Skip to main content
AT&T Community Forums
Announcements

Contributor

 • 

3 Messages

Tue, Aug 9, 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!

Responses

CTEL08

Scholar

 • 

282 Messages

9 years ago


@texasguy37 wrote:

@okghal wrote:

 

Conspiracy, campaign, whatever you want to call it, it makes no sense financially, which is why no other school has attempted to do this. The LHN will fail because the cable providers wont be able to sell the product - at least not at the rate required for ESPN to profit enough to pay UT. 


Have you ever hear of Brigham Young University Television (BYU TV)?


to say the least, this isnt a good analogy at all.

 

b/c for one, BYU TV's mandate reaches far beyond just sports or the university in general for that matter.

 

and secondly,  how much is att paying in subscriber fees to provide BYU tv to uverse customers?  its very few pennies, if anything at all. BYU TV isnt about maximizing their sub fees, they make it available for free OTA, cband, ku band, and on the net

texasguy37

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

9 years ago


@CTEL08 wrote:
to say the least, this isnt a good analogy at all.

 

b/c for one, BYU TV's mandate reaches far beyond just sports or the university in general for that matter.

 

and secondly,  how much is att paying in subscriber fees to provide BYU tv to uverse customers?  its very few pennies, if anything at all. BYU TV isnt about maximizing their sub fees, they make it available for free OTA, cband, ku band, and on the net


So you also opposed the Longhorn Network being added by any TV provider?

texasguy37

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

9 years ago


@okghal wrote:

 

Passing the costs on to subscribers who do not demand it is the only way it can be done, and the only way for those of us who dont want to pay for it can speak up is to voice our opinions in forums such as this.


Interesting.  I have been a customer for over 2 years.  During that time, quite a few new channels have been added to the U-verse lineup.  Some with higher carriage fees that others.  Some of channels I have been interested in and watch on a regular basis while other channels I never watch.  Yet I "subsidize" those channels that I never watch and have no interest in.

 

Do you opposed all new channel that are added to U-verse or just the ones that you have no interest in?

CTEL08

Scholar

 • 

282 Messages

9 years ago


@texasguy37 wrote:

@CTEL08 wrote:
to say the least, this isnt a good analogy at all.

 

b/c for one, BYU TV's mandate reaches far beyond just sports or the university in general for that matter.

 

and secondly,  how much is att paying in subscriber fees to provide BYU tv to uverse customers?  its very few pennies, if anything at all. BYU TV isnt about maximizing their sub fees, they make it available for free OTA, cband, ku band, and on the net


So you also opposed the Longhorn Network being added by any TV provider?


youre the one who said youre hear to post facts, if you want to ask questions, ask yourself why youre reaching for bogus "facts". 

 

there seems to be some uverse customers who are new , i'd rather here their opinions on the subject, unless you finally so have one.

texasguy37

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

9 years ago


@CTEL08 wrote:

So you also opposed the Longhorn Network being added by any TV provider?


youre the one who said youre hear to post facts, if you want to ask questions, ask yourself why youre reaching for bogus "facts". 

 

there seems to be some uverse customers who are new , i'd rather here their opinions on the subject, unless you finally so have one.


Wow!  Didn't respond to my question.

 

By the way, what are the "bogus" facts?  That BYU has it own TV network or that both Notre Dame and Oklahoma are also looking to start there own networks?  Could the bogus fact be the the Pac-12 conference will be starting 7 new networks next year?

CTEL08

Scholar

 • 

282 Messages

9 years ago


@texasguy37 wrote:

@CTEL08 wrote:

So you also opposed the Longhorn Network being added by any TV provider?


youre the one who said youre hear to post facts, if you want to ask questions, ask yourself why youre reaching for bogus "facts". 

 

there seems to be some uverse customers who are new , i'd rather here their opinions on the subject, unless you finally so have one.


Wow!  Didn't respond to my question.

 

By the way, what are the "bogus" facts?  That BYU has it own TV network or that both Notre Dame and Oklahoma are also looking to start there own networks?  Could the bogus fact be the the Pac-12 conference will be starting 7 new networks next year?


right! i did not answer your question. b/c my opinion isnt important, as i dont live in texas so if the long* network would almost certainly be available only thru a sports pack, if at all

 

but if you ask me, espn was overly ambitious to get a deal done with UT and overpaid. just b/c they make a bad deal, doesnt mean everybody should have to pay for it. the deal, by its nature, alienates all the other TT, A&M, TCU, SMU etc...fans.

 

if there was a usc or a cal berkeley only network, that only profited the one school, i'd be *ed and would be campaigning against that too! 

 

which brings up your comapraisons. the only one that is remotely comaparable is if OU starts its own network, and that deal hasnt been cut yet

 

the pac 12 deal, all the money is still pooled equally between schools, even with the local networks. utah and washington state will get as much money as usc and ucla.and theyre going to be carring a ton of football games, not just one creampuff per year.

 

 and from what i've read, larry scott made gave the cable co's a fair rate. whereas ut is all about ut. they were a  major force in running one conference into the ground, and theyre doing their best to do it a second time. i learn this from reading fans opinions. ppl are more likely to express their opinions when theyre not being shouted down.

texasguy37

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

9 years ago


@CTEL08 wrote:
which brings up your comapraisons. the only one that is remotely comaparable is if OU starts its own network, and that deal hasnt been cut yet

And Notre Dame?

texasguy37

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

9 years ago


@CTEL08 wrote:
if there was a usc or a cal berkeley only network, that only profited the one school, i'd be *ed and would be campaigning against that too! 

Why?

CTEL08

Scholar

 • 

282 Messages

9 years ago


@texasguy37 wrote:

@CTEL08 wrote:
if there was a usc or a cal berkeley only network, that only profited the one school, i'd be *ed and would be campaigning against that too! 

Why?


it undermines the ideals of a conference in many ways. the competition is suppose to be limited to the play on the field.

 

for instance, the long* network's competitive advantage go beyond just a financial one, it would give them an even more significant recruiting advantage than they already have.

 

it would be much more beneficial to the conference and the consumer as  a whole if UT worked with the rest of the big twelve conference. but, just one fans opinion, it looks like UT is setting itself up to tell the rest of the schools to shove it, and theyre going independent sometime in the future, if they so desire. 

texasguy37

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

9 years ago

What people seen to not remember is that Texas is doing exactly what the Big 12 Conference said that it would do when they agreed to not go to the Pac 10 Conference last year.  If Texas had gone to the Pac 10 Conference, other Big 12 teams would have gone with them, and the Big 12 Conference would no longer exist.  As part of the agreement for Texas to reman in the Big 12 Conference and keep the conference in tact, the Big 12 Conference agreed to allow Texas to start it's own network.  They are now doing that.

 

http://web.yesnetwork.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100614&content_id=11183122&oid=9&vkey=10&print=true

 

CTEL08

Scholar

 • 

282 Messages

9 years ago


@texasguy37 wrote:

@CTEL08 wrote:
which brings up your comapraisons. the only one that is remotely comaparable is if OU starts its own network, and that deal hasnt been cut yet

And Notre Dame?


again, ND has a strong religious affiliation, i'd think their blueprint would follow BYU tv's as much as UTs

 

but then again, for sports purposes, they are considered a national school and unlike UT have a STRONG national following, so as much as i personally wouldnt like it, it would probably be justifiable. i think that in the end, that versus/nbc sports will in how NDtv moves forward. 

CTEL08

Scholar

 • 

282 Messages

9 years ago


@texasguy37 wrote:

What people seen to not remember is that Texas is doing exactly what the Big 12 Conference said that it would do when they agreed to not go to the Pac 10 Conference last year.  If Texas had gone to the Pac 10 Conference, other Big 12 teams would have gone with them, and the Big 12 Conference would no longer exist.  As part of the agreement for Texas to reman in the Big 12 Conference and keep the conference in tact, the Big 12 Conference agreed to allow Texas to start it's own network.  They are now doing that.

 

http://web.yesnetwork.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100614&content_id=11183122&oid=9&vkey=10&print=true

 


its a common negotiating technique called "Strongarming", it good for the short term, not as good for long term success.  

 

ut used the pac 10's interest to get what they wanted. what wasnt mention is that a 16 team conference would  have revolutioned college football, causing mayhem and creating a brave new world scenario, that would have looked more like an nfl/pro sports model, than a traditional college one. 

espn and fox sports came to the rescue with extra money to help maintain the status quo, for now. 

Tutor

 • 

11 Messages

9 years ago

"Do you opposed all new channel that are added to U-verse or just the ones that you have no interest in?"

 

I only oppose a channel that would 1) raise my costs, or 2) would give money to entities that I would prefer to not support.

 

So as they added new channels, were your rates raised?

texasguy37

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

9 years ago


@CTEL08 wrote:

again, ND has a strong religious affiliation, i'd think their blueprint would follow BYU tv's as much as UTs

 

but then again, for sports purposes, they are considered a national school and unlike UT have a STRONG national following, so as much as i personally wouldnt like it, it would probably be justifiable. i think that in the end, that versus/nbc sports will in how NDtv moves forward. 


LOL.  Interesting how you find a way to justify some things, but be opposed to other things that are the same.  Where are you comments about how the Notre Dame Network would harm the other teams in the Big East Conference?

 

 Also, reading the comments by the Notre Dame AD, I see no mention of religious programming but only comments about all the athletic programming that the fans will have access to from coast to coast.

Contributor

 • 

2 Messages

9 years ago

texasguy, you're not arguing the right points. Of course no one here complained about the Notre Dame network...safe to say that most people commenting here don't live in that region and weren't charged for the channel. We aren't TV programming freedom fighers, we're people who are upset that, 1. we are being charged for a network that hardly appeals to anyone, and 2. the University of Texas cares so little for the rest of the schools that make up the Big 12 Conference.

Get started...

Ask a new question