Dan1boy

What I wrote yesterday on their website:

I received an email from AMC this afternoon stating that Dish subscribers are NOT going to be getting AMC or affiliated channels back anytime soon...if ever. This notion is unacceptable. Most of the shows I watch are on AMC. In order for me to not consider switching (easily) to your competitor(s), what financial compensation will I be receiving to persuade me to stay? What discount will I be seeing on my next bill? Answer required immediately. OUTRAGED.



Dear Valued DISH customer,

Thank you for your e-mail.

The channels AMC Networks forces us to deliver -- WE, IFC and AMC -- do not give our customers the best content at the best value. We have permanently removed them from the DISH line up as of June 30.


AMC Networks has further devalued its programming by making its handful of popular shows available to consumers via iTunes, Netflix and Amazon.com. This means that AMC Networks wants us to pay many millions of dollars for content that is available to our subscribers the next day for just a couple of dollars.


Among DISH viewers, movies on AMC are substantially more popular than its few original series. But customers have better choices than AMC as DISH offers Blockbuster @Home, dozens of movie channels from partners like HBO, Showtime, Starz, EPIX, HD Net, MGM HD, IndiePlex, RetroPlex, PixL and the latest new releases on DISH Cinema.


People don’t want to and shouldn’t have to watch their movies interrupted with commercials. The movies shown on AMC are not commercial-free. DISH is proud to offer customers alternative programming options that deliver great movies, un-interrupted.


DISH is providing more movie content to its customers. We will offer top quality, commercial-free HDNet Movies at channel 130 to replace AMC. HDNet, soon to become AXS.TV, will be at channel 131 to replace IFC. Style will replace WE at channel 128. Additionally, we are providing all of our customers with a free preview of great independent films on IndiePlex and to dozens of top movies on Encore for the month of July. This will give our customers a taste of the thousands of movies on demand as part of Blockbuster @Home.


At DISH, we stand up for our customers every day to deliver more than just the best in entertainment. We have remained in contact with AMC throughout this situation. Should AMC choose to change their position, we remain open to a proposal that would resolve this issue.


Thank you for being a valued and loyal customer.

Sincerely,
DISH



I can't believe how devalued and unappreciated as a long time customer. This robot reply is insulting. I haven't been this disgusted with a major company in a long time. Talk about telling me what's good for me....and giving me a spanking at the same time. I'm done. What balls.

Matthew Chmiel

No, it hasn't. Adding their content to Amazon and Netflix didn't devalue their programming a single bit. In fact, it made it much stronger as they've expanded upon their consumer base.

It's shit like this why I don't subscribe to cable or satellite. Now, if Google Fiber wants to make its way to Vegas, we'll see how I feel then.

fujishig

Well, from Dish's point of view it devalued their worth to Dish, because consumers have an alternate method of getting their shows that don't involve Dish or their advertising at all. Of course, for AMC it's all well and good to get paid from any source that carries them. What they're trying to say is that Dish, and by extension their subscribers, would be paying a premium for programs that others can get for much less.

Nickelodeon does that too, so I wonder what will happen when they need to be renewed ala DirecTV...

kefrank

What exactly is insulting about their reply? They explained their position and even told you how you can get the shows you watch on AMC from other outlets. You're insulted because they didn't offer you the "financial compensation" that you rudely demanded? You're not going to get that from an e-mail. You might get it from a live conversation with a CSR via chat or phone, but that's questionable.

Jeremy517

"A couple dollars" per subscriber is far more than AMC is asking Dish for. That doesn't even take into consideration that it is actually a couple of dollars per episode per subscriber.

That response absolutely terrible.

Dan1boy

I might have been somewhat childish in my initial correspondence but the anger impulse was more of a knee-jerk reaction of feeling patronized and devalued as a 12 year customer. To publicly state that their decision to drop AMC is 'permanent' and that I receive a better value from not being able to watch it is....much ruder than what I faceitiously demanded.

madcougar

It's very quickly becoming the American way to bend over and take it in the @ss. People are too easily dissuaded to ask for what they feel they deserve. Your logic seems sound “if I was paying X amount WITH AMC as one of my options, what savings will I see WITHOUT AMC as one of my options.” Switch to DirectTV. Tell them I sent you and we will both save $100.

wz42

Dish has every right to not carry these channels but they have a lot of nerve slagging AMC by saying they want a distro monopoly on content.

People who buy the shows on iTunes instead of subbing aren't going to be your customers ever. We've figured of the subscription TV scam

Navinabob

The one point DISH has is that AMC does seem to be double (or triple) dipping. AMC already increased their advertising rates for their monster shows so demanding a much higher flat fee from DISH is pretty greedy. AMC needs to decide if they want to be an advertising based network like TNT or a subscriber based one like Encore; demanding they be both is unheard of.

Regardless of that, just go DirectTV. It is such a step up in most every way that you'll kick yourself for not switching sooner.

AVP77

I don't subscribe to any kind of tv service, but I don't have a problem with a provider like Dish dropping a company's channels if the price is too high. Are they supposed to pay any price at all to keep them? Other than a few original shows, produced in very limited numbers of episodes, most of the time AMC shows mediocre crap.

Does make me wonder what the future of broadcast tv is (both OTA and cable/satellite). I know a big number of people don't want to hook up their PC to their tv, but that population will probably slowly die off.

Geofferson

I moved last week and I toyed with the idea of switching providers from Dish to DTV. I'm frustrated with the Dish/AMC dispute (like everyone else) so the obvious answer is to jump ship. However, after doing the math and speaking with DTV over the phone, they ended up being more expensive by about $20/mo for an equivalent programming package.

From what I understand, Dish operates on fairly tight margins and as a result, does a pretty decent job of keeping their prices low for consumers. This, plus the fact that I think their DVR's are superior to DTV's is what made me stay with them. After all, the reality is that this programming dispute isn't the first -- nor will it be the last -- with our providers. I believe DTV is going through a similar dispute with other channels. An unfortunate part of today's media industry.

WallyOPD

How is that unheard of? ESPN extorts exorbitant subscriber fees from cable and satellite, and also rake in the money on advertising. Viacom just went through the same thing with DirecTV, and they certainly try to maximize their ad rates as well. Actually, what cable channels don't try to maximize both their subscriber fees and their ad rates?

Josh-da-man

ESPN should be offered as a premium pay channel like HBO if they're driving up our cable bills that much.

kefrank

I think the point is AMC has a very small number of popular shows, so it makes sense for them to maximize the ad rates for those shows. However, on the whole they don't have the wide swath of valuable programming that a channel like ESPN has, so also upping their subscriber fees isn't justified. And it's even less justified when the few shows they have that truly do have worth are made available as downloads to anyone that wants to pay for them.