1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Dish drops AMC (+WeTV, IFC & Sundance)

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by lparsons21, May 4, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. May 9, 2012 #181 of 1922
    Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    520
    20
    Aug 11, 2008
    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.
     
  2. May 9, 2012 #182 of 1922
    dlt

    dlt Legend

    133
    0
    Feb 21, 2007
    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.
     
  3. May 10, 2012 #183 of 1922
    Darcaine

    Darcaine Legend

    103
    0
    Aug 31, 2009
    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.
     
  4. May 10, 2012 #184 of 1922
    bnborg

    bnborg Icon

    616
    0
    Jun 3, 2005
    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.
     
  5. May 10, 2012 #185 of 1922
    inazsully

    inazsully Icon

    859
    13
    Oct 3, 2006
    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.
     
  6. May 10, 2012 #186 of 1922
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    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).
     
  7. May 10, 2012 #187 of 1922
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  8. May 10, 2012 #188 of 1922
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    I'd love to see ESPN go away, especially if it would result in a fee reduction.

    Work for me. The suit seems off-base to me anyways.
     
  9. May 10, 2012 #189 of 1922
    Ira Lacher

    Ira Lacher Icon

    823
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    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!
     
  10. May 10, 2012 #190 of 1922
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,345
    578
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    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.....
     
  11. May 10, 2012 #191 of 1922
    sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    26
    Apr 17, 2012
    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.
     
  12. May 10, 2012 #192 of 1922
    inazsully

    inazsully Icon

    859
    13
    Oct 3, 2006
    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 $$$$!
     
  13. May 10, 2012 #193 of 1922
    Chihuahua

    Chihuahua Legend

    235
    10
    Sep 8, 2007
    As I have posted earlier, I haven't much cared for AMC in recent years. They have even began airing infomercials!
     
  14. May 10, 2012 #194 of 1922
    nmetro

    nmetro Godfather

    946
    54
    Jul 11, 2006
    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.
     
  15. May 10, 2012 #195 of 1922
    Darcaine

    Darcaine Legend

    103
    0
    Aug 31, 2009
    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).
     
  16. May 10, 2012 #196 of 1922
    Michael P

    Michael P Hall Of Fame

    3,107
    21
    Oct 27, 2004
    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.
     
  17. May 10, 2012 #197 of 1922
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    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.
     
  18. May 10, 2012 #198 of 1922
    nmetro

    nmetro Godfather

    946
    54
    Jul 11, 2006
    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.
     
  19. May 10, 2012 #199 of 1922
    Jhon69

    Jhon69 Hall Of Fame

    4,714
    5
    Mar 27, 2006
    Central San...

    In my personal opinion it should always be a commercial/subscription channel.
     
  20. May 10, 2012 #200 of 1922
    Darcaine

    Darcaine Legend

    103
    0
    Aug 31, 2009
    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).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page