What's the deal? And why is AMC always starting shit?
WTF? Now FIOS (Verizon) is going to drop AMC?
|by Anonymous||reply 18||12/12/2012|
If you knew even a tiny bit about how the business works, you'd know AMC is not in the wrong here.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||12/09/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 2||12/09/2012|
R1, you're right, I have no clue. What does this happen?
|by Anonymous||reply 3||12/09/2012|
These fights come down to the cost to carry AMC. Every provider wants it, because it's currently the home of the highest-rated (in the key demo) hourlong drama on television. (Plus, "Mad Men," which any network would kill for.)
The providers don't want to take the entire AMC portfolio (which includes IFC and other, lesser channels), or they want to pay less.
It's a power struggle, but it's the providers who are the bastards here, and that directly affects the price of your cable/dish bill (and/or the channels in your lineup).
|by Anonymous||reply 4||12/09/2012|
Verizon sucks balls.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||12/09/2012|
OP, the flip side of R4's argument is that basic cable companies, as they grow stronger thanks to ratings success, are trying to have their cake AND eat it too: in addition to keeping 100% of the revenue for all commercials aired, they ALSO want cable & satellite providers to pay for huge per-subscriber increases for the "privilege" of carrying the channel. In some cases the networks have demanded rate hikes of 500%! ESPN has been by far the most successful on this basis to date, and AMC ended up in a *very* nasty dispute with the Dish network earlier this year over their refusal to give in to de facto hostage-holding.
In reality, though, we're talking about two billion-dollar corporations that already make an absolute fuckton of profit trying to make even more of it; in the end these rate hikes are inevitably passed on to me and you, the end consumers.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||12/09/2012|
AMC schedules only 2 hours of good original programming each week. Granted, those are some very high caliber shows, but it's really just Sunday night that is original. The rest of the week is filled with reruns and non-original movies. And for me there are only 3 shows they broadcast that I enjoy, so that means only about 7 months out of a calendar year are they showing something I watch.
Is 2 hours a week really worth the boost in cost they want the cable companies to pay? I'm sure that's the question the providers weigh when arguing against the price hikes.
And the AMC package includes the WE channel, IFC and Sundance.
WE is comprised mostly of low-grade reality programming with some old movies and sitcom reruns.
IFC used to be a channel I valued highly. I started losing interest when they added commercial breaks and weren't always showing the fully widescreen version of movies. But now they've nearly completely altered their programming and it's rare to find an art house-type movie on the schedule. The Spongebob Squarepants Movie is on right now as an example of how mainstream they've gone. I'm so happy IFC is a place to go now for the hard-to-find independent Star Trek films.
Sundance has now also added commercial breaks and altered the level of movies they program, but not as severely as IFC.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||12/10/2012|
Riddle me this: why am I forced to watch commercials (fast forward disabled) for on-demand programming that I'm already paying for? Drives me nuts.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||12/11/2012|
[quote]Sundance has now also added commercial breaks and altered the level of movies they program, but not as severely as IFC.
On another thread I insisted this wasn't true but just saw it for myself yesterday. There was a commercial break an hour into a movie I had recorded. Just the one commercial, but I was still floored. I hereby apologize for doubting the poster on the other thread.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||12/11/2012|
Agree with OP.. No doubt cable and satellite companies are evil pigs, but AMC is always stirring up drama. They've had two successful series, maybe three and its completely gone to their heads. Their own greed is what lead to Mad Men disappearing for nearly two years. I never went back to it after that, just lost all interest.
They're the new kid on the block and think they're ABC or HBO. Somebody at AMC needs a reality check.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||12/11/2012|
I just saw this and it is causing me an unprecedented existential crisis. They have to resolve this before Mad Men and Breaking Bad.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||12/11/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 12||12/11/2012|
They can disable FFwd? How can they do that.
As for individual programmes, a lot of people consume shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad via streaming or buying/ renting a box set. Or via torrent or a season pass on iTunes. Broadcast isn't the only way to see them. Breaking Bad, esp., has made the industry reconsider the broadcast model.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||12/11/2012|
Yes, they can, R13. The Fox shows do this for sure. So, whereas it takes 22 minutes to watch The Daily Show, it takes 30 minutes to watch the Simpsons. Highly aggravating.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||12/11/2012|
And I should mention that I've had FIOS and Comcast and they both do it, so one presumes this is controlled by the content providers? It's bullshit either way.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||12/11/2012|
Yes, it's the content providers that disable fast forward, not the service providers.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||12/11/2012|
Verizon and AMC have signed a deal.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||12/12/2012|
Good news R17. Seems like they reached a deal pretty quickly too.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||12/12/2012|