Reply
Posted May 6, 2014
7:55:53 PM
View profile
Possible Smithsonian channel move?

Just out of curiousity, what would take for AT&T to consider moving a channel in the channel lineup?  Currently the Smithsonian channel is 118 and 1118.  I enjoy the channel.  I also enjoy the History channel, NGC and the Sci channel.  The latter channels are around the 1250 block in the lineup.  It seems to me that the Smithsonian channel fits into similar programming as those channels.  Why not move it to 250/1250?

0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Solved
May 7, 2014 5:21:38 AM
0
(0)
Employee

ALL: Tuner positions are determined by the content provider and is contractual. They are where they are, because the stations wanted them there. U-Verse does not just decide to move around channels for fun, it's a lot of work and costly.

 

Hope this helps

 

*I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent AT&T’s position, strategies or opinions.
Accepted Solution

Possible Smithsonian channel move?

2,005 views
31 replies
(0) Me too
(0) Me too
Post reply
Replies
(31)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 7, 2014 3:55:08 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

If we're moving channels, might as well move Discovery channel to that block as well. It's on 120/1120.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

2 of 32 (1,964 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 7, 2014 4:24:54 AM
0
(0)
Scholar

While we're at it I have always thought that HDNet Movies and MGM HD would fit nicely in the upper 1700s with FXM IFC Sundance TCM and the Sony Movie Channel.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

3 of 32 (1,961 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Solved
May 7, 2014 5:21:38 AM
0
(0)
Employee

ALL: Tuner positions are determined by the content provider and is contractual. They are where they are, because the stations wanted them there. U-Verse does not just decide to move around channels for fun, it's a lot of work and costly.

 

Hope this helps

 

*I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent AT&T’s position, strategies or opinions.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

4 of 32 (1,949 Views)
Solution
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 7, 2014 7:39:55 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

Fox Mulder wrote:

ALL: Tuner positions are determined by the content provider and is contractual. They are where they are, because the stations wanted them there. U-Verse does not just decide to move around channels for fun, it's a lot of work and costly.

 

Hope this helps

 


We don't have tuners.  :smileytongue: :smileyvery-happy:

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

5 of 32 (1,916 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 7, 2014 8:37:03 AM
0
(0)
Mentor

Fox Mulder wrote:

ALL: Tuner positions are determined by the content provider and is contractual. They are where they are, because the stations wanted them there. U-Verse does not just decide to move around channels for fun, it's a lot of work and costly.

 

Hope this helps

 


Thanks.  That very well may be true.  But I would be curious if AT&T makes a suggestion to the content provider.  I know for me, I enjoy the Smithsonian channel, but I sometimes forget that it's an option because of its position in the lineup.  Or, sometimes I'm just too lazy to luck for it.

 

I'd think that would be feedback that the content provider would appreciate.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

6 of 32 (1,907 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 7, 2014 8:38:02 AM
0
(0)
Mentor

oufanindallas wrote:

If we're moving channels, might as well move Discovery channel to that block as well. It's on 120/1120.


Agreed!!!

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

7 of 32 (1,904 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 7, 2014 8:42:02 AM
0
(0)
Employee
Is this not what the custom favorite is designed for...
the ability to create you own EDTV (educational) including multiview
*I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent AT&T’s position, strategies or opinions.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

8 of 32 (1,902 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 7, 2014 9:16:32 AM
0
(0)
Employee

dhascall wrote:

Fox Mulder wrote:

ALL: Tuner positions are determined by the content provider and is contractual. They are where they are, because the stations wanted them there. U-Verse does not just decide to move around channels for fun, it's a lot of work and costly.

 

Hope this helps

 


We don't have tuners.  :smileytongue: :smileyvery-happy:


LOL!!!!! It sounds better than channel numbers!

*I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent AT&T’s position, strategies or opinions.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

9 of 32 (1,890 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 7, 2014 9:19:35 AM
0
(0)
Employee

NormChar wrote:

Fox Mulder wrote:

ALL: Tuner positions are determined by the content provider and is contractual. They are where they are, because the stations wanted them there. U-Verse does not just decide to move around channels for fun, it's a lot of work and costly.

 

Hope this helps

 


Thanks.  That very well may be true.  But I would be curious if AT&T makes a suggestion to the content provider.  I know for me, I enjoy the Smithsonian channel, but I sometimes forget that it's an option because of its position in the lineup.  Or, sometimes I'm just too lazy to luck for it.

 

I'd think that would be feedback that the content provider would appreciate.


Norm,

 

The content providers may consider a change if it comes from the customers. Why don't you send them an e mail and suggest that?

 

 

 

 

*I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent AT&T’s position, strategies or opinions.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

10 of 32 (1,889 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 7, 2014 10:11:18 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Guru

Beany wrote:

While we're at it I have always thought that HDNet Movies and MGM HD would fit nicely in the upper 1700s with FXM IFC Sundance TCM and the Sony Movie Channel.


I'm guessing that HDNet Movies is where it is because it's owned (is it still?)...either way, it USED to be owned by the same company that owned HDNet, now known as AXS.

 

 

All: Someone once told me that channel providers also negotiate for the spots on the lineup (in addition to tier and price.) Sometimes, they'll even pay the providers for better spots...hence, part of the reason why ESPN is 1602 and NBCSN is "buried" at 1640 and others are 1643 or 1634...

 

The above may or may not still be true, especially as how easy it is now to search for a channel or show by typing it into the on-screen guide.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

11 of 32 (1,875 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 7, 2014 2:07:05 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor

Beany wrote:

While we're at it I have always thought that HDNet Movies and MGM HD would fit nicely in the upper 1700s with FXM IFC Sundance TCM and the Sony Movie Channel.


I totally agree with your suggestion.

 


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

Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

12 of 32 (1,829 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 7, 2014 3:06:28 PM
0
(0)
Scholar

baseballisback wrote:

Beany wrote:

While we're at it I have always thought that HDNet Movies and MGM HD would fit nicely in the upper 1700s with FXM IFC Sundance TCM and the Sony Movie Channel.


I'm guessing that HDNet Movies is where it is because it's owned (is it still?)...either way, it USED to be owned by the same company that owned HDNet, now known as AXS.

 

 

All: Someone once told me that channel providers also negotiate for the spots on the lineup (in addition to tier and price.) Sometimes, they'll even pay the providers for better spots...hence, part of the reason why ESPN is 1602 and NBCSN is "buried" at 1640 and others are 1643 or 1634...

 

The above may or may not still be true, especially as how easy it is now to search for a channel or show by typing it into the on-screen guide.


HD Net Movies and Axs TV are still owned by Mark Cuban owner of the Dallas Mavericks.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

13 of 32 (1,818 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 7, 2014 8:27:38 PM
0
(0)
Mentor

Fox Mulder wrote:

NormChar wrote:

Fox Mulder wrote:

ALL: Tuner positions are determined by the content provider and is contractual. They are where they are, because the stations wanted them there. U-Verse does not just decide to move around channels for fun, it's a lot of work and costly.

 

Hope this helps

 


Thanks.  That very well may be true.  But I would be curious if AT&T makes a suggestion to the content provider.  I know for me, I enjoy the Smithsonian channel, but I sometimes forget that it's an option because of its position in the lineup.  Or, sometimes I'm just too lazy to luck for it.

 

I'd think that would be feedback that the content provider would appreciate.


Norm,

 

The content providers may consider a change if it comes from the customers. Why don't you send them an e mail and suggest that?

 

 

 

 


Well...that wasn't very productive.  But I guess I'm not surprised.  AT&T tells me it's the content provider's decision.  Smithsonian tells me it's at the distributor's discretion.  :smileyfrustrated:  Below is the short response that I got from Smithsonian.

 

...........................................................................................................................................................

 

 

Hello NormChar,

 

The placement of our channel is at the discretion of our distributor partners.  We appreciate your enthusiasm for Smithsonian Channel!

 

Sincerely,

Smithsonian Networks Customer Service

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

14 of 32 (1,794 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 8, 2014 7:15:46 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master
Edited by dhascall on May 8, 2014 at 7:18:56 AM

Norm: I'm sure that in some cases, the channel dictates or negotiates where the channel is at.  To ensure that your request reaches a manager at AT&T, I would recommend that you send a private message to the escalation team at AT&T Customer Care, and someone will get in touch with you.  They may not be able to move mountains but that way your suggestion would be heard at a higher level.

If you ask me (and I know that you didn't, lol), I think that 118/1118 is a good fit given DSC at 120/1120.

 

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

[ Edited ]
15 of 32 (1,758 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 8, 2014 7:38:26 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Guru

Beany wrote:

baseballisback wrote:

Beany wrote:

While we're at it I have always thought that HDNet Movies and MGM HD would fit nicely in the upper 1700s with FXM IFC Sundance TCM and the Sony Movie Channel.


I'm guessing that HDNet Movies is where it is because it's owned (is it still?)...either way, it USED to be owned by the same company that owned HDNet, now known as AXS.

 

 

All: Someone once told me that channel providers also negotiate for the spots on the lineup (in addition to tier and price.) Sometimes, they'll even pay the providers for better spots...hence, part of the reason why ESPN is 1602 and NBCSN is "buried" at 1640 and others are 1643 or 1634...

 

The above may or may not still be true, especially as how easy it is now to search for a channel or show by typing it into the on-screen guide.


HD Net Movies and Axs TV are still owned by Mark Cuban owner of the Dallas Mavericks.


 

Not entirely true, as I thought. Cuban still owns part:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AXS_TV#Purchase_and_conversion_to_AXS_TV

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

16 of 32 (1,762 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 8, 2014 8:33:25 AM
0
(0)
Mentor

Thanks dhascall.  I'll try that route too.

 

I hear you about it being a good fit at 1118 because of proximity to DSC at 1120.  But that's just one channel.  The other block,1250-1270, has about 10 comparable channels.  As someone else posted, in an ideal world, move DSC too!

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

17 of 32 (1,747 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 8, 2014 8:44:05 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

NormChar wrote:

Thanks dhascall.  I'll try that route too.

 

I hear you about it being a good fit at 1118 because of proximity to DSC at 1120.  But that's just one channel.  The other block,1250-1270, has about 10 comparable channels.  As someone else posted, in an ideal world, move DSC too!


I think that the real issue is that U-Verse has "general interest:" channels in the 100, 200 and 400 channel range.  They could really shrink that down to just two, one hundred channel blocks but there are too many to squeeze into one, one hundred block.  That being said, I like UV's channel schema better than Comcast's, throw them anywhere mentality.  The DIY multiviewwould be the best way of keeping them together.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

18 of 32 (1,744 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 8, 2014 2:26:45 PM
0
(0)
Scholar

I suspect there's something going on between cable operator and cable programmer for some of the moves that have been made by AT&T U-verse as discussed from this topic.

 

I certainly don't know anything specific. But these efforts shows.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

19 of 32 (1,720 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 9, 2014 1:40:35 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

LoveHD wrote:

I suspect there's something going on between cable operator and cable programmer for some of the moves that have been made by AT&T U-verse as discussed from this topic.

 

I certainly don't know anything specific. But these efforts shows.


I'm sure that is correct.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

20 of 32 (1,673 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 9, 2014 1:57:50 PM
0
(0)
Mentor

Update on the inquiry.  I sent a message to Customer Support, as Dhascall suggested.  I got a very nice response from a Social Media Manager.  A possibly encouraging response at that.  He said he liked the suggestion and that it seems like a no brainer.  He also said that he would definitely refer the suggestion up to see if gets any traction.  

 

It all could just be lip service, but we shall see.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

21 of 32 (1,671 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 9, 2014 2:01:58 PM
0
(0)
Mentor

Why was this topic marked as solved?  The "accepted solution" is in direct contrast from the information that I received from the content provider.  More importantly, the channel hasn't changed locations as of yet.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

22 of 32 (1,668 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 9, 2014 11:18:34 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Guru

NormChar wrote:

Why was this topic marked as solved?  The "accepted solution" is in direct contrast from the information that I received from the content provider.  More importantly, the channel hasn't changed locations as of yet.


 

Posting a wish on this forum wouldn't be the best way to get a channel to move slots. I would suggest contacting the operator of the channel.

 

Maybe channels like Discovery and Smithsonian are considered more "general interest" and a lot of the other such channels are more in-depth...that might be why they're not closer to each other. When I had basic cable, I had Discovery on channel 40-something...yet, the channels that used to be known as Discovery Wings, Discovery Kids, etc, were all in the digital tier way up the list.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

23 of 32 (1,640 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 10, 2014 4:20:05 PM
0
(0)
Mentor

Baseball,

Skip up a couple of posts.  I did contact both the Smithsonian channel and Uverse customer care.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

24 of 32 (1,609 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 12, 2014 1:08:28 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Master
Edited by dhascall on May 12, 2014 at 1:09:03 PM

NormChar wrote:

Why was this topic marked as solved?  The "accepted solution" is in direct contrast from the information that I received from the content provider.  More importantly, the channel hasn't changed locations as of yet.


IMHO the forum uses the term "solved" a bit loosely.  A better term would be "best response."  It does not always mean that the issue has been solved.  In topics where it is a technical issue, and someone provides an answer on what to do to resolve it, the solved tag is a good fit but some folks who will tell a poster that something can't happen, marking something as "solved," is a bit of a misnomer and posters do mention that it;s not solved, all the time.    I have been thinking about bringing this issue up with Forum moderators - as some folks think that "tag" means that the issue has been resolved and that rarely is, what that truly means.  

 

Hate to be a wet-blanket BUT if AT&T does move Smithsonian, I can see the posts now where folks are complaining that it is no longer on 118, why did it get moved and so on.  Good luck.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

[ Edited ]
25 of 32 (1,532 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 12, 2014 1:35:05 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

FWIW, If I had to choose between an unofficial answer from Fox Mulder and a answer given by an AT&T Support person, I'd take Fox's every time. 

 

Channel numbering is part of the negotiation process, just like tier, OnDemand, multi-screen, etc, etc.

 

The truth is out there.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

26 of 32 (1,522 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 12, 2014 9:09:38 PM
0
(0)
Mentor

dhascall wrote:

 

Hate to be a wet-blanket BUT if AT&T does move Smithsonian, I can see the posts now where folks are complaining that it is no longer on 118, why did it get moved and so on.  Good luck.


Probably true.  There's never a way to please 100%.  But to me, if it's moved to the other block, it would be with similar content providers.  The same way they've tiered music, news, sports, movies, etc.  That would at least be a logical response as to why it was moved.  Where as the response as to why the current location seems to be "because".    

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

27 of 32 (1,490 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 13, 2014 6:33:37 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

At one time Smithsonian was HD only.  U-Verse placed the Smithsonian channel - and other HD only channels such as HD Movies in the low 1100's.  I bet they did that tio showcase the HD content.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

28 of 32 (1,449 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 13, 2014 8:03:16 AM
0
(0)
Scholar

dhascall wrote:

At one time Smithsonian was HD only.  U-Verse placed the Smithsonian channel - and other HD only channels such as HD Movies in the low 1100's.  I bet they did that tio showcase the HD content.


This is correct, which is why it was placed in that range, alongside HDNet (now AXS), HDNet Movies, Universal HD and HD Theater (now Velocity).  Comcast did the same in their HD infancy, in that ESPN, Discovery HD Theater, iNHD1, and iNHD2 were all grouped together -- followed by adding TNT, UniversalHD, MHD (now Palladia) and changing iNHD1 to MOJO (later to Versus HD, now NBCSN), iNHD2 to Golf Channel HD.  On most Comcast systems, after 10 years, those channels *still* occupy the same spots.

 

CBS/Showtime, the channel's owner, probably loves the placement, and would fight AT&T to move it into the "correct" tier.

 

As to the reasons for placements like Discovery Channel, A&E and others in the 100s would be more related to AT&T keeping those networks grouped in their own "basic cable" tier.  ALL of the programmers would LOVE to have a low channel placement, which is still the case even with the sports specialty networks.  For example, when the SEC Network goes live, you can believe that they will want placement on the old "sub-100" channels of the cable providers in their stomping grounds -- in the space people have come to associate with the old "basic cable" networks.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

29 of 32 (1,439 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 13, 2014 8:08:16 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master
Edited by dhascall on May 13, 2014 at 8:11:43 AM

Someone saw a "bug" that said SEC would be 607/1607, which is a pretty darned good placement, if you ask me. 

 

As far as Smithsonian "fighting" the move, he had an email purportedly from Smithsonian that said it's AT&T's call.  You know that AT&T could have the channel in two places but I bet that would be expensive.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Possible Smithsonian channel move?

[ Edited ]
30 of 32 (1,435 Views)
Share this post
Share this post