Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

Teacher

Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

Kansas City stations are adding several subchannels each year.  The Competitors are picking up these channels but Uverse has chosen not to.  Sad to see Uverse fall behind.  Seems they are losing their competitive advantage they once had in the Kansas City Market.  Please Explain.

Message 1 of 45 (3,312 Views)
Teacher

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

[ Edited ]

I have no problem communicating the competitors at all since you ask.  I was trying to be respectful to Uverse that is the only reason i didnt, afterall this is their blog.  Both Comcast and Time Warner carry the sub-channels.  Also becaue I thought it was the stations that were not allowing Uverse in, I didn contact Hearst Communication which is the owner of METV and they sent a very nice response back saying that dispite their reaching out to ATT, Unverse has chosen not to add METV to their lineup.  They said they were very dissappointed by ATT Decision and hoped they would change their mind in the future.  Metro Sports Kansas City also had a very simalar response.  The thing I liked about Uverse is they gave the people of Kansas City a choice in Cable Companys.  This has forced the cometitors to step up their game.  Now the competitors have stepped up, will Uverse?

Message 16 of 45 (2,670 Views)
ACE - Master

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels


texasguy37 wrote:

Slee661 wrote:
ATT is missing the point. Both Competitors in Kansas City Metro Area are carrying Sub-Channels. They are not asking their customers to use 1950s Antenna Technology ( kind of insulting). They are listening to their customers and adding channels. All I am asking is for ATT to keep up with their competition. ATT has been head and shoulders above the other companies in KC, But they are a risk of losing their competitive edge.

U-verse has added a number of channels recently.  I'm sure more than the competitors that  you are referring to.  By the way, using an OTA antenna to pickup free over the air broadcast channels instead of having to pay to view those channels is hardly 1950's technology.


No, 1950's is about right.  Although the OTA receiver's are much more modern technology (ATSC) and there have been some limited new antenna designs, most TV antenna designs are 50-60 years old.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
Message 17 of 45 (2,595 Views)
ACE - Master

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

[ Edited ]

Slee661 wrote:

I have no problem communicating the competitors at all since you ask.  I was trying to be respectful to Uverse that is the only reason i didnt, afterall this is their blog.  Both Comcast and Time Warner carry the sub-channels.  Also becaue I thought it was the stations that were not allowing Uverse in, I didn contact Hearst Communication which is the owner of METV and they sent a very nice response back saying that dispite their reaching out to ATT, Unverse has chosen not to add METV to their lineup.  They said they were very dissappointed by ATT Decision and hoped they would change their mind in the future.  Metro Sports Kansas City also had a very simalar response.  The thing I liked about Uverse is they gave the people of Kansas City a choice in Cable Companys.  This has forced the cometitors to step up their game.  Now the competitors have stepped up, will Uverse?


The manager of two local stations (Fox 59 / WTTV 4) said that U-Verse shut them out.  He oiffered AT&T free equipment and AT&T told him to get lost.  Not sure about 6, 8, 13, 20 (PBS) and 23.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
Message 18 of 45 (2,595 Views)
Highlighted
ACE - Master

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

[ Edited ]

Slee661 wrote:

...Hearst Communication which is the owner of METV and they sent a very nice response back saying that dispite their reaching out to ATT, Unverse has chosen not to add METV to their lineup.  They said they were very dissappointed by ATT Decision and hoped they would change their mind in the future. 


ME-TV is not a sub-channel in all markets.  Here in the Dallas area, it is NOT and is carried on Uverse.

 

Perhaps blame should be laid on the owners of ME (Weigel Broadcasting*/distributed by MGM).  It doesn't have to be a sub-channel.

 

*Weigel Broadcasting owns ME-TV.  Hearst owns the affiliate that agreed to carry it as a sub-channel.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
Message 19 of 45 (2,587 Views)
Teacher

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

[ Edited ]

In Nashville we have WPGD, the TBN affiliate on Ch. 50. The TBN network itself airs on Ch.560.

 

ATT Uverse also airs Ch.565 JCTN,Ch.570 TCC, and Ch.340 Smile of a Child Network. All of these  networks are subchannels of WPGD and TBN.

 

Uverse does broadcast certain subchannels.

Message 20 of 45 (2,567 Views)
ACE - Expert

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels


JaCruTN wrote:

In Nashville we have WPGD, the TBN affiliate on Ch. 50. The TBN network itself airs on Ch.560.

 

ATT Uverse also airs Ch.565 JCTN,Ch.570 TCC, and Ch.340 Smile of a Child Network. All of these  networks are subchannels of WPGD and TBN.

 

Uverse does broadcast certain subchannels.


Those are national cable feeds that go across the country.  People everywhere get them regardless of whether the channel happens to have an affiliate on a subchannel.

 

Local subchannels are what AT&T does not do.

 

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
Message 21 of 45 (2,554 Views)
Teacher

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

They may be live feeds of the national TBN network. They're also subchannels of a local television channel.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPGD-TV

 

 

Other local channels across the nation have subchannels that are also live network feeds,for example Retro TV,Cozi TV ,Antenna TV ,This TV ETC,ETC.

Message 22 of 45 (2,535 Views)
ACE - Master

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels


JaCruTN wrote:

They may be live feeds of the national TBN network. They're also subchannels of a local television channel.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPGD-TV

 

 

Other local channels across the nation have subchannels that are also live network feeds,for example Retro TV,Cozi TV ,Antenna TV ,This TV ETC,ETC.


Right but I also get those feeds, too and they are not (my local's) 42.3.  That is just a coiincidence, that the station is on your area as a subchannel but U-Verse carries them in all markets.  I hear ya about the subchannels,; they are shortsided, in not carrying them, if you ask me.

 

As for your last paragraph, I will bet that U-Verse adds the national feeds of Cozi, Retro and so on before they add the subchannels.  I do have a feeling, however, that if WQQQ (silly example) carries Retro TV, they will try to stop U-Verse from carrying a National feed.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
Message 23 of 45 (2,518 Views)
Xii
Contributor

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

I just signed up for att u-verse without realizing that they don't carry the sub-channels. The sales guys assured me that I'd get all the "local channels" but I didn't think to ask what was included. At least I don't have a contract, because I'll be canceling after the holidays. Without the sub-channels, it's not worth the money.

Message 24 of 45 (2,411 Views)
Employee

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

When was service activated? Do you have a promotion or bundle pricing, if yes you have a contract, may cancel within first 30 days from activation date to avoid $180 termination fee but still be responsible for installation fees and prorated usage.

Highlights from http://www.att.com/u-verse/explore/offer-details.jsp

Promotional pricing applies to service rates only and excludes taxes, equipment fees and other charges including a $29 installation fee, $49 service activation fee, city video cost recovery fees, where applicable, and a Broadcast TV surcharge. Residential customers only. Credit restrictions may apply. Pricing, programming and features subject to change at any time without notice.

12-month term required. An early termination fee of up to $180 may apply if U-verse TV service is disconnected before end of term. After 12 months, standard rates apply unless cancelled by customer.

30-Day Money-Back GuaranteeSmiley Surprisedffer ends 1/25/14. Must cancel all AT&T U-verse services within 30days from service activation. Adjustment provided for monthly recurring charges only. Customer is responsible for all additional charges including but not limited to installation, On Demand, Pay Per View, international calls, other pay-per-use features, non-returned equipment charges, and any other one-time fees.
Employee Contributor*
*I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent AT&T's position, strategies or opinions.
Message 25 of 45 (2,407 Views)
ACE - Professor

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels


Xii wrote:

I just signed up for att u-verse without realizing that they don't carry the sub-channels. The sales guys assured me that I'd get all the "local channels" but I didn't think to ask what was included. At least I don't have a contract, because I'll be canceling after the holidays. Without the sub-channels, it's not worth the money.


I have never understood how sub-channels can be a deal breaker for U-Verse. We still have two high definition televisions that are not connected to U-Verse, so we can get all of the sub-channels on those, rabbit ears permitting.

 

The only one we watch of the two is the 19 inch in the kitchen, and when we do watch it , we watch only the main channel, not the sub-channels. The only sub-channel I ever saw that was worth watching was our NBC affiliate's all weather sub-channel which is no longer in existence. It was replaced by a different format.

 


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

Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
Message 26 of 45 (2,400 Views)
ACE - Professor

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels


dwinth wrote:

Xii wrote:

I just signed up for att u-verse without realizing that they don't carry the sub-channels. The sales guys assured me that I'd get all the "local channels" but I didn't think to ask what was included. At least I don't have a contract, because I'll be canceling after the holidays. Without the sub-channels, it's not worth the money.


I have never understood how sub-channels can be a deal breaker for U-Verse. We still have two high definition televisions that are not connected to U-Verse, so we can get all of the sub-channels on those, rabbit ears permitting.

 

The only one we watch of the two is the 19 inch in the kitchen, and when we do watch it , we watch only the main channel, not the sub-channels. The only sub-channel I ever saw that was worth watching was our NBC affiliate's all weather sub-channel which is no longer in existence. It was replaced by a different format.

 


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


Not having the DVR connected could be an issue for some folks, I'd imagine. 

 

Personally, I've never found much worth watching on the sub-channels, other than the weather channels, which I can't imagine recording. However, I can see how people with different interests would have a different experience.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
Message 27 of 45 (2,392 Views)

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

For some folks, CW and ME-TV are on subs.  CW is starting to be a channel I watch regularly with Arrow and the Tomorrow People.  They are also starting to work on a Flash series after they introduced him this week on Arrow. Personally the only thing I've watched on ME is some reruns of MASH.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway
Message 28 of 45 (2,377 Views)
ACE - Professor

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels


oufanindallas wrote:

For some folks, CW and ME-TV are on subs.  CW is starting to be a channel I watch regularly with Arrow and the Tomorrow People.  They are also starting to work on a Flash series after they introduced him this week on Arrow. Personally the only thing I've watched on ME is some reruns of MASH.


Gotta love Barry Allen. Fastest man alive, always arrives late.

-------

Resident Xbox ACE. Ask me almost anything about Xbox on U-Verse.

Xbox Gamertag: americangame
PSN: americangame
Steam:americangame
When friending me mention that you found me on the AT&T forums.
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
Message 29 of 45 (2,343 Views)
Mentor

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

Last night (Saturday) was the only time I have ever been upset about not having the subs.  Our local CBS affiliate decided not to show the MWC Football Championship game on the "regular" feed, but did offer it on their 10.2 channel.  Being a CFB diehard, I would of loved to of seen one last game last night. 

Message 30 of 45 (2,319 Views)
Share this topic
Announcements

Welcome to the AT&T Community Forums!!! Stop by the Community How-To section for tips on how to get started.