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

Talk about childish! If this were a purely business decision, they would just leave them at their current channel numbers, and remove them on the date the contract expires. What they are doing really smacks of childish vindictiveness, not very professional at all..


What I have been saying all along.
 
Last edited:
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?

If it were over carriage fees... but as I had debated, it was never about the fees.
 
Naiveté

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.

Not about a court case? The hypothetical fee you keep mentioning was just that, hypothetical. Josh Sapan said:

"our rates on AMC are particularly out of whack... the channel is worth as much as 75 cents per subscriber per month... the hypothetical fee is not necessarily the rate we will be paid tomorrow."

If this were about a fee, as DISH claimed it was and you apparently believe, a deal would have been reached, especially with all the complaints on Facebook and Twitter. Charlie made up his mind when the SCONY ruled on the motion regarding the mammoth email dump by DISH, and he lost.
 
I work in a court room every Monday on what is called "Law Day." (I'm not an attorney.) That's when the criminal cases are called. I see lawyers do dumb things once in a while and I've noticed that the judges are reticent to dress them down in open court. Dish must have a crackerjack team of attorneys for the judge in this dispute to say what he or she did about them; that they have engaged in a "pattern of egregious conduct and questionable -- and, at times, blatantly improper -- litigation tactics." When the appeals court supported those statements in its ruling, it confirmed to me that Dish is the one in need of a good group of lawyers on retainer. I was being facetious in my statements of above. I'll probably have to pay the cancellation fee, and admittedly in whatever entertainment provider you choose, there's a bit of "pick your poison" involved, but I'll gladly do it to walk away from this train wreck of a provider.

Take 'em to small claims court and see if they show up. :p
 
Not about a court case? The hypothetical fee you keep mentioning was just that, hypothetical.

Your premise is wrong. No, even with pressure Dish will not pay too much if they think they are. If I gave examples this post would be pages long.

You are also reading his quote wrong. He said the 75 cents is not necessarily how much they will ask now, certainly not that they won't be asking for more, they are asking for more. Nothing hypothetical about it. And it's also about Dish not wanting to carry a couple of their channels no one watches but AMC not allowing them to carry AMC without those channels. You are overblowing the importance of the VOOM court case. Dish is making this more public and acting childish in my opinion because of the suit. But make no mistake about it, this would happening without the suit. As posted another carrier went through the same thing.
 
Last edited:
You are combining two things. Dish can drop any channel it wants to, there will be no court case when the contract is over. The AMC contract will be over June 30th. Whatever the reason Dish doesn't carry AMC after that, there will be no court case.

No, they are one and the same. You can rationalize it any way you want. The lawsuit came first, which negates any debate that dropping AMC is over a carriage fee. The lawsuit will remain even if a decision regarding carrying AMC is reached by the end of the month. So, there will be a court case after June 30. It is not now, nor will it be over being DROP by DISH.
 
Your premise is wrong. No, even with pressure Dish will not pay too much if they think they are. If I gave examples this post would be pages long.

You are also reading his quote wrong. He said the 75 cents is not necessarily how much they will ask now, certainly not that they won't be asking for more, they are asking for more. Nothing hypothetical about it. And it's also about Dish not wanting to carry a couple of their channels no one watches but AMC not allowing them to carry AMC without those channels. You are overblowing the importance of the VOOM court case. Dish is making this more public and acting childish in my opinion because of the suit. But make no mistake about it, this would happening without the suit. As posted another carrier went through the same thing.

Why do you keep changing your post? :eek:

I am not reading the quote wrong. What he is saying is that He believes AMC is worth $0.75/sub/month and that his valuation is not necessarily what AMC will be paid in the future.

Would you mind posting your proof that AMC asked for $0.75/sub.month? And when you do, make sure it shows that AMC wanted $0.75/sub/month for AMC alone - that is not including IFC, IFC Films, WE and Sundance.
 
Last edited:
So to you, they are asking nothing because they are not asking for the 75 cents they want to get eventually. We all know they are most certainly asking for an increase. No one is saying it is 75 cents. It has already been posted, I'm not going to do your research for you. It's a fact, AMC is asking for more. It's a fact they want all their channels carried to get AMC.
 
I have no doubt that AMC is asking for an increase, that's what contract negotiations are about, and all of them do it. Its not so high that it would event in AMC being dropped. But you are suggesting that its all about the carriage fee. My contention is that the SCONY decision sealed AMC's fate, and DISH was going to drop them even if they did not ask for a price increase.

--
I don't know what you do for fun on the Internet, Tampa8, but I spend a lot of my free time reading court cases. I didn't just learn about the VOOM case recently. I knew all about the email dump in this case, as I did in the case of Broccoli v. EchoStar. DISH has a way of attempting to hide their misdeeds, and because of Broccoli, the jury in this case will hear of DISH's egregious evidence dumping -- and that will not bode well for Charlie. The steam must have been pouring out of every orifice of Charlie's body, and I have no doubt in my mind that Charlie and his partners in crime had planned on dumping AMC pending the most recent SCONY decision. Had it gone in DISH's favor, AMC would not be dropped June 30.
 
Last edited:
demsd said:
No, they are one and the same. You can rationalize it any way you want. The lawsuit came first, which negates any debate that dropping AMC is over a carriage fee. The lawsuit will remain even if a decision regarding carrying AMC is reached by the end of the month. So, there will be a court case after June 30. It is not now, nor will it be over being DROP by DISH.

Demsd,

Do you know what really came first? Dish being willing to temporarily/permanently drop channels during carriage disputes in order to try and limit what they have to pay providers.

Love it, or hate it, it's happened time and again. Some complain that Dish does it too much, while others applaud it for saving money. There are too many past instances to list them all, but here are two:
1) many of the Fox stations (FX, RSNs, etc.) we're off the air for a month during a recent dispute. (coming up on two years ago I believe).

2) Dish dumped MSG in NY because they were demanding that Dish carry Fuse if it wanted the RSN. That one has yet to return.

That is Dish's MO in these situations, so you saying that it's all about the court case and has nothing to do with carriage money is just plain wrong. If there was no court case and Dish had an issue was the price increase (or the demand that Dish carry WE, Sundance, and IFC if it wants AMC), Dish wouldn't have any problem pulling channels to gain negotiating leverage.

I'm sure the current legal situation is influencing things during this carriage negotiation, but it's a mistake to attribute the entirety of the problem to the court case.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
 
demsd said:
I have no doubt in my mind that Charlie and his partners in crime had planned on dumping AMC pending the most recent SCONY decision. Had it gone in DISH's favor, AMC would not be dropped June 30.

Since you've asked others for proof to back up their contentions, I'd like you to do the same. And unless you're either psychic or somehow privy to the decision making high up the Dish food chain, you're simply not going to be able to do it. You might have no doubt in your mind, but the reality is that it's just your opinion.

Your opinion might be right; but given Dish's track record in these sorts of negotiations, it's pretty safe to say that the court case is not the sole cause of this potential dispute.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
 
dangue said:
Since you've asked others for proof to back up their contentions, I'd like you to do the same. And unless you're either psychic or somehow privy to the decision making high up the Dish food chain, you're simply not going to be able to do it. You might have no doubt in your mind, but the reality is that it's just your opinion.

Your opinion might be right; but given Dish's track record in these sorts of negotiations, it's pretty safe to say that the court case is not the sole cause of this potential dispute.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

Of course amc says the court case is the whole reason.
 
How about a deal where Dish pays a reduced rate and just shows them on Sunday nights. Is there anybody out there that cares about the channel other than 1 or 2 hrs a weekend? Now that Mad Men and Killing are done, I lost track of Breaking Bad in season 2, so I'm good until October when the Dead come back.
 
How about a deal where Dish pays a reduced rate and just shows them on Sunday nights. Is there anybody out there that cares about the channel other than 1 or 2 hrs a weekend? Now that Mad Men and Killing are done, I lost track of Breaking Bad in season 2, so I'm good until October when the Dead come back.

Why would AMC ever agree to give away their most popular shows at a reduced rate? If they did that every provider would want that deal. They would be giving away their most popular shows with little to no advertising money for the rest of the week and making much less than they are today. There is no way they would agree to take a pay cut at the same time as their shows are increasing in popularity. That just isn't realistic at all. If anything Dish would probably have to pay more for the right to only show AMC on Sunday nights to make up for the lost advertising revenue.
 
There was another blurb I read somewhere yesterday that several major cablecos and DBS companies were considering dropping Nick. Why? Because ratings are down over 30 percent and viewership doesn't justify what Nick wants everyone to pay. The complaint is that since Nick made their programming available on Netflix, the numbers have cratered.
 
Do you know what really came first? Dish being willing to temporarily/permanently drop channels during carriage disputes in order to try and limit what they have to pay providers.

ReallY? Name those networks that DISH dropped over carriage fee disputes that were also suing DISH.


Since you've asked others for proof to back up their contentions, I'd like you to do the same.

I already have.
 

IFC and FUSE

FCC issues Cuba Spot Beam License

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

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)