PAC-12 Network - not available on ATT?!?!?!?!?

[jasonvr]

Oh yay, another week and another USC game I can't watch because no PAC-12 on UVerse  - thumbs down!  And since bascially all sports bars have DirecTV that's not an option either

[greatbruin]

Amen! Preaching the Truth!!

[billmich]

there are various "streaming sites" that exist that will allow you to watch

[jasonvr]

And that's what I was forced to do yesterday, until the stream magically changed to the redone "Karate Kid" with Jackie Chan and Jaden Smith....  I was not the only one with that problem either.

[raycom59]

Why can't we get the PAC-12 network in California? For some reason, we get to pay for the Longhorn network, maybe because of all the the employees from texas being transferred to California? We live in California so we should be able to watch the network associated with our region, after we live in California not Texas.  So AT&T let's get the regional programs associated with our state, after all we are paying for the service. We in California would like to get the PAC-12 network we should get that choice.

[oufanindallas]

A little searching would show that this topic has been throughly discussed.

http://forums.att.com/t5/Features-and-How-To/PAC-12-Network-not-available-on-ATT/m-p/3252833#U325283...

[cbbears]

Does anyone have an update on this topic?   That is, are there active negotiations taking place between UVERSE and PAC12 Network or is it a foregone conclusion that UVERSE will sit this season out on the sidelines to better understand the impact of not moving forward and to attempt to squeeze out a few nickels from the PAC12 Networks' pricing?    

I'm getting ready to jump to the dark side (Comcast) as I will not agree to stuffing my face with pizza for every road basketball game for Cal (at the only place I know in my area that has Dish Network).    As mentioned previously, I'm planning on mounting a personal campaign to get PAC12 alumni to switch from AT&T if this is not resolved.   I'm also responsible for my corporation's corporate spend with AT&T, which is ~ $650,000 annual -- I probably will not let my personal emotions on this topic influence my corporate relationship, but I'm going to consider everything possible to increase AT&T's opportunity cost of dragging their feet on this issue.

Mad CalBear

[jimrohrig]

I live in the 91201 area code. Why can't I get the new Pac-12 network and will I be able to watch the Lakers Network?

How hard is it. Make the deal!

[oufanindallas]

---

jimrohrig wrote:

I live in the 91201 area code. Why can't I get the new Pac-12 network and will I be able to watch the Lakers Network?

How hard is it. Make the deal!

---

Who knows on the Pac-12 network, but AT&T just signed a deal with TWC for the Lakers.

[CostaMesaCAGuy]

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

jimrohrig wrote:

I live in the 91201 area code. Why can't I get the new Pac-12 network and will I be able to watch the Lakers Network?

How hard is it. Make the deal!

---

Who knows on the Pac-12 network, but AT&T just signed a deal with TWC for the Lakers.

---

U-verse signs a deal with the Lakers, adds the Longhorn network which is no use to us in Southern California but doesn't add the Pac-12 network.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

CostaMesaCAGuy wrote:

U-verse signs a deal with the Lakers, adds the Longhorn network which is no use to us in Southern California but doesn't add the Pac-12 network.

---

The Longhorn Network is only available outside of Texas on the U450 package.  Also, U-verse did not add the Longhorn Network to the channel lineup until 1 year after it was launched.  The PAC 12 Network was launched in August of this year.  

Not sure the points you are trying to make, but if you absolutely need the PAC 12 Network and cannot not wait until U-verse decides to add it to the lineup, you probably have other options.

[USC&Lakerfan]

I guess as you state other options for USC fans. Exploring the other options now!

If you don't get the idea that the reasons we pay for HD cable and buy hugeTV's is to watch our teams{keep it courteous}

[dwinth]

---

USC&Lakerfan wrote:
I guess as you state other options for USC fans. Exploring the other options now!

If you don't get the idea that the reasons we pay for HD cable and buy hugeTV's is to watch our teams {keep it courteous}

---

You show a wonderful attitude for your first post. You joined the forum today to insult a long time poster? For your information, Texasguy does not work for AT&T. He is a subscriber to  U-Verse just like you.

Good luck with the contract with your new provider. You will regret changing providers when U-Verse finally inks a contract with the PAC-12 Network, and you are stuck with your new provider.

---

Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.

[CostaMesaCAGuy]

texasguy, no disrespect intended to you personally, but I believe regional college sports networks should only be available in the immediate area that the network serves.  For example, with regards to Longhorn, people outside Texas would be resentful if the Longhorn network is occuping one channel while college sports fans believe it should be occupied by the channel that covers the sports teams in the immediate area.

Or U-verse should carry all regional college sports networks just to be fair.  And if we have that option and people outside of a particular region want to watch out of state college sports, fine.

It's just that I remember about a year ago there were people on this site and on U-verse's Facebook page yelling and screaming about whether or not to add Longhorn and that at lot of people on both sides of this issue were very emotional about this one channel.

[oufanindallas]

---

CostaMesaCAGuy wrote:

texasguy, no disrespect intended to you personally, but I believe regional college sports networks should only be available in the immediate area that the network serves.  For example, with regards to Longhorn, people outside Texas would be resentful if the Longhorn network is occuping one channel while college sports fans believe it should be occupied by the channel that covers the sports teams in the immediate area.

Or U-verse should carry all regional college sports networks just to be fair.  And if we have that option and people outside of a particular region want to watch out of state college sports, fine.

It's just that I remember about a year ago there were people on this site and on U-verse's Facebook page yelling and screaming about whether or not to add Longhorn and that at lot of people on both sides of this issue were very emotional about this one channel.

---

I disagree with you about the Longhorn network.  I am definately not a fan of UT, but there are several fans across the country.  For those that don't want to watch it, no one is forcing them too.

As for regional sports networks, AT&T carries the majority of them. Who's fault is it when conferences set up new TV deals worth billions of dollars and then when they try to get providers to carry the channels and they want crazy $$$ amounts per subscriber to recoup those amounts?  With regards to the Pac-12 network, it's a new network and I'm sure AT&T will eventually get it, it's just a matter of the right price considering UVerse isn't in the majority of the teams areas.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

CostaMesaCAGuy wrote:

Or U-verse should carry all regional college sports networks just to be fair.  And if we have that option and people outside of a particular region want to watch out of state college sports, fine.

---

No provider, including DirecTV who touts itself as the leader in sports programming, carries ALL regional college sports sports networks.  You may not be aware of this, but DirecTV also does not carry the PAC 12 Network.

Also, carriage of any channel on a provider is determined by the Benjamins.  If a provider analyzes the numbers and feels that carriage of a channel will not be profitable, they will not add the channel.  If they feel that carriage of  a channel will be profitable, they will add the channel.  They take into consideration potential customer attribution in their analysis.  No provider is going to turned down what they analyze will be a profitable situation.  These are business decisions which are not driven by emotions.

[gen2bruin]

How can this be solved if the PAC 12 Network is still not available?

Or is the solution to switch providers?

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

gen2bruin wrote:

How can this be solved if the PAC 12 Network is still not available?

Or is the solution to switch providers?

---

The solution is to use the website to make a channel request.  Continuing to discuss the absence of the PAC 12 Network on this forum is of no use since this is a customer forum.  The official vehicle for requesting a channel be added is to make the request on the website indicated earlier in this thread.  That is the solution.

[Ish Kabibble]

In my 16 months with Uverse they have never added a channel I requested. Their is no solution. If you decide that you need that channel right now you have a decision to make. Changing providers might be your only choice.

[cbbears]

I am a new poster to this forum and thought that the forum was a vehicle for users (and mostly subscribers) to share useful information in order to provide assistance to other subscribers.   It is clear after posting over the past few weeks that there are a few powerusers/fans of UVERSE (e.g., texasguy37 [14,223 posts], oufanindallas [3662] and dwinth [847] on this forum.    I used to count myself among the UVERSE evangelists and I have personal responsibility for my company's ~ $600K spend with AT&T (that's a few benjamins my friend in TX)

I find it interesting that dwinth suggests that texasguy37 is not an AT&T employee and texasguy37 says  "Continuing to discuss the absence of the PAC 12 Network on this forum is of no use since this is a customer forum" ..... if this is a customer forum with the topic being the lack of Pac12 network, the comment makes zero sense.   It is clear that AT&T monitors its customers' forums -- anyone that understands the "business decision" that is being made knows that the webpage used to request additional channels is not the only vehicle available to express user needs and I assure you that AT&T monitors its forums...... wouldn't you agree texasguy?

As I posted a few times, I am very close to mounting a campaign that I promise will impact the benjamins texasguy37 refers to in a big way because AT&T is apparently going to sit out (on the sidelines) this football and basketball season trying to negotiate a better deal ...... Comcast and Dish Network found a way to make the numbers work.

In addition to the Pac-12 Network issue, I will be looking for forums to express/share my experiences over the recent past and longer past with the AT&T technical support organization.  I'm going to call AT&T for the third time this week to address the incompetency of AT&T's technical support (both phone and dispatched service technicians) as it relates to 1) my poor internet download speed (despite being a subscriber to the Max Turbo 24Mbps service -- download speeds went down from 8Mbps to 3Mbps after the technician's brilliant work yesterday), 2) their inability to get me dialtone on UVERSE voice after three calls, two account activations, 2 technician visits, and 3) continual problems with the TV coverage........ here's an example:  the Level 2 support tech I spoke with last night suggested that he has an internet connection that delivers "50 megaseconds".......  when I asked him if he meant 50Mbps (megabytes per second), he said "OK,  yes".....  he proceeded to tell me that a wireless connection will typically cut bandwidth at least 50% given interference in the signal.....for those technically astute on this forum (and I consider myself on the low-end of the spectrum of technical knowledge), they understand that this comment made zero sense.

Again, I WAS an evangelist and am responsible for 10-15 people switching from Comcast to UVERSE ~ 4-5 years ago, but I'm ready to unleash a concerted effort to share my experiences with others...... texasguy37, if you want to deserve the Big Hat and Big banner that you earned with all of your posts, I would recommend being more open to helping posters on the forum with useful suggestions instead of criticizing them.

[oufanindallas]

---

cbbears wrote:

I am a new poster to this forum and thought that the forum was a vehicle for users (and mostly subscribers) to share useful information in order to provide assistance to other subscribers.   It is clear after posting over the past few weeks that there are a few powerusers/fans of UVERSE (e.g., texasguy37 [14,223 posts], oufanindallas [3662] and dwinth [847] on this forum.    I used to count myself among the UVERSE evangelists and I have personal responsibility for my company's ~ $600K spend with AT&T (that's a few benjamins my friend in TX)

I find it interesting that dwinth suggests that texasguy37 is not an AT&T employee and texasguy37 says  "Continuing to discuss the absence of the PAC 12 Network on this forum is of no use since this is a customer forum" ..... if this is a customer forum with the topic being the lack of Pac12 network, the comment makes zero sense.   It is clear that AT&T monitors its customers' forums -- anyone that understands the "business decision" that is being made knows that the webpage used to request additional channels is not the only vehicle available to express user needs and I assure you that AT&T monitors its forums...... wouldn't you agree texasguy?

As I posted a few times, I am very close to mounting a campaign that I promise will impact the benjamins texasguy37 refers to in a big way because AT&T is apparently going to sit out (on the sidelines) this football and basketball season trying to negotiate a better deal ...... Comcast and Dish Network found a way to make the numbers work.

In addition to the Pac-12 Network issue, I will be looking for forums to express/share my experiences over the recent past and longer past with the AT&T technical support organization.  I'm going to call AT&T for the third time this week to address the incompetency of AT&T's technical support (both phone and dispatched service technicians) as it relates to 1) my poor internet download speed (despite being a subscriber to the Max Turbo 24Mbps service -- download speeds went down from 8Mbps to 3Mbps after the technician's brilliant work yesterday), 2) their inability to get me dialtone on UVERSE voice after three calls, two account activations, 2 technician visits, and 3) continual problems with the TV coverage........ here's an example:  the Level 2 support tech I spoke with last night suggested that he has an internet connection that delivers "50 megaseconds".......  when I asked him if he meant 50Mbps (megabytes per second), he said "OK,  yes".....  he proceeded to tell me that a wireless connection will typically cut bandwidth at least 50% given interference in the signal.....for those technically astute on this forum (and I consider myself on the low-end of the spectrum of technical knowledge), they understand that this comment made zero sense.

Again, I WAS an evangelist and am responsible for 10-15 people switching from Comcast to UVERSE ~ 4-5 years ago, but I'm ready to unleash a concerted effort to share my experiences with others...... texasguy37, if you want to deserve the Big Hat and Big banner that you earned with all of your posts, I would recommend being more open to helping posters on the forum with useful suggestions instead of criticizing them.

---

As has been stated before, this IS a customer forum, not having a channel is not an issue, we as customers can remedy. The offical link to request a channel has been posted numerous times. Since we are not on the decision making committee to add a particular channel there is nothing else we as UVerse subscribers can do.

Continuing to post that it's not available does nothing to sway the decesion to add a particular channel.  You say it's all about the Benjamins and you are correct, if the Pac-12 wants too much for a network that only covers a small UVerse footprint then it does not make sound financial business sense to add that channel.

Believe it or not there are UVerse customers who care nothing about sports, just as there are those who are sports fanatics.  AT&T has an extemely wide variety of packages that appeal to millions of customers.  If a particular channel is not included then it's a two way street to get it added, the price has to be fair from the network and it has to make good business sense to add it depending on the amount of customers it would appeal too. 

[dwinth]

---

cbbears wrote:

I am a new poster to this forum and thought that the forum was a vehicle for users (and mostly subscribers) to share useful information in order to provide assistance to other subscribers.   It is clear after posting over the past few weeks that there are a few powerusers/fans of UVERSE (e.g., texasguy37 [14,223 posts], oufanindallas [3662] and dwinth [847] on this forum.    I used to count myself among the UVERSE evangelists and I have personal responsibility for my company's ~ $600K spend with AT&T (that's a few benjamins my friend in TX)

I find it interesting that dwinth suggests that texasguy37 is not an AT&T employee and texasguy37 says  "Continuing to discuss the absence of the PAC 12 Network on this forum is of no use since this is a customer forum" ..... if this is a customer forum with the topic being the lack of Pac12 network, the comment makes zero sense.   It is clear that AT&T monitors its customers' forums -- anyone that understands the "business decision" that is being made knows that the webpage used to request additional channels is not the only vehicle available to express user needs and I assure you that AT&T monitors its forums...... wouldn't you agree texasguy?

---

cbbears: I do not have any power over AT&T or over this forum, but thank you anyway for the compliment. I do happen to be a fan of U-Verse. If I was not, then I would have switched providers a long time ago instead of being a subscriber since January 2, 2008.

As far as Texasguy37's postition on this forum, I am not suggesting that he is not an AT&T employee, I am stating a fact that he is not an AT&T employee. If you cannot accept that, then that is your problem.

I hope that I am now eligible for a set of steak knives. We could use some new ones. Schnucks, one of our local grocery chains, has select strip steaks on sale this week for $4.99 a pound.

---

Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.

[Ish Kabibble]

I hear you cdbears. When I completed the survey I complained loudly about the blatant apologists who rule this forum.

[JefferMC ACE - Wizard]

Hm, Google's reponse for "define:rule" is:

Exercise ultimate power or authority over (an area and its people)

I'm not sure how that applies to any of the ACE posters.  Our most awesome power is to mark a solution for someone else.

We're just here to be helpful.  If you want to post over and over again about the same thing, we can't do a thing about it.  A friendly suggestion that you're wasting your time is obviously not being taken as intended.  

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

cbbears wrote:

Again, I WAS an evangelist and am responsible for 10-15 people switching from Comcast to UVERSE ~ 4-5 years ago, but I'm ready to unleash a concerted effort to share my experiences with others...... texasguy37, if you want to deserve the Big Hat and Big banner that you earned with all of your posts, I would recommend being more open to helping posters on the forum with useful suggestions instead of criticizing them. 

---

Other than directing posters to the official website to request a new channel when they post on this forum requesting a channel addition, I would be open to hearing what you suggest that I do, as a customer, to provide assistance to a poster that will force AT&T to add the channel that they are requesting.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

cbbears wrote:

As I posted a few times, I am very close to mounting a campaign that I promise will impact the benjamins texasguy37 refers to in a big way because AT&T is apparently going to sit out (on the sidelines) this football and basketball season trying to negotiate a better deal ...... Comcast and Dish Network found a way to make the numbers work.

---

By the way, Comcast did not need to "find a way to make the numbers work."  Comcast is one of the 4 PAC 12 Network founding partners along with Time Warner, Bright House and Cox.  It's also interesting to note that DirecTV, who touts it's self as the leader in providing sports programming and has almost 5x as many subscribers as U-verse, has still not "found a way to make the numbers work" to add the PAC 12 Network to it's lineup.

[oufanindallas]

---

texasguy37 wrote:

---

cbbears wrote:

As I posted a few times, I am very close to mounting a campaign that I promise will impact the benjamins texasguy37 refers to in a big way because AT&T is apparently going to sit out (on the sidelines) this football and basketball season trying to negotiate a better deal ...... Comcast and Dish Network found a way to make the numbers work.

---

By the way, Comcast did not need to "find a way to make the numbers work."  Comcast is one of the 4 PAC 12 Network founding partners along with Time Warner, Bright House and Cox.  It's also interesting to note that DirecTV, who touts it's self as the leader in providing sports programming and has almost 5x as many subscribers as U-verse, has still not "found a way to make the numbers work" to add the PAC 12 Network to it's lineup.

---

But they don't want to listen to reason and logic.  Facts just confuse them.

[CTEL08]

what facts ru referring to ou fan? i saw none that would have anything to do with why uverse isnt carrying the p12nets

the pac 12 conference is 100% owner of the pac 12 network, it has no partners, founding or otherwise, period. it is no more partners with any cablecos than it would be partners with uverse if the 2 parties were to strike a carriage agreement. 

[JefferMC ACE - Wizard]

---

CTEL08 wrote:

what facts ru referring to ou fan? i saw none that would have anything to do with why uverse isnt carrying the p12nets

the pac 12 conference is 100% owner of the pac 12 network, it has no partners, founding or otherwise, period. it is no more partners with any cablecos than it would be partners with uverse if the 2 parties were to strike a carriage agreement. 

---

Oh really?  So the deal to use Comcast as its support and distribution mechanism  and inDemand as the online video provider (owned by the list of partners above) doesn't exist?

http://www.multichannel.com/content/indemand-comcast-media-center-provide-technical-support-pac-12-n...

[CTEL08]

that is a service, its not giving comcast or anybody else any kind of equity in the network, you dont see the difference? comcast still pays the same carriage fees to the pac 12 conference as any other provider is paying, they still have the same cost-reward decision to make as uverse did. uverse subs who are pac 12 fans arent upset about who the online video provider is.