DISH Drops AMC Networks (AMC Back on DISH channel 131)

[Tampa8]

I got an e-mail yesterday from AMC's Walking Dead mailing list informing me that Dish is going to drop AMC in July and if I don't want to miss Walking Dead Season 3 that I should let Dish know. Not looking good, huh?

Well, it's not looking good but not because of that mailing. When there was a dispute with Lin broadcasting they as much as said the world was ending, only to have the dispute settled. Not saying it will happen quickly in this case, but AMC is protecting their interests and trying to put the pressure on. Whatever you believe the percentage of Dish subscribers is who watch AMC, certainly more for AMC a lot less for the other channels being dropped, not being on DIsh means it's in millions of less homes.
The other thing not really being discussed, and not in the favor of AMC, if this does not get resolved, will another provider be bold and do the same thing?
I think Dish is prepared to be the only provider not carrying AMC. They could be making a mistake, maybe not. AMC is not prepared to lose Dish, and then in the next negotiation with a provider lose it too. If Dish weathers the storm, another provider could well do the same thing.

 

[GaryPen]

The other thing not really being discussed, and not in the favor of AMC, if this does not get resolved, will another provider be bold and do the same thing?

I don't know. Are any other carriers involved in unrelated lawsuits with AMC's parent company?

 

[osu1991]

I don't know. Are any other carriers involved in unrelated lawsuits with AMC's parent company?

Lawsuit doesn't mean squat. Directv has already been hinting the past few weeks that they are going to be taking a harder stance on rising costs and channels may go dark. I don't expect them to pull espn, but it wouldn't surprise me to see them take a stance with AMC or Scripps. Start with the smaller media groups and send a message to the larger media groups that they have reached the breaking point.

 

[whatchel1]

inasully - I think a lot of the AMC poopooers aren't familiar with the current original programming. They are thinking of AMC as it was at one time "American Movie Classics", and how it went from showing uncut, commercial-free classic movies to a shadow of its former self, airing only crappy movies that could barely fit the "classic" label, with tons of commercials. That was basically due to Turner Broadcasting having the rights to most classic films, and saving them for its own TCM network.

But, times have changed. And, now, AMC has a stable of some of the most highly-regarded television drama this side of HBO and Showtime with Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, The Killing, and Hell on Wheels. Even if one does not personally watch AMC, to deny the quality of its programming or the level of it's viewership is simply to deny reality. And, to those who haven't even given AMC a chance because of its low period mentioned in the first paragraph, I think you've been missing out on some good television.

Actually as poopooer I'm quite familiar with the programming. I watch MM and BB the rest don't care for. I watched 1 to 2 episodes of each and didn't care for them. That aside thing is that is only 1 to 2 hrs per week of programming with rest being the standard movies. That are so commercial filled that are not worth watching for that reason as well as what has been said about the stretching to fit the screen. Many should be available in the OAR if AMC would buy them but are to cheap to spend the $$. So the viewership may be only good for a couple of hrs a week. So E should stand it's ground here and not paying a huge rate increase. I think the 2 should come to some middle ground and settle this. I've thought about adding D to my system but mostly to get a good deal on their new 5 tuner HR34. I also would like to see the difference in the PQ between the 2 companies. Those are my major reasons to add D w/ AMC being a very small reason of the group.

 

[mike123abc]

Well, it's not looking good but not because of that mailing. When there was a dispute with Lin broadcasting they as much as said the world was ending, only to have the dispute settled. Not saying it will happen quickly in this case, but AMC is protecting their interests and trying to put the pressure on. Whatever you believe the percentage of Dish subscribers is who watch AMC, certainly more for AMC a lot less for the other channels being dropped, not being on DIsh means it's in millions of less homes.
The other thing not really being discussed, and not in the favor of AMC, if this does not get resolved, will another provider be bold and do the same thing?
I think Dish is prepared to be the only provider not carrying AMC. They could be making a mistake, maybe not. AMC is not prepared to lose Dish, and then in the next negotiation with a provider lose it too. If Dish weathers the storm, another provider could well do the same thing.

Currently 92% of households with cable have AMC... So, without Dish they will probably end up around 80-85%. It will be interesting to see just how many households they lose if they publish updated numbers in a quarterly report or something. That will give us guidance as to just how many households with AT200 or AT250. While AT200 may be the most popular package, it will be interesting to see just how popular.

 

[dtro77]

. It will be interesting to see just how many households they lose if they publish updated numbers in a quarterly report or something. .

Most likly 3rd quarter, I would think would be where we would see some activity.
Possible the 2nd too, because with Dish not listing them channels in their line up, that may turn some people away too.

 

[GaryPen]

Lawsuit doesn't mean squat.

In the current Dish vs AMC conflict, it certainly does mean squat. It means lots of squat.

Of course all carriers will be taking a stand against exorbitant price increase attempts by providers. But, obviously, it depends on what a carrier feels is exorbitant as opposed to reasonable.

As for DirecTV, they have a long history of ponying up big bucks for what they feel is popular programming. I'd be interested to see just how firm a stance they do take.

 

[lparsons21]

In the current Dish vs AMC conflict, it certainly does mean squat. It means lots of squat.

Of course all carriers will be taking a stand against exorbitant price increase attempts by providers. But, obviously, it depends on what a carrier feels is exorbitant as opposed to reasonable.

As for DirecTV, they have a long history of ponying up big bucks for what they feel is popular programming. I'd be interested to see just how firm a stance they do take.

Uh, D*'s long history of ponying up big bucks is almost always for some sports stuff. They haven't ever ponied up big bucks for others that I can ascertain.

 

[GaryPen]

Uh, D*'s long history of ponying up big bucks is almost always for some sports stuff. They haven't ever ponied up big bucks for others that I can ascertain.

Well then. Let's see if they make as big an issue with AMC Networks when their contract comes up for renewal as Dish has been making. I have a feeling the answer will be, they won't.

 

[lparsons21]

Well then. Let's see if they make as big an issue with AMC Networks when their contract comes up for renewal as Dish has been making. I have a feeling the answer will be, they won't.

You may be right. But I don't think the contract with AMC and D* comes up for a few years, so things will most likely have settled down a bit. But come on, isn't it time someone really started pushing back at these onerous rate increases?

 

[GaryPen]

You may be right. But I don't think the contract with AMC and D* comes up for a few years, so things will most likely have settled down a bit. But come on, isn't it time someone really started pushing back at these onerous rate increases?

Of course. But, in the current case of the AMC Nets and Dish, it's not just about that. If it was, Dish would be negotiating in a more professional way, similar to the way they have behaved towards other providers during prior negotiations. Although, Dish has always behaved a bit harsher in these situations than other carriers. They certainly have a more brazen attitude, in general.

 

[mike123abc]

Uh, D*'s long history of ponying up big bucks is almost always for some sports stuff. They haven't ever ponied up big bucks for others that I can ascertain.

DIRECTV has more subs than Dish. So, when they go into a negotiation they can just ask for most favored nations status. They get an equal or better deal to whatever Dish can negotiate with all their channel removals. If Dish was number one we would probably see more DIRECTV disputes. Being #1 definitely has advantages.

 

[Tampa8]

Of course. But, in the current case of the AMC Nets and Dish, it's not just about that. If it was, Dish would be negotiating in a more professional way, similar to the way they have behaved towards other providers during prior negotiations. Although, Dish has always behaved a bit harsher in these situations than other carriers. They certainly have a more brazen attitude, in general.

100% correct. It's what keeps me from being 100% on Dish's side for this dispute. That doesn't mean it wouldn't come to dropping AMC even without the suit, AMC is throwing around some hefty numbers, and does have a couple of channels very sparsely watched, but I doubt it would be quite so public or have Dish moving around channels and classifying the quality of the programming. It's definitely personal also,.

 

[osu1991]

In the current Dish vs AMC conflict, it certainly does mean squat. It means lots of squat.

Of course all carriers will be taking a stand against exorbitant price increase attempts by providers. But, obviously, it depends on what a carrier feels is exorbitant as opposed to reasonable.

As for DirecTV, they have a long history of ponying up big bucks for what they feel is popular programming. I'd be interested to see just how firm a stance they do take.

I was replying to your other post in which you asked "are any other carriers involved in unrelated lawsuits with AMC's parent". To that question, the lawsuit doesn't mean squat. The other carriers don't care what happens. The Voom lawsuit has no bearing on how they negotiate with AMC or any other media group, but I'm pretty sure if any were involved in a lawsuit, they would do the same as Dish, if they thought it would give them an advantage in negotiations.

 

[fbbonline]

IFC and Sundance used to be great channels back in the day, albeit SD. Other than PQ, are they no longer good for indie, art, and foreign films? (I don't watch them because there are so many HD choices.) Perhaps if they combined them into a single art house channel, in HD of course, it would provide better value packaged with AMC.

I don't see WE providing much value, though, with Lifetime, LMN, Oxygen, and OWN, all in HD. My wife doesn't even watch any of those so-called women's channels. So, I'm not sure they need five of them. (Plus, all of the women's programming on Bravo and the plethora of reality crap that mostly cater to women available ad nauseum on all channels.)

I would argue that IFC and Sundance actually still provide quality programming (often content that is not readily available to me through any other channel)...however the lack of HD for me (Hawaii) on either of those channels discourages me from watching them regularly. Totally agree about WE.

My biggest complaint in this dispute is that I would MUCH rather have Dish pony up and keep the AMC channels than waste its money on a Hopper lawsuit for a completely useless feature. Pay your content providers not your attorneys (and I'm an attorney saying that).

 

[Mojo Jojo]

I don't know. Are any other carriers involved in unrelated lawsuits with AMC's parent company?

As far as lawsuits, I am unsure. I thought there was a recent dispute with AMC Networks and Suddenlink.

 

[ltownsend]

Dear Dish Network - DO NOT DROP AMC! I am a loyal customer for over 10 years and AMC is one of the stations I currently watch. DO NOT DROP THEM!

 

[KAB]

As far as lawsuits, I am unsure. I thought there was a recent dispute with AMC Networks and Suddenlink.

There was:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...IceJ5bqLyyKqwU4JA&sig2=LxFnn6oOOWLEGuPL-PwikQ

 

[blackjackmark]

The only time I watch AMC anymore is at Xmas for the Xmas movies. Other than that I don't watch any of them and its the principle. I am sick and tired of being forced to buy 90 crappy channels just to get 10 decent channels. If they want to package AMC by itself at a reasonable price, so be it, but don't force IFC, We and Sundance into the picture too. If those channels can't get by on their own, then do away with them. That is the stand I think DISH and others need to make.

I'm not asking to bait you...I really don't know the answer...but are there ANY channels that are truly ala carte (from Dish's perspective) other than the premium channels? It seems like all the big networks (broadcast and cable) own more than one channel, and I would think that it's always a package deal?

 

[GaryPen]

I'm not asking to bait you...I really don't know the answer...but are there ANY channels that are truly ala carte (from Dish's perspective) other than the premium channels? It seems like all the big networks (broadcast and cable) own more than one channel, and I would think that it's always a package deal?

Dish has already taken this route with their programming packages for commercial accounts. Each package is a collection of channels from a specific content provider, Viacom, Disney, Turner, etc. They don't refer to them by those names, they use A, B, C, etc. But, it is obvious by the channels included in each pack.