Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by lparsons21, May 4, 2012.
The channels are listed above, more than once.
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.
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." "
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?
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?
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."
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Hmm... And just what do they blame for the AT&T dispute?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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???
Who said it was an upgrade?
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.
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.
I think this is a fair article about the situation:
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.