Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

AMC Demands Pay Raise

Huntn

Huntn

macrumors Penryn
Original poster
May 5, 2008
25,182
28,287
The Misty Mountains
American Movie Channel is demanding close to a 50% rise in fees to cable provider Suddenlink in the Southern U.S. I don't know if other Cable providers are effected. The email I got from Suddenlink, asked me to contact AMC and ask them to be reasonable...

The owners of AMC Network want a near 50% increase over what they were paid last year, and a greater than 100% increase in annual payments by the end of their new proposed contract. Those demands are outrageous and unfair to Suddenlink customers.

We have asked AMC Networks to reconsider, but so far, they have refused, and have threatened to withdraw permission to carry their channels if we do not meet their demands. We will continue negotiating with them, in an effort to keep these channels at a reasonable price, and are willing to continue carrying AMC Networks while we negotiate.

In the meantime, please contact AMC Networks at (212) 324-8500 and ask them to be reasonable in their demands. You can send an email directly to their leaders at jwsapan@amcnetworks.com or jdolan@cablevision.com.

Cable channels owned by AMC Networks include AMC, IFC, Sundance, and WE tv. AMC is available in most areas on the Expanded Basic level of service. IFC, Sundance, and WE tv are available in many areas on one of Suddenlink’s incremental levels of service, commonly known as “Digital Tiers.”

For more information, visit suddenlinkfyi.com.
Thank you for your support and patience.
Click to expand...
 
That is a rather insane raise in payments. They are going after one and hope to make the others follow suit. Question is who will win.
 
Rodimus Prime said:
That is a rather insane raise in payments. They are going after one and hope to make the others follow suit. Question is who will win.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much money is Suddenlink is currently paying? Hmm. There are so many channels I don't watch, I've often wondered if an ala-cart would be a better way for cable companies to go?
 
After an extremely long dry spell on AMC, they've built and are building a formidable index of television programming. Namely, 'Mad Men' and 'The Walking Dead'. I don't blame AMC for asking for a 'pay raise'.

I'm on TWC and thus far I haven't heard anything about AMC asking TWC for a raise. If they do, I hope TWC coughs up the money as I'm eagerly waiting for the return of 'Mad Men'.
 
NathanMuir said:
After an extremely long dry spell on AMC, they've built and are building a formidable index of television programming. Namely, 'Mad Men' and 'The Walking Dead'. I don't blame AMC for asking for a 'pay raise'.

I'm on TWC and thus far I haven't heard anything about AMC asking TWC for a raise. If they do, I hope TWC coughs up the money as I'm eagerly waiting for the return of 'Mad Men'.
Click to expand...

And you (your avatar) looks kinda like a Mad Man. ;)
 
Huntn said:
I wonder how much money is Suddenlink is currently paying? Hmm. There are so many channels I don't watch, I've often wondered if an ala-cart would be a better way for cable companies to go?
Click to expand...
Ala-cart will never happen, the cable networks don't want to loose a large chunk of money that they can charge in a blanket agreement. The other argument is that the small channels would not survive. I would love to see it happen but I don't think the FCC has enough teeth to pass it.
 
rhett7660 said:
Love both shows, Mad Men and The Walking Dead. Not to mention Hell on Wheels. That show seriously rocks IMHO. Hope I still get em on my provider! Verizon Fios.
Click to expand...

Ah! How could I forget 'Hell on Wheels'!? I promised myself I would watch the first season if/when they renewed it for another season.
 
To try and put the numbers into perspective, ESPN adds $4.69 a month to every cable bill. The next highest amount is $1.16 for TNT.
 
rdowns said:
To try and put the numbers into perspective, ESPN adds $4.69 a month to every cable bill. The next highest amount is $1.16 for TNT.
Click to expand...

That's fascinating. I didn't know how that worked. I just looked up the list of fees per channel, and found out that I almost never watch any of the top ten most expensive channels. ESPN maybe twice a year, TNT pretty much never, Fox News only when I want to laugh...wow.
 
The sports networks are the one that really drive up the cable bill. Just look at the YES network that is owned by the Yankees. I think they charge like $2.50 per subscriber.
 
MacNut said:
Ala-cart will never happen, the cable networks don't want to loose a large chunk of money that they can charge in a blanket agreement. The other argument is that the small channels would not survive. I would love to see it happen but I don't think the FCC has enough teeth to pass it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, too bad. There is a lot I am forced to have, but never watch. :(

rdowns said:
To try and put the numbers into perspective, ESPN adds $4.69 a month to every cable bill. The next highest amount is $1.16 for TNT.
Click to expand...

So where is AMC I wonder? :)
 
MacNut said:
The sports networks are the one that really drive up the cable bill. Just look at the YES network that is owned by the Yankees. I think they charge like $2.50 per subscriber.
Click to expand...

Give this a read. Had some interesting figures.

Why Aren’t More People Cutting The Cord? Regional Sports Networks

That figure is less than the $2.99 per-subscriber average collected by the country’s top-earning regional sports channel, the YES Network, which last year took in revenue of $474.8 million.
Click to expand...


It also suggested the road these companies are headed down are unsustainable. The price for these channels are skyrocketing but consumers are less and less willing to pay, which could lead to some sort of a la carte model down the road. I'm hopeful, but skeptical.
 
Tilpots said:
Give this a read. Had some interesting figures.

Why Aren’t More People Cutting The Cord? Regional Sports Networks




It also suggested the road these companies are headed down are unsustainable. The price for these channels are skyrocketing but consumers are less and less willing to pay, which could lead to some sort of a la carte model down the road. I'm hopeful, but skeptical.
Click to expand...
Regional cable networks are the reason people don't cut the cord, sports networks know they have the cable ops by the nuts. People love sports and will go anywhere to get it no matter the price.

I am a Yankees fan and I want to see the games, this is where the teams have the advantage in owning their networks. They know the fans will go where the games are and they can force the cable providers hand. Now if we ever get to the point where sports networks will go internet I will cut the cord.

This is why the NFL is so powerful, they make a fortune off of broadcasters because they have a product everyone wants, so they set the market price.
 
MacNut said:
Now if we ever get to the point where sports networks will go internet I will cut the cord.
Click to expand...

All the Major Sports except the NFL are available online now. The biggest problem is local blackouts. I've found one group opposing the rules called Sports Fans. They're small but at least they're trying to make some noise.

What really pisses me off is that somebody in the UK can pay to watch any NFL game online they wish, while I can only watch what I'm shown. The relationship between the franchises and the cable providers and the regional networks are so lucrative it's gonna be near an impossible clique to break without federal intervention. The fans build the stadiums with tax dollars in a majority of cities but can't watch the game because it isn't sold out or it they're mobile and need to watch it online? BS.
 
Tilpots said:
All the Major Sports except the NFL are available online now. The biggest problem is local blackouts. I've found one group opposing the rules called Sports Fans. They're small but at least they're trying to make some noise.

What really pisses me off is that somebody in the UK can pay to watch any NFL game online they wish, while I can only watch what I'm shown. The relationship between the franchises and the cable providers and the regional networks are so lucrative it's gonna be near an impossible clique to break without federal intervention. The fans build the stadiums with tax dollars in a majority of cities but can't watch the game because it isn't sold out or it they're mobile and need to watch it online? BS.
Click to expand...
The local blackout issue is a problem, it really is a monopoly the teams have. This is what forces people to stay with cable. And the providers don't want you watching that over the internet as they don't want to loose the eyeballs on TV.

Cable companies cry foul when networks up their prices when it benefits them to appease to the subscribers but when I want to watch everything online they scream bloddy murder.
 
True a la carte cable would be fantastic, and likely the only way to get me to go back. With everything digital these days it's technically possible, limited only by the cable companies greed and contracts.

I no longer have cable, but when I had comcast, I generally only ever watched AMC, Food Network and MSNBC, yet it cost $80/month for the privilege of having nearly 100 other channels I had to skip over to get to what I wanted. 3 home shopping channels, 4 spanish channels, 2 religion channels, 2 or 3 versions of Lifetime, 2 golf channels and so forth. If I could have saved money on my bill by not receiving those channels, I would have been more than happy to pay a premium for AMC...it is one of the few channels producing great new non-reality content these days. Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, Mad Men...some of my favorites right there, and so well made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back