DISH Price Increase 1/17/2013 (UPDATED!)
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 782
- Views 212K
Most "free" is not free, it is ad supported. Over the internet shows have ads DVR technology does not skip.
I just cancelled, so this resolves the price increase problem.
Retention will probably call you in a day or two to help change your mind...
You were probably flagged as a trouble maker
They called me about 2 days later and gave me a deal.
Yea but there are other channels like that too. AMC is really just getting started being an original programmer. Give it some time. Hell it took HBO a while to do the original programming thing too. All I know is having Walking Dead, Mad Men, Breaking Bad and so on is so worth what I pay Dish. Yes I know some of those shows are going away.
I watch TNT for Southland. I don't ever watch except for that one hour. I'm sure lots of people are like that. That's why I love my Hopper and the DVR in general. I watch what I want when I want.
Sent from my DROID RAZR Maxx using Tapatalk 2
Last edited:
4 going on 5 years and AMC has made no attempt to program outside of their Sunday night timeslot.
Now wait a minute here. Lets enumerate the reasons why the HBO comparison to AMC is totally off the mark:
1) HBO's mission was NEVER to have original programming. It started doing original programming to set it apart from the other movie channels, but it never relied on that to be the sole draw for subscribers. Original programming is, to this day, not the sole draw to HBO.
2) HBO is an a la carte suite of channels. You only get them if you pay for HBO. If AMC and its barely watched additional channels were to do the same thing I would have no problem with them upping their carriage fees because I wouldn't be forced to pay for them!
3) HBO viewership dwarfs AMC's audience in all but 16-23 hours a YEAR.
4) In the 5th year of HBO producing original scripted TV (Fraggle Rock was the first in 1983, I think) it had produced 12 other original series from game shows to documentary series to comedy to drama to horror. It was not a one-trick pony. AMC has had 19 original series and mini series since 1989. In the first 24 years HBO has been doing original scripted programs it had 73 original series and miniseries, and a 90 total to date with 4 new series coming this year and 16 more original shows in development. And this is STILL not the only draw to HBO. This is not counting the boxing series and for a while they were the only place to watch Wimbledon.
So lets not compare HBO and AMC.
You are in the minority here. The difference is that TNT has, on average, an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE more people watching it than AMC does if you remove Walking Dead from the line-up. If you bring TWD viewership numbers back in the mix, TNT STILL has double the audience of AMC for an average week (Feb11 2013 Nielsen Ratings). IOW, TNT has a more rounded and appealing line-up to more people than AMC does. Not my opinion because I don't watch TNT either. It's just the numbers.
Look, I get it. You like the one show AMC has to call its own. I am NOT saying its a bad show. I am not saying it's not worth it to some to pay for it. I am saying that having an entire channel for one show and forcing everyone who subscribes to any cable or satellite service pay for it is just wrong. Same goes for channels about sports I don't care about, and even those I do care about. I am paying nearly $165/mo for a ton of channels I don't watch now. I watch a total of about 45 of them and of those most belong to a la carte suites already. So when I hear anyone telling me that a la carte wont work because the prices will skyrocket and choice will be deminished all I can think of is "bullpuckey!"
My comparison to HBO is that HBO is what a la carte programming packages would have to become to survive. HBO is not forced on anyone, they are desired by many, enough to produce high quality commercial free television with as you mentioned series plus sports and movies.
The current system just encourages laziness, most networks know they are going to be in every house, so just make a show or two a year to reel them in.
Ala Carte and unbundling the channel suites IMO will provide for a better quality of programming. If they want to survive they will get rid of the endless loops and a lot of the mindless reality shows of divorced wives and broke sports stars.
First off guys my bad for the AMC/HBO comparison. I should have compared it more to say FX. Now I like AMC for more than just Walking Dead. I love Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The Killing and I just got into Hell on wheels. I'm not trying to say one channel is better than any other. I could care less. Like I said my DVR is it's own network. I watch what I like and that's it. My wife is the same way. That's why we have 2 Hoppers.
OK so TNT and FX get better ratings and have more shows. That's cool. I love Southland. That is all we watch on TNT. I'm not saying its not as good as AMC. Hell I'm not saying anything. I don't want anyone's channels taken away from them. That sucks. I have never watched Lifetime. I haven't watched MTV in over a decade. There are lots of channels I don't watch but pay for. That's just the nature of the beast. I'm not going to bitch about it because there are some people that love those channels so I get it. It's a trade off I guess.
OK so TNT and FX get better ratings and have more shows. That's cool. I love Southland. That is all we watch on TNT. I'm not saying its not as good as AMC. Hell I'm not saying anything. I don't want anyone's channels taken away from them. That sucks. I have never watched Lifetime. I haven't watched MTV in over a decade. There are lots of channels I don't watch but pay for. That's just the nature of the beast. I'm not going to bitch about it because there are some people that love those channels so I get it. It's a trade off I guess.
I totally agree with that. I have for a while but it does no good. We just keep paying for things we don't watch. Now I love the ESPN's but there are lots who don't. Is it fair? Hell no but is it fair they love Lifetime, MTV and so on that I don't watch? Again it's a trade off.
Precisely why the channel/network model is obsolete. Open up all non-premium content/channels and go to a metered usage delivery, with multiple usage tiers. Channels get paid by their actual viewership, not some arbitrary per-subscriber package fee. That way I'd be free to watch a lot of programming one month and pay the full unlimited price (comparable to the AEP price), and then next month watch limited programming at the lowest usage tier (comparable to the Smart Pack or AT120 price). True competition needs to come back to the business.
Last edited:
And most of the shows on AMC and the other cable channels are on Netflix already so you have to wait until the season ended but still I think they add the new seasons pretty quick. I still think it is a great value only $8 a month for unlimited viewing with NO ADS AT ALL yet you pay for satellite TV and get ads up the ying yang for 10 times the price. Even if Netflix goes up a $1 or $2 it is still a way better value then cable or satellite TV.
It's not a matter of offense. It's just a matter of facts. The fact that I don't care for AMC since the day it turned into just another commercial channel is irrelevant in this conversation. This the the hardest point to get across when talking about putting pressure of program providers to keep costs in check. I don't want anyone's channels to be removed either, but I also don't want to be forced to pay for others' favorite programs which reside on the "one-trick-pony channel".
The fact that I don't care for AMC since the day it turned into just another commercial channel is irrelevant in this conversation. This the the hardest point to get across when talking about putting pressure of program providers to keep costs in check. I don't want anyone's channels to be removed either, but I also don't want to be forced to pay for others' favorite programs which reside on the "one-trick-pony channel".Similar threads
