Re: NBA LEAGUE PASS

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

paul416 wrote:

Don't hold your breath. I'm leaving for Comcast where they are serious about their customers. NBA & MLB.
They are? You may be in for a few surprises. Just remember, sometimes the grass just looks greener on the other side.

RCSMG · ‎12-10-2007

I think people who really really want these channels may not mind the inadequacies of the providers who carry them. I like sports, but I never had those channels before so it doesn't matter to me that Uverse doesn't and probably won't ever carry them. Just a thought.

sandyrul_1 · ‎08-01-2010

We're currently with Dish Network but have really been wanting to change to UVerse. The lack of NBA League Pass is the deal-breaker for my husband. We live in TN and he is a big Dallas Mavericks fan. We've had NBA League Pass for a long time.. first with Comcast then with Dish Network. But Dish almost didn't have it the year before last. Apparently, Dish has to negotiate a contract with the NBA League Pass people before they can get it. That year, both sides were playing hardball up until the first few games of the season. When I finally called to cancel our Dish service (to move back to Comcast as my husband's insistence to have NBA League Pass), the Dish customer service rep said they had just worked out the deal and were able to offer it. The Dish rep said they had already lost a bunch of upset DISH customers by then and had heard the DirectTV people (their competitor) were just loving it.

My point is...other television service companies also have trouble working out the NBA League Pass kinks sometimes. Each television service provider wants it at the best price possible and doesn't want the other guy to have it. ATT UVerse is still a somewhat small fish and probably doesn't have the muscle that the other guys do.

HOWEVER....An ATT UVERSE rep just told me on thursday that they are working on it and may have something worked out by early December 2010. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.....

paul416 · ‎10-10-2008

sandyrul wrote:
We're currently with Dish Network but have really been wanting to change to UVerse. The lack of NBA League Pass is the deal-breaker for my husband. We live in TN and he is a big Dallas Mavericks fan. We've had NBA League Pass for a long time.. first with Comcast then with Dish Network. But Dish almost didn't have it the year before last. Apparently, Dish has to negotiate a contract with the NBA League Pass people before they can get it. That year, both sides were playing hardball up until the first few games of the season. When I finally called to cancel our Dish service (to move back to Comcast as my husband's insistence to have NBA League Pass), the Dish customer service rep said they had just worked out the deal and were able to offer it. The Dish rep said they had already lost a bunch of upset DISH customers by then and had heard the DirectTV people (their competitor) were just loving it.

My point is...other television service companies also have trouble working out the NBA League Pass kinks sometimes. Each television service provider wants it at the best price possible and doesn't want the other guy to have it. ATT UVerse is still a somewhat small fish and probably doesn't have the muscle that the other guys do.

HOWEVER....An ATT UVERSE rep just told me on thursday that they are working on it and may have something worked out by early December 2010. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.....

If it was a customer service rep, then take whatever they tell you with a large grain of salt. I was told the same story about MLB Network back in early 2009. 2010 season more than half gone and NO MLB. So, don't hold your breath.

bedwards_1 · ‎02-23-2010

Happy 2 aug everyone!!!!

Dead_Terrorist · ‎09-11-2009

AMEN B .. AMEN ... and here todayUV added 3 more HD channels AND no price increase...

Guess people just love to gripe.

bill4002 · ‎07-06-2010

I realize att has around 2.5 million subscribers, which is not a lot compared to comcast and time warner. However FIOS has around the same amount of subscribers u verse has and they carry MLB, NBA TV, FOX SOCCER +, EXTRA INNINGS, CENTER ICE, AND LEAGUE PASS . How come fios can and u verse cannot. Can some one explain to me why FIOS picks up sport channels with ease yet u-verse struggles in adding sport channels.

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

bill4002 wrote:

I realize att has around 2.5 million subscribers, which is not a lot compared to comcast and time warner. However FIOS has around the same amount of subscribers u verse has and they carry MLB, NBA TV, FOX SOCCER +, EXTRA INNINGS, CENTER ICE, AND LEAGUE PASS . How come fios can and u verse cannot. Can some one explain to me why FIOS picks up sport channels with ease yet u-verse struggles in adding sport channels.

Contact Verizon and ask them.

oufanindallas · ‎02-08-2010

Could be that they are willing to eat the extra cost for these channels, something that AT&T isn't willing to do. There's a reason that FIOS is not expanding any further. They're broke and not getting any ROI on FIOS.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway

kryptonite · ‎04-10-2009

oufanindallas wrote:
Could be that they are willing to eat the extra cost for these channels, something that AT&T isn't willing to do. There's a reason that FIOS is not expanding any further. They're broke and not getting any ROI on FIOS.

Indeed.

It reminds me of "The Tortise and the Hare."

The moral? Slow and steady wins the race.

paul416 · ‎10-10-2008

bill4002 wrote:
I realize att has around 2.5 million subscribers, which is not a lot compared to comcast and time warner. However FIOS has around the same amount of subscribers u verse has and they carry MLB, NBA TV, FOX SOCCER +, EXTRA INNINGS, CENTER ICE, AND LEAGUE PASS . How come fios can and u verse cannot. Can some one explain to me why FIOS picks up sport channels with ease yet u-verse struggles in adding sport channels.

Where do you live Bill? Do you have access to Comcast?? If you do, by all means contact them immediately. I was hooked up today. Before anything else- With the first HD channel I viewed, a noticeable PQ improvement over U-verse. OK, now to the important part. MLB Network HD channel 233-YES!! I'm not a basketball fan but-Channel 235 NBA TV in glorious HD. Like soccer?? Fox Soccer Channel on 401. And at least in the Chicago market, Comcast does SUB-CHANNELS like Universal Sports HD(channel 251) via the NBC affiliate. You can't get it with U-verse. When you want the best in prograamming-You gotta stick with the Big Boys!

kryptonite · ‎04-10-2009

paul416 wrote:
Where do you live Bill? Do you have access to Comcast?? If you do, by all means contact them immediately. I was hooked up today. Before anything else- With the first HD channel I viewed, a noticeable PQ improvement over U-verse. OK, now to the important part. MLB Network HD channel 233-YES!! I'm not a basketball fan but-Channel 235 NBA TV in glorious HD. Like soccer?? Fox Soccer Channel on 401. And at least in the Chicago market, Comcast does SUB-CHANNELS like Universal Sports HD(channel 251) via the NBC affiliate. You can't get it with U-verse. When you want the best in prograamming-You gotta stick with the Big Boys!

So, I assume that you'll be contacting Comcast for the paid infomercial you just gave them? Oh, and U-Verse has Fox Soccer Channel.

Keep in mind that Comcast has their own shenanigans they like to pull. Those introductory rates are great...until they go up "in order to better serve you."

Have fun downloading, but don't hit the bandwidth cap!

And since you're no longer a U-Verse customer, I guess you'll have no business around here?

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

paul416 wrote:

Before anything else- With the first HD channel I viewed, a noticeable PQ improvement over U-verse.

Maybe that's the case where you live, but for Houston's Comcast, that's not at all true. HD picture quality from Comcast down here is as bad or worse than U-Verse, so apparently it varies by region.

kryptonite · ‎04-10-2009

SomeJoe7777 wrote:
Maybe that's the case where you live, but for Houston's Comcast, that's not at all true. HD picture quality from Comcast down here is as bad or worse than U-Verse, so apparently it varies by region.

Exactly. Generally speaking, the cable industry is notorious for compressing their signals. They're STARTING to get away from this with "switched digital" but it takes time. Since AT&T only sends the stream being requested by the box, they really have no reason to compress. (But they still do. Even satellite does to some extent.) Really, the BEST HD signal is OTA.... from which, you can also get your beloved sub-channels, even if you have AT&T.

paul416 · ‎10-10-2008

kryptonite wrote:

paul416 wrote:
Where do you live Bill? Do you have access to Comcast?? If you do, by all means contact them immediately. I was hooked up today. Before anything else- With the first HD channel I viewed, a noticeable PQ improvement over U-verse. OK, now to the important part. MLB Network HD channel 233-YES!! I'm not a basketball fan but-Channel 235 NBA TV in glorious HD. Like soccer?? Fox Soccer Channel on 401. And at least in the Chicago market, Comcast does SUB-CHANNELS like Universal Sports HD(channel 251) via the NBC affiliate. You can't get it with U-verse. When you want the best in prograamming-You gotta stick with the Big Boys!

So, I assume that you'll be contacting Comcast for the paid infomercial you just gave them? Oh, and U-Verse has Fox Soccer Channel.

Keep in mind that Comcast has their own shenanigans they like to pull. Those introductory rates are great...until they go up "in order to better serve you."

Have fun downloading, but don't hit the bandwidth cap!

And since you're no longer a U-Verse customer, I guess you'll have no business around here?

Don't know about Comcast in your area but......Here with XFINITY Triple Play I'm at 181.13 for months 1-12. 196 for 13-24. Locked in. When I dumped U-verse is was at 228 for less service. I can't be raised for 2 years. Let us see if U-verse raises any rates within that 2 years. I do little downloading. But I will have plenty of business informing posters like BILL the whole truth not just the Kool-Aid line Now, back to MLB HD!

oufanindallas · ‎02-08-2010

paul416 wrote:
kryptonite wrote:

paul416 wrote:
Where do you live Bill? Do you have access to Comcast?? If you do, by all means contact them immediately. I was hooked up today. Before anything else- With the first HD channel I viewed, a noticeable PQ improvement over U-verse. OK, now to the important part. MLB Network HD channel 233-YES!! I'm not a basketball fan but-Channel 235 NBA TV in glorious HD. Like soccer?? Fox Soccer Channel on 401. And at least in the Chicago market, Comcast does SUB-CHANNELS like Universal Sports HD(channel 251) via the NBC affiliate. You can't get it with U-verse. When you want the best in prograamming-You gotta stick with the Big Boys!

So, I assume that you'll be contacting Comcast for the paid infomercial you just gave them? Oh, and U-Verse has Fox Soccer Channel.

Keep in mind that Comcast has their own shenanigans they like to pull. Those introductory rates are great...until they go up "in order to better serve you."

Have fun downloading, but don't hit the bandwidth cap!

And since you're no longer a U-Verse customer, I guess you'll have no business around here?
Don't know about Comcast in your area but......Here with XFINITY Triple Play I'm at 181.13 for months 1-12. 196 for 13-24. Locked in. When I dumped U-verse is was at 228 for less service. I can't be raised for 2 years. Let us see if U-verse raises any rates within that 2 years. I do little downloading. But I will have plenty of business informing posters like BILL the whole truth not just the Kool-Aid line Now, back to MLB HD!

Mine is less than that for more. Good bye and good riddance. Now that you're no longer a UVerse subscriber hopefully we won't have to see you ever again.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

oufanindallas wrote:

Mine is less than that for more. Good bye and good riddance. Now that you're no longer a UVerse subscriber hopefully we won't have to see you ever again.

I think he will be too busy watching the MLB Network to have time for anyone or anything on this forum.

bill4002 · ‎07-06-2010

I called uverse to ask for NBA TV and NBA league pass ,especially with the NBA season coming up. The customer rep said they get a lot of calls about NBA TV and NBA league pass , she also said she had heard that it might be added real soon in time for the upcoming season!

HDFan · ‎10-23-2008

kryptonite wrote:

SomeJoe7777 wrote:
Maybe that's the case where you live, but for Houston's Comcast, that's not at all true. HD picture quality from Comcast down here is as bad or worse than U-Verse, so apparently it varies by region.

Exactly. Generally speaking, the cable industry is notorious for compressing their signals. They're STARTING to get away from this with "switched digital" but it takes time. Since AT&T only sends the stream being requested by the box, they really have no reason to compress. (But they still do. Even satellite does to some extent.) Really, the BEST HD signal is OTA.... from which, you can also get your beloved sub-channels, even if you have AT&T.

kryptonite - c'mon man!! Let's not make things up. I personally do not see much of a PQ difference between my cable operator and U-Verse (I may see a slight difference from time to time, but honestly the rest of my family can't tell much a difference) However, to say that "the cable industry is notorious for compressing their signals" and that "AT&T really has no reason to compress" is completely inaccurate.

One thing cable has going for it over U-Verse in EVERY market is the amount of bandwidth available into the home. U-Verse combines voice, video, and data in one small bucket. That bucket is about the same size bandwidth as a cable operator uses for ONE analog channel.

As I have said before I commend AT&T for doing something new in the U.S. with IPTV. But remember why they chose IPTV - and that is due to bandwidth limitations coming for old wiring in the ground. IMHO they did an amazing job considering the inherent limitations of twisted-pair, but their need to compress can be greater if the customer is using a fast-tier internet and phone service at the same time (NOTE: Yesterday, I started a thread that included a link to an article about U-Verse being sued in Oklahoma in a class-action lawsuit due to the technology limitations - apparently that post was deleted, but the OKC Journal Record has a lot of information on the story)

Cable's video service is not effected by their internet service or phone service since that bandwidth is partitioned.

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

HDFan wrote:
kryptonite - c'mon man!! Let's not make things up. I personally do not see much of a PQ difference between my cable operator and U-Verse (I may see a slight difference from time to time, but honestly the rest of my family can't tell much a difference) However, to say that "the cable industry is notorious for compressing their signals" and that "AT&T really has no reason to compress" is completely inaccurate.

One thing cable has going for it over U-Verse in EVERY market is the amount of bandwidth available into the home. U-Verse combines voice, video, and data in one small bucket. That bucket is about the same size bandwidth as a cable operator uses for ONE analog channel.
Talk about making things up. No single analog channel on cable provider uses 32, 25, or 19 mbps of bandwidth.

randyl · ‎10-25-2007

HDFan wrote:

One thing cable has going for it over U-Verse in EVERY market is the amount of bandwidth available into the home. U-Verse combines voice, video, and data in one small bucket. That bucket is about the same size bandwidth as a cable operator uses for ONE analog channel.

wow can u expound on the facts of that ???

randy

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

First of all, it is incorrect to compare analog channels and digital bandwidth because the dependency they have on each other is completely at the mercy of the digital modulation method. You cannot say "1 analog channel is xx Mbps", because that statement is meaningless unless the particulars of the modulation method are known.

Second and more importantly, notion that cable has huge amounts of bandwidth available is largely a farce. Please explain the following paradox:

If cable has gobs of bandwidth available, please explain why DirecTV, Dish Network, Verizon FIOS, and AT&T U-Verse all carry more national, widely available HD channels than any cable provider? (Reference).

This is the argument you can't refute, spin, or manipulate. Regardless of the physical bandwidth available on the delivery medium, it translates to nothing if you can't bring services that capitalize. The converse, that if lack of bandwidth doesn't actually hurt you than it really doesn't make any difference, is also true.

kryptonite · ‎04-10-2009

SomeJoe7777 wrote:
First of all, it is incorrect to compare analog channels and digital bandwidth because the dependency they have on each other is completely at the mercy of the digital modulation method. You cannot say "1 analog channel is xx Mbps", because that statement is meaningless unless the particulars of the modulation method are known.

Second and more importantly, notion that cable has huge amounts of bandwidth available is largely a farce. Please explain the following paradox:

If cable has gobs of bandwidth available, please explain why DirecTV, Dish Network, Verizon FIOS, and AT&T U-Verse all carry more national, widely available HD channels than any cable provider? (Reference).

This is the argument you can't refute, spin, or manipulate. Regardless of the physical bandwidth available on the delivery medium, it translates to nothing if you can't bring services that capitalize. The converse, that if lack of bandwidth doesn't actually hurt you than it really doesn't make any difference, is also true.

Exactly.

A few years ago, the cable companies started running out of bandwidth for HD channels. Thus, the introduction of "Switched Digital Video" was brought about.

Comcast has a good idea in forcing users to rent cable boxes. By doing so, they can eventually get rid of analog channels, and put everything on a digital lineup. As we know, this leads to better PQ and SQ over analog channels. Unfortunately...one of the good sides of the cable industry is that (for now) you do not need a cable box in order to get cable TV.

johnek · ‎08-06-2010

I have reached out to as many AT&T people as I have been able to find. If U-verse doesn't offer NBA League Pass and NBA TV before the start of the 2010-2011 NBA Season. You will lose me as a customer. I have had U-verse for over two years now and love it. But I've gotta have my NBA. Don't the San Antonion Spurs play in the AT&T Center? I live in Austin and go to games there and cannot purchase League Pass. This is my last chance to stay a customer.

Thanks.

John

RCSMG · ‎12-10-2007

johnek wrote:

I have reached out to as many AT&T people as I have been able to find. If U-verse doesn't offer NBA League Pass and NBA TV before the start of the 2010-2011 NBA Season. You will lose me as a customer. I have had U-verse for over two years now and love it. But I've gotta have my NBA. Don't the San Antonion Spurs play in the AT&T Center? I live in Austin and go to games there and cannot purchase League Pass. This is my last chance to stay a customer.

Thanks.

John

When your two year contract is up with DTV Uverse may have NBA League pass by then. But even if they don't you will have enjoyed two years of the sport you love. Don't forget to call and request the info to return your equipment so that you don't get billed for it.

HDFan · ‎10-23-2008

Guys, I get that some of you on this board work for AT&T and want to defend. But to take my statements and claim they are inaccurate is way wrong.

First, the amount of bandwidth a cable company has to use for one analog channel is roughly the same amount U-Verse has for all of its products. Sorry guys but that is indisputable. If you want to argue that an analog channel is not a good comparison -- then fine --- 2 HD channels from a cable company is roughly the same as all the bandwidth U-Verse currently offers to one home. A third way of saying the same thing is 1 QAM of bandwidth on a cable plant (and cable operators have 132+ QAMs avaiable to them) is equal to all the bandwidth in the home that U-Verse can provide.

You can try to spin it to ways from Sunday, but facts are facts. Again, I am not saying this causes PQ issues. In fact, I was very clear that my family did not notice any difference. But the fact remains U-Verse has bandwidth limitations into the home that cable companies and FIOS do not.

As to the claim that I was incorrect because U-Verse offers more HD than some cable companies. You are confusing bandwidth in the home with channel capacity. Two completely different animals. Cable broadcasts all of their channels at one time (so in theory a cable customer could have 100+ TV all on different HD channels), while U-Verse only sends four channels into the home (most U-Verse customer can only watch 4 channels in the home with a limit of 2 or 3 HD channels). U-Verse uses IPTV technology, they do not have to broadcast all channels.

I thought this forum was for good debates and learnings. I am certainly open for discussion, but it is pointless for you to say I am not being accurate. Your replies are either because you don't understand cable and/or IP technology or you are diliberately trying to not be honest with others on the board who don't understand the technology differences between the two platforms. I am not hammering U-Verse, but I think it is fair to point out a limitation -- and especially a limitation that is making big news due to the class-action lawsuit.

RCSMG · ‎12-10-2007

I agree with you that Uverse has limitations, but name one provider that doesn't have any limitations. It is a good thing that most areas have a choice of service providers. That means if you don't like one you can go to another one. But you are not going to get complete satisfaction from any one provider. You pick one that you can live with and you go from there. Sometimes it means paying more money, and other times it means living without apps, features, or channels.

HDFan · ‎10-23-2008

RCSMG wrote:
I agree with you that Uverse has limitations, but name one provider that doesn't have any limitations. It is a good thing that most areas have a choice of service providers. That means if you don't like one you can go to another one. But you are not going to get complete satisfaction from any one provider. You pick one that you can live with and you go from there. Sometimes it means paying more money, and other times it means living without apps, features, or channels.

I can't name one. No question they all have limitations. And the cable and FIOS technology leaves itself open to potential channel capacity issues where U-Verse does not - I certainly agree with that.

I was simply responding to the errorneous statement about bandwidth.

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

HDFan wrote:

(1) Guys, I get that some of you on this board work for AT&T and want to defend. But to take my statements and claim they are inaccurate is way wrong.

First, (2) the amount of bandwidth a cable company has to use for one analog channel is roughly the same amount U-Verse has for all of its products. Sorry guys but that is indisputable. If you want to argue that an analog channel is not a good comparison -- then fine --- 2 HD channels from a cable company is roughly the same as all the bandwidth U-Verse currently offers to one home. A third way of saying the same thing is 1 QAM of bandwidth on a cable plant (and cable operators have 132+ QAMs avaiable to them) is equal to all the bandwidth in the home that U-Verse can provide.

You can try to spin it to ways from Sunday, but facts are facts. Again, I am not saying this causes PQ issues. In fact, I was very clear that my family did not notice any difference. (3) But the fact remains U-Verse has bandwidth limitations into the home that cable companies and FIOS do not.

As to the claim that I was incorrect because U-Verse offers more HD than some cable companies. (4) You are confusing bandwidth in the home with channel capacity. Two completely different animals. Cable broadcasts all of their channels at one time (so in theory a cable customer could have 100+ TV all on different HD channels), while U-Verse only sends four channels into the home (most U-Verse customer can only watch 4 channels in the home with a limit of 2 or 3 HD channels). U-Verse uses IPTV technology, they do not have to broadcast all channels.

1) And here we go again with the (false) employee argument. For the ten billionth time, AT&T employees are not allowed to post here. No one you are debating in this thread works for AT&T. Get over it, it's true.

2) No, that's incorrect. And that's why I called you out, because you are the one who is making inaccurate statements. One analog NTSC channel uses 6 MHz of bandwidth. That's MHz, not Mbps. How many Mbps will that translate to? Well, that depends on the modulation method. If you use the simplest encoding mechanism possible, Manchester encoding, it can carry 3 Mbps. If you use a complicated encoding mechanism like 8VSB, it can carry 19 Mbps. So don't put forth these incorrect and inaccurate oversimplified thumbrules. If you want to make this comparison, you had better be talking in engineering terms or your claims are meaningless.

Cable TV, as implemented by most cable providers, uses QAM encoding in a 12 MHz (two analog channels) slot. The QAM channel carries 38.6 Mbps of data.

Now as far as comparing that to U-Verse, some U-Verse installation's max rate is less than this (as low as 25 Mbps), and some is much higher (as high as 64 Mbps). So there's a whole lot of approximation going on if you call it all "the same".

3) Comparing the bandwidth to the home by itself, without any other context, is kind of pointless. It's kind of like saying that one country's money is printed with 3-color-ink technology, and a second country's money is printed with single-color-ink technology. But does the first currency spend 3 times better than the other one? No.

Arguing the bandwidth to the home is academic. In the end, the performance is competitive. U-Verse has a simultaneous streams limitation, cable is missing features like THDVR that U-Verse lacks. Satellite is vulnerable to rain fade. You can cherry pick any feature to make one service look better than another if you want to. But fixating on that feature or limitation is failing to see the forest for the trees.

4) I'm not confusing anything. I'm trying to bring your theoretical argument into the practical real world so that a valid comparison can be made, instead of pontificating about bandwidth numbers.

Again, read the central argument in my previous post. The extra physical bandwidth on the coax cable means nothing if it doesn't translate into service for the customer. At this point, the additional service it can provide is more than 4 streams of video. That may be an advantage to some customers, whereas other customers would rather have THDVR.

paul416 · ‎10-10-2008

johnek wrote:
I have reached out to as many AT&T people as I have been able to find. If U-verse doesn't offer NBA League Pass and NBA TV before the start of the 2010-2011 NBA Season. You will lose me as a customer. I have had U-verse for over two years now and love it. But I've gotta have my NBA. Don't the San Antonion Spurs play in the AT&T Center? I live in Austin and go to games there and cannot purchase League Pass. This is my last chance to stay a customer.
Thanks.

John

Make the move John. I just dumped U-verse becasue of their inability to provide the channel of our national pastime, MLB Network. I'm not an NBA fan but my brother-in-law is and he watches tv at my house often . He is happy that we now have NBA TV. U-verse seems to have settled into a secondary , lesser type of television service. They can't compete with the big boys, DirecTV and Comcast . Don't hold your breath that U will get NBA League Pass anytime soon. Make the move-You won't be sorry.