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

Someone losing a channel they watch is not a complainer. It's people like you with with their holier-than-thou attitudes that are the problem.

You don't watch. Keep your mouth shut.

Please look up the word "complain." You will find it is NOT pejorative word. The word "argument" or "upset" are other words that are not pejorative, but the declining quality of our education system means too many adults don't know what the words they hear mean. This issue and those who are expressing dissatisfaction have legitimate "complaints" about Dish and/or AMC.

Legal: What is the "complaint."

Medical: What are your "complaints" I can help cure.

Common Usage: I have a "complaint" about the Dish/AMC," or This customer has a "complaint", so how do resolve this?

A "Complainer" is one who "complains" or makes known their dissatisfaction.

Therefore anyone who expresses DISSATISFACTION at losing a channel--or any other reason--they they don't want removed can't be anything but a "complainer." But posting complaints and being a complainer is NOT a negative thing nor does it say anything negative about the "complainer". In fact, it is often GOOD to be a complainer because that is often how change occurs and let's others know how they can do things better or to their satisfaction.

What? People aren't going to "complain" to Dish about a channel they don't want to lose. Many people phoning in or otherwise contacting Dish are going to say, "I am "complaining" about your decision to drop AMC."

Most posts, and I would say because of the nature of this forum, here are "complaints" because we are often motivated to express DISSATISFACTION as opposed to when all is well. Every legitimate gripe we all have with a problem install or box or 922 is a "complaint." The words "complaint" and "complainer" are the most ACCURATE and CONCISE of words to use in such matters. And by the way, I never directly addressed you in a past post on this thread, but you internalized it. That's not our problem.

Now you have not liked the word "complainers," but is your crass last sentence in your reply really better or elevates the individual compared to one using a precise and concise, proper word that is NOT pejorative, but reveals more about the one who is motivated to "complain" about such a word? Obviously, such an individual is incapable of articulating an INTELLIGENT point of disagreement concerning a post does say worse about them than my choice of the word "complainers." One needn't regress to such ancestral hostility when none was expressed to them in the first plan, and allow millions of years of evolution to slip away robbing that individual of intelligence to the degree that they express themselves like a cave man, thug, or lesser animals. Take a break, and allow your civilized, better self to define you.
 
Last edited:
Please look up the word "complain." You will find it is NOT pejorative word. The word "argument" or "upset" are other words that are not pejorative, but the declining quality of our education system means too many adults don't know what the words they hear mean. This issue and those who are expressing dissatisfaction have legitimate "complaints" about Dish and/or AMC.

Legal: What is the "complaint."

Medical: What are your "complaints" I can help cure.

Common Usage: I have a "complaint" about the Dish/AMC," or This customer has a "complaint", so how do resolve this?

A "Complainer" is one who "complains" or makes known their dissatisfaction.

Therefore anyone who expresses DISSATISFACTION at losing a channel--or any other reason--they they don't want removed can't be anything but a "complainer." But posting complaints and being a complainer is NOT a negative thing nor does it say anything negative about the "complainer". In fact, it is often GOOD to be a complainer because that is often how change occurs and let's others know how they can do things better or to their satisfaction.

What? People aren't going to "complain" to Dish about a channel they don't want to lose. Many people phoning in or otherwise contacting Dish are going to say, "I am "complaining" about your decision to drop AMC."

Most posts, and I would say because of the nature of this forum, here are "complaints" because we are often motivated to express DISSATISFACTION as opposed to when all is well. Every legitimate gripe we all have with a problem install or box or 922 is a "complaint." The words "complaint" and "complainer" are the most ACCURATE and CONCISE of words to use in such matters.

Now you have not liked the word "complainers," but is your crass last sentence in your reply really better than one using a precise and concise, proper word that is NOT pejorative, but reveals more about the one who is motivated to "complain" about such a word? Obviously, such an individual is incapable of articulating an INTELLIGENT point of disagreement with a post says worse about them than my choice of the word "complainers."

Beautiful superlative hyperbole.

I still stand with my original post.
 
Although I think decision may come back to bite Dish in the short, they are picking a good time not to renew the agreement. Many of the shows are out-of-season and not currently showing any reruns:

Breaking Bad
Comic Book Men
Hell on Wheels
Mad Men Sunday 5/6 10:00 PM
Talking Dead
The Killing 5/6 9:00 PM
The Pitch 5/6 (reruns)

The Walking Dead
Broken Trail
The Prisoner
Rubicon
The Trivial Pursuits of Arthur Banks

To be honest, I've actually set timers for Mad Men and The Killing simply because of this lurking dispute.
 
According to something the Morning Bridge had Fri AMC is loosing share with everyone. Their viewership was down 12% from a year ago (Nielsen ratings). It wasn't just them many nets had the same problem too.
 
Right and they get 12 bucks a month. Since I can name at least 25 channels I watch what would by bill look like?

That's the kind of statement that could pull this Chamber of Commerce Republican right into the progressive left fringe of the Democratic party so we (the government and me) can require 75 percent of all cable channels be niche and not appeal to more than 9 percent of the population. (Can you say PBS X 74?)

If the air is just filled with the most popular TV all you would see is porn, sports and jewelry shopping channels. That isn't a free market. It's mob rule.

Other than that I really do agree with a lot of what you point out.

Honest.

I agree no one would pay $12 a month for 12 channels that each showed on average less than 1 hour of original programming/week for a year that they watched. 52 hours of programming is 4-5 hour long series on a lot of cable networks. It is ridiculous to pay that much for so little. But, that is what we have forced the cable industry into doing.

If I am a cable network programming provider I might be able to get 25 cents a month/sub for my super wiz bang channel. But, if I spread my programming out among 10 channels for 15 cents each, I now get $1.50/month per sub plus get to sell 10 channels worth of cheap infomercials. I may have 1/4 the original programming of CBS, but now I get $1.50/month/sub plus a ton of commercial time for my package.

By letting the cable companies buy the programming for us we have promoted this system. If it was a la carte there would be one channel for maybe $5 a month with 10 cable channels worth of programming on it. The open market would force programming providers to offer a ton of value for their channel since no one would pay $10/month for AMC if they only like Mad Men or The Walking Dead. It would be cheaper to buy the 26 episodes (13 each for the year) for $78 than the $120/year that a la carte would provide. Instead AMC would combine all their channels plus more into one channel for $5/month, and probably throw in internet streaming like HBO/SHO/Starz to add value.

We may disagree on the outcome. My theory is that given a la carte, programmers would work to provide valuable channels that people want to buy, rather than a legion of channels forced down cable company contracts to add the perception of value. I contend that average bills would go down. Yes industry profits would suffer, and some industry salaries would probably suffer. The market just cannot sustain yearly price increases to raise the profits of media companies endlessly.

Nielsen: Pay TV Sector Lost 2.9 Million in 2011 - Traditional TV Households Decline, OTA & Broadband Households Rise | DSLReports.com, ISP Information

2.9 million homes dropped pay TV last year. Yes it was a recession, but do you really think that the media companies will take the lost revenue lying down? No, they will simply ask for more money to make up for the lost revenue. It will cause even more households to drop out. The system is broken and is collapsing in on itself. It is like land line phones. Who is going to pay the ever increasing bill as everyone leaves the system? The last ones in are going to have huge bills to support the system.
 
Don't forget the Sinclair dispute that Dish had a while back with some local channel markets. They own two channels in my market (FOX and ABC).
 
HBO (not to mention SHO/MAX/Starz) is a pure a la carte package that manages to snag enough customers to make money. They have a lot of really good original series. More than most other cable networks....

Your quote is incorrect. The premium movie channels are offered under the "Everything" package(which is what my sub is). And as a side note, a la carte is not really that cost effective. Example, we had the "Everything" package and wanted to lower our monthly bill. So we dropped the the package just below the "Everything" package. The son complained he couldn't watch Band of Brothers on HBO. We added HBO only. Our monthly bill then was $18.00 less than the "Everything" package. So converted back to "Everything" package. For $18.00 more we then had access to all the premium channels.

As for losing the AMC networks, personally I don't watch them. Last AMC show/movie I watched, October 2010 when they ran horror movies for the month. IFC, watch the Three Stooges once in a while, and I don't remember the year I last watched Sundance.
 
Your quote is incorrect. The premium movie channels are offered under the "Everything" package(which is what my sub is).
His quote is certainly not incorrect. You chose a package that includes them all. Anyone can have any ONE or combo of.
 
His quote is certainly not incorrect. You chose a package that includes them all. Anyone can have any ONE or combo of.

Then how is "pure a la carte" defined by you? I am just commenting on that quote. A la carte by my definition in this case is as per the statement is subbing HBO, Cinemax, Starz, Encore, etc individually. The way the OP stated it was, this was the only way to get these channels,no package options. That is false. As I pointed out,you can get HBO a la carte or in a package.

From Wikipedia...."À la carte" has also been adopted in other industries to refer to a sales model where customers are allowed to select individual components for purchase rather than being required to purchase predefined packages.
 
Providers choose to offer them in a top package, like you have chosen. However, unlike other channels for which you must sub to the appropriate tier ro recieve, the premiums ARE a la carte...buy it, you get it, regardless of your package subscription.
 
gpollock87 said:
FEARnet! (i didn't say it!,hahahaha)

Hey gpollack

I have Fearnet on Uverse. Something is going on?
Fearnet programming keeps getting smaller.
It use to be prominent in the lineup. Now it's hidden. You have to do some digging to find it.
I'm not sure Fearnet is long for this world. Just a feeling.
 
It's a shame. It's not been that long since we got
AMC Hd. Now it's being taken away.
I was hoping for all Rainbow channels to arrive in HD.
Really sucks. Dish who I pay a premium needs to fix this.
 
have to agree...........tired of all the programming disputes
Particulary tired of not having ESPNU in HD as well as some of my locals in HD that Direct carries
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)