dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
434
share rss forum feed


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.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

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.


aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
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.

bidger

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


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


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


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

1 recommendation

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.


elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
reply to bidger
Content creators = Oil cos
Telco/Cable cos = Railroads

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


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

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to cdru
they aint bad enough to pay for .....
wanders back off to the undernet


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

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.

So in otherwords, you'll pay whatever is asked so that you can see the last few episodes of Breaking Bad next summer...


aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
reply to cdru
said by cdru:

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.

I only care about Monday Night Footbal when the local team plays. And when that happens the ESPN feed is broadcast on a local station OTA in HD.
I really wish I could dump all the ESPn channels and drop my bill by several dollars. Then drop a bunch of the other sports channels too. Put them all on their own sports tier. That would be perfect. Then if anyone wants them they just subscribe to them. I don't have a choice since all those sports channels are included in plan I have.
ANd many of those channels are never watched or rarely watched by me. So for me they are the worst value.

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
reply to skeechan
said by skeechan:

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.

That's why cable companies need to start itemizing the cost per channel and advertise how bundling hurts customers in the long run.

The downside to this is when the cable companies raise rates to cover costs (labor, equipment, etc.) and can't blame it on the content companies.

megarock

join:2001-06-28
Catawissa, MO
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to skeechan
I think the providers should instead twice yearly send out a letter showing each channel and what those channels are costing the customer in terms of their monthly fee. When people realize some of the crappiest networks out there are why their bill is so high they may very well reconsider their stance. If these providers were to ever go a-la-carte there would be a ton of channels going off the air because no one would subscribe to them when they realize the individual costs of each channel.