AustinTX#1's profile

Contributor

 • 

3 Messages

Tuesday, August 9th, 2011 10:50 PM

Longhorn Network - Just say 'No'

I greatly appreciate the value provided by AT&T in bundling tv/wireless/internet services.  Similarly, the bundling of channels allows customers to access a variety of programming at substantial savings.

 

However, occasionally, programming comes along that is so expensive and directed at such a narrow, niche market that it deserves to be left off of the programming options or ordered solely as an 'a la carte' option.  If the reports about the price tag  to cable providers  to offer the 'longhorn network' (by ESPN) are accurate, the only way it could be added to current bundled programming packages is at substantial cost to MANY people who have no interest in the programming. 

 

Please AT&T, keep prices low, by either not offering or charging ONLY those who desire this programming option.

 

Thanks!

Contributor

 • 

2 Messages

13 years ago

"I wonder how many would subscribe if they offered it as a separate tier?  shocked.gif"

 

 

And this is the way you do a pilot folks.

Expert

 • 

24.3K Messages

13 years ago

But knowing that it may cost MORE per customer to offer it for fewer subscribers?

Contributor

 • 

3 Messages

13 years ago

As far as not including the LHN in a bundled set of channles, the same could be said for 75% of the channels in all cable packages. So, since I already am required to support other peoples' interest because of not being able to choose my channels, I see no difference as to why someone else should not support my channel interest in having the LHN added to basic packages. Please add LHN to U200 and U300! Thanks!

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

13 years ago


@CaptainAnt wrote:

 

Also Texasguy, I got the information from a friend of mine that spoke with a TWC chat rep last night.

 

http://i54.tinypic.com/10fnjwn.jpg

 

this is the chat log from it. However, it appears that he was lied to as TWC does not have LHN.


If you read the thread below, it appeared to just a rumor that has turned out to not be true.

 

http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/96039-Time-Warner-Cable-is-Carrying-the-Longhorn-Network-or-is-it

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

13 years ago


SomeJoe7777 wrote:

 

Third, your numbers are off, because there aren't 1M U-Verse subscribers in Texas.  U-Verse has 3.4M subscribers total, throughout the nation.  Texas is probably 500K or so.  Average TV revenue per subscriber per month is less than you're quoting, probably around $75 or so, because the majority of people have U200.  Finally, you can't just say that the fees to LHN would be just Texas subscribers ... they're going to want the 40 cents for everyone who can view the channel.  If LHN makes AT&T put the channel on U200, that means 95%+ of the 3.4M customers would be able to view the channel and therefore figure into the 40 cents. 


U-verse probably has a bit more than 500K customers in Texas now.  In early 2010, I read an article that stated that U-verse had 225K  customers in Dallas and about 200k customers in Houston.  I would think that a year and a half later those numbers are probably higher.  I would guess that Dallas and Houston combined have about 500k.  U-verse also has customers in San Antonio, Austin and El Paso.  My guess would be that there may be 700k - 800k U-verse customers in Texas.

 

Also, reports are that within Texas, ESPN wants the Longhorn Network treated as a regional sports network and placed on the basic tier.  U-verse has most of the local RSN's on the U100 and above packages.  Outside of the Texas, it would be placed on a higher tier such as the Sports Package or the HD Premium Package.

 

It is also reported that the 40 cents per subscriber fee would only apply to Texas customers with a lower fee per subscriber for customers outside of Texas.  Thus, those TV providers who have the most customers in Texas will incur the higher total carriage fees to place the channel in their lineup.  Verizon only has 250k customers in Texas (all in Dallas) and Grande Communications has 140k Texas customers.  Their total carriage fee will be significantly lower than the fee that U-verse or Time Warner will have to pay.

Teacher

 • 

21 Messages

13 years ago

If what I'm seeing is true as far as charge goes, I'd pay an add'l 40 cents a month every month even when it's not football season.  I WANT TO SEE MY HORNS...EVERY GAME!!!

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

13 years ago


@2UTfans wrote:

 

If what I'm seeing is true as far as charge goes, I'd pay an add'l 40 cents a month every month even when it's not football season.  I WANT TO SEE MY HORNS...EVERY GAME!!!


The 40 cents is the carriage fee paid to ESPN for the Longhorn Network.  It does not include the fees incurred by AT&T for delivery of the channel.

Contributor

 • 

1 Message

13 years ago

Just get on with it and find a way to resolve this.  Your service isn't good enough to keep customers if you don't provide access to the programming that we want.  Longhorns or lose me.

Contributor

 • 

1 Message

13 years ago

I agree. This is absolutely ridiculous. I have BYU HD but not LHN??? Makes no sense. And my in-laws get LHN in Corpus with Grande but in Houston, the LARGEST Texas Exes base, we don't have it. Big miss u-verse.

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

13 years ago


@Cthomas109 wrote:
I agree. This is absolutely ridiculous. I have BYU HD but not LHN??? Makes no sense. And my in-laws get LHN in Corpus with Grande but in Houston, the LARGEST Texas Exes base, we don't have it. Big miss u-verse.

BYU TV is made available to TV providers with no carriage fee.  It is reported that LHN wants a carriage fee of 40 cents per subscriber in Texas.  Which would be financially easier to carry?

Not finding what you're looking for?
New to AT&T Community?
New to the AT&T Community? Start by visiting the Community How-To.
New to the AT&T Community?
Visit the Community How-To.