How a threat to drop AMC could kill the cable bundle By Claire Atkinson December 29, 2015 |

[brejust]

A standoff between a consortium of small cable companies and AMC Networks could speed up the death of the cable bundle, sources tell The Post.

The consortium, which represents about four million homes, is refusing to pay a demand for what they claim is a tripling of AMC Networks' fees — and are telling subscribers they can get AMC's popular "The Walking Dead" through streaming services.

more here
http://nypost.com/2015/12/29/how-a-threat-to-drop-amc-could-kill-the-cable-bundle/

 

[renegade734]

So drop AMC ... I could not care less!

 

[MikeD-C05]

IF all tv providers would quit giving in to the channel companies like AMC, when they demand more and more , the extortion would stop. But then the subs would have to stay with the tv providers and support them for it to work, instead of churning over it. I'm Not saying that the subs shouldn't be given some kind of credit for the loss of those channels. But everyone needs to stay firm for this to work.

 

[king3pj]

IF all tv providers would quit giving in to the channel companies like AMC, when they demand more and more , the extortion would stop. But then the subs would have to stay with the tv providers and support them for it to work, instead of churning over it. I'm Not saying that the subs shouldn't be given some kind of credit for the loss of those channels. But everyone needs to stay firm for this to work.

Problem with that is that most people care more about the programming they like than which TV provider they are with. If you are a big fan of Walking Dead and other shows on AMC switching to another provider that offers that channel after your provider drops it is a totally valid option.

I don't care what provider my content comes from as long as it's good quality, cheap, and legal. Sticking with a particular satellite, cable, or streaming provider is not important to me. I will go with the the option that provides me with the content I want at the best price.

 

[sam_gordon]

they can get AMC's popular "The Walking Dead" through streaming services.

But don't you need to sign in with your cable/satellite provider in order to watch the show? So how does that help? I'm guessing if provider 'XYZ' drops AMC, AMC won't allow XYZ's customers to stream the show.

Another thing that jumped at me from the article...

Overall, small cable operator margins on pay TV service are about 10 percent.
Meanwhile, the margin on broadband service is as high as 90 percent, insiders said.
That means some small cable operators, faced with carriage standoffs, aren't afraid of killing the TV bundle to speed up cord-cutting because broadband TV is more profitable, cable sources tell The Post.

How many customers are with a particular provider because of a bundle? They get internet from their cable company because it's easier to pay a single bill. So if the cable company drops a station they like, wouldn't it make sense the customer would look elsewhere to get everything they want?

This consortium better be careful what they wish for IMO.

 

[sam_gordon]

So drop AMC ... I could not care less!

I'm sure there are folks that will say that about EVERY channel. Which is fine until they start talking about a channel YOU like.

 

[osu1991]

But don't you need to sign in with your cable/satellite provider in order to watch the show? So how does that help? I'm guessing if provider 'XYZ' drops AMC, AMC won't allow XYZ's customers to stream the show.

That is only with the content providers app. You can still purchase the episodes individually or as a season to stream from Amazon, Itunes, Google Play the next day

 

[sam_gordon]

That is only with the content providers app. You can still purchase the episodes individually or as a season to stream from Amazon, Itunes, Google Play the next day

So let me get this right... it makes sense to pay $3/episode or $40/season(that's the Walking Dead price on Amazon), but it doesn't make sense to pay $3/year (based on the latest chart I could find) for the channel? Let's even say AMC is getting $3/subscriber (which I highly doubt)... $36/year.

Obviously if you don't care about seeing the more recent episodes, there are other options (Netflix, Hulu, etc).

 

[Willh699]

AMC being dropped ain't gonna stop the bundle crisis that lead to the cord cutting movement.

the only way the bundle goes away is if the FCC forces the content providers to do away with bundling in lesser known channels with the big money channels. and that will happen after they get lobbied by the paid TV industry's big 4 (Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Dish and AT&T U-verse/DirecTV) .

so in other words, government intervention will be the only way the Cable Industry changes forever, and not only would the government stop the bundling issue, they will also try to stop the contract dispute blackout issues that affect every provider.

 

[harshness]

But everyone needs to stay firm for this to work.

Now that you've stated the obvious, how do we convince the carriers that we're really behind them?

Do we demand credits?

Do we go on forums and berate them for every little thing both inside and outside their control?

 

[harshness]

If the FCC takes a stand, someone much bigger than Sinclair will bitch-slap them for interfering with the free market. I expect the agency that needs to get involved is the FTC somehow wielding the power of the Sherman Act.

As subscribers, what we really need to do is get involved in critically thinking about what we're watching and why (or whether) it is truly important to us. Only when the viewers discover that they seldom watch channels that are widely considered "must-see" can progress be made.

 

[renegade734]

I'm sure there are folks that will say that about EVERY channel. Which is fine until they start talking about a channel YOU like.

Too late ... they've already done that!

I'm also not like a lot of people ... some folks will watch the same thing over and over, but I am not married to any particular channel. I watch my local channels more than anything (news, weather, football) ... plus, if one or more of my locals are pulled from Dish, I have an OTA antenna, so programming is still available.

 

[MikeD-C05]

Now that you've stated the obvious, how do we convince the carriers that we're really behind them?

Do we demand credits?

Do we go on forums and berate them for every little thing both inside and outside their control?

Good bye Harshness. I 've had quite enough of you ,so welcome to IGNORE.

 

[king3pj]

As subscribers, what we really need to do is get involved in critically thinking about what we're watching and why (or whether) it is truly important to us. Only when the viewers discover that they seldom watch channels that are widely considered "must-see" can progress be made.

I think many of us have already come to that conclusion. That's why we don't feel the need to pay for cable/satellite TV. If the channels are worthless (I agree that most are) than so are the cable/satellite providers.

 

[Chris Leer]

Oh no lets hope they don't drop AMC networks for good because we tv and ifc and fuse networks are owned by rainbow media.

 

[bobvick]

Oh no lets hope they don't drop AMC networks for good because we tv and ifc and fuse networks are owned by rainbow media.

Rainbow Media is now "AMC Networks" they still have WE and IFC and have added Sundance and distribution for BBC America and BBC World. They spun off MSGN and Fuse. Fuse was sold to SiTV Media in 2014 (the people behind the former NuvoTV).

 

[mike123abc]

Actually, if dropping a channel saved a sub $3/month, it would probably save the cost of buying the one show that they watch on that network, and buying on iTunes instead... "The Walking Dead" is AMC's biggest claim to fame. If you only watch that show, having your cable company drop it and you save a $3 increase on your bill, you could buy the season and have a better deal...

 

[chuckster_dude]

... "The Walking Dead" is AMC's biggest claim to fame....

I'd say Breaking Bad was bigger on AMC. But there was a point when they were both in new episodes at the same time. And that's where a channel gets power....when they have multiple "hot" shows on that draw in wider audiences. Better Call Saul will be that next show which keeps AMC popular.

 

[king3pj]

I'd say Breaking Bad was bigger on AMC. But there was a point when they were both in new episodes at the same time. And that's where a channel gets power....when they have multiple "hot" shows on that draw in wider audiences. Better Call Saul will be that next show which keeps AMC popular.

I love Breaking Bad but it's not bigger than Walking Dead. The Walking Dead breaks its own viewer records for the highest rated shows on cable every year.

 

[ohioankev]

But don't you need to sign in with your cable/satellite provider in order to watch the show? So how does that help? I'm guessing if provider 'XYZ' drops AMC, AMC won't allow XYZ's customers to stream the show.

Another thing that jumped at me from the article...
How many customers are with a particular provider because of a bundle? They get internet from their cable company because it's easier to pay a single bill. So if the cable company drops a station they like, wouldn't it make sense the customer would look elsewhere to get everything they want?

This consortium better be careful what they wish for IMO.

I think they are talking about Amazon Instant Video (pay to watch), Netflix, Hulu (full seasons, but a year behind) rather than the TV Anywhere platform. But a reminder look how fast DISH added AMC when The Walking Dead came back after that court case/dispute. They didn't do anything over the course of the summer when there was no A&E but three weeks into TWD and the channel was returned.