Skip to main content
AT&T Community Forums

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

texasguy37

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

9 years ago


@okghal wrote:

 

"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?


There have been 2 annual rate increases since I have had the service.  The rate increases cover the increased cost incurred by U-verse including programming costs.  No TV provider, including U-verse, increases costs with each channel addition.  Rate increases typically occur on an annual basis.

 

If U-verse adds the Longhorn channel in August, there will be no rate increase in August just as there have been no rate increases when other channels have been added this year.

 

By the way, any new channel can raise your costs if there is carriage fee paid to carry that channel.  This describe almost all the channels in the U-verse lineup.  

 

Are you saying that every channel in the U-verse lineup that receives a carriage fee is provided by an entity that you support?

texasguy37

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

9 years ago


@jdop09 wrote:

 

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.


First, the Notre Dame Network does not yet exist.  Second, no TV provider, including U-verse, has added the Longhorn Network to it lineup.

 

Also, yes, I realized that the opposition has nothing to do with TV programming.  It's about being opposed to the University of Texas and anything that it might be involved in.

Tutor

 • 

11 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."

 

Noone cares that the LHN exists, the issue is two fold, 1) noone wants to pay for something to support a university that is not theirs and 2) per the same agreement you reference the conference had agreed that teams would only be able to show one non-conference game and UT has broken that promise.

 

Not only that but the recent promises that were made by  UT regarding not airing HS games have already been broken as they continued to negotiate with HS districts and coaches after the fact, so dont talk about promises from last year that arent being kept, UT is the only one who isnt keeping their promises and we dont want to foot the bill for it, which is just as much a right of the consumer as it is for UT to try and do what it wants - albeit potentially breaking NCAA rules in the process.

texasguy37

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

9 years ago


@CTEL08 wrote:

@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.  


You should explain that to the Big 12 which was fighting for survival.  If Texas has gone to the Pac 10, the Big 12 would be no more.

Tutor

 • 

11 Messages

9 years ago

"Are you saying that every channel in the U-verse lineup that receives a carriage fee is provided by an entity that you support?"

 

Not at all, but until now, there wasnt something that I really dont want my money going to...to be honest, I select the package that I want and the channels that I want, and pay for whatever comes with it...but if there is something that I dont want to support then I will voice my opinion about it, like I am doing now.

 

 

texasguy37

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

9 years ago

By the way, does the "ok" in your name stand for Oklahoma by chance?

CTEL08

Scholar

 • 

282 Messages

9 years ago


@texasguy37 wrote:

@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.


it is interesting isnt it. yes, a football school that is already  independent that would start its own network, its a hale of alot different circumstance than what UT is doing. because its 2 different situations. and if you think that sports other than football are players in the money side of things, then you should be paying more attention. cfb isnt just driving that bus, it paid for the bus, the gas and the maintenance

 

but if you read correctly that  a religious school isnt going to be airing religion programs, well then shame shame on them

Tutor

 • 

11 Messages

9 years ago

"You should explain that to the Big 12 which was fighting for survival.  If Texas has gone to the Pac 10, the Big 12 would be no more."

 

That is funny...if A&M would have agreed to go to the Pac 10, they would all be there right now.When A&M didnt follow UT's lead like the rest of the Big12 did, that threw a wrench in the Longhorns plans and they backtracked, and here they are again today, making plans that will destroy the Big 12 . UT already killed the SWC and is now about to kill the Big12...this time I hope it happens, because having an SEC team in Texas would be awesome!

 

 

Tutor

 • 

11 Messages

9 years ago

No, I am born and raised in Texas and not a fan of the sooners or cowboys

texasguy37

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

9 years ago


@okghal wrote:

 

"You should explain that to the Big 12 which was fighting for survival.  If Texas has gone to the Pac 10, the Big 12 would be no more."

 

That is funny...if A&M would have agreed to go to the Pac 10, they would all be there right now.When A&M didnt follow UT's lead like the rest of the Big12 did, that threw a wrench in the Longhorns plans and they backtracked, and here they are again today, making plans that will destroy the Big 12 . UT already killed the SWC and is now about to kill the Big12...this time I hope it happens, because having an SEC team in Texas would be awesome!

 


As I recall, at the same time last year, Texas A&M was trying to get into the SEC.

texasguy37

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

9 years ago


@okghal wrote:

 

No, I am born and raised in Texas and not a fan of the sooners or cowboys


I'm a fan of neither also. We do agree on something!  Maybe there is hope. 🙂

Tutor

 • 

11 Messages

9 years ago

"As I recall, at the same time last year, Texas A&M was trying to get into the SEC"

 

That was after UT tried to pull everyone to the Pac10...the Aggies didnt just go quietly, they reviewed their options first and liked what they saw in the SEC...

 

 

texasguy37

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

9 years ago

Hopefully, they will go to the SEC when the Big 12 breaks up in a few years.

Tutor

 • 

11 Messages

9 years ago

Now that is 2x we agree! and I am hoping the go by next year...announce it before the season starts and make plans to see some SEC football in Texas!!

texasguy37

Expert

 • 

14.5K Messages

9 years ago

It may not be next year, but I would say no more than 5 years.  Even though only Nebraska and Colorado left the conference, there is an uneasy peace with the remaining teams.

Get started...

Ask a new question