Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Dish drops AMC (+WeTV, IFC & Sundance)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1921 replies to this topic

#221 OFFLINE   tampa8

tampa8

    Godfather/Supporter

  • Registered
  • 1,843 posts
Joined: Mar 30, 2002

Posted 12 May 2012 - 06:26 AM

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.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#222 OFFLINE   Jon W

Jon W

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 68 posts
Joined: Jan 27, 2004

Posted 12 May 2012 - 06:36 AM

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

#223 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,790 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 12 May 2012 - 10:13 AM

^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.

-- Respect the S.H.I.E.L.D.


#224 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Fortuna! Fameux des Halles

  • Registered
  • 12,966 posts
  • LocationWinters, California
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 12 May 2012 - 10:21 AM

http://www.pepperlaw...?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 writtentying arrangements all along, although the author quoted notes that even courts and lawyers sometimes (incorrectly) interchange the two, bundling and tying.
"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#225 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Fortuna! Fameux des Halles

  • Registered
  • 12,966 posts
  • LocationWinters, California
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 12 May 2012 - 10:24 AM

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.
"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#226 OFFLINE   Paul Secic

Paul Secic

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,154 posts
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Posted 12 May 2012 - 11:30 AM

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:

Enjoying AT 250 HBO, 

 

Equipment: VIP 722 reciever


#227 OFFLINE   Paul Secic

Paul Secic

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,154 posts
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Posted 12 May 2012 - 11:47 AM

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!

Enjoying AT 250 HBO, 

 

Equipment: VIP 722 reciever


#228 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,790 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 12 May 2012 - 02:21 PM

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.

-- Respect the S.H.I.E.L.D.


#229 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Fortuna! Fameux des Halles

  • Registered
  • 12,966 posts
  • LocationWinters, California
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 12 May 2012 - 02:28 PM

I think it's more that folks have been saying "bundling" when they should have been saying "tying". At least I was.
"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#230 OFFLINE   Gloria_Chavez

Gloria_Chavez

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 442 posts
Joined: Aug 11, 2008

Posted 12 May 2012 - 03:34 PM

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.
Since 1995 the average cable bill has increased 122%, while TV consumption per household just 13%.

http://www.multichan...1_Per_Month.php

http://blog.nielsen....-all-time-high/

#231 OFFLINE   Davenlr

Davenlr

    Geek til I die

  • Registered
  • 9,090 posts
Joined: Sep 16, 2006

Posted 12 May 2012 - 03:53 PM

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.

Tivo Premier XL4, Tivo Premier, Tivo HD whole home on Xfinity HD, DirecTv Whole Home with 39" high gain KaKu dish, Roku3,SageTv 8 TB Win8 Server -> DVDO Edge-> Denon AVR, Klipsch KB15's/Panasonic 55ST60 plasma"


#232 OFFLINE   SayWhat?

SayWhat?

    Know Nothing

  • Registered
  • 5,647 posts
Joined: Jun 06, 2009

Posted 12 May 2012 - 04:24 PM

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.
Help stamp out Twits and Twitterers!

HD, SchmacHD!! Just be glad you've got a picture at all.

#233 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,790 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 12 May 2012 - 06:19 PM

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.

-- Respect the S.H.I.E.L.D.


#234 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,790 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 12 May 2012 - 06:21 PM

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?

-- Respect the S.H.I.E.L.D.


#235 OFFLINE   sregener

sregener

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 609 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 12 May 2012 - 07:05 PM

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.

#236 ONLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,087 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 12 May 2012 - 07:14 PM

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.
If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#237 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Fortuna! Fameux des Halles

  • Registered
  • 12,966 posts
  • LocationWinters, California
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 12 May 2012 - 07:30 PM

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.
"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#238 OFFLINE   domingos35

domingos35

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 536 posts
Joined: Jan 11, 2006

Posted 12 May 2012 - 08:15 PM

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

#239 OFFLINE   Shades228

Shades228

    Hall Of Fame

  • Banned User
  • 5,914 posts
Joined: Mar 18, 2008

Posted 12 May 2012 - 08:23 PM

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.
All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#240 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 40,103 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 12 May 2012 - 10:20 PM

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.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...