AMC is being Dropped (by Dish in U.S.)

[thenewdc]

I found this story quite interesting. Apparently over some legal dispute, DISH Network is dropping AMC and a few AMC owned channels from its lineup in June. The other channels listed being dropped are IFC, Sundance and WeTV

[madhi19]

It happen about once or twice a year in the US some channels owner demand more so they have a shoving match with a carrier . It call competition and open market off course in Canada we never heard of that!

[Jase88]

Actually, specialty channel "negotiations" occur in Canada all of the time with BDU's. Just ask anyone trying to get SUN News on Bell a while ago...or Sportsnet One in 2010 when it launched on carriers other than Rogers.

[Dr.Dave]

Here's the Ad Age article:

http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/...ed-amc/234606/

[billpaidJr]

One obvious difference being that the channels are not owned by the competing bdu

[gmd]

Channels being dropped in Canada after failed negotiations?

- TFO on Shaw Direct (back as of Aug. 31, 2011 as it is now mandatory)
- Planète on Bell
- RFO on Bell
- HDNet on Bell
- SunTV (now back in a different package)

The list goes on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bell_TV_channels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...irect_channels

[ScaryBob]

In Canada, it's more common for BDUs to refuse carriage up front. It took years before Bell agreed to carry AMC and TCM. Then they bundled it with TMN, something that no other BDU does. The list of stations not carried by BDUs due to disputes is a long one, on both sides of the border. Charley Ergen is a special case though. He owns Dish Network as well as EchoStar, which develops and supplies equipment for Dish and Bell. He has also purchased bankrupted companies like Blockbuster and Voom (which may have led to the current legal dispute with AMC.) He was also sued by Tivo (and lost) for allegedly infringing Tivo patents.

Mr. Ergen said that Dish subscribers, who skew more rural, don't want to pay more money for cable and that AMC's ratings have "very, very, very low viewership."

I've heard similar statements when other BDUs dropped or refused to carry channels. It's almost always about carriage terms and money, not popularity among subscribers. It is sometimes also about politics or legal disputes. Charley Ergen claims he wants to provide more flexibility and lower cost. I've heard that before, usually just after a BDU dropped channels, reduced subscribers choices and raised prices. Dish's TV packages appear to be less flexible than those of Canadian BDUs.

[audacity]

Well, when you see all the money that BDUs make, there is obviously a significant profit margin there that the content providers want a larger piece of.

Personally I think that as broadband internet becomes more ubiquitous it decreases the value that BDUs bring to the table (i.e. proprietary video delivery networks don't matter anymore) and content providers will be able to "go direct" to their consumers and cut out the middle man.

Removing middle men is ultimately a good thing for customers and content providers.

[thenewdc]

Personally I hate content providers being content owners. This is where you get situations like Bell and Rogers not carrying each others channels because of greed, and the only losers are the subscribers not having the choice they really want.

[audacity]

Personally I hate content providers being content owners.

The Canadian BDUs own very little of their "prime time" content. CTV (Bell), CityTV (Rogers) and Global (Shaw) are mostly rebroadcasting content that they license from American content owners.

When the internet allows content owners to "go direct", companies like CTV, CityTV and Global are much more exposed that companies like CBC that actually generate a lot of the content they broadcast.

[madhi19]

Originally Posted by audacity

The Canadian BDUs own very little of their "prime time" content. CTV (Bell), CityTV (Rogers) and Global (Shaw) are mostly rebroadcasting content that they license from American content owners.

When the internet allows content owners to "go direct", companies like CTV, CityTV and Global are much more exposed that companies like CBC that actually generate a lot of the content they broadcast.

I been wondering for a while why the American are playing balls with this cute little Canadian middle man scam. Back in the day before the Internet sure but now if am a big American network I would not sell the Canadian rights to these leeches I just start my own Netflix or make a deal with Netflix, Youtube or Hulu. Especially since I can't own more than 20% of any Canadian digital channel/network, I can't even sell my own channels and to top it all off the whole Canadian industry is build on the back of my content.

[audacity]

Oh, I think that was because in the past there were legal restrictions that prevented American companies from setting up OTA rebroadcasting towers in Canada.

With the Internet these sorts of legal problems are gone as demonstrated by YouTube. And the Canadian Government (especially a right-wing government) will not stand in the way of the public who want their Internet-based streaming media.

Of course, NBC, CBS, Fox, etc. all currently have a revenue stream where they get a smaller slice of a (currently still larger) pie by licensing their content to companies like CTV, Global, etc. The thing is as more people are able to access streaming video there is no reason for them not to directly serve the customers who want their content, and sell the local advertising themselves.

Selling rights to a company like Netflix might be a interim solution, but really they'd still just be "taking a cut". Ultimately what they'd want to do is get 100% of the advertising revenue (if ad-based) or 70%-100% if they sell the content direct through services like iTunes that use "agency model" pricing.

Canadian TV networks will need to figure out some value proposition other than "we rebroadcast other peoples content". I'd recommend creating their own high-quality content and sell it worldwide!

[ScaryBob]

It's all about money. US networks make more of it by selling rights to Canadian broadcasters and so do the Canadian broadcasters. There isn't much money to be made by streaming through Netflix, especially when all the advertising in US aired shows is US based. Netflix has seen some content removed as copyright owners move to a model that does more to protect existing revenue streams such as BDU subscriber payments and DVD/PPV sales.

[audacity]

But that is my point. The American content owners would make more money if they sold the advertising themselves and streamed the content to Canadian viewers directly.

[madhi19]

Originally Posted by audacity

But that is my point. The American content owners would make more money if they sold the advertising themselves and streamed the content to Canadian viewers directly.

Short term ScaryBob is right but long term I believe the US content makers will be better serve to have one pipe for the whole North American Continent. Instead of letting a bunch of middle man re-broadcaster selling cheap local advertisement to "Bob and Tom pay here, drive here auto lot" you sell the adds to major advertisers on a national level. Way more eyeballs = way more cash and a lot less slices to share with peoples who had nothing to do with the content production in the first place.