Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by lparsons21, May 4, 2012.
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?
I don't consider a couple of channels getting dropped to be a 'fiasco' if that's what you're referring to.
I say no.
...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.
:lol: Based on what exactly?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Once again my answer is what I wrote, not what Hoosier205 claims it to be.
Dish is my hero.
And now I am off to hop over some commercials!!
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.
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.
Which was blah blah blah no blah blah blah.
consider changing your avatar
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
If by that you mean giving them three opportunities.