dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-11-27 08:40:43: Yet another retransmission fee dispute has bubbled up from the pay TV business underbelly, this time impacting Verizon FiOS customers. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS

2 recommendations

Verizon should counter advertise...

...and show the amount of increases and the HORRIBLE ratings AMC actually gets; that this is why their cable bill is heading north of $100. Instead of AMC having customers call Verizon, Verizon should have customers call AMC and complain about the insane rate hikes. In the end, VZ should make AMC an premium and then we'll see how long AMC lasts when they try and get $10/mo from subscribers like HBO and SHO commands.

Outside of about 30-40 hours of decent programming a YEAR, AMC gets ZERO ratings. America's Most Commercials; so many you forget what you were watching.

Cable and Satellite operators should say no in unison and break the programming cabal but of course AMC would just whine to the Justice Department.

AndyDufresne
Premium
join:2010-10-30
Chanhassen, MN

contract end dates

AMC better be glad these contracts don't end around the same time or distributors are going to stick it to them next time around. Not sure who are worse, content owners or local tv stations with the bs retransmission fee.


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
Oh they make sure contracts never end at the same time..


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

reply to skeechan

Re: Verizon should counter advertise...

Here's the problem, whenever a TV provider takes a stand against higher rates (as customer supposedly want them to do ) those customers bail when they lose that programming. DishNetwork took a stand against AMC and lost a ton of customers. As I said the very same ones that complain about higher prices. Yet they leave Dish for another TV provider that was willing to pay AMC high fees. That is why it's pointless for TV providers to take a stand against them. Customers have no one to blame but themselves.


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

1 recommendation

reply to skeechan
said by skeechan:

Outside of about 30-40 hours of decent programming a YEAR, AMC gets ZERO ratings.

Good thing (for AMC that is) that Breaking Bad, Mad Men, and The Walking Dead are big enough that they have leverage.

Telco

join:2008-12-19
reply to skeechan
said by skeechan:

but of course AMC would just whine to the Justice Department.

Yet amazing how nobody has whined to the Justice Department, regarding these channels prohibiting online streaming service providers from entering the game - antitrust.

The fees being asked for the crap that's on TV is a joke anyway. My cable bill has gone up $20 this month and for what? To pay for the housewives, Jersey Shore, and ESPN.

The only way the consumer will ever win is if Google, Apple, and Microsoft team up and tackle them head on. Now more than ever is the time for cable packages, rather than this one fits all model.

Dodge
Premium
join:2002-11-27
reply to skeechan
I agree with making AMC a separate fee channel. They have 3 shows that are popular: Breaking Bad, Mad Men, and The Walking Dead. 40 minutes per episode x 12 episodes a year x 3 shows = 24 hours a year of programming that is worth anything. How is this even a negotiation at this point? Verizon can't do the same math and plaster it across the screen at all times with additional number of how much the bill will go up post-negotiations?

Telco

join:2008-12-19
I'm surprised that no cable company does this. As in telling their customers that, if we keep x channel, then you fees will increase by x to pay for it.


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1

Nothing new

Charter and WWLP-TV (my favorite newscasts) are fighting in a carriage dispute. Thankfully I have Comcast as they never have carraige disputes. Not to mention 22 News WWLP-TV is the local NBC affiliate.


aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
reply to Telco

Re: Verizon should counter advertise...

said by Telco:

I'm surprised that no cable company does this. As in telling their customers that, if we keep x channel, then you fees will increase by x to pay for it.

Because then they would see how much money they are wasting. Especially with many of the sports channels. ESPN is the worst offender there. I get my moneys worth from AMC which is supposedly around 23 cents a subscriber each month. While ESPN is several dollars a month for each subscriber. I watch AMC more than ESPN. My money is wasted on the ESPN channels, but a bargain for what I get from AMC.


hello123454
Premium
join:2002-02-02
Wilmington, DE
kudos:1

What's the difference?

I would love to know the difference between not getting the higher retrans rates and not being on Verizon networks at all...

Wouldn't AMC lose money if they decide to ditch Verizon? Indirectly and directly...

The other thing I don't understand is the justification for asking for higher rates? Why all of a sudden are they asking for this now. Is their programming top notch now?

Seems like one of those "just because they can they do"...

bidger

join:2009-12-23
Elmira, NY
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
reply to Telco

Re: Verizon should counter advertise...

said by Telco:

The only way the consumer will ever win is if Google, Apple, and Microsoft team up and tackle them head on. Now more than ever is the time for cable packages, rather than this one fits all model.

Right, because there's no way that they'll become part of the cartel.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
reply to hello123454

Re: What's the difference?

No they would not lose $$. They'd gain by those changing just to get AMC. It happened with Dish.

itguy05

join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

Take it away!

I'm on FIOS and I say take it away. Don't watch anything on AMC anyway as I don't want any more reality junk shows.


byeamcnow

@verizon.net

drop it PLEASE!!!

can i pay verizon to just drop this crap channel? there is nothing i watch on it. walking dead sucked after the 1st season.


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS
reply to cdru

Re: Verizon should counter advertise...

They're big until subscribers actually see a dollar value attached to it. Are they willing to pay $X for it? Better, should Verizon pay $X million for it? That is what Verizon should be asking their subscribers instead of letting AMC do all the talking. VZ should be telling customers that it is their skin in the game. VZ has no problem passing on rate increases.


kingdome74
Let's Go Orange
Premium
join:2002-03-27
Syracuse, NY
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

VZ A No Go

I could care less if they drop AMC. I download all my TV from different sources to A. bypass all the goddamn commercials and B. I can pick and choose which leads me to main point:

I've never understood why the providers haven't taken an ala carte approach. Surely technology at this point should make it feasible. My bet is they would make more money because of increased demand. Is there anyone who wouldn't want this?
--
Orange moved up to #6 and trounced Princeton. The football Orange cruised to a win over a feisty Temple and ended the season 7-5 winning our last 5 of 6. Let's go bowling!


tmh

@comcastbusiness.net

Meh

Cable's a waste of $100 every month. It's not like I'll die if I can't get it. I can wait one season to watch The Walking Dead on Netflix.

big_e

join:2011-03-05

If only Verizon/Comcast collusion could be put to good use

They got the green light from the justice department to form a cartel against the american consumer. Why not also use their combined leverage against the media companies when it comes to retransmission fees?


ViewerLikeU

@idsociety.org
reply to kingdome74

Re: VZ A No Go

Providers want to do a la carte. Programmers won't let them. They insist that providers take a bunch of channels in order to get the ones customers actually want. Congress let this happen in the 1992 Cable Act (which passed over a veto) and we've been paying the price ever since.


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
reply to skeechan

Re: Verizon should counter advertise...

said by skeechan:

They're big until subscribers actually see a dollar value attached to it.

Subscribers don't care about individual channel costs. If they do care, they care about the bottom line that they pay each month to the cable company.

Look at ESPN. It's the most expensive individual cable channel. People have demanded that it is in their cable package for one and only one reason really. Monday Night Football. And ESPN knows it. That's why they require ESPN to be in the basic package or no retransmission consent. If ESPN didn't have MNF, or previously Sunday Night Football it would have extremely little ability to demand the price it currently does to cable companies.

And it is only going to get worse for cable subscribers since ESPN is paying $470m a year for 12 years for the college football playoff games. And people will demand the channel even more because they have to see their college team possibly play. And they won't care about how much ESPN charges.

CrobertGauth

join:2007-12-15
Glen Burnie, MD
reply to kingdome74

Re: VZ A No Go

Couple of reasons content providers don't want a la carte:
1) By giving it to all, some people may find the channel that wouldn't other wise. Haven't you ever been channel surfing and stumbled upon a show you had never seen and started watching it.
2) How many people would really pay for what is costs to have the channel? Based on ratings, AMC might cost $2-$3/month if everyone that watches their highest rated shows subscribed. So would you pay $40/year for the 3 shows?
3) They can bundle lesser channels with the popular ones.


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to cdru

Re: Verizon should counter advertise...

It's isn't just that, but Disney forces MSOs to bundle crap channels along with ESPN, so you get ESPN6-3/8 which shows nothing but Poker and Australian Dick Wrestling 24/7 along with a bunch of other crap.


amarryat
Verizon FiOS

join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to cdru
said by cdru:

said by skeechan:

Outside of about 30-40 hours of decent programming a YEAR, AMC gets ZERO ratings.

Good thing (for AMC that is) that Breaking Bad, Mad Men, and The Walking Dead are big enough that they have leverage.

Mad Men isn't what it used to be, Breaking Bad ends for good after the next few episodes next summer, which leaves The Walking Dead as the only show I'm interested in on AMC.


amarryat
Verizon FiOS

join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Telco
said by Telco:

I'm surprised that no cable company does this. As in telling their customers that, if we keep x channel, then you fees will increase by x to pay for it.

That would be hilarious if they superimposed their own scroll over AMC's with info from Verizon's perspective.

Thatgeekinit

join:2002-05-01
Washington, DC

Another market failure

This would be less of an issue if we had real competition among Cable/Sat and broadband providers but since the government has allowed this monopoly/duopoly situation to keep getting worse, the FCC should be given the authority and should use the authority for mandatory binding arbitration in these retransmission disputes. Consumer advocates, not just the major industry players should have a strong seat at that table. I would argue that majority or near majority power in that arbitration board should be consumer advocates or at the very least technical and economic experts without direct ties to the Content (broadcasters, studios, sports leagues), Cable, Phone, Sat industries. Perhaps they ought to just use a random jury system. It might not provide expertise, but at least you could count on a jury not being made up of industry shills like the FCC usually is.
--
Just pretend for the purposes of argument that I know what I am talking about. Actually, you don't need to pretend because I do know what I am talking about.

romulusnr

join:2007-08-01
Federal Way, WA

When Mad Men eventually ends...

...will anyone give a fuck about getting AMC?


elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
reply to bidger

Re: Verizon should counter advertise...

Content creators = Oil cos
Telco/Cable cos = Railroads

its the same story yet no one does any thing this time


C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ

Wake me when...

the following happens:
•TV is properly a la carte, so that I only have to pay for the shows I care about. There is no reason to be having 500+ channels with junk on TV... period.
•Providers finally adopt and embrace a more open model that allows for cableCARDs and TV's and/or receivers with cableCARD slots, and for manufacturers to be incentivized to make TV's and receivers or other devices with integrated slots for these cards, so we can finally ditch these single-purpose and ultimately useless cable/sat set-top boxes, when we KNOW the box is basically just a power-sucking shell for the cableCARD that actually does all the work.
•either support for those wanting to build an HTPC, or make a fucking DVR that actually works. At least in this house, we've been through at least three or four TV providers, and all of their DVR's sucked ass. It was always a case of either crashing constantly, being very, very basic, or having too little storage and disabled expansion options to make it useful.

I know #1 will never happen, given the kind of cartels and mafia-style business tactics that these network providers use.

But certainly #2 would mean more possible flexibility. After all, if manufacturers today can make a 70" 3D-capable TV that is able to operate on $17 worth of electricity annually (according to energy star standard), then why the hell are we still putting up with pig-hungry boxes that now suck up more power to operate than both the TV and/or surround sound systems they're hooked up to. Even our high-powered gaming consoles, and the more infamously power-hungry launch models still use less power to operate than a typical set-top box, and do way more. And at this point, there's really no point to obfuscate it anymore - every single set-top box from every single TV provider basically is a glorified cableCARD tuner. The box is simply a dumb terminal for the card that actually does all the work.

If #2 can be done well, then at least that gives hope to resolving #3 with time.
--
Because, f*ck Sony


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to Telco

Re: Verizon should counter advertise...

said by Telco:

The only way the consumer will ever win is if Google, Apple, and Microsoft team up and tackle them head on. Now more than ever is the time for cable packages, rather than this one fits all model.

How's them getting involved changing anything? They can't show any content unless they have a deal with the content providers. You know the same ones that want to gouge PAY TV providers and limit online distribution.