million) each month. In 2011 DISH lost a record 166k net customers - and posted record profits. It may be a hard concept to understand - but you can look at last year's annual reports if you want to see the numbers.
> 
> Perhaps ... but this thread seems to attract a lot of non-DISH subscribers.


Without extreme situations there is never a cost saving to losing customers. They did make a profit but not due to losing customers but due to the lack of new subscriber growth. This is why both companies have stated why their profits, cash on hand, goes down after having a very strong growth quarter.

Of course it will attract non DISH customer's as well. I haven't read all of the posts I just saw the one talking about the savings this will do for DISH and I think it's only part of the story and not really accurate from a financial standpoint.



SayWhat? said:


> 50,000?
> 
> I'd be surprised if it was 5,000
> 
> Not me. I have that whole section blocked out using the Forum Options. Just like I had AMC blocked out of my channel guide.


Since you both mentioned 50k I'll restate what I said. I said 50k subs from either canceling or not choosing to sign up. It's really not that large of a number in the MMVPD industry. With DISH having 14 million (rounded for easy math and I don't want to look up the financials) 50k is .3% of their subscriber base. So it's not really a far off number.



Stewart Vernon said:


> What evidence do you have to support that this is how AMC will spend its money? We have lots of evidence to the contrary, however...
> 
> 1. That "unrelated" Voom lawsuit... where Dish paid a lot of money to Rainbow for Voom to improve its programming, only Rainbow didn't spend the money on improved programming.
> 
> 2. What does AMC do when they have a hit show like Mad Men or Walking Dead? They cut the budgets the next season, cut episodes from Mad Men, and played hardball in negotiations with their other shows too.
> 
> 3. AMC by its own admission had their best year last year... and that's with spending money to create those good shows and not having a rate increase... so have they already been spending that profit on new shows? Doesn't look like it... with several shows cancelled or on their last season already... long hiatus between shows, and still cutting budgets for those shows while simultaneously looking to increase profit by raising rates.
> 
> Bottom line... there's no evidence to support the romantic notion that AMC just wants to create quality programming for its fans... You're right, it is a business... and AMC wants to cut budget and raise rates to line their pockets... just like any other business.
> 
> According to whom? I know that's what AMC says... but Dish is bound contractually to NOT discuss details of rate negotiations... so AMC has Dish over a barrel here since Dish cannot disclose negotiations, but AMC can pick and choose what to tell the public.
> 
> IF you always only believe one side of a story, then yeah... I guess you can choose to believe AMC that Dish didn't negotiate... but we do NOT know that to be factual. We only know that is what AMC says... and as I posted in an earlier message... read the Terms & Conditions on AMC's own Web site where it clearly states that they do NOT guarantee the accuracy of anything on their own Web site... so basically, they reserve the right to lie and exaggerate and if proven wrong, they claim they aren't responsible for their own words on their own Web site anyway.
> 
> That doesn't scream trustworthy to me.


Obviously I don't work for AMC so I can't say how they would spend their money. They could buy popcorn and hot dog machines for all their offices for all we know. However I think that they do realise that in order to stay a legitimate source of entertainment they're going to need a few more shows that are original to them to keep viewership through out the year.

Every company has disclaimers on their websites about content and such if you dig around for it. DISH is not contractually bound to anything at this point. There's no reason they couldn't dispute AMC's claims. DISH made the first press release stating that AMC was asking a fee they deemed not acceptible and would be dropping them. There wasn't anything about working towards a goal. AMC has also stated that it's due to the legal suit. Given how fast Charlie is to litigate an issue he could have easily filed a suite for Libel and a stop and decist letter to stop the libel. He has not done so. Also given what I know about the industry I do believe AMC's claim. DIRECTV did the same thing with Fox the only difference is that they publicly said that they would not be requesting an extension during the negotations and would allow the stations to go black. They still stated they were negotiating through the process. So I could say the same thing and state where DISH says they're negotiating. I haven't seen the AMC/DISH contract but I'm betting there's nothing in there that states they cannot say if the companies were talking. Now that there is not a contract there's nothing to bind them.

There is also the official response DISH legal approved that a DIRT member posted about willing for a "creative" solution from AMC not that the companies are in discussions.

The vilify comment was just due to the overall tone of some people saying that AMC is the bad guy and so forth. When really AMC is just a business and they're doing what they feel they need to do. DISH is a business and they're doing what they feel they need to do. The reason's don't really matter but it doesn't make either company "bad".


----------



## fudpucker

Stewart Vernon said:


> So, much like the argument of the consumer paying for AMC 12 months of the year only to watch for about a third of that... Is AMC amortizing their budget over the year? OR are some months they banking cash because they aren't producing anything those months?
> 
> IF you always only believe one side of a story, then yeah... I guess you can choose to believe AMC that Dish didn't negotiate... but we do NOT know that to be factual. We only know that is what AMC says... and as I posted in an earlier message... read the Terms & Conditions on AMC's own Web site where it clearly states that they do NOT guarantee the accuracy of anything on their own Web site... so basically, they reserve the right to lie and exaggerate and if proven wrong, they claim they aren't responsible for their own words on their own Web site anyway.
> 
> That doesn't scream trustworthy to me.


Part 1: most channels don't have their top tier programs showing for more than part of the year before going into reruns. You won't see 12 months of The Closer or Big Bang Theory; they do their 13 or 16 episode run and they are done for the season.

Part 2: I don't know if you are being serious or not, but as someone with both a science and a law degree, I can tell you it is VERY common for corporate web sites to have a disclaimer like that, otherwise someone sues them for saying something like "YOU SAID TIDE DETERGENT GETS OUT ALL STAINS EASILY ON YOUR WEB SITE!!!! BUT I GOT BARIUM SULFATE STAINS ON MY LACE SHIRT AND IT DESTROYED MY SHIRT AND DIDN"T GET THE STAIN OUT SO I WANT A MILLION DOLLARS AND A ROKU BECAUSE YOU SAID!!!!" 

You are really really reaching to vilify AMC with comments like that.


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> IF you always only believe one side of a story, then yeah... I guess you can choose to believe AMC....


This is the reality. Who you want to believe. And so....

:rant:
Nobody informed about the history of the billionaire Dolan family operations, headed by family patriarch Charles Dolan, AMC Networks Chairman and Cablevision Chairman, would believe anything coming from AMC.

I assume most of the people here defending AMC know nothing about the "scrappy" history of Cablevision, the sports teams and related television ownerships (MSG Inc., for instance) under James Dolan who is Cablevision President , his nephew of Cleveland Indians and SportsTime Ohio owner Larry Dolan (named the seventh worst owner in pro sports) and the rest of the family.

For those of you who don't remember how Charles Dolan, AMC Networks Chairman, believes a cable company should respond to a channel demanding more money, here's a description from Wikipedia clearly defining the Dolan approach:


> Cablevision Systems Corporation (NYSE: CVC) is an American cable television company with systems serving areas surrounding New York City. It is the 8th largest cable provider in the USA, with most customers residing in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and parts of Pennsylvania....
> 
> Cablevision's contract with News Corp to carry FOX (including MyNetwork TV) expired on October 15, 2010. The contract included WNYW and WWOR-TV in New York and WTXF in Philadelphia. The contract also included the cable networks National Geographic Wild, Fox Business, and Fox Deportes (formerly Fox Sports en Español). Programming affected by the dispute included the coverage of the NFL on Fox, 2010 National League Championship Series, part of the 2010 World Series, and popular shows like American Idol and Glee.
> 
> On October 16, 2010 at 12:01am, Fox pulled all of their networks involved in the dispute from Cablevision subscribers. Because of Cablevision's dispute with FOX, Cablevision customers missed multiple new episodes of FOX network programming, multiple weeks of the NFL season, and the entire NLCS. Cablevision looped a public service announcement on each affected channel and forcing all of its customers' set-top boxes to channel 1999, which looped the same annnouncement, much like was done when Scripps Networks and ABC/Disney pulled their cable channels' programming....


This dispute was ultimately resolved because members of Congress representing the states and congressional districts served by Cablevision, regardless of party, decided maybe it would be ok to threaten direct government intervention since this happened right before an election.

That description, along with the list of other retransmission fee disputes, can be read here.

The Dolan family, through their largest holding Cablevision, competes directly with the Dish and DirecTV. IMHO there is a huge, huge conflict of interest represented by their ownership of channels such as AMC and MSG. But they are effective lobbyists.

When people defend AMC by attacking Dish here or on Facebook or elsewhere, it is the billionaire Dolan family they are defending, not "Mad Men." For instance, there is no love lost between "Mad Men" creator/writer Matt Weiner and the Dolan's since the last negotiations that delayed, and delayed, and delayed the most recent season. Weiner's just a whiny creative type to the Dolan's, like most of their employees and contractors. If they could get you the viewer to pay them $1 a month and get rid of those whiny creative types who are expensive, that would suit the Dolan's just fine.

That Charles Ergen, satellite company owner, chose to do what Charles Dolan, cable company owner, regularly does seems lost on too many people here.
:rant:


----------



## fudpucker

Rduce said:


> While I can appreciate, the passion of the handful of people that want to watch their programs like "Mad Men" the bottom line is VIEWERS and AMC just does not pull in viewer numbers.
> 
> While Mad Men is perhaps, a critical success it is far from a ratings powerhouse and neither are any of the other programs that have been mentioned here, with the exception being The Walking Dead.
> 
> While the final episode of MM ended on a high note (2.7 million viewers), the program routinely placed in the mid-20 for cable programming on Sunday nights. Last Sunday night at 9 pm finds that HBO's True Blood had 4.5 million, TNT's Falling Skies had 3.3 million, while The History Channels Ice Road Truckers drew 2.7 million. Moreover, in what can only show that the survival of the human race is in doubt 2.6 million watched E's Keeping Up with the Kardashians.
> 
> TNT's new show Dallas had 3.3 million viewers last week, a rerun of NCIS on USA brings in 2.6 million or a rerun of The Big Bang Theory on TBS has 2.5 million. Therefore, critical appeal and awards garnered offer little in the way of defense as to why a carrier should or should not offer programming.
> 
> In the end, it is only a television program. I would hope that the human race could show as much fervor over something that really mattered in the world!


I get that. Great shows often do not pull in big ratings. That is why shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad end up on stations like AMC instead of NBC.

And that is my point. If you only want to watch the crap that gets great ratings and appeals to everyone, well, that's what the big channels are trying to do. Any show that has less that super ratings will get dropped in a few episodes.

And thus quality shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, etc. that aren't going to get huge ratings find homes on smaller channels like AMC. Where they don't HAVE to have 5 million viewers to keep the suits happy, who are looking for another reality show that is cheap and pulls in the big ratings.

And people like me subscribe to providers like Dish and DirectTV and pay for higher tiers to be able to watch shows that the people who love Keeping up with the Kardashians would never watch.


----------



## hdaddikt

fudpucker said:


> I get that. Great shows often do not pull in big ratings. That is why shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad end up on stations like AMC instead of NBC.


Thank Goodness! If they were they would likely have been canceled long before now!! Ratings aside, I am not sure they know what a 'good show' is any more.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> Part 1: most channels don't have their top tier programs showing for more than part of the year before going into reruns. You won't see 12 months of The Closer or Big Bang Theory; they do their 13 or 16 episode run and they are done for the season.


A couple of things... Big Bang Theory is on CBS, so it probably is more like 20-24 episodes per season.

And yes, you are right... The Closer is never more than 13 or 14 episodes a year on TNT... but TNT has more than 3 shows a year too. AMC has only a handful of shows running those 13 episodes, and some like Mad Men have been forced to skip a year due to AMC negotiating to cut the budget and episodes with the show creator.

Nobody said other networks didn't have shows with short seasons... but two things to keep in mind:

1. Other networks that have shows with short seasons might have MORE shows than just 3 or 4 that AMC has!
2. AMC is asking for a rate increase based on less than a handful of shows and not much else to offer. Right now nobody else is negotiating for more money... IF another channel with similar lack of content to AMC asked for double their rates, I would argue they don't deserve it either!



fudpucker said:


> Part 2: I don't know if you are being serious or not, but as someone with both a science and a law degree, I can tell you it is VERY common for corporate web sites to have a disclaimer like that, otherwise someone sues them for saying something like "YOU SAID TIDE DETERGENT GETS OUT ALL STAINS EASILY ON YOUR WEB SITE!!!! BUT I GOT BARIUM SULFATE STAINS ON MY LACE SHIRT AND IT DESTROYED MY SHIRT AND DIDN"T GET THE STAIN OUT SO I WANT A MILLION DOLLARS AND A ROKU BECAUSE YOU SAID!!!!"
> 
> You are really really reaching to vilify AMC with comments like that.


Perhaps... but the point still remains... You can't say "Here is the real reason..." and then just below that have a link to a policy that says you don't stand behind what you say on your Web site.

I agree that a lot of Web sites and companies have these disclaimers... and as such I don't just assume everything they say is true.

Thus my argument that I don't see how you can believe AMC's position so certainly when you know they have an "out"... like if the negotiations had resulted in AMC staying on Dish, do you think AMC would EVER have retracted their statements about the Voom lawsuit? I doubt it. Would AMC ever apologize for trying to send Dish customers to DirecTV? I doubt it...

Dish didn't say "don't watch AMC programs because they lie and their programs suck." Dish said "AMC wants too much money for just a handful of quality programs, programs that you can buy/watch elsewhere." Dish didn't try and tell people to stop watching AMC.

On the flip side... AMC said "Dish lies and holds grudged... and they suck, so go to DirecTV or cable and leave Dish now!"

See the difference?



phrelin said:


> That Charles Ergen, satellite company owner, chose to do what Charles Dolan, cable company owner, regularly does seems lost on too many people here.


Another good phrelin post... summarized quite well by that bottom line there... Two guys named "Charlie" and somehow Ergen is the "greedy billionaire" while "Dolan" is what? The nice just-for-the-fans guy?

You can bet if the shoe was on the other foot... and AMC wasn't a Rainbow/Dolan property... that Cablevision would have dropped AMC in a heartbeat if they asked for too much money. So the irony is thick that they would vilify Dish for doing exactly what they would do in the reverse situation.

Imagine if Dish owned a channel that they asked Cablevision for more money to carry... how do you think those negotiations would have gone?


----------



## James Long

Shades228 said:


> Without extreme situations there is never a cost saving to losing customers.


I disagree and I've explained my reasoning.


> They did make a profit but not due to losing customers but due to the lack of new subscriber growth.


It is all in the net ... DISH lost 2.7 million customers last year (DirecTV lost 3.6 million). Replacing only 2.5 million of those lost subscribers is what led to the net loss of customers I mentioned in my previous posts.

You threw out a number of "50k lost subscribers" over the AMC situation ... that is only a small percentage of the customers DISH will lose this year in the normal course of business. As a net loss it would a large number.



> Since you both mentioned 50k I'll restate what I said. I said 50k subs from either canceling or not choosing to sign up. It's really not that large of a number in the MMVPD industry.


So 50k NET subscriber loss over this one channel? That is a large number. But if you did bother to look at the financials you would see a year (2011) with 166k net subscriber loss and the most profit in the history of the company. No, I don't expect past performance to guarantee future results but DISH financially does ok in years where customer growth is down.

Losing customers from people not choosing to sign up is more of a guess. We can look at the financials and see a report of the people who actually left and signed up but there is no report (from any company) that shows people who didn't sign up. But considering the $771 (FY2011) SAC it seems that not adding a customer is another way to save money.

It is a twisted reality and there is a tipping point ... at some point losing customers and not gaining new ones is going to hurt ... but losing AMC will not be that point.



> Now that there is not a contract there's nothing to bind them.


Not really. I have signed contracts where the terms can never be released ... even after the active portion of the contract has expired. I would tell you what those contracts were but that would be a violation of those contracts.


----------



## inkahauts

Networks seasons are usually 24 episodes in length these days, cable channels usually 13. Both can be a few more or a few less, that's just the normal...

Amc has three or four shows, TNT has more than twice that, and USA has even more than that. Amc is not in the same class of offerings in terms of numbers, both in overall viewership or in original programing hours to either of those companies. And neither of them are in the same class as even the The CW, much less the big four.


----------



## James Long

fudpucker said:


> Part 1: most channels don't have their top tier programs showing for more than part of the year before going into reruns. You won't see 12 months of The Closer or Big Bang Theory; they do their 13 or 16 episode run and they are done for the season.


You will see other shows of quality (or at least popularity) when the shows are in reruns. AMC is currently a three hit wonder ... with nothing new airing this week, one show resuming July 15th to carry them into September then one show resuming in October after the new shows for the first series are done airing.

This kind of rotation is done by the major cable networks and broadcast networks ... but the difference between the major networks and AMC is the major networks have a deeper bench.

AMC's current team could be described as three baseball players who can hit .500 or better ... one who is set to retire at the end of the next season (16 games over two years) and the other two who have been around for a while and may not last much longer. But AMC does not have nine good players to field a full team. When they are up to bat they could have bases loaded an no one available to take an at bat ... when they are playing defense they cannot cover all of the bases - they have a pitcher, 1st base man and shortstop.

AMC needs a deeper bench ... good programs to air when the superstars are on hiatus. AMC needs development ... the next great program that will replace their superstars. And AMC needs to be able to fill out their entire batting order. Naming three "superstars" isn't enough to field a team.


----------



## fudpucker

James Long said:


> AMC needs a deeper bench ... good programs to air when the superstars are on hiatus. AMC needs development ... the next great program that will replace their superstars. And AMC needs to be able to fill out their entire batting order. Naming three "superstars" isn't enough to field a team.


I don't disagree. But they are getting there. They basically started the experiment with Mad Men (I believe.) A little cable company decides to gamble and carry an expensive, high quality program none of the networks would carry. It wins best show on TV for years in a row, plus other honors.

Then they add another show. And another. And another. Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, The Killing, Hell on Wheels.

This is a cable company that is creating extremely high quality shows that the networks and other channels would never carry. It's not Pawn Stars or Cajun Pawn or Pawn Queens or Storage Wars or Storage Hunters or We Love Storage, in the copycat way stations do these days. It's not Keeping Up With The Kardashians or Kardashians Klosets or Poodles of the Kardashians. It's not American Idols or Making of American Idols or some other of the 10 singing competition shows. It's not shows that some suits at a network approved because they will pull super high ratings. Mad Men would have never made a second season on most networks. Breaking Bad would have never even been greenlit.

Shows like Hell on Wheels show that AMC is trying to build up their stable. They are not big enough to do it the way they would if they had NBC money. And I hoped to watch them continue on their journey.

If you are arguing on here relative to ratings, yeah, you're right. These shows are not going to appeal to Joe Sixpack the way Two and a Half Men or Two Broke Girls or The Kardashians or some Paris Hilton show would. Some of the best shows on TV in the old days, like Hill Street Blues, would have never completed their first season these days.

Me - I'm more interested in quality than how many people watch. If someone is more interested in how many people watch as an indicator of whether it should be carried, then we're doomed to some extremely crappy TV. If Dish is committed to only carry shows that are loved by the same people who love Housewives of LA/New York/Chicago/Miami/ etc. then it's a sad day. The Top 10 list includes The Bachelorette/The Bachelor, America's Got Talent, Two Broke Girls, on cable Pawn Stars, WWE, American Pickers; Sorry, I just don't agree with all of you making the ratings argument.


----------



## strikes2k

fudpucker said:


> I don't disagree. But they are getting there. They basically started the experiment with Mad Men (I believe.) A little cable company decides to gamble and carry an expensive, high quality program none of the networks would carry. It wins best show on TV for years in a row, plus other honors.
> 
> Then they add another show. And another. And another. Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, The Killing, Hell on Wheels.
> 
> This is a cable company that is creating extremely high quality shows that the networks and other channels would never carry. It's not Pawn Stars or Cajun Pawn or Pawn Queens or Storage Wars or Storage Hunters or We Love Storage, in the copycat way stations do these days. It's not Keeping Up With The Kardashians or Kardashians Klosets or Poodles of the Kardashians. It's not American Idols or Making of American Idols or some other of the 10 singing competition shows. It's not shows that some suits at a network approved because they will pull super high ratings. Mad Men would have never made a second season on most networks. Breaking Bad would have never even been greenlit.
> 
> Shows like Hell on Wheels show that AMC is trying to build up their stable. They are not big enough to do it the way they would if they had NBC money. And I hoped to watch them continue on their journey.
> 
> If you are arguing on here relative to ratings, yeah, you're right. These shows are not going to appeal to Joe Sixpack the way Two and a Half Men or Two Broke Girls or The Kardashians or some Paris Hilton show would. Some of the best shows on TV in the old days, like Hill Street Blues, would have never completed their first season these days.
> 
> Me - I'm more interested in quality than how many people watch. If someone is more interested in how many people watch as an indicator of whether it should be carried, then we're doomed to some extremely crappy TV. If Dish is committed to only carry shows that are loved by the same people who love Housewives of LA/New York/Chicago/Miami/ etc. then it's a sad day. The Top 10 list includes The Bachelorette/The Bachelor, America's Got Talent, Two Broke Girls, on cable Pawn Stars, WWE, American Pickers; Sorry, I just don't agree with all of you making the ratings argument.


Ratings are the only fair way to evaluate the value of a channel, at least in the commercial TV category. I pay for HBO a la carte because I like the quality and diversity of programming they offer. If AMC wants that type of subscriber they're more than welcome to ask DISH to carry their programming a la carte. As has been discussed repeatedly in this thread they don't want that because the number of people such as yourself who would subscribe wouldn't be enough to sustain their programming. So they, and by extension you, want people such as myself who never watches AMC to subsidize your programming. We all do that to an extent (see thread about ESPN) but there's a point where the subsidizing level becomes unreasonable. It appears we have reached that point in DISH's eyes.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> I don't disagree. But they are getting there. They basically started the experiment with Mad Men (I believe.) A little cable company decides to gamble and carry an expensive, high quality program none of the networks would carry. It wins best show on TV for years in a row, plus other honors.


So... any guesses as to why AMC keeps jerking the Mad Men creators around with the budget and results in having a skip year where no new episodes of that show air at all?

I mean... you accurately point out that Mad Men was what started it all for AMC, giving it some respectability as a channel with a high-quality program... so if you were AMC... wouldn't you want that show to air every year and not skip a year because you screwed around? And if they wanted to make 16 episodes, would you pay them for 16 or would you force them to scale back to 13?



fudpucker said:


> Then they add another show. And another. And another. Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, The Killing, Hell on Wheels.


I might be wrong since I don't watch all of those... but isn't the Killing canceled? And isn't Breaking Bad on its final season when it comes back this year?

Any word on the next big thing from AMC to fill those slots after they get their new higher rates to invest in quality programming?

The only thing I've heard of... is I heard Robert Kirkman optioned another comic book of his (Thief of Thieves) to AMC for a TV series at some point, but I've heard nothing regarding when that show might air.



fudpucker said:


> This is a cable company that is creating extremely high quality shows that the networks and other channels would never carry.


I'm sure AMC has passed on programs too... so while its fair to note Mad Men was passed up by other networks before AMC took the risk... I wonder how many shows AMC has passed on might have been good?



fudpucker said:


> It's not Pawn Stars or Cajun Pawn or Pawn Queens or Storage Wars or Storage Hunters or We Love Storage, in the copycat way stations do these days.


So... how would you classify "Talking Dead" or "Comic Book Men"? I like Talking Dead, so I'm not slamming it... but it isn't a new concept is it?

Comic Book Men is exactly a "reality" show like Pawn Stars... it even does "challenges" like some of those shows... so before you slam the copycats, you might want to check AMC's other programming slots to see what they are doing the rest of the time 



fudpucker said:


> Me - I'm more interested in quality than how many people watch. If someone is more interested in how many people watch as an indicator of whether it should be carried, then we're doomed to some extremely crappy TV.


Umm... except the very network you are cheering for doesn't care if you like the show or not either! They only care about their ratings. AMC will cancel a show in a heartbeat if the ratings go down... no matter how good you or I think it is.

Ratings matter.

That's why anything stays on the air on commercial television. Lots of good shows pull poor ratings and get canceled while crap shows get strong ratings and stay... that's the unfortunate state of things.



fudpucker said:


> Sorry, I just don't agree with all of you making the ratings argument.


It doesn't matter whether you agree or not... the advertisers won't pay for commercial spots on a low-rated show... so AMC won't keep a low-rated show on the air. That's how TV works.

I've seen a lot of shows that I liked (Firefly, Dollhouse, Journeyman, Awake, Ringer, Tru Calling, etc.) get canceled after 1 or sometimes 1.5 seasons because of low ratings... even if there were lots of fans, just not enough to sustain the show.



strikes2k said:


> I pay for HBO a la carte because I like the quality and diversity of programming they offer. If AMC wants that type of subscriber they're more than welcome to ask DISH to carry their programming a la carte. As has been discussed repeatedly in this thread they don't want that because the number of people such as yourself who would subscribe wouldn't be enough to sustain their programming.


Exactly... Channels like AMC always have the option to be a la carte and name their price... but most of them know they make more money taking 25 cents from 10 million subscribers in a particular tier than they would asking $2-$5 a la carte.

The other thing that comes into play with a channel like AMC.. I only watch the Walking Dead... and it has 13 episodes... so if I could get AMC a la carte, I would sign up for about 3 months of the year to watch Walking Dead and then drop it again. I wouldn't keep AMC year round when I only watch Walking Dead (and Talking Dead that airs afterwards of course).

AMC knows it is less likely a person jumps up a tier for a couple of months then jumps down just for their channel... so they can depend on that revenue year round.


----------



## James Long

fudpucker said:


> They are not big enough to do it the way they would if they had NBC money. And I hoped to watch them continue on their journey.


NBC has their own way to mess things up ... so perhaps they would not be the best guiding light for AMC? 

AMC has caused its own problems with these shows ... they probably should find their way to better networks.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> NBC has their own way to mess things up ... so perhaps they would not be the best guiding light for AMC?
> 
> AMC has caused its own problems with these shows ... they probably should find their way to better networks.


Yep, AMC sure has made some mistakes with their wildly popular and successful shows.  You seem to have a lot of hatred towards them. You don't place any blame for this fiasco on Dish?


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Yep, AMC sure has made some mistakes with their wildly popular and successful shows.


Yes ... they don't have enough of them. One successful show at a time does not make a successful network. Several successful shows overlapping year round makes a successful network.

BTW: Do you watch any of them?


----------



## Hoosier205

phrelin said:


> :rant:
> Nobody informed about the history of the billionaire Dolan family operations, headed by family patriarch Charles Dolan, AMC Networks Chairman and Cablevision Chairman, would believe anything coming from AMC.


To be fair, the same could be said about Charlie and his band of merry men.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> Yes ... they don't have enough of them. One successful show at a time does not make a successful network. Several successful shows overlapping year round makes a successful network.
> 
> BTW: Do you watch any of them?


Yes. In 1920x1080 HD as a matter of fact.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Yes. In 1920x1080 HD as a matter of fact.


You watch all of AMC's top programming? I'm glad you still have the channel.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> You watch all of AMC's top programming?


Yes.

You never answered my question.


> You don't place any blame for this fiasco on Dish?


----------



## James Long

I credit DISH with making the decision to save $2.5 million per month (or more based on AMC's demand for an increase in payment) by not carrying this channel. Channel providers need to learn that just because their channels are carried today it does not guarantee that they will be carried regardless of future pricing.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Hoosier205... A serious question for you since you are defending AMC and think it is horrible for Dish to take them off the air because of all the award-winning programming.

Ok...

So... how do you explain why AMC argued with Mad Men to the point of skipping a whole year of production and airing of that award-winning show?

I would argue that it is monumentally more of a mistake for AMC to screw with their own golden goose like that than it was for Dish to let AMC take a hike.

Serious answer on that from you?

In case you are unaware, here are some snippets from an excellent article from March of 2011 regarding AMC putting the squeeze on Mad Men and why it wasn't on last year:

"_...the three-time Emmy Award-winning drama, will not return to television until sometime early next year, AMC confirmed on Tuesday, because of a deepening dispute with the show's creator, Matthew Weiner._"

"_...Mr. Weiner is bristling at the channel's proposal to shorten each episode by two minutes (to add commercial time) and to cut the cast budget (to save money)._"

"_Mr. Weiner would not talk about the specific proposals. But another person with knowledge of the negotiations said AMC had also demanded additional product placement in the episodes._"

"_Mr. Weiner has clashed with AMC in the past. Two years ago, during his last contract negotiation, the channel similarly tried to add two minutes of commercial time..._"

Full article *here*.

From that article... if anyone doesn't want you to watch your favorite shows, it kind of sounds like it is AMC that doesn't want you to watch! They want to slash the budget, air more commercials instead of show, and more product placement... all while demanding more money to carry the channel to air less of the show than ever before.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> I credit DISH with making the decision to save $2.5 million per month (or more based on AMC's demand for an increase in payment) by not carrying this channel. Channel providers need to learn that just because their channels are carried today it does not guarantee that they will be carried regardless of future pricing.


So...that's a no. You place no blame on Dish for what has happened. Got it.


----------



## maartena

satcrazy said:


> Will we ever find out what AT&T agreed to pay?
> 
> Would be interesting to know if they got better rates than than dish, and by how much.


Unlikely. Usually the terms will remain a secret, and for very good reasons:

1) The carrier doesn't want to let other media companies know what they are paying for a certain station, as those other media companies then know what to ask for if they have a similar station.

2) The media company doesn't want to let other carriers know what they are receiving for a certain station, because if they are getting a lot less then they really wanted because they e.g. lost another carrier already, they certainly don't want another carrier to come back with "you are getting X from company Y, we will never pay more then X".

If there is anything to be found out, it is percentages (e.g. "they are asking for 300% more") or the price they STARTED out with negotiating. (e.g. "we are asking for X per subscriber and we think this is a fair price") - Usually during the "mudslinging" part of the negotiations, that start about 2 weeks to a week before the contract ends, and is usually initiated by the media companies.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> So...that's a no. You place no blame on Dish for what has happened. Got it.


There is a good chance that DirecTV could be blamed for AMC leaving DISH. It all depends on what deal DirecTV agreed to. If DirecTV paid too much for AMC it would raise AMC's expectations as to what AMC would get from DISH. There may also be a contractual agreement with DirecTV where AMC would not be allowed to give DISH a better deal (most favored nation agreements). Which means even if AMC wanted to accept their old rate they may be contractually obligated to refuse.

There are so many factors involved in negotiations. AMC is the only player in all of the negotiations (with DirecTV, DISH and AT&T). If they signed a "most favored nation" type of deal with DirecTV and accept a lower payment from DISH then DirecTV could get their rate reduced. I suppose that is the only way this would affect you ... although I doubt DirecTV saving money would reduce your bill any more than DISH saving money reduces mine.


----------



## Hoosier205

Stewart Vernon said:


> Hoosier205... A serious question for you since you are defending AMC and think it is horrible for Dish to take them off the air because of all the award-winning programming.
> 
> Ok...
> 
> So... how do you explain why AMC argued with Mad Men to the point of skipping a whole year of production and airing of that award-winning show?
> 
> I would argue that it is monumentally more of a mistake for AMC to screw with their own golden goose like that than it was for Dish to let AMC take a hike.
> 
> Serious answer on that from you?


Now you are just putting words in my mouth. 

Now, as your question...what? Apples to oranges. What in world does that have to do with this topic? I have no idea why there was a disagreement between the show creators and the network. Nor do I have any idea how that corresponds to a disagreement with Dish.

What I do see is a whole lot of assumptions being made by some. I see some folks who assume they know what the terms of the previous deal were, what any proposed deal might have been, and the true financial impact on either party.


----------



## K E Will

Im getting lots of input reading this forum guess I am just hopeing for things to work out between the two parties AMC was the only network to offer the Walking Dead a chance .....How many other channels would have the blood and gore on their networks ..So AMC gives a lot of creative leeway that is part of what makes the channel so fun for me to watch havnt had so much interest in a show since Lost got that series on DVD'S so i can see them when I want now.....got season One of the walking dead on DVD also even though i got all 13 of the second season recorded of Walking dead will get the season two package when it comes out in Aug. 

If there is negotiating takeing place it should be setteled in a month or so I will stick with Dish that long at least..but If it looks like I will miss Oct when Walking dead comes on again I will close out my account with Dish . but I hope the negotiations dont take that long for a settelment


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> There is a good chance that DirecTV could be blamed for AMC leaving DISH.


:lol:

So now you've gone from assigning absolutely no blame whatsoever to Dish...to blaming DirecTV?


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Apples to oranges. What in world does that have to do with this topic? I have no idea why there was a disagreement between the show creators and the network. Nor do I have any idea how that corresponds to a disagreement with Dish.


If the preceeding 1300+ posts are not educational enough here is one more summary of the situation:

AMC wants more money to allow people to view their shows but wants to invest less money in producing those shows. They expect to double or triple rates - everyone else pays more - while cutting back on their costs - they pay less.

If AMC was the hero here they would be willing to invest MORE money in their programming, not less.



> What I do see is a whole lot of assumptions being made by some. I see some folks who assume they know what the terms of the previous deal were, what any proposed deal might have been, and the true financial impact on either party.


Some have been paying attention to this for the past several months and are better at gleaning information.



Hoosier205 said:


> So now you've gone from assigning absolutely no blame whatsoever to Dish...to blaming DirecTV?


I keep an open mind. Things are not always as cut and dried as it may seem.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> If the preceeding 1300+ posts are not educational enough here is one more summary of the situation:
> 
> AMC wants more money to allow people to view their shows but wants to invest less money in producing those shows. They expect to double or triple rates - everyone else pays more - while cutting back on their costs - they pay less.
> 
> If AMC was the hero here they would be willing to invest MORE money in their programming, not less.
> *
> Some have been paying attention to this for the past several months and are better at gleaning information.*


That may be your opinion, but does not make it so. We have folks who assume they know what the terms of the previous deal were, what any proposed deal might have been, and the true financial impact on either party.

Who said AMC was the hero? Again, your are assigning all the blame to AMC and none of it to Dish Network.


----------



## K E Will

Yes I think AMC messed over Frank the creator of the Movie Green Mile and Shawshank redemtion who started the walking Dead tv show with Robert Kirkman they strongarmed them into doing episodes with less money but I still am also blameing Dish also for strongarming AMC over the price of their carrige fee I think if AMC had the money they would have many new shows cause AMC is bringing shows of diversity and I think they would have more if given the chance....in other words more money from Dish they they can increase the budgets of shows they have on the air and have new ones


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Who said AMC was the hero? Again, your are assigning all the blame to AMC and none of it to Dish Network.


That is your opinion. For a person who complained about having words put into your mouth a few posts back you certainly have no problem putting words in other's mouths.

I suggest that anyone reading this thread rely on MY posts to determine what I said and my opinions. The interpretation of my posts by Hoosier205 is not to be trusted.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> That is your opinion. For a person who complained about having words put into your mouth a few posts back you certainly have no problem putting words in other's mouths.
> 
> I suggest that anyone reading this thread rely on MY posts to determine what I said and my opinions. The interpretation of my posts by Hoosier205 is not to be trusted.


Which of course is false, as I gave you two opportunities to assign less than all of the blame to AMC and you declined. How many more pages will go by before you suggest that Dish is at fault in any way? So far you've only blamed AMC and...now this is the funny part...DirecTV. Can Dish do no wrong in your eyes?


----------



## James Long

I don't have to assign blame to DISH ... there are plenty of non-DISH subscribers around to do that. 

Are you willing to accept that AMC should receive at least some of the blame for this situation? What percentage?


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> Are you willing to accept that AMC should receive at least some of the blame for this situation? What percentage?


Of course! Good lord...who wouldn't? (besides you it would seem) I never suggested that AMC was without fault or worthy of blame. I have no idea what percentage. Both have a rocky retransmission agreement history with various other providers.


----------



## tampa8

I placed blame with Dish from the beginning for making it so public, talking about the quality of programming, or lack there of, etc... You can't deny their handling of this is influenced by the VOOM lawsuit.

But that doesn't change the essence of the dispute itself. AMC is not in the league of USA or TNT but are looking to be thought of that way, specifically monetarily. In addition, they insist on all their channels being carried if AMC is. Based on past DISH negotiations, I have no doubt the outcome would have been the same without the VOOM lawsuit, just not as much comment from DISH. 
I of course have no proof, but I am guessing based on remarks made by DISH that they offered to talk about increases in fees to AMC if DISH did not have to carry some or all of the other non watched by almost anybody channels. I think that's where AMC is saying DISH would not negotiate. Once AMC refused to let DISH carry just AMC, or maybe with one other channel (probably WE) indeed Dish said we can't talk the money you want for AMC and have us carry those channels, and it was at that point Dish would not go any farther.
You can't come out like AMC did and proclaim they should be getting 200% more, even if they are not trying to get all of it in one year, and not raise eyebrows by DISH, and hopefully other carriers. The implications of AMC going for that kind of increases is huge when you add up other channels that will want the same, especially those that are much more watched.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Both have a rocky retransmission agreement history with various other providers.


If a company has not had retransmission disagreements they are not really trying.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> If a company has not had retransmission disagreements they are not really trying.


How about answering a different version of your own question?

Are you willing to accept that DISH should receive at least some of the blame for this situation? What percentage?


----------



## SayWhat?

Hoosier205 said:


> You don't place any blame for this fiasco on Dish?


What fiasco?

I don't consider a couple of channels getting dropped to be a 'fiasco' if that's what you're referring to.


----------



## SayWhat?

Hoosier205 said:


> Are you willing to accept that DISH should receive at least some of the blame for this situation?


I say no.


----------



## Hoosier205

SayWhat? said:


> What fiasco?
> 
> I don't consider a couple of channels getting dropped to be a 'fiasco' if that's what you're referring to.


...really? A content provider and a service provider failing to come to terms on the renewal of a retrans agreement, removing the channels, and engaging in a public spat...that isn't a fiasco? Umm...okay.

Just to be clear: Coming to terms was the goal and both failed. That they did so in such spectacular fashion is a fiasco.


----------



## Hoosier205

SayWhat? said:


> I say no.


:lol: Based on what exactly?


----------



## SayWhat?

Hoosier205 said:


> Coming to terms was the goal and both failed.


AMC/Rainbow failed to be reasonable. It's just that simple.


----------



## Hoosier205

SayWhat? said:


> AMC/Rainbow failed to be reasonable. It's just that simple.


Again, based on what exactly? You don't know exactly what was being offered by either party. Dish also pulled the channels and walked away. How can you say who was being more unreasonable?


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> How about answering a different version of your own question?
> 
> Are you willing to accept that DISH should receive at least some of the blame for this situation? What percentage?


Well that depends ...
Are you seeking a specific "sound bite" that you can quote me on? I believe I have already made my opinion clear.

And before we go about assigning "blame" perhaps we should discuss if DISH not renewing carriage of AMC (and the sister stations) is a mistake. One does not assign blame when credit is due. If a provider presents a renewal deal that should not be accepted the right thing to do is not accept the deal.

Perhaps we should assign AMC credit for getting their channel removed from 15% of their distribution households? Although that doesn't sound like something a channel would want credit for. One can give credit for a cost savings (I can get bonus pay for cost savings at work). It is harder to assign credit for millions of lost households.

Not having AMC will not cost DISH millions of households. But it will save them millions of dollars. Is that a bad thing?

Sometimes a carrier has to decide not to renew a channel. It isn't always a bad thing.



Hoosier205 said:


> Dish also pulled the channels and walked away.


DISH cannot legally carry the channels without a contract. What do you want them to do? Keep carrying channels without a contract and be pulled into court over it? When there is no contract there is no carriage. AMC did not want to be carried under DISH's terms, DISH did not want to carry AMC under AMC's terms. The carriage ended.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> Well that depends ...
> Are you seeking a specific "sound bite" that you can quote me on? I believe I have already made my opinion clear.
> 
> And before we go about assigning "blame" perhaps we should discuss if DISH not renewing carriage of AMC (and the sister stations) is a mistake. One does not assign blame when credit is due. If a provider presents a renewal deal that should not be accepted the right thing to do is not accept the deal.
> 
> Perhaps we should assign AMC credit for getting their channel removed from 15% of their distribution households? Although that doesn't sound like something a channel would want credit for. One can give credit for a cost savings (I can get bonus pay for cost savings at work). It is harder to assign credit for millions of lost households.
> 
> Not having AMC will not cost DISH millions of households. But it will save them millions of dollars. Is that a bad thing?
> 
> Sometimes a carrier has to decide not to renew a channel. It isn't always a bad thing.


So, once again your answer is no. Just say that instead of trying to dance around it. Dish is the hero and AMC is entirely to blame in your eyes. That's the third chance you had to admit that at least some blame can be assigned to Dish.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> So, once again your answer is no.


Once again my answer is what I wrote, not what Hoosier205 claims it to be.


----------



## jdskycaster

Dish is my hero.


----------



## jdskycaster

And now I am off to hop over some commercials!!


----------



## satcrazy

Now, as your question...what? Apples to oranges. What in world does that have to do with this topic? I have no idea why there was a disagreement between the show creators and the network

See post #1326

SV gave you some insight.


----------



## Inkosaurus

Hoosier205 said:


> So, once again your answer is no. Just say that instead of trying to dance around it. Dish is the hero and AMC is entirely to blame in your eyes. That's the third chance you had to admit that at least some blame can be assigned to Dish.


Why should he have to admit to something hes already been on record saying MULTIPLE times in the course of this thread.

If you have actually read this thread you would see that stewart and james have pretty much been the only ones laying down the facts from both sides of the fiasco.

Lrn2Rd.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> Once again my answer is what I wrote, not what Hoosier205 claims it to be.


Which was blah blah blah no blah blah blah.


----------



## satcrazy

Hoosier205 said:


> Which was blah blah blah no blah blah blah.


consider changing your avatar


----------



## Hoosier205

Haha...moving on now. If someone had assigned any amount of blame to Dish before...they'd have no trouble doing so again. Charlie has a long line at the chopping block.


----------



## Inkosaurus

Hoosier205 said:


> Haha...moving on now. If someone had assigned any amount of blame to Dish before...they'd have no trouble doing so again. Charlie has a long line at the chopping block.


Unless there getting tired of someone twisting there every word around


----------



## Hoosier205

"Inkosaurus" said:


> Unless there getting tired of someone twisting there every word around


If by that you mean giving them three opportunities.


----------



## strikes2k

Hoosier205 said:


> How about answering a different version of your own question?
> 
> Are you willing to accept that DISH should receive at least some of the blame for this situation? What percentage?


So why doesn't AMC just ask that DISH carry their channels A La Carte? I'm sure DISH would be open to that. It doesn't require them to subsidize the channels with people who don't watch AMC's money. Seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## maartena

SayWhat? said:


> AMC/Rainbow failed to be reasonable. It's just that simple.


Since none of us has details of what was discussed - if anything - between Dish and AMC, it is hard to place any blame.

In general, I side with the carrier, whether it is Dish, DirecTV, U-verse, FIOS, Cable or whatever.... as it has been very clear that media companies have been asking way too much in recent years.

IF Dish (which we don't know) would have said: "We will pay the same amount we previously paid, take it or leave it", I would applaud Dish. If not someone stands up against media companies, nobody will. And yes, that goes for DirecTV as well. As a matter of fact, although the size of the station is considerably smaller (and without "award winning" programming), DirecTV did something VERY similar: They dropped G4 for pretty much the same reasons Dish is giving for AMC: Not worth the asking price.

As for Dish: They promised not to raise the prices in 2012, and they didn't. Where virtually every other provider did. Dropping AMC might just be the victim of that.


----------



## Rduce

As Oscar Wilde once said, “The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.” or if you prefer, the P.T. Barnum axiom, “There is no such thing as bad publicity.” Both of these statements are pretty much spot on by most things that Dish seems to shine at. 

You want to look the part of the rebel alliance you take on the Big 4 Networks over there never ending commercials. You want to look fiscally responsible you then tell another Network with a couple of semi-popular programs. (Sorry fans, but when your program does not beat Ice Road Truckers, it just isn’t that popular) to go screw themselves. 

Dish gets a great deal of press for free and a reputation as hard-nosed negotiators, which sends the message for every other Podunk, Peanut Wagon outfit with a contract coming due, “You’re Next!”


----------



## phrelin

strikes2k said:


> So why doesn't AMC just ask that DISH carry their channels A La Carte? I'm sure DISH would be open to that. It doesn't require them to subsidize the channels with people who don't watch AMC's money. Seems pretty simple to me.


I'm sure Dish would say yes.

As I've said before here's an approximation of what I believe happened:


> _Setting the scene_: The subject is a renewal of retransmission agreement between Dish Network and AMC Networks which would allow Dish to carry AMC, IFC, WE, and Sundance. The dispute is between billionaires Charles Ergen of Dish and Charles Dolan of AMC Networks (previously known as Rainbow Media). Ergen believes Dolan swindled him out of money on the Voom deal. Dolan knows that. Nonetheless....
> 
> Dolan enters the room and in all seriousness says: "Our contract is up at the end of June. We demand a humongous retransmission fee increase."
> 
> Ergen responds without elaboration: "No."
> 
> Everyone leaves the room.
> 
> Dolan says to viewers Ergen won't negotiate.
> 
> Not seeing in the daily mail from Dolan any proposal for a one year contract renewal at the same price or some other reasonable variation such as a slight increase for AMC and drop all the other channels, Ergen prepares to take down all the AMC Networks channels as required by law and warn all the old customers and remove the channels from the list so no new customers will be misled.
> 
> Dolan says to viewers Ergen won't negotiate.
> 
> Ergen takes down all the AMC Networks channels as required by law.
> 
> Dolan says to viewers Ergen won't negotiate.


A bunch of people think that Ergen's response is wrong.

I and others think Dolan's demand was outrageous and Ergen's methodical approach giving Dolan time to propose a reasonable contract was in the best interest of the future of retransmission fee negotiations.

And that is in the best interest of viewers around the country, including Dish customers most of whom can stream episodes the day after they air of all five of the "really good" AMC shows for a fee. Those who can't stream the shows will have to wait for the season to come out on DVD. And if AMC changes the streaming access then we will have a very clear picture of who is the greedy thief.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I feel like we've had some circular posting and some I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I posts as well as some baiting posts lately. I feel like the cereal commercial...

The moderator in me says cut out the attacks and baiting and trolling posts that are not adding to the conversation.

The kid in me says... I've maintained all along that I support Dish BUT that I thought it was a cheap move for Dish to relocate the AMC channels in those last few weeks. I get what Dish was trying to prove (how long it took people to notice the channels had moved)... but it was a cheap trick to play on their customers.

So, does Dish have blame? Sure. Unless you are doing some weird kind of new solo Tango... it does take TWO to tango... and Dish mis-stepped with the channel number changing in my opinion.

I'm sure Dish had the Voom suit in the back of their mind, but I'm also sure AMC did too. For AMC to fire that out of the gates as the "real reason" is just baldface lying to their "fans" and trying to stir things up. IF AMC had put half the effort into negotiating that they put into the "Dish sucks" Web site, maybe the channels wouldn't have gone dark?

AMC also had a dispute with AT&T, though it was solved in the eleventh hour... but AMC had a dispute with AT&T 2 years ago as well! So... AMC is developing a pattern of asking for more at a rate that the providers are not willing to bite.

Simultaneously, we have too many stories about how AMC is treating their creators of the award-winning shows... so if I were working on Walking Dead or Mad Men I would be ticked off to see AMC using my show as a flag for "pay us more money because we spend it on quality programming" when *I* know that simply is not the truth, because AMC is squeezing at both ends.

AMC is making more profit now than they have in years... and while asking more for their commercials, selling overnight paid-advertising instead of airing "quality programs", asking for ad-placement in shows they buy (like Mad Men)... they are paying less to the creators of those shows and asking Dish to pay more for the right to have the channel.

What's wrong with that picture?

AMC tried to use the "look what we have" argument... but they only have a handful of shows, shows that AMC keeps trying to penny-pinch and sell more commercials. Heck, the people in the commercial-skip thread should all be on Dish's side vs AMC given that position alone!

We don't know all the info... we never know all the info... but AMC has, in my opinion, made many more mis-steps and poor decisions in all of this than has Dish.

And while Dish may or may not lose some customers over this... AMC has definitely lost 10 million or so times ~25 cents per month, and may lose more when their advertisers want to pay less for the known lower viewership.

AMC needs Dish more than Dish needs AMC.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> AMC tried to use the "look what we have" argument...


.... and Dish did.


----------



## dakeeney

phrelin said:


> I'm sure Dish would say yes.
> 
> As I've said before here's an approximation of what I believe happened:A bunch of people think that Ergen's response is wrong.
> 
> I and others think Dolan's demand was outrageous and Ergen's methodical approach giving Dolan time to propose a reasonable contract was in the best interest of the future of retransmission fee negotiations.
> 
> And that is in the best interest of viewers around the country, including Dish customers most of whom can stream episodes the day after they air of all five of the "really good" AMC shows for a fee. Those who can't stream the shows will have to wait for the season to come out on DVD. And if AMC changes the streaming access then we will have a very clear picture of who is the greedy thief.


:contract: I watched Sundance channel all of never, IFC just for the Three Stooges and AMC for Mad Men, Hell on Wheels, and The Walkind Dead. Will I cry because they're gon....NO. Charlie is probably justifiied in saying the AMC networks are not worth the Price AMC is asking.


----------



## dunkonu23

The end result is this and it's what both parties should really balance in negotiations: Who gets hurt? 

In my case, my wife and I. We'll have to stream TWD and pay. Who wins that one? AMC. I don't know if Talking Dead is streamable, but we've found that program to be funny. So we lost two. 

If I'm hurt, I get fixed. In this case, it's not an empty threat to write that I will drop Dish and go elsewhere at the end of my two-year contract. Analyze it all you want, but this is the bottom line. 

Both are hurting viewers and both need to be spanked.

Scott


----------



## StringFellow

"dakeeney" said:


> :contract: I watched Sundance channel all of never, IFC just for the Three Stooges and AMC for Mad Men, Hell on Wheels, and The Walkind Dead. Will I cry because they're gon....NO. Charlie is probably justifiied in saying the AMC networks are not worth the Price AMC is asking.


100% agreed. AMC is selling a service to Dish and Dish didn't feel the cost justified the service provided by AMC.

The funny part is that 99% of the posts reference AMC with no real interest in the other channels. My these less watched channels were the deal breaker for Dish.


----------



## StringFellow

"dunkonu23" said:


> The end result is this and it's what both parties should really balance in negotiations: Who gets hurt?
> 
> In my case, my wife and I. We'll have to stream TWD and pay. Who wins that one? AMC. I don't know if Talking Dead is streamable, but we've found that program to be funny. So we lost two.
> 
> If I'm hurt, I get fixed. In this case, it's not an empty threat to write that I will drop Dish and go elsewhere at the end of my two-year contract. Analyze it all you want, but this is the bottom line.
> 
> Both are hurting viewers and both need to be spanked.
> 
> Scott


And do you really think other providers will never drop channels? If providers like Dish don't take a stand on high priced programming, you TV bill will spiral out of control. And I bet you would be the first to complain if your bill goes up!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

StringFellow said:


> The funny part is that 99% of the posts reference AMC with no real interest in the other channels. My these less watched channels were the deal breaker for Dish.


Yep. We've noted that before. AMC, IFC, WeTV, and Sundance were all dropped by Dish. People forget that we aren't just talking about AMC... but all four channels in their "suite"...

Would AMC go a la carte? Probably not, but we don't know for sure if that came up. We do know Charlie has publicly said in other disputes that he offered that as an option.

Would AMC have negotiated for just AMC and let Dish drop the other 3 channels? Doubtful. Companies, and especially those with the history AMC/Rainbow has, typically are "all or nothing" negotiations...

So while touting their "award-winning" programming... they fail to mention how that's pretty much it... nothing else left to brag about on 4 total channels... and many of them go into infomercial mode overnight instead of showing that high-quality award-winning programming that they want you to pay for.


----------



## satcrazy

maartena said:


> Since none of us has details of what was discussed - if anything - between Dish and AMC, it is hard to place any blame.
> 
> In general, I side with the carrier, whether it is Dish, DirecTV, U-verse, FIOS, Cable or whatever.... as it has been very clear that media companies have been asking way too much in recent years.
> 
> IF Dish (which we don't know) would have said: "We will pay the same amount we previously paid, take it or leave it", I would applaud Dish. If not someone stands up against media companies, nobody will. And yes, that goes for DirecTV as well. As a matter of fact, although the size of the station is considerably smaller (and without "award winning" programming), DirecTV did something VERY similar: They dropped G4 for pretty much the same reasons Dish is giving for AMC: Not worth the asking price.
> 
> As for Dish: They promised not to raise the prices in 2012, and they didn't. Where virtually every other provider did. Dropping AMC might just be the victim of that.


pretty much have to agree with this post.

Companies are trying to squeeze out every dime they can for their "profit margin". While I know this is the American way, God bless the US, etc,etc, I realy think most consumers have had enough. I say most because some are fortunate enough to be in a position to pick and choose without consideration to cost.
I am not one of those fortunate sons. I have a budget to work with, and have to make decisions every month to balance that budget. If it means cutting something out to keep something else, so be it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

A curious development perhaps...

The keepamc.com Web site no longer has the link to the "real reason" stuff on it anymore. I wonder why AMC would take that down now? I mean, if it was the "real reason" then wouldn't it still be the "real reason"?

Could it be, perhaps, that AMC realized they were stepping on their own toes and keeping Dish away from the negotiating table by that whole "real reason" business?

They also have a bunch of emails on their Web site from "angry Dish customers"... curiously they are all pro-AMC... which is interesting, since if you go to their Facebook page they definitely have received some pro-Dish comments... Why wouldn't AMC also post those emails?

IF you just read the AMC page, you would think it was all one-sided pro-AMC.

The spin continues.


----------



## lparsons21

I think that AMC has bought into the current corporate thinking of providing less for more!

they want a rate increase, yet provided less Mad Men, and are breaking the last season of Breaking Bad into two parts, and of course it also appears that The Killing has seen its last too. So that leaves Walking Dead and Hell on Wheels as the only fairly sure things going forward.

Kind of like the can of tuna you get in the store, was always 6.25oz now it is 5oz and the price is much higher. Not to mention that every tuna recipe uses a can of tuna and so now you need to buy multiple cans to get the same flavor.

As I said, less for more!


----------



## SayWhat?

lparsons21 said:


> Kind of like the can of tuna you get in the store, was always 6.25oz now it is 5oz and the price is much higher. Not to mention that every tuna recipe uses a can of tuna and so now you need to buy multiple cans to get the same flavor.


Doesn't even taste the same anymore either.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

lparsons21 said:


> I think that AMC has bought into the current corporate thinking of providing less for more!
> 
> they want a rate increase, yet provided less Mad Men, and are breaking the last season of Breaking Bad into two parts, and of course it also appears that The Killing has seen its last too. So that leaves Walking Dead and Hell on Wheels as the only fairly sure things going forward.


Yep... and going back to James' sports analogy...

IT would be like IF the Miami Heat announced that since winning the championship, that Dwayne Wade was retiring and they were going to trade Chris Bosh, and were going to cut LeBron James' salary... but then were going to double ticket prices for home games next season.

That wouldn't make any sense would it?


----------



## Inkosaurus

SayWhat? said:


> Doesn't even taste the same anymore either.


No more dolphin in that tuna :<


----------



## dunkonu23

StringFellow said:


> And do you really think other providers will never drop channels? If providers like Dish don't take a stand on high priced programming, you TV bill will spiral out of control. And I bet you would be the first to complain if your bill goes up!


Dish dropped a channel my wife and I watch, so your statement about other providers dropping a channel has no basis in logic. Your statement about complaining about pricing is an assumption with no basis in fact. The amount of my bill is of no concern to you or anyone else. I do understand what you are trying to write, however it does not change the fact that you make assumptions about my behavior with no supporting evidence or knowledge about me.

Scott


----------



## Inkosaurus

dunkonu23 said:


> Dish dropped a channel my wife and I watch, so your statement about other providers dropping a channel has no basis in logic. Your statement about complaining about pricing is an assumption with no basis in fact. The amount of my bill is of no concern to you or anyone else. I do understand what you are trying to write, however it does not change the fact that you make assumptions about my behavior with no supporting evidence or knowledge about me.
> 
> Scott


You completely missed the point and obviously dont understand the point he was alluding too.


----------



## dunkonu23

Inkosaurus said:


> You completely missed the point and obviously dont understand the point he was alluding too.


Unfortunately, I do understand as I stated, but I don't think his point makes any sense given that I am not currently on another service and will not be on any other service until my Hopper contract expires. As such, any past behavior of another service does not affect me now and will not affect me until my contract expires. At that time, if Dish has not reinstated AMC--at whatever cost, it does not affect me, either as I can afford rate increases--I will drop Dish and move on.

I had hoped I would not have to spell this out, obviously.

Scott


----------



## fudpucker

StringFellow said:


> And do you really think other providers will never drop channels? If providers like Dish don't take a stand on high priced programming, you TV bill will spiral out of control.
> And I bet you would be the first to complain if your bill goes up!


Actually, my bill did go up in the last couple of months. No change in programming. It was only a dollar (but that's more than AMC is asking for.)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Throwing something else on the fire...

Those of us who took Dish's side noted that IF Dish caved to AMC, then other channels might ask for more and it could snowball... People defending AMC liked to say "just because Dish gives AMC more money doesn't mean others will ask or Dish has to pay"...

So, let's take a look at the flip side of what has happened...

Dish gave somebody some credits and a Roku... word got out, and then everybody and their brother starts calling Dish and asking for credits and a Roku.

See the pattern?

Dish caves on something, and people come out of the woodwork to get theirs.

You can believe that if Dish caved to AMC's demands... the other channels would line up to get theirs too.

That's the nature of people.


----------



## jdskycaster

Actually in my case Dish reached out to me and offered the remedy. I received the device today and now finally have the ability to stream content I already was paying for through my Prime membership. I am so impressed so far that I will be cancelling Netflix for good as the programs available have been anemic at best.

The downside for Dish is this device opens up an avenue for those thinking about cutting the cord completely to do so. The Roku combined with a couple of streaming services like Amazon, Hulu and Playon provides easy access to a ton of content for a very low cost of entry. I am not ready to go there yet but this device paired with my 3 tuner media center as a DVR for OTA HD locals and I am getting much closer than I was previously.


----------



## alysenlynn

Well, after 10 yrs we are switching to Directv. Basically we only watch a few channels and one of those is AMC which we have paid dearly for at the top tier for many years. We also do enjoy IFC from time to time. 

In any case, the free Roku player or $10.00 off my bill wasn't enough for me to stay. Especially when they did not directly answer any of my calls about this prior to dropping them and were fairly rude when I called on 07/01 to see what was up. I am one of those customers that was even willing to pay for the channels at a premium price. 

Directv is here installing today. I'll get my AMC, HBO and Showtime at 1/2 what I was paying Dish for the next 2 years at least since AMC is on their lowest tier.


----------



## Santi360HD

alysenlynn said:


> Well, after 10 yrs we are switching to Directv. Basically we only watch a few channels and one of those is AMC which we have paid dearly for at the top tier for many years. We also do enjoy IFC from time to time.
> 
> In any case, the free Roku player or $10.00 off my bill wasn't enough for me to stay. Especially when they did not directly answer any of my calls about this prior to dropping them and were fairly rude when I called on 07/01 to see what was up. I am one of those customers that was even willing to pay for the channels at a premium price.
> 
> Directv is here installing today. I'll get my AMC, HBO and Showtime at 1/2 what I was paying Dish for the next 2 years at least since AMC is on their lowest tier.


congrats on the switch..and good luck going fwd..Ifc isnt in HD on Directv, but like myself you tend to enjoy whats available however its made available..


----------



## maartena

StringFellow said:


> 100% agreed. AMC is selling a service to Dish and Dish didn't feel the cost justified the service provided by AMC.
> 
> The funny part is that 99% of the posts reference AMC with no real interest in the other channels. My these less watched channels were the deal breaker for Dish.


You have a good point.... I rarely ever watch IFC and Sundance. WeTV is not a channel I would ever watch, but I think my wife watches it occasionally.

AMC, however, we watch. Currently its only really Mad Men we watch, but there are quite a few popular shows on this channel. I can see how Dish has looked at the "package price", as they usually (almost always) negotiate a deal for all channels, and concluded that it wasn't worth the extra 3 channels that do not get a lot of viewers.

Also, it might just be that AMC said: Price for AMC = xx, and we'll throw in the other three for free. - With of course "xx" being a price that covers all 4.


----------



## K E Will

Found out that AMC was getting around 40 cents per subscriber and was asking for around 75 cents acording to the news on the net had heard of estimated numbbers befor so the hush hush stuff is being leaked just like any other secret info it seems to get leaked out. 

And acording to AMC there was never a money offer so it does seem to be a grudge match..

so I am still holding out befor switching to Direct TV these things have a way of being fixed


----------



## DoyleS

Obviously with 56 page of posts on this thread, it is a lot to read but those numbers have been talked about since pretty close to the beginning of this thread in May. The likelyhood of any short term reprieve with AMC is pretty slim. If you really need AMC then you might want to see what deals are offered by others. July 15 is this seasons start of Breaking Bad and Hell on Wheels starts in August.


----------



## lparsons21

K E Will said:


> Found out that AMC was getting around 40 cents per subscriber and was asking for around 75 cents acording to the news on the net had heard of estimated numbbers befor so the hush hush stuff is being leaked just like any other secret info it seems to get leaked out.
> 
> And acording to AMC there was never a money offer so it does seem to be a grudge match..
> 
> so I am still holding out befor switching to Direct TV these things have a way of being fixed


Other numbers are $.25 now and wanting $.75, depends on whose numbers you read and how much you are willing to believe them. Neither side is going to give you the straight poop on that.

And AMC says lots of things, some of it might be true, but I doubt it.

Right now if I was AMC facing the loss of $25M/month, I'd be wondering what my lifespan might be. And when D*'s contract comes up, I doubt that D* will sit still for a 200% increase either.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

lparsons21 said:


> Right now if I was AMC facing the loss of $25M/month, I'd be wondering what my lifespan might be. And when D*'s contract comes up, I doubt that D* will sit still for a 200% increase either.


Your last sentence is KEY...

AT&T is a small piece of the pie... various cable companies are other pieces of the pie. AMC has lost Dish.

When DirecTV negotiations come up... DirecTV is in the catbird seat! AMC couldn't afford to lose Dish and DirecTV... DirecTV will be able to control the price, thanks to Dish... then once that happens... maybe Dish comes back to the table and says "give us what DirecTV agreed to or stay off the air."


----------



## inkahauts

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> Your last sentence is KEY...
> 
> AT&T is a small piece of the pie... various cable companies are other pieces of the pie. AMC has lost Dish.
> 
> When DirecTV negotiations come up... DirecTV is in the catbird seat! AMC couldn't afford to lose Dish and DirecTV... DirecTV will be able to control the price, thanks to Dish... then once that happens... maybe Dish comes back to the table and says "give us what DirecTV agreed to or stay off the air."


Since dtv got amc Hi Definition last year, I wouldn't be surprised if they have a contract that's good for another year or two at least, so it's entirely possible that Comcast may be the next big player up to bat. I think it's really between these three to knock amc down to a realistic price, if that really is the issue, and then after that we might see if there was other motives from dish to drop amc.

If amc where to lose dish, dtv and Comcast, then i agree with you, they would be screwed.


----------



## Inkosaurus

What I find very interesting is the current script Dish Employees are being told to say regarding the take down ;



> *We are open to a creative proposal* from AMC Networks that would resolve this situation, but at this point it looks like the channels will be down permanently.


Quoting a DIRT member there, but I was also told the same thing over the phone and my buddy who still works at Dish said that is indeed word for word the script used for every situation regarding amc over the phones.

Now you can take what I say here with a grain of salt, but when I worked at Dish we were never given any scripts remotely similar to that atleast in the intro part. Even when FX, FSN and Natgeo went dark we were never told to mention "we are open to a creative proposal ".

Our scripts available quite frankly only stated the obvious "X station wanted X% increase" and so on.
So I find it peculiar they decided to change it up for AMC, It makes me wonder what happened for them to bring that up in the script. My first guess is Dish probably offered Rainbow A la cart options at the negotiation table that everyone is pretending never happened.


----------



## Leadfoot

I have not read this entire thread, but I think I have read enough. One thing I have seen here is that some believe that Dish moved AMC's channels to see how long it would take for customers to notice. It would not surprise me if that is true. I am one that did not notice until after I read about it somewhere. Still, it was kind of a crappy thing to do to customers.

Having said that... IMO AMC's behavior though out this process has been very unprofessional. Regardless of what any of us believe happened during the initial negotiations, when they didn't get what they wanted they involved us by trying to get us to call and/or e-mail Dish to demand that they keep AMC. Now they are encouraging us to drop Dish and switch to other providers. 

I used to have The Walking Dead's page 'liked' on FB. I changed that yesterday because they are now putting up 3 - 4 status updates everyday. Before last week they maybe put up 1 or 2 in a week's time. I am forced to conclude that their main reason for this is to remind Dish customers of what we have lost. Lots of whining and complaining going on there. I just got tired of it taking up space on my page.

This is not the kind of thing I would expect from a company that would prefer to sell their services and get several million $ from Dish. Sounds to me like they have very inflated egos and that they believe they are in the driver's seat. I think they are shooting themselves in the foot.

In any case, I have been with Dish for 6 years. They have always been very good to me with service and upgrades. CS has always been helpful and polite. I may not be too happy about having to find another way to watch TWD, but I do applaud Dish for standing their ground on this. Come October I will choose another way to get TWD, and I won't miss AMC in the process.

BTW, I did not know that this site existed until yesterday. Very impressive.


----------



## Jhon69

Leadfoot said:


> I have not read this entire thread, but I think I have read enough. One thing I have seen here is that some believe that Dish moved AMC's channels to see how long it would take for customers to notice. It would not surprise me if that is true. I am one that did not notice until after I read about it somewhere. Still, it was kind of a crappy thing to do to customers.
> 
> Having said that... IMO AMC's behavior though out this process has been very unprofessional. Regardless of what any of us believe happened during the initial negotiations, when they didn't get what they wanted they involved us by trying to get us to call and/or e-mail Dish to demand that they keep AMC. Now they are encouraging us to drop Dish and switch to other providers.
> 
> I used to have The Walking Dead's page 'liked' on FB. I changed that yesterday because they are now putting up 3 - 4 status updates everyday. Before last week they maybe put up 1 or 2 in a week's time. I am forced to conclude that their main reason for this is to remind Dish customers of what we have lost. Lots of whining and complaining going on there. I just got tired of it taking up space on my page.
> 
> This is not the kind of thing I would expect from a company that would prefer to sell their services and get several million $ from Dish. Sounds to me like they have very inflated egos and that they believe they are in the driver's seat. I think they are shooting themselves in the foot.
> 
> In any case, I have been with Dish for 6 years. They have always been very good to me with service and upgrades. CS has always been helpful and polite. I may not be too happy about having to find another way to watch TWD, but I do applaud Dish for standing their ground on this. Come October I will choose another way to get TWD, and I won't miss AMC in the process.
> 
> BTW, I did not know that this site existed until yesterday. Very impressive.


Welcome to the DBSTALK DISH Forum!.:welcome_s


----------



## SayWhat?

Some numbers I wish we knew, but know we never will.


What was Rainbow getting?
What was Rainbow asking for?
How many calls did Dish receive inquiring about the channel change and subsequent drop?
How many people actually left Dish with this as the main reason?
How many called Dish threatening to leave in hopes of getting some kind of perk?
How many called Dish with the legitimate intent to leave, but changed their minds for some reason?
How many will leave Dish at the end of their current contract with this as the primary reason?
How many will leave Dish in the next year for other or unspecified reasons?


----------



## Leadfoot

Good questions... and you are right, we most likely will never know. I am also curious about what happened with AT&T. Did AT&T give in to what AMC wanted or was there a compromise?



Jhon69 said:


> Welcome to the DBSTALK DISH Forum!.:welcome_s


Thank you


----------



## RasputinAXP

All I know is my new Roku's pretty cool.


----------



## SayWhat?

I'm sure this is being talked about on the Direct side of this board which I have blocked out, but for those considering leaving Dish......



> Viacom Inc. (VIAB) (VIAB) said an impasse in new contract talks with DirecTV (DTV) (DTV) may mean almost 20 million subscribers will lose access to 26 channels, including MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central.
> 
> A blackout will occur at midnight if the two sides don't reach a new fee agreement, New York-based Viacom said in a blog posting yesterday





> In its own posting, DirecTV said Viacom is demanding a 30 percent increase in fees, amounting to more than $1 billion in additional costs.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...sse-means-directv-users-will-lose-26-channels

Weren't we talking about an increase of over 100% for AMC? Yet Direct is in a dispute over 30%.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Let's not turn this into a Dish vs DirecTV thread... but this was surprising and interesting news.

I got the distinct impression that DirecTV customers were surprised by this news today. I have to assume DirecTV wasn't as surprised as they are appearing publicly.

In any case... it kind of supports the notion of what we have been talking about here with AMC vs Dish. Channels that are turning a profit are going to the carriers who are turning a profit and saying "I want mine"... and the carriers are saying "you don't deserve that much" with an underpinning of "if we give some to you, there will form a line of other channels..."

So... AMC wants theirs from Dish and AT&T... Dish says no thanks... AT&T makes some kind of deal that we don't know what... Now Viacom is asking for more from DirecTV. What will happen? Stay tuned.


----------



## SayWhat?

Nawh, I'm just pointing out that jumping from one carrier to another is no guarantee you'll get the programming you think you will since these disputes seem to pop up more and more frequently with little or no notice to the public.

Losing Viacom would be a much bigger issue to me than losing Rainbow, which I've barely noticed.


----------



## phrelin

It's an interesting discussion on the DirecTV thread. It's amazing how many people wouldn't miss most of the Viacom offering. But it's like this thread.


----------



## coldsteel

Yeah. Different people same comments.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

coldsteel said:


> Yeah. Different people same comments.


Yep...

Deja vu...

Except... maartena posted in that thread a nice *carriage dispute flowchart *that we need in this thread!


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yep...
> 
> Deja vu...
> 
> Except... maartena posted in that thread a nice *carriage dispute flowchart *that we need in this thread!


Yeah, that flowchart is great!


----------



## inkahauts

"phrelin" said:


> Yeah, that flowchart is great!


Funniest chart I have seen in years!

I think the only real difference in the disputes on the surface is that mike white is saying he expects to get things worked out, where dish is apparently beyond that, because they obviously have a real plan in place to help customers get there programs they will lose without dish ever picking them up again by giving out rokus....


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inkahauts said:


> Funniest chart I have seen in years!
> 
> I think the only real difference in the disputes on the surface is that mike white is saying he expects to get things worked out, where dish is apparently beyond that, because they obviously have a real plan in place to help customers get there programs they will lose without dish ever picking them up again by giving out rokus....


In the past, Dish had had similar semi-positive things to say.. I'm sure animosity between the two "Charlie"s is making AMC vs Dish harder to negotiate... but it still doesn't change the crux of the deal, which is channels asking for more money every time their contract expires. Sometimes it is justified... but sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand.


----------



## RVRambler

Some things were left out of that flow chart, like 'screw our customers more' & 'keep more money for me' & 'I am too much of a Dick-head to compromise' & 'You want a pissing contest? I'll give you a pissing contest, here pee further than this!', etc

Also, there was no 'take customer out to dinner, before we screw them, Again!' in the chart, always forgotten by those who have to pay for that meal!



*I DON'T WANT A FREE RIDE, "I WANT A GOOD RIDE"! STOP BUCKING!*



Stewart Vernon said:


> Yep...
> 
> Deja vu...
> 
> Except... maartena posted in that thread a nice *carriage dispute flowchart *that we need in this thread!


----------



## Darcaine

SayWhat? said:


> Nawh, I'm just pointing out that jumping from one carrier to another is no guarantee you'll get the programming you think you will since these disputes seem to pop up more and more frequently with little or no notice to the public.
> 
> Losing Viacom would be a much bigger issue to me than losing Rainbow, which I've barely noticed.


I'm in the opposite boat, I couldn't care less about the viacom channels, but I would be a sad panda if I lost AMC, esp with Breaking Bad starting on Sunday.

I don't watch a lot of tv, so quality means a lot more than quantity to me, and AMC offers me quaility programming I care about, while I can't think of a single show on a viacom channel that I watch. I would gladly give all viacom channels up for BBCA (mainly Dr who) in HD. But even that's not as important to me as AMC.

So I suppose we are lucky we are with our respective carriers.


----------



## Inkosaurus

The big problem for me concerning AMC is ;

That while they do indeed offer "quality" They hardly ever actually offer it.
If its wednesday afternoon and I want to watch something good AMC is not on the top of that list because I know Ill get a commercial inflated stalone or arnie flick (american classics?).

AMC is a great channel on sunday night every few months but thats about it. Where as on the flipside I can tune into TBS or USA and catch something. Sure it might be an older episode but chances are I probably havent seen it either. The other channels have a library to fall back on.

AMC is starting to build up there library of originals but aside from an once in a blue moon marathon chances are I wont be catching a rerun of TWD unless im paying for it on iTunes or Amazon.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

While I feel for our DirecTV counterpart customers and the recent (yes it happened) takedown of Viacom channels...

This could be good for all of us all around.

Dish sends the first volley by letting AMC go. We figure we will have to wait to see what DirecTV does in the next negotiations...

Meanwhile, DirecTV fires volley #2 and lets Viacom go.

The two of these happening within a week of each other should, if DirecTV sticks to their guns, mean good things for Dish and DirecTV going forward.

Now AMC has to wonder "what if" DirecTV sends us packing too? And Viacom already knows that Dish will send them packing...

So maybe everyone comes back to the table with more reasonable offers if they see that Dish AND DirecTV are willing to play hardball.

When it seemed to just be Dish, channels figured they could wait Dish out and let customers pressure them... but this is a new day... a "buyer's market"... and channels beware... the companies might not want you and the customers/viewers might learn to live without you.

Look what happened to the NHL after their full-season strike several years ago... Sure, people missed hockey... but a LOT of people learned to watch other things, and when the NHL came back... it took years to get their ratings back up because viewers had a whole year.

Absence doesn't always make the heart grow fonder.


----------



## inkahauts

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> While I feel for our DirecTV counterpart customers and the recent (yes it happened) takedown of Viacom channels...
> 
> This could be good for all of us all around.
> 
> Dish sends the first volley by letting AMC go. We figure we will have to wait to see what DirecTV does in the next negotiations...
> 
> Meanwhile, DirecTV fires volley #2 and lets Viacom go.
> 
> The two of these happening within a week of each other should, if DirecTV sticks to their guns, mean good things for Dish and DirecTV going forward.
> 
> Now AMC has to wonder "what if" DirecTV sends us packing too? And Viacom already knows that Dish will send them packing...
> 
> So maybe everyone comes back to the table with more reasonable offers if they see that Dish AND DirecTV are willing to play hardball.
> 
> When it seemed to just be Dish, channels figured they could wait Dish out and let customers pressure them... but this is a new day... a "buyer's market"... and channels beware... the companies might not want you and the customers/viewers might learn to live without you.
> 
> Look what happened to the NHL after their full-season strike several years ago... Sure, people missed hockey... but a LOT of people learned to watch other things, and when the NHL came back... it took years to get their ratings back up because viewers had a whole year.
> 
> Absence doesn't always make the heart grow fonder.


I totally agree.


----------



## ATARI

I just switched from DTV to DISH a week ago and boy am I glad I did! I've got a 6 and 9 year old, and I don't want to think about a drama that would be going on in my house now without Nick.

Also the response time on the Hopper/Joey are instant compared to the DTV HR series. And PrimeTime anytime+autohop is something DTV doesn't even have, but a TV watcher like me thinks is better than sliced bread!

I'm off to order my Sling adapter now.


----------



## Rduce

I have to agree to much of what has been said. I firmly believe that both Dish and Direct have fired opening salvos in what hopefully will shorten the war by years and save millions of lives. It remains to be seen if programmers and their parent companies are paying attention. 

It is almost as though there had been a meeting and they agreed to take on the big boys and make examples of them! Of course I would not wish to suggest collusion on any one’s part, because we know the Feds would stomp on that hard!


----------



## Darcaine

Inkosaurus said:


> The big problem for me concerning AMC is ;
> 
> That while they do indeed offer "quality" They hardly ever actually offer it.
> If its wednesday afternoon and I want to watch something good AMC is not on the top of that list because I know Ill get a commercial inflated stalone or arnie flick (american classics?).
> 
> AMC is a great channel on sunday night every few months but thats about it. Where as on the flipside I can tune into TBS or USA and catch something. Sure it might be an older episode but chances are I probably havent seen it either. The other channels have a library to fall back on.
> 
> AMC is starting to build up there library of originals but aside from an once in a blue moon marathon chances are I wont be catching a rerun of TWD unless im paying for it on iTunes or Amazon.


I can understand where you are coming from but I guess the difference for me is I don't watch reruns on any channel, don't channel surf so I never tune into a channel on an off night, and watch content stored on my DVR exclusively when watching linear tv.

36 to 48 hours of quality scripted AMC programming a year is more than I watch on any other channel besides HBO and Showtime, and they cost a lot more. I do watch a lot of (prerecorded) natgeo and science channel though.


----------



## SayWhat?

Rduce said:


> It remains to be seen if programmers and their parent companies are paying attention.


Whether they are or not, it appears the FCC and Congress are:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=206755


----------



## mark722

I just got done chatting with a Dish CSR named Thiana (ID:LCA) that told me in reference to the AMC situation that "Dialogue is ongoing and we hope we can reach a resolution". I was considering switching to my local cable Suddenlink since they still have AMC and have a great cable + internet bundle that would have saved me over $30 a month compared to Dish and my AT&T DSL. Thiana offered me a $10 a month bill credit for 12 months. When I asked about the Roku, I was told I would have to purchase one. I took the bill credit but I'm still up in the air over the switch to cable. I'll wait a few months to see if Dish gets AMC back. I love the Dish DVR, but saving money talks, BS walks.


----------



## ibglowin

I called a live Dish CSR (via phone) today to complain about the channel loss. I also told them I was already paying for and getting HDNet and HDNet movies so that was not an improvement in channel selection for me. I asked point blank for a $10mo credit as well as a free Roku box. They looked at my records and immediately transferred me to the AMC customer resolution team and less than 10 min later had my $10 credit for a year plus a free Roku box.


----------



## pekrwud

I agree. Been with DISH 10 years. Sent e-mails, made the call, no difference. I told them if they drop AMC, I drop you. They did, so I did. I'm on DTV now. It's called the competitive free market. I wonder how many customers dropped DISH because they dropped AMC. The DTV installer told me they had over 400 installs waiting, alot of them because DISH dropped AMC.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

pekrwud said:


> I agree. Been with DISH 10 years. Sent e-mails, made the call, no difference. I told them if they drop AMC, I drop you. They did, so I did. I'm on DTV now. It's called the competitive free market. I wonder how many customers dropped DISH because they dropped AMC. The DTV installer told me they had over 400 installs waiting, alot of them because DISH dropped AMC.


That is of course part of the free market... of course, once you got to DirecTV and they dropped Viacom channels, what did you do then?


----------



## Inkosaurus

pekrwud said:


> I agree. Been with DISH 10 years. Sent e-mails, made the call, no difference. I told them if they drop AMC, I drop you. They did, so I did. I'm on DTV now. It's called the competitive free market. I wonder how many customers dropped DISH because they dropped AMC. The DTV installer told me they had over 400 installs waiting, alot of them because DISH dropped AMC.


Wow. I didnt know DTV techs were psychic. Theres no way for them to know the reason why a customer is setting up with DTV prior to actually doing the install and the customer flat out telling them why they switched/set up.

So a). you're lying , or b) your tech was lying lol.


----------



## phrelin

pekrwud said:


> I agree. Been with DISH 10 years. Sent e-mails, made the call, no difference. I told them if they drop AMC, I drop you. They did, so I did. I'm on DTV now. It's called the competitive free market. I wonder how many customers dropped DISH because they dropped AMC. The DTV installer told me they had over 400 installs waiting, alot of them because DISH dropped AMC.


Fascinating. The original post in this thread was on May 4 and this will be post 1422 or 21 posts a day.

Post 1303 was just posted on the DirecTV - Viacom dispute thread that was started on July 9, giving it 651 posts a day.

So I suppose the Dish installer will also have hundreds of installs waiting because DirecTV dropped 17 Viacom channels.

And instead of churn being between 1.25%-1.50% for both it will be between 1.50%-1.75% for both. And they both will have a bunch of new customers locked into 2-year contracts while they will have lost a bunch of old customers who weren't locked into 2-year contracts.

Sometimes life is predictable.


----------



## SayWhat?

I've been watching more on the 'replacement' channels than I ever did on the Rainbow channels.

Some say they're not really replacements, just channel shifts, but even so, I never knew they were there.

I'm fine with the end result.


----------



## Darcaine

Heads up for Breaking Bad fans who are Dish subscribers. AMC will be streaming the premiere online live at 10 pm on Sunday night.

http://m.deadline.com/2012/07/breaking-bad-amc-networks-dish-network-premiere-strea/


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_Moderator note... please don't attack other posters. Ask questions, discuss, even question source and opinions... but no attacks. Some cleanup has been performed._


----------



## aa62579

inkahauts said:


> Ok, well this may sound funny, but do the folks live far? Maybe ask them to record your episodes that are new and then visit them to watch your shows once in a while till you can get a permanent solution?
> 
> If not, if you have Netflix, you will probably be ok eventually.


My parent's do not live too far away, but I wouldn't be comfortable watching Breaking Bad with my parents and they only have a DVR on the main tv. The show comes on too late for me to go over there to watch it live in the spare bedroom and then drive home.

As it would turn out, my husband and I have to go there on Monday while my parents are out of town to care of all the livestock. The last time I was out there I tried to set up the DVR so that it will record either the season or at least the first episode. (No one has ever used the DVR, so I think I set it up right, but not certain.) We'll be able to watch the first episode there before we come home.

I ended up having to buy an iPad for work. I'm guessing I would be able to buy the episodes while I was somewhere with a wifi connection and still be able to watch them on the ipad later. Might even be able to connect it to the tv.

**As an aside, will be watching the VIACOM deal, as there are two shows I watch on their networks as well. However, my husband doesn't watch any, so it would be easier to deal with.


----------



## Jaspear

phrelin said:


> Fascinating. The original post in this thread was on May 4 and this will be post 1422 or 21 posts a day.
> 
> Post 1303 was just posted on the DirecTV - Viacom dispute thread that was started on July 9, giving it 651 posts a day.
> 
> So I suppose the Dish installer will also have hundreds of installs waiting because DirecTV dropped 17 Viacom channels.
> 
> And instead of churn being between 1.25%-1.50% for both it will be between 1.50%-1.75% for both. And they both will have a bunch of new customers locked into 2-year contracts while they will have lost a bunch of old customers who weren't locked into 2-year contracts.
> 
> Sometimes life is predictable.


Over on the other forum the stats are reversed. The AMC thread has 2901 posts, Viacom has 560. I think the numbers have more do do with the forum orientation, but I do agree that both providers will end up with a bunch of shiny new subscribers with contracts.


----------



## SayWhat?

Darcaine said:


> Heads up for Breaking Bad fans who are Dish subscribers. AMC will be streaming the premiere online live at 10 pm on Sunday night.





> DISH subscribers can register for access to the live stream at www.amctv.com


http://www.newsday.com/entertainmen...ive-stream-of-breaking-bad-premiere-1.3833714

Sounds like a ploy to build a mailing list.


----------



## dpeters11

SayWhat? said:


> http://www.newsday.com/entertainmen...ive-stream-of-breaking-bad-premiere-1.3833714
> 
> Sounds like a ploy to build a mailing list.


Just use a spam email account. It's interesting though. As Viacom takes away, AMC gives. Or gives at least a taste. If it's just the season premiere, some may argue getting the first episode only is worse.


----------



## bf1967

I called today to cancel because of the whole AMC thing and all they offered me was a lousy $30 credit. Not to mention, I could barely understand the CSR. I;m sick of these off shore call centers. Bye Dish.


----------



## inkahauts

"dpeters11" said:


> Just use a spam email account. It's interesting though. As Viacom takes away, AMC gives. Or gives at least a taste. If it's just the season premiere, some may argue getting the first episode only is worse.


I think the Viacom dispute is uglier publicly than the amc one,yet I think there is more of a chance of the Viacom one getting settled than the amc one.

However, I often wonder how much either sides negotiators pay attention to the other sides marketing departments during these things. I get the feeling the publicity on the Viacom dispute is being driven by the marketing folks, but the publicity for the amc dispute is being driven by management. Dish seems to be offering a more permanent solution to its customers, where DIRECTV seems to be saying sit tight, well get this figured out. Two very different images pushed by the two companies.


----------



## bf1967

bf1967 said:


> I called today to cancel because of the whole AMC thing and all they offered me was a lousy $30 credit. Not to mention, I could barely understand the CSR. I;m sick of these off shore call centers. Bye Dish.


Well I guess it depends on who you talk to. I called back today to extend my stop date a week later. When I got the retention CSR he was super helpful and offered me discounts (1/2 off HBO for 6 months, plus another $60 credit ) & a ROKU box. I also inquired about a hopper + 3 joeys and he offered me that for $50 plus free install. I am a much happier customer now.

Bob


----------



## Jhon69

Stewart Vernon said:


> While I feel for our DirecTV counterpart customers and the recent (yes it happened) takedown of Viacom channels...
> 
> This could be good for all of us all around.
> 
> Dish sends the first volley by letting AMC go. We figure we will have to wait to see what DirecTV does in the next negotiations...
> 
> Meanwhile, DirecTV fires volley #2 and lets Viacom go.
> 
> The two of these happening within a week of each other should, if DirecTV sticks to their guns, mean good things for Dish and DirecTV going forward.
> 
> Now AMC has to wonder "what if" DirecTV sends us packing too? And Viacom already knows that Dish will send them packing...
> 
> So maybe everyone comes back to the table with more reasonable offers if they see that Dish AND DirecTV are willing to play hardball.
> 
> When it seemed to just be Dish, channels figured they could wait Dish out and let customers pressure them... but this is a new day... a "buyer's market"... and channels beware... the companies might not want you and the customers/viewers might learn to live without you.
> 
> Look what happened to the NHL after their full-season strike several years ago... Sure, people missed hockey... but a LOT of people learned to watch other things, and when the NHL came back... it took years to get their ratings back up because viewers had a whole year.
> 
> Absence doesn't always make the heart grow fonder.


Stewart:

Excellent post.I could not have said it better myself.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Darcaine said:


> Heads up for Breaking Bad fans who are Dish subscribers. AMC will be streaming the premiere online live at 10 pm on Sunday night.
> 
> http://m.deadline.com/2012/07/breaking-bad-amc-networks-dish-network-premiere-strea/


Dumb question time...

But, doesn't this actually prove the point Dish was trying to make AND make it even less likely for Dish to offer more money to AMC?

Consider...

Dish said "AMC wants more money than the viewership demands AND AMC puts their stuff on other online services for customers to get."

So... if AMC counters by making shows available for free... how does that work?

Doesn't AMC's "we need more money" argument get blown away? They would let Dish drop them and give the programs away BUT to stay on Dish they needed more money? How exactly does that make sense?

And from Dish's perspective... why would you pay money for a channel that is giving the content away online now? Doesn't that make you even less likely to offer a rate increase to AMC?

This move confuses me.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> This move confuses me.


Teaser.

We'll give you one free to get your interest and make you want to call Dish and tell them how great our one hour a week of programming is.


----------



## Wilf

And this is the reverse of what Viacom did, which was remove their shows from their web sites. The old business models are becoming obsolete, and the media companies don't seem to know what to do.


----------



## ATARI

Wilf said:


> And this is the reverse of what Viacom did, which was remove their shows from their web sites. The old business models are becoming obsolete, and the media companies don't seem to know what to do.


Except to scream "Give us more money!!"


----------



## oldengineer

Viacom is asking D* to take what amounts to a 17% increase in fees annually for the next 5 years. I hope for all of our sakes that D* doesn't cave on this.


----------



## Ira Lacher

A package increase of a standard $5 increase amounts to about a 7% increase. A 17% percent increase would be about $12. That's probably beyond what many customers would agree would be worth it.


----------



## Jhon69

Stewart Vernon said:


> Dumb question time...
> 
> But, doesn't this actually prove the point Dish was trying to make AND make it even less likely for Dish to offer more money to AMC?
> 
> Consider...
> 
> Dish said "AMC wants more money than the viewership demands AND AMC puts their stuff on other online services for customers to get."
> 
> So... if AMC counters by making shows available for free... how does that work?
> 
> Doesn't AMC's "we need more money" argument get blown away? They would let Dish drop them and give the programs away BUT to stay on Dish they needed more money? How exactly does that make sense?
> 
> And from Dish's perspective... why would you pay money for a channel that is giving the content away online now? Doesn't that make you even less likely to offer a rate increase to AMC?
> 
> This move confuses me.


It shouldn't AMC doesn't want to rock the internet boat,their objective is to rock the satellite boat.

Online is the future remember how back in the 80s we could get all our programming for free minus the cost of the satellite system,then when a certain amount of viewership was reached what happened? the programmers started scrambling their signal.I suggest the same thing will happen again.

The programmers also just can't understand why the providers just can't pass along the costs to the consumers.They found out early that Charlie Ergen and Dish Network would not go along with them,and now that AT&T balked at a price,but then they were able to settle that quick,but now DirecTV is balking at the price too with Viacom.

The programmers have to be careful they are not price fighting with too many providers at one time,because the advertisers will demand a cut in price they pay for commercials due to lack of viewership.


----------



## nmetro

My take on this is that the more the fees go up, the less quality is found on what we pay for. Most of the channels run the same recent hour long show as a bloc. There is rarely new programming. Much of the programming are reality shows or clones of reality shows. 

One has to think, that since 1947 there are countless hours of TV and cable shows, as well as movies produced. But, with the exception of me-TV, Retro Telvision Network, etc., there is just so much Law & Order (all variants), CSI (all variants), and other programs which do not pre-date the mid-1980s. 

It is hard to believe that Disney, Viacom, AMC, Time-Warner, Comcast/NBC/Universal, et. al. can claim they demand higher and higher fees for new original programming, when original programming amounts to less then 10% of what they air. If I recall AMC/IFC/We, was running 4 hours of original programming per week for part of the year. Certainly not enough to justify a massive increase. And Viacom? It is probably the same or worse.

The networks are wondering why people are going to internet sources. Could it be that 250 - 300 channels have nothing on? 

Personally, I spend much of my viewing time with the various movie channels, some broadcast network shows and a once in a while program of interest on the cable channels. But, when networks like History, H2, National Georgraphic, Discovery Networks, all have become poor incantations of FOX Reality Channel; it actually makes going back to PBS, with auctions and beg-a-thons, very appealing. Throw in endless commercials, which further drive people away.

To end, I still think there was more variety on the seven main VHF channels in New York (2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13) in the 1960s, then what I get now with 250+ channels. And back then, all we had to buy was a good TV antenna.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Jhon69 said:


> It shouldn't AMC doesn't want to rock the internet boat,their objective is to rock the satellite boat.


Yeah, but you're talking about the bigger picture. I'm talking about the current dispute.

You want my product. I am charging too much. You refuse to buy at the new price... so... I start giving it away for free? How does that help me negotiate with you?

IF AMC has given up on Dish and doesn't want to be back, then fine... but if they still want to be carried by Dish, then giving away their "valuable" content tends to undermine their position of how they "need an increase" to continue providing that programming.

Dish didn't say they couldn't afford to pay AMC, they said AMC was overvaluing the product they offer... AMC is countering by undervaluing and giving away that product. That seems like backwards negotiating tactics to me.


----------



## SayWhat?

nmetro said:


> To end, I still think there was more variety on the seven main VHF channels in New York (2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13) in the 1960s, then what I get now with 250+ channels. And back then, all we had to buy was a good TV antenna.


There's a lot more truth to that than most people would care to admit. Nearly everything today has already been done dozens of times. Even the sitcoms are all rehashes of previous concepts.


----------



## DoyleS

The time period for AMC is pretty critical. They either get Dish back or enough time and episodes of BB get aired that people might just decide to wait until the DVDs come out. I see the Online situation as a last ditch attempt to garner support. The only people that will watch that episode on Sunday are people who can't get it on Dish and who have been watching the series up to this point. It would make no sense for someone like me to watch it in that I have no context from previous episodes. If I am going to watch it, I will watch from episode 1. So, my conclusion is that this is an arrow shot at Dish trying to influence Dish's customers. The fact that Direct has lost Viacom is going to make it more difficult for Dish subscribers to jump to Direct in that they would be only gaining AMC but losing the Viacom channels. And we know that most of us Satellite guys really don't like the Cable suppliers with all of their constant rate increases. MHO


----------



## K E Will

I seemed to have missed the Article on the internet posted wed about most analists seeing that Dish will settle the lawsuit with Zoom and give AMC and its program package a new contract befor next walking dead season.....

if article is right it will make the Breaking Bad and other AMC programs missed in between still mad....

I may wait it out but i am certain now that this is all over the lawsuit being settled and that AMC was right that Dish was waiting till lawsluit was settled


----------



## inkahauts

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> Yeah, but you're talking about the bigger picture. I'm talking about the current dispute.
> 
> You want my product. I am charging too much. You refuse to buy at the new price... so... I start giving it away for free? How does that help me negotiate with you?
> 
> IF AMC has given up on Dish and doesn't want to be back, then fine... but if they still want to be carried by Dish, then giving away their "valuable" content tends to undermine their position of how they "need an increase" to continue providing that programming.
> 
> Dish didn't say they couldn't afford to pay AMC, they said AMC was overvaluing the product they offer... AMC is countering by undervaluing and giving away that product. That seems like backwards negotiating tactics to me.


A one time showing won't undervalue it, it will create more demand from dish customers calling in to ask for the channel. That's the theory that amc is using I believe. I doubt they will show any more. I think of it more like the free HBO or show time, etc weekends.

The opposite is true for Viacom. They waited to bolster their products value till they weren't getting paid by dtv from it.

I said it in the other thread, I'll say it again here. The Internet streaming thing is severely undermining the current distribution system when stuff s free, or can be had cheaply by anyone, and the only way to avoid that is go the route of HBO go, which I think would actually make everyone happy. Much simpler to understand, easier too operate, and is more uniform across platforms.


----------



## SayWhat?

inkahauts said:


> I said it in the other thread, I'll say it again here. The Internet streaming thing is severely undermining the current distribution system when stuff s free, or can be had cheaply by anyone,


And as has been said on many other threads, widespread use of streaming is not yet ready for primetime. Too many ISP have limits and caps that essentially eliminate streaming for many of their customers. And of course there are still very large areas of the country that have no practical streaming at all since they do not have broadband via cable or DSL.


----------



## inkahauts

"SayWhat?" said:


> And as has been said on many other threads, widespread use of streaming is not yet ready for primetime. Too many ISP have limits and caps that essentially eliminate streaming for many of their customers. And of course there are still very large areas of the country that have no practical streaming at all since they do not have broadband via cable or DSL.


It still has an effect. Many younger people will gravitate towards streaming if it's free. I know several people who don't have cable, sat or antennas. They just stream everything they watch for free. Not even Netflix. They have caps in their areas, but they have yet to hit them, so no issues with that either. They don't watch everything on tv, only a few paticular shows. That's another brig problem I see, so few shows per channel that are actually newer different in any given week.

How many viewers does that equate too? Not many,but it may be what's keeping shows from growing viewers too. Add those things together, and it's easy to see why any one channel doesn't have great overall viewership.


----------



## DoyleS

The biggest problem with streaming is that unless you are dealing with iTunes, Amazon or one of the pay per view sites that are up in the $3-$5/ HD episode category, the program availability is just older shows. The content providers have not agreed to a model that will allow a subscription to an ala Carte service other than on a per episode basis. Once they do and the prices are competitive, the Satellite and cable services will take an even bigger hit from "cable cutters". The Paradigm is out there but we are still waiting on the Shift.


----------



## phrelin

DoyleS said:


> The biggest problem with streaming is that unless you are dealing with iTunes, Amazon or one of the pay per view sites that are up in the $3-$5/ HD episode category, the program availability is just older shows. The content providers have not agreed to a model that will allow a subscription to an ala Carte service other than on a per episode basis. Once they do and the prices are competitive, the Satellite and cable services will take an even bigger hit from "cable cutters". The Paradigm is out there but we are still waiting on the Shift.


 The difficulty with predicting streaming as an option for cable cutting is the shift that's occurring represented by these two screenshots:








On USA's website if you want to watch this week's episode of "Covert Affairs", you can.

On TNT's website you can watch streaming episodes once you've confirmed you have a subscription to the channel through a cable or satellite company.

The latter approach is becoming more prevalent because it assures the channel of a revenue stream from subscribers. And you still must sit through at least a few ads. Freebies are on their way out. IMHO it is likely to become the standard.

And AMC, of course, allows you to buy episodes from sites like Amazon and iTunes, whether or not you get the channel from cable or satellite.


----------



## inkahauts

"DoyleS" said:


> The biggest problem with streaming is that unless you are dealing with iTunes, Amazon or one of the pay per view sites that are up in the $3-$5/ HD episode category, the program availability is just older shows. The content providers have not agreed to a model that will allow a subscription to an ala Carte service other than on a per episode basis. Once they do and the prices are competitive, the Satellite and cable services will take an even bigger hit from "cable cutters". The Paradigm is out there but we are still waiting on the Shift.


If all these broadcasters want that much for single episodes, think of how much they will ask for if a channel is offered a la cart someday..


----------



## Jhon69

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yeah, but you're talking about the bigger picture. I'm talking about the current dispute.
> 
> You want my product. I am charging too much. You refuse to buy at the new price... so... I start giving it away for free? How does that help me negotiate with you?
> 
> IF AMC has given up on Dish and doesn't want to be back, then fine... but if they still want to be carried by Dish, then giving away their "valuable" content tends to undermine their position of how they "need an increase" to continue providing that programming.
> 
> Dish didn't say they couldn't afford to pay AMC, they said AMC was overvaluing the product they offer... AMC is countering by undervaluing and giving away that product. That seems like backwards negotiating tactics to me.


It sounds to me more like AMC is trying to keep Dish subcribers and others interested in their programming because they cannot view it on DISH now,so the only other way for them to see it to keep them interested is stream it for free.

But what AMC is doing is going to effect which programming package I choose to be in.I know I can't get rid of all of them,but I can reduce the amount of channels I support and it is nice to see that DISH is changing their packages to reflect the demands of the programmers like they are doing now.


----------



## Jhon69

nmetro said:


> My take on this is that the more the fees go up, the less quality is found on what we pay for. Most of the channels run the same recent hour long show as a bloc. There is rarely new programming. Much of the programming are reality shows or clones of reality shows.
> 
> One has to think, that since 1947 there are countless hours of TV and cable shows, as well as moviws produced. But, with the exception of me-TV, Retro Telvision Network, etc., there is just so much Law & Order (all variants), CSI (all variants), and other programs which do not pre-date the mid-1980s.
> 
> It is hard to believe that Disney, Viacom, AMC, Time-Warner, Comcast/NBC/Universal, et. al. can claim they demand higher and higher fees for new original programming, when original programming amounts to less then 10% of what they air. If I recall AMC/IFC/We, was running 4 hours of original programming per week for part of the year. Certainly not enough to justify a massive increase. And Viacom? It is probably the same or worse.
> 
> The networks are wondering why people are going to internet sources. Could it be that 250 - 300 channels have nothing on?
> 
> Personally, I spend much of my viewing time with the various movie channels, some broadcast network shows and a once in a while program of interest on the cable channels. But, when networks like History, H2, National Georgraphic, Discovery Networks, all have become poor incantations of FOX Reality Channel; it actually makes going back to PBS, with auctions and beg-a-thons, very appealing. Throw in endless commercials, which further drive people away.
> 
> To end, I still think there was more variety on the seven main VHF channels in New York (2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13) in the 1960s, then what I get now with 250+ channels. And back then, all we had to buy was a good TV antenna.


And that will help me make my final decision about satellite alot easier,after what I considered getting burned by the BUD experience in the 80s I promised myself not to return until I thought they had this scrambling crap figured out.I returned in Jan.2002.

Now in 2012 it looks like I may only have another 2 years before I throw in the towel and go back to strictly OTA like I was from the late 80s until 2002.
The one concession will be we now have HDTV and will have more funds to add to our Bluray collection and our family does watch alot of local TV,now even more with the addition of several subchannels I can receive now like MeTV,THiS,Antenna TV and Create will help ease the pain.


----------



## Jhon69

I also believe another great idea for DISH to do is to list with each channel description, who owns it?.That way the object of our retaliation would be made so much easier if DISH would include that information along with each channel description.:eek2:


----------



## RVRambler

I don't believe we do know that! 
*"because we know the Feds would stomp on that hard!"*,

Unless some lobbyist(s) has paid off enough of our 'public servants' to make it an issue, it will not be an issue, FCC or congress/senate!

Never forget, it is what the $$ tells our elected 'public servants' to do NOT what is smart/fair or best for the citizens, its all about big big big money, congress/senate does not GAD!

*Go listen/read Jack Abramoff (recent book or interviews), he was the convicted super lobbyist turned 'honest' and now knows what he did wrong, & how horribly detrimental to our 'so called democracy' his actions & most/all other lobbyist were/are!*

The affected congress/senate members are from both parties, nearly all are corrupt & take all sorts of things us 'common' folks would call bribery or very special treatment, *so why would they act against all this nice special 'goodies' they get?*!



Rduce said:


> I have to agree to much of what has been said. I firmly believe that both Dish and Direct have fired opening salvos in what hopefully will shorten the war by years and save millions of lives. It remains to be seen if programmers and their parent companies are paying attention.
> 
> It is almost as though there had been a meeting and they agreed to take on the big boys and make examples of them! Of course I would not wish to suggest collusion on any one's part, because we know the Feds would stomp on that hard!


----------



## crabtrp

So does a Breaking Bad episode appear on Amazon and iTunes at the same time it gets broadcast on AMC? Or is there a delay?


----------



## jrseh

SayWhat? said:


> Some numbers I wish we knew, but know we never will.
> 
> 
> What was Rainbow getting?
> What was Rainbow asking for?
> How many calls did Dish receive inquiring about the channel change and subsequent drop?
> How many people actually left Dish with this as the main reason?
> How many called Dish threatening to leave in hopes of getting some kind of perk?
> How many called Dish with the legitimate intent to leave, but changed their minds for some reason?
> How many will leave Dish at the end of their current contract with this as the primary reason?
> How many will leave Dish in the next year for other or unspecified reasons?


I've no idea on your first three, but can respond to the rest at least as far as we're concerned.

We've not called Dish, since it's been pretty clear from this forum that dropping AMC was going to happen no matter what we did. We did respond to an AMC online "petition" when this first started, and we will be watching BB online tonight.

Dish did not really reach out to us, as they have with some others, but did send us two free PPV movie passes, which they've done before (we're good customers, you see, having been with them for six years). When I returned that email with a complaint over the AMC issue, they tried to convince me their intentions were in their customers' best interest. My subsequent reply to that did not elicit any further response.

We don't have a contract to fulfill, so could leave at any time and may still do so. Our problem, and I'm sure we're not alone, is that we DVR everything (who needs to watch commercials?) and have tons of stuff on the DVR and EHD that we'd lose access to if we dumped Dish.

As for calling and threatening to quit unless I get some perks, it's not something I'd do unless I meant it. We already have a Roku 2 XS (daughter gave us one for Christmas), so will use that to access the missing AMC shows for now. I'm still disgusted with the whole affair on both sides, but will not turn my life upside down over it. We've got more important fish to fry.

John


----------



## jrseh

Just watched the "season premiere" of Breaking Bad, provided free online to Dish Customers from AMC. As usual, it was great television, and I will continue with the show through whatever means are at my disposal. So much better than the usual drivel that now passes for television fare.

I pay up for Showtime, but only watch four shows (Dexter, Weeds, The Big C, and Nurse Jackie) - the movies they also offer are either not worth my time or I've already seen. I follow three shows on AMC (Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, and The Killing - never could get into Mad Men) and consider them just as valuable to me as the Showtime offerings. IMHO Dish is being moronic not carrying this channel - and I believe they will come to regret it.

John


----------



## 356B

Didn't work for me, it said try again later.....?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jrseh said:


> I pay up for Showtime, but only watch four shows (Dexter, Weeds, The Big C, and Nurse Jackie) - the movies they also offer are either not worth my time or I've already seen. I follow three shows on AMC (Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, and The Killing - never could get into Mad Men) and consider them just as valuable to me as the Showtime offerings. IMHO Dish is being moronic not carrying this channel - and I believe they will come to regret it.


If you would be willing to pay AMC the same per month that you pay Showtime, please write and tell AMC that... Maybe AMC will agree to be a la carte on Dish and then you can pay them as much as they ask.

The problem is that AMC wants to think of themselves like a premium channel, but late at night they run infomercials and want you to still pay them to do that.

I like Walking Dead as much as anything else I watch too... but I'm going to buy the Blu-rays anyway... so if I can't watch on TV, that's fine... I'll buy the Blu-rays and it will all be new to me at that time.


----------



## Marlin Guy

My TV Fairy has "Live Free or Die" ready for me.
I'll probably watch it tonight - commercial free. :grin:


----------



## jimb

If the model ever gets changed to a la cart, i'll be downsizing big time. The danger is that dish and the channels are going to lose a lot of income if that happens. I'm okay with it because I would only pick up a few good channels I want and will pay less per month. No incentive to get the big bundles the way certain channels like AMC keep dropping off.


----------



## Jhon69

Stewart Vernon said:


> If you would be willing to pay AMC the same per month that you pay Showtime, please write and tell AMC that... Maybe AMC will agree to be a la carte on Dish and then you can pay them as much as they ask.
> 
> The problem is that AMC wants to think of themselves like a premium channel, but late at night they run infomercials and want you to still pay them to do that.
> 
> I like Walking Dead as much as anything else I watch too... but I'm going to buy the Blu-rays anyway... so if I can't watch on TV, that's fine... I'll buy the Blu-rays and it will all be new to me at that time.


The way I have heard is DISH has offered A La Cart to alot of channel programmers and the answer is "No"! "We want to be in your base package"!
Which would mean a higher increase of price to AT120 which would cause DISH's base packages to not be the cheapest priced packages in America.

So I see the fight continuing and if the channel programmers can't change their way of thinking I can see alot of channels not being on DISH anymore.
It all depends where that channel is rated on the viewer's list and how much increase they want that will determine what increase they are offered and how important they would be considered to be in Dish's guide.

Also if the channel programmer won't negotiate if I were DISH I would also notify the advertisers that are on that channel about how many people are not seeing their ads on DISH anymore.


----------



## dough_boy747

i hope that they do sattle it up, because i do love to watch AMC, thats about it. But to swich to Direct tv or something alse, just for get it i stay with Dish, thats about it for me.


----------



## DoyleS

AMC is apparently running Breaking Bad in two 8 episode segments. When I looked on iTunes it indicates you can buy the season in HD for $21.99 while individual episodes are $2.99. It doesn't say whether the Season purchase is only the first 8 episodes for this year or whether it includes both groups. I am guessing it is only the first 8 which makes it about $2.75/HD episode. Half that if it does include all 16.


----------



## fudpucker

Yeah I doubt the a la carte approach is ever going to be widespread. It is a pain; I'd pay a dollar a month more to keep AMC (and we have gone over the "yeah but then everyone will go up etc. arguments so no need to rehash the same stuff again.) I was looking to reduce my bill some and doing a comparison of the 200 package and the 250 package; there are only 3 of the extra 50 that we would miss, but those we watch enough that we pay an extra $10 per month to keep the 250 package. 
fwiw


----------



## phrelin

In one of the more curious statistics, from The Hollywood Reporter we learn about "Breaking Bad":


> The drama pulled in 2.9 million viewers during its inaugural broadcast 10 p.m. ET, growing 14 percent over last summer's debut and making it the most-watched episode to date.
> 
> Additionally, _Breaking Bad_ saw a 34 percent season over season gain among adults 18-49, with 1.9 million tuning into the broadcast.


 It's possible to interpret this as meaning Dish was right when it talked about low viewership as AMC not being on Dish appeared to have little impact on "Breaking Bad" ratings.

Incidentally, if you don't want to watch the episode streamed free by AMC, it's available at Amazon, SD for $1.99 and HD for $2.99.


----------



## coldsteel

Per Zap2it, Longmire pulled 4.5 million on A&E.


----------



## phrelin

coldsteel said:


> Per Zap2it, Longmire pulled 4.5 million on A&E.


Don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying anything good or bad about "Breaking Bad" ratings other than Sunday's episode was the most watched episode ever and they got it without Dish viewers. Pulling 2.9 million is neither good nor bad for a cable show.

The week ending July 15 (which includes the Sunday from the prior week) saw cable shows other than sports pulling these ratings:

The Closer, Mon-09:00PM 6.1 million Viewers
Perception, Mon-10:00PM 5.6 million Viewers
Rizzoli & Isles, Tue-09:00PM 5.5 million Viewers
Swamp People, Thu-09:00PM 5.2 million Viewers
Pawn Stars, Mon-10:30PM 5.1 million Viewers
Pawn Stars, Mon-10:00PM 4.8 million Viewers
Storage Wars, Tue-10:30PM 4.7 million Viewers
True Blood, Sun-09:04PM 4.6 million Viewers
Longmire, Sun-10:00PM 4.5 million Viewers
Burn Notice, Thu-09:00PM 4.4 million Viewers
Storage Wars, Tue-10:00PM 4.3 million Viewers
Mountain Men, Thu-10:00PM 4.2 million Viewers
Royal Pains, Wed-09:00PM 4.1 million Viewers
American Pickers, Mon-09:00PM 4.0 million Viewers
Shake It Up, Sun-08:30PM 3.9 million Viewers
Jessie, Sun-09:30PM 3.9 million Viewers
NCIS, Wed-08:00PM 3.8 million Viewers
A.N.T. Farm, Sun-09:00PM 3.7 million Viewers
Suits, Thu-10:01PM 3.7 million Viewers
Most episodes of most of the hot shows on AMC never make it into the top 10 prime time cable shows for the week. Once in a while, but not regularly.

The folks at Dish knew that and they could sample their own customers. I think Dish is being honest - AMC draws relatively few viewers from Dish customers. I was one of the few, but I can't argue with the logic.

"Swamp People" on the History Channel with 5.2 million viewers draws almost 80% more viewers than the award winning "Breaking Bad", making "Swamp People" worth much more money to advertisers and the History Channel worth more money than AMC to the cable and satellite companies.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

phrelin said:


> "Swamp People" on the History Channel with 5.2 million viewers draws almost 80% more viewers than the award winning "Breaking Bad", making "Swamp People" worth much more money to advertisers and the History Channel worth more money than AMC to the cable and satellite companies.


Perhaps most damning on that list you posted... Breaking Bad improved its ratings over last season BUT still a repeat of NCIS has nearly 1 million more viewers!


----------



## SayWhat?

Playing Devil's advocate, how many more viewers _MIGHT_ it have had if it had been on Dish? Would there have been any mentionable difference?


----------



## MCHuf

coldsteel said:


> Per Zap2it, Longmire pulled 4.5 million on A&E.


One thing I noticed about the list is how many reality shows are in it. I know it's far too late in the game to rant about it, but it still sucks.

My wife and I have been watching Longmire and really do enjoy it. But it is aimed towards a totally different audience compared to the AMC shows. Now my wife is a Hallmark fan and hates those AMC shows that I enjoy. But such is life. There are a couple of things that bother me about Longmire though. How many murders can a county in the middle of nowhere have? And the constant bleeping of naughty words. Come on this show airs at 10:00pm Sunday night. Kids aren't watching it.


----------



## DoyleS

The list kind of surprised me also. I have been watching the first three but don't watch any of the others. Not sure Perception will stay on my list, we'll give it a couple more episodes to see. The Closer is in its last season so when it dies and if Perception hasn't improved I am down for only one on the list. No wonder so many of my favorite shows get cancelled.....


----------



## SayWhat?

I've been trying to watch "Rizzoli & Isles", but I'm getting seriously annoyed with the side stories. The nosey, whiney Mommy needs to go away, and I have no idea what they're trying to do with the other fractured family. Leave the families out and stick to the cases.

Same reason I stopped watching JAG so many years back.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

SayWhat? said:


> I've been trying to watch "Rizzoli & Isles", but I'm getting seriously annoyed with the side stories. The nosey, whiney Mommy needs to go away, and I have no idea what they're trying to do with the other fractured family. Leave the families out and stick to the cases.
> 
> Same reason I stopped watching JAG so many years back.


I've said this before... Rizzoli & Isles is the anti-Law & Order.

Law & Order focused on the cases, be damned the character development.

Rizzoli & Isles is about the characters, be damned the cases.


----------



## harsh

MCHuf said:


> Come on this show airs at 10:00pm Sunday night. Kids aren't watching it.


I've never heard anything bleeped on Longmire. It all seems to be in an appropriate context. Each episode has about three mentions of the popular vulgar term for feces and there have been some recent references to something many diabetics do to their fingers when testing blood sugar levels.


----------



## harsh

Stewart Vernon said:


> Rizzoli & Isles is about the characters, be damned the cases.


So is that good or bad?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

harsh said:


> So is that good or bad?


Now that's the million dollar question. I like the actors... but if I'm honest... the show itself is not that great. It isn't horrible, and every once in a while you get a glimpse of how much better it could be. The scripts/plots are somewhat lacking... and admittedly, the sometimes almost-by-magic solving of the case each week is a head-scratcher.


----------



## SayWhat?

harsh said:


> So is that good or bad?


It might be OK for an afternoon soap, but for show about a cop and an M.E., it sucks eggs. And I still say it's a remake of 'Crossing Jordan' with the roles somewhat reversed.


----------



## MysteryMan

SayWhat? said:


> It might be OK for an afternoon soap, but for show about a cop and an M.E., it sucks eggs. And I still say it's a remake of 'Crossing Jordan' with the roles somewhat reversed.


I agree but women like it and need their viewing preferences.


----------



## MCHuf

harsh said:


> I've never heard anything bleeped on Longmire. It all seems to be in an appropriate context. Each episode has about three mentions of the popular vulgar term for feces and there have been some recent references to something many diabetics do to their fingers when testing blood sugar levels.


A couple of episodes had some things bleeped out. It was probably a word that meant a "sex act", but I'm not sure as I wasn't ready to read lips. I bet they show up in the dvd set.


----------



## patmurphey

harsh said:


> I've never heard anything bleeped on Longmire. It all seems to be in an appropriate context. Each episode has about three mentions of the popular vulgar term for feces and there have been some recent references to something many diabetics do to their fingers when testing blood sugar levels.


What Longmire is missing is the potty mouth humor from Vic in the books. A great deal of her vocabulary begins with "f". Now back to AMC...


----------



## Stewart Vernon

See how compelling the programming on AMC is? A couple of weeks after the drop, and more people are talking about shows on other networks


----------



## Ira Lacher

Until the Emmy nominations were announced today:


17 nominations for _Mad Men_
_Breaking Bad_ -- nominated for best drama
34 total nominations for a network with "only one day of quality programming."


----------



## inkahauts

"Ira Lacher" said:


> Until the Emmy nominations were announced today:
> 
> [*]17 nominations for Mad Men
> [*]Breaking Bad -- nominated for best drama
> [*]34 total nominations for a network with "only one day of quality programming."


17 nominations between how many shows total?


----------



## joyandjerry

Had to weigh in here - I usu. don't do "opinions" on forums. But I hate Hallmark and any shows oriented towards "women", despite the fact that I am one!  Not all women want to see sappy romances, weak plots, and reality TV. Hubby and I both love _Longmire_, the AMC shows, _Damages,_ _Homeland_, British mysteries, and anything with an in-depth intelligent plot.

We're seriously considering a switch to DTV, as we really love AMC and IFC. Independent movies are very entertaining to us.

To me, the three scariest words in television are "Lifetime Original Movie". :eek2:


----------



## SayWhat?

Ira Lacher said:


> Until the Emmy nominations were announced today:


Emmies are industry self-backslapping. Not relevant in the real world.



joyandjerry said:


> Had to weigh in here - I usu.


usu?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Ira Lacher said:


> Until the Emmy nominations were announced today:
> 
> 
> 17 nominations for _Mad Men_
> _Breaking Bad_ -- nominated for best drama
> 34 total nominations for a network with "only one day of quality programming."


So...

Explain again, then, how AMC didn't air Mad Men in 2011 due to a rate dispute with the producers? I mean, if you have a show that is nominated for emmys and you want to use that as reason to increase your rates... why would you argue with the showrunners to the point of delaying the series an entire year?

And...

Why are they canceling Breaking Bad then? It is on its last season now... split across two years because they couldn't be bothered to air all 16 or so episodes in the same final year so you get half now and half in 2013.

IF the shows are that good... AMC must be run by monkeys to want to take such shows off the air, right?


----------



## eric032706

What will likely happen with the HD channel bandwidth that Dish used to broadcast AMC? Will it be saved for if AMC comes back, possibly used to upgrade an existing SD channel, or just stockpiled? Just wondering. Looks like Directv turned on TCMHD. I don't know if this was already in the works, or Directv is just a fast mover and shaker.


----------



## ehilbert1

Ira Lacher said:


> Until the Emmy nominations were announced today:
> 
> 
> 17 nominations for _Mad Men_
> _Breaking Bad_ -- nominated for best drama
> 34 total nominations for a network with "only one day of quality programming."


Thank You! The great thing about AMC is the fact they don't green light just anything and throw it on the air. They don't do reality programming. Their really juts starting out doing the original programming thing. It took TNT a while to build up some shows. Just my 2 cents


----------



## ehilbert1

Stewart Vernon said:


> So...
> 
> Explain again, then, how AMC didn't air Mad Men in 2011 due to a rate dispute with the producers? I mean, if you have a show that is nominated for emmys and you want to use that as reason to increase your rates... why would you argue with the showrunners to the point of delaying the series an entire year?
> 
> And...
> 
> Why are they canceling Breaking Bad then? It is on its last season now... split across two years because they couldn't be bothered to air all 16 or so episodes in the same final year so you get half now and half in 2013.
> 
> IF the shows are that good... AMC must be run by monkeys to want to take such shows off the air, right?


Let's not forget how long it took HBO to come to terms with the cast of The Sopranos. Hell they would be off the air for a year and a half sometimes. Those things happen. HBO split up The Sopranos last season . ABC family does it all the time with their shows.

Even Hollywood split up the last Twilight movie. Why more $$$$$$$$$. I hate those movies!


----------



## fudpucker

The shows are that good. You can argue all day about whether AMC was asking for too much money or about the ratings but you lose credibility when you try to argue about the quality of these shows.

And yeah AMC had some back and forth with some of these shows just like you hear from most networks. No better no worse.

But the fact is that AMC decided to step up and carry some shows that most channels would not carry, some shows with acting and writing superior to most of the dreck on TV these days. Because most channels won't carry shows that don't have huge ratings. So most channels carry ten versions of singing competitions, reality crap, pawn stars/kings/queens/cats, everything with a Kardashian, etc. If you want to use ratings to argue that the AMC shows really aren't high quality then you must be happy with the networks who won't take a risk beyond The Bachelorette. 

Again - did AMC ask too much money? That's a reasonable argument.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

ehilbert1 said:


> Thank You! The great thing about AMC is the fact they don't green light just anything and throw it on the air. They don't do reality programming.


But they do overnight infomercials!

How about instead of selling their late night block to infomercials, they air some of that quality emmy-nominated TV instead?

The sure do like green-lighting those infomercials!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> And yeah AMC had some back and forth with some of these shows just like you hear from most networks. No better no worse.


I suppose... but consider:

Dish drops AMC over rates, and Dish is bad for not wanting to air emmy-nominated programming.

HOWEVER

AMC doesn't air Mad Men in 2012, and that's ok?

So... IF AMC decided not to pay for Mad Men it's acceptable... but Dish decided the same thing and somehow they are against quality TV? I'm wondering why AMC isn't getting more flack for what they have done to their own shows... running people off the shows, cutting budgets, asking to have more product placement, less episodes, skip a year, split the final season in half, etc.


----------



## ehilbert1

Stewart Vernon said:


> But they do overnight infomercials!
> 
> How about instead of selling their late night block to infomercials, they air some of that quality emmy-nominated TV instead?
> 
> The sure do like green-lighting those infomercials!


Late night I'm asleep most people are. I work and have a family. That's why prime time is 8pm to 11pm.

If you don't like their shows that's fine. I hate everything on MTV and I'm not a reality TV fan. All I know is The shows AMC does put on are very good. People will have different opinions on that. It just amazes me that since it's AMC Vs Dish some people are bringing up everything but the kitchen sink to make them look bad. Ratings, cut budgets. Wow it's just TV!

Speaking of budgets and production..... Has anyone ever got into a show by David E Kelly??? All his shows get budget cuts. The last season of The Practice they cut 4 regulars that had been on the show since the start. They did the same thing with Boston Legal and Boston Public. Harry's Law was NBC's 2nd most watch show. They cut it and cut it and finally canceled it. It was their #2 show!!! They cut it because of the 18 to 49 ratings. AMC is not alone.


----------



## jimb

ehilbert1 said:


> Has anyone ever got into a show by David E Kelly???


Not since Ally McBeal... Guess I'm behind!


----------



## SayWhat?

ehilbert1 said:


> Late night I'm asleep most people are. I work and have a family. That's why prime time is 8pm to 11pm.


So, the millions of people that work other hours, or are retired or unemployed or unable to work due to illness or handicap don't matter?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

ehilbert1 said:


> Late night I'm asleep most people are. I work and have a family. That's why prime time is 8pm to 11pm.


To be fair... prime time is prime time because of tradition... there are a lot of people that work at home and make their own hours as well as people working the night shift.

But that wasn't the point I was making anyway. You said that AMC doesn't just "green light anything"... and yet they kind of do... They run infomercials in the overnight... and WeTV has some reality TV.

Don't forget, this dispute was about the package of AMC, IFC, Sundance, and WeTV. WeTV does air reality TV do they not? And it was an all-or-none negotiation... It wasn't as if Dish could just take AMC with the award winning programming and pass on the others.



ehilbert1 said:


> If you don't like their shows that's fine.


I like the Walking Dead. I also watched the companion Talking Dead show... and tried, but didn't care for, Comic Book Men. I'll miss Walking Dead IF they aren't back on Dish by October... but since I will buy the Blu-rays anyway... I'll get to watch the shows eventually.



ehilbert1 said:


> It just amazes me that since it's AMC Vs Dish some people are bringing up everything but the kitchen sink to make them look bad. Ratings, cut budgets. Wow it's just TV!


I agree... it is just TV... which is why I was fine with Dish dropping them. AMC is the one bad-mouthing Dish. If you notice, Dish hasn't actually said anything bad about AMC and has encouraged people to watch the shows on AMC via other means. AMC, however, has told people to leave Dish.

And the truth is the truth... AMC argues they want more money, but then doesn't want to spend that money on their shows... so what do they want the money for? That seems fair to ask to me.


----------



## SayWhat?

I swear, sometimes it's like spinning a 45 on a full size platter without the little doohickey in the middle.


----------



## ATARI

SayWhat? said:


> I swear, sometimes it's like spinning a 45 on a full size platter without the little doohickey in the middle.


Is this directed at Stewart? (based on his avatar)


----------



## tampa8

I think it misses the point trying to figure out how good a couple of programs are on AMC. The question is, do they rate where USA and TNT are for example, because that's the rate per subscriber they are trying to attain. (Not all at once) And then, is what they are asking worth it to be made to carry their other networks that for the most part no one watches.

It's more than how good two or three programs are, you can be sure if AMC dropped the demand to carry all the other networks, Dish would have been willing to negotiate more. Exactly what Direct TV is doing with Viacom. Think of it like a can of tuna fish. Used to be, say 8 ounces. But as price increased to keep it from escalating they put less in, say 6 ounces, effectively raising the price per ounce, but not for the can. That's what carriers are being forced to do. Rather than raise your rates as high as they would have to, they want to not carry some of the least popular channels, probably then pay a little more to keep the ones that are watched, and then not have to raise prices as much.


----------



## sigma1914

ehilbert1 said:


> Thank You! The great thing about AMC is the fact they don't green light just anything and throw it on the air. They don't do reality programming. Their really juts starting out doing the original programming thing. It took TNT a while to build up some shows. Just my 2 cents


They're doing reality programming, too. Comic Book Men was pretty good and is returning. Small Town Security just started and The Pitch was interesting. There's 3 reality shows.


----------



## ehilbert1

SayWhat? said:


> So, the millions of people that work other hours, or are retired or unemployed or unable to work due to illness or handicap don't matter?


Don't go there with Handicapped I've been in a wheelchair for years as a paraplegic. I work full time. I didn't take my military disability. By the way you lost credibility with me when you made it sound like everyone that was getting a credit needed to prove a loss to you. Plus the whole "*judges aren't always righ*t" thing when the judge ruled against Dish. If that doesn't scream fanboy I have no idea what does.

Again I stand by prime time is 8pm to 11pm. There is a reason for that. Your not going to bait me into something like you do others. We get it you don't watch AMC and you don't care that it's gone. Like I said before your just some guy on the net. I could care less what you think. As I'm sure you care less what I think.


----------



## ehilbert1

sigma1914 said:


> They're doing reality programming, too. Comic Book Men was pretty good and is returning. Small Town Security just started and The Pitch was interesting. There's 3 reality shows.


Your absolutely right! I watch Pitch too!! Hey I can admit when I'm wrong!


----------



## ehilbert1

Stewart Vernon said:


> To be fair... prime time is prime time because of tradition... there are a lot of people that work at home and make their own hours as well as people working the night shift.
> 
> But that wasn't the point I was making anyway. You said that AMC doesn't just "green light anything"... and yet they kind of do... They run infomercials in the overnight... and WeTV has some reality TV.
> 
> Don't forget, this dispute was about the package of AMC, IFC, Sundance, and WeTV. WeTV does air reality TV do they not? And it was an all-or-none negotiation... It wasn't as if Dish could just take AMC with the award winning programming and pass on the others.
> 
> I like the Walking Dead. I also watched the companion Talking Dead show... and tried, but didn't care for, Comic Book Men. I'll miss Walking Dead IF they aren't back on Dish by October... but since I will buy the Blu-rays anyway... I'll get to watch the shows eventually.
> 
> I agree... it is just TV... which is why I was fine with Dish dropping them. AMC is the one bad-mouthing Dish. If you notice, Dish hasn't actually said anything bad about AMC and has encouraged people to watch the shows on AMC via other means. AMC, however, has told people to leave Dish.
> 
> And the truth is the truth... AMC argues they want more money, but then doesn't want to spend that money on their shows... so what do they want the money for? That seems fair to ask to me.


You make some good points and appreciate your passion for this stuff. I want to get Dish so bad. I'm just a huge fan of AMC and it kills me Dish doesn't have it. I can hold out for a while but the Hopper keeps calling me!!!!!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

ehilbert1 said:


> You make some good points and appreciate your passion for this stuff. I want to get Dish so bad. I'm just a huge fan of AMC and it kills me Dish doesn't have it. I can hold out for a while but the Hopper keeps calling me!!!!!


I can see from your perspective how that makes a difference. IF I was not a Dish customer and they just dropped a channel I watch... I probably would be hesitant to switch to them as well. I can definitely see from that perspective how it affects your decision.

As an already existing Dish customer, however, it isn't enough to make me even think about leaving. So, I have the opposite perspective from you in that sense... and it definitely changes my motivations.

Oddly, I'm more concerned about missing the Talking Dead show since that one is only relevant if you watch it the night after the Walking Dead airs... I can enjoy Walking dead months later... but Talking Dead won't be available to me to watch then.

So, I do hope this all shakes out by October.


----------



## david_jr

tampa8 said:


> I think it misses the point trying to figure out how good a couple of programs are on AMC. The question is, do they rate where USA and TNT are for example, because that's the rate per subscriber they are trying to attain. (Not all at once) And then, is what they are asking worth it to be made to carry their other networks that for the most part no one watches.
> 
> It's more than how good two or three programs are, you can be sure if AMC dropped the demand to carry all the other networks, Dish would have been willing to negotiate more. Exactly what Direct TV is doing with Viacom. Think of it like a can of tuna fish. Used to be, say 8 ounces. But as price increased to keep it from escalating they put less in, say 6 ounces, effectively raising the price per ounce, but not for the can. *That's what carriers are being forced to do.* Rather than raise your rates as high as they would have to, they want to not carry some of the least popular channels, probably then pay a little more to keep the ones that are watched, and then not have to raise prices as much.


The question is why are they being forced to do this? While most of America is downsizing, facing unemployment, underemployment, loss of job security, loss in benifits, etc, Hollywood continues on with the lifestyles of the rich and famous unabated. They still have thier mansions in Beverly hills or Malibu, a ranch in Montana or island in the tropics and homes around the world and are always taking exotic vacations around the world; all of which are constantly documented by Entertainment Tonight and Inside Edition on a daily basis. While they are "working" they get the royal treatment and are spoiled to a fairtheewell. Meanwhile a lot of us are trying to figure out our entertainment priorities and what we can afford to be entertained by. At least tuna has nurishment value, which is a need, so we have to buy it even though its smaller. TV we might have to get a little more picky.


----------



## fudpucker

Let me make one thing clear: my arguments on the quality of the shows on AMC is separate from the argument of whether AMC was asking too much from Dish. I just think in the passion of people wanting to make one side or the other "evil" people are overreaching to attack AMC and their shows. 

It can be true that AMC has made some great programming decisions to move from a 3rd rate movie channel to a channel that carries some of the top shows on TV, shows that are bold and different and that no other channel would carry. AND that they overreached and asked for too much money from Dish and that Dish made the right business decision. There's no need to make either of the channels evil. Although I realize that web forums are passionate by nature (most people don't spend their time posting on a Dish forum  )

My personal opinion from all I have been able to find in as many sources as I can find is that this is indeed a different kind of fight than, say DirectTV vs. Viacom. In that case there was posturing and bad mouthing of each other but they reached an agreement. In this case it seems clear ( to me) that there is personal animosity between the two gazillionaires and they have made this a personal, who's wiener is bigger fight and neither is going to get their ego out of the way long enough to back down. Again that's not taking sides, just an observation/opinion.


----------



## clotter

fudpucker said:


> My personal opinion from all I have been able to find in as many sources as I can find is that this is indeed a different kind of fight than, say DirectTV vs. Viacom.


Sorry in advance fud, for taking your post out of context.  This is indeed a different kind of fight. *DirecTV and Viacom just manned up and came to an agreement.* I imagine because this was best thing to do for their customers.  Let's see if Dish and AMC can be responsible to their customers and do the same...


----------



## SayWhat?

clotter said:


> Let's see if Dish and AMC can be responsible to their customers and do the same...


I'd say the Dish/AMC situation is already done. Done as in over and done with.


----------



## SayWhat?

Curious thing.....

This thread, about 1,500 posts; the Direct/Viacom thread, nearly 3,000 in a much shorter timeframe.

Does that indicate Viacom is more discussion worthy than AMC? Or that Direct customers are more talkative?


----------



## lparsons21

This site is seen as more DirecTV centric, which should result and did, in more conversation about things affecting D* and its subscribers.

I know that for me, I come here more often when I am looking for things D* related and the 'other site' for things E* related.


----------



## bnewt

clotter said:


> Sorry in advance fud, for taking your post out of context.  This is indeed a different kind of fight. *DirecTV and Viacom just manned up and came to an agreement.* I imagine because this was best thing to do for their customers.  Let's see if Dish and AMC can be responsible to their customers and do the same...


It would certainly be nice if Dish & AMC would kiss & make up, but I doubt it happens until the law suit is settled ............one way or the other:nono2:


----------



## harsh

SayWhat? said:


> Does that indicate Viacom is more discussion worthy than AMC? Or that Direct customers are more talkative?


To some extent. Viacom represents quite a few more "relevant" channels than AMC. The kid's programming alone trumps most everything from AMC. Not to mention that there were many, many more lower-tier channels involved.


----------



## johnp37

In any any case, it is most unfortunate for those Dish subscribers who are passionate viewers of (take your pick) Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Mad Men and others. Just my $.02.


----------



## harsh

I believe, as always, that Derek Chang should not be allowed to speak for the company. His inflammatory statement in the press release is putting a battery on his replacement's shoulder (see Eveready battery commercials with Robert Conrad). DIRECTV should not cultivate a juggernaut mentality.


----------



## johnstred

harsh said:


> To some extent. Viacom represents quite a few more "relevant" channels than AMC. The kid's programming alone trumps most everything from AMC. Not to mention that there were many, many more lower-tier channels involved.


What's interesting to add is that I have seen a LOT more publicity in various newspapers, magazines and news shows about the Viacom/DTV feud that this DISH/AMC feud. maybe that's why it settled faster and created more discussion.


----------



## SayWhat?

johnstred said:


> maybe that's why it settled faster and created more discussion.


No. It's because Viacom is of more interest to more people than AMC and because the two companies were still talking and putting it out in the press themselves.

It just shows that less people care about losing AMC and the media realizes there is little to no chance of AMC returning to Dish any time soon since the two companies aren't even talking any more.


----------



## LazhilUT

So DTV settled a lot quicker than Dish has ever settled...
When FX and those channels were gone it took a few weeks if not months...
DTV got it done in a matter of days.

I understand that Dish took a stance and so did DTV, but at the end of the day, DTV realized their sh*t does stink and negotiated a deal.
Why won't Dish do it? Thankfully I don't watch the channels we lost but come on!


----------



## SayWhat?

^^ Because the Rainbow Group channels don't have the value or viewership of Viacom or Fox or most of the other groups.


----------



## Ira Lacher

Because with DISH, it's always that its CEO takes it personally.


----------



## DoyleS

The one thing this thread has done for me is to make me aware of Breaking Bad and Mad Men. I did watch Hell on Wheels last year and was looking forward to it starting next month so I will be grabbing it probably on iTunes. Since the other two shows have already had several seasons, I can easily order their episodes on DVD from Blockbuster.


----------



## DoyleS

Interesting to note the Emmy Drama nominees. AMC clearly has a solid showing.
*Outstanding Drama*
"Boardwalk Empire"
"Breaking Bad"
"Downton Abbey"
"Game of Thrones"
"Homeland"
"Mad Men"

*Outstanding Actress In A Drama*
"Kathy Bates, "Harry's Law"
"Glenn Close, "Damages"
"Claire Danes, "Homeland"
"Michelle Dockery, "Downton Abbey"
"Julianna Margulies, "The Good Wife"
"Elisabeth Moss, "Mad Men"

*Outstanding Actor in a Drama*
Hugh Bonneville, "Downton Abbey"
Steve Buscemi, "Boardwalk Empire"
Bryan Cranston, "Breaking Bad"
Michael C. Hall, "Dexter"
Jon Hamm, "Mad Men"
Damian Lewis, "Homeland"

*Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama*
Aaron Paul, "Breaking Bad"
Giancarlo Esposito, "Breaking Bad"
Brendan Coyle, "Downton Abbey"
Jim Carter, "Downton Abbey" Jared Harris, "Mad Men"
Peter Dinklage, "Game of Thrones"

*Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama*
Archie Panjabi, "The Good Wife"
Anna Gunn, "Breaking Bad"
Maggie Smith, "Downton Abbey"
Joanne Froggatt, "Downton Abbey"
Christina Hendricks, "Mad Men"
Christine Baranski, "The Good Wife"


----------



## SayWhat?

^^ Already discussed, as well as the irrelevance of 'awards' shows.


----------



## joyandjerry

Interesting thread - I wish I had time to read all of the posts. Losing AMC and IFC will definitely have us switching to DTV, as we watch a lot on those networks. We have been satisfied customers for eight years, so I am hoping this won't happen.

And for Say What?, who questioned my use of "usu." I was using it an an abbreviation for "usually". Sorry if that wasn't clear from the context.


----------



## phrelin

DoyleS said:


> Interesting to note the Emmy Drama nominees. AMC clearly has a solid showing.
> *Outstanding Drama*
> "Boardwalk Empire"
> "Breaking Bad"
> "Downton Abbey"
> "Game of Thrones"
> "Homeland"
> "Mad Men"


These are quality shows, no question about it. What does this tell us:

"Boardwalk Empire" and "Game of Thrones" - on premium channel HBO
"Homeland" - on premium channel Showtime
"Downton Abbey" - part of the PBS Masterpiece Theater series supported by the Masterpiece Trust and donations from viewers like you
"Breaking Bad" and "Mad Men" - on an advertising/retransmission-fee supported mostly-old-movies-and-infomercials basic cable channel
IMHO something seems oddly out of place.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

SayWhat? said:


> ^^ Already discussed, as well as the irrelevance of 'awards' shows.


I disagree that awards shows are irrelevant, as an awarded show can demand higher ad rates.


----------



## DoyleS

SayWhat? said:


> ^^ Already discussed, as well as the irrelevance of 'awards' shows.


LOL!!! with over 1500 posts on this thread, most everything has been already discussed.

If AMC had no showings in the Emmy nominations it would seem that their negotiating position with their distributors and their advertisers would not be as strong. Calling something irrelevant doesn't make it irrelevant to everyone else.


----------



## ehilbert1

DoyleS said:


> LOL!!! with over 1500 posts on this thread, most everything has been already discussed.
> 
> If AMC had no showings in the Emmy nominations it would seem that their negotiating position with their distributors and their advertisers would not be as strong. Calling something irrelevant doesn't make it irrelevant to everyone else.


It's irrelevant to him. He's taking it personal for some reason. You are dead on with your post!


----------



## Jim5506

Dish network decided to drop AMC because of the suit over VOOM - pure and simple - If you sue me I will take my money else where and you will get nothing more from me.

If Disney was not such a big gorilla, all their shows would be gone too, but they have too much programming punch for Charlie to pull that one on them.

AMC will not be back on Dish Network, even if they gave their programming to Dish free - period.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

It is still worth noting that the noise has died down pretty quickly... Dish rode out the speedbump of dropping the AMC channels, and honestly there doesn't seem to be any urgency to add them back.

Ultimately AMC loses in this scenario. The viewers have moved on and found other things to watch now.


----------



## SayWhat?

And Rainbow can't be too anxious to try the same thing with Direct or any other carrier.


----------



## Jhon69

Jim5506 said:


> Dish network decided to drop AMC because of the suit over VOOM - pure and simple - If you sue me I will take my money else where and you will get nothing more from me.
> 
> If Disney was not such a big gorilla, all their shows would be gone too, but they have too much programming punch for Charlie to pull that one on them.
> 
> AMC will not be back on Dish Network, even if they gave their programming to Dish free - period.


And we know they already are,that's why DISH is giving out ROKUs.


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> It is still worth noting that the noise has died down pretty quickly... Dish rode out the speedbump of dropping the AMC channels, and honestly there doesn't seem to be any urgency to add them back.
> 
> Ultimately AMC loses in this scenario. The viewers have moved on and found other things to watch now.


Well, maybe. But I'll be streaming "Hell on Wheels" through Amazon and wishing AMC were still on Dish so I could justify the $15 in order to see BBCA's "Copper".

Oh well.


----------



## Marlin Guy

joyandjerry said:


> And for Say What?, who questioned my use of "usu." I was using it an an abbreviation for "usually". Sorry if that wasn't clear from the context.


:lol: Out-jargoned :lol:

I love it!
You can't read half the posts on this place as it is unless you have a decoder ring. LMAO


----------



## inazsully

Jhon69 said:


> And we know they already are,that's why DISH is giving out ROKUs.


Dish is giving out Roku's to the very very few that are aware they can get one, and then only after they go through the first line rep and are transferred to Customer Loyalty. Don't make it sound like Dish is making this magnanimous gesture out of the goodness of their hearts. They know that only a very minute percentage of subs will benefit from this situation. Still, it is surprising that Dish is doing this.


----------



## dbstv

inazsully said:


> Dish is giving out Roku's to the very very few that are aware they can get one, and then only after they go through the first line rep and are transferred to Customer Loyalty. Don't make it sound like Dish is making this magnanimous gesture out of the goodness of their hearts. They know that only a very minute percentage of subs will benefit from this situation. Still, it is surprising that Dish is doing this.


I think Roku thing is a BS 2 weeks ago they claim I was to get one I have called twice asking for tracking number I get BS that it is handled by a Dept that they can not get that info from amd will get email when it is shipped

Wonder if anyone got their one yet and if thay did how long did it take

all I got so far was hdmi cable


----------



## Ray [email protected] Network

Please PM me your account number so I can review the notes on your account to check on the Roku equipment for you. Please let me know. Thanks.



dbstv said:


> I think Roku thing is a BS 2 weeks ago they claim I was to get one I have called twice asking for tracking number I get BS that it is handled by a Dept that they can not get that info from amd will get email when it is shipped
> 
> Wonder if anyone got their one yet and if thay did how long did it take
> 
> all I got so far was hdmi cable


----------



## SayWhat?

The media went loopy with stories nearly every day over the DTV/Viacom dispute.

By comparison, there has been little coverage of this one. A few articles the first day or so, but nothing since. I see that as a symbol of how unimportant Rainbow is, how few people care and how 'done' this matter really is.


----------



## labmansid

dbstv said:


> I think Roku thing is a BS 2 weeks ago they claim I was to get one I have called twice asking for tracking number I get BS that it is handled by a Dept that they can not get that info from amd will get email when it is shipped
> 
> Wonder if anyone got their one yet and if thay did how long did it take
> 
> all I got so far was hdmi cable


Funny you should mention this. I made the call last weekend to see about getting the Roku, only because I had seen it being offered on forums like this one.

When it didn't show up this week, yesterday I chatted with a Dish rep online, and they could not see any mention on my account of a Roku being shipped. :nono: I did get the $30 credit for ordering Breaking Bad from Amazon on demand. I was then given a customer service number to call.

So I called, and sure enough no Roku mentioned on my account. The rep offered to set up rush shipping for me next week, but I asked about just getting a credit to cover the cost of just getting one at my local Best Buy store that day. She graciously offered a $60 credit to do that, and I took it, since I figured I would get the upgraded Roku that had a port for wired ethernet anyway. Before hanging up, I managed to also get a $10 credit per month for the next year.

So, it actually turned out a little more to my benefit that it got skipped initially. Ironically, I got an email a short time later saying I would be getting an HDMI cable shipped to me.  It must not be a "Monster" brand, as it appears to be only a $10 cable, unless it is only a few inches long!


----------



## SayWhat?

labmansid said:


> Funny you should mention this. I made the call last weekend to see about getting the Roku, only because I had seen it being offered on forums like this one.


Not that you really need it. Just jumping on the 'Gimme, Gimme' bandwagon to take advantage, eh?


----------



## Paul Secic

SayWhat? said:


> The media went loopy with stories nearly every day over the DTV/Viacom dispute.
> 
> By comparison, there has been little coverage of this one. A few articles the first day or so, but nothing since. I see that as a symbol of how unimportant Rainbow is, how few people care and how 'done' this matter really is.


I think Rainbow on Dish. I wish Rainbow would revive VOOM. As far as AMC I couldn't give a fig about it.


----------



## ehilbert1

SayWhat? said:


> The media went loopy with stories nearly every day over the DTV/Viacom dispute.
> 
> By comparison, there has been little coverage of this one. A few articles the first day or so, but nothing since. I see that as a symbol of how unimportant Rainbow is, how few people care and how 'done' this matter really is.


Yet here you are day after day????



SayWhat? said:


> Not that you really need it. Just jumping on the 'Gimme, Gimme' bandwagon to take advantage, eh?


Who do you think you are? Why should you care? Your really taking this to personal. Nobody has to answer to you. It's none of your business. Go out and get a girlfriend man. Get away from the board and enjoy life because trust me it's way to short and can be over in an instant.


----------



## dbstv

Ray [email protected] Network said:


> Please PM me your account number so I can review the notes on your account to check on the Roku equipment for you. Please let me know. Thanks.


Message sent this might just save my marriage and I am not joking


----------



## dunkonu23

Regarless of rhetoric, I'm still going to cancel Dish the day my contract expires if they do have AMC back--with an additional qualifier--if TWD is still on.

Scott


----------



## jimb

Almost time for Breaking Bad... Now would be a good time for both sides to agree to a new contract, if anyone is listening!


----------



## SayWhat?

jimb said:


> if anyone is listening!


They aren't.


----------



## labmansid

SayWhat? said:


> Not that you really need it. Just jumping on the 'Gimme, Gimme' bandwagon to take advantage, eh?


No, what I was implying was that I had no idea the Roku was an option, since Dish is apparently not publicizing it at all. We have been big fans of most of the more recent shows, such as Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, etc., on AMC. If I had not seen the Roku deal on this or other forums, I would have had no idea about it.

I knew about it for a while, but put off trying for it until it became obvious that no deal was going to be worked out any time soon. If it hadn't come to my attention, I'm not sure what we would have done, just waited for some other option, I guess, such as getting a friend to record it.

I can assure you, I am not prone to "Just jumping on the 'Gimme, Gimme' bandwagon to take advantage". When I called Dish about the loss of AMC programming, they are the ones who suggested the free Roku, not me. It's not like I demanded one. So please do not make assumptions about my motives.


----------



## tmanmi

Are there any options for those of of who are out in the sticks and don't have real internet? Streaming is impossible with an aircard. If there was an option to download not stream the AMC programs I would be happy even if it took several hours to get one program.


----------



## lparsons21

Paul Secic said:


> I think Rainbow on Dish. I wish Rainbow would revive VOOM. As far as AMC I couldn't give a fig about it.


Why? So you could have another group of channels running incessant reruns of bad shows? OK, that's not fair, some of their stuff was good, just not as good the 27th time in a month they ran it. 

And if they revived it, which distributor would pick it up? I think the answer would be none.


----------



## DoyleS

You can buy episodes or the whole season on iTunes and it will download.


----------



## joyandjerry

Stewart Vernon said:


> It is still worth noting that the noise has died down pretty quickly... Dish rode out the speedbump of dropping the AMC channels, and honestly there doesn't seem to be any urgency to add them back.
> 
> Ultimately AMC loses in this scenario. The viewers have moved on and found other things to watch now.


Not in our case. We don't watch _Breaking Bad_, but _Hell on Wheels_ is coming up on August 12 and we don't want to miss that or _TWD_. So more subscribers will care as these shows premiere, and I'm sure that it will hurt new subcribers making a choice betw. sat. services.

CS informed me today they are "open to negotiations", and seems to think it will be settled _eventually_, as _TWD_ is so popular.



> Well, maybe. But I'll be streaming "Hell on Wheels" through Amazon and wishing AMC were still on Dish so I could justify the $15 in order to see BBCA's "Copper".


Dish still has BBCA (in HD, unlike DTV), so you'll be able to see _Copper_. We're looking forward to that, too. Jerrry and I are *HUGE* British mystery fans. The ones that are not shown in the U.S. I buy on disc and resell after viewing.

Our computer is at work, so we cannot stream at home. IFC has a lot of content which we enjoyed, so we'll make the switch to DTV if the situation is not resolved in the next several weeks.


----------



## SayWhat?

What are you going to do if you switch and those shows get cancelled?


----------



## joyandjerry

SayWhat? said:


> What are you going to do if you switch and those shows get cancelled?


Which shows do you mean? AMC series are quite popular, so cancellation is not an issue. And if I'm happy with the provider, I'll stay. One could go crazy constantly comparing prices to save a few $ monthly.


----------



## DoyleS

Called today to disconnect a 311 after adding a 722K+sling. As I finished she offered any of the premium movie channels at half price for 6 months. Isaid I would rather have AMC and she said they were working on it and hoped to have it back soon. Not sure if this is an official line but it. Is what she said.


----------



## StringFellow

"joyandjerry" said:


> Which shows do you mean? AMC series are quite popular, so cancellation is not an issue. And if I'm happy with the provider, I'll stay. One could go crazy constantly comparing prices to save a few $ monthly.


Cancellation is always a possibility. Production costs, viewership, compensation requirements by cast members, change in producer/writer all play factors in if a show is renewed. Chasing a show or $$ gets expensive, especially if there are termination fees.

I think AMC will be back on Dish, but who knows when that will happen.


----------



## RVRambler

ANY show on ANY channel can be canceled, due to 2 major things, viewership (ad revenues) & production costs (salaries & costs). 

Several great shows were lost due to the Writers strike a few years back, Los Vegas for one, some delayed, '24' & 'mad men', etc

Breaking Bad is the final season, would think at least another AMC hit will exit too, but back to the first line above of course.


----------



## Chihuahua

Still no sad loss for me. As mentioned earlier on this thread, I haven't really cared for the network formerly known as *American Movie Classics* since the format change.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

joyandjerry said:


> Which shows do you mean? AMC series are quite popular, so cancellation is not an issue. And if I'm happy with the provider, I'll stay. One could go crazy constantly comparing prices to save a few $ monthly.


Breaking Bad is canceled. It is airing half the final season this year, half in 2013... but it is already canceled.

Isn't the Killing canceled?

Mad Men didn't air at all in 2011 due to a dispute between AMC and the creators of Mad Men. Don't be surprised if the next dispute results in cancellation OR a move to another network.

Walking Dead they literally ran off the showrunner in season 2 and cut the budget. Don't be surprised if that show has another dispute next season.

No channel is immune from having shows be canceled. AMC has actually had as much trouble with its showrunners as it has had with Dish!


----------



## djlong

Last I read, Mad Men just started production of Season 6 and Season 7 will be their last.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> Breaking Bad is canceled. It is airing half the final season this year, half in 2013... but it is already canceled.


Is there any guarantee those will even be run? It wouldn't be the first time shows were 'in-the-can' but never aired.


----------



## bidger

Stewart Vernon said:


> Breaking Bad is canceled. It is airing half the final season this year, half in 2013... but it is already canceled.


Stewart, do you not understand the difference between a show being canceled as opposed to a show that has come to its final Season. Were "Mash" or "Cheers" "canceled"? Cancellation of a show happens when the ratings are poor, which is clearly not the case for "Breaking Bad" since its Season 5 premiere set ratings records for the show, which is available on Cable and Satellite, but not DISH Network.



SayWhat? said:


> Is there any guarantee those will even be run? It wouldn't be the first time shows were 'in-the-can' but never aired.


Again, that situation occurs when a show struggles in the ratings, not the case here, despite your aversion to AMC shows.


----------



## SayWhat?

bidger said:


> Again, that situation occurs when a show struggles in the ratings, not the case here,


As has been shown many times in this thread and others, while the rating may be high for AMC, they are very low in comparison to other shows and networks. AMC has such a limited audience, high ratings there don't really mean much in the overall picture.

It's like saying certain models of the Yugo outsold other Yugo models.


----------



## joyandjerry

_TWD_ is cable's number one rated series, and hads a very high rating/share in the "desirable" 18-49 demo. Of course, due to writer's disputes, etc., anything can happen, so these are all excellent points.

"Cancellation" is pulling the show due to poor ratings. Some shows are planning to run a certain amount of seasons. Seven seems to be the lucky number! _Mad Men_ and _Burn Notice_ are both planning seven seasons. Other shows, such as _Game of Thrones_ have planned limited seasons. If these shows weren't "performing" welll enough for the network, they would be pulled from the schedule instead filming adln. seasons.

We also would miss AMC for other "future" series that may interest us. I am alread missing IFC and Sundance. But I have a lot stored on the DVR, and switching would be a PIA, so I'll wait it out a bit.

No provider will please all of the consumers all of the time!! :lol:


----------



## lparsons21

Absolutely true! No provider can or does provide it all.

If I were to return to Dish, which is still a probability although timing isn't so sure, I would lose AMC altogether, and a number of sports channels in D*'s sports pack that have boxing that Dish doesn't have. I would pick up Epix which I like.

If I stay with D*, I'll pay more but get those channels. But BBCA is in SD and horrid SD at that. And at the moment D* has more of the big 4 premiums in HD than E* does.

If I cancelled D* and paid the ETF, I would still save money in the first year (about $20/month), and save a few bucks after that (somewhere around the $10 mark).


----------



## DoyleS

Currently there are a lot more shows on than I have time to watch so my DVR has been filling up with AXS concerts, Longmire, Rissoli and Isles, The Closer, NYC22, Falling Skies and some of the Epix movies, not to mention the upcoming 2 weeks of Olympics. I would love to have AMC for Hell on Wheels but can easily get that online. I just started watching Breaking Bad so it will be quite awhile before I am ready to watch this seasons efforts and by then it will likely be available by DVD from Blockbuster. Mad Men is also on my list to start but just haven't had the time. I love my 722s and Sling Adapter and really have no plans to switch from Dish.


----------



## SayWhat?

AXS is turning out to be a pretty good addition as far as concerts. Commercials between sets, but they're limited.


----------



## DoyleS

I watched the Chicago concert the other night. Tunes were classic but the voices are really starting to fade. The one I really enjoyed was the Phil Collins Going Back concert with 3 of the Funk Brothers. John Fogerty is always great and his voice is still right on. I see that Tower of Power will be on Aug 5 so that should also be a good one.


----------



## joyandjerry

We have AEP, so we had all of these concert stations all along, but I wasn't aware of them. (Every so often I scan for stations that may have been added, but that's not high up on my priority list!) Palladia is another great one, in HD. For us lovers of _serious_  hard rock, Alice In Chains, Foo Fighters, Iron Maiden and Green Day all had great concerts, with minimal commercial interruption. "Offensive" lyrics were beeped, though.

But none of this can substitute of _TWD_, IMOSHO.


----------



## SayWhat?

DoyleS said:


> Tunes were classic but the voices are really starting to fade.


Have you heard McCartney lately? He doesn't sound right at all.


----------



## inkahauts

Generally, canceled means the network doesn't want it anymore, for any reason, although its usually ratings or costs. Sometimes it has good ratings, but it's still not justifiable due to the costs of the show to produce. Mad men almost got canceled not because of ratings, but because of money, that does happen. Ending a show instead of canceling is usually a result of the producers and creative team deciding they have no stories left or desire to keep telling stories for that show, so they let the network know they are not going to renew, even if they are offered to keep it going by the network. Often times thats a mutual decision as well. I believe house is one prime recent example of that.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bidger said:


> Stewart, do you not understand the difference between a show being canceled as opposed to a show that has come to its final Season. Were "Mash" or "Cheers" "canceled"? Cancellation of a show happens when the ratings are poor, which is clearly not the case for "Breaking Bad" since its Season 5 premiere set ratings records for the show, which is available on Cable and Satellite, but not DISH Network.


Do you not understand that regardless of the reason... if the show isn't on anymore, then you can't watch it. So... everyone who goes and switches providers and makes a 2 year commitment, then a year from now none of these shows you switched to watch are still on... how good of a decision will that be in hindsight?

And before you say "that can't happen"... consider what has already been said and what shows we know already won't be back beyond next year.



bidger said:


> Again, that situation occurs when a show struggles in the ratings, not the case here, despite your aversion to AMC shows.


Who said I had an aversion to AMC shows? IF you read my posts... I acknowledge that they have several good shows, whether I watch them or not... and I do watch Walking Dead. I just can't justify AMC's value based on about a handful of programming... and apparently AMC doesn't value their programming either, given the disputes they keep having with the various showrunners of these programs.



inkahauts said:


> Generally, canceled means the network doesn't want it anymore, for any reason, although its usually ratings or costs. Sometimes it has good ratings, but it's still not justifiable due to the costs of the show to produce. Mad men almost got canceled not because of ratings, but because of money, that does happen. Ending a show instead of canceling is usually a result of the producers and creative team deciding they have no stories left or desire to keep telling stories for that show, so they let the network know they are not going to renew, even if they are offered to keep it going by the network. Often times thats a mutual decision as well. I believe house is one prime recent example of that.


Exactly. Breaking Bad increased its ratings... and yet it will be gone. Was it canceled due to low ratings? No... but the fact remains that it will not be on after next year's half season.

And Mad Men, as popular as it is... AMC was fine not having it in production or airing for an entire year while arguing over more product placement, shorter episodes to air more commercials, and less episodes per season... all things that seem odd when simultaneously arguing how good the show is and how popular it is... then wanting to muck with it AND take it off the air a year while arguing with the producers about such things.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> And before you say "that can't happen"...


Story breaking about some of the cast (including Sofia) of 'Modern Family' suing the producers over their contract terms. Might affect production, might not.

Isn't that one of the most popular programs on TV right now?

Never say it can't happen.


----------



## Mojo Jojo

"joyandjerry" said:


> We have AEP, so we had all of these concert stations all along, but I wasn't aware of them. (Every so often I scan for stations that may have been added, but that's not high up on my priority list!) Palladia is another great one, in HD. For us lovers of serious  hard rock, Alice In Chains, Foo Fighters, Iron Maiden and Green Day all had great concerts, with minimal commercial interruption. "Offensive" lyrics were beeped, though.
> 
> But none of this can substitute of TWD, IMOSHO.


I am surprised at how so many people did not know about AXS (formerly HDNet) as it is already in America's Top 120 and above and Dish Latino Dos and above. The "regular" channel number is 362; maybe no one was looking in that channel range for it. Right now it is on channel 131 as well as the "high quality replacement for IFC. At one time, it was HD only, too. Therefore, I am guessing SD subs are just discovering it, too. According to DIRT, Palladia is back in AT 120 (as well as [email protected] [channel 369], but I cannot confirm that.


----------



## SayWhat?

Mojo Jojo said:


> I am surprised at how so many people did not know about AXS (formerly HDNet)
> 
> At one time, it was HD only, too. Therefore, I am guessing SD subs are just discovering it, too.


That's probably why I'm just finding it.


----------



## Michael P

inkahauts said:


> Generally, canceled means the network doesn't want it anymore, for any reason, although its usually ratings or costs. Sometimes it has good ratings, but it's still not justifiable due to the costs of the show to produce. * Mad men almost got canceled not because of ratings, but because of money*, that does happen. Ending a show instead of canceling is usually a result of the producers and creative team deciding they have no stories left or desire to keep telling stories for that show, so they let the network know they are not going to renew, even if they are offered to keep it going by the network. Often times thats a mutual decision as well. I believe house is one prime recent example of that.


 If that is so then why did the producers spend a rumored quarter of a million dollars for the use of a genuine Beatles song this season? (and it wasn't even one of their hits)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Michael P said:


> If that is so then why did the producers spend a rumored quarter of a million dollars for the use of a genuine Beatles song this season? (and it wasn't even one of their hits)


AMC is the one who doesn't want to spend money on Mad Men... the Mad Men producers are fine with spending money to make quality TV. AMC tried to cut their budget (like AMC has done with other shows), tried to force more product placement, and tried to have less episodes and shorter episodes to sell more commercial spots.

The Mad Men producers fought for a bigger budget, more shows, longer shows, and less product placement.

So you're asking the wrong question here... Mad Men producers wanted an authentic song from the times to set a mood and were willing to spend money in their budget to make the show seem accurate. AMC, I'm sure, would not have wanted to spend that money.


----------



## bidger

Stewart Vernon said:


> Who said I had an aversion to AMC shows?


Check my post again. There are two quotes from other members, yourself and SayWhat. The part you're referring to appears under the quote from SW.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bidger said:


> Check my post again. There are two quotes from other members, yourself and SayWhat. The part you're referring to appears under the quote from SW.


My apologies... I though it odd, since I have gone out of my way to talk about the good shows (even ones I don't watch)... My mistake for responding to a question that wasn't directed at me. Sorry about that.


----------



## phrelin

Now there is one less AMC show I'd miss or have to stream. AMC did not renew "The Killing" as noted in this post. As noted in this story:


> Fox Television Studios quickly sent out a statement saying the studio plans to shop the drama series to other networks: "Fox Television Studios is extremely proud of The Killing, the extraordinary writing staff and crew, and what we believe is one of the best casts on television. We will proceed to try to find another home for the show."
> 
> The Killing has been one of AMC's few missteps in an otherwise remarkable plunge into scripted television during the last several years. The show premiered last year to 2.7 million viewers and plenty of fan and critic excitement. But in a move that will likely be used as a real-time lesson in serialized series management for years to come, AMC and Sud managed to infuriating fans by declining to solve a mystery that viewers felt they had been led to believe would be cleared up by the end of the first season.
> 
> When season two debuted in April, ratings dropped 33 percent to 1.8 million viewers. The audience continued to ebb until the finale, which garnered 1.4 million viewers and finally revealed who killed teen murder victim Rosie Larsen. With the ratings showing a clear downward trajectory, and having established across two seasons that the Larsen murder is the driving force of the show, cancellation seemed very likely. The lesson? Don't take viewers for granted.


This is just another reason why I don't care about AMC being gone.


----------



## SayWhat?

Can the others be far behind?


----------



## DoyleS

So far I have watched episodes 1 & 2 of Breaking Bad and not sure I have the stomach to watch a lot more of it. Clearly it is not a show my wife would like. I'll do another episode and if it doesn't click then there will be a lot of room on my DVR. Longmire on A&E on the other hand has got me hooked. Good drama, good acting and good sets. A lot of what I liked about Hell on Wheels.


----------



## Laxguy

DoyleS said:


> So far I have watched episodes 1 & 2 of Breaking Bad and not sure I have the stomach to watch a lot more of it. Clearly it is not a show my wife would like. I'll do another episode and if it doesn't click then there will be a lot of room on my DVR. Longmire on A&E on the other hand has got me hooked. Good drama, good acting and good sets. A lot of what I liked about Hell on Wheels.


It doesn't just escalate in violence as so many other shows do, and IIRC, the first two eps are among the bloodiest. I don't currently own a wife, but some women are enamored of the show.


----------



## plasmacat

I got an email today from amctv.com with a title: AMC/DISH UPDATE. I'm assuming this is spam and am going to get rid of it unread. 
I did register with AMC to watch Breaking Bad Ep.1 but I gave them a different email address and this message appeared at my regular address.


----------



## fudpucker

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> AMC is the one who doesn't want to spend money on Mad Men... the Mad Men producers are fine with spending money to make quality TV. AMC tried to cut their budget (like AMC has done with other shows), tried to force more product placement, and tried to have less episodes and shorter episodes to sell more commercial spots.
> 
> The Mad Men producers fought for a bigger budget, more shows, longer shows, and less product placement.
> 
> So you're asking the wrong question here... Mad Men producers wanted an authentic song from the times to set a mood and were willing to spend money in their budget to make the show seem accurate. AMC, I'm sure, would not have wanted to spend that money.


But in the end, they did spend it. Many networks would have simply said "no." Of course they try to minimize costs - as do the suits of every network. I don't see the point. This little network spends a ton of money on these high quality shows. And they appear willing to continue to spend the money and take the risks to continue with a pipeline of new high quality shows as the runs of the current ones end.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> But in the end, they did spend it. Many networks would have simply said "no." Of course they try to minimize costs - as do the suits of every network. I don't see the point. This little network spends a ton of money on these high quality shows. And they appear willing to continue to spend the money and take the risks to continue with a pipeline of new high quality shows as the runs of the current ones end.


You missed the point. AMC won on several fronts... lower budget and fewer episodes for Mad Men.... AMC didn't want to spend on those shows, and they didn't.

That's why no Mad Men in 2011... all the arguing put them behind schedule before AMC agreed to finally pay, albeit less than the original budget.

AMC also cost-reduced Walking Dead for season 2... so that's 2-for-2 in AMC winning in cutting budgets on their award-nominated shows.


----------



## domingos35

AMC cancels ' The Killing '


----------



## lparsons21

domingos35 said:


> AMC cancels ' The Killing '


Yes they did. Lower viewership and a very slow pace at solving a single crime was its downfall.

I'm less surprised that they cancelled it after they solved that single crime than I am that they thought they could have a show about a single crime over more than one season.

I loved the first year of it, but about 1/2 way into the second year I cancelled them myself! Too slow and very boring in the end.


----------



## fudpucker

Stewart Vernon said:


> You missed the point. AMC won on several fronts... lower budget and fewer episodes for Mad Men.... AMC didn't want to spend on those shows, and they didn't.
> 
> That's why no Mad Men in 2011... all the arguing put them behind schedule before AMC agreed to finally pay, albeit less than the original budget.
> 
> AMC also cost-reduced Walking Dead for season 2... so that's 2-for-2 in AMC winning in cutting budgets on their award-nominated shows.


Did you loathe AMC so much when Dish carried them?

AMC tries to keep their costs down with these incredibly expensive shows. No surprise. They don't have the money that NBC or the other "big" networks have. And yeah, sometimes those conflicts lead to delays, etc.

But at the end of the day, AMC does carry these innovative and high quality shows, and they show every indication, with new shows like Hell on Wheels, of intending to continue supporting and carrying similar shows. Sometimes they will stumble, as all networks do: The Killing was a great concept but angered a lot of viewers with their decision to not reveal the killer at the end of the first season, and a lot of viewers were so ticked off by that they refuse to watch the second season. Thus a failed show that got canceled.

But I still want to watch and support a channel that is willing to put shows on the air like Breaking Bad, which breaks all of the molds and would never be on a major network or TNT or USA, etc., the same for Mad Men, etc. TV viewers are better off because of AMC's willingness to take those risks and put those shows on the air.


----------



## jimb

Speaking of breaking bad, we are a few hours away hoping for some Sunday negotiations. Are the two parties in a big conference room right now? Someone send in some pizza's. Fingers crossed.


----------



## SayWhat?

jimb said:


> Are the two parties in a big confernece room right now?


No.

I don't imagine either side has spoken to the other in weeks and don't have any plans to.

I'd guess the ball is in AMC's court to say something reasonable, like maybe 'We're sorry...... we'd like to come back with no increase and maybe even a small decrease.'


----------



## inkahauts

"fudpucker" said:


> Did you loathe AMC so much when Dish carried them?
> 
> AMC tries to keep their costs down with these incredibly expensive shows. No surprise. They don't have the money that NBC or the other "big" networks have. And yeah, sometimes those conflicts lead to delays, etc.
> 
> But at the end of the day, AMC does carry these innovative and high quality shows, and they show every indication, with new shows like Hell on Wheels, of intending to continue supporting and carrying similar shows. Sometimes they will stumble, as all networks do: The Killing was a great concept but angered a lot of viewers with their decision to not reveal the killer at the end of the first season, and a lot of viewers were so ticked off by that they refuse to watch the second season. Thus a failed show that got canceled.
> 
> But I still want to watch and support a channel that is willing to put shows on the air like Breaking Bad, which breaks all of the molds and would never be on a major network or TNT or USA, etc., the same for Mad Men, etc. TV viewers are better off because of AMC's willingness to take those risks and put those shows on the air.


Honestly, amc hasn't broken any molds ever. If anyone did with more grueling fair on cable, it was HBO years ago.... Amc is just copying the molds they created, and water it down just enough to keep it on cable but not premium channels.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> Did you loathe AMC so much when Dish carried them?
> 
> AMC tries to keep their costs down with these incredibly expensive shows. No surprise.


If you have read my posts, yes. Go read them and you will see.

I like the Walking Dead, and I recognize the popularity of some of their other shows... but since they have a literal handful of good shows, it is hard to justify the rate increase they seem to have been looking for... and so I am fine with Dish letting them go.

As I said, I like Walking Dead and will buy the Blu-rays anyway... so if this isn't solved by October... then I'm fine to wait and buy season 3 on Blu-ray and watch it then.

I don't see how my pointing out the realities of how AMC conducts their business and negotiations related to "loathing" them... Dish is evil to want to cut costs but somehow AMC is doing great budget work when they do it? That argument seems very odd to me... plus it doesn't connect the two... IF AMC keeps cutting their budgets to spend on their shows, why are they needing to raise rates from Dish exactly?


----------



## bloodfest

i like dish and amc. wish they would come to an agreement. i read the dish might make a settlement with amc. i knows its from july 11th. so its old news its from deadline dot com since i cant post links yet .
if they do you think amc will be back on dish before twd airs in oct. at least i still have soa in sept. to tie me over.


----------



## Dax

Stewart Vernon said:


> It is still worth noting that the noise has died down pretty quickly... Dish rode out the speedbump of dropping the AMC channels, and honestly there doesn't seem to be any urgency to add them back.
> 
> Ultimately AMC loses in this scenario. The viewers have moved on and found other things to watch now.


It may also be the calm before the storm. As the new season draws near for _The Walking Dead_ and _Mad Men_, I think we'll hear more noise if AMC is still missing from Dish.

I have always been supportive of Dish in previous standoffs over costs, but not this time. If every cable company in the country, large and small, can afford to carry AMC in their basic package, Dish can too. This is clearly about more than just costs, and Dish customers are paying for it in more ways than one.

Right now I can be patient because my favorite AMC shows haven't returned yet. And my current apartment complex provides basic cable with high speed internet, and that cable carries AMC. But in the long run, I may take a closer look at the alternative's deluxe package and decide Dish isn't worth it anymore. In any case, I do love AMC's sense of humor:

http://www.adrants.com/2012/07/amc-fights-dish-with-nyc-zombie.php


----------



## inkahauts

"Dax" said:


> It may also be the calm before the storm. As the new season draws near for The Walking Dead and Mad Men, I think we'll hear more noise if AMC is still missing from Dish.
> 
> I have always been supportive of Dish in previous standoffs over costs, but not this time. If every cable company in the country, large and small, can afford to carry AMC in their basic package, Dish can too. This is clearly about more than just costs, and Dish customers are paying for it in more ways than one.
> 
> Right now I can be patient because my favorite AMC shows haven't returned yet. And my current apartment complex provides basic cable with high speed internet, and that cable carries AMC. But in the long run, I may take a closer look at the alternative's deluxe package and decide Dish isn't worth it anymore. In any case, I do love AMC's sense of humor:
> 
> http://www.adrants.com/2012/07/amc-fights-dish-with-nyc-zombie.php


Wait for a year or two before you make that statement. If DIRECTV and Comcast have a hard time reaching deals or drop them too, thenyoullreally know. You don't know if they haven't become a bit more full of themselves in asking for more money since the last time they where up for negotiations with any of the other big providers.

AT&T doesn't count by the way, they need amc way more than dish... They have different cost structure no where near the subs, and everything else too. Its about what the big players do that will telling.


----------



## jdskycaster

I think it is a guarantee that others will have issues with AMC at renegotiation and in my opinion the channels will most likely be dark on Dish until that time. The DirecTV/Viacom dispute was a good indicator and I see AT&T as a beneficiary of that one. 

DirecTV could very well become a benefactor of Dish's holdout with AMC but hopefully an workable agreement between all parties can be reached at that time. I am no fan of losing channels but in this case I can still get the programs I want to see via streaming - just not sure how much even I will be willing to pay for them per episode. That really is the best way to assert the true value of any single series/show.


----------



## phrelin

I would be stunned to see Dish bring AMC back in the next three years.

It likely would have to be the result of a combination of a resolution of the Voom dispute in a manner that would reduce Charlie Ergen's anger over the whole matter along with a significant reduction in the proposed retransmission fees for the AMC Networks (formerly known as Rainbow Media networks).

I suppose it might happen if AMC Networks offered the AMC channel by itself for 25¢ in the AT120 tier or if the AMC Networks channels were offered as a not-very-premium package.

But, I just don't see it happening.


----------



## fudpucker

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> I don't see how my pointing out the realities of how AMC conducts their business and negotiations related to "loathing" them... Dish is evil to want to cut costs but somehow AMC is doing great budget work when they do it? That argument seems very odd to me... plus it doesn't connect the two... IF AMC keeps cutting their budgets to spend on their shows, why are they needing to raise rates from Dish exactly?


I never said Dish was "evil" - that's the difference. You seem to feel that one party is this has to be "bad" and the other holy and go out of your way to grasp at every opportunity to say see how bad AMC is?

I completely understand Dish's decision to say no to what AMC requested for the contract. While I am convinced this does indeed go beyond the normal negotiations you see in these things to something personal, I understand their business decision. I don't think Dish is "evil."

But that doesn't mean I also can't also be a fan of what AMC has done with their programming in the last few years.

I don't understand people's apparent need to pick one side and then feel obligated to demonize the other.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> I never said Dish was "evil" - that's the difference. You seem to feel that one party is this has to be "bad" and the other holy and go out of your way to grasp at every opportunity to say see how bad AMC is?
> 
> ...
> 
> I don't understand people's apparent need to pick one side and then feel obligated to demonize the other.


Have you read all of my posts? I suspect either you haven't or your memory is faulty. I've said all kinds of bad things about Dish, some in this thread.

Specifically, I thought it was bad on Dish's part that they relocated the channels without warning during those final couple of weeks. I get the message they were trying to send to AMC, but in the meantime it screwed Dish customers several weeks prior to the actual channel drop.

That was poor by Dish, and I criticized it.

IF my tenor in this thread seems more anti-AMC than it does anti-Dish... consider the tone of this thread and the actions of Dish and AMC in this dispute.

Dish didn't start a "AMC sucks watch other channels" web site did they? AMC did. AMC has a whole page dedicated to why Dish is wrong and why you should go elsewhere for TV.

Dish said no to the price increases, but recommended customers watch the popular AMC shows elsewhere and even gave out free Rokus to many customers... so Dish wasn't discouraging anyone from watching AMC programming... AMC, on the other hand, discouraged people from subscribing to Dish.

So... if I seem more anti-AMC it is because AMC has done more public and obviously bad things in this dispute than has Dish. Thus there are more things to talk about in that regard.


----------



## DoyleS

Good Points Stewart! +1


----------



## phrelin

I can't quite figure this stuff out. On Friday I got my usual "your bill's available" email and four hours later this generic informal looking email Friday:


> Account Number: #####
> 
> Dear [Me],
> 
> DISH wants to make sure you can still watch Hell on Wheels. We have some very rewarding offers in place. Find out how to enjoy your shows on Amazon® and iTunes® on your computer or by streaming through your Xbox® PlayStation®, Apple TV® or Roku®. Call today at 1-888-581-1972 to learn more.
> 
> Thanks for being a valued DISH customer.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> DISH


 As I noted above on July 5, I already called, asked for, and got Starz free from three months. But hey, if they're going to clutter up my email box, I figured I should call. To make a long story short, the nice lady who I couldn't understand well says she gave me a $5 credit.

I'm not sure why, but if they could just send a couple of emails like that monthly.... :sure:


----------



## Laxguy

phrelin said:


> I can't quite figure this stuff out. On Friday I got my usual "your bill's available" email and four hours later this generic informal looking email Friday: As I noted above on July 5, I already called, asked for, and got Starz free from three months. But hey, if they're going to clutter up my email box, I figured I should call. To make a long story short, the nice lady who I couldn't understand well says she gave me a $5 credit.
> 
> I'm not sure why, but if they could just send a couple of emails like that month.... :sure:


So, send me her number and I'll call and see if I can get a five buck credit.... [even though I'm on DIRECTV®]


----------



## fudpucker

"phrelin" said:


> I can't quite figure this stuff out. On Friday I got my usual "your bill's available" email and four hours later this generic informal looking email Friday: As I noted above on July 5, I already called, asked for, and got Starz free from three months. But hey, if they're going to clutter up my email box, I figured I should call. To make a long story short, the nice lady who I couldn't understand well says she gave me a $5 credit.
> 
> I'm not sure why, but if they could just send a couple of emails like that monthly.... :sure:


Yeah, I got this email a couple of days ago. Didn't respond as they had already given me a credit previously. They must be mass mailing it.


----------



## jimd909

fudpucker said:


> Yeah, I got this email a couple of days ago. Didn't respond as they had already given me a credit previously. They must be mass mailing it.


You should call.

I originally got $40 credit in early July. They also offered the Roku, but I already had PS3 and Apple TV. After receiving the email RE Hell on Wheels, I called and got another $35 credit.

So, it doesn't hurt to try.


----------



## joyandjerry

Stewart Vernon said:


> IF my tenor in this thread seems more anti-AMC than it does anti-Dish... consider the tone of this thread and the actions of Dish and AMC in this dispute.
> 
> Dish didn't start a "AMC sucks watch other channels" web site did they? AMC did. AMC has a whole page dedicated to why Dish is wrong and why you should go elsewhere for TV.
> 
> Dish said no to the price increases, but recommended customers watch the popular AMC shows elsewhere and even gave out free Rokus to many customers... so Dish wasn't discouraging anyone from watching AMC programming... AMC, on the other hand, discouraged people from subscribing to Dish.
> 
> So... if I seem more anti-AMC it is because AMC has done more public and obviously bad things in this dispute than has Dish. Thus there are more things to talk about in that regard.


I see your point, Stewart, but I also realize that Dish and AMC are looking out for their own business interests. But giving subscribers an alt. way to view AMC programming, they are retaining them as customers. AMC is attempting to retain viewers by assuring one has access to a service that provides AMC.

We we really looking forward to _Hell on Wheels_, and Dish offered me a credit for the downloads, or a one time credit to purchase the discs. CS has been excelllent; they really want to retain me as a customer. We have had AEP for eight years, so I feel this was a factor in their willingness to help. They already knocked back my monthly bill $10 for 12 mos.

Of course, we watch other AMC programming, and will likely switch if an agreement is not in place for _TWD_. Dish certainly can't keep giving each customer credit for every AMC show, as it would not be worth it for them to keep a customer that is not profitable. There are pros and cons to every provider, and I have found Dish to have excellent CS. Our local cable (ABB) didn't seem to care when I left, despite the fact we had the highest tier of programming. Perhaps they thought the satellite thing was a fad! :lol:

So this gives me hope that an agreement will be reached by October!


----------



## DoyleS

Strange I also received the email and tried to call the 888 number but I get a message that says the call cannot be completed as dialed.


----------



## tampa8

Just tried that number, does not work for me either. (not in service)


----------



## DoyleS

Since the number didn't work, I just replied to the email and mentioned the cost of Hell on wheels and asked what options were available. I got an email back indicating they were giving me an up to $6.99 PPV movie credit.


----------



## fudpucker

Hmmm. Today I got another email. This one just gave me a ppv credit. Not sure how they are picking who to send these to.

And yeah anyone who thinks Dish is giving away Rokus and telling you how to watch AMC programming because they so care about their customers is pretty naive. They don't want you dropping Dish and switching to DirectTV to get your AMC programming. It costs them very little to send some people the Rokus and nothing to tell you you can buy the programs online. It costs them much more if customers drop Dish and switch providers.


----------



## crabtrp

They gave me two PPV certificates last month and another one today. 

It is a pain in the behind having to buy Breaking Bad on Amazon, but the annoyance and cost outweigh's missing BB. I guess The Walking Dead is going to be worth the annoyance too.

Since DirecTv is about to get BBC America HD I might be tempted to give the idiot DTV installers another chance. The Hoppers are the main reason I would stay.


----------



## DoyleS

Yeah, kind of frustrating. The thought of paying $26 for the new season of Hell on Wheels does not thrill me. It is just irritating that what should have been part of my normal subscription now gets a pricey ala carte charge. I figured I will downgrade my Dish Subscription and save $10 a month there to cover the frustration cost.


----------



## SayWhat?

Or you could watch something else and wait for the DVD to fall to $10 in a year or so at Big Lots.


----------



## DoyleS

The DVD will be out next year and available through Blockbuster so if I wanted to wait, I can get it at no charge then. That is an option. Of all of the AMC shows, this is the one I was looking forward to.


----------



## joyandjerry

fudpucker said:


> And yeah anyone who thinks Dish is giving away Rokus and telling you how to watch AMC programming because they so care about their customers is pretty naive. They don't want you dropping Dish and switching to DirectTV to get your AMC programming. It costs them very little to send some people the Rokus and nothing to tell you you can buy the programs online. It costs them much more if customers drop Dish and switch providers.


Excellent point! Of course they do not want to lose subscribers. But I'm sure they realize it is impractical for them to give out credits for any AMC show to the subscribers indefinitely; that will have to come to an end eventually.

Anyone can call the retention (loyalty) dept. a request credits towards the downloads/DVD's.

crbtrp, Thanks for the heads up on DTV getting BBC in HD, as we may have to switch if AMC/IFC doesn't return to Dish. We enjoy the dramas on BBC, and are really looking forward to _Copper_.


----------



## DoyleS

I had linked to the AMC Facebook page to keep abreast of their view of the new. Today they posted an "Adopt a Dish Subscriber for a Hell on Wheels party" and we will send you a kit with coasters, candy, and a bunch of other stuff. first 100 subscribers. Filling out the form and submitting quickly gives you a Sorry we are out of kits but feel free to adopt a Dish Friend for Sundays HoW event. Looks like the skirmish is going to continue. Not sure if they are still trying to draw Dish back to the table or do a much damage as they can.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

That's the thing... I keep seeing AMC digging at Dish and encouraging Dish customers to leave Dish... while I keep seeing Dish encourage people to watch AMC programming some other way.

I don't see Dish publicly disparaging AMC in the same way that AMC is disparaging Dish.

That doesn't bode well IF AMC wants Dish to come back to the table to negotiate.


----------



## fudpucker

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> That's the thing... I keep seeing AMC digging at Dish and encouraging Dish customers to leave Dish... while I keep seeing Dish encourage people to watch AMC programming some other way.
> 
> I don't see Dish publicly disparaging AMC in the same way that AMC is disparaging Dish.
> 
> That doesn't bode well IF AMC wants Dish to come back to the table to negotiate.


Again, they are encouraging their viewers to watch online because they dont want them to switch to DirectTV. I'm not sure why DirectTV isn't doing more advertising to grab Dish viewers who are unhappy about this. This is not some noble posture on Dish's part.

Per the link provided above, that's the 5th source I've seen reporting various insiders saying there has been no negotiations at all on fees.


----------



## SayWhat?

> "And our customers can go to iTunes and get 'Mad Men' the same time it's on. We could pay the entire iTunes bill and it would be cheaper" than having Dish pay what AMC Networks wants for a new contract.
> 
> The upside of this decision? Ergen said that it would make Dish "several dollars cheaper than" other cable providers who do carry AMC Networks.
> 
> Dish dropped AMC Networks -- which includes AMC, IFC and WE -- on July 1, saying it wasn't a good value for subscribers. In their place, Dish subbed in HDNet Movies, Style and HDNet.
> 
> "AMC as a standalone could make more sense but that's not anything that's been offered to us," Ergen said during the call.


http://theclicker.today.msnbc.msn.c...c-get-mad-men-and-breaking-bad-on-itunes?lite



> Despite the lengthy standoff, Brean Murray analyst Todd Mitchell said he expects the companies to reach a resolution eventually.
> 
> "AMC needs Dish's distribution and Dish will distribute anything it can get a decent price for," he said.
> 
> AMC Networks declined to comment.


http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/08/dishnetwork-results-idINL4E8J83QL20120808



> Dish may lose some fans of AMC's most popular shows in the short run, Ergen said, but the long-term cost of carrying all four AMC Networks' channels exceeded any revenue Dish might lose or the cost of replacing the four channels with programming by HD Net.
> 
> In addition to being cheaper, the HD Net channels carry some of the same movies as AMC Networks, only HD Net shows them without commercials - which Dish Network viewers prefer, Ergen said.


http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/b.../08/ergen-dish-dropping-amc-is-the-right.html



> Dish Network chairman Charlie Ergen didn't offer much hope of a reconciliation with AMC Networks, telling analysts on a conference call this afternoon that although he may lose some customers for dropping the channel, most won't notice.
> "Our customers are not looking at zombies in New York City," Ergen said on the call, referring to the AMC hit The Walking Dead. "They live on farms and ranches."


http://www.multichannel.com/article/488355-Ergen_Leaves_Little_Hope_For_AMC_Settlement.php


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> Again, they are encouraging their viewers to watch online because they dont want them to switch to DirectTV. I'm not sure why DirectTV isn't doing more advertising to grab Dish viewers who are unhappy about this. This is not some noble posture on Dish's part.


Whoever said it was noble? I didn't.

I'm just offering explanation in response to a question of why some of us see AMC as more of the "bad guy" in this scenario. Both companies (AMC and Dish) are in it to make a profit... everything they do is in some way motivated by that desire to turn profit.

AMC only hurts their own position by encouraging Dish customers to leave... once the small amount of AMC-desperate customers leave Dish (if they do so), Dish will have exactly ZERO motivation to come back to the negotiating table... and AMC loses all those potential customers and ad revenue perhaps permanently.

AMC would be much better served to not be so public in trying to get people to go to DirecTV or cable.

Now... DirecTV and cable companies absolutely can and should try and entice Dish customers to leave... That's in their best interest to poach disgruntled Dish customers. It makes perfect sense!

But AMC shouldn't be trying to drive that customer exodus train... AMC should be provider neutral if they want to negotiate with providers.


----------



## Shades228

Stewart Vernon said:



> Whoever said it was noble? I didn't.
> 
> I'm just offering explanation in response to a question of why some of us see AMC as more of the "bad guy" in this scenario. Both companies (AMC and Dish) are in it to make a profit... everything they do is in some way motivated by that desire to turn profit.
> 
> AMC only hurts their own position by encouraging Dish customers to leave... once the small amount of AMC-desperate customers leave Dish (if they do so), Dish will have exactly ZERO motivation to come back to the negotiating table... and AMC loses all those potential customers and ad revenue perhaps permanently.
> 
> AMC would be much better served to not be so public in trying to get people to go to DirecTV or cable.
> 
> Now... DirecTV and cable companies absolutely can and should try and entice Dish customers to leave... That's in their best interest to poach disgruntled Dish customers. It makes perfect sense!
> 
> But AMC shouldn't be trying to drive that customer exodus train... AMC should be provider neutral if they want to negotiate with providers.


At this point AMC has no incentive to be loyal and not push people to providers who are subscribing to AMC programming. Even companies that are at the negotiating table have pushed customers to leave to get their side more money. Why should a company no longer negotiating even care? These disputes are proving that content providers really don't care about their audience as they feel that they can muscle them to go to other providers that do carry them.


----------



## strikes2k

Shades228 said:


> At this point AMC has no incentive to be loyal and not push people to providers who are subscribing to AMC programming. Even companies that are at the negotiating table have pushed customers to leave to get their side more money. Why should a company no longer negotiating even care? These disputes are proving that content providers really don't care about their audience as they feel that they can muscle them to go to other providers that do carry them.


No one is asking AMC to be "loyal". But being purposely disloyal is not good business. There are going to be a small percentage of DISH customers who are bothered enough to leave DISH. If those were the ones AMC was really going after they could have just allowed DISH to offer AMC a la carte. They might even have made more money off those people compared to them leaving DISH for another provider since those customers are clearly willing to pay a premium for the channel. However, what AMC wants is ALL of DISH's customers paying a fee for AMC. That's why they want to be included in a package. So, they're really only hurting themself by actively encouraging people to leave DISH.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

strikes2k said:


> No one is asking AMC to be "loyal". But being purposely disloyal is not good business. There are going to be a small percentage of DISH customers who are bothered enough to leave DISH. If those were the ones AMC was really going after they could have just allowed DISH to offer AMC a la carte. They might even have made more money off those people compared to them leaving DISH for another provider since those customers are clearly willing to pay a premium for the channel. However, what AMC wants is ALL of DISH's customers paying a fee for AMC. That's why they want to be included in a package. So, they're really only hurting themself by actively encouraging people to leave DISH.


Exactly! Nail on head.

Nobody owes anybody anything... but smart business means don't burn your bridges. AMC is trying to burn the bridge and ensure they never get carried on Dish again. That makes no sense. As time goes on, there is less and less need for Dish to worry about AMC.

The more AMC pushes people to another provider, the more they are cutting their nose to spite their face... because there will only be a small amount of churn related to AMC from Dish... and once that is done (probably already is), Dish has no motivation to negotiate with AMC because all the customers who would be pestering Dish to demand it will have gone elsewhere.

IF you're AMC, you should be trying to negotiate with Dish in private and not be so public... and certainly not try and push Dish customers elsewhere to try and get Dish to the table. Dish already proved they aren't playing that game.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> to try and get Dish to the table. Dish already proved they aren't playing that game.


Dish ain't comin' to the table.

AMC would have to go hat-in-hand and basically plead with Dish offering rates below what they were previously getting.


----------



## fudpucker

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> IF you're AMC, you should be trying to negotiate with Dish in private and not be so public... and certainly not try and push Dish customers elsewhere to try and get Dish to the table. Dish already proved they aren't playing that game.


While I disagree with you when you talk about AMC being the only one taking shots, I do agree with you here. If I was running AMC my comments would be more related to negotiations; e.g. "we are trying to find a resolution" or "we would love to remain on Dish but we cannot get them to even enter negotiations with us" etc.

Again, I believe this one is different from other showdowns of this type: I believe the two billionaire owners have made this one personal.


----------



## maartena

SayWhat? said:


> Dish ain't comin' to the table.
> 
> AMC would have to go hat-in-hand and basically plead with Dish offering rates below what they were previously getting.


I believe this to be true.

I have a feeling that AMC has made ONE offer to AMC, which basically was: We will continue coverage of your networks at the current price, take it or leave it.

I don't believe any other negotiation ever took place. And if AMC wants to be back on Dish now.... they are probably going to have to approach Dish with a much lower number.

That said, the relationship between AMC and Dish has been sour. Although the there is no direct relationship to the Voom case, I do believe that if you don't have a good relationship with another company for 1 reason, other deals are certainly going to be affected.


----------



## maartena

http://adage.com/article/media/dish...gn=26cd590891-2_7_112_7_2011&utm_medium=email

"Dish Chairman Says Subscribers Don't Like AMC Shows That Much, Anyway"

Dish continues to attack AMC Networks in the media..... I don't think AMC is coming back any time soon.


----------



## RAD

He also made this statement which might make some Dish subs upset:



> "But Dish customers aren't thinking about zombies stunts in New York City, Mr. Ergen said during the call. "They live in farms and ranches," he said. "They have no clue about zombies and New York."


Maybe that's why Dish doesn't carry the NYC RSN channels


----------



## DoyleS

Dish has made their position pretty clear. They do not want Sundance, IFC and WE. They only want AMC. AMC is not Viacom negotiating with 17 channels and having a lot more than one of them that is popular. I don't watch the Viacom channels but I can easily see how a family with Children would want those channels. Hell on Wheels starts in 2 days and I would love to watch it but my DVR is full with shows recorded and not watched during the Olympics and unlike olympics, I don't really have to worry about Spoilers with HoW. Who knows, I may be happy waiting to watch it next year on DVD.


----------



## DoyleS

The News Story that just won't go away. Here is another one on AMC's expected revenue drop. The article states that HDNET movies is part of AMCs programming. I did not realize that if in fact it is true. 
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/...277a-my_google_analytics_key&utm_medium=email


----------



## Stewart Vernon

maartena said:


> http://adage.com/article/media/dish...gn=26cd590891-2_7_112_7_2011&utm_medium=email
> 
> "Dish Chairman Says Subscribers Don't Like AMC Shows That Much, Anyway"
> 
> Dish continues to attack AMC Networks in the media..... I don't think AMC is coming back any time soon.


Two things wrong with that statement:

1. Ergen made those statements on an Investor conference call... not to the media directly. That someone wrote a media article about an earnings call is not the same as Ergen or Dish going to the media to bash AMC.

2. Nothing I read there was an attack on AMC at all. Very clearly, to me, Ergen reiterated Dish's consistent stance that he believes Dish customers that watch AMC is a small number, and that while AMC does have some heralded programming AMC doesn't want to just negotiate for AMC without forced carriage of the other channels that even AMC acknowledges aren't as in demand. That's not an attack, it's just stating facts as Ergen knows them.



DoyleS said:


> The News Story that just won't go away. Here is another one on AMC's expected revenue drop. The article states that HDNET movies is part of AMCs programming. I did not realize that if in fact it is true.
> http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/...277a-my_google_analytics_key&utm_medium=email


HDNet movies is not part of AMC... I don't think Style is either, but I could be wrong about that. Whomever wrote that article didn't do their fact checking.


----------



## SayWhat?

I went looking into that and it doesn't even look like HDNet Movies exists any more, having been morphed into AXS.

While the domain name and graphics still use it, the About Me page text doesn't:

http://www.hdnetmovies.com/about-hdnet-movies/


----------



## inkahauts

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> Two things wrong with that statement:
> 
> 1. Ergen made those statements on an Investor conference call... not to the media directly. That someone wrote a media article about an earnings call is not the same as Ergen or Dish going to the media to bash AMC.
> 
> 2. Nothing I read there was an attack on AMC at all. Very clearly, to me, Ergen reiterated Dish's consistent stance that he believes Dish customers that watch AMC is a small number, and that while AMC does have some heralded programming AMC doesn't want to just negotiate for AMC without forced carriage of the other channels that even AMC acknowledges aren't as in demand. That's not an attack, it's just stating facts as Ergen knows them.
> 
> HDNet movies is not part of AMC... I don't think Style is either, but I could be wrong about that. Whomever wrote that article didn't do their fact checking.


Maybe they meant that hdnet movies has the rights to air many movies that amc also has the rights to air? Very incorrectly worded if that's what they meant, but could that be the point?


----------



## dakeeney

I still believe there will be a carriage agreement by the end of Sept. at the latest.


----------



## RVRambler

You mean you 'hope' there will be a carriage agreement. 

I 'believe' when I 'see' it when it comes to Charlie vs another Billionaire Pi$$ing contest !! Charlie is used to getting his way, the ultra rich are many times that way, 'yes your highness, whatever you want your highness', blah, blah, blah.

We all 'hope' but no $$ on that one!


----------



## DoyleS

I'd like to think that is right but only time will tell. Meanwhile the thread goes on.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

SayWhat? said:


> I went looking into that and it doesn't even look like HDNet Movies exists any more, having been morphed into AXS.
> 
> While the domain name and graphics still use it, the About Me page text doesn't:
> 
> http://www.hdnetmovies.com/about-hdnet-movies/


There is a glitch in that Web site...

HDNet Movies very much exists.

HDNet became AXS TV...


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inkahauts said:


> Maybe they meant that hdnet movies has the rights to air many movies that amc also has the rights to air? Very incorrectly worded if that's what they meant, but could that be the point?


That's about the only stretch of logic that might make sense... if the idea was meant to be that AMC airs similar movies to HDNet Movies... except of course HDNet Movies airs them uncensored and commercial free... so that's not a real comparison to me.


----------



## DoyleS

Got home tonite and there was a card in the mail from Dish about Hell on Wheels which starts This Sunday. It said to call for special offers. I called and told them I have apple tv and he said to order HoW from iTunes and call Dish back and they would credit me for the amount I paid. Not bad I'm my opinion.


----------



## Inkosaurus

"RVRambler" said:


> You mean you 'hope' there will be a carriage agreement.
> 
> I 'believe' when I 'see' it when it comes to Charlie vs another Billionaire Pi$$ing contest !! Charlie is used to getting his way, the ultra rich are many times that way, 'yes your highness, whatever you want your highness', blah, blah, blah.
> 
> We all 'hope' but no $$ on that one!


I met ergen when he visited the call center I worked at. He was nothing like. He's more of a frugal old coot then anything else he still drives a real old banged up car lool.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

RAD said:


> He also made this statement which might make some Dish subs upset:
> 
> Maybe that's why Dish doesn't carry the NYC RSN channels


It only makes Dish customers upset because it is out of context... I've seen several news outlets quoting snippets from Charlie out of the conference call... but I finally found a transcript of the call which reads entirely different in context!

All quotes below are from Charlie in the conference call and sheds light on several things we have discussed in addition to clarifying the farmers vs zombies quote...

"_So then you look at AMC and you look at the fact that -- the critically acclaimed series are critically acclaimed, and I don't want to take anything away from them. But our -- they're critically acclaimed, but they're not viewed as much by our particular audience as one might believe based on the critical acclaim that the channel gets. It's kind of like a movie gets critical acclaim and then does $12 million at the box office. I mean, that's great that it won Academy Awards, but only did $12 million._"

"_And then the third thing is, that when our customers can go to iTunes or get Mad Men the same time it's on, the economics is we could pay for every customer -- we could pay -- for every customer who would watch Mad Men, we could pay their entire iTunes bill and it would be cheaper than burdening our customers who don't watch those channels with that cost._"

"_Our customers -- just read the blogs. Go read -- our customers are not looking at zombies in New York City. They live in farms and ranches. They have no clue about zombies in New York City marching around saying where is my AMC? I mean, they're watching a Saturday night movie with their husband or their wife or their kids with no commercials, and they're ecstatic, and their price didn't go up._"

"_Well, there's a lot of -- there is a lot of disconnect between Nielsen and our customers. I can't speak to anybody else. But it's not a huge issue with most of our providers today, as long as they don't make us -- as long as we're not forced to carry channels we don't want to carry, right? So obviously, AMC discussion might have gone a different way if IFC, Sundance and WE weren't in the equation, right, because then you can talk about value of one particular thing versus the value of 4 channels._"

*Full article here*.

In summation then...

1. Charlie wasn't insulting Dish customers... he was saying that he doubted most Dish customers knew about the zombie thing in NY promoting Walking Dead. I have to say, I like the Walking Dead and I didn't know about this zombie march until well after the fact myself!

2. Charlie says the AMC programming is good, but not getting the viewers that some other programming does... and value/price is tied as much to the eyeballs as it is the quality. This is not new, you see it all over movies/tv where quality programs don't make the money that inferior product does.

3. Charlie says the AMC negotiation would be completely different if he could take just AMC and not also be forced to take IFC, We, etc. that nobody was screaming for... We have speculated this, and here it is from the horse's mouth... AMC might still be on Dish IF Dish could negotiate for AMC independent of the other channels.

4. Charlie explains the rationale behind the offers to pay people's iTunes (and probably the Rokus as well) that it is actually cheaper to do that than pay what AMC wanted for all the channels, including ones nobody wants that badly.


----------



## RVRambler

And of course I would assume any 'owner' of the company to NOT appear arrogant and 'special', but you are likely correct, I suspect, except for cursing & off colored jokes, etc he is the same as always & maybe what we see/saw in Charlie chats.

Still does not mean he is ruthless in pi$$ing contests with other billionairs and expects to win, IMO!


----------



## scottchez

I am looking to switch to Dish, but the rest of the family wont agree unless the Walking Dead can be watched.

Will it be on on the Web for free? I dont want to pay $14.95 for a season on Apple TV.


----------



## RasputinAXP

Depends on your scruples whether it's free or not.


----------



## Paul Secic

DoyleS said:


> The News Story that just won't go away. Here is another one on AMC's expected revenue drop. The article states that HDNET movies is part of AMCs programming. I did not realize that if in fact it is true.
> http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/...277a-my_google_analytics_key&utm_medium=email


Style channal and E! are owned by Comcast.


----------



## sigma1914

Paul Secic said:


> Style channal and E! are owned by Comcast.


NBCUniversal owns E! & Style.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

sigma1914 said:


> NBCUniversal owns E! & Style.


And Comcast merged with NBCUniversal... so what Paul said is still accurate.


----------



## phrelin

To be precise, Comcast owns 51% and GE owns 49% of NBCU which owns E! and Style.


----------



## Chihuahua

Stewart Vernon said:


> Two things wrong with that statement:
> 
> 1. Ergen made those statements on an Investor conference call... not to the media directly. That someone wrote a media article about an earnings call is not the same as Ergen or Dish going to the media to bash AMC.
> 
> 2. Nothing I read there was an attack on AMC at all. Very clearly, to me, Ergen reiterated Dish's consistent stance that he believes Dish customers that watch AMC is a small number, and that while AMC does have some heralded programming AMC doesn't want to just negotiate for AMC without forced carriage of the other channels that even AMC acknowledges aren't as in demand. That's not an attack, it's just stating facts as Ergen knows them.
> 
> HDNet movies is not part of AMC... I don't think Style is either, but I could be wrong about that. Whomever wrote that article didn't do their fact checking.


Style is a spin-off from E! Entertainment Television, both are owned by Comcast.


----------



## fudpucker

"scottchez" said:


> I am looking to switch to Dish, but the rest of the family wont agree unless the Walking Dead can be watched.
> 
> Will it be on on the Web for free? I dont want to pay $14.95 for a season on Apple TV.


No, you will need to purchase the programs from iTunes or Amazon Prime. And it does not appear that AMC programming will be back on Dish.


----------



## DoyleS

You can always give Dish a call and see if they will give you a credit for getting the shows from iTunes. If you are subscribing to a reasonable package like 200 or 250 they might do that to sign you up. Just know what you want when you call.


----------



## joyandjerry

We were really looking forward to _Hell on Wheels_, and Dish offered me a credit for the downloads, or a one time credit to purchase the discs. CS has been excelllent; they really want to retain me as a customer. We have had AEP for eight years, so I feel this was a factor in their willingness to help. They already knocked back my monthly bill $10 for 12 mos.

Of course, we watch other AMC programming, and will likely switch if an agreement is not in place for _TWD_. Dish certainly can't keep giving each customer credit for every AMC show, as it would not be worth it for them to keep a customer that is not profitable. There are pros and cons to every provider, and I have found Dish to have excellent CS. Our local cable (ABB) didn't seem to care when I left, despite the fact we had the highest tier of programming. Perhaps they thought the satellite thing was a fad! :lol:

So this gives me hope that an agreement will be reached by October!

We are paying a litlle less than $100/mo through Dish for all of the premiums and DVR service. The same service through ABB (cable) is over $165!!

Still, we watch a lot of IFC/AMC programming, and will have to switch to DTV if this is not resolved for _TWD_ in Oct.

I'm sure that Dish wants to keep subscribers, AMC wants viewers, and the individual has to decide what programs are important to them. IMOSHO, Ergen should not have said that no one is his household watches any of the AMC, etc. channels. That is hardly germaine to the issue, as we all have diverse tastes.

We do not watch sports, but I am not "putting down" an interest in watching highly skilled individuals compete. I must admit, however, that I had to bite my tongue when a (highly educated) family member told me the best TV shows he has ever seen are _Celebrity Rehab_ and _Jersey Shore_!


----------



## SayWhat?

joyandjerry said:


> Dish certainly can't keep giving each customer credit for every AMC show, as it would not be worth it for them to keep a customer that is not profitable.


I think somebody mentioned up-thread that since so few people watch the AMC shows in question, it actually works out cheaper for Dish to issue the credits than it would to pay AMC what they are demanding.

Think about it ..... a few thousand people gripe and get the credits of $10 or so (some more, some less) vs Dish paying AMC $1.00 per each of how ever many million subscribers they have for the tiers that include AMC.

Paying a few hundred thousand in credits to save millions in fees doesn't seem like such bad business.


----------



## epokopac

DoyleS said:


> I'd like to think that is right but only time will tell. Meanwhile the thread goes on.


I wonder what's going on. Why would E* schedule the following (see below)?

"BLOCK CH 102 SUN 8-19 10:30 AM A Look Into AMC's The Walking Dead"


----------



## fudpucker

Since Dish cares so much about my bill, when am I getting a decrease from the fees they are no longer paying for those channels?


----------



## 356B

epokopac said:


> I wonder what's going on. Why would E* schedule the following (see below)?
> 
> "BLOCK CH 102 SUN 8-19 10:30 AM A Look Into AMC's The Walking Dead"


 It is interesting, I have always believed this spat would eventually be settled. I don't know what it means, probably/perhaps nothing...or not...all we can do is wait and see.


----------



## tampa8

fudpucker said:


> Since Dish cares so much about my bill, when am I getting a decrease from the fees they are no longer paying for those channels?


You can get it and more. Dish offered several ways, including a free Roku, and discounts. But if you are just going to sit back you won't get them.


----------



## tampa8

epokopac said:


> I wonder what's going on. Why would E* schedule the following (see below)?
> 
> "BLOCK CH 102 SUN 8-19 10:30 AM A Look Into AMC's The Walking Dead"


Easy answer. Dish has said one of the reasons they won't renew AMC is because they have diluted the product, and by doing so charge too much to carriers like Dish, when they make their programs easily available online right after they air.

Dish gave people Roku's, or people have them, or have other means to watch Amazon online or other places that have the AMC programs. Dish can say even though we don't have AMC their subscribers can still watch the shows.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

epokopac said:


> I wonder what's going on. Why would E* schedule the following (see below)?
> 
> "BLOCK CH 102 SUN 8-19 10:30 AM A Look Into AMC's The Walking Dead"


Dish has never said that AMC didn't have some good shows or that you shouldn't watch those shows. Dish has just said that AMC wants too much and will not let Dish take AMC without being forced to take IFC, Sundance, and WeTV that almost nobody is demanding to be brought back.

So... Dish/Blockbuster having a channel and a show that talks about the Walking Dead isn't such a stretch. Dish hasn't been bashing the good shows, just saying that AMC only has a few good shows and wants too much money for them.


----------



## Laxguy

And in spite of the seeming spite that has come through the ether and in print between the two, a deal will get done some time in all likelihood. 

-- 
~A Serenity Prayer~
"God, grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference."2


----------



## fudpucker

"tampa8" said:


> You can get it and more. Dish offered several ways, including a free Roku, and discounts. But if you are just going to sit back you won't get them.


Oh, I'm just being a smarta** but if the reason was being concerned about customers bills, I would expect them to take the money they now have in their pocket from dropping these channels and giving it to all subscribers in a rate drop. Especially the ones who did NOT call because they didn't watch AMC as those are the ones the CEO said he was taking care of.


----------



## joyandjerry

SayWhat? said:


> I think somebody mentioned up-thread that since so few people watch the AMC shows in question, it actually works out cheaper for Dish to issue the credits than it would to pay AMC what they are demanding.
> 
> Think about it ..... a few thousand people gripe and get the credits of $10 or so (some more, some less) vs Dish paying AMC $1.00 per each of how ever many million subscribers they have for the tiers that include AMC.
> 
> Paying a few hundred thousand in credits to save millions in fees doesn't seem like such bad business.


Excellent points. But (to me) it seems as if that "strategy" would be "pence wise but pound foolish" in the long term. Subscribers will switch to DTV, and will be less likely to choose Dish as a new subscriber if these stations are of import. I doubt Dish will want to be know as the only providers w/o AMC. And AMC can hardly alienate DTV and the major cable providers, also.

It may have been mentioned upthread that Dish was able to ascertain that only 2% of the subs viewed AMC with regularity after it was moved. But that was just for the last few episodes of _MM_. There may be many more viewers if one looked at this over a years worth or original programming.


----------



## DoyleS

Scenario: Dish drops AMC and AMC begins an effort to encourage Dish subscribers to jump ship. They offer the first episode of Breaking Bad this season for free as a download. Just geting the BB crowd's appetites wetted. Then they begin facebook and TV ads telling people what they will miss and encouraging them to switch. Dish counters with credits for those who call and complain and they send out emails and physical mail with a phone number to call to find out about other ways to watch these shows. Here we are at 1600+ posts and not really seeing a lot of people switching. Granted, only a small percentage of either Dish or Direct subscribers dwell on this or the other major forum. We know that Dish people are here and I kind of imagine that at least some AMC people are lurking and feeding back info on how the battle is perceived here. Seems to me the AMC people are probably a bit frustrated with the results of their campaign at this point. From a financial perspective I tend to think that AMC will eventually return to the table "Hat in Hand". But if they don't, I am good for at least another year based on the credits and all and who knows, I may become more of a fan of iTunes downloads.


----------



## mdavej

joyandjerry said:


> ...Dish offered me a credit for the downloads, or a one time credit to purchase the discs. ... this gives me hope that an agreement will be reached by October!


I don't think offering credits is any sign they're getting close to an agreement. Last I heard, they weren't talking at all. Seems AMC is gone for the long haul on Dish. This would be a great time to give DirecTV another look since they been steadily adding channels. My local cable provider was even better since they had both AMC and IFC in HD (DirecTV still has IFC in migraine inducing SD only).

I waited years for DirecTV to add AMC HD when I could have watched it all along on another provider. I've learned my lesson. Go with the provider that has the content you want today. Doing without and waiting is pointless.


----------



## joyandjerry

mdavej said:


> I don't think offering credits is any sign they're getting close to an agreement. Last I heard, they weren't talking at all. Seems AMC is gone for the long haul on Dish. This would be a great time to give DirecTV another look since they been steadily adding channels. My local cable provider was even better since they had both AMC and IFC in HD (DirecTV still has IFC in migraine inducing SD only).
> 
> I waited years for DirecTV to add AMC HD when I could have watched it all along on another provider. I've learned my lesson. Go with the provider that has the content you want today. Doing without and waiting is pointless.


We are definitely looking at DTV, and will switch if they don't have AMC back on Dish for _TWD_. We have so many things DVR'd (and on disc) we are hardly doing without . And switching is really a PIA, with so much on the DVR that would be "lost". That is why we're waiting it out a bit.

DTV has BBCAmerica in SD, but I hear that is changing. Dish has it in HD. (Although my husband swears he pay no attention to HD, SD, Blu-ray, or even VHS, as he is just concentrating on the content!)

Also, our local cable, ABB, is $165/mo, compared to less than $100/mo I am paying Dish for all of the premiums, excepting EPIX. That is just too steep; I don't really see a reason for us to go back to cable.

This is such an interesting thread; I wish I had time to read all of the informative and learned posts!


----------



## DoyleS

And BBCAmerica has that new show "Coppers" starting this weekend. I have already set the DVR for it. 
A full DVR is a good reason not to switch. I have the same and a number of those shows aren't easily replaceable. For me Hell on Wheels was the only significant show and the credits made it possible for me to go another year without having to even consider switching.


----------



## RAD

joyandjerry said:


> DTV has BBCAmerica in SD, but I hear that is changing.


It changed yesterday, it and Disney Junior and NatGeo Wild went HD.


----------



## mdavej

joyandjerry said:


> DTV has BBCAmerica in SD, but I hear that is changing. Dish has it in HD. (Although my husband swears he pay no attention to HD, SD, Blu-ray, or even VHS, as he is just concentrating on the content!)
> 
> Also, our local cable, ABB, is $165/mo, compared to less than $100/mo I am paying Dish for all of the premiums, excepting EPIX. That is just too steep; I don't really see a reason for us to go back to cable.


Yep, DirecTV actually got BBCA HD yesterday, along with Nat Geo Wild and a couple of others. If they had gotten TCM and BBCA a few months ago, I'd be a DirecTV sub now instead of cable.

I agree cable is not an option for many due to cost, quality, line-up, you name it. Their DVR's are also overpriced junk. But my cable company had the content I wanted, and I was able to use my PC as my DVR, all at a very low initial price. In 2 years, the price will skyrocket and I may give satellite another look, probably not Dish though. In the mean time, I get AMC and everything else I like to watch.

Best of luck to you.


----------



## inkahauts

"joyandjerry" said:


> We are definitely looking at DTV, and will switch if they don't have AMC back on Dish for TWD. We have so many things DVR'd (and on disc) we are hardly doing without . And switching is really a PIA, with so much on the DVR that would be "lost". That is why we're waiting it out a bit.
> 
> DTV has BBCAmerica in SD, but I hear that is changing. Dish has it in HD. (Although my husband swears he pay no attention to HD, SD, Blu-ray, or even VHS, as he is just concentrating on the content!)
> 
> Also, our local cable, ABB, is $165/mo, compared to less than $100/mo I am paying Dish for all of the premiums, excepting EPIX. That is just too steep; I don't really see a reason for us to go back to cable.
> 
> This is such an interesting thread; I wish I had time to read all of the informative and learned posts!


If you have that much to watch on your DVR all the time, I'd just Netflix all the amc shows you watch when they are available. That way your not in anyway helping amc out with getting the money they are asking for.

I don't see the point in switching for only one or two channels, unless they are your main locals or a major channel that carries sports you watch a lot of. Everything else can generally easily be had via Netflix in less than a year and will not have lost any value. Now if half your stations left, that's different. But I doubt amc shows account for anywhere close to even 10% of people's viewing overall.


----------



## SayWhat?

mdavej said:


> Yep, DirecTV actually got BBCA HD yesterday,


Not sure why people care so much about the Star Trek channel.


----------



## DoyleS

Its not Star Trek, but the new series Coppers. I watched the trailer and it seems to have good sets, good costumes and looks to be a good cast. We'll see Sunday whether it looks to be a winner or not. Glad to see other channels stepping up with Original Series programming.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

SayWhat? said:


> Not sure why people care so much about the Star Trek channel.


While I admit, I think it is a waste for BBC America to be carrying Star Trek in lieu of some quality BBC programming that would be new to us...

They do carry quite a bit of good BBC content:

Doctor Who, Top Gear, Law & Order UK, the already mentioned Copper... and lots of other BBC shows that aren't otherwise available on other channels.


----------



## phrelin

With the loss of AMC, the only channel left in the AT200 package that wasn't in the AT120 package that we watched was BBCA. It wasn't worth $15 a month, but I'd easily pay $5 because there is a lot of good content.


----------



## joyandjerry

inkahauts said:


> If you have that much to watch on your DVR all the time, I'd just Netflix all the amc shows you watch when they are available. That way your not in anyway helping amc out with getting the money they are asking for.
> 
> I don't see the point in switching for only one or two channels, unless they are your main locals or a major channel that carries sports you watch a lot of. Everything else can generally easily be had via Netflix in less than a year and will not have lost any value. Now if half your stations left, that's different. But I doubt amc shows account for anywhere close to even 10% of people's viewing overall.


Yeah, but we do miss IFC movies and AMC shows. _TWD_ and _MM_ are two of our all time fave shows. As our computer is at work, so we do not stream through Netflix. I buy the discs and then resell them, which ends us costing me nearly nothing.

 The optimist in me thinks AMC will be back on Dish eventually.

BBC's _Copper_ looks great, and it is nice to see them get away from the reality type TV of their more recent programming. Their detective/mysteries are much more realistic then the _CSI's_. BBC (through Acorn media usu.) releases a lot of stellar mysteries on Region 1, such as _George Gently_, that I buy/resell. Apparently there is not an audience in the US for these on TV, but they sure are popular on eBay and half.


----------



## phrelin

There's a thread just started that everyone here should be watching Cablevision Drops Tribune Stations In Fee Dispute. In case you missed one of the posts here that mentions it, Cablevision company Chairman is Charles F. Dolan, the billionaire who coincidentally is Chairman of AMC Networks. According to Variety:


> "A major barrier to an agreement is Cablevision's strongly-held view that Tribune is attempting to illegally tie the carriage of its Fox affiliate in Hartford to WPIX and other less popular Tribune-owned channels," Cablevision said in a statement. "We are pursuing both legal and regulatory options to stop Tribune's illegal tying and will continue to hold the line on increasing programming costs."
> 
> ..."The bankrupt Tribune Company and the hedge funds and banks that own it, including Oaktree Capital Management, Angelo Gordon & Co. and others are trying to solve Tribune's financial problems on the backs of Cablevision customers," Cablevision said. "Tribune and their hedge fund owners are demanding tens of millions in new fees for WPIX and other stations they own. They should stop their anti-consumer demands and work productively to reach an agreement."


Yes indeed, when an anti-consumer channel owner tries to solve their financial problems on the backs of viewers by tying the carriage of its less popular channels to their popular one, the signal provider should dump them all, just like Dish did with AMC Networks.

Glad to hear the owner of AMC Networks agrees with that philosophy.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

phrelin said:


> There's a thread just started that everyone here should be watching Cablevision Drops Tribune Stations In Fee Dispute.
> 
> ...
> 
> Glad to hear the owner of AMC Networks agrees with that philosophy.


Glad you posted this... I think a couple of us had said earlier in this thread that Cablevision has in the past and likely would in the future treat other channels exactly like Dish treated AMC if the tables were turned.

Nice to see Charles Dolan not letting us down 

I wonder how AMC would spin this... Maybe the Voom lawsuit is somehow making Cablevision not negotiate with tribune?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Just for fun... another old article... from last year, when AMC was negotiating on whether or not to bring back "Breaking Bad"... a neat quote from an interview:

"_*Deadline*_: Did AMC want to truncate season 5 of _Breaking Bad_?
*Collier:* There has been a lot reported about this negotiation, but we would never comment on an open negotiation in the press."

*Full article here*.

I wonder what changed... Last year their president said they would "never comment" on negotiations in the press... and yet, that's pretty much all they did regarding Dish prior to when Dish dropped the channels.

One would think AMC would not have spoken to the press (or created that Web site) until after the contract expired IF they were true to their mantra... but it would seem they only feel that way when it suits them.


----------



## Jaspear

Stewart Vernon said:


> "_*Deadline*_: Did AMC want to truncate season 5 of _Breaking Bad_?
> *Collier:* There has been a lot reported about this negotiation, but we would never comment on an open negotiation in the press."


I suspect that Collier was only referring to 'open negotiations' between AMC and content providers, since that was the context of the article.

But I do take your point. When it suits them, the head honcho's got no problem negotiating in the 'press'.


----------



## fudpucker

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> Just for fun... another old article... from last year, when AMC was negotiating on whether or not to bring back "Breaking Bad"... a neat quote from an interview:
> 
> "Deadline: Did AMC want to truncate season 5 of Breaking Bad?
> Collier: There has been a lot reported about this negotiation, but we would never comment on an open negotiation in the press."
> 
> Full article here.
> 
> I wonder what changed... Last year their president said they would "never comment" on negotiations in the press... and yet, that's pretty much all they did regarding Dish prior to when Dish dropped the channels.
> 
> One would think AMC would not have spoken to the press (or created that Web site) until after the contract expired IF they were true to their mantra... but it would seem they only feel that way when it suits them.


Man, you just can't avoid a chance to take shots at AMC can you? I suspect there is a difference in negotiations with someone "in the family" as in a show on your network and with a provider.

If you're going to start the taking shots game back up, the where is the rate drop for Dish subscribers now that they have the whatever millions in their pocket that they were paying AMC? Since this is all about taking care of their subscribers? Dish dropped AMC off and the other channels off their list, added nothing new to replace it, and I'm still paying what I was paying when I was able to watch AMC. To use your consistency logic, if Dish is just trying to keep their subscribers costs down and was "true to their mantra", that new money in Dish's pocket should be used to reduce subscriber rates.


----------



## Laxguy

fudpucker said:


> To use your consistency logic, if Dish is just trying to keep their subscribers costs down and was "true to their mantra", that new money in Dish's pocket should be used to reduce subscriber rates.


Perhaps it's being used to offset other increased costs....

But, seriously, you don't expect any provider to drop subscriber rates for this kind of thing, do you? Seriously, now.....


----------



## SayWhat?

fudpucker said:


> Man, you just can't avoid a chance to take shots at AMC can you?


AMC is the bad guy here. Plain and simple. No other way to state it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> Man, you just can't avoid a chance to take shots at AMC can you? I suspect there is a difference in negotiations with someone "in the family" as in a show on your network and with a provider.
> 
> If you're going to start the taking shots game back up, the where is the rate drop for Dish subscribers now that they have the whatever millions in their pocket that they were paying AMC? Since this is all about taking care of their subscribers? Dish dropped AMC off and the other channels off their list, added nothing new to replace it, and I'm still paying what I was paying when I was able to watch AMC. To use your consistency logic, if Dish is just trying to keep their subscribers costs down and was "true to their mantra", that new money in Dish's pocket should be used to reduce subscriber rates.


I wasn't even looking for that article... I promise you... I was actually in another conversation elsewhere and discussing budgets of shows, and someone compared Breaking Bad's Budget with Once Upon a Time... and I was looking for some numbers about Breaking Bad, and accidentally found that article.

But you surely see the difference, don't you? Dish says they want to "keep costs down" which is probably marketing speak, I grant you... but if Dish doesn't raise your rates they kept costs down... if Dish doesn't raise your rates as much as cable or DirecTV, again they kept costs down.

Dish never promised or hinted that Dish would give you a refund for lost channels...

and yet...

Are you truly so disingenuous with this question?

Did you not see all the posts of people who contacted Dish and said they were going to miss their favorite shows on AMC... and Dish gave a variety of monthly credits for the year + sent out a bunch of free Rokus + offered credits to people who bought the AMC shows on iTunes or wherever...

So didn't Dish in this case actually in fact give money back to customers who asked? Which is exactly what you are saying they should have done... so, what else were you wanting them to give back?


----------



## fudpucker

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> I wasn't even looking for that article... I promise you... I was actually in another conversation elsewhere and discussing budgets of shows, and someone compared Breaking Bad's Budget with Once Upon a Time... and I was looking for some numbers about Breaking Bad, and accidentally found that article.
> 
> But you surely see the difference, don't you? Dish says they want to "keep costs down" which is probably marketing speak, I grant you... but if Dish doesn't raise your rates they kept costs down... if Dish doesn't raise your rates as much as cable or DirecTV, again they kept costs down.
> 
> Dish never promised or hinted that Dish would give you a refund for lost channels...
> 
> and yet...
> 
> Are you truly so disingenuous with this question?
> 
> Did you not see all the posts of people who contacted Dish and said they were going to miss their favorite shows on AMC... and Dish gave a variety of monthly credits for the year + sent out a bunch of free Rokus + offered credits to people who bought the AMC shows on iTunes or wherever...
> 
> So didn't Dish in this case actually in fact give money back to customers who asked? Which is exactly what you are saying they should have done... so, what else were you wanting them to give back?


Believe me, they didn't give away nearly what they put in their pocket. Not even close. Plus, if their mantra is we're looking out for our customers pocket books and that is why we aren't negotiating with AMC the they should have just given the money back to the customers, including those who were paying for AMC and weren't watching, and the vast majority of people who don't read forums etc and didn't get a $40 Roku. What did I want them to give back? Drop our subscription rates by the amount they were paying for the AMC networks rather than take away the channels and put the extra money in their pockets.


----------



## SayWhat?

fudpucker said:


> Drop our subscription rates by the amount they were paying for the AMC networks rather than take away the channels and put the extra money in their pockets.


That's not going to happen. What _MIGHT_ happen is no increase (or less of an increase) next year.


----------



## jdskycaster

fudpucker said:


> Believe me, they didn't give away nearly what they put in their pocket. Not even close. Plus, if their mantra is we're looking out for our customers pocket books and that is why we aren't negotiating with AMC the they should have just given the money back to the customers, including those who were paying for AMC and weren't watching, and the vast majority of people who don't read forums etc and didn't get a $40 Roku. What did I want them to give back? Drop our subscription rates by the amount they were paying for the AMC networks rather than take away the channels and put the extra money in their pockets.


You do not have to read internet forums to realize there are channels missing on your Dish receiver *if you actually watch them and care about them*. If you do then you will call in, ask what is up and Dish will work with you. If you do not watch them and could care less about the programming that is offered then you are recieving everything you have been paying Dish for. Why would Dish be required to automatically refund the money back to all subscribers? They just need to make those few that are unhappy, happy again. I also believe this will manifest itself in the form of a lower overall increase in rates or possibly no increase in rates in the short term.


----------



## fudpucker

I'm glad you have faith that all that extra money in Dish's pocket might, maybe result in perhaps lower increases on the future. What is not a maybe is Dish no longer carries the channels and they are putting all that extra cash in their own pockets today. Instant increased profits from providing fewer viewing options. Looks like same thing may happen with the Big 10 Network. Ugh


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> I'm glad you have faith that all that extra money in Dish's pocket might, maybe result in perhaps lower increases on the future. What is not a maybe is Dish no longer carries the channels and they are putting all that extra cash in their own pockets today. Instant increased profits from providing fewer viewing options. Looks like same thing may happen with the Big 10 Network. Ugh


How much extra cash?

And are you subtracting out what Dish gave away in the form of credits and Rokus and other things?

By all accounts, we are talking well under a dollar for AMC per subscriber... and Dish was handing out more than $1 per month in credits weren't they?

I'm not saying Dish is saintly... but they aren't evil either... and just because you don't see your bill go down doesn't mean you don't see the savings in the form of less of an increase next year.

Everyone wants an instant credit when a channel drops, but nobody wants to instantly have their bill go up when a channel is added. We have gotten several new channels this year... did our bills go up when those channels were added? By your logic, don't you and others owe Dish for those new channels?


----------



## catnapped

Stewart Vernon said:


> How much extra cash?
> 
> By your logic, don't you and others owe Dish for those new channels?


The whopper of an increase come February will take care of that.


----------



## fudpucker

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> How much extra cash?
> 
> And are you subtracting out what Dish gave away in the form of credits and Rokus and other things?
> 
> By all accounts, we are talking well under a dollar for AMC per subscriber... and Dish was handing out more than $1 per month in credits weren't they?
> 
> I'm not saying Dish is saintly... but they aren't evil either... and just because you don't see your bill go down doesn't mean you don't see the savings in the form of less of an increase next year.
> 
> Everyone wants an instant credit when a channel drops, but nobody wants to instantly have their bill go up when a channel is added. We have gotten several new channels this year... did our bills go up when those channels were added? By your logic, don't you and others owe Dish for those new channels?


A dollar for every subscriber. I bet they gave out very few credits compared to total subscriber base/total money in pocket. For example I called and they offered me nothing in terms of credits, just told me I could use my Xbox to get the AMC shows online. I was leaving on business travel that afternoon and didn't call back to try to play the game of getting bumped up to next level,etc. Buddy at work never called them, never occurred to him there was any reason to call when AMC was dropped "just to get some phone support guy reading from scripts."

Again, I was only responding to your bumping the thread to take more shots at AMC and your stretch on their "consistency" of policy.


----------



## SayWhat?

fudpucker said:


> A dollar for every subscriber.


That's rumored to be what AMC demanded. It's believed they were only getting somewhere around a quarter, maybe .30 or so.

It would cost them more in paperwork and staff time to push a .30/mo credit to everyone who was in a tier that had AMC.


----------



## Laxguy

SayWhat? said:


> That's rumored to be what AMC demanded. It's believed they were only getting somewhere around a quarter, maybe .30 or so.
> 
> It would cost them more in paperwork and staff time to push a .30/mo credit to everyone who was in a tier that had AMC.


Really? No paperwork, though I assume you're using that term in a literal sense. I'd think a few key strokes would credit the right accounts in a jif. One staff member, audited by another. 
But it's not in the cards, anyway, and the alternatives that Dish offered to customers was much more meaningful.


----------



## TexanXDM

Did anyone see the last episode of Breaking Bad? 

walter: "say my name!"

Drug dealer: "your Heinsenberg!?"

Walter: "your ***damn right."

Classic! 

Oops did i post this in the wrong thread?


----------



## SayWhat?

Laxguy said:


> One staff member, audited by another.


You forgot about the 18 Executives with salaries near (or over) a million dollars who have to ponder and consider it for days before they tell those two staff members to do it.


----------



## jdskycaster

fudpucker said:


> For example I called and they offered me nothing in terms of credits, just told me I could use my Xbox to get the AMC shows online. I was leaving on business travel that afternoon and didn't call back to try to play the game of getting bumped up to next level,etc. Buddy at work never called them, never occurred to him there was any reason to call when AMC was dropped "just to get some phone support guy reading from scripts."
> 
> Again, I was only responding to your bumping the thread to take more shots at AMC and your stretch on their "consistency" of policy.


If that is all you were offered then three things come to mind:

1. You must be on the very bottom rung of Dish customers because when I called I did not need to play any games to be offered several options including a substantial monthly credit for a year. In fact my call was followed up on *three* times by Dish reps over a 4 week period to insure what I received was sufficient and that I continued to be a happy Dish customer. I think that level of follow-up is commendable on the part of Dish and shows that they are concerned about their customers.

2. You called in but did not express how disappointed you actually are with losing the programming.

3. You are a customer in good standing but did not bother to call in at all.


----------



## cj9788

I have to laugh I can not believe this thread is still so active. Talk about beating a dead horse........


----------



## Marlin Guy

TexanXDM said:


> Did anyone see the last episode of Breaking Bad?
> 
> walter: "say my name!"
> 
> Drug dealer: "your Heinsenberg!?"
> 
> Walter: "your ***damn right."
> 
> Classic!
> 
> Oops did i post this in the wrong thread?


***YOU'RE***


----------



## fudpucker

"jdskycaster" said:


> If that is all you were offered then three things come to mind:
> 
> 1. You must be on the very bottom rung of Dish customers because when I called I did not need to play any games to be offered several options including a substantial monthly credit for a year. In fact my call was followed up on three times by Dish reps over a 4 week period to insure what I received was sufficient and that I continued to be a happy Dish customer. I think that level of follow-up is commendable on the part of Dish and shows that they are concerned about their customers.
> 
> 2. You called in but did not express how disappointed you actually are with losing the programming.
> 
> 3. You are a customer in good standing but did not bother to call in at all.


Or 4 I got a CSR who read their script and was only interested in getting me off the phone, which was pretty clearly the case. But I did not spend a lot of time following up.

Not on the bottom rung ( high bill, never missed a payment or late, etc.) but my point was that the number of people to whom temp credits of some type were given we're extremely small compared to the total subscriber base.

But we're beating this horse to a pulp. Those who choose to believe Dish did what they did out of a golden heart for their customers will not be argued out of that position. Nor those who think otherwise.


----------



## tampa8

You sound like someone who would be happier if Dish raised your monthly bill each time they added a channel in that month, or perhaps gave more in other ways then raised your bill that month, and then reduced your bill if a channel is dropped.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> ...but my point was that the number of people to whom temp credits of some type were given we're extremely small compared to the total subscriber base.


But the "total subscriber base" didn't lose AMC... Only people who subscribe to the tier that included AMC lost it... and of those, clearly by AMC's own ratings estimates most of those customers who subscribed and were paying for AMC never were watching it anyway... and thus didn't notice when it went away.

So... a relatively small amount of Dish's customers were actually affected... and it sounded to me like every one of those customers who called were able to coerce Dish into giving them some manner of freebie or credit or both.

You can't count all of Dish's 14 million subscribers when most of those did not subscribe to the tier that AMC was included in, and even of those most of them didn't watch even though they could have.

You would have to come back with a number of Dish customers who actually watched programming on AMC (like I assume most of us in this thread would be counted amongst) and then make your claim of how many received credits vs those subscriber numbers.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Oops... My above post (left as it is so people don't think I'm trying to hide my mistake) was written assuming AMC had been in the AT250 package... but I've been made aware that it was in fact in the AT200.

So... part of my assertion was incorrect.

Turns out... Most of Dish subscribers were subscribed to a tier that included AMC... so most customers did lose a channel... but my secondary assertion still holds, based on AMC's ratings, that far fewer people actually watched AMC than were paying for it.


----------



## joyandjerry

Stewart, I would assume that AMC (and other networks) have "sporadic" viewers (like us) that tune in when a series that interests them is broadcast. We have all of the premiums, but may not watch one for months at a time. It would seem to make more sense, from a statistical point of view, to track the viewing habits of the subscribers over an entire year of programming. Many subscribers may not watch AMC until _TWD_ or _MM_ is on, esp. _TWD_. That is why AMC is making such a big deal out of Dish dropping their channels, as I'm sure a large amount of Dish subscribers watch _TWD_.

AMC can certainly survive w/o Dish, but then what about their contracts with DTV, Comcast, etc. Surely they can't just alienate all of the other providers. The optimist in me is hoping for a resolution in time for _TWD_.  I've always been happy with Dish, and have a lot on the DVR, but want my zombie fix . . .:lol:

Please excuse this question, as it may be common knowledge, but what does "DBS" stand for?  Your dedication to the forum is appreciated. I wish I had time to read more of the informative posts!!


----------



## jdskycaster

^^^I really enjoy TWD as well and it would be great if there is resolution to this but I would not count on it. The resolution strategy for Dish was to make sure customers who like AMC programming could receive it via other outlets. Even going so far as to offer those with no Amazon VOD streaming hardware the ability to receive a free Roku (if you have high speed internet at home). In addition they have been offering credits to cover the cost of receiving these shows through outlets like Amazon.

I personally feel that if they really thought there would be resolution to this that they would not have taken these steps to encourage their own customers to go to an alternate provider of content.

I hope I am wrong and a resolution is reached in the near future but the realist in me is overriding the optimist.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

joyandjerry said:


> Stewart, I would assume that AMC (and other networks) have "sporadic" viewers (like us) that tune in when a series that interests them is broadcast.


True... and that is part of the problem when the "smaller" channels negotiate... they don't seem to realize that everybody knows they have sporadic viewers, so instead they try and quote from their peak viewing times.



joyandjerry said:


> It would seem to make more sense, from a statistical point of view, to track the viewing habits of the subscribers over an entire year of programming.


Even that is bad for AMC, though... because they have a literal handful of programs and they don't even re-run them in the off-season much... and they run infomercials during the late/overnight hours... so even if you watch every one of AMC's new-produced-dramas, you still wouldn't be watching AMC that much of the time.



joyandjerry said:


> Many subscribers may not watch AMC until _TWD_ or _MM_ is on, esp. _TWD_. That is why AMC is making such a big deal out of Dish dropping their channels, as I'm sure a large amount of Dish subscribers watch _TWD_.


And this is where that falls apart... We don't have all the numbers divided out to say for sure... but here's what we do "know" from various sources.

There are ~100 million paytv customers (satellite + cable) in the US... Dish has ~14 million of those... and AMC on their best rated night had about 9 million people watch one of those Walking Dead episodes.

So... less than 10% of the total paytv customers... so strictly on the math, one might guess around 1 million at most Dish customers watched that episode of the Walking Dead.

That could be high, though, because it might not necessarily track that Dish has the same equal distribution of AMC fans that other paytv providers do.

Still... what it boils down to is that AMC has lost all of those viewers now... while Dish only lost a handful of people who probably switched at this point... certainly far less than 1 million people have left Dish over this.



joyandjerry said:


> AMC can certainly survive w/o Dish, but then what about their contracts with DTV, Comcast, etc. Surely they can't just alienate all of the other providers. The optimist in me is hoping for a resolution in time for _TWD_.  I've always been happy with Dish, and have a lot on the DVR, but want my zombie fix . . .:lol:


I think Dish survives the loss of AMC far easier than the other way around. Also, as you say, if DirecTV plays hardball next time, AMC could find itself on the outside looking in...

I would like it to be back... but since all I'll be missing is the Walking Dead and I'll buy that on Blu-ray anyway... I can live without the channel and watch the episodes when I buy them.



joyandjerry said:


> Please excuse this question, as it may be common knowledge, but what does "DBS" stand for?  Your dedication to the forum is appreciated. I wish I had time to read more of the informative posts!!


In this context... DBS = Direct Broadcast Satellite... the "direct" meaning intended direct to the consumer essentially.


----------



## joyandjerry

:bowdown: Thank you *so much*, Stewart, for taking the time to address my queries. I had that hunch about DBS, but like to be certain!

 Thanks again, and have a happy holiday!!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

joyandjerry said:


> :bowdown: Thank you *so much*, Stewart, for taking the time to address my queries. I had that hunch about DBS, but like to be certain!
> 
> Thanks again, and have a happy holiday!!


You're welcome... FYI, I did put my money where my mouth is... and picked up season 2 of the Walking Dead this week...


----------



## bigdog9586

My wife called Dish the other day complaint about AMC and can't watch Hell on Wheels or the upcoming Walking Dead. They are sending her this http://www.roku.com/ I'm guessing the cheapest one which is $49.95 plus they credited our account for $35 to pay for her downloading them from Amazon. That's $85 and if they do that for everyone who calls in how can that be cheaper than settling with AMC?


----------



## SayWhat?

bigdog9586 said:


> if they do that for everyone who calls in how can that be cheaper than settling with AMC?


Because only a very small number of people call. Most just accept change for what it is and don't make a big deal out of losing a channel.


----------



## Laxguy

bigdog9586 said:


> My wife called Dish the other day complaint about AMC and can't watch Hell on Wheels or the upcoming Walking Dead. They are sending her this http://www.roku.com/ I'm guessing the cheapest one which is $49.95 plus they credited our account for $35 to pay for her downloading them from Amazon. That's $85 and if they do that for everyone who calls in how can that be cheaper than settling with AMC?


They don't do that for everyone who calls. Everyone doesn't watch AMC. And everyone who did doesn't call. So it's possibly way cheaper that way.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bigdog9586 said:


> That's $85 and if they do that for everyone who calls in how can that be cheaper than settling with AMC?


It has to do with the greater math in play... Just making up some numbers here because I don't know any for sure...

Dish has ~14 million subscribers... with supposedly most getting the AT200 or higher, which would have included AMC.

So... let's say 10 million subscribers were in a tier that included AMC... so that means if AMC was getting 30 cents per subscriber, we would be talking about Dish paying AMC somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000.00 per month.

Ok...

AMC's best/highest rated program had about 9 million viewers... and estimates have around 100 million paytv customers in the US... so let's say 10% of paytv customers are AMC viewers.

I bet the number is lower for Dish... but that would mean about 1 million of the people who were paying for AMC actually watched it at some point... so IF every one of those customers called Dish and said "gimme gimme"... then Dish would be paying out more...

But also... we only counted based on the old Dish contract... rumors had AMC asking for as high as 75 cents... which would raise that monthly payout to AMC from $300K to $750K if that was the new contract...

But factor in that probably well less than half will actually complain and ask for something... and the fact that a credit costs Dish less than a payout... plus they probably have a deal with the Rokus since once you get a Roku you probably use it for other things, so that benefits the Roku people... and I think Charlie said it best in a conference call when he said they could probably subsidize all the fans of certain shows on AMC for less money than it cost to pay for what AMC wanted to increase to...

So while Dish couldn't do this for every channel dispute... certainly to send a message for this one, they can.


----------



## psycaz

bigdog9586 said:


> My wife called Dish the other day complaint about AMC and can't watch Hell on Wheels or the upcoming Walking Dead. They are sending her this http://www.roku.com/ I'm guessing the cheapest one which is $49.95 plus they credited our account for $35 to pay for her downloading them from Amazon. That's $85 and if they do that for everyone who calls in how can that be cheaper than settling with AMC?


Which department did she talk to? I would love to call and complain to get this deal. It would let me watch TWD for sure.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

A little over a month until Walking Dead season 3... so either we get AMC back by then because AMC flinches... OR I'll be waiting until next year for the Blu-rays.

In the meantime, I bought season 2 on Blu-ray... so I have all those episodes to re-watch.


----------



## sloop30

Yeah I just got season 2 as well, wondering what will happen with amc.


----------



## dakeeney

;


Stewart Vernon said:


> A little over a month until Walking Dead season 3... so either we get AMC back by then because AMC flinches... OR I'll be waiting until next year for the Blu-rays.
> 
> In the meantime, I bought season 2 on Blu-ray... so I have all those episodes to re-watch.


 I still believe a deal will be signed before TWD airs.


----------



## DoyleS

All of the dialog here has made me checkout a few programs on AMC that I had never watched. Not sure I am into Breaking Bad. I'll give it a few more episodes. The wife clearly is not into it. I ordered the BluRay of Season 1 of Mad Men from the Dish Blockbuster and we like it. Since it started in 2007 we have a lot of BluRays to go through before we are ready for the 2012 season. Dish did give me a credit to download the HD version for Hell on Wheels from iTunes and I really like that show. With all of the new shows starting this fall, I have way more material to watch than what my schedule allows so whether AMC and Dish reach agreement is not really an issue for me.


----------



## celticpride

Hmmm my brother has DISH but doesnt have the internet maybe i should tell him to complain and see if dish will give him a discount to get the internet plus a free roku and credits to get these shows from amazon:lol: just kidding i couldnt resist


----------



## SayWhat?

DoyleS said:


> All of the dialog here has made me checkout a few programs on AMC that I had never watched. Not sure I am into Breaking Bad.


See, I'm not into drug dealers or stories about them. Part of the reason I never watched Weeds.

Also not into reanimated dead things. Never even really cared for any of the Frankenstein movies or any of the 50s Zombie junk.

Same thing for biker gangs.

So, it really doesn't matter if they're perceived as 'well written and acted' or not. I would never watch any of them.


----------



## joyandjerry

SayWhat? said:


> See, I'm not into drug dealers or stories about them. Part of the reason I never watched Weeds.
> 
> Also not into reanimated dead things. Never even really cared for any of the Frankenstein movies or any of the 50s Zombie junk.
> 
> Same thing for biker gangs.
> 
> So, it really doesn't matter if they're perceived as 'well written and acted' or not. I would never watch any of them.


We never cared for any zombie movies, feeling that they were too campy. But _TWD_ got a review from the _Wall Street Journal_ that stated she never thought she would like a show about zombies, but _TWD_ was so much more, so we gave it a try. It is now one of our faves! The show is a very serious survivalist drama. Some episodes actually feature very few zombies, to the point where viewers were complaining they weren't "featured" enough.

So to each his own! Many shows the subject matter doesn't appeal to us either, as with the others you mentioned. But often these shows are not would one would expect or "assume".


----------



## 356B

HOW and MM are excellent programs. My house will miss them. I hope this pissing contest ends before they return.


----------



## SayWhat?

I was under the impression it ended a couple of months ago.


----------



## 356B

SayWhat? said:


> I was under the impression it ended a couple of months ago.


 MM has one season left, or so I have read. HOW is coming.


----------



## SayWhat?

I mean the dispute. As in they ain't talkin' and AMC ain't comin' back, no way, no how.


----------



## DoyleS

At this point Dish has probably survived any change in membership due to the dropping of AMC. In my opinion they have done a good job in minimizing the impact and keeping customers happy. Clearly if someone didn't or doesn't speak up, they get no compensation. The impact on AMC will only be known when their financial results come out for the quarter as I am sure they are trying to keep the numbers pretty close to the vest.


----------



## Laxguy

There are too many variables in accounting such that AMC, if they desired, could completely mask any effect, or exaggerate it.


----------



## fudpucker

"Laxguy" said:


> There are too many variables in accounting such that AMC, if they desired, could completely mask any effect, or exaggerate it.


Yeah, heck they could quote Dish's CEO and claim they didn't have that many viewers on Dish anyway so the impact isn't that much. 

It is clear this isn't a normal channel carriage dispute: these two owners have made it personal and neither wants to compromise. So the odds are high Dish customers just won't get to watch AMC shows (unless they go elsewhere.)

Leaving the viewers out, and just looking from a company point of view, hard to see it any way except that it hurts AMC more than Dish. At least short term. You never know how many new customers each year will choose DirectTV instead of Dish because they want to be able to get AMC. But in the short term I have to guess this hurts AMC's ad rates ( though we'll probably see those numbers this coming season.)


----------



## 356B

SayWhat? said:


> I mean the dispute. As in they ain't talkin' and AMC ain't comin' back, no way, no how.


If business has taught me one thing it is....never, ever, say never.


----------



## Laxguy

356B said:


> If business has taught me one thing it is....never, ever, say never.


Good point. Money talks; nobody walks!

Is your handle a Porsche reference? I had a 356-A....


----------



## Mojo Jojo

"Laxguy" said:


> Good point. Money talks; nobody walks!
> 
> Is your handle a Porsche reference? I had a 356-A....


I was surprised that AMC was on Dish in HD to begin with.

I wish that some agreement would happen allowing AMC HD, We TV HD, IFC HD, and Sundance Channel HD.


----------



## ATARI

TWD is more about group dynamics and how society functions after an apocalyptic event. Zombies are there just to add tension.


----------



## joyandjerry

fudpucker said:


> Yeah, heck they could quote Dish's CEO and claim they didn't have that many viewers on Dish anyway so the impact isn't that much.
> 
> It is clear this isn't a normal channel carriage dispute: these two owners have made it personal and neither wants to compromise. So the odds are high Dish customers just won't get to watch AMC shows (unless they go elsewhere.)
> 
> Leaving the viewers out, and just looking from a company point of view, hard to see it any way except that it hurts AMC more than Dish. At least short term. You never know how many new customers each year will choose DirectTV instead of Dish because they want to be able to get AMC. But in the short term I have to guess this hurts AMC's ad rates ( though we'll probably see those numbers this coming season.)


Great points!! That, IMOSHO, is why AMC is "dissing Dish" (try saying that ten times fast :lol, as they know they will lose viewers come October.

But Dish also knows in the future they will lose potential customers. I upgraded my receiver a year ago and would pick DTV if I had to do it again today b/c of AMC/IFC. We may switch in the future, but the benefit/PIA of a DVR is that we have a lot on there to watch. In possible anticipation of a switch, we are making an effort to watch DVR'd content. It's good to "clean house" every so often!!


----------



## Paul Secic

DoyleS said:


> All of the dialog here has made me checkout a few programs on AMC that I had never watched. Not sure I am into Breaking Bad. I'll give it a few more episodes. The wife clearly is not into it. I ordered the BluRay of Season 1 of Mad Men from the Dish Blockbuster and we like it. Since it started in 2007 we have a lot of BluRays to go through before we are ready for the 2012 season. Dish did give me a credit to download the HD version for Hell on Wheels from iTunes and I really like that show. With all of the new shows starting this fall, I have way more material to watch than what my schedule allows so whether AMC and Dish reach agreement is not really an issue for me.


+1


----------



## Laxguy

Just a quick word on *Breaking Bad*. For me, the only thing that worked was going to Season 1, Episode 1. A bit doubtful after that, but an ep or two more, I was hooked. I had tried jumping in middle season 3 and it didn't take.

I caught the first three seasons on Netflix.


----------



## DoyleS

I have about 18 episodes of BB recorded from their event right before they pulled the plug. I am missing a few but can get them through Blockbuster. It is on the backburner now as I am more into Mad Men and Hell on Wheels.


----------



## Mojo Jojo

According to a CBS News story (http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?catid=57512910&feed_id=999&videofeed=999), it is expected for AMC Networks and Dish to reach a settlement before a September 19 trial date. However, I think it is important to remember that anything can happen.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Mojo Jojo said:


> According to a CBS News story (http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?catid=57512910&feed_id=999&videofeed=999), it is expected for AMC Networks and Dish to reach a settlement before a September 19 trial date. However, I think it is important to remember that anything can happen.


That article has several wrong things in it... The most egregious is saying that "Dish has blacked out AMC channels since July"...

Dish has NOT blacked out AMC channels. Dish and AMC did not renew their contract to carry once the contract expired.

There is no blackout. Dish has no contract to carry AMC channels.


----------



## SayWhat?

I just scanned several other articles on various sites and .....

A ) None of them mention talks or anything close to a carriage deal.

B ) Some of them mention increasing tensions between Dish and CBS over the Hopper suit.

So that fact that the above mentioned article is from CBS makes me wonder about impartiality.


----------



## Laxguy

Stewart Vernon said:


> That article has several wrong things in it... The most egregious is saying that "Dish has blacked out AMC channels since July"...
> 
> Dish has NOT blacked out AMC channels. Dish and AMC did not renew their contract to carry once the contract expired.
> 
> There is no blackout. Dish has no contract to carry AMC channels.


I'd go a bit further and say AMC pulled the channels. AMC could have kept them on during negotiations, so it was they who blacked them out.


----------



## kucharsk

I also think AMC is being disingenuous when their ads state DISH viewers are paying for AMC but not getting it.

Au contraire; we're not getting DISH because we don't want to pay higher rates that would ensue due to the confiscatory retransmit rates AMC demands.


----------



## tampa8

kucharsk said:


> I also think AMC is being disingenuous when their ads state DISH viewers are paying for AMC but not getting it.


They are referring to the fact Dish did not drop rates. That ignores three things. Free Roku's and discounts being given. And Dish does not raise rates either each time a new channel is added.


----------



## TBoneit

Every night driving home from work I hear the Comcast add touting that they have those channels and that Dish dropped them. 

And I think to myself so what, I didn't watch them except once in a blue moon. Shame for those that did watch them.


----------



## joyandjerry

The Dish/VOOM trial started today. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-19/amc-s-2-dot-4-billion-trial-may-return-mad-men-to-dish Maybe we'll get AMC back eventually! AMC does not want to lose viewers.

Also, I read that CBS is threatening to drop Dish b/c of the Hopper. That would be the final nail in the coffin for us, as we watch many CBS procedurals.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Off-topic, but CBS can't threaten to drop Dish exactly... I mean, CBS doesn't own and operate ALL of even a majority of the CBS affiliates out there... so they don't have a say in that.

IF CBS attaches other channels it does own to the OTA dispute, then they will look bad for doing so in customer's eyes since customers frankly want the commercial skipping feature.

So... CBS' best chance is in court, IF they can win an injunction there... but CBS will never win in the court of public opinion.

Even people like me that see their beef about the AutoHop feature wouldn't support CBS taking the ball and going home over it.

Meanwhile, back to topic... it will be interesting to see IF the Voom lawsuit proceedings have any effect on getting AMC back.

The funny thing is AMC's actions in many ways support what Dish said about how Rainbow (the former AMC operation name) ran Voom... asking for money but not spending it on the programming they say... so in some ways the recent AMC dispute hurts the Voom suit more than Dish's behavior I think.


----------



## DoyleS

CBS is available OTA in most large areas. Only change for me might be to order the dual OTA tuner for my 722K. My 722 already has OTA. I can see where it might bother the Hopper people since there is currently no OTA module. Who knows, Dish is pretty creative. They might even speed up the development and give the OTA modules away free or at low cost.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

DoyleS said:


> CBS is available OTA in most large areas. Only change for me might be to order the dual OTA tuner for my 722K. My 722 already has OTA. I can see where it might bother the Hopper people since there is currently no OTA module. Who knows, Dish is pretty creative. They might even speed up the development and give the OTA modules away free or at low cost.


Keep in mind, though, IF CBS pulls its owned channels... then that means the EPG data is gone too... so you would have to set manual timers, and some Dish receivers do not have that feature any longer.


----------



## cj9788

Stewart Vernon said:


> Keep in mind, though, IF CBS pulls its owned channels... then that means the EPG data is gone too... so you would have to set manual timers, and some Dish receivers do not have that feature any longer.


Just curious, why would all CBS EPG data not be available?


----------



## satcrazy

I know this isn't a option for everyone, but I have 29$ R sh*ck antenna in my attic that pulls in the big 4 and others, about 10 channels in all.

Always good to have as a back up, especially if you lose signal, so if cbs drops dish, no sweat.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

cj9788 said:


> Just curious, why would all CBS EPG data not be available?


Dish only uplinks the EPG data for channels they carry OR for some sub-channels in some markets.

Whenever Dish has dropped a local channel from satellite delivery, the OTA EPG has also reverted to "No Information" as well.


----------



## DoyleS

In light of the way that Dish has handled the AMC situation and tried to keep customers happy, it wouldn't surprise me if they continued to upload the EPG data. 

On another note, we just finished watching the last disc of Season 1 of Mad Men and have Season 2 on our BB Queue. One could always hope that by the time we get caught up that AMC might be back on Dish. Not a hill to die on but it would be nice.


----------



## DoyleS

Interesting to see the Drama Emmy Nominees for 2012 and AMC is very well represented. 

DRAMA SERIES
"Boardwalk Empire" (HBO)
"Breaking Bad" (AMC)
"Downton Abbey" (PBS)
"Game of Thrones" (HBO)
"Homeland" (Showtime)
"Mad Men" (AMC)

DRAMA ACTOR
Steve Buscemi as Nucky Thompson in "Boardwalk Empire"
Bryan Cranston as Walter White in "Breaking Bad" 
Michael C. Hall as Dexter Morgan in "Dexter"
Hugh Bonneville as Robert, Earl of Grantham in "Downton Abbey"
Damian Lewis as Nicholas Brody in "Homeland"
Jon Hamm as Don Draper in "Mad Men"

SUPPORTING DRAMA ACTOR

Aaron Paul as Jesse Pinkman in "Breaking Bad" 
Giancarlo Esposito as Gustavo 'Gus' Fring in "Breaking Bad" 
Brendan Coyle as John Bates in "Downton Abbey"
Jim Carter as Mr. Carson in "Downton Abbey"
Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister in "Game of Thrones"
Jared Harris as Lane Pryce "Mad Men"

SUPPORTING DRAMA ACTRESS
Anna Gunn as Skyler White in "Breaking Bad"
Maggie Smith as Violet, Dowager Countess of Grantham in "Downton Abbey"
Joanne Froggatt as Anna in "Downton Abbey"
Archie Panjabi as Kalinda Sharma in "The Good Wife"
Christine Baranski as Diane Lockhart in "The Good Wife"
Christina Hendricks as Joan Holloway Harris in "Mad Men"


----------



## Jim5506

Emmys and Oscars are designed for actors and the like to pat each other on the back.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Jim5506 said:


> Emmys and Oscars are designed for actors and the like to pat each other on the back.


Not only that... but of the two shows on AMC garnering those nominations... Breaking Bad is in its final season and Mad Men has almost been canceled once already due to dispute with the showrunners over cost.. so don't hold your breath thinking Mad Men will be around much longer.

AMC wants to lock providers into a 3-5 year contract most likely (a guess on my part based on other channel deals we have read about recently)... by which time you could find yourself locked into paying for AMC and none of those award winning shows are on the air to justify that higher contract.


----------



## joyandjerry

Stewart Vernon said:


> Not only that... but of the two shows on AMC garnering those nominations... Breaking Bad is in its final season and Mad Men has almost been canceled once already due to dispute with the showrunners over cost.. so don't hold your breath thinking Mad Men will be around much longer.


I believe that it was determined that _Mad Men_ would run a maximum of seven seasons,


----------



## fudpucker

"Jim5506" said:


> Emmys and Oscars are designed for actors and the like to pat each other on the back.


But these shows have been praised by just about everyone as truly great shows. I don't think anyone gains any traction by arguing the shows aren't among the best on TV. Unless you go purely by ratings in which case a person would conclude the reality show exploiting Nanny Boo Boo or whatever that little girl s name is quality TV.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> But these shows have been praised by just about everyone as truly great shows. I don't think anyone gains any traction by arguing the shows aren't among the best on TV. Unless you go purely by ratings in which case a person would conclude the reality show exploiting Nanny Boo Boo or whatever that little girl s name is quality TV.


Actually... I like your idea better...

"Nanny Nightmares" meets "Honey Boo Boo" to make "Nanny Boo Boo"

I still wouldn't watch  But the idea is better!


----------



## kick4fun

AMC said it would stream the Season 3 premiere of "The Walking Dead" live, and provide the episode free for all customers of Dish Network who are caught in the middle of a tug of war between the cable channel and the satellite provider.
The livestream will air the same time as the live episode on television, coming Oct. 14 at 9 p.m. ET. It will stream through the channel's website at AMCtv.com.

http://www.rabiddoll.com/node/2237/amc-to-dish-customers-stream-walking-dead-live.html


----------



## PrinceLH

So what is the main stumbling block, between Dish and AMC?


----------



## sigma1914

Just the season premier? Geeh, how sweet of them (AMC).


----------



## Mojo Jojo

"PrinceLH" said:


> So what is the main stumbling block, between Dish and AMC?


$$$ over the Voom channels from a few years ago...even though in a sense Dish helped save them by carrying them from the defunct Voom service...I bet Dish wishes it did not now...


----------



## coldsteel

So, offering it free. Sure, Dolans, let's cheapen your product even more. Genius.


----------



## Mojo Jojo

"coldsteel" said:


> So, offering it free. Sure, Dolans, let's cheapen your product even more. Genius.


Dish can strengthen its argument about AMC Networks offering content online.


----------



## sigma1914

coldsteel said:


> So, offering it free. Sure, Dolans, let's cheapen your product even more. Genius.


It's 1 episode that'll get a few Dish subs to call and complain more. It's similar to HBO's free weekend during a big season premier like Boardwalk Empire.


----------



## Inkosaurus

Only interested if they stream Talking Dead.

AMC cant milk TWD for ever though, this season should prove to be one of the best, then it will follow the same downward repetitive boring spiral the comic did after the prison and prison redux arcs.


----------



## kick4fun

Inkosaurus said:


> Only interested if they stream Talking Dead.
> 
> AMC cant milk TWD for ever though, this season should prove to be one of the best, then it will follow the same downward repetitive boring spiral the comic did after the prison and prison redux arcs.


I've never seen the Talking Dead.. Is that pretty good? It's the follow up show, I know this much.. That would be a cool stream..


----------



## Inkosaurus

Its pretty entertaining I really enjoyed it last season.

Its really great (though rare) when someone calls in and asks questions about the comic characters and if they'll show up on the show (usually happens when Kirkman was in the episode).


----------



## MCHuf

coldsteel said:


> So, offering it free. Sure, Dolans, let's cheapen your product even more. Genius.


I never got this argument about AMC cheapening their product. They don't have many, if any, full episodes for free on their site. It isn't offered on Hulu/Hulu+ or Amazon. Netflix only has the previous seasons available and if you want any of the current season and don't have a pay-tv subscription, you have to pay $2-$3 per episode. If anything, it goes for a premium.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

MCHuf said:


> I never got this argument about AMC cheapening their product. They don't have many, if any, full episodes for free on their site. It isn't offered on Hulu/Hulu+ or Amazon. Netflix only has the previous seasons available and if you want any of the current season and don't have a pay-tv subscription, you have to pay $2-$3 per episode. If anything, it goes for a premium.


Two things in play..

Giving away an episode now for free just means no reason for Dish to worry about it for another week... free isn't what AMC offered to Dish. IF AMC is willing to give it away free, why not let Dish keep the AMC feed while they negotiate?

On the larger online versions... IF you only wanted a higher tier for AMC, and only wanted AMC for a few shows (they only have a few shows of original programming)... you'd probably save money by dropping that higher tier from Dish and just buying those episodes online for a few shows.

Charlie himself said that he could probably reimburse customers for buying episodes in this way for the number of viewers that actually wanted those particular episodes... and save money based on what AMC wanted to increase the rates... hence, Dish issuing credits and giving out Rokus to people.

That's the problem... AMC trying to get money from too many different places and not realizing how it all interacts and crashes together when it comes to negotiations.


----------



## RVRambler

"complained' about no AMC and they offered me a 'discount' of $2.5 mo for Encore, said no thanks. He then xfered me to 'loyalty' person who voiced her 'I did not ever enjoy AMC (Mad M, etc) but some of my friends.......... yada, yada, blah, blah....".

Ended up getting a $10 discount on bill for 1 yr. Much preferred to nearly anything they could offer short of AMC, last yr on 2 yr contract.

Did ask why no HD ESPNU, she thought is was in HD, on HD transponder, so re-checked, & of course she was wrong.

College basketball soon, ESPNU has a fair # of games which I watch, too bad, now I have to 'guess' who that player is and find it 'hard' to argue with the ref call!!  Blind as what we blame on Ref's with just SD!! Fairly sucky but.........

It PAYS to complain!!


----------



## mdavej

I did even better. I cancelled Dish and got cable. Now I not only have AMC HD, but also WE HD and IFC HD. Plus I'm saving $50/month for the next 2 years. It may pay a little to complain, but it pays a lot more to drop Dish altogether.

I realize cable won't work in an RV, but it's a good option for us non-ramblers.


----------



## ehilbert1

Stewart Vernon said:


> Two things in play..
> 
> Giving away an episode now for free just means no reason for Dish to worry about it for another week... free isn't what AMC offered to Dish. IF AMC is willing to give it away free, why not let Dish keep the AMC feed while they negotiate?
> 
> On the larger online versions... IF you only wanted a higher tier for AMC, and only wanted AMC for a few shows (they only have a few shows of original programming)... you'd probably save money by dropping that higher tier from Dish and just buying those episodes online for a few shows.
> 
> Charlie himself said that he could probably reimburse customers for buying episodes in this way for the number of viewers that actually wanted those particular episodes... and save money based on what AMC wanted to increase the rates... hence, Dish issuing credits and giving out Rokus to people.
> 
> That's the problem... AMC trying to get money from too many different places and not realizing how it all interacts and crashes together when it comes to negotiations.


That would be nice but Dish didn't even want to negotiate. They just dropped the channel. You can't leave something up if there is no negotiation.

I will still never get the argument that having previous seasons on Netflix is a a bad thing. It's not the new episodes. I used Netflix to get into Dexter when it was still on Netflix. Now I subscribe so I can watch all the new episodes. That helps Showtime and D. Right? More money coming in.

I know people that did the same for Walking Dead. They got the higher package so they can watch the show. Should be win win!


----------



## DoyleS

Timing is also key here. Although a lot of the AMC shows like WD, BB, MM and HOW are in their new season, but so is everything else, and their are some good new shows. 
Last Resort is looking very promising. 
I am a Blue Bloods fan.
Revenge has me hooked. 
Vegas is good with Michael Chiklis.
Arrow and Revolution sound promising. 
So for me, I am in catchup mode on Mad Men at Disc 2 of Season 2 through Blockbuster. And Dish set me up with Hell on Wheels. 
Couple that with the SF 49ers having a good season and the Giants in the playoffs. My DVR will keep me busy for the foreseeable future. 
I won't have to be concerned about whether Dish and AMC resolve their differences for at least another year.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

ehilbert1 said:


> That would be nice but Dish didn't even want to negotiate. They just dropped the channel. You can't leave something up if there is no negotiation.


Faulty premise there, though... Dish didn't drop the channels. AMC pulled the feed when the contract was up.

Dish said AMC wanted too much, AMC said Dish refused to negotiate. We only have AMC's "word" that Dish refused to negotiate... but we know AMC pulled the feed at the end of the month.


----------



## tampa8

Normally I would agree with that.(questioning the lack of negotiating) I do however think Dish in this case decided they were not going to carry AMC unless AMC agreed to things Dish knew they would not agree to. As an example only wanting AMC, not WE or Sundance etc...) And the remarks made by AMC that AMC wanted much more money from any carrier (though not all at once) gave Dish an opening. Take away the lawsuit and I feel AMC might still be carried.


----------



## paja

DoyleS said:


> Timing is also key here. Although a lot of the AMC shows like WD, BB, MM and HOW are in their new season, but so is everything else, and their are some good new shows.
> Last Resort is looking very promising.
> I am a Blue Bloods fan.
> Revenge has me hooked.
> Vegas is good with Michael Chiklis.
> Arrow and Revolution sound promising.
> So for me, I am in catchup mode on Mad Men at Disc 2 of Season 2 through Blockbuster. And Dish set me up with Hell on Wheels.
> Couple that with the SF 49ers having a good season and the Giants in the playoffs. My DVR will keep me busy for the foreseeable future.
> I won't have to be concerned about whether Dish and AMC resolve their differences for at least another year.


My wife and I are with your list plus Hawaii 5-O and GRIMM


----------



## dunkonu23

I signed up for the streaming feed. Funky stuff afoot here... All I know is that after my contract expires and if TWD is still on, I'll drop Dish. 

That all said, I do like Talking Dead, too. Though we used to record TWD and TD then watch them Monday after we watched Dexter. Now... we will record Dexter and stream a feed of TWD. 

This whole finger pointing thing is a shame when subscribers, for whatever reason, are caught in the middle of two childish entities who can't get along. 

Scott


----------



## joyandjerry

dunkonu23 said:


> This whole finger pointing thing is a shame when subscribers, for whatever reason, are caught in the middle of two childish entities who can't get along.
> 
> Scott


Agree completely! The Dish/Voom trial is supposed to last until the end of the month, so then we'll know if AMC/IFC will ever be back. About 13% of AMC's subscribers are from Dish, although obviously not all subscribers watch AMC et al. Surely AMC doesn't want to lose that many _potential _ viewers.

Our computer is at work, so we cannot stream these shows, unfortunately. We will also be switching if it is not back eventually.


----------



## RasputinAXP

Talk about whining:


----------



## Laxguy

Even as a DIRECTV® fanboi, I think AMC is being a complete d*** in this matter.


----------



## joyandjerry

Yeah, AMC is bashing Dish, instead of attemptimg to resolve the situation.


----------



## dunkonu23

Thing is, it really does not matter who is right and who is wrong in this dispute because it is the consumer who is wronged. Both Dish and AMC should simply grow up, face the music and stop playing media games.

Scott


----------



## Stewart Vernon

If AMC put half the effort into negotiations that they put into their negative marketing... the channels might be back on Dish already.

edit: I wonder... AMC wanted a rate increase... but how much is their anti-Dish campaign costing them in marketing? They could save that money and put it towards their programming, couldn't they?


----------



## ATARI

Laxguy said:


> Even as a DIRECTV® fanboi, I think AMC is being a complete d*** in this matter.


I agree.


----------



## maartena

I have been hearing commercial on the radio for weeks now..... Walking Dead is back, some random sounds and quotes, award winning blah blah..... BUT NOT ON DISH, If you are a Dish subscriber visit switchfromdish.com to switch and watch AMC!

I don't think Charlie is budging, AMC marketing machine!


----------



## Diana C

Stewart Vernon said:


> Faulty premise there, though... Dish didn't drop the channels. AMC pulled the feed when the contract was up.
> 
> Dish said AMC wanted too much, AMC said Dish refused to negotiate. We only have AMC's "word" that Dish refused to negotiate... but we know AMC pulled the feed at the end of the month.


According to a recently former Dish Network employee, now working at a competing cable company that happens to be my client, Dish Network broke off negotiations weeks before the channel went dark, and there have been no negotiations since then.

Take that for what's it worth...this guy volunteered the information as part of a conversation about how Dish drives hard bargains with content providers. He offered no reason why the negotiations were ended and I didn't ask. He simply said "Yeah, and if they don't budge, <negotiator's name> will just walk away...look at AMC..."


----------



## fudpucker

Diana C said:


> According to a recently former Dish Network employee, now working at a competing cable company that happens to be my client, Dish Network broke off negotiations weeks before the channel went dark, and there have been no negotiations since then.


That correlates with something I picked up from Bloomberg, that Dish fairly quickly said sorry, no deal, see ya and walked away and there were no discussions at all after that, weeks before the cut-off. Bloomberg's report stated that the AMC folks were stunned, said, OK, we understand hardball, let's talk, and Dish said sorry, talks are over, have a good life.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Diana C said:


> According to a recently former Dish Network employee, now working at a competing cable company that happens to be my client, Dish Network broke off negotiations weeks before the channel went dark, and there have been no negotiations since then.


To be fair... that wouldn't entirely surprise me really... I know there is bad blood between the Charlies... so it probably wouldn't take much to get Dish to just walk away.

Having said that, though... I think it is patently dumb for AMC to be going around with the "Not on Dish" stuff everywhere. It's like a spoiled child who didn't get his way.

Either one of two things are going to happen:

1. AMC never comes back to Dish... ever... which means all the "not on Dish" stuff is just childish and a waste of money on AMC's part.

2. AMC does come back to Dish... but all the "Dish is evil, go to DirecTV, etc." stuff will backfire and factor into negotiations as Dish says "well, you wanted to cost us subscribers so what are YOU going to do to get those subscribers back for us? Nothing, you say? Well, so much much for your rate increase... we need that to offset lost revenue."


----------



## epokopac

... I know there is bad blood between the Charlies... 

Yeah, the scars run deep on this "issue". Two chances of AMC coming back: 1-Fat, 2-Slim.

I can wait until Fall 2013 to watch TWD on BD or DVD. Got plenty of stuff on DVR's and BDs and DVDs to catch up on for now.


----------



## TBoneit

Diana C said:


> According to a recently former Dish Network employee, now working at a competing cable company that happens to be my client, Dish Network broke off negotiations weeks before the channel went dark, and there have been no negotiations since then.
> 
> Take that for what's it worth...this guy volunteered the information as part of a conversation about how Dish drives hard bargains with content providers. He offered no reason why the negotiations were ended and I didn't ask. He simply said "Yeah, and if they don't budge, <negotiator's name> will just walk away...look at AMC..."


I know someone that wanted a better monthly rent payment price on one of his business locations. He stopped paying the rent. Eventually they came back and he ended up with a better price.

It isn't just Charlie.


----------



## tampa8

tampa8 said:


> Normally I would agree with that.(questioning the lack of negotiating) I do however think Dish in this case decided they were not going to carry AMC unless AMC agreed to things Dish knew they would not agree to. As an example only wanting AMC, not WE or Sundance etc...) And the remarks made by AMC that AMC wanted much more money from any carrier (though not all at once) gave Dish an opening. Take away the lawsuit and I feel AMC might still be carried.





Diana C said:


> According to a recently former Dish Network employee, now working at a competing cable company that happens to be my client, Dish Network broke off negotiations weeks before the channel went dark, and there have been no negotiations since then.


I was loosely referring to that. Dish was negotiating, perhaps not fully in good faith with AMC. I happen to think the VOOM lawsuit is going to be lost by Dish, yet I understand exactly why Dish dropped them at that time. That said, Dish isn't going to reward Rainbow media/AMC with being carried on Dish. 
But had AMC just stuck to the normal press releases channels in dispute put out, it might have been more possible to come to an agreement. Once the Roku was given out, that signaled to me AMC ain't coming back anytime soon. This is a time when I think Dish is also responsible for not having AMC, rather than normally they really are just trying to stave off increases in programming costs. Though that did play into it.


----------



## Paul Secic

joyandjerry said:


> Yeah, AMC is bashing Dish, instead of attemptimg to resolve the situation.


Personally I'd rather have VOOM back than AMC Group.


----------



## maartena

Diana C said:


> According to a recently former Dish Network employee, now working at a competing cable company that happens to be my client, Dish Network broke off negotiations weeks before the channel went dark, and there have been no negotiations since then.


That became obvious pretty early on. In a regular dispute, both parties would have started doing their media blasts with terms like "fair deal" and "only so many cents per subscriber a day", etc, etc..... That happens with virtually every other deal where the carrier and a media company are in a negotiation deadlock.

Not here. It was very clear from the beginning that Dish was "done". AMC had to change tactics, and started a campaign to make people switch from Dish.

Personally, I believe that Dish put a final offer on the table that probably was either the same, or LESS money they were paying before they lost AMC, and said: "take it or leave it, and if it is leave it... we're done".


----------



## nmetro

I guess they needed room for the PAC12 channels.

Yes, the "Not on DISH" ads have gotten a little old; though, some of the time, DirecTV does try to cover those ads over with one of theirs.


----------



## georule

maartena said:


> That became obvious pretty early on. In a regular dispute, both parties would have started doing their media blasts with terms like "fair deal" and "only so many cents per subscriber a day", etc, etc..... That happens with virtually every other deal where the carrier and a media company are in a negotiation deadlock.
> 
> Not here. It was very clear from the beginning that Dish was "done". AMC had to change tactics, and started a campaign to make people switch from Dish.
> 
> Personally, I believe that Dish put a final offer on the table that probably was either the same, or LESS money they were paying before they lost AMC, and said: "take it or leave it, and if it is leave it... we're done".


I think DISH was a lot more interested when having AMC HD when DirecTV didn't was a competitive advantage they had. When it stopped being a competitive advantage because DirecTV added it in HD as well, DISH lost a lot of interest. Which is pretty rough for those DISH customers who joined DISH in part for that reason originally.


----------



## LtMunst

Paul Secic said:


> Personally I'd rather have VOOM back than AMC Group.


Yes...I still have a fantasy that MonstersHD and KungFuHD will come back some day. :sure:


----------



## lparsons21

LtMunst said:


> Yes...I still have a fantasy that MonstersHD and KungFuHD will come back some day. :sure:


Given the way Voom was doing things back then, if those come back, most likely they would still be doing incessant reruns of exactly same movies they were showing then.

No thanks. Voom's day has come and gone.


----------



## fleckrj

georule said:


> I think DISH was a lot more interested when having AMC HD when DirecTV didn't was a competitive advantage they had. When it stopped being a competitive advantage because DirecTV added it in HD as well, DISH lost a lot of interest. Which is pretty rough for those DISH customers who joined DISH in part for that reason originally.


Which is why switching providers over one channel is a dumb idea. Carriage disputes are a fact of life for everyone.


----------



## inkahauts

"georule" said:


> I think DISH was a lot more interested when having AMC HD when DirecTV didn't was a competitive advantage they had. When it stopped being a competitive advantage because DirecTV added it in HD as well, DISH lost a lot of interest. Which is pretty rough for those DISH customers who joined DISH in part for that reason originally.


That. Doesn't really work out... If they saw that as being a competitive advantage when they had the channel, then they would now see not having it as a competitive disadvantage, and they sure don't seem to right now, so I don't think that was at all behind any of that process. I think it was more a matter of doing what you can with what you have while you are stuck in a contract you no longer like, and sure wouldn't feel was worth it if it increased upon renewal.


----------



## joyandjerry

It will be interesting to see if AMC will attempt to get back on Dish if they lose viewers for _TWD_ this Sunday. It's one of our faves, so until we decide to switch to DTV, we'll wait for the Blu-ray, as our computer is at work.

Dish offered to put my account on "pause" for up to six months if I switched to DTV. That way I could still have access to my DVR content, so we are considering that. They also gave me quite a break on my monthly fee and the premium stations. As we have had AEP for eight years, it was cheaper than losing a customer, I guess. My montly bill was reduced substantially. Still rather have the zombies, though!!


----------



## SayWhat?

joyandjerry said:


> as our computer is at work.


Computers are cheap. In the $300 range for some model on sale. I've seen them for less if you want to go refurbed. I don't think there are too many households with satellite TV that don't have at least one PC.

For that matter, DVD players are under $100.


----------



## paja

Paul Secic said:


> Personally I'd rather have VOOM back than AMC Group.


Spot on Paul-MONSTERS HD, the best channel, ever!


----------



## ATARI

SayWhat? said:


> Computers are cheap. In the $300 range for some model on sale. I've seen them for less if you want to go refurbed. I don't think there are too many households with satellite TV that don't have at least one PC.
> 
> For that matter, DVD players are under $100.


DVD players are $19. Blu-ray players $79.


----------



## FTA Michael

Is this the thread to report the Voom trial updates? If so, the latest says that "New York Supreme Court Judge Richard Lowe III was visibly angry with Dish Network (Thursday), thumping his desk as he accused the company of disrespecting the court, according to an account of the VOOM case proceedings from Andrew Harms of advisory firm Washington Analysis." Read the whole summary from Deadline.com here: http://www.deadline.com/2012/10/voom-case-judge-dish-network-amc/



Paul Secic said:


> Personally I'd rather have VOOM back than AMC Group.


Ditto. A pity that can never happen now.


----------



## Paul Secic

LtMunst said:


> Yes...I still have a fantasy that MonstersHD and KungFuHD will come back some day. :sure:


I hope Dish can get Fearnet at some point. They have Sony Movie Channel already.


----------



## georule

inkahauts said:


> That. Doesn't really work out... If they saw that as being a competitive advantage when they had the channel, then they would now see not having it as a competitive disadvantage, and they sure don't seem to right now, so I don't think that was at all behind any of that process.


The marketing dept doesn't advertise your own competitive disadvantages. Never seen a DISH or Comcast ad "STILL WITHOUT SUNDAY TICKET!!"

Competitive advantages are actually more valuable and useable on the good side than competitive disadvantages are on the downside. And often competitive disadvantages you can spin as value/frugal cost advantage even further limiting the damage.

Of course, we'll never know for sure, and it is possible the bad blood had just gotten too bad over Voom. . . but I have a feeling that if DirecTV still didn't have AMC in HD, the odds a new DISH/AMC deal would have gotten done would have improved.


----------



## joyandjerry

SayWhat? said:


> Computers are cheap. In the $300 range for some model on sale. I've seen them for less if you want to go refurbed. I don't think there are too many households with satellite TV that don't have at least one PC.
> 
> For that matter, DVD players are under $100.


I _do_ realize that. We have a great Panny Blu-Ray that was very reasonable. To clarify, we just don't feel the need to purchase another computer and pay for an internet connection (for our home), as we are paying for this at work. (We're self-employed.) I'm sure that I spend more than enough time on it here! :lol:


----------



## tampa8

georule said:


> but I have a feeling that if DirecTV still didn't have AMC in HD, the odds a new DISH/AMC deal would have gotten done would have improved.


I think it's a good point, though I would not say it would play much of a part. Dish was very mad at the Voom lawsuit, I'm not sure unless AMC allowed no carriage of WE and IFC would Dish have negotiated harder.


----------



## fudpucker

FTA Michael said:


> Is this the thread to report the Voom trial updates? If so, the latest says that "New York Supreme Court Judge Richard Lowe III was visibly angry with Dish Network (Thursday), thumping his desk as he accused the company of disrespecting the court, according to an account of the VOOM case proceedings from Andrew Harms of advisory firm Washington Analysis." Read the whole summary from Deadline.com here: http://www.deadline.com/2012/10/voom-case-judge-dish-network-amc/


Wow. From the linked article:



> New York Supreme Court Judge Richard Lowe III was visibly angry with Dish Network today, thumping his desk as he accused the company of disrespecting the court, according to an account of the VOOM case proceedings from Andrew Harms of advisory firm Washington Analysis. "I don't care how much money you got," Lowe's quoted as saying to Dish lawyers after the company failed to comply with his order to turn over documents that he said were not privileged. If Dish doesn't give him electronic copies of the material, he said, then he might rule in favor of AMC Networks in its $2.5B breach of contract suit before Dish even presents its case - leaving it to the jury to just decide on the size of the damages.
> 
> Lowe also told Dish's lawyers that he might initiate an investigation to see which of them failed to follow his directions, according to Harms. "I do not believe that he does not know" Lowe said, referring to one of the lawyers sitting in front. This is just the latest instance when Lowe has butted heads with Dish. Earlier he found that the company inappropriately destroyed emails that might have helped AMC, and charged that Dish had engaged in "blatant misconduct and attempts to delay" the trial.


It really looks like Dish has been legally mis-behaving in this thing, and such moves make their chances of winning this thing look slim.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

It isn't like the courts don't get stuff wrong... I'm not defending Dish here exactly... but just because a judge rules something, doesn't make it factual... it just makes it legally enforceable. It wouldn't be the first time IF you find out after all this shakes out that the Judge had an axe to grind and was biased.

I'm not saying this is the case... I'm just saying, it could be... and we wouldn't find out until much later.


----------



## fudpucker

Stewart Vernon said:


> It isn't like the courts don't get stuff wrong... I'm not defending Dish here exactly... but just because a judge rules something, doesn't make it factual... it just makes it legally enforceable. It wouldn't be the first time IF you find out after all this shakes out that the Judge had an axe to grind and was biased.
> 
> I'm not saying this is the case... I'm just saying, it could be... and we wouldn't find out until much later.


Yeah, it could be that the Judge had a Dish installer drop a dish on his mother's kittens. But more likely it is what it seems.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> Yeah, it could be that the Judge had a Dish installer drop a dish on his mother's kittens. But more likely it is what it seems.


Probably so... but it was worth the reminder that our court system is all too often like our sports competitions.

The best team doesn't always win... sometimes a less talented team wins. Nobody even has to cheat, but when a 2-14 team beats a 15-1 team nobody would argue the 2-14 team was overall the better team....

Similarly... people are convicted of things they actually didn't do AND let go for things they actually did... so it doesn't necessarily follow that because a judge "rules" something in the Dish vs Voom case that it makes it fact... it just makes it a judgment in court.


----------



## fudpucker

Stewart Vernon said:


> Probably so... but it was worth the reminder that our court system is all too often like our sports competitions.
> 
> The best team doesn't always win... sometimes a less talented team wins. Nobody even has to cheat, but when a 2-14 team beats a 15-1 team nobody would argue the 2-14 team was overall the better team....
> 
> Similarly... people are convicted of things they actually didn't do AND let go for things they actually did... so it doesn't necessarily follow that because a judge "rules" something in the Dish vs Voom case that it makes it fact... it just makes it a judgment in court.


Would you have posted the same thing if the rulings had gone against AMC and I had posted it doesn't look good for them? 

(Just poking at you, bias is cool on web forums, in fact it is expected and makes them more fun.  )


----------



## clotter

I was really hoping this whole issue would be taken care of before the premier of the new season of The Walking Dead. 

Like all things, I know others could care less about AMC shows, but several of their shows are favorites of my family and I. Already missed the final season of Breaking Bad, am missing Hell on Wheels, and beginning tomorrow will sorely be missing The Walking Dead. It's only my humble opinion, but I feel my Dish subscription has lost roughly 20% of it's value.


----------



## RasputinAXP

AMC wanted to be paid as the channel with Breaking Bad, Mad Men and The Walking Dead.

Except Breaking Bad is done, Mad Men is ending (next year? I forget) and that leaves them with The Walking Dead.

It's not worth what they were asking.


----------



## clotter

Yes, I understand all the angles, but it doesn't change my humble opinion.


----------



## mike1977

Watching live stream at http://blogs.amctv.com/the-walking-dead/2012/10/comic-con-panel-live-stream.php

Pause...play...pause, sound, still picture...

YEAH!...just going to wait and just buy season and download the episodes on Mondays instead of attempting tomorrow night and going bald pulling my hair out.

Grrrr... (at Dish)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> Would you have posted the same thing if the rulings had gone against AMC and I had posted it doesn't look good for them?
> 
> (Just poking at you, bias is cool on web forums, in fact it is expected and makes them more fun.  )


Actually... with regard to this particular point... yes, I would. A judgement is court is not necessarily a statement of fact, no matter which side it is for.

The courtroom ends up being a different kind of popularity contest sometimes... where you're either trying to please the judge or jury more than necessarily prove a point of law.

I'm sure there are judgements in this case that will go against Voom that are not necessarily truth either. It does cut both ways.


----------



## RVRambler

But when Dish 'destroyed' evidence (allegedly) wanted by the court, how can you argue 'in favor' of that action (by anyone), no matter which side you are 'biased' toward.

I would find it unacceptable if Voom had destroyed evidence needed in court, and Dish was guilty of that 'allegedly', so sometimes ppl ARE guilty, but just hide behind the lawyers, hoping for .......

*As noted by others, the court system is absolutely NOT about 'truth', it is ALL about who presents the 'best' argument to sway judge/jury toward their side of the argument, nothing less or more!*

Academics 'usually' argue about the 'truth' of a thing, NOT lawyers!! Most politicians are lawyers, thus our 'irrational' US congress/senate!!

As for me, I will find a way to watch/not miss 'Breaking Bad' & 'Mad Men' if either show ever comes on again, AMC really plays games with their audiences, don't they?!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

While certainly not on the same scale... we just had a convicted rapist set free because of new information that basically overturned the original verdict some 20+ years ago.

So... not in the same neighborhood at all as the Voom suit... but still proves my basic point that a court decision does not indicate absolute truth... it just indicates a verdict/judgment.

It is fair to say "the judge ruled that Dish destroyed documents"... it is not fair to say "Dish destroyed documents"... it might seem like semantics, but it really isn't.

Basically, you can lose in court but still be right... it just means your side was outdone by the other side... not necessarily that they are right and you are wrong.

Courts can be a funny thing.


----------



## fudpucker

Except. when you read reports of the trial, Dish had no real defense against the ruling that they destroyed key documents. And it isn't opinion, they did not turn over the documents he ordered them to turn over.

I get it if you have spent months making out AMC and their boss to be the bad guy, and defending Dish, but so far these haven't been controversial rulings. Yeah, you can say Jerry Sandusky has been accused and convicted of abusing a lot of young kids but, hey, that doesn't really mean anything since courts can be wrong, but sometimes you really have to be biased to ignore what's going on. Dish destroyed documents that were pertinent to the case, and said, oh, sorry. And they have refused to turn over documents the judge has repeatedly ordered them to turn over. It's not a matter of whether the glove fits.


----------



## scottchez

Neighbor just called about the missing Walking Dead that starts tonight on AMC.
He already got a FREE Roku from Dish, now he also got a free $35 credit to pay for the Amazon Subscription to the Walking Dead to watch on the internet. Wow. Dish must be in this legal thing for the long run. Could be several more years of no AMC as I am sure if dish looses they will appeal to a higher court.


----------



## ehilbert1

"fudpucker" said:


> Except. when you read reports of the trial, Dish had no real defense against the ruling that they destroyed key documents. And it isn't opinion, they did not turn over the documents he ordered them to turn over.
> 
> I get it if you have spent months making out AMC and their boss to be the bad guy, and defending Dish, but so far these haven't been controversial rulings. Yeah, you can say Jerry Sandusky has been accused and convicted of abusing a lot of young kids but, hey, that doesn't really mean anything since courts can be wrong, but sometimes you really have to be biased to ignore what's going on. Dish destroyed documents that were pertinent to the case, and said, oh, sorry. And they have refused to turn over documents the judge has repeatedly ordered them to turn over. It's not a matter of whether the glove fits.


Exactly!!! Sometimes it seems like Dish will be defended no matter what. There could be a video tape of them destroying evidence that damns them and people will still defend them.
It's TV guys and not a sports team. I just don't get why their defended to the death. Ok bad analogy but you get it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fudpucker said:


> Except. when you read reports of the trial, Dish had no real defense against the ruling that they destroyed key documents. And it isn't opinion, they did not turn over the documents he ordered them to turn over.
> 
> I get it if you have spent months making out AMC and their boss to be the bad guy, and defending Dish, but so far these haven't been controversial rulings. Yeah, you can say Jerry Sandusky has been accused and convicted of abusing a lot of young kids but, hey, that doesn't really mean anything since courts can be wrong, but sometimes you really have to be biased to ignore what's going on. Dish destroyed documents that were pertinent to the case, and said, oh, sorry. And they have refused to turn over documents the judge has repeatedly ordered them to turn over. It's not a matter of whether the glove fits.


*sigh*

You're clearly biased towards AMC... so you're taking things as fact that can't possibly be proven as fact.

As I understand things... Dish deleted some emails, Voom says those were important evidence that Dish destroyed... Dish says no, they are not, and that they were accidentally deleted by an automated process and they had no reason to save them.

The judge ruled that Dish "should have known" to save them, and as such is issuing instruction to the jury that Dish has been ruled to have destroyed evidence.

Those are the facts as I know them pertaining to the case.

HOWEVER... in terms of the real-world... since Dish destroyed the emails, and admits to doing so... and Voom apparently does not have copies of these emails... it is pure conjecture as to what they may or may not have contained relevant to the case! So... we don't know if Dish truly destroyed any evidence or not, there is no way to know this factually.

Hence... the judge made a ruling relevant to the court case... but it in no way means factually that Dish actually destroyed evidence.

That was the point I was making... just like why we say things like "allegedly" even if we feel confident that someone did something.

The ruling of a judge, jury, or court does not have to be a statement of fact. It is merely a decision of the judge, jury, and court... People win cases without evidence and lose cases with evidence all the time.

There is no bias here... You're seeing bias where there is none. In fact, that you are even bringing up the Voom lawsuit in this thread shows you are biased towards the AMC camp trying to convince everyone that the only reason Dish isn't carrying their channels is the unrelated lawsuit.

The lawsuit is the lawsuit... AMC carriage today (or lack thereof) is a horse of a different color.

Yes, one probably colors the conversation of the other... but don't forget... Dish carried AMC channels long after the Voom lawsuit... and Dish added AMC-HD during the Voom lawsuit as well. IF it was truly about the Voom lawsuit, we would have lost these channels years ago!

So... they surely play a part... but if AMC had made what Dish felt was a fair offer, we probably would still have the channels today.

Thus... the Voom lawsuit really has nothing to do with AMC at this point... and you show your bias by bringing it up.

All I was pointing out was that whether Dish did anything wrong or not related to that lawsuit, the judge's ruling doesn't say anything except he ruled that way. This would still be 100% my position if the same judge had instead ruled that Dish did not destroy documents relevant to the case. It would still be just a ruling, not a statement of fact, either way...

For that matter, Dish will likely have rulings go their way that do not necessarily reflect fact. That's the way our court system works, unfortunately.


----------



## Eksynyt

When Dish loses this lawsuit and billions of dollars, the last straw will be them losing all of the ESPN channels when that contract is up.

Welcome to DirecTV, guys.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Eksynyt said:


> When Dish loses this lawsuit and billions of dollars, the last straw will be them losing all of the ESPN channels when that contract is up.
> 
> Welcome to DirecTV, guys.


Since DirecTV posted its first net subscriber loss in I think ever... maybe DirecTV is going down the drain too... and we can all go back to attending live local theater performances!



But... we should stay on topic... and this isn't a lawsuit thread last I checked.


----------



## kick4fun

Hey, I'm a new Dish customer within the last couple of weeks.. I switched because of the Pac12 and worried about missing AMC and the shows like Walking Dead and Madmen.. Just got off the phone and will be receiving a new ROKU and a $35 credit so I can stream from Amazon.com They also mentioned that this credit will continue to March for Madmen, should Dish not resolve the issue with AMC.. I know this has been posted before, but considering I am a BRAND NEW customer, this is very cool.


----------



## fudpucker

Stewart Vernon said:


> *sigh*
> 
> You're clearly biased towards AMC... so you're taking things as fact that can't possibly be proven as fact.
> 
> As I understand things... Dish deleted some emails, Voom says those were important evidence that Dish destroyed... Dish says no, they are not, and that they were accidentally deleted by an automated process and they had no reason to save them.
> 
> The judge ruled that Dish "should have known" to save them, and as such is issuing instruction to the jury that Dish has been ruled to have destroyed evidence.
> 
> Those are the facts as I know them pertaining to the case.
> 
> HOWEVER... in terms of the real-world... since Dish destroyed the emails, and admits to doing so... and Voom apparently does not have copies of these emails... it is pure conjecture as to what they may or may not have contained relevant to the case! So... we don't know if Dish truly destroyed any evidence or not, there is no way to know this factually.
> 
> Hence... the judge made a ruling relevant to the court case... but it in no way means factually that Dish actually destroyed evidence.


I'll try to find the more detailed info links and post them (in an airport right now.)

If you've ever been involved in a big lawsuit between a couple of companies (I have, more than once) you will find that you get a notice from the lawyers to "freeze" and protect a range of files, emails, etc. when there is the potential of a lawsuit. All automatic deletions are turned off on those, and the backups that large companies keep are also then gathered. One reason that companies have Records Retention rules is to ensure files and records are kept for defined periods of time due to just such occurrences.

In this case, a range of specific emails that were supposed to have been kept and produced were deleted. They clearly should not have been deleted. The State Supreme Court judge has handled many of these types of cases, and has ruled in favor of Dish on a number of issues in this case.

The other part, that you did not address, is the recent refusal of the attorneys to turn over the documents the judge has ordered them to turn over. He has made the order more than once, and the attorneys have simply refused to turn them over. Some of them are subscriber numbers that are being challenged and core to the case.

I have no bias in this case, as I don't know facts beyond what is being disclosed in court. If the other side had been doing what Dish was doing, I would have posted that it looks bad for them and good for Dish. But when the judge gets angry at attorneys because they repeatedly refuse to turn over the evidence he has ordered them to turn over, and the response is "Oh, that doesn't mean anything, it could just be the judge doesn't like them" or similar, it sounds like denial. Especially from someone who has gone out of their way to nitpick every comment from the AMC CEO and post everything you could find to show how bad they are.

It is really simpler than you are trying to make it. Dish has twice been admonished by the judge for refusing to turn over evidence, in one case destroying it, in the other refusing repeatedly to turn it over. Unless you just refuse to believe Dish could be in the wrong, the simple analysis is that Dish is holding back evidence.

OJ could be innocent. Jerry Sandusky is still saying he never touched a kid. Hey, that's how our court system works, right? It's not perfect, obviously (I'm currently testifying as an expert in a case in which a homeowner is suing a company over a fire that he is blaming on a paint company, even though he did not follow the label instructions, stuffed oily rags in a hot enclosed corner of his garage, etc. and, while it is amazing to me that this even made it to court, it is pretty impressive how well the judge is handling some complex issues the attorneys are throwing at him.)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

All I really said was... you can't say Dish destroyed evidence. Nobody knows this except Dish.

What you can say is that Dish deleted some emails that Voom says they should have kept AND Voom suspects them of destroying evidence... and so the judge ruled in favor of Voom.

That's it.

Dish may very well have destroyed evidence... but we'll never know for certain, because they deleted those emails.

It might seem like semantics, but it isn't... especially not in court.

So... then the more recent Voom asking for some documents, Dish saying they are private, the judge disagreeing and asking them to turn them over... then Voom says Dish didn't give them all... and Dish says yes they did... and the judge comes back with "you don't have any credibility here."

The problem with that, and where it shows judge bias to me... is that IF the judge is saying Dish has no credibility... what's the point of continuing the trial? I mean, that sure sounds like the judge had made up his mind and will be coloring the trial with his already bias that nothing Dish says is trustworthy... and the jury will get wind of that as well eventually.

That's what I mean about bias. The judge should be there to make rulings... allow or disallow things... and so forth. The judge in a jury trial should not be saying things like that while the trial is ongoing.

IF he doesn't trust Dish, based on past behavior... fine... Dish may have earned that... but the judge should be handling that better.


----------



## inkahauts

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> All I really said was... you can't say Dish destroyed evidence. Nobody knows this except Dish.
> 
> What you can say is that Dish deleted some emails that Voom says they should have kept AND Voom suspects them of destroying evidence... and so the judge ruled in favor of Voom.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Dish may very well have destroyed evidence... but we'll never know for certain, because they deleted those emails.
> 
> It might seem like semantics, but it isn't... especially not in court.
> 
> So... then the more recent Voom asking for some documents, Dish saying they are private, the judge disagreeing and asking them to turn them over... then Voom says Dish didn't give them all... and Dish says yes they did... and the judge comes back with "you don't have any credibility here."
> 
> The problem with that, and where it shows judge bias to me... is that IF the judge is saying Dish has no credibility... what's the point of continuing the trial? I mean, that sure sounds like the judge had made up his mind and will be coloring the trial with his already bias that nothing Dish says is trustworthy... and the jury will get wind of that as well eventually.
> 
> That's what I mean about bias. The judge should be there to make rulings... allow or disallow things... and so forth. The judge in a jury trial should not be saying things like that while the trial is ongoing.
> 
> IF he doesn't trust Dish, based on past behavior... fine... Dish may have earned that... but the judge should be handling that better.


If the emails in question where sent back and forth between voom and dish, I'm with you 100%, you can't know one way or the other, and since voom obviously didn't keep a copy of them, that's their tuff luck IMHO. However, if voom has kept all their emails and dish got rid of theirs, I blame dish for stupidity, and wanting to make sure that there was no way anything that may have been said could in any way come back to bit them.

With that said, all this legal wrangling, and amc believe they are worth more than they see to be, I don't see amc back for a very long time.

It will be interesting to see the sub numbers from both sat companies for this quarter, and then again, especially after the first of the year. They will be very telling of how some of these channels that are missing will be affecting both companies.


----------



## donm

http://m.deadline.com/2012/10/dish-networks-amc-voom-case-emails/

Newly Discovered Emails Boost AMC Networks Over Dish Network In VOOM Case

The emails were discovered over the weekend and disclosed in court today - and they're "hurting [Dish Network] in a big way," according to an account from George Reed-Dellinger of advisory firm Washington Analysis. Susquehanna Financial Group's Thomas Claps, who's also monitoring the case, calls it "the most damaging evidence to date" against Dish in AMC's $2.5B breach of contract suit involving the satellite company's 2008 decision to drop the now-defunct VOOM HD channels. It's so important that Claps says Dish "may re-think its strategy" to have Chairman Charlie Ergen testify - and might be more motivated to negotiate a settlement with AMC that would return its channels to the No. 2 satellite provider before the end of the month when the jury is expected to reach its verdict. Dish dropped AMC in June.

The emails that AMC's team found on Dish's hard drives seem to cast a new light on an issue that central to the trial: Did VOOM's backers (Cablevision and AMC, which the cable company spun off last year) live up to a condition in their carriage contract that required them to invest at least $100M a year in the fledgling networks? Dish says they didn't - giving it the right to drop the channels - because the $100M requirement applied just to domestic programming, not overhead or overseas expenses.

But a 2005 email exchange between Ergen and his chief negotiator with VOOM, Michael Schwimmer, includes an appendix to the agreement with permitted expenditures and "overhead expenses are specifically referenced," Claps says. Another email exchange when the agreement was completed in 2007 shows the execs agreeing that VOOM backers had to spend $100M a year on the venture - not just programming. "Schwimmer's own words on April 27, 2007 are now directly inconsistent with his testimony" that the agreement was just about programming, Reed-Dellinger says.


----------



## Inkosaurus

donm said:


> http://m.deadline.com/2012/10/dish-networks-amc-voom-case-emails/
> 
> Newly Discovered Emails Boost AMC Networks Over Dish Network In VOOM Case
> 
> The emails were discovered over the weekend and disclosed in court today - and they're "hurting [Dish Network] in a big way," according to an account from George Reed-Dellinger of advisory firm Washington Analysis. Susquehanna Financial Group's Thomas Claps, who's also monitoring the case, calls it "the most damaging evidence to date" against Dish in AMC's $2.5B breach of contract suit involving the satellite company's 2008 decision to drop the now-defunct VOOM HD channels. It's so important that Claps says Dish "may re-think its strategy" to have Chairman Charlie Ergen testify - and might be more motivated to negotiate a settlement with AMC that would return its channels to the No. 2 satellite provider before the end of the month when the jury is expected to reach its verdict. Dish dropped AMC in June.
> 
> The emails that AMC's team found on Dish's hard drives seem to cast a new light on an issue that central to the trial: Did VOOM's backers (Cablevision and AMC, which the cable company spun off last year) live up to a condition in their carriage contract that required them to invest at least $100M a year in the fledgling networks? Dish says they didn't - giving it the right to drop the channels - because the $100M requirement applied just to domestic programming, not overhead or overseas expenses.
> 
> But a 2005 email exchange between Ergen and his chief negotiator with VOOM, Michael Schwimmer, includes an appendix to the agreement with permitted expenditures and "overhead expenses are specifically referenced," Claps says. Another email exchange when the agreement was completed in 2007 shows the execs agreeing that VOOM backers had to spend $100M a year on the venture - not just programming. "Schwimmer's own words on April 27, 2007 are now directly inconsistent with his testimony" that the agreement was just about programming, Reed-Dellinger says.


lol. Owned.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I agree... that would change my position on the matter as well. I still think that Voom did itself no favors and did not spend its money wisely on new content... BUT, that would be irrelevant to the Dish agreement, IF it can now be proven that the agreement did not specify how the money was to be spent.

That would be a huge nail in the coffin on Dish's side... which I would think would lead towards ending this thing in a hurry. IF all that is true, there went Dish's legs to stand on in this case.


----------



## AMike

Apparently AMC didn't miss the Dish audience:

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...ble-telecast-ever-among-total-viewers/153085/

Largest basic cable telecast ever.


----------



## cfunk

What also amazing is I don't know one person who watched it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

AMike said:


> Apparently AMC didn't miss the Dish audience:
> 
> http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...ble-telecast-ever-among-total-viewers/153085/
> 
> Largest basic cable telecast ever.


I read that too... what's interesting about that... is it may in a roundabout way prove Dish's point that they didn't think they had many customers who watch the Walking Dead or other AMC shows.

*I* would be watching it... but it isn't nearly important enough for me to go through the upheaval of a provider change over it. I can wait and buy the Blu-rays when they come out next year, which I would do anyway... and I've go a lot of other TV shows, movies, and Blu-rays to keep me busy between now and then.

So... AMC proved they have a good and popular show, but they also proved they didn't "need" Dish viewers to break their previous ratings record... so I don't know if that helps things.


----------



## inazsully

I didn't watch it and I wouldn't change providers over it either. But that sure as hell doesn't mean I don't want to watch it. It would be woefully incorrect to assume that a substantial number of subs do not miss AMC just because we haven't jumped ship. It's just one channel but it's not insignificant, just not a game changer. I, as many others here, hold Dish 100% responsible for this fiasco.


----------



## dunkonu23

Well, you know one person now. I bought the episode from iTunes, downloaded it to my iPad and watched in my 70" TV. No Dish involved. This crap makes me sick. I don't give a rats ass over who is responsible, though I have to say the recent news makes it look like Dish is least mature of the spoiled children. 

Scott


----------



## mikeinaustin

more news from today, more bad news for dish:

The judge hearing the case of AMC Networks' Voom high definition programming services versus Dish Network ruled on Tuesday that Dish's expert on damages won't be allowed to testify during the trial.

According to Thomas Claps, an analyst for Susquehanna Financial Group, who has been following the trial closely, ruling by Judge Richard Lowe III is "another significant blow to Dish."

According to Claps, Dish wanted to rebut Voom's claim that it has lost $2.4 billion in profits. But due to this ruling, and prior sanctions against Dish, they won't be able to have an expert question that claim.

AMC claims that Dish, then Echostar, breached its agreement to carry the Voom programming service, which has been discontinued.

On Monday, newly produced internal Dish emails appeared to weaken Dish's position and support AMC's assertion that Dish was aware that overhead expenses should be counted toward the $100 million Voom was required to spend in 2006 on its service.

According to Claps, AMC produced an email exchange between Michael Schwimmer, the lead negotiator for Dish on the Voom deal, and Dish chairman Charlie Ergen, then also the CEO, from April 27, 2005. This email exchange highlights that the $500 million spending cap referenced in the affiliation agreement is tied to the $500 million equity investment referenced in the LLC agreement.

"This is critical because Annex A to the LLC agreement delineates a list of permissible expenditures that count toward this $500 million equity investment, and overhead expenses are specifically referenced (i.e., salaries, benefits, general administrative costs, inter-company allocations, etc.," Claps says. "Thus, this email exchange further strengthens Voom's claims that Dish was fully aware, and acknowledged, that overhead expenses should be counted toward its $100 million spending requirement in 2006."

Claps says he expects the case to be settled. Part of that settlement could be carriage of AMC Networks' cable channels, which have been off Dish since earlier this year.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/489911-Dish_Damages_Expert_Not_Allowed_to_Testify.php


----------



## LakeSteve

cfunk said:


> What also amazing is I don't know one person who watched it.


You must not know that many people. If you do, you aren't socializing with them.

A good number of my personal friends were buzzing about the season premiere days in advance on Facebook and Twitter, a few of them even said they shut their phones off as to not be interrupted during it.

I can only imagine what a cash cow the show is in terms of revenue, even without Dish's customers seeing the commercials.


----------



## eclipsetrb

I just downloaded it plan to watch it later. Dish needs to get this solved before the judge decides to just finish them off and they end up getting owned by amc.


----------



## SayWhat?

AMike said:


> Apparently AMC didn't miss the Dish audience:
> 
> Largest basic cable telecast ever.


All that tells me is that there are a lot of people who need serious psychiatric help. Maybe as in-patients.


----------



## FTA Michael

Here's another news link: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/ergen_dirty_dish_bGbFvzvKIdC8ghO81GV05L

"Charlie Ergen had one of the worst days a media executive could have."


----------



## sigma1914

SayWhat? said:


> All that tells me is that there are a lot of people who need serious psychiatric help. Maybe as in-patients.


Get over yourself. Who are you to judge people based on liking a show?


----------



## sigma1914

Stewart Vernon said:


> ...
> As I understand things... Dish deleted some emails, Voom says those were important evidence that Dish destroyed... Dish says no, they are not, and that they were accidentally deleted by an automated process and they had no reason to save them.
> 
> The judge ruled that Dish "should have known" to save them, and as such is issuing instruction to the jury that Dish has been ruled to have destroyed evidence.
> 
> Those are the facts as I know them pertaining to the case.
> 
> HOWEVER... in terms of the real-world... since Dish destroyed the emails, and admits to doing so... and Voom apparently does not have copies of these emails... it is pure conjecture as to what they may or may not have contained relevant to the case! So... we don't know if Dish truly destroyed any evidence or not, there is no way to know this factually.
> 
> ...


Looks like the deleted files were important, but they missed one and Dish is lying big time about their HD sub numbers! http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/ergen_dirty_dish_bGbFvzvKIdC8ghO81GV05L


> The tempest started yesterday morning in Manhattan state court when Cablevision lawyers surprised the courtroom with evidence that Dish had way more HD customers than it previously claimed to have - 8.3 million versus 5.3 million.
> ...
> Cablevision was to have earned $3.25 from every Dish HD customer paying $20 to get Dish's HD package. It is claiming damages of $2.4 billion.
> 
> Dish's legal eagles claim they had the right to shut down Voom because Cablevision didn't spend $100 million on programming.
> 
> Dish has been consistent throughout the battle - in court papers and testimony - that the $100 million had to be spent on programming.
> 
> In fact, a Dish witness Friday told the jury as much.
> 
> Cablevision countered that the cash could be spent on things other than programming.
> 
> The key issue came to a dramatic head yesterday when Cablevision lawyers unearthed a "smoking gun" 2005 Dish e-mail from the former lead negotiator of the Voom deal, Michael Schwimmer, mandating simply that Cablevision invest in the "Venture."
> 
> The day was perceived by industry watchers as so bad for Dish that many started speculated on how much it would take for Cablevision to settle - with estimates ranging from $500 million to $1.2 billion.


It's no wonder Dish gets a ton of HD...They lie about how many HD subs they have resulting in paying smaller fees per sub.


----------



## MCHuf

Stewart Vernon said:


> I read that too... what's interesting about that... is it may in a roundabout way prove Dish's point that they didn't think they had many customers who watch the Walking Dead or other AMC shows.


We have no way of knowing how many people on Dish would have watched that episode. But it does counter the Dish supporters claims that losing Dish would end up hurting AMC. Ratings are up and I'm sure more people buy episodes (many of them with money Dish credited them :eek2 than before, giving AMC Networks even more revenue than when Dish did carry them!


----------



## MCHuf

SayWhat? said:


> All that tells me is that there are a lot of people who need serious psychiatric help. Maybe as in-patients.


But what does commenting on a network you don't care about, say about your mental health?


----------



## P Smith

MCHuf said:


> *We have no way of knowing* how many people on Dish would have watched that episode. But it does counter the Dish supporters claims that losing Dish would end up hurting AMC. Ratings are up and I'm sure more people buy episodes (many of them with money Dish credited them :eek2 than before, giving AMC Networks even more revenue than when Dish did carry them!


That's right: WE.
But *dish has*: each day your DVR (all of them connected to phone or/and Internet) sending the full info: what when and how long you/your family watched it.


----------



## joyandjerry

SayWhat? said:


> All that tells me is that there are a lot of people who need serious psychiatric help. Maybe as in-patients.


 To each his own - we all can't like the same things. It never ceases to amaze me how many feel that a subjective opinion is somehow "wrong" if it does not coincide with their views. :nono2: This is why I generally stay off forums, although I feel like I've learned so much here. (Special thanks to Stewart!!)

We have found Dish offers very good CS. We have had AEP for eight years, and was given a credit for and _HOW_ and _TWD_, to download or buy the discs. Dish also gave us all of the premiums at half price for 6 months, and an additional $15/mo. off my bill. They also offered to "pause" my account for six mos. if I switch to DTV, in case I don't want to keep DTV. That would allow us access to our DVR content during that time. Sweet!! 

Unfortunately, our computer is at work, and we cannot stream content at home. I hardly want to pay for internet at home just to stream a few channels. So we still may switch to DTV if AMC/IFC is not restored to Dish after the VOOM lawsuit has concluded. What little I've had time to read did not seem to favor Dish. We didn't want to switch to DTV, only to have Dish restore these channels shortly thereafter. But our fave shows are on AMC, so the switch may come eventually. I am put off Dish from the way this whole mess is being handled, but one reads a lot of complaints about DTV installation/service. I _do_ realize that any business had its share of disgruntled consumers.

Considering TWD had a record audience, AMC obviously doesn't *need* Dish, but it could only add to the ratings. Even though we'll buy the discs eventually, the advertisers want "live" viewers for their programming. At this point, the realist in me realizes that it is extremely unlikely that Dish will return these channels to their lineup. I've "waited it out" this long, so some of the links here gave me some glimmer of hope that there may be a settlement that would include carriage.

It may be that Dish will experience a slow loss of subscribers, and less new ones secondary to this. If I were picking a new sat provider, I would pick DTV over Dish today. Of course, if AMC/IFC isn't important to you, Dish might be the more attractive choice. We were always satisfied with them b4 this.


----------



## Laxguy

As a general guideline, it's never a good idea to slam or denigrate other's choices, be it TV programming, cars, TVs, clothing, schools, AVRs, etc. 

Sports teams are another matter....:eek2:


----------



## MCHuf

P Smith said:


> That's right: WE.
> But *dish has*: each day your DVR (all of them connected to phone or/and Internet) sending the full info: what when and how long you/your family watched it.


And what's your point? Are you saying that Dish knows how many more people would have watched TWD last Sunday compared to what numbers Dish subscribers viewed the show in the past? That would just be a guess on their part.

The fact that Dish would be able to monitor every customers viewing habits shouldn't be a surprise to anyone on these forums or with common sense (I know two very different things ).


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> As a general guideline, it's never a good idea to slam or denigrate other's choices, be it TV programming, cars, TVs, clothing, schools, AVRs, etc.
> 
> Sports teams are another matter....:eek2:


or sports conferences...  Just kidding!


----------



## Inkosaurus

MCHuf said:


> We have no way of knowing how many people on Dish would have watched that episode. But it does counter the Dish supporters claims that losing Dish would end up hurting AMC. Ratings are up and I'm sure more people buy episodes (many of them with money Dish credited them :eek2 than before, giving AMC Networks even more revenue than when Dish did carry them!


The majority of the Dish supporters who actually know what there talking about have always said this would not hurt Dish.

We never said it would hurt AMC. We merely theorized that there money from ad revenue might take a hit.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_Friendly moderator warning... please don't attack each other. It is a valid point of view to not like a show or network, just as valid as liking said show or network.

Don't attack each other, attack the topic.

Thanks!_


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Inkosaurus said:


> The majority of the Dish supporters who actually know what there talking about have always said this would not hurt Dish.
> 
> We never said it would hurt AMC. We merely theorized that there money from ad revenue might take a hit.


Exactly... I'm sure AMC's numbers would be higher with Dish as a carrier... but how much higher? That's hard to tell. IF all the hard-core people did as they threatened and left Dish for DirecTV... then most of the ratings this weekend would reflect that shift...

It would be all but impossible to tell at this point how much the ratings would have improved IF Dish still carried AMC.

It would all be guesswork. Still... you have to think the potential harm to AMC is greater over the long-term than it is to Dish. The farther we go, without major defection from Dish... the more that becomes a settled deal... But where AMC may be losing is ratings on all their other shows... so over time, AMC still loses more on this than Dish does.


----------



## dunkonu23

I'm not hard core, but I will leave Dish if this doesn't get settled by the time my Hopper contract expires in 17 months.  What a threat, huh? 

Scott


----------



## MysteryMan

Interesting article on Swanni's home page this morning about the DISH/AMC trial. Granted, I take everything Swanni says with a grain of salt. But, if there is any truth with the articles he reported today and previous days the trial has all the makings of a John Grisham short story.


----------



## joyandjerry

:joy: The Dish/VOOM trial may be nearing an end. The trial has been abruptly adjourned for the weekend. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444868204578062550895707588.html It would be in both parties interest to settle. 
From what I'ven read online (news sources), Dish was never favored in any way to win. Perhaps Ergen was holding out for _TWD_ premiere, thinking AMC would come crawling back (like a zombie ). Considering it smashed rating records, that didn't happen. Still, ratings would have been higher with Dish, so I am keeping my fingers crossed that any settlement would include a carriage deal.


----------



## P Smith

joyandjerry said:


> :joy: The Dish/VOOM trial may be nearing an end. The trial has been abruptly adjourned for the weekend. It would be in both parties interest to settle. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444868204578062550895707588.html
> 
> From what I'ven read online (news sources), Dish was never favored in any way to win. Perhaps Ergen was holding out for _TWD_ premiere, thinking AMC would come crawling back (like a zombie ). Considering it smashed rating records, that didn't happen. Still, ratings would have been higher with Dish, so I am keeping my fingers crossed that any settlement would include a carriage deal.


You gave a link to empty page, with no article, but stupid "Article" header.


----------



## joyandjerry

P Smith said:


> You gave a link to empty page, with no article, but stupid "Article" header.


SO SORRY - Tried to fix link, but I don't think it worked. The article was the _Wall Street Journal_, under "Dish Trail Adjourns". If you Google "AMC Dish Trial Adjourns", that will yield the result.

Again. my apologies, for the "stupid" header. Perhaps a moderator could fix this? I'm not pushing subscriptions to _The Journal_!


----------



## fudpucker

Try this link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444868204578062550895707588.html?mod=GibsonDunn


----------



## fudpucker

I have to believe they are trying to settle. The core of Dish's entire argument was that the investment in Voom was not what was agreed upon. The forensic's pulling out the deleted emails that specifically showed Dish agreed on the terms that they are claiming in court they did not agree to seems, by most business analysts accounts, to cut the legs out of Dish's arguments. In addition, a couple of legal analysts have said that the Voom lawyers are going to be able to address the jury and lay out, hey, they have told you all trial they never agreed to this, that has been their entire argument, and then we find emails that explicitly show that what we said was true, and they were lying on the stand. In addition, we found this in deleted emails - the evidence the judge berated them for destroying. That's right, they "accidentally" deleted the specific evidence that shows without any doubt they lied, and that Voom lived up to the agreement. Oh yeah, we also found deleted emails that shows they lied about the viewership numbers.

No matter what side you're on, it is going to be very hard to win the jury if you're Dish, at this point. I doubt the unexpected adjournment after these came to light is a coincidence. 

However - I was personally involved in trying to convince the CEO of our company (at the time, I have since moved on) - a $35 Billion dollar company - that he needed to back down and settle due to overwhelming evidence against our company and him personally, and, like a lot of super-rich CEOs, his ego would not allow him to settle. He insisted we go on. We lost a $1.44 billion dollar suit as a result AND he looked like an idiot. Point being, never underestimate the stupidity that can result from the egos of zillionaire CEOs, so who knows what will happen. In this case, the two CEOs have made it so personal it is hard to see Charlie admitting defeat.

(And what an IDIOT I am, LOL! I JUST realized why Dish is nicknamed Charlie! Gah!)


----------



## Laxguy

joyandjerry said:


> SO SORRY - Tried to fix link, but I don't think it worked. The article was the _Wall Street Journal_, under "Dish Trail Adjourns". If you Google "AMC Dish Trial Adjourns", that will yield the result.
> 
> Again. my apologies, for the "stupid" header. Perhaps a moderator could fix this? I'm not pushing subscriptions to _The Journal_!


No apology necessary at all; Mr. Smith should be the one apologizing for his reply.

I am not a subscriber, *but I suspect this link *will also go to the page trying to get one to subscribe in order to see the article. What the WSJ is trying to do.

In any event, your suggestion to Google the phrase works just fine, even without the quotes.


----------



## RAD

fudpucker said:


> Try this link:
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444868204578062550895707588.html?mod=GibsonDunn


Need to have a WSJ subscription to view it.


----------



## Laxguy

RAD said:


> Need to have a WSJ subscription to view it.


Not if you Google according to Joy's phrase.- At least as of precisely 10:55:05 AM PT on Thursday, October 18, 2012


----------



## joyandjerry

RAD said:


> Need to have a WSJ subscription to view it.


Apparently copying/pasting the link results in the same results that attempt to get the viewer to subscribe. Googling the phrase (for some reason ) will lead one to the article. To copy/paste the article would take up a lot of room here (should I be concerned about that on a 75 page thread? :lol And I'm not sure if that is some copyright breach.

Fudpucker, it is indeed amazing what the ego will drive one to do. If my husband and I made such poor business decisions as Ergen, we would be bankrupt by now. But, then again, we don't have multi-millions with which to "play"!

I was looking (hoping) for a settlement all along that would restore carriage. We've been very happy with Dish otherwise. My best case scenario is that my patience will be rewarded, and I willl have substantial savings on my sat bill secondary to the perks Dish gave to retain me.


----------



## P Smith

Yeah, Googling is working, but all posted URLs here are not. Don't stuck with it. We can read it other way.


----------



## Laxguy

joyandjerry said:


> Apparently copying/pasting the link results in the same results that attempt to get the viewer to subscribe. Googling the phrase (for some reason ) will lead one to the article.


It makes some business sense for The Journal to set it up that way; they might find new subscribers by showing articles via Google, and if sending links were too easy, lose some subs that'd find there's no need to pay.


----------



## MNipper

"Possible Settlement in Voom-Dish Lawsuit"

Here's an interesting addition to this thread:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/489958-Possible_Settlement_in_Voom_Dish_Lawsuit.php


----------



## joyandjerry

I clicked on this thread to post that, and you beat me to it! _Bloomberg_ and _Variety_ are posting basically the same story.

I had hoped that AMC would be restored for the next ep of _TWD_. Generally, the prior ep is shown again.

Do ya think Ergen wished he had AMC stock? :lol:


----------



## MNipper

Well if they do settle "soon", you can always stream the first episode (e.g. from Amazon, or somewhere else) for a few bucks, in order to get "caught up", and then jump back back in to the rest of the season. If we end up too far behind, I'll just blow off the whole season, and wait for the the S3 Blu-rays, and will watch them all that way.


----------



## kick4fun

Wahoo, just received my new ROKU, courtesy of Dish.. Now it looks like a settlement and I have credits, a roku and will soon be watching AMC on the Hopper.. Thank you DISH!


----------



## P Smith

Did you get Roke and HDMI cable? my box came named as "B-Stock" (referb ?) and no cable; 
actually it was send directly from ROKU location (it's a 5 min drive).


----------



## kick4fun

P Smith said:


> Did you get Roke and HDMI cable? my box came named as "B-Stock" (referb ?) and no cable;
> actually it was send directly from ROKU location (it's a 5 min drive).


It was a new Roku XD with the crappy cables.. Luckily I have plenty of HDMI cables..


----------



## fudpucker

P Smith said:


> Did you get Roke and HDMI cable? my box came named as "B-Stock" (referb ?) and no cable;
> actually it was send directly from ROKU location (it's a 5 min drive).


They typically don't come with an HDMI cable, but Amazon's branded HDMI cables are both cheap and well made. Same for monoprice.com. Whatever you do, don't pay something like $30 for an HDMI cable!


----------



## P Smith

I have Fry's ! They often (to just bring ppl in stores) selling the HDMI cables for $1 or two


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The really damning thing here is the recovery of emails that show Dish was talking about this.

Without those emails, it was just the accusation of destroying "evidence" and while the judge can slap them for that... without any proof of the content, you can't just assume anything.

But... in finding the deleted content, it creates something worse than the content itself.

IF Dish had merely saved and turned over the emails... Dish could always fight the "that's not how we understood it" argument... in any contract there has to be a "meeting of the minds" for it to be valid... so the door is open to even dispute documented agreements IF it can be demonstrated that one party didn't really understand the contract to be what it appears to be on paper.

BUT...

Dish taking the time to delete these emails... that's the real smoking gun. The content is secondary, but reinforces the notion of... IF Dish didn't believe that was the contract, why go to the effort of deleting emails that discussed that aspect? The deletion is a willful act, that demonstrates understanding of the importance of the content... and that serves to validate the content itself.

Summarizing...

No deletion = Dish can play the "that's not what I thought" card.

Deletion = Dish acknowledges the agreement and was trying to obscure it purposefully.

I believe the worm has indeed turned here. IF the writing is truly on the wall, a settlement would get things done quicker.


----------



## fudpucker

P Smith said:


> I have Fry's ! They often (to just bring ppl in stores) selling the HDMI cables for $1 or two


Cool, drives me crazy to see someone get sold a $35 HDMI cable in Best Buy.

Back to topic: It would be really nice, if they reach a settlement this weekend, to see an announcement by both sides saying something like "We're very happy to announce an agreement that both brings the AMC channels back to Dish and also allows us to give our customers the best value in satellite TV" etc. I.e. a mature, professional announcement with neither side trying to make the other look bad.

OTOH, nothing I've seen to date leads me to expect that. :nono2:


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> Dish taking the time to delete these emails... that's the real smoking gun.


DISH did not take the time to delete the emails ... they had their server set up to delete old emails routinely. What they did not do was turn off the deletion or save the emails elsewhere when the legal issue arose. Which, despite there being no court order to keep that content at the time it was deleted, was frowned upon by the court.


----------



## Laxguy

James Long said:


> DISH did not take the time to delete the emails ... they had their server set up to delete old emails routinely. What they did not do was turn off the deletion or save the emails elsewhere when the legal issue arose. Which, despite there being no court order to keep that content at the time it was deleted, was frowned upon by the court.


What I don't get here is why AMC/Voom didn't provide their copy of the allegedly damning e-mails...


----------



## fudpucker

Laxguy said:


> What I don't get here is why AMC/Voom didn't provide their copy of the allegedly damning e-mails...


Ya know, that's an obvious question I never thought of! The emails aren't "allegedly" damning - they have now been shown in court, Dish is not trying to deny them now that they have been put into evidence, and everyone is saying they demonstrate that Dish wasn't telling the truth in court and has now been "caught."

But why didn't AMC/Voom show their copies? It would seem obvious, and they obviously must have had them. Huh.


----------



## P Smith

James Long said:


> DISH did not take the time to delete the emails ... they had their server set up to delete old emails routinely. What they did not do was turn off the deletion or save the emails elsewhere when the legal issue arose. Which, despite there being no court order to keep that content at the time it was deleted, was frowned upon by the court.


It's lame to present they action that way for inexperience in IT rules ppl here ...

I'll tell you it's BS right away! And even not funny if talking about a court process.
Each server has long shelf with historical backups outside the company. That's the rule ! Especially if are talking about mail server. You'll need (as the server admin) take a lot work to destroy all those backups. I'm not telling who could give you such order.

BTW: You are not oblige to find legitimate arguments for the company wrongdoing.
Don't make it worst.


----------



## MCHuf

Laxguy said:


> What I don't get here is why AMC/Voom didn't provide their copy of the allegedly damning e-mails...


It seems to me that the deleted emails was internal Dish correspondence and not emails between Voom and Dish. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.


----------



## Laxguy

MCHuf said:


> It seems to me that the deleted emails was internal Dish correspondence and not emails between Voom and Dish. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.


Heh. A lot of things about this case don't make a lot of sense!

:eek2:


----------



## chris83

What is the best # to call regarding the Roku offer? I'm not too happy missing TWD, but the Roku would be a plus in streaming.


----------



## P Smith

chris83 said:


> What is the best # to call regarding the Roku offer? I'm not too happy missing TWD, but the Roku would be a plus in streaming.


a number doesn't matter - all of them connecting to automated system;
get some like change packages, ask Retention Dept, try a couple times; 
when will hear hard push "you'll need _qualifying_ package" [BS], stop conversation, don't waste your time


----------



## rtd2

Dish, Cablevision set to settle Voom suit

Deal likely to include new carriage pact for AMC Networks

By Jill Goldsmith Thu., Oct. 18, 2012, 10:02am PT

Cablevision/AMC Networks and Dish Network are closing in on a settlement to their bitter legal fight over Voom, according to court documents filed Thursday. Shares of both companies soared on the news.
A deal wouldn't be a surprise after the judge adjourned court Wednesday until Monday, giving the parties days to hash out a deal. Notes in a court filing specified a "Poss. Settlement" in the case, with no details. In a down market, Dish shares advanced 4.75% to close at $35.74. AMC was up nearly 4% at $45.27.

Susquehanna Research legal analyst Thomas Claps said that means the companies have gone to New York State Supreme Court Judge Richard Lowe to indicate that they are either close to an agreement or have a deal in principle but need to work out the details. Wall Street applauded the news of a pending settlement.

Lowe has been tough on Dish, which was sanctioned over the summer for destroying evidence. AMC's "The Walking Deal" pulled in massive ratings for its season-three premiere.

A settlement is expected to include a carriage deal for AMC Networks channels (which were previously owned by Cablevision) and a cash component, which will be split between AMC and former parent Cablevision. They had asked for $2.4 billion in damages, but observers say it's unlikely a settlement award would be that high.

EDIT
More at variety.com

James thanks for catching this it was late ...my apologies on posting entire story


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> It's lame to present they action that way for inexperience in IT rules ppl here ...


Agreed ... Are you speaking authoritatively about the rules DISH decided to set on their email servers? Email storage policy is set by each company. The last company I worked for stored nothing on the server (after the user deleted it). Deleted meant gone and for those with POP3 setup instead of IMAP messages were gone from the server when the client computer read them. The current company I work for keeps everything for several years on a special server. The main server auto deletes after 60 days but the messages are available on the archive server.



> Each server has long shelf with historical backups outside the company. That's the rule ! Especially if are talking about mail server. You'll need (as the server admin) take a lot work to destroy all those backups. I'm not telling who could give you such order.


Who's rule? Federal law? As stated, the last company I worked for had ZERO backup of deleted emails. Perhaps they should of, but the company president didn't want to pay for the storage space. He was the who at that company and he wasn't intending to cover up crimes by not archiving --- he was just saving money.



MCHuf said:


> It seems to me that the deleted emails was internal Dish correspondence and not emails between Voom and Dish. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.


I believe so. Voom can present their copies of emails between the companies ... what they wanted were internal emails. The type of emails that have hung other companies when they were published.


----------



## dunkonu23

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sarbanes-Oxley must be adhered to if the company is publicly traded? That means that there are record retention requirements which include business-related E-mail. In the case of E-mail it is generally up to the recipient to decide what to keep. Corporations have regular classes that teach employees what they need to retain. I know I've gone through several for my employer. So, there is no excuse other than covering ones tracks. As a person who worked for WorldComm during the Bernie Ebbers fiasco, since then I have had to take too many of these courses. I suspect Dish employees will have to or have done the same.

In the end, this just smacks of stupidity and corporate ego. Now that the cookie jar has been closed, I sure hope we get AMC back as part of the deal. If not, my threat stands.  

Scott


----------



## kick4fun

chris83 said:


> What is the best # to call regarding the Roku offer? I'm not too happy missing TWD, but the Roku would be a plus in streaming.


#: 1-888-873-5765 (Special Retention Team)

http://slickdeals.net/f/4827714-DIS...XD-Statement-Credits-RE-AMC-Channel-Loss-YMMV

I'm a new customer about 3 weeks in and it worked for me.. Call in before Monday, looks like AMC will be restored.. Ask for the ROKU and the Credits to stream..


----------



## ATARI

What's the chances if/when we get AMC back that it will be in SD?


----------



## mike1977

ATARI said:


> What's the chances if/when we get AMC back that it will be in SD?


Oh that will suck if they only bring back the SD feed.


----------



## PBowie

AND IF they do Journalling, they should have copies anyway !


----------



## tampa8

That report of a settlement is being somewhat debunked or at the least being examined a little closer. The reporting of it is based on Judicial paperwork being filled out by the Clerk. There are a series of inputs as to when the next court date is. The Clerk filled every answer with "Information updated" including for possible settlement. Could be a mistake, could be the update is no settlement. Someone jumped on it taking as there is a settlement being worked on.
(Credit to riffjim4069 for some of this info)

The latest is nothing at all has been filed nor is there anything else indicating a settlement. Guess we will know come Monday.


----------



## sigma1914

tampa8 said:


> That report of a settlement is being somewhat debunked or at the least being examined a little closer. The reporting of it is based on Judicial paperwork being filled out by the Clerk. There are a series of inputs as to when the next court date is. The Clerk filled every answer with "Information updated" including for possible settlement. Could be a mistake, could be the update is no settlement. Someone jumped on it taking as there is a settlement being worked on.
> 
> The latest is nothing at all has been filed nor is there anything else indicating a settlement. Guess we will know come Monday.


Dish will settle because they're toast in the case. They'll save some money by settling.


----------



## joyandjerry

The following article states that the "settlement" wording has been removed from the schedule. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-hint-of-settlement-in-dish-amc-standoff-20121018,0,3782373.story

Let's hope a settlement can still happen. It seems the most likely scenario.


----------



## P Smith

dunkonu23 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sarbanes-Oxley must be adhered to if the company is publicly traded? That means that there are record retention requirements which include business-related E-mail. In the case of E-mail it is generally up to the recipient to decide what to keep. Corporations have regular classes that teach employees what they need to retain. I know I've gone through several for my employer. So, there is no excuse other than covering ones tracks. As a person who worked for WorldComm during the Bernie Ebbers fiasco, since then I have had to take too many of these courses. I suspect Dish employees will have to or have done the same.
> 
> In the end, this just smacks of stupidity and corporate ego. Now that the cookie jar has been closed, I sure hope we get AMC back as part of the deal. If not, my threat stands.
> 
> Scott


That's right, Scott (I forgot the name after many years off IT duties).

I did work for a couple big companies (bigger then dish) and the SOX act was an ax for all server admins when something happen with night backup ... Iron Mountain served offsite processing of backups ...


----------



## fudpucker

sigma1914 said:


> Dish will settle because they're toast in the case. They'll save some money by settling.


Yeah, I'm sure the lawyers for Dish are telling Charlie, dude, we need to settle or we are going to get killed by the jury. Heck, they might even get a directed verdict based on what we've seen.

The only thing I can imagine stopping a settlement would be Charlie's ego/pride.


----------



## 356B

joyandjerry said:


> The following article states that the "settlement" wording has been removed from the schedule. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-hint-of-settlement-in-dish-amc-standoff-20121018,0,3782373.story
> 
> Let's hope a settlement can still happen. It seems the most likely scenario.


Huh...this settlement leak is as much of a mistake as the Google report being prematurely released...by mistake....Google tanked 9%.:lol:
Look for a deal, soon.


----------



## joyandjerry

fudpucker said:


> Cool, drives me crazy to see someone get sold a $35 HDMI cable in Best Buy.
> 
> Back to topic: It would be really nice, if they reach a settlement this weekend, to see an announcement by both sides saying something like "We're very happy to announce an agreement that both brings the AMC channels back to Dish and also allows us to give our customers the best value in satellite TV" etc. I.e. a mature, professional announcement with neither side trying to make the other look bad.
> 
> OTOH, nothing I've seen to date leads me to expect that. :nono2:


Nice wording on the "pending" announcement! Let's hope that both parties want to start actually looking good.

Off topic (didn't there used to be an icon for this?), it amazes me that people pay high prices for Monster cables and the like. Monoprice and bluejean cable always gave me great quality with pricing to match.


----------



## Paul Secic

fudpucker said:


> Yeah, I'm sure the lawyers for Dish are telling Charlie, dude, we need to settle or we are going to get killed by the jury. Heck, they might even get a directed verdict based on what we've seen.
> 
> The only thing I can imagine stopping a settlement would be Charlie's ego/pride.


Well when and if AMC come back on Dish Ii'll still won't watch it because they chop the movies up, IFC has junk.


----------



## satcrazy

If [ big if] AMC returns, what do they have New to offer? Breaking bad is almost done, and I understand madmen is also going away?

TWD [ I never followed] and HOW the only 2 left,correct?

All this hoopla, and what's the upside?

Surely this will mean a price hike.

[ of course if the hoppa could edit AMC commercials, maybe not so bad]


----------



## 356B

Of course there will be a price hike, and the majority will pay, or have been paying all along....it's built in...granted a few who knew the deal got minor compensations but most did not.
Dish and AMC are not in business to lose money, yet every successful business or business man I've ever known is always just making it or going broke....


----------



## joyandjerry

AMC also has _Mad Men_, and we like the indy movies on IFC. Also, AMC may have other quality TV series down the pike, as others have been so successful.

On a news site (I think it was _Bloomberg_), it was reported that AMC would lose approx $100M yearly in ad revenue with the loss of Dish.


----------



## SayWhat?

It wouldn't bother me a bit if AMC stayed off Dish for ever.


----------



## inazsully

I'm sure that it would not bother some a tiny bit if shows that you do like were taken off the air. The same can be said for just about anybody and any show.


----------



## Inkosaurus

lol AMC.




__ https://www.facebook.com/TheWalkingDeadAMC/posts/127982427350496





> The Walking Dead Season 3 Premiere is now free online for a limited time. DISH subscribers: Switch TV providers to see the rest of the season on AMC.


----------



## Darcaine

satcrazy said:


> If [ big if] AMC returns, what do they have New to offer? Breaking bad is almost done, and I understand madmen is also going away?
> 
> TWD [ I never followed] and HOW the only 2 left,correct?
> 
> All this hoopla, and what's the upside?
> 
> Surely this will mean a price hike.
> 
> [ of course if the hoppa could edit AMC commercials, maybe not so bad]


Just like every other successful channel with original content, AMC is in the process of developing new shows to replace the old, and going by their track record, they will be both emmy contenders and ratings bonanzas.

What did HBO have after Sopranos and The Wire ended? Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire and True Blood.


----------



## satcrazy

Darcaine said:


> Just like every other successful channel with original content, AMC is in the process of developing new shows to replace the old, and going by their track record, they will be both emmy contenders and ratings bonanzas.
> 
> What did HBO have after Sopranos and The Wire ended? Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire and True Blood.


Well, since I don't get AMC, I haven't seen any ads for new series. So I'll try google, cause most stations love to push "upcoming" new series, or specials,or mini series, ect.. , even if it doesn't start until next year.

FX is one that comes to mind, TNT another.

HBO had some great series, but I'm not sure if AMC is in the same catagory.

Only thing I could find was a article dated last July about "area 51". It looks to be rather interesting, but cannot find much about it. According to article it is suppose to follow the ending of breaking bad.

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/good_after_bad_sD0IZuRQBkypL1Hq6wpGLI


----------



## James Long

joyandjerry said:


> The following article states that the "settlement" wording has been removed from the schedule. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-hint-of-settlement-in-dish-amc-standoff-20121018,0,3782373.story
> 
> Let's hope a settlement can still happen. It seems the most likely scenario.


I get the email updates from the court ... the court initially reported the possible settlement in an email sent at 11:16am with the current day's outcome (17th) listed as "On Trial". The update came 3:26pm when the court "Trial Ready Case Adjourned" and modified Monday to be "9:30 A.M. ADJ. FOR BRIEFING" instead of "9:30 AM POSS. SETTLEMENT".

The future appearances section is rare ... and the next thing for the court is a briefing, not continuing the trial, so there should still be hope.

I don't believe the court's statement of "possible settlement" was an error.


----------



## Inkosaurus

Darcaine said:


> Just like every other successful channel with original content, AMC is in the process of developing new shows to replace the old, and going by their track record, they will be both emmy contenders and ratings bonanzas.
> 
> What did HBO have after Sopranos and The Wire ended? Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire and True Blood.


And what did HBO have in between these hit shows?

Movies without commercial interruption, and marathons of there hit shows.

What does AMC have in between seasons of there hits shows? 2 hour movies extended to 3 hours, and no sign what so ever of any re-runs of there hit shows


----------



## P Smith

I would like to see that outcome of trial, when new company with [old] name *VOOM* would serve us; my old VOOM receiver would be functional again and they will send PCMCIA card with MPEG-4/VC-1 decoders ...


----------



## donm

Inkosaurus said:


> And what did HBO have in between these hit shows?
> 
> Movies without commercial interruption, and marathons of there hit shows.
> 
> What does AMC have in between seasons of there hits shows? 2 hour movies extended to 3 hours, and no sign what so ever of any re-runs of there hit shows


They have a couple new series in the works with one coming out next year called Thief of Thieves. It was written by the same guy that did TWD. The books have great reviews and from the people I have talked to said it was good. Every show they have come out with lately has been some of the best series on cable. I just read a article I think on Variety that thinks TWD could end up being the highest rated show/series on TV including even the major networks. This would be unheard of and never even gotten close before until TWD.


----------



## otnipj3s

If a deal is to include new carriage agreement for AMC Networks and Dish, I wonder if they will throw us a bone and give us IFC HD now ?


----------



## satcrazy

donm said:


> They have a couple new series in the works with one coming out next year called Thief of Thieves. It was written by the same guy that did TWD. The books have great reviews and from the people I have talked to said it was good. Every show they have come out with lately has been some of the best series on cable. I just read a article I think on Variety that thinks TWD could end up being the highest rated show/series on TV including even the major networks. This would be unheard of and never even gotten close before until TWD.


Ummm

Is this animated? If it is, it already lost my interest. I grew up on cartoons and prefer adult entertainment now:grin:

Really much cheaper to produce, though, than the real deal.


----------



## donm

satcrazy said:


> Ummm
> 
> Is this animated? If it is, it already lost my interest. I grew up on cartoons and prefer adult entertainment now:grin:
> 
> Really much cheaper to produce, though, than the real deal.


No, it isn't animated. I know it is written by the same person that did TWD and I think it is done with the same guys that created TWD with real people.


----------



## Inkosaurus

donm said:


> They have a couple new series in the works with one coming out next year called Thief of Thieves. It was written by the same guy that did TWD. The books have great reviews and from the people I have talked to said it was good. Every show they have come out with lately has been some of the best series on cable. I just read a article I think on Variety that thinks TWD could end up being the highest rated show/series on TV including even the major networks. This would be unheard of and never even gotten close before until TWD.


Im aware of that but you kind of missed my point lol.

The point is that AMC has some good shows, and absolute junk the other 23 hours of the day.
They RARELY re-run episodes and marathons after the seasons run to. So all you have to watch the majority of the year is movies that are far much longer then they should be.

Darcaine compared AMC to HBO, i just pointed out the faults in that comparison by pointing out that HBO actually shows movie without commercials all year long and has re-runs of the hits too.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

One of the things that bugged me all the way back to Voom days...

Voom had an Indy film HD channel... They had IFC... I always thought they should have turned that Indy film channel into IFC HD... but they didn't. They let that Voom channel die... and then launched IFC HD (which Dish never carried) and somehow all the content they used to air on Voom that would have fit on IFC HD... somehow that content went poof.

Rainbow, and now AMC, seems to do some screwy things.

Same thing with their Voom lineup to Dish of 15 or so channels... and they were trying to sell only a couple of them internationally and a suite of 5 of the best of them to DirecTV. IF they had pared down to a suite of 5 HD channels to Dish back in the day, they would still have been on Dish all this time.

Instead, they watered down their content... kind of like how they are doing it today.

Arguably they have some great original programming on AMC... but then they fill the rest of the schedule with stuff that even their biggest fans don't care about.

AMC isn't alone in this, mind you... a lot of channels have done some questionable things (I'm looking at YOU Syfy channel!)... but it is worth pointing out.

In a perfect world... I too would like to see some of the lost Voom content come back... but that has ALWAYS been in AMC/Rainbow's power... but they don't seem to want to do it.

They could have really made a nice HD niche suite of channels, and they were ahead of the curve in HD... and then they just stopped trying.


----------



## donm

Inkosaurus said:


> Im aware of that but you kind of missed my point lol.
> 
> The point is that AMC has some good shows, and absolute junk the other 23 hours of the day.
> They RARELY re-run episodes and marathons after the seasons run to. So all you have to watch the majority of the year is movies that are far much longer then they should be.
> 
> Darcaine compared AMC to HBO, i just pointed out the faults in that comparison by pointing out that HBO actually shows movie without commercials all year long and has re-runs of the hits too.


You can't compare HBO to any regular cable channel. HBO cost up to $20 per month depending on the provider. AMC does run marathons of their shows like TWD etc. They have had at least a 2-3 marathons(maybe more) of TWD since the last season. They also rerun all their original shows more then once. I know they run TWD, Breaking Bad like 3 times the first night at least a few more times through the week. The marathons were of both the prior seasons and they usually add some special things like running the first episode in a black and white version and adding pop up info that explain some interesting stuff. I like at least 3-4 of there original shows and that is by far more then on any other channel even including major networks. I do agree that I don't watch very many of their movies but I don't watch very many movies on any of my channels. I do agree that I liked AMC when they first started and showed classic movies without ads and with a intro from a live person. I wish they did that plus add their original series but IMHO their original series are some of the best on TV. Only some of the HBO and a couple of the Showtime series are equal with AMC IMO.


----------



## Darcaine

Inkosaurus said:


> Im aware of that but you kind of missed my point lol.
> 
> The point is that AMC has some good shows, and absolute junk the other 23 hours of the day.
> They RARELY re-run episodes and marathons after the seasons run to. So all you have to watch the majority of the year is movies that are far much longer then they should be.
> 
> Darcaine compared AMC to HBO, i just pointed out the faults in that comparison by pointing out that HBO actually shows movie without commercials all year long and has re-runs of the hits too.


I wasnt comparing AMC with HBO, I was using HBO as an example of a channel that produces emmy award winning content and when that content ends, they produce new emmy award winning content. What they do with the rest of their schedule is irrelevant. My point was that just because Breaking Bad and Mad Men are ending next year doesn't mean AMC won't be producing new quality shows to take their place.

You can replace HBO with USA, TNT, Syfy etc and the point remains the same, except their shows aren't nearly as critically acclaimed as HBO and AMC.

Besides, for some of us, quality trumpts quantity. I would rather have 3 excellent shows a year from AMC than 10 mediocre ones from USA networks or Syfy with tons of reruns.


----------



## satcrazy

donm said:


> You can't compare HBO to any regular cable channel. HBO cost up to $20 per month depending on the provider. AMC does run marathons of their shows like TWD etc. They have had at least a 2-3 marathons(maybe more) of TWD since the last season. They also rerun all their original shows more then once. I know they run TWD, Breaking Bad like 3 times the first night at least a few more times through the week. The marathons were of both the prior seasons and they usually add some special things like running the first episode in a black and white version and adding pop up info that explain some interesting stuff. I like at least 3-4 of there original shows and that is by far more then on any other channel even including major networks. I do agree that I don't watch very many of their movies but I don't watch very many movies on any of my channels. I do agree that I liked AMC when they first started and showed classic movies without ads and with a intro from a live person. I wish they did that plus add their original series but IMHO their original series are some of the best on TV. Only some of the HBO and a couple of the Showtime series are equal with AMC IMO.


well, thanks. It's good to know that new show isn't going to be animated.

I think what INK was trying to get across was that the reruns of MM or BB, ect. could be "marathoned" in their off-season. [ instead of repeat movies that are barely worth watching because of the endless commercials]

If I remember correctly, they would "marathoned" right before the new season started, which is pretty common practice now, like running the same episode 3 times in one night. I think it would be pretty cool to run the entire season during downtime [ consecutivley], so if anyone missed a part they could catch up [ not everyone has a dvr]

I don't think anyone has issue with quality of the series AMC provides, I followed 3 of them myself.

Your right, can't compare HBO, because it has 8 channels of commercial free programming. Not cheap, but, you get what you pay for.


----------



## Rduce

Darcaine said:


> Just like every other successful channel with original content, AMC is in the process of developing new shows to replace the old, and going by their track record, they will be both emmy contenders and ratings bonanzas.


Well, these shows were once Emmy magnets, however, they are far from ratings bonanzas, which has been Dish's contention all along. The parent company wanting more money for a Network that very few folks watch. Mad Men and Breaking Bad's brilliance have waned this year, as there was only a single Emmy win between them. Considering both are on their last legs and one was off the air for 18 months between new episodes this is understandable.

While, the shows that are mentioned do bring AMC the biggest ratings numbers for the Network. They draw much lower than many contemporary Networks. These programs are routinely beaten by reruns of shows like The Big Bang Theory or NCIS and this past year Mad Men even found itself behind or tied many nights with The Mythbusters.

AMC found a very few shows that the critics raved about and then some of the public tuned in to see, but AMC also has had its share of flops too, anyone remember Rubicon or The Lot? What's more, the Network did not look at a single pilot in 2011 and only has three in various stages of development currently.

No, I certainly do not blame Dish for taking on the parent company in Rainbow's delusional contention that AMC is the equal of USA, FX, TBS or TNT. Very simply it is not and each of those networks have bigger audiences and just as many quality shows.


----------



## FarmerBob

Dish vs. Cablevision court filing hints at a settlement, could lead to AMC's return

http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/19/dish-cablevision-possible-settlement-incoming-amc/

But what about what we've missed? Hell on Wheels.


----------



## rtd2

INTERSTING !!! There is NO longer any "AMC NOT ON DISH" material on AMC's website or Facebook Page! I cant access the keepamcnetworks website either? Good sign???


----------



## domingos35

rtd2 said:


> INTERSTING !!! There is NO longer any "AMC NOT ON DISH" material on AMC's website or Facebook Page! I cant access the keepamcnetworks website either? Good sign???


good sign


----------



## fudpucker

rtd2 said:


> INTERSTING !!! There is NO longer any "AMC NOT ON DISH" material on AMC's website or Facebook Page! I cant access the keepamcnetworks website either? Good sign???


That sure seems like a pretty solid indicator something is moving in the right direction.


----------



## James Long

Settlement!

New thread created: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=209762


----------

