Mad Men now!

[Denman_1]

Why is Mad Men available on U-verse in other sections of the country and not in Little Rock?  They need to add it now!

[schwilj]

Funny I have been wondering the same thing.  It's pretty stupid

[texasguy37 ACE - Expert]

---

theSchwill wrote:

Funny I have been wondering the same thing.  It's pretty stupid

---

Yes, stupid on the part of Rainbow Media.  Up until the new agreement entered into last week, Rainbow Media prevented AT&T from carrying AMC in your market.  Hopefully, the new agreement will change that.  Let's see what develops in the coming weeks.

[dhascall ACE - Master]

---

Denman wrote:

Why is Mad Men available on U-verse in other sections of the country and not in Little Rock?  They need to add it now!

---

I would call Rainbow Media and ask them (212) 324-8500.

[mibrnsurg ACE - Master]

And Rainbow will tell them to run to their cable provider just like that website did during the negotiations.

Chris

_____________________________________________________________________

Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
Your Results May Vary, In My Humble Opinion
I Call It Like I See It, Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

[RCSMG ACE - Expert]

Its like watching a bull fight.  The bull charges the red cape thinking that is his enemy.   When in fact the matador is his true enemy.  But the matador directs the bulls attention to the cloth just like Rainbow Media directs people to UV.  RM is the problem not Uverse.

[kryptonite]

---

RCSMG wrote:

Its like watching a bull fight.  The bull charges the red cape thinking that is his enemy.   When in fact the matador is his true enemy.  But the matador directs the bulls attention to the cloth just like Rainbow Media directs people to UV.  RM is the problem not Uverse.

---

And we'll continue to see countless threads on the same exact subject.

Speaking of which, does anyone know why I can't get MLB Network on AT&T?  Maybe I should start a thread!

[RCSMG ACE - Expert]

[bedwards_1]

WHAT?!?!?! No MLB network!! GET IT NOWWWWWWWWWWW  

[RCSMG ACE - Expert]

I don't even watch baseball that much.  I want MLB Network, and I want it NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[Statmeister]

http://utalk.att.com/t5/TV-Programming/Now-Get-Serious/td-p/232968

Scroll down the topic regarding what MLB wants for providers to carry their network.

In my opinion MLB thinks people will line up like sheep to kiss their butts just to get their network.

[paul416]

---

Statmeister wrote:

http://utalk.att.com/t5/TV-Programming/Now-Get-Serious/td-p/232968

Scroll down the topic regarding what MLB wants for providers to carry their network.

In my opinion MLB thinks people will line up like sheep to kiss their butts just to get their network.

---

NO, just providers who are serious about providing the best and most diverse programming available to their subscibers

[HDFan]

It is certainly fair to blame Rainbow Media.  There is no question that programmers are charging outrageous pricing for their content.  And I love it when multichannel providers stand up to them and don't immediately bow down to their demands.

But remember just about every cable system in the nation carries this channel.  For AT&T to balk at the pricing and somehow it is okay for other cable companies and satellite providers -- it has to make you think.  I would understand more  if AT&T is holding back due to rates and they are the low cost provider - but they are not.  U-Verse is more than most cable operators and most cable operators are more than Dish Network.

I would understand if it was Dish in a dust-up disagreement over carriage, but not sure why AT&T is not paying for the channel like others.

[texasguy37 ACE - Expert]

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=18123&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=30954&mapcode=consumer

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Expert]

---

HDFan wrote:

For AT&T to balk at the pricing and somehow it is okay for other cable companies and satellite providers -- it has to make you think.

---

You're assuming that AT&T was offered the same price per customer that other cable services were.  The truth is that they were not -- Rainbow Media wanted AT&T to pay significantly more, and AT&T refused.

[paul416]

---

SomeJoe7777 wrote:

---

HDFan wrote:

For AT&T to balk at the pricing and somehow it is okay for other cable companies and satellite providers -- it has to make you think.

---

You're assuming that AT&T was offered the same price per customer that other cable services were.  The truth is that they were not -- Rainbow Media wanted AT&T to pay significantly more, and AT&T refused.

---

Econ 101. U-verse has around 2 million subs. DISH around 13, DirecTv 19, Comcast 23. Now, who do you think is going to get the best price?? The company that provides the most subs or the least. Or look at it this way. Does a ma& pa grocery pay the same price from a distributor for boxes of cereal as does Wal-Mart? Econ 101.

[HDFan]

---

paul416 wrote:

---

SomeJoe7777 wrote:

---

HDFan wrote:

For AT&T to balk at the pricing and somehow it is okay for other cable companies and satellite providers -- it has to make you think.

---

You're assuming that AT&T was offered the same price per customer that other cable services were.  The truth is that they were not -- Rainbow Media wanted AT&T to pay significantly more, and AT&T refused.

---

Econ 101. U-verse has around 2 million subs. DISH around 13, DirecTv 19, Comcast 23. Now, who do you think is going to get the best price?? The company that provides the most subs or the least. Or look at it this way. Does a ma& pa grocery pay the same price from a distributor for boxes of cereal as does Wal-Mart? Econ 101.

---

I certainly don't know what rate Rainbow was trying to get from AT&T.  I am sure it is more than other providers.  Two big reasons. 

1) As Paul pointed out, U-Verse has less customers than some other multichannel providers.  You definitely get a lower rate with more customers. 

2) Cable networks constantly ask for more money.  Their deals with different multichannel providers don't expire at the same time.  Once one is completed there are definitely not going to ask for less money the next time.  It is almost always turns out to be best financially for the multichannel provider to be the first adding a channel.

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Expert]

---

paul416 wrote:

Econ 101. U-verse has around 2 million subs. DISH around 13, DirecTv 19, Comcast 23. Now, who do you think is going to get the best price?? The company that provides the most subs or the least. Or look at it this way. Does a ma& pa grocery pay the same price from a distributor for boxes of cereal as does Wal-Mart? Econ 101.

---

No one needs an economics lesson here paul.  Everyone is aware of how volume discounts work.

I'm telling you what happened.  Rainbow wanted more money per subscriber than they demanded from cable networks.  You may very well think that's justified, but AT&T did not.  That is what happened.  If you believe AT&T should have paid the price and the price was fair, don't come tell me.  Go tell AT&T's negotiators.

Evidently AT&T knew something you don't, because Rainbow eventually aquiesced to a lower price (or more services, or both).  That was evident from the press release from AT&T which stated such.  Combine that with no press release at all from Rainbow and that adds up to an advantageous negotiation for AT&T.

[texasguy37 ACE - Expert]

If some members reason that AT&T U-verse should pay higher access fees to content providers because it has less subscribers than other TV providers, then the logic would hold that AT&T U-verse would have to charge higher fees to it's customers since it's cost per customer is higher.  The odd thing is that those pushing this logic expect AT&T to charge the customers less than what other providers charge.  The logic does not hold.

[paul416]

---

SomeJoe7777 wrote:

---

paul416 wrote:

Econ 101. U-verse has around 2 million subs. DISH around 13, DirecTv 19, Comcast 23. Now, who do you think is going to get the best price?? The company that provides the most subs or the least. Or look at it this way. Does a ma& pa grocery pay the same price from a distributor for boxes of cereal as does Wal-Mart? Econ 101.

---

No one needs an economics lesson here paul.  Everyone is aware of how volume discounts work.

I'm telling you what happened.  Rainbow wanted more money per subscriber than they demanded from cable networks.  You may very well think that's justified, but AT&T did not.  That is what happened.  If you believe AT&T should have paid the price and the price was fair, don't come tell me.  Go tell AT&T's negotiators.

Evidently AT&T knew something you don't, because Rainbow eventually aquiesced to a lower price (or more services, or both).  That was evident from the press release from AT&T which stated such.  Combine that with no press release at all from Rainbow and that adds up to an advantageous negotiation for AT&T.

---

All the facts are not know yet. Will AMC be avaiable for ATT subs in areas it wasn't before?? If not, then that isn't much of an advantage. Will ATT subs be getting AMC HD like Comcast?? Will ATT use this as an excuse to raise rates?? Time will tell.

[Dead_Terrorist]

Paul.. aren't you going to Comcast in August anyways? You may not be around "when time will tell" .. 

The only ones who know what the real truth is on the whole AT&T / Rainbow issue, are the folks who were sitting at the table and I don't think either side is going to post on here.  It's a long and storied history about this dispute and while part of it was about rates, other parts consisted (as Joe has mentioned) the refusal to grant AT&T the rights to carry the channels everywhere they offer UV.  We can all speculate, but until whatever happens happens, that is all we're doing is speculating.

I am just hoping the folks who have be "denied" their AMC, IFC and WE programming will get it soon so they will be on the same field as the rest of us.

(Then we can all complain about AMC HD )

[paul416]

---

Dead_Terrorist wrote:

Paul.. aren't you going to Comcast in August anyways? You may not be around "when time will tell" .. 

The only ones who know what the real truth is on the whole AT&T / Rainbow issue, are the folks who were sitting at the table and I don't think either side is going to post on here.  It's a long and storied history about this dispute and while part of it was about rates, other parts consisted (as Joe has mentioned) the refusal to grant AT&T the rights to carry the channels everywhere they offer UV.  We can all speculate, but until whatever happens happens, that is all we're doing is speculating.

I am just hoping the folks who have be "denied" their AMC, IFC and WE programming will get it soon so they will be on the same field as the rest of us.

(Then we can all complain about AMC HD )

---

Well I'll certainly pay attention to what is going on. I'm interested to see if  this gets ALL ATT subs AMC, IFC & WE and if ATT gets AMC HD. IF these things don't happen then ATT and their subs got jobbed.

[unhappybirthday]

I recall one poster stating that Rainbow Media had existing contracts in some markets that insured exclusivity. If this is the case, it may not just be a matter of how much AT&T is willing to pay. Some of these areas may not get these channels until the other contracts expire. My apologies if this information is not correct.

[Dead_Terrorist]

I would venture to say that no one will miss Mad Men's season premier based on the press releases. As far as HD, since UV doesn't offer that in any market, I would bet that may take longer as they have a tendency to add channels in bunches... 3-4 times a year as I recall.

One could opine that AT&T would have built out the 3 channels is all their markets eventually anticipating they would secure the rights to them. However, since they never have had the rights to the HD channels anywhere,  it wouldn't make sense to spend the money to build the channel until they secured the rights.  With that said, I would hope they get it added in one of those "bunches" pretty quickly .. or there'll be 1000 Mad Men HD threads...

[dhascall ACE - Master]

If the show is actually that good, why would Lionsgate offer it on a "moderately / mediocre" movie channel and not something like TNT, A&E, Bravo and so on?  You know a move could still hppen.  Project Runway's contract was broken and they moved it from Bravo to Lifetime (of course they had to pay Bravo).

[cheer]

---

dhascall wrote:

If the show is actually that good, why would Lionsgate offer it on a "moderately / mediocre" movie channel and not something like TNT, A&E, Bravo and so on?  You know a move could still hppen.  Project Runway's contract was broken and they moved it from Bravo to Lifetime (of course they had to pay Bravo).

---

Presumably because when they pitched the series in the first place, AMC was the channel that bought it.  Unless AMC cancels it and/or agrees to release it, I doubt Lionsgate could move it anywhere.  AMC is paying the bills.

[oufanindallas]

---

dhascall wrote:

If the show is actually that good, why would Lionsgate offer it on a "moderately / mediocre" movie channel and not something like TNT, A&E, Bravo and so on?  You know a move could still hppen.  Project Runway's contract was broken and they moved it from Bravo to Lifetime (of course they had to pay Bravo).

---

Haven't seen it, don't care to see so I wouldn't know about the quality.  Maybe when it was being pitched AMC was the only channel willing to take a chance on it since they didn't have any other programming worth watching.  It just happened to start a small, but fanatical following none the less.  To put it in perspective, last years season premier had 2.8 million viewers making it the highest ranked show in it's history (this is the start of the 4th season and until it was nominated for Emmys I hadn't even heard of it.). Reruns for NCIS had 10.2 million viewer the week of 12 July and on cable the 15th place show was WWE with 4.5 million views so it's not a very large audience.

[schwilj]

Sorry for all the complaints on the board from all of us who were afraid of not getting our Mad Men fix. I'm glad to report that I checked my guide and AMC is showing up on channel 795 in Arkansas! So the deal looks to have gone through. Go check your guide if you were previously missing AMC, it may be there now!

[RCSMG ACE - Expert]

Considering all of the posts of subs threatening to leave if UV didn't carry AMC, IFC, and WE, Mad Men in sd is better than no Mad Men at all.  I don't recall seeing any posts of people threatening to leave UV if Mad Men isn't presented on an hd channel.  Since the negotiations have been resolved.