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.