Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

WTF? Now FIOS (Verizon) is going to drop AMC?

What's the deal? And why is AMC always starting shit?

by Anonymousreply 1812/12/2012

If you knew even a tiny bit about how the business works, you'd know AMC is not in the wrong here.

by Anonymousreply 112/09/2012


by Anonymousreply 212/09/2012

R1, you're right, I have no clue. What does this happen?

by Anonymousreply 312/09/2012

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 Anonymousreply 412/09/2012

Verizon sucks balls.

by Anonymousreply 512/09/2012

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 Anonymousreply 612/09/2012

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 Anonymousreply 712/10/2012

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 Anonymousreply 812/11/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 912/11/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1012/11/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1112/11/2012

Feed me!

by Anonymousreply 1212/11/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1312/11/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1412/11/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1512/11/2012

Yes, it's the content providers that disable fast forward, not the service providers.

by Anonymousreply 1612/11/2012

Verizon and AMC have signed a deal.

by Anonymousreply 1712/12/2012

Good news R17. Seems like they reached a deal pretty quickly too.

by Anonymousreply 1812/12/2012
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!