AT&T is turning into the land based DISH. Although I just recently got this service, I'm alrrady looking for a quick exit to a provider that will step up with the programming.

---

johnnybebad wrote:

 

AT&T is turning into the land based DISH. Although I just recently got this service, I'm alrrady looking for a quick exit to a provider that will step up with the programming.

---

The notification was sent to customers in compliance with FCC regulations about the possibility of the channel being removed from the lineup in the event that AT&T and Scripps Howard are unable to negotiate a new carriage agreement.

 

The postcard was generated to comply with federal law not to become like Dish Network.  All TV providers have at some point removed a TV channel from it's lineup as result of a dispute during negotiations for a new carriage agreement.  There is nothing unusual with U-verse in that regard.  In fact, other than the Hallmark channels, what other channels can you name that have been removed from U-verse due to a dispute during negotiations to renew the carriage agreement?

 

Texasguy is correct that every multichannel provider have had an issue or two with programmers and need to comply with FCC regulations about 30-day notice about any possible channel loss.

What Texasguy is incorrect is that not every multichannel provider has actually lost a channel due to failed negotiations - not at all saying that some of havent lost a channel, but to paint all providers under one brush is factually incorrect. 

 While I understant AT&T position, the fact remains this is starting to look very bad for them.  To have all of these channels coming up on deletion deadline back-to-back-to-back is basically unprecedented in the multichannel world.  I am not going to say it is never happened with other providers, but I can't think of any other provider ever having so many contentious negotiations at one time.

---

HDFan wrote:

 

What Texasguy is incorrect is that not every multichannel provider has actually lost a channel due to failed negotiations - not at all saying that some of havent lost a channel, but to paint all providers under one brush is factually incorrect.  

---

Please provider a list of TV providers who have not been involved in this type of dispute.

 

Isn't Dish and Fox in a dispute right now and Fox has pulled several of the FSN channels, FX and Nat. Geo off the air.  I know when I had Direct TV, Versus was silent for several months before the two sides came together.

---

oufanindallas wrote:

Isn't Dish and Fox in a dispute right now and Fox has pulled several of the FSN channels, FX and Nat. Geo off the air.  I know when I had Direct TV, Versus was silent for several months before the two sides came together.

---

Did you get the FCC mandated notification?

With Direct TV, yes.   I don't have Dish right now.  Had it from 00-07, but even during that time I do remember a couple of channel disputes happening.

---

oufanindallas wrote:

With Direct TV, yes.   I don't have Dish right now.  Had it from 00-07, but even during that time I do remember a couple of channel disputes happening.

---

VOOM,Disney HD-DISH is the worst and it looks to me that ATT is headed in that direction. Not to mention ATT doesn't provide important sports channels like NBA TV, MLB Net, MLB EI,Universal Sports.And no sub-channels. ATT has to step up or get left in the dust.

---

johnnybebad wrote:

---

oufanindallas wrote:

With Direct TV, yes.   I don't have Dish right now.  Had it from 00-07, but even during that time I do remember a couple of channel disputes happening.

---

VOOM,Disney HD-DISH is the worst and it looks to me that ATT is headed in that direction. Not to mention ATT doesn't provide important sports channels like NBA TV, MLB Net, MLB EI,Universal Sports.And no sub-channels. ATT has to step up or get left in the dust.

---

While those channels may be important to a few subscribers, I would venture to say that less than 10% would even both subscibing to them.  Viewership is down across all major sports and MLB, which is "the National Pasttime" has a viewership rating lower than the Military Channel or Logo.

I have a small vacation condo that I recently had U-verse installed in, and I have DirecTV in my main home in the northern suburbs of Atlanta. I'm glad it's that way around, because I don't feel that U-verse has really decided what kind of TV provider it's coming to the party as yet.

I really enjoy FSC and FSC Plus in HD on DirecTV. U-verse offers FSC in SD only and doesn't offer FSC Plus at all. My wife enjoys the occasional movie on  the Hallmark channels, and now U-verse doesn't currently offer either of  those channels.

DirecTV launched its new D12 satellite 10 months ago to increase its HD capacity, and it has announced it's intention to launch its D14 satellite in 2014 to further add capacity for its viewers. U-verse seems stalled right now. It's not really competing in the sports arena, although I fully accept that my interest in British soccer makes me part of a small minority, but more worrying is that U-verse is also losing ground in the family entertainment arena.

I really like the phone/internet/tv bundle that I have in my condo, but the TV is definitely the weakest link in the U-verse chain in my view.

You guys have to consider, U- verse is a young service and when the service started 5 or 6 years ago, ALL contracts were started then, not spaced out over a period of time, so it makes sense that they are all coming up for renual, therefore back to back to back. I think the FCC announcments are really causing problems for providers, scaring them into thinking they are losing channels.

---

bedwards wrote:

You guys have to consider, U- verse is a young service and when the service started 5 or 6 years ago, ALL contracts were started then, not spaced out over a period of time, so it makes sense that they are all coming up for renual, therefore back to back to back. I think the FCC announcments are really causing problems for providers, scaring them into thinking they are losing channels.

---

I take your point, but it was only a few years ago that U-verse was projecting being in 30 million homes by the end of 2011. The reality is that they are currently in less than 3 million homes and losing channels.

---

Terry wrote:

I take your point, but it was only a few years ago that U-verse was projecting being in 30 million homes by the end of 2011. The reality is that they are currently in less than 3 million homes and losing channels.

---

That sounds like a political ad, mixing apples and oranges (homes and channels).  In addition, I don't think they said they would be in 30 million homes, I think they said that they would pass (i.e. be available to) 30 million homes by the end of 2011.  And I think they're already there. 

And so far since I've been a subscriber, they've actually lost one channel that is still available.  ONE.  Let's keep things in perspective, people.

---

johnnybebad wrote:

---

oufanindallas wrote:

With Direct TV, yes.   I don't have Dish right now.  Had it from 00-07, but even during that time I do remember a couple of channel disputes happening.

---

VOOM,Disney HD-DISH is the worst and it looks to me that ATT is headed in that direction. Not to mention ATT doesn't provide important sports channels like NBA TV, MLB Net, MLB EI,Universal Sports.And no sub-channels. ATT has to step up or get left in the dust.

---

Headed that direction because they did not come to terms with one provider over three channels?  I know that you are kidding and I understand that you are an "AT&T Chain yanker"but as long as we all understand, we're good.

I think you'll see more people going for the phone/Internet bundle and fewer being interested in the TV package.

---

Terry wrote:

 

I take your point, but it was only a few years ago that U-verse was projecting being in 30 million homes by the end of 2011. The reality is that they are currently in less than 3 million homes and losing channels.

---

Wow!  You really need to go back and check your facts.  There was never a projection that U-verse would be in 30 million home at the end of 2011.  The initial projection was to pass 30 million homes (i.e. be available as a choice for 30 million homes) by the end of 2010.  That was later revised to be the goal by the end of 2011.

 

http://www.multichannel.com/article/131421-AT_T_30_Million_U_verse_Homes_by_2010.php

 

http://www.multichannel.com/article/162886-AT_T_Slows_U_verse_Expansion_Plans.php

 

---

texasguy37 wrote:

Wow!  You really need to go back and check your facts.  There was never a projection that U-verse would be in 30 million home at the end of 2011.  The initial projection was to pass 30 million homes (i.e. be available as a choice for 30 million homes) by the end of 2010.  That was later revised to be the goal by the end of 2011.

 

http://www.multichannel.com/article/131421-AT_T_30_Million_U_verse_Homes_by_2010.php

 

http://www.multichannel.com/article/162886-AT_T_Slows_U_verse_Expansion_Plans.php

 

 

---

Thanks for backing up my story with actual links!

True, in July of this year, AT&Tstated that it currently has U-Verse available for 24 million homes. In the first quarter, it added 231,000 U-Verse TV customers, bringing its total to 2.3 million subscribers.

So if you've rolled out U-verse at a huge cost and you are currently accessible to 24 million households, why is U-verse only actually in 2.3 million of them? We also don't know how many of the 2.3 million homes use the phone/internet package without the TV.

U-verse has done a huge amount of TV advertising. It offers competitive bundles, it offers new customers up to $300 in rebates for switching, so why is it in less than ten percent of accessible households?

I think that word of mouth is part of the answer. U-verse has a good reputation in terms of the flexibility it offers, but it pays a price with its HD picture quality and its technical issues. The whole issue of distance from the VRAD deciding your profile is confusing to joe public because the guys in the orange jackets come around telling people how they can watch one channel in HD and record two other HD channels, and the reality is often very different. I think U-verse loses quite a lot of people after the first 30 days because of that.

I hope that AT&T continues to invest in it, so that it actually becomes one of the top players.

---

Terry wrote:

 

 

So if you've rolled out U-verse at a huge cost and you are currently accessible to 24 million households, why is U-verse only actually in 2.3 million of them? We also don't know how many of the 2.3 million homes use the phone/internet package without the TV.

 

U-verse has done a huge amount of TV advertising. It offers competitive bundles, it offers new customers up to $300 in rebates for switching, so why is it in less than ten percent of accessible households?

 

---

Because they've only been available to many of those accessible households for less than a year.  They added 5 million passings beween Sep 30 09 and Jun 30 10, it takes time to get the market installed.  For passings that have been available for 18 months or more, I understand penetration is 20% or more.  That's in line with FiOS's penetration numbers.

But you're not factoring in how may customers U-verse is losing after installation.

Interesting to note at the end of the article that AT&T and Hallmark are talking again.  This may give some hope to the Hallmark fans (my wife included).

---

Terry wrote:

 

True, in July of this year, AT&Tstated that it currently has U-Verse available for 24 million homes. In the first quarter, it added 231,000 U-Verse TV customers, bringing its total to 2.3 million subscribers.

 

So if you've rolled out U-verse at a huge cost and you are currently accessible to 24 million households, why is U-verse only actually in 2.3 million of them? We also don't know how many of the 2.3 million homes use the phone/internet package without the TV.

 

U-verse has done a huge amount of TV advertising. It offers competitive bundles, it offers new customers up to $300 in rebates for switching, so why is it in less than ten percent of accessible households?

 

I think that word of mouth is part of the answer. U-verse has a good reputation in terms of the flexibility it offers, but it pays a price with its HD picture quality and its technical issues. The whole issue of distance from the VRAD deciding your profile is confusing to joe public because the guys in the orange jackets come around telling people how they can watch one channel in HD and record two other HD channels, and the reality is often very different. I think U-verse loses quite a lot of people after the first 30 days because of that.

 

I hope that AT&T continues to invest in it, so that it actually becomes one of the top players.

---

Verizon FIOS, who has rolled out it's product at much higher cost than AT&T,  passes 12.4 million homes and has 3.2 million TV subscribers.  By the way, unlike U-verse, FIOS has more internet customers (3.8 million) than TV customers (3.2 million).

http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2010/Verizon-Reports-Strong-Wireless-FiOS-Custo...

U-verse passes 25 million homes, and has 2.5 million TV customers.  About 90% of those customers also have U-verse internet, and 66% have U-verse voice.

http://utalk.att.com/t5/TV-Programming/AT-amp-T-2nd-Quarter-Results/m-p/234713#M54728

You seem really anti-AT&T in all your posts, and I'm not sure why.

---

Terry wrote:

 

But you're not factoring in how may customers U-verse is losing after installation.

---

Yes, that in factored in.  All numbers are "net" numbers (i.e. new installs less terminations of service.)

 

I don't mean to be 'anti' AT&T, texasguy. I just get frustrated with AT&T.

Hmm...the OPs article has comments that sound like some of the posters on here.

Let's get Congress involved?  

This is the first time in decades that Cable (monopoly) and Satellite have had any real competition! 

How do we know that Cable and Satellite are not behind all this?  Under-the-table deals with these channels to make UV look like the bad guy?

And how many Channels does Comcrap already OWN?  How that is not a conflict of interest is beyond me!  But they are in the back pockets of Congress.

---

Terry wrote:

True, in July of this year, AT&Tstated that it currently has U-Verse available for 24 million homes. In the first quarter, it added 231,000 U-Verse TV customers, bringing its total to 2.3 million subscribers.

 

So if you've rolled out U-verse at a huge cost and you are currently accessible to 24 million households, why is U-verse only actually in 2.3 million of them? We also don't know how many of the 2.3 million homes use the phone/internet package without the TV.

 

U-verse has done a huge amount of TV advertising. It offers competitive bundles, it offers new customers up to $300 in rebates for switching, so why is it in less than ten percent of accessible households?

 

I think that word of mouth is part of the answer. U-verse has a good reputation in terms of the flexibility it offers, but it pays a price with its HD picture quality and its technical issues. The whole issue of distance from the VRAD deciding your profile is confusing to joe public because the guys in the orange jackets come around telling people how they can watch one channel in HD and record two other HD channels, and the reality is often very different. I think U-verse loses quite a lot of people after the first 30 days because of that.

 

I hope that AT&T continues to invest in it, so that it actually becomes one of the top players.

---

Have you tried to get out of two year contract with Direct TV, Dish?  Any provider that has a contract has HUGE early termination fees, I'm still fighting with Direct TV over cancelling due to a move and I'm not in an apartment that doesn't face the southern sky so I couldn't get a dish to properly align to get a signal and they still are trying to hit me for a $300 early termination fee and I was 18 months into a 24 month contract.