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

[JefferMC ACE - Wizard]

No, I see a quid pro quo.  InDemand is being used to provide a service to a group led primarily by the owners of InDemand.  So... part of the contract negotiations between InDemand and the PAC 12 said if you use our distribution service, then we'll sign up, don't you think?  

You think the Comcast deal went down any different?  You think it's just cooincidence that the PAC 12 Network HQ is in a Comcast building?

Can it be spelled out any clearer for you?

[patoza]

Why are some so confident that AT&T will add PAC-12 network by next season...  Please provide some details.  I would like to keep AT&T but will switch before next football season.  The only thing that kept me from switching this year was Time Warner did not have Redzone.  Now that TW has Redzone, the onely thing that would keep me with AT&T is if they pick up PAC12 by next football season.

[TaxDawg]

And let's hope AT&T and others like DirecTV continue holding out until the supposed price being asked is dropped considerably. Several of these rumored price requests were so outlandish that I almost spit my coffee out when reading it.

The channel as a national one is not worth anywhere near a record deal

[BigT43]

When will the pac 12 network be added? I live in California, Pac 12 country and I do not get the pac 12 network, yet I get the Big 10 network. Tonight was another night I did not get to watch UCLA basketball. I pay $1400 for ucla footbal tickets and donate $2500 to the athletic department annually....I am not going to sit here when my provider won't give ME what I'm asking for. ATT - you have 30 days to add it or I drop tv and phone services (verizon) covers my house. I will go somewhere else for the pac12 network, a better deal and a free debit card....30 days.

[dwinth]

---

BigT43 wrote:

When will the pac 12 network be added? I live in California, Pac 12 country and I do not get the pac 12 network, yet I get the Big 10 network. Tonight was another night I did not get to watch UCLA basketball. I pay $1400 for ucla footbal tickets and donate $2500 to the athletic department annually....I am not going to sit here when my provider won't give ME what I'm asking for. ATT - you have 30 days to add it or I drop tv and phone services (verizon) covers my house. I will go somewhere else for the pac12 network, a better deal and a free debit card....30 days.

---

Making threats will not get you anywhere. This is a business decision. AT&T is well aware that many subscribers in the area served by the PAC-12 Network want that channel. Negotiations can take a while, and both parties need to have reasonable offers for this to come to fruition.

AT&T is not going to make a bad business decision just to satisfy your threats.

---

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

[steveusc]

You are underestimating the Pac12 fans.  They will drop you as they say and you'll deserve it.  I support my Bruin friend here and I understand his frustration.  I am a Directv customer and if Uverse or Fios picks up the Pac12 network I will switch from Directv.  My average bill is about $250 per month with Directv with 8 DVR's.  I've been with them over 15 years but if they don't pickup the Pac12 Network they will be gone.  If AT&T had some business sense they would have taken customers from Directv all throughout the College Football Season.  My opinion is that the next carrier from these 3 to pick up the Pac12 Network will be the big winner in So Cal.

By the way, congratulations on your football season UCLA.  You were a worthy Pac12 South Representative in the Championship Game.

[oufanindallas]

---

steveusc wrote:

You are underestimating the Pac12 fans.  They will drop you as they say and you'll deserve it.  I support my Bruin friend here and I understand his frustration.  I am a Directv customer and if Uverse or Fios picks up the Pac12 network I will switch from Directv.  My average bill is about $250 per month with Directv with 8 DVR's.  I've been with them over 15 years but if they don't pickup the Pac12 Network they will be gone.  If AT&T had some business sense they would have taken customers from Directv all throughout the College Football Season.  My opinion is that the next carrier from these 3 to pick up the Pac12 Network will be the big winner in So Cal.

By the way, congratulations on your football season UCLA.  You were a worthy Pac12 South Representative in the Championship Game.

As for FiOS, if you are in UVerse coverage area you won't be able to get FiOS and vice versa, if  you are in a FiOS coverage area you won't be able to get UVerse.

---

I don't think AT&T is "underestimating" Pac-12 fans at all.  UVerse is not avaialable in the majority of Pac-12 territory and if the price doesn't justify the cost then it makes more business sense to not include the channel.  DirectTV doesn't have the same regional limitations and they are considered the sports fan's provider and they haven't been able to reach a deal with the Pac-12 so the price must be pretty steep.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

steveusc wrote:

You are underestimating the Pac12 fans.  They will drop you as they say and you'll deserve it.  I support my Bruin friend here and I understand his frustration.  I am a Directv customer and if Uverse or Fios picks up the Pac12 network I will switch from Directv.  My average bill is about $250 per month with Directv with 8 DVR's.  I've been with them over 15 years but if they don't pickup the Pac12 Network they will be gone.  If AT&T had some business sense they would have taken customers from Directv all throughout the College Football Season.  My opinion is that the next carrier from these 3 to pick up the Pac12 Network will be the big winner in So Cal.

By the way, congratulations on your football season UCLA.  You were a worthy Pac12 South Representative in the Championship Game. 

---

Interesting comment considering the fact that you have DirecTV, who has not added the PAC 12 Network, yet you have not dropped them.

U-verse and FIOS have much less of a reason to add the PAC 12 Network than DirecTV.  DirecTV is available in all PAC 12 states where as DirecTV and FIOS are not.  Of the 6 PAC 12 states (Washington, Oregon, California, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona), U-verse only has customers in California.

[steveusc]

Pac12 is 95 cents a subscriber.  Seems small considering the new Laker's Channel pulled in $3.95.   I actually added a Time Warner DVR since they have Pac12, Lakers and Watch ESPN App.  Directv finally picked up Lakers here and now I'm waiting to see if Uverse picks up Pac12.  I guess Fios is not an option.

[jasonvr]

---

steveusc wrote:

Price is 95 cents a subscriber.  Seems small considering the new Laker's Channel pulled in $3.95. 

---

Source??

[steveusc]

http://www.lagconfidential.com/2012/5/31/3055333/time-warner-cable-sets-price-point-for-new-rsn-feat...

Lakers Pac12 cost per sub links

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2012/10/05/pac-12-networks-directv-statement-the-lakers-e...

[jasonvr]

---

steveusc wrote:

http://www.lagconfidential.com/2012/5/31/3055333/time-warner-cable-sets-price-point-for-new-rsn-feat...

Lakers Pac12 cost per sub links

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2012/10/05/pac-12-networks-directv-statement-the-lakers-e...

---

Thanks.  I see the 3.95 numebr in both links.  ANd I see "under $1" for PC-122 in one of those.  Where did the exact $0.95 figure come from?

[oufanindallas]

A lot probably depends on what tier they are demanding as well. If they want it on the U100 or 200 tiers that's a lot more expensive for providers than if they will agree to go onto a higher tier such as U450 or on the HD Premium tier since there are fewer customers for those two packages.  

[merc2009]

oufanindallas - A lot probably depends on what tier they are demanding as well. If they want it on the U100 or 200 tiers that's a lot more expensive for providers than if they will agree to go onto a higher tier such as U450 or on the HD Premium tier since there are fewer customers for those two packages.

Why not just add "every" sports network channels on the U450 tier ONLY? From AT&T's point of view, anyone that loves sports will have to cough up the extra $$$ to upgrade to U450.....isn't that what they "really" want....did they not do this a couple years ago when they decided to add this "HD Premiun" tier and basically leave the "Sports pkg" decimated with less channels?

IMO, Sports Networks (B10, PAC12, Long Horn....etc) belong with the Sports Pkg......whether HD Premium or not....otherwise why offer a Sports Pkg to begin with!

[oufanindallas]

---

merc2009 wrote:

oufanindallas - A lot probably depends on what tier they are demanding as well. If they want it on the U100 or 200 tiers that's a lot more expensive for providers than if they will agree to go onto a higher tier such as U450 or on the HD Premium tier since there are fewer customers for those two packages.

Why not just add "every" sports network channels on the U450 tier ONLY? From AT&T's point of view, anyone that loves sports will have to cough up the extra $$$ to upgrade to U450.....isn't that what they "really" want....did they not do this a couple years ago when they decided to add this "HD Premiun" tier and basically leave the "Sports pkg" decimated with less channels?

IMO, Sports Networks (B10, PAC12, Long Horn....etc) belong with the Sports Pkg......whether HD Premium or not....otherwise why offer a Sports Pkg to begin with!

---

Because it's all about the $$$.  Sports channels aren't cheap, Networks want so much per subscriber, providers would like to add channels but only if it makes $$ sense.  If they can offer it on the more expensive channels, they have to pay the networks less per subscriber since there are less people on those tiers.  

[dougmatheson]

Yep. As soon as football season starts I am dine with Att and I will dump my cell phone and switch to Comcas or Dish.

This is awful customer service and I am sicpk of this crap. I wrote an email to Pac 12 and they responded that art was offers the same deal as the other carriers. ATT needs to step up. I am willing to pay more for Pac 12 and I am dead sure that most everyone else would also pay especially in the bay area and LA.

I will dump ATT if hey do not add Pac 12 and I will blast hem in yelp and every other forum out there.

[dougmatheson]

What is going on with UVerse.

everyone who buys cable wants sports NFL and College Football. Why are they leaving the Pac 12 fans out in the cold.

I am among other fans willing to pay more money per month for a package that includes the Pac 12 network. What's the deal? can't uverse give me the option?

How does att expect me to go through another football season, because I will drop them in a quick second.

I walked into the store in concord to ask them about the Pac 12 network and hey avoided me and told me to call a phone number where I waited on the phone for 30 minutes and got no live person.. Awful service. I am a good customer willing to pay and I am being treated like trash. I am sick of this. I am going on yelp and going to blast every att store in the bay area until they realize that the customer is always right.

[dwinth]

---

dougmatheson wrote:
What is going on with UVerse.

everyone who buys cable wants sports NFL and College Football. Why are they leaving the Pac 12 fans out in the cold.

I am among other fans willing to pay more money per month for a package that includes the Pac 12 network. What's the deal? can't uverse give me the option?

How does att expect me to go through another football season, because I will drop them in a quick second.

I walked into the store in concord to ask them about the Pac 12 network and hey avoided me and told me to call a phone number where I waited on the phone for 30 minutes and got no live person.. Awful service. I am a good customer willing to pay and I am being treated like trash. I am sick of this. I am going on yelp and going to blast every att store in the bay area until they realize that the customer is always right.

---

Are your posts for real, or are you just putting us on? If you are that unhappy with U-Verse and AT&T, then you should change providers. Why aggrevate yourself?

[oufanindallas]

---

dougmatheson wrote:
What is going on with UVerse.

everyone who buys cable wants sports NFL and College Football. Why are they leaving the Pac 12 fans out in the cold.

I am among other fans willing to pay more money per month for a package that includes the Pac 12 network. What's the deal? can't uverse give me the option?

How does att expect me to go through another football season, because I will drop them in a quick second.

I walked into the store in concord to ask them about the Pac 12 network and hey avoided me and told me to call a phone number where I waited on the phone for 30 minutes and got no live person.. Awful service. I am a good customer willing to pay and I am being treated like trash. I am sick of this. I am going on yelp and going to blast every att store in the bay area until they realize that the customer is always right.

---

No they aren't.  I work in a customer service related field and let me tell you, customers are not always right.  Since the PAC-12 decided to form their own network they need $$$ to finance it.  AT&T has to weigh the options of overspending for a niche market for the PAC-12 since UVerse is only available in one part of the PAC-12 coverage area, or not carry it.  They realize they may lose a few customers over this decision, but if the pluses outweigh the negatives then it makes sound business sense to not pay for the network. Networks try to work deals to get the most money for their channels and providers try to minimize the costs.  

Just as there are many different options when you choose a car, there are options for your tv provider.  Choose the one that best fits your needs and your budget.  I would love to have a Jag, Ferrari or even a Bentley, but do I really need a 6 figure car to take me the 15 miles I drive to work? No, Can I afford a 6 figure car to get to work? No.  Therefore my budget dictates how much I can spend on my car. Same with providers, would they like to be able to provide every channel possible? Yes. Can they always afford to? No. Therefore the budget determines which channels they carry which gives them the best return on investment.

[Jrj84105]

---

texasguy37 wrote:

---

CTEL08 wrote:

Time Warner's only PAC 12 market is in southern california, and they share that with Cox Cable, yet both make PAC12NET available to their customers. 

---

Time Warner and Cox Cable are two of the founding partners of the PAC 12 Network. The other founding partners are Comcast and Bright House.  The founding partners have no option but to carry the PAC 12 Network in PAC 12 markets.  All other TV providers have to negotiate a carriage agreement and pay a carriage fee in order to carry that network.

---

This is FALSE! Blatantly and completely FALSE!

Unlike the BTN (FOX), MTN (Comcast), LHN (ESPN), Sooner Network (FOX), the PAC network is fully owned by the PAC. There is no shared ownership by the "founding partners" Listed in your post. All of these providers pay carriage fees, and the PAC has been firm in what those carriage fees are. AT&T had the same opportunity to enter the carriage deal as the current PAC providers and chose not to. Find a new line of defense based on facts.

[dwinth]

---

Jrj84105 wrote:

---

texasguy37 wrote:

---

CTEL08 wrote:

Time Warner's only PAC 12 market is in southern california, and they share that with Cox Cable, yet both make PAC12NET available to their customers. 

---

Time Warner and Cox Cable are two of the founding partners of the PAC 12 Network. The other founding partners are Comcast and Bright House.  The founding partners have no option but to carry the PAC 12 Network in PAC 12 markets.  All other TV providers have to negotiate a carriage agreement and pay a carriage fee in order to carry that network.

---

This is FALSE! Blatantly and completely FALSE!

Unlike the BTN (FOX), MTN (Comcast), LHN (ESPN), Sooner Network (FOX), the PAC network is fully owned by the PAC. There is no shared ownership by the "founding partners" Listed in your post. All of these providers pay carriage fees, and the PAC has been firm in what those carriage fees are. AT&T had the same opportunity to enter the carriage deal as the current PAC providers and chose not to. Find a new line of defense based on facts.

---

According to Wikipedia, you are correct. I quote:

"Pac-12 Network is the national network in a group of 7 American sports television networks dedicated to the Pac-12 Conference, which began broadcasts on August 15, 2012. The 7 networks, titled Pac-12 Networks, include the national network and 6 regional networks: Pac-12 Arizona (Arizona & Arizona State), Pac-12 Bay Area (Cal & Stanford), Pac-12 Los Angeles (UCLA & USC), Pac-12 Mountain (Colorado & Utah), Pac-12 Oregon (Oregon & Oregon State), and Pac-12 Washington (Washington & Washington State).^[1] The national network was available to at least 48 million homes at time of launch,^[2] while the regional networks are available in every home of their respective region in Pac-12 territory.^[3] The Pac-12 Network is the third network devoted to a specific conference after BTN and the now defunct Mtn. The networks are the first owned fully by a conference without support from outside groups (BTN has Fox as a 49% owner and Mtn. had CBS and Comcast as partners)."

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

Jrj84105 wrote:

---

texasguy37 wrote:

Time Warner and Cox Cable are two of the founding partners of the PAC 12 Network. The other founding partners are Comcast and Bright House.  The founding partners have no option but to carry the PAC 12 Network in PAC 12 markets.  All other TV providers have to negotiate a carriage agreement and pay a carriage fee in order to carry that network.

---

This is FALSE! Blatantly and completely FALSE!

Unlike the BTN (FOX), MTN (Comcast), LHN (ESPN), Sooner Network (FOX), the PAC network is fully owned by the PAC. There is no shared ownership by the "founding partners" Listed in your post. All of these providers pay carriage fees, and the PAC has been firm in what those carriage fees are. AT&T had the same opportunity to enter the carriage deal as the current PAC providers and chose not to. Find a new line of defense based on facts.

---

My post is not balantly false and is completely true.  You need to re-read it.  Nowhere in my post did I mention anything about shared ownership!

The founding partners of the PAC 12 Networks did agree to carry the network in the PAC 12 markets in exchange for certain media rights given to them. I also never said that they did not pay carriage fees to the PAC 12 Network. Other TV providers, who are not founding partners, must come to the table now and negotiate a carriage agreement with the PAC 12 Network.  

Please read the post that you are responding to, and check your facts before posting again.

[Jrj84105]

---

texasguy37 wrote:

---

Jrj84105 wrote:

---

texasguy37 wrote:

Time Warner and Cox Cable are two of the founding partners of the PAC 12 Network. The other founding partners are Comcast and Bright House.  The founding partners have no option but to carry the PAC 12 Network in PAC 12 markets.  All other TV providers have to negotiate a carriage agreement and pay a carriage fee in order to carry that network.

---

This is FALSE! Blatantly and completely FALSE!

Unlike the BTN (FOX), MTN (Comcast), LHN (ESPN), Sooner Network (FOX), the PAC network is fully owned by the PAC. There is no shared ownership by the "founding partners" Listed in your post. All of these providers pay carriage fees, and the PAC has been firm in what those carriage fees are. AT&T had the same opportunity to enter the carriage deal as the current PAC providers and chose not to. Find a new line of defense based on facts.

---

My post is not balantly false and is completely true.  You need to re-read it.  Nowhere in my post did I mention anything about shared ownership!

The founding partners of the PAC 12 Networks did agree to carry the network in the PAC 12 markets in exchange for certain media rights given to them. I also never said that they did not pay carriage fees to the PAC 12 Network. Other TV providers, who are not founding partners, must come to the table now and negotiate a carriage agreement with the PAC 12 Network.  

Please read the post that you are responding to, and check your facts before posting again.

---

You know perfectly well the intention of your post was to mislead at every turn.

1) "Time Warner and Cox Cable are two of the founding partners of the PAC12 network". The PAC 12 network was founded by the PAC 12 alone. None of the companies who entered into initial contracts to air the network "founded" the network. Second, the use of the term "partners" in a business context typically means an entity that plays a significant role in owning, creating, or managing a company. This is the implied meaning from the context of your post, especially contextual comments such as "the founding partners have no option". Maybe you meant "pardners" instead of partners. 

2) "All other TV providers have to negotiate a carriage arrangement and pay a carriage fee to carry that network". The language you used clearly insinuates that the "founding partners" did not pay a carriage fee. You can use a lot of verbal gymnastics to say that this statement is technically not a lie, but it is far from the TRUTH. 

I'm sure you pulled those lines from an official AT&T memo as it would take some good lawyering to craft statements so completely false and with such a tenuous hold to plausible deniability of outright falsification. In other words, Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

Jrj84105 wrote:

1) "Time Warner and Cox Cable are two of the founding partners of the PAC12 network". The PAC 12 network was founded by the PAC 12 alone. None of the companies who entered into initial contracts to air the network "founded" the network. Second, the use of the term "partners" in a business context typically means an entity that plays a significant role in owning, creating, or managing a company. This is the implied meaning from the context of your post, especially contextual comments such as "the founding partners have no option". Maybe you meant "pardners" instead of partners. 

2) "All other TV providers have to negotiate a carriage arrangement and pay a carriage fee to carry that network". The language you used clearly insinuates that the "founding partners" did not pay a carriage fee. You can use a lot of verbal gymnastics to say that this statement is technically not a lie, but it is far from the TRUTH. 

I'm sure you pulled those lines from an official AT&T memo as it would take some good lawyering to craft statements so completely false and with such a tenuous hold to plausible deniability of outright falsification. In other words, Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

---

Wow! You are one of those people who obviously have the wrong idea of what this forum is about.  This is the U-verse customer forum.  Those responding to you are U-verse customers not AT&T employees. Being that you have 2 posts on this forum, it it understandable that you are not aware of these facts. I'm not aware of any customers on this forum who have access to " an official AT&T memo."

If you have an issue with the use of the phrase "founding partner" in reference to the TV providers mentioned above, you have issues with many articles that have been written about the PAC 12 Network that use that phrase.  None of these were written by me or by AT&T:

When the Pac-12 Conference created its networks — which consist of one national network and six regional networks, one for each of the conference's six geographical areas, including Pac-12 Washington — it did so with four founding partners already in the fold, including Comcast.

http://seattletimes.com/html/huskies/2019032614_pac12networks31.html?prmid=4939

Comcast and Cox are two of the Pac12Nets’ founding partners, along with Time Warner and Bright House, and they have thus far refused to provide Pac-12 National on a sports tier in many regions outside the league’s footprint, including Washington D.C./Northern Virginia, where there are thousands of Pac-12 fans.

http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2012/8/31/3281829/watch-cal-vs-nevada-pac-12-network

The Pac-12's national network -- there are also six regionals -- wasn't available in Orange County, Calif. on Cox Cable, one of the network's four founding partners. The OC is arguably the heart and soul of the conference's television footprint. (To be fair, the national net is available on other cable carriers and Cox is taking the Pac-12 Southern California regional network. That's their prerogative in the P12N's ala carte-type set up.)

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/19802949/pac-12-network-debuts-now-everyon...

I'm not sure why you, as a new member of the forum, came here with an attitude. Do you have anything meaningful to add to the discussion in this thread, or was your intend to attack other U-verse customers who have no power to give you the network that you obviously would like to see added to the U-verse lineup?  If the intent of your posts are just to be negative, argumentative, and to engage in name calling, let me know so that I can simply ignore any of your future posts.

By the way, I would like to see U-verse reach an agreement to carry this network.  So on that point, we are probably on the same team.  I just realize that adding this channel to the U-verse lineup will not be easy as some might think.

[oufanindallas]

Well said TG. Well said.

[hasbro35]

Just curious...any movement on this front.  I would happily pay extra for the sports package to get the PAC-12 network, even though I'm already a U450 customer.  The PAC-12 basketball tournament is coming soon and most of the games are on this network.  Hope something changes soon or might have to revert to the old DISH network that was installed prior to purchasing my house three years ago.  

[dwinth]

---

hasbro35 wrote:

Just curious...any movement on this front.  I would happily pay extra for the sports package to get the PAC-12 network, even though I'm already a U450 customer.  The PAC-12 basketball tournament is coming soon and most of the games are on this network.  Hope something changes soon or might have to revert to the old DISH network that was installed prior to purchasing my house three years ago.  

---

None of us on this forum can answer that question. We are subscribers to U-Verse just like you, and do not have priviledge to any inside information from AT&T. 

Usually we find out if there is a new channel coming when there is an announcement screen where that channel will be. AT&T 's custom is not to announce anything about a new channel until a carriage agreement is signed, and most of the time, as I said, you find out when you see that channel's screen announcing it's coming.

I hope we get the PAC-!2 channel as the more channels (especially in HD) the better.

---

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

[CTEL08]

i was just reading Jon Wilner's blog, right here and thought my fellow pac 12 fans here may find it worth reading:

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/04/04/pac-12-networks-distribution-deal-coming-soon-...

"not necessarily with you know who" being directv, implying that progress is being made with at least one of the other four carriers in our region that arent on board yet, including of course, att u-verse

[cbbears]

I wanted to do one last check on the progress of Uverse negotiations with Pac12 network before dropping AT&T in favor of returning to Comcast.  I see there has been zero movement, but have been happy to see how much time texasguy37 and oufanindallas have spent defending AT&T..... I call it misspent youth.

I was left wondering how much time these two have spent a) defending against suggestions that they're really at&t employees or hired forum watchers and b) passionately defending AT&T's business decisions of the day -- I'm sure the Pac12 issue is only one of the many given the number of posts they are so proud of.

Net-Net: I believe that AT&T has underestimated the impact of their decision and the marginal loss of revenue that will occur vs.. the extra cost/revenue they'd receive (even though UVERSE is only available in a couple of the states represented by Pac12).   I previously threatened that I would leave AT&T like others on this forum and I further threatened that I would evangelize to a pretty broad group of Pac12 fans that I got to change originally to UVERSE to switch back to Comcast or Dish Network......I'm pretty passionate about this subject and yet I missed a whole football and basketball season without taking action.... I write it up to inertia.  

Comcast sent people to my neighborhood to poach UVERSE and other customers just the way UVERSE did in our neighborhood about 5yrs ago in Northern California.  Comcast is now offering their triple-play package at costs lower than the special deals I've negotiated with UVERSE which are lower than 99% of other UVERSE subscribers (comparing both deals with similar contract requirements)... I'll end up paying $140/month (before taxes) for 12 months, no switching costs for the top-tier tv package (roughly equivalent to U450 but WITH Pac12 Networks and a few more HD channels), 50MB internet vs. Uverse's 24MB (which hasn't been able to deliver even 15MB) and land-line phone with unlimited long-distance vs. Uverse's voip phone...... net-net: much better services at lower costs....

I became an evangelist for AT&T UVERSE, was personally responsible for many people switching to AT&T and yet I have spent 30hours+ of time with techs of all different levels both in my house and on my phone in the last year trying to overcome the significant amount of line/signal issues and horrible internet coverage -- issues that I forgot that I never had with Comcast previously (I know that everyone has different experiences with different carriers and lots of the issues are area-specific).... even had a couple of the AT&T techs in my home suggest that I buy Apple's routers/boosters and switch to a more dependable internet service.....  

Well, this weekend, I finally will start the migration of my own services to Comcast and will follow that up with becoming an evangelist to get other Pac12 fans to do the same!   

Thanks for spending the time oufanindallas and texasguy37 in reading my posts and vigorously defending a sub-standard service!!  

[oufanindallas]

---

cbbears wrote:

I wanted to do one last check on the progress of Uverse negotiations with Pac12 network before dropping AT&T in favor of returning to Comcast.  I see there has been zero movement, but have been happy to see how much time texasguy37 and oufanindallas have spent defending AT&T..... I call it misspent youth.

Call it whatever you want to call it, I won't be losing any sleep over the issue.  Enjoy your Comcast.

I was left wondering how much time these two have spent a) defending against suggestions that they're really at&t employees or hired forum watchers and b) passionately defending AT&T's business decisions of the day -- I'm sure the Pac12 issue is only one of the many given the number of posts they are so proud of.

I'm neither an employee or paid to post anything in these forums so you keep believing what you want.  It's still a matter of the $$$.  Since AT&T is only in one Pac-12 area if the $$$ is too much, they won't add it.  Would it be nice, sure, but not if it doesn't make good business sense.

Net-Net: I believe that AT&T has underestimated the impact of their decision and the marginal loss of revenue that will occur vs.. the extra cost/revenue they'd receive (even though UVERSE is only available in a couple of the states represented by Pac12).   I previously threatened that I would leave AT&T like others on this forum and I further threatened that I would evangelize to a pretty broad group of Pac12 fans that I got to change originally to UVERSE to switch back to Comcast or Dish Network......I'm pretty passionate about this subject and yet I missed a whole football and basketball season without taking action.... I write it up to inertia.  

Again, it's all about the $$$.  While AT&T may lose some viewers over this issue, it's probably not enough to offset the cost it would cost them to carry the channel.

Comcast sent people to my neighborhood to poach UVERSE and other customers just the way UVERSE did in our neighborhood about 5yrs ago in Northern California.  Comcast is now offering their triple-play package at costs lower than the special deals I've negotiated with UVERSE which are lower than 99% of other UVERSE subscribers (comparing both deals with similar contract requirements)... I'll end up paying $140/month (before taxes) for 12 months, no switching costs for the top-tier tv package (roughly equivalent to U450 but WITH Pac12 Networks and a few more HD channels), 50MB internet vs. Uverse's 24MB (which hasn't been able to deliver even 15MB) and land-line phone with unlimited long-distance vs. Uverse's voip phone...... net-net: much better services at lower costs....

I became an evangelist for AT&T UVERSE, was personally responsible for many people switching to AT&T and yet I have spent 30hours+ of time with techs of all different levels both in my house and on my phone in the last year trying to overcome the significant amount of line/signal issues and horrible internet coverage -- issues that I forgot that I never had with Comcast previously (I know that everyone has different experiences with different carriers and lots of the issues are area-specific).... even had a couple of the AT&T techs in my home suggest that I buy Apple's routers/boosters and switch to a more dependable internet service.....  

Well, this weekend, I finally will start the migration of my own services to Comcast and will follow that up with becoming an evangelist to get other Pac12 fans to do the same!   

Thanks for spending the time oufanindallas and texasguy37 in reading my posts and vigorously defending a sub-standard service!!  

 You may consider it sub-standard, but I've had plenty of other providers (Dish, Direct, TWC and AT&T provides the best service for my money. 

---