Oh Look, TV Viewers About To Get Screwed Over In Another Fee Dispute

If you have Dish Network satellite service, we hope you don’t like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead or anything else on AMC, the Sundance Channel, IFC or WE TV. The company says it’s dropping all four channels when their contract ends June 30.

Dish says that — in spite of the three somewhat popular (and at least in the case of Breaking Bad, downright rad) shows mentioned above — the soon-to-be-dropped stations have overall “had significant declines in viewership,” and that if Dish subscriber want to watch those shows they can rent them for streaming on Amazon or iTunes, or wait until they’re streaming for free on Netflix.

The Wall Street Journal says AMC is laying some of the blame on a recent setback in an ancient lawsuit having something to do with the long-since-vanished VOOM networks.

But Dish says, “Our decision to drop AMC Networks’ channels is solely dependent on their high renewal cost when compared to their low viewership.”

Dish seems somewhat resolute in its decision to pull the plug on these channels, but it’s possible this is all a negotiating ploy. Regardless, in the end it’s the customers who get screwed.

If Dish does axe these networks, then customers are paying for channels they aren’t receiving. And if the two parties do resolve their differences, it will inevitably result in higher bills for Dish customers.

And newer Dish customers are doubly screwed, as they are most likely locked into a contract for up to another couple years and their agreement with Dish no doubt states that a change in the channel lineup is not sufficient to cancel service without an early termination fee.

Dish Network to Drop AMC Channels [WSJ]


Edit Your Comment

  1. Whiskey_Tango_Foxtrot says:

    Curse you Dish Network I just re-upped to so I could get the Hopper!!!!!!!!!! AMC is one of my FAVORITE channels.

    • vastrightwing says:

      Here’s the irony. I called Dish a few weeks ago about getting AMC specifically, but I had to get it in a bundle. I opted to find Mad Men using a “different” technique torrent. It’s impossible to stream this show on AMC and I’m not going to pay over $30/month just so I can watch this one show. Yea, so go ahead and drop the channel. I’m past caring.

      • bigTrue says:

        You just explained why I haven’t paid for cable in over 5 years. I watch very little tv, most of which are the three big AMC shows (Mad Men, Walking Dead, Breaking Bad) and then a couple random shows on other channels. As soon as they let me pay 5-10 bucks a month to get only 2-3 channels, and nothing else, I’ll buy cable. Until then, torrentz.com, a 12mg download speed connection and over a TB of HD space works perfectly. Add in a 42in flatscreen and 15 ft HDMI cable that reaches to the couch and hot-diggity-dog, who needs to pay for cable I don’t want or need?

        Unless you really like live sports (I have no interest) or the weird shows that are hard to find online (only thing I had a little trouble was “Doomsday Preppers”, but after the first episode it got really lame anyway imho) there is not reason to overpay for cable just to make the company happy.

      • zippy says:

        The solution is to pressure the cable companies to go to a la carte pricing. You pay only for the channels you want to get, if the content providers raise prices, the cable customer directly pays more, and they can decide if the higher price is worth the content.

        • BeamMeUp says:

          Ala carte was indeed the case for us old folks who had the big 10′ moving dishes in our backyard. We picked what we wanted channel by channel and paid for only those we wanted.

  2. Daggertrout says:

    Oh, boy. Here we go again. I’m sick of those annual pissing contests.

    • spamtasticus says:

      And they wonder why http://www.piratebay.org has sooo many fans. We are sick and tired of being jerked around and gouged. Let us pay for just the channels we want to see or I assure you that no secret international “trade” agreement (ACTA) or draconian bill (CISPA) will keep people from getting what they want without being screwed by the RIAA or MPAA and their masters.

  3. Shappie says:

    Don’t Mad Men and The Walking Dead have some of the highest ratings? I don’t get the declining viewership comment (if they indeed to have high ratings…)

    • fatediesel says:

      Mad Men’s ratings are good by cable standards, but The Walking Dead’s ratings are huge, with the season 2 finale getting the biggest ratings for a cable drama in history. If they don’t get this resolved by the time The Walking Dead returns (which I assume will be in October) then they’re going to have a lot of pissed off customers.

    • Citizen says:

      I think Mad Men is averaging around 2.5 -2.75 million people this season, I know the premier was about 3.5 million people, but as a whole AMC is not in the top 25 for overall ratings. In the 18-49 demographic it is a bit better coming in at 25 place. The average viewership is around 300,000 people at any given time 18-49. ESPN leads both demographics averaging 2.6 million overall and 1.5 million 18-49.

      • Citizen says:

        Last week Mad Men had 2.3 million viewers, Old repeat of L&O SVU on USA at the same time 2.5 million viewers.

        • clippy2.0 says:

          I blame the viewers. People don’t watch things for plot and content, they want sex, cheap laughs, and the thrills of seeing people makes asses of themselves. This is how good shows like firefly die :-(

      • JJFIII says:

        Last week Bill O Reilly had a .3 rating int he 18-49 demographic. Yet I still see Fox Noise on Dish. This is NOT a ratings issue. Anybody who believes that, I have some land in southern Florida available for sale.

        • SlickNick says:

          First off cliched cliche is cliche. Second, the point of a comment like that is supposed to be that you have something for sale that is obviously not for sale, the main example usually being the Brooklyn Bridge or some other sort of bridge that is OBVIOUSLY not for sale. Land in southern florida is actually something that, yes, you could have for sale. You don’t but you could.

        • Snowblind says:

          Well, it would depend on how much Fox News costs to carry, wouldn’t it?

          And true, Bill does not draw as much as Breaking Badly, but he is also on 5 days a week, and his cumulative ratings would be higher. And he does draw more than any other cable news commentator. No, Bill is not a newsman, ala Murrow or Cronkite, he is a commentator with a view point… and he freely admits it.

          I would also hazard a guess that the FOX News comes bundled with other Fox programming that does well.

          As for the other news carriers like HNN and CNN, well, I hope they are free, because their ratings stink, 10% and 20% of FNN respectively.

          But then… they too are bundled with the rest of Turner broadcasting I am sure.

          • gttim says:

            “And he does draw more than any other cable news commentator.”

            Isn’t that like saying he is the fastest, left-handed runner, in a suit, at the Special Olympics? WWE draws more viewers.

        • OmnipotentMLE says:

          There was an article in Rolling Stone about Fox News. They apparently paid the cable companies to add them to their lineup.

    • blueman says:

      Those few shows get high ratings, but most of AMC’s programming is crap and gets little viewership.

  4. gman863 says:

    “…if Dish subscriber want to watch those shows they can rent them for streaming on Amazon or iTunes, or wait until they’re streaming for free on Netflix.”

    The people at Kabletown and DirecTV are getting a moist, tingly feeling in their naughty parts even as we speak…

  5. Blueskylaw says:

    “AMC is laying some of the blame”

    So AMC gets most of the blame, but is laying some of it off on someone else?

  6. Costner says:

    I won’t miss those channels, and if history serves once they are gone Dish will just shift a few channels around to make up for it. Maybe I can finally get teh DIY network without having to upgrade to the next package.

    That said, my contract is up in November at which point it will be Amazon Prime and Netflix for me coupled with an off-air antenna for the local channels that I rarely bother to watch. I already use Netflix for well over half of my TV viewing, and I already do a lot of shopping on Amazon so Prime membership would serve me well on multiple fronts.

    Cable and satellite services just don’t seem to have the appeal they once did, and they are surely not worth the $60 to $80 a month they expect to charge for a moderate channel lineup.

    • BradC says:

      I dropped my cable TV a month ago and have not even missed it enough to hook up the antenna yet. I do still get a good bit off the internet though, so the people who have satellite TV and no access to broadband are going to get the shaft on this one.

    • missy070203 says:

      I get DIY and I love it

  7. Coffee says:

    As a Netflix subscriber who enjoys shows like Breaking Bad and Mad Men, I’ve thought a lot about the relative burden that cable and Netflix subscribers are shouldering when it comes to this kind of programming. Cable recipients pay more to get the programming, and the programming is further supported by advertising revenue. In contrast, Netflix subscribers pay a nominal fee and watch no ads.

    So what happens when everyone drops cable, leaving AMC to fund programming solely based on the income from Netflix? How much will Netflix subscribers have to pay then? I know this is something of a false dichotomy, as both distribution channels will likely continue to exist in the short term, but it merits consideration.

    • frank64 says:

      I don’t think what Netflix pays is nominal. It is pretty big. Then not all subscribers watch it.

    • damicatz says:

      Traditional television networks are doomed to go the way of the dodo.

      They are the bloated old guard filled with endless commercials (more so than programming it seems today), rehashed cliches and just general junk.

      In the future, everything will be via the internet. Netflix already understands this which is why they’ve started funding their own original programming (Lilyhammer). Soon, everything will be just streamed over the internet either via a pay as you go model (ala Amazon Video, iTunes) or with less intrusive advertisements (ala Hulu). People will able to spend money only on what they want to watch and they will be able to watch what they want on their own schedule.

      There is no room in the future for bloated networks and pompous television executives that ruin good TV shows because all they can see are dollar signs.

      • liz.lemonade says:

        And if that happens, expect to see far less programming than you do now. TV shows cost money — lots of it. An average hourlong drama could easily cost $2-3 million for one episode. Even at a fairly low per-episode rate that the market would bear, they’d still be lucky to break even on the cost of producing a series. Yeah, the current system sucks, and I don’t have any good ideas for how to fix it. But until people are willing to pony up, say, $5 per week to watch just five shows (and many people regularly watch more than that), the TV production system is going to stay as it is.

        • My lawyer made me change my screen name says:

          Oh I see. So it is our fault that these things cost so much to produce. I’m sorry. I’ll do better.

          On a more serious note, it’s not our fault they feel the need to dump multi-millions into shit programming. I’d rather watch original YouTube content that cost a small fraction to produce. See the beauty is that networks and program distributors, producers and the like will either fold or adapt when we vote with our wallets. Only difference now is Dish Network is doing most of the voting for us at this point.

          • frodolives35 says:

            When will the bloated Hollywood bubble burst?

            • SavijMuhdrox says:


              It has to, as channels like SyFy continue to fund more and more reality tv shows and the worst Sci-Fi movies simply because they are cheap to produce. Instead of investing money to make better shows and grow the product.. they are doing the opposite, shrinking their brand. You don’t increase profit by reducing quality and expect such a business model to last..

    • aleck says:

      I would pay double or triple of what Netflix charges now to watch a couple quality shows rather than $80 a month to subsidize the garbage networks produce now. Let the true market dictate which shows survive and which die. Online on-demand content is the way of the future.

  8. alexwade says:

    AMC = And More Commercials. AMC, like most of the other TV stations pack in more commercials per hour than ever before. Many of them are for other shows on the channel. But what really makes me mad is after showing an ad for another show, they will show an ad for another show during the program! And then because they run so many commercials, they will start the next program while showing the credits for the previous program.

    • KyBash says:

      That’s what makes me thankful that Time-Warner has been a real stand-up company as far as leaving TCM commercial-free! (Okay, there are commercials, but they’re between the movies where they don’t really count.)

      • nybiker says:

        If there’s one channel I miss from my Directv package, it would be TCM. It’s a good thing I have netflix so I can watch those classics (in the true sense of the word, as opposed to what AMC now puts out there; remember, AMC used to mean American Movie Classics. It became dead to me once they added ads).

    • scoosdad says:

      I agree with you. I switched to AMC to watch something the other night, then went off in search of something else when the commercial break that was already in progress when I tuned in went over 5 minutes. It’s getting to be that as you surf, out of ten channels, eight will be in a commercial break at any given time. And yet we pay to watch these?

      • rugman11 says:

        It seems like several of their shows (Mad Men especially I’ve noticed) have started running super-long openings. It’s not that they have more commercials (they actually have less commercial time than your average network show) but when they’re running 10, 15, or even 20 minutes before the first commercial, it means they’re fitting those 15-20 minutes worth of commercials into 40 or 45 minutes instead of 60.

      • Whtthfgg says:

        DVR dood DVR…..I NEVER watch anything live…..too much of a waste of my viewing time to not be able to skip

        • nybiker says:

          I’m old school. I have a VCR and do the same thing. Hell, the OTA antenna is connected to a rinky-dinky vcr in my bedroom and I use a small screen tv just so I can determine the channel with the digital decoder. Once recorded, I bring the tape downstairs to my 42″ plasma tv to watch and fast-forward through the 3-, 4-, & 5-minute commercial breaks.
          Watching tv nowadays makes me long for the days before 1978 when the ad time in prime time was fixed to something like 5 minutes per 30 minutes.
          I’ve become so conditioned to despise ads that I can’t sit through a 15- or 30-second ad on a website. Even ads on the online shows at abc or cbs annoy me, even though they are ‘only’ 60-90 seconds. It’s just a reflex to mute my speakers and check my email while the ads play.

    • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

      I stopped keeping it locked on IFC when they started pulling in movies I could watch anywhere and threw in crappy “original” content. When they added commercials I just never have any reason to watch.

  9. Awesome McAwesomeness says:

    This is why I stream Netflix and Hulu plus. I see all of the shows I want. Maybe they are a season late, but who cares. I’m not a two-year-old. I can deal with delayed gratification.

  10. phobos512 says:

    Well, I am a Dish customer, but I’m out of contract, AND I don’t watch any of the shows in question, so, pfft. This kind of thing does suck though – can’t believe it happens as often as it does.

    • vastrightwing says:

      Yes, it all has to do with greed. Retransmission rights. Come on, you have advertisers making you rich already, you honestly need to stick it to the consumers too? Silly question, why YES!

  11. Goatweed says:

    this is why people would rather drop tv packages, get high-speed internet and either stream or “acquire” shows. it’s beyond ridiculous.

  12. zandar says:

    “hey can rent them for streaming on Amazon or iTunes, or wait until they’re streaming for free on Netflix.”

    This is really Dish’s sentiments? Surely they are familiar with the concept of the self-fulfilling prophesy?

    • Bradmac says:

      And who’s getting this “free” Netflix? Am I the only one who has to pay for Netflix?

  13. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    Good. AMC can go streaming-only route and be the first netowork to adopt what will be the inevitable change in cable and satellite monopolies.

    • YouDidWhatNow? says:

      …except for the ~20% of Americans who live in rural areas with no access to any real broadband internet with which to stream anything.

      Deciding that you’re just not going to market to a fifth of your potential audience at all is pretty stupid. They need to stay on satellite to even make an attempt for that huge chunk of the market.

  14. Malik says:

    “If Dish does axe these networks, then customers are paying for channels they aren’t receiving.”

    These are commercial channels, not premium channels.

    In other words, people are NOT paying for those channels specifically, They are paying for the basic lineup which may or may not carry them, so the carrier can drop them at will. Carriers are under no obligation to carry specific channels, they will only do so if the viewership is high enough to justify it.

    Premium channels are different (HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc). You ARE paying extra for those specific channels, so if they are dropped, your bill goes down. But basic channels, you are on your own

    • Southern says:

      I disagree. Doesn’t mean I’m right, but I disagree. :)

      Dish Network has to pay AMC a certain amount for their channel; we’ll call it $1.00 a month for simplicity.

      If I’m paying Dish Network $99 a month for my subscription, $1.00 of my $99 is going to AMC to pay for that programming (whether I watch it or not).

      If Dish drops those channels, but my subscription cost remains $99 a month, then I am in effect paying for channels I’m no longer receiving, and Dish lines their pocket with my $1.00.

      Now that’s not to say this isn’t legal for them to do so, especially since they have a contract I signed saying I agree to them being able to do this (change the lineup at any time).

    • JJFIII says:

      BUT, if I signed a contract based on specific channels this would be a change in the terms of my contract. I am paying for X, but now receiving X-Y. I am not familiar with the Dish contract, and as a LONG time DirectV customer have never had a long term contract with them, but the contract would need to state that they reserve the right to change channels, or they have breached the contract and you can say it a material breach and end it.

  15. KyBash says:

    It’s my opinion that the industry should adopt one simple rule: if you show commercials, your revenue comes from those commercials. If you don’t show commercials, you can charge a carriage fee.

    Making people pay to watch commercials is just plain wrong!

    • rdclark says:

      So under your plan I could start a cable company and as long as I only carry channels with commercials I’d never have to pay for the programming I sell. Great plan, where do I sign up?

      • KyBash says:

        If I were in charge (and you should all be very grateful I’m not!), the channels which are all commercials (the shopping channels, some ‘religion’ channels, and CNN) would have to pay to be carried, so you’d be in the black before you signed your first customer!

    • vastrightwing says:

      No, because no matter how badly consumers are treated they continue to shell out cash. Look at Comcast, EA, AT&T, banks, etc. Consumers are open wallets just waiting for the money to be taken. Sure they all whine and complain, but keep paying every month. Untill the money stops flowing, nothing will change.

  16. adent1066 says:

    Dish is notorious for long feuds with content providers. I believe since YES (Yankees) started in 2002, DISH has still to this day not worked out a contract for New York viewers

  17. winstonthorne says:

    Yo ho, ahoy, and avast, me hearties.

    Which format lets me watch any show I want regardless of corporate hissy fits like this one within a day of its original airing on any device I choose without commercial breaks? Hmmm…

    I would gladly pay for a legitimate way to do the above; it’s just not here yet. Netflix, Amazon, and Itunes aren’t fast enough, and Hulu plus is full of commercials (!) and has a shite selection.

    • Fast Eddie Eats Bagels says:

      Come join the Matrix on the NZB side of the world. :)

    • theblackdog says:

      Aren’t fast enough? Amazon gets new Mad Men episodes by the Monday morning after they air. I would say that’s pretty darn fast for having to wait until the West Coast has seen it broadcast.

      • pot_roast says:

        Studios want to delay it even further.

        If anything is causing piracy, it’s the complete sheer brain dead idiocy of the MORONS that run them.

  18. JohnDeere says:

    lol, this is a mistake.. amc is moving up in the world, the walking dead and hell on wheels are 2 of the best shows on tv probably in the top 3 right behind game of thrones.

  19. tz says:

    Make them a pay-per-view.

    Dish is a buffet, there are lots of choices, but what they are can change. But they don’t have kung pao beef today isn’t a reason for a refund unless it was advertised as being available. They aren’t paying for specific channels.

    For me, I have no cable or satellite. I don’t do much, but what I do I can do on the internet.

    • vastrightwing says:

      But would you go to a buffet where they only had one dish you liked, subject to change?

  20. dolemite says:

    Ok, so when they drop all those channels due to rising fees, that means all Dish customers will be seeing a nice drop in their bill, right?

  21. balderdashed says:

    I’m reasonably loyal to DISH, as I despite Comcast, and Dish has been getting over $130 per month from me for years. But if AMC HD is gone, Dish can kiss goodbye to more than $1560 per year from this customer.

  22. Onesnap says:

    RCN cable since 1998. DirectTV at my other house.

    That is all.

  23. britswim04 says:

    And this is why I bought the current season of Mad Men on my Apple TV.

  24. Mambru says:

    LAst time I check I pay fro netflix, why is it free?

    • Greyfox2401 says:

      I assume he means that if you buy the season next year it’s gonna be at least 30-40 bucks for the DVDs or blu rays, where as Netflix will be 8 bucks to watch that and the Walking Dead and whatever else.

  25. Mighty914 says:

    Glad I came to the party late on Breaking Bad. I’m still in Season 3 on Netflix. But my word, is it a great show!

  26. gman863 says:

    Yet another argument for a government mandate forcing cable and satellite providers to dump packages in favor of “a la carte” channel choiced.

  27. Senator says:

    Dish will be gone from my home by June 30.

  28. Donathius says:

    Today I learned that I have AMC on my Dish Network subscription.

  29. HomerSimpson says:

    Others say this is about a lawsuit Dish lost against AMC’s parent company and not really about ratings at all.

  30. missy070203 says:

    these channels already dissapeared from my dish line up—- happens all the time since i added extra sports channels when they disappear and i call they tell me it never belonged in my package and when i ask what package i have they say it’s custom—- i guess that means i get what channels they feel like giving me at any given time

  31. rockelscorcho says:

    eztv.it that is all.

  32. nickmoss says:

    Impredator at $18/Year and Pirate Bay torrents get you all commercial free the next morning.

  33. pythonspam says:

    Does a TV provider dropping channels due to cost disputes constitute a ‘Materially Adverse Change of Contract’?
    If they use channels to sell you on a package or certain tiers of service and then not offer them, can you get out ETF-free (or do they have language imbedded in the terms that lets them change the channel lineup at will?)

    • Stickdude says:

      You could, you know, read their terms of service for yourself…

      I. Changes in Services Offered. We may add, delete, rearrange and/or change any and all programming, programming packages and other Services that we offer, as well as the prices and fees related to such programming, programming packages and Services, at any time, including without limitation, during any term commitment period to which you have agreed. If a change affects you, we will notify you of such change and its effective date. In the event that we delete, rearrange or change any programming, programming packages or other Services, we have no obligation to replace or supplement such programming, programming packages or other Services. You are not entitled to any refund because of a deletion, rearrangement or change of any programming, programming packages or other Services.

  34. Papa Midnight says:

    MR. WHITE!!!!!!!

  35. meniscus says:

    Americans need an open model for broadcasting technologies that will allow people to buy channels on a a-la-carte manner. That way, people will spend their money on what they want, and not spend money on what they don’t want.

    Cognitive radio and mesh networking could enable all users to be peers on a giant peer to per network, and we could eliminate the giant providers and their one way model…

    Everyone and eventually, every network-enabled thing would pass packets back and forth, pulling only what they use, sharing the same frequency band, like wifi. With IPv6 there are enough unique addresses to give every manufactured object its own network address and never duplicate.

    An infinite number of channels, and would save a lot of bandwidth which is currently wasted delivering channels that are never watched to viewers who never watch them.

    All that money is corporate welfare of the worst kind. Its better spent somewhere else.

  36. Extended-Warranty says:

    As much as everyone wants more options as far as programming, I’m probably the only one against it. Every time the market gets what they want (aka cheaper anything) then the end product ends up watered-down and many jobs are lost.

  37. somegraphx says:

    CRAP! We’re watching AMC right at this moment. And I hate Verizon but I guess need to move to FIOS or Direct TV.

    I JUST got a new DVR from Dish–time to catch up on the shows and cancel this account.

  38. gizmosprocket says:

    I appreciate Dish fighting the content providers to keep the costs down… that said, I think this is ugly.

    For those dish customers on Facebook, I suggest posting to https://www.facebook.com/DISH.Answers to let them know how you feel. This is the official Dish account on Facebook and they are usually pretty responsive.

  39. GTB says:

    This just in: Media and broadcasting companies turn additional people towards bittorrent.

  40. abucsfan says:

    if they’re anything like Direct TV the Dish has almost a thousand shopping & informercial channels. Hard to channel surf anymore without going past multiple Brazilian Bikini channels at any given time of day. I’m getting ready to go antenna and Hulu.

  41. noncomjd says:

    Bloated monthly costs for cable access. Bloated monthly charges for “premium” channels, and they wonder why piracy is rampant.

    Mad Men and Breaking Bad are good shows, but I don’t need them (the network or the shows) I can get them “elsewhere” if I want and there is literally a world full of alternatives.

    To hell with cable and their fees, self important networks and stars.

    Go Seedboxes. Go Indexing/hosting Sites. Go p2p and other transfer protocols.

  42. frodolives35 says:

    When will the bloated Hollywood/Media bubble burst?

  43. maxamus2 says:

    And they wonder why we use torrents….

  44. ianmac47 says:

    And this is yet another example of why Generation Y is dropping television services in favor of the internet.

  45. limbodog says:

    The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    We need more options than just TV and its small number of providers. If people start jumping ship for the tiny alternatives online, perhaps teh model will change.

  46. Clevelandchick says:

    That’s why I dropped that godforsaken service after a year…for half of that year I didn’t get half the channels I was paying for because of a fee dispute and it could be the clearest, least windy day of the year and it would go out..you’d call CS and they’d tell you it was the weather. It’s a sad day when I have to say I get better service from Time Warner.

  47. watcher says:

    Glad to see Dish is trying to hold the line on the ever increasing price increases from the content providers. Maybe when a few key/large content providers are yanked from services they will reconsider the annual price gouging.

  48. bizeesheri says:

    I dont get AMC now due to the package I subscribe. So I get the shows I like later either through netflix or other means. I like it better that way for 2 reasons: I dont have to wait a week, and I wait until a show actually passes through a whole season or 2 before I get interested. I got tired of mid season cancellations after wasting time on those shows.

  49. somegraphx says:

    I’m so torn! I really do love the Dish and HATE Verizon. But Verizon is offering a $10 deal for the same channels INCLUDING AMC. Oh I cannot live without the Walking Dead. Downside, Verizon’s basic service doesn’t cover the BBC. Oh the HUMANITY! What should I do!?

  50. kent909 says:

    I have been told by a representative of my cable company that they tried ala carte and it did not work. Did not go into details as to why. My guess is the cost is too high for individual channels. In that case the cable or sat company could make it a self fulfilling outcome. How about cable and sat companies offer both and let the customer decide. They get to keep their idea of how it works and the consumer can make theirs.

  51. Kaleey says:

    I’ll be missing AMC. (sad face)