DISH Drops AMC Networks (AMC Back on DISH channel 131)
- Thread starter Sparkman
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 4K
- Views 598K
My fear is that this "trend" of rising cost by the networks will just continue on. Now, what is Dish going to do? Drop every network anytime it tries to negotiate a price increase? How many times are we to put up with Dish "saving us money" by dropping the network and going to court? Whether these networks are charging to much to begin with, that's the price that was agreed upon in the beginning. So as in any business, when it's time to sign a new contract, it's time to hit for a price increase. If you rent an apartment or house, 99% of the time, at the end of your lease, your rent goes up. Now you can either pay the new price, or move out...You're not going to get anything "extra" in added to your dwelling just because the rent increase.
My point is that Charlie has to start learning how to negotiate, not just drop the network and hope he can win another law suite. His track record on winning doesn't seem to be the greatest.
Ghpr13
Exactly! And wouldn't Dish end up paying more in court and lawyer fees anyway esp if they lose? While at the same time screwing me, you, and ever Dish customer.
I had a chat online with Dish a week or so ago over the demise of Sundance....I have to say that they were to say the least disingenuous..the line was that AMC was making "Outrageous demands". They offered a $5 a month credit for a year...for the loss of "one channel"..that is the disingenuous part.
There is no court case if Dish decides not to carry a channel, no cost. Voom is separate case with different elements than Dish just not carrying a channel. Going with your way of thinking about it, Direct TV, and other cable carriers are also screwing us by not just paying what a provider wants, as we speak Direct TV is not carrying channels do to cost. Just to be clear in no way do I feel screwed when Dish does not pay what a provider asks without negotiating and getting the cost less. AMC is a combination of spite from Dish for which Dish is to blame, and AMC demanding all channels be carried whether Dish wants to or not, and raising cost even according to AMC itself by alot to get to where they think they should be. You are making an assumption when given these same conditions other carriers won't also not agree when their contracts come up.
That's probably part of it,the other part it makes it easier for that(those) channels to disappear off the guide.
?????????
I thought I was being extremely conservative to apply $140 per month when looking out on a 30 year horizon. I pay a little over 100 a month now and have been with DISH for over a decade, inflation alone should bring up the number. Being a rural household, I could easily see using satellite TV for several more decades.
Am I really looking at things wrong?
Too conservative IMO - with satellite services getting into more service offerings the pricing will ultimately go up not down.
Low quality haha...yeah right. Kind of funny it happened as soon as AMC started their message about Dish dropping them.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,891
- 20,365
Try $150 per month and I'm not laughing...WALKING DEAD STARTS IN JULY!!!
October, Breaking Bad starts in July.
Yep, Cheapskate!
Just kidding. That might be how it works at Dish.
Aren't you a Direct subscriber?
How come you're all over this thread?
I would bet it didn't come about all of a sudden when we first read about that response from Dish. This has to have been going on for quite sometime, that is the dispute about having to carry the other channels to get AMC. I believe it's the other channels and the demand to carry them that dish is talking about, not the AMC channel specifically. As someone in the other forum pointed out, Dish probably offered more money maybe even close to what AMC asked for , if they did not have to carry all the other channels. Dish has been against this before, MSG/Fuse and Voom for example. The difference is because Dish is upset at AMC they have made these comments they should not have. Very likely they have had similar discussions with other groups of channels, we just don't know about it.
I know you're not making the claim but Dish...
What does 'low quality' have to do with 'moving' the channel? My understanding was the channel didn't really get moved. Aren't most channels in the 9000's anyway, and get 'mapped down' to the lower numbers? So when you put in 131, it's really directing you to 9609? It's not like there's two copies of every channel on the satellite.
So now it looks like my "Hey now!" started the whole thing.
Maybe we BOTH did it?
edit: nope, wasn't us. I saw part of it earlier....
Yes it did indeed get moved and,until there was quite an uproar there wasn't even a re-direct channel on 131.If I'm not mistaken it wasn't on 9609 until they pulled it from 130.
