Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by lparsons21, May 4, 2012.
To be fair, the same could be said about Charlie and his band of merry men.
Yes. In 1920x1080 HD as a matter of fact.
You watch all of AMC's top programming? I'm glad you still have the channel.
You never answered my question.
I credit DISH with making the decision to save $2.5 million per month (or more based on AMC's demand for an increase in payment) by not carrying this channel. Channel providers need to learn that just because their channels are carried today it does not guarantee that they will be carried regardless of future pricing.
Hoosier205... A serious question for you since you are defending AMC and think it is horrible for Dish to take them off the air because of all the award-winning programming.
So... how do you explain why AMC argued with Mad Men to the point of skipping a whole year of production and airing of that award-winning show?
I would argue that it is monumentally more of a mistake for AMC to screw with their own golden goose like that than it was for Dish to let AMC take a hike.
Serious answer on that from you?
In case you are unaware, here are some snippets from an excellent article from March of 2011 regarding AMC putting the squeeze on Mad Men and why it wasn't on last year:
"...the three-time Emmy Award-winning drama, will not return to television until sometime early next year, AMC confirmed on Tuesday, because of a deepening dispute with the show’s creator, Matthew Weiner."
"...Mr. Weiner is bristling at the channel’s proposal to shorten each episode by two minutes (to add commercial time) and to cut the cast budget (to save money)."
"Mr. Weiner would not talk about the specific proposals. But another person with knowledge of the negotiations said AMC had also demanded additional product placement in the episodes."
"Mr. Weiner has clashed with AMC in the past. Two years ago, during his last contract negotiation, the channel similarly tried to add two minutes of commercial time..."
Full article here.
From that article... if anyone doesn't want you to watch your favorite shows, it kind of sounds like it is AMC that doesn't want you to watch! They want to slash the budget, air more commercials instead of show, and more product placement... all while demanding more money to carry the channel to air less of the show than ever before.
So...that's a no. You place no blame on Dish for what has happened. Got it.
Unlikely. Usually the terms will remain a secret, and for very good reasons:
1) The carrier doesn't want to let other media companies know what they are paying for a certain station, as those other media companies then know what to ask for if they have a similar station.
2) The media company doesn't want to let other carriers know what they are receiving for a certain station, because if they are getting a lot less then they really wanted because they e.g. lost another carrier already, they certainly don't want another carrier to come back with "you are getting X from company Y, we will never pay more then X".
If there is anything to be found out, it is percentages (e.g. "they are asking for 300% more") or the price they STARTED out with negotiating. (e.g. "we are asking for X per subscriber and we think this is a fair price") - Usually during the "mudslinging" part of the negotiations, that start about 2 weeks to a week before the contract ends, and is usually initiated by the media companies.
There is a good chance that DirecTV could be blamed for AMC leaving DISH. It all depends on what deal DirecTV agreed to. If DirecTV paid too much for AMC it would raise AMC's expectations as to what AMC would get from DISH. There may also be a contractual agreement with DirecTV where AMC would not be allowed to give DISH a better deal (most favored nation agreements). Which means even if AMC wanted to accept their old rate they may be contractually obligated to refuse.
There are so many factors involved in negotiations. AMC is the only player in all of the negotiations (with DirecTV, DISH and AT&T). If they signed a "most favored nation" type of deal with DirecTV and accept a lower payment from DISH then DirecTV could get their rate reduced. I suppose that is the only way this would affect you ... although I doubt DirecTV saving money would reduce your bill any more than DISH saving money reduces mine.
Now you are just putting words in my mouth.
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. Nor do I have any idea how that corresponds to a disagreement with Dish.
What I do see is a whole lot of assumptions being made by some. I see some folks who assume they know what the terms of the previous deal were, what any proposed deal might have been, and the true financial impact on either party.
Im getting lots of input reading this forum guess I am just hopeing for things to work out between the two parties AMC was the only network to offer the Walking Dead a chance .....How many other channels would have the blood and gore on their networks ..So AMC gives a lot of creative leeway that is part of what makes the channel so fun for me to watch havnt had so much interest in a show since Lost got that series on DVD'S so i can see them when I want now.....got season One of the walking dead on DVD also even though i got all 13 of the second season recorded of Walking dead will get the season two package when it comes out in Aug.
If there is negotiating takeing place it should be setteled in a month or so I will stick with Dish that long at least..but If it looks like I will miss Oct when Walking dead comes on again I will close out my account with Dish . but I hope the negotiations dont take that long for a settelment
So now you've gone from assigning absolutely no blame whatsoever to Dish...to blaming DirecTV?
If the preceeding 1300+ posts are not educational enough here is one more summary of the situation:
AMC wants more money to allow people to view their shows but wants to invest less money in producing those shows. They expect to double or triple rates - everyone else pays more - while cutting back on their costs - they pay less.
If AMC was the hero here they would be willing to invest MORE money in their programming, not less.
Some have been paying attention to this for the past several months and are better at gleaning information.
I keep an open mind. Things are not always as cut and dried as it may seem.
That may be your opinion, but does not make it so. We have folks who assume they know what the terms of the previous deal were, what any proposed deal might have been, and the true financial impact on either party.
Who said AMC was the hero? Again, your are assigning all the blame to AMC and none of it to Dish Network.
Yes I think AMC messed over Frank the creator of the Movie Green Mile and Shawshank redemtion who started the walking Dead tv show with Robert Kirkman they strongarmed them into doing episodes with less money but I still am also blameing Dish also for strongarming AMC over the price of their carrige fee I think if AMC had the money they would have many new shows cause AMC is bringing shows of diversity and I think they would have more if given the chance....in other words more money from Dish they they can increase the budgets of shows they have on the air and have new ones
That is your opinion. For a person who complained about having words put into your mouth a few posts back you certainly have no problem putting words in other's mouths.
I suggest that anyone reading this thread rely on MY posts to determine what I said and my opinions. The interpretation of my posts by Hoosier205 is not to be trusted.
Which of course is false, as I gave you two opportunities to assign less than all of the blame to AMC and you declined. How many more pages will go by before you suggest that Dish is at fault in any way? So far you've only blamed AMC and...now this is the funny part...DirecTV. Can Dish do no wrong in your eyes?
I don't have to assign blame to DISH ... there are plenty of non-DISH subscribers around to do that.
Are you willing to accept that AMC should receive at least some of the blame for this situation? What percentage?
Of course! Good lord...who wouldn't? (besides you it would seem) I never suggested that AMC was without fault or worthy of blame. I have no idea what percentage. Both have a rocky retransmission agreement history with various other providers.
I placed blame with Dish from the beginning for making it so public, talking about the quality of programming, or lack there of, etc... You can't deny their handling of this is influenced by the VOOM lawsuit.
But that doesn't change the essence of the dispute itself. AMC is not in the league of USA or TNT but are looking to be thought of that way, specifically monetarily. In addition, they insist on all their channels being carried if AMC is. Based on past DISH negotiations, I have no doubt the outcome would have been the same without the VOOM lawsuit, just not as much comment from DISH.
I of course have no proof, but I am guessing based on remarks made by DISH that they offered to talk about increases in fees to AMC if DISH did not have to carry some or all of the other non watched by almost anybody channels. I think that's where AMC is saying DISH would not negotiate. Once AMC refused to let DISH carry just AMC, or maybe with one other channel (probably WE) indeed Dish said we can't talk the money you want for AMC and have us carry those channels, and it was at that point Dish would not go any farther.
You can't come out like AMC did and proclaim they should be getting 200% more, even if they are not trying to get all of it in one year, and not raise eyebrows by DISH, and hopefully other carriers. The implications of AMC going for that kind of increases is huge when you add up other channels that will want the same, especially those that are much more watched.