How do you hide all of the new "Apps"?

[ATTAlexCM]

Thanks everyone for the great feedback on this topic.  As mentioned by the Community Leaders, we have engaged the appropriate group.  I will gladly update this thread with anything that can help.

Regards,

Alex

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

Thanks Alex! Looking forward to what you find out ...

[spd2demun ACE - Master]

That was me.   I was only suggesting that method as another option.

---

starsong2001 wrote:

I don't know how to quote someone here....  In response to the suggestion to "just use the zoom button"...

Zoom takes you to the menu, then you gotta click the down arrows to get to the Favorites guide. If it just opened it right up I'd be happy with that.  So it isn't the same thing.   Unless you know a trick to make it go straight to the Favorites lineup?

---

[randylankford]

how long have you been an AT&T employee?

[randylankford]

doesn't answer the question, does it? the answer is, you can't hide the new apps. it's a way for AT&T to generate more revenue so subscribers now how to live with it. tata att, hello twc.

[randylankford]

of course it didn't help. you never answered the question. is that because you can't hide the new app channels but you don't want to admit that? another example of att's unbridled concern for its customers. no wonder it's going out of business.

[randylankford]

uverse was barely tolerable when you could hide all the paid advertising. now that you can't, this is only going to get worse. i'm sure there will be new acne and deodorant channels appearing soon. when i contacted u-verse customer support about this i was told it was a software glitch that's being investigated. clearly this is no glitch. if that's the case then it's apparently the company's policy to have its support center lie to customers. interesting service model.

[spd2demun ACE - Master]

I don't know who you're asking:  how long have you been an employee--but I'm not one.

If you read the earlier post by Alex (who is an employee), the matter has been reported to ATT and it appears this is a glitch in programming.  It was NOT ATTs intention that some Apps cannot be hidden.

Sit tight.

[jbdet313]

Let's just be plain honest about this.

It doesn't make a BIT of difference that "We've forwarded these comments to the department responsible for this". IT JUST DOESN'T. Plain and simple. Period. End of story.

Comcast played the same game with customers when they took away 2 channel positions in the EPG and replaced them with their ads. There was a huge outcry, in the calls, the letters, the online outrage .... they told customers, "Oh, we're listening". It didn't make a bit of difference -- like it or lump it. The ads stayed. Yeah --- they sure listened, right?

AT&T has their "We're fighting for you" webpage up for the same reason: To make it APPEAR that they are listening to customers. That was launched when the Hallmark Channel blowup occurred. Ever see any "official" AT&T updates about the progress of that? What about the NHL stuff? Nope.

Perfect representation of these WEASEL WORDS was on "Will and Grace" when Jack was outraged because of no M2M on-screen kiss. The NBC "executive" came down and said, "I understand, but the network has no comment. Thanks for watching NBC."

Smarten up, folks. Your little $100 a month does not AT&T a goliath make. Oh, they like your checks. But that's about as far loyalty goes.

[oufanindallas]

---

randylankford wrote:
of course it didn't help. you never answered the question. is that because you can't hide the new app channels but you don't want to admit that? another example of att's unbridled concern for its customers. no wonder it's going out of business.

---

AT&T going out of business?  Wow, that's a new one.  Not going to hold my breath though.  Don't see it happening in the next 100 years.

[jbdet313]

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

randylankford wrote:
of course it didn't help. you never answered the question. is that because you can't hide the new app channels but you don't want to admit that? another example of att's unbridled concern for its customers. no wonder it's going out of business.

---

AT&T going out of business?  Wow, that's a new one.  Not going to hold my breath though.  Don't see it happening in the next 100 years.

---

Nah, they won't "go out of business". They'll evolve back into a phone company again.

I can tell you, though, Uverse will probably get sold off, and more than likely Verizon would take it over. Why? It'd be a perfect fit to somewhat upgrade one side of the AT&T equation (reaching the customers), while taking the other side and implementing it onto their FiOS side (namely the H.264 and full IPTV delivery). Broadband speeds would jump in Uverse areas to numbers you couldn't even dream of under VDSL (without a whole lot of "mini-VRADs" popping up all over the place), HD channels would go to native H.264 strengths because of the overhead capacity on fiber, and the name-recognition of FiOS could draw a lot more customers by reputation than Uverse does currently.

Granted, it would be a little bit of a skirmish, because regulators would have a problem with two Telcos somehow "in cahoots" with each other, but it wouldn't be outside of the realm of possibility.

[spd2demun ACE - Master]

Interesting, we've heard that rumor before.

Now back OT... 

[mibrnsurg ACE - Geek]

---

jbdet313 wrote:

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

randylankford wrote:
of course it didn't help. you never answered the question. is that because you can't hide the new app channels but you don't want to admit that? another example of att's unbridled concern for its customers. no wonder it's going out of business.

---

AT&T going out of business?  Wow, that's a new one.  Not going to hold my breath though.  Don't see it happening in the next 100 years.

---

Nah, they won't "go out of business". They'll evolve back into a phone company again.

I can tell you, though, Uverse will probably get sold off, and more than likely Verizon would take it over. Why? It'd be a perfect fit to somewhat upgrade one side of the AT&T equation (reaching the customers), while taking the other side and implementing it onto their FiOS side (namely the H.264 and full IPTV delivery). Broadband speeds would jump in Uverse areas to numbers you couldn't even dream of under VDSL (without a whole lot of "mini-VRADs" popping up all over the place), HD channels would go to native H.264 strengths because of the overhead capacity on fiber, and the name-recognition of FiOS could draw a lot more customers by reputation than Uverse does currently.

Granted, it would be a little bit of a skirmish, because regulators would have a problem with two Telcos somehow "in cahoots" with each other, but it wouldn't be outside of the realm of possibility.

---

You are dreaming, Verizon has absolutely shut down any more Fios expansion and wish it had never been implemented by the former head honcho.  He left Verizon billions of dollars in debt by laying fiber through most of it's territory.

They are not likely buyers of Uverse as they would not be willing make the investment needed to upgrade Uverse .

By the way, Fios TV delivery is by RF delivery down the fiber just like cable, all they use IPTV for is VOD.  Don't think they'd 'degrade' their current system by going the Uverse way.

Chris

---

Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-288-2020, After he gets acct info, press # a bunch of times, get a menu from Mr. Voice recognition
Your Results May Vary, In My Humble Opinion
I Call It Like I See It, Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

[RCSMG ACE - Master]

I was just talking about Verizon FIOS earlier today.  I was wondering why I hadn't heard any more about it.  I figured it must have stalled and gone away.

[jeffhoff]

So recently AT&T has introduced these new App Channels, one for the santa tracker, one for HSN one for ESPN and a few others.

Why when I go into channel options will AT&T not allow me to hide these channels? 

[RCSMG ACE - Master]

Good question.

[spd2demun ACE - Master]

This has already been discussed, and when this (already requested) post is moved, you can read more.

ATT is now aware of it, working on a fix, we don't know how long it will take.

[rambler358]

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

razzzy wrote:

When going past those certain channels, there is a pause when going between stations (sometimes even lags).   It's just funny how nobody knows what is going on at U-verse.  I have HD and all these channels are showing up in the non-HD area.

---

So start the guide at 1000 and you won't have to look at them.

---

How exactly is this done?  I saw no way to remove channel numbers up to a certain point.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

He means that you can enter 1 0 0 0 into the remote to start surfing through the channels beginning with the HD channels.

[oufanindallas]

---

texasguy37 wrote:

He means that you can enter 1 0 0 0 into the remote to start surfing through the channels beginning with the HD channels.

---

Thanks TG,  people are making this into rocket surgery.

[skeeterintexas]

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

...people are making this into rocket surgery.

---

I, literally, LOL'd!!!!

[Honkerii]

Every couple of weeks ATT adds new channels to the line up - a headache but tolerable when they can be hidden. Recently they have been adding "applications" which can not be hidden - one being tracking Santa. I spoke with Tech Services this evening and was told there is no way to hide the app.

This is wrong. I pay way too much for this service as it is and should have option of hiding whatever channels I want. Can anyone from ATT tell me why this is not so?

[subject edited to reflect merged topic]

[oufanindallas]

---

Honkerii wrote:

Every couple of weeks ATT adds new channels to the line up - a headache but tolerable when they can be hidden. Recently they have been adding "applications" which can not be hidden - one being tracking Santa. I spoke with Tech Services this evening and was told there is no way to hide the app.

This is wrong. I pay way too much for this service as it is and should have option of hiding whatever channels I want. Can anyone from ATT tell me why this is not so?

[subject edited to reflect merged topic]

---

No one is forcing you to watch.  Those channels keep costs from rising any higher by PAYING to be broadcast.  Skip them and move on, seriously.  More rocket surgery in action.

[razzzy]

Since I am paying extra for HD, I do not want to see these channels that show up on non-HD.  Uverse issued me a 6 month credit on HD services until they figure out what is going on.

Anyone who is paying for HD should do the same.  Maybe this will put a little spark to fix this problem.

[oufanindallas]

---

razzzy wrote:

Since I am paying extra for HD, I do not want to see these channels that show up on non-HD.  Uverse issued me a 6 month credit on HD services until they figure out what is going on.

Anyone who is paying for HD should do the same.  Maybe this will put a little spark to fix this problem.

---

What a crock.  Those apps aren't on HD so what difference does it make.  NO ONE is FORCING anyone to watch them. 

[razzzy]

Actually they are forcing you to watch by not allowing the channels to be hidden.  Every family watches TV a different way.  We are channels surfers so we see all the new channels that can't be removed (and those that are duplicated).

You are correct by saying the apps aren't in HD.  I am paying an extra $10 for HD services, so I expect not to see anything in non-HD.

I was told by a 2nd tier rep that I should call back after 6 months to get another full credit if this is not resolved.  They are getting flooded with calls regarding this issue.

[spd2demun ACE - Master]

I have HD and am not being forced to watch.  I know which channels are Apps and avoid them.

You can make a list of Favorites for just HD channels and use that (Zoom/Enter button on remote--View Favorite Channels).

Or as suggested earlier, just pick up the remote and go to channel one thousand, from there you can surf Up using the + channel button.

Personally, when I pick up the remote, I go to 1802 and surf Up from there.  Premiums are mostly what I watch (I hate commercials).

There are different surfing methods, but not being able to hide these Apps is NOT a problem for most. 

A change I'd like to see is an HD Channels Only option in the Guide, like what we can do online with the WRA.    But, with that method, you'd miss out on a few channels that are still not in the HD lineup.

[razzzy]

I only see HD channels in my guide! Why...because I hide all the non HD channels. Except for these lousy apps that are popping up and not able to be hidden.

And that is full circle....

[spd2demun ACE - Master]

Then I misunderstood.   Hopefully, they'll get it worked out soon.

---

razzzy wrote:
I only see HD channels in my guide! Why...because I hide all the non HD channels. Except for these lousy apps that are popping up and not able to be hidden.

And that is full circle....

---

[oufanindallas]

---

razzzy wrote:

Actually they are forcing you to watch by not allowing the channels to be hidden.  Every family watches TV a different way.  We are channels surfers so we see all the new channels that can't be removed (and those that are duplicated).

You are correct by saying the apps aren't in HD.  I am paying an extra $10 for HD services, so I expect not to see anything in non-HD.

I was told by a 2nd tier rep that I should call back after 6 months to get another full credit if this is not resolved.  They are getting flooded with calls regarding this issue.

---

No they are not forcing you to watch.  Forcing you to watch would only be showing those channels.  You can skip right past them if you so desire. 

You may be paying extra for HD, but every other provider charges for HD in one   form another.  No such thing as a free lunch.