Will att have the lakers next year............................?????

---

1sandy1 wrote:

Will att have the lakers next year............................?????

---

Where do you live? Are you outside the area of the Lakers' regional sports network? If so, you will not be able to watch the Lakers.

 

Not being familiar with the situation, is there a blackout problem between AT&T and those living within the Lakers' regional sports network area?

---

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

 

I believe that he is asking about carriage of the new Time Warner RSN that is being launched this fall to broadcast the Los Angeles Lakers games.  No carriage agreements have been announced.

So is att going to have the lakers network or will they be, "dropping the ball" like they did with the PAC12 Network?

 

As of now, no carriage agreements have been announced with any TV provider.  Time Warner will be carrying their own network.  Here is an interesting article:

 

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/sep/14/lakers-switch-to-time-warner-could-leave-some-in/

All the more reason to hate the Lakers, this deal goes to show just how little they actually care about their fans.

I was wondering if there was an update to the original question. Thanks

Nope.  As of today, no carriage agreements have been announced with any provider.

 

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-tw-cable-20120926,0,3260697.story

Anyone else planning to switch to Time Warner to pick up both Lakers and PAC 12 network? Have landline, cell, Internet and cable with AT&T and it's a hassle to switch but will do. Get it together AT&T.

---

Clutterx4 wrote:

Anyone else planning to switch to Time Warner to pick up both Lakers and PAC 12 network? Have landline, cell, Internet and cable with AT&T and it's a hassle to switch but will do. Get it together AT&T.

---

As stated above, no carriage agreement have been announced for ANY TV provider.  As of now, only Time Warner will be carrying it's own network.  If you feel the need to switch to TWC, then you should do that.

I'm in the same situation as Clutterx4. I hope that AT&T works out a deal soon with TWC to carry this channel.

 

texasguy37-I'm sure that AT&T would want to hold onto customers like us, and try to work out something soon. Telling us to switch to TWC would not be something that AT&T would want to hear.

---

roscoecorgi wrote:

 

I'm in the same situation as Clutterx4. I hope that AT&T works out a deal soon with TWC to carry this channel.

 

texasguy37-I'm sure that AT&T would want to hold onto customers like us, and try to work out something soon. Telling us to switch to TWC would not be something that AT&T would want to hear.

---

Take your concerns to TWC.  TWC has not negotiated any carriage agreements with any TV provider.  Your singling out AT&T U-verse and placing the blame on them makes no sense.

First no padres and next no Lakers. Att might as well close shop in San Diego as far as TV goes.

LOL this deal will and has allowed them to sign to the stars you need to compete in the NBA. Pretty sure fans will be happy when they win more titles.

Thanks for the suggestion. Dropped 1 service already. Today is the launch of the new network and I may just have to place the switch phone call at this point. I have contacted AT&T directly as have my parents and sister with their separate contracts. I assume there is a moderator here to gather these concerns. We are not interested in other providers negotiations. Why not be the leader, negotiate a deal and meet your customer's needs? That's what I think would go a long way in building customer loyalty. Word of mouth goes a long way whether it's good or BAD and right now it's bad.

They're meeting my needs by not purchasing the rights to carry this channel that I have no wish to view, nor any wish to see my rates increase next February to pay for.

 

Do you really think TWC and the Lakers are going to negotiate very hard to get other providers on board. That's the problem with these providers starting their own networks.   They pay big money for these contracts, in turn the teams pay bigger money for the players salaries and we, the fans, get socked with higher prices for everything.

Seeing as how Uverse adds virtually nothing anymore Texas Guy is probably right. You might want to make the switch.

Curious if Uverse is in any type of negotations with Time Warner to give it's Southern California customers the ability to watch Laker games. I don't know if they realize how much they are alienating there customers by not so much as commenting on the issue. As the preseason starts next week. I know almost any Laker fan will abandon ship from Uverse if they are not contractually bound to Uverse. And may do so sooner just to ensure they have the TWC Sportsnet channel by the team the regular season begins. Instead of waiting until the last minute, like I'm guessing Uverse will do to try and negotiate,  we will act sooner and it may be too late by the time Uverse decides to take the plunge, with many of us already gone to make sure we don't miss our games by switching at the last minute.

 

Any word Uverse? Give us our Lakers!

 

- Steven Do

Unless Uverse reaches an agreement with SportsNet...

 

the network goes live tonight... First preseason game is Sunday. 

 

If time warner is requesting 3 95 for the channel.  Pay it. 

 

Not sure UVerse understand the wrath of Lakers fans 

---

Michaelmaxwell2012 wrote:

 

If time warner is requesting 3 95 for the channel.  Pay it. 

 

---

Let's say your number is right (which I doubt, but just for the sake of argument).  Let's say the network requires it to be carried on AT&T's lowest non-lifeline tier, i.e. U-200.  AT&T probably has 3,000,000 subs at U-200 or above  So, that's about $12,000,000 per month.

So, you want AT&T to pay $144,000,000 a year so you can watch a Lakers game 7 months out of the year?  I don't want my bill to go up $3.95 a month so you can watch the Lakers. 

 

Actually, AT&T needs to way the costs against what it stands to gain or keep in terms of viewership.  I really won't be mad if they add it.  However, the threats from the various sports fans saying "pay whatever they want for Xxxxx channel or else" are getting motononous.

 

More reasons to hate LA Galaxy and The Lakers

 

As of right now NO ONE has this channel other then TimeWarner. No satellites, or tele co's. So don;t complain until other major service providers have it and U-Verse doesn't.

---

Michaelmaxwell2012 wrote:

Unless Uverse reaches an agreement with SportsNet...

 

the network goes live tonight... First preseason game is Sunday. 

 

If time warner is requesting 3 95 for the channel.  Pay it. 

 

Not sure UVerse understand the wrath of Lakers fans 

---

You obvisiously don't understand a business needs either.  If your number is anywhere near correct, that $3.95 starts adding up quickly.  Now if they want to put in on a premium tier where lakers fans can pay for it, then I'm all for it. I, as well as the majority of the country, wouldn't want their bill to go up by $4 for a team they don't care about or care to watch.

This is just one customer complaint, but I know I speak for many!

 

I've been a loyal AT&T subscriber for almost 5 years, and I even went with you when we moved!  I have U-350 service package with upgraded internet service and movie packages not included.  I'm spending money with you guys.

 

Take it for what it is, but if you guys do NOT work out a deal with TWC to carry the Laker home games, I will absolutely, positively cancel my service with you guys.  I'm not contractually obligated so I can walk away.  Do many of your subscribers a favor, work something out so everyone stays happy and we can keep watching our Lakers!

 

Regards,

A One-Legged Puerto Rican

 

[word filter avoidance]

I'm in San Diego and I'm really disappointed with the sports service that at&t is providing for Southern California fans.  I should've done my homework on what sports channels were offered.  No Lakers No Pac-12 but we do have Big-10 and the Longhorn Network.  I am in California and I can careless about the Big 10 and the Longhorn Network.  At&t needs to provide sports programming for their customers in California.  If they don't add these channels by basketball season I will be going back to Cox.

---

jusplayin619 wrote:

I'm in San Diego and I'm really disappointed with the sports service that at&t is providing for Southern California fans.  I should've done my homework on what sports channels were offered.  No Lakers No Pac-12 but we do have Big-10 and the Longhorn Network.  I am in California and I can careless about the Big 10 and the Longhorn Network.  At&t needs to provide sports programming for their customers in California.  If they don't add these channels by basketball season I will be going back to Cox.

---

And you will still not have the Lakers, so far NO provider has a contract with TWC for the Lakers.

I understand business needs.  I also understand that The Los Angeleds Lakers are one of the most valuable franchises in all of sports.  They are an international brand.  Smaller regional networks command a very simialar price. I understand that sports networks have increased the able bill of everyone who doesn;t watch sports.  I completely get that.  IMHO customers should be able to purchase these networks a la carte (liek Fox Soccer channel)  I would willingly pay 3.95 personally for my laker games.  

 

 

But this is where ATT/Verizon. TWC/comacast and all the other guys run the game their way.  Yes netwroks (Turner TW) shove certain channels down cable companies throats by refusing to package certain channels.  This is extremely common.  

 

ATT doesn't want indivual a la carte cable channels.  BC people wouldn;t subscribe to 90% of channels.  Nor would most media companies,  then they'd be forced to produce quality programming. 

 

anyway

 

i am not alone

 

you think i'm kidding that lakers fanbs will revolt.. try it.. 

 

uverse will bleed customers

 

especially with this team

 

Fox Soccer Plus is $15 a month, iirc. Big difference from the $3.95 you're willing to pay.