Ask a question
Search in U-verse Forums

U-verse Forums

Reply
Posted Nov 23, 2013
8:18:41 PM
View profile
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.

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.

Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

2,623 views
44 replies
(4) Me too
(4) Me too
Reply
View all replies
(44)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 24, 2013 7:59:53 PM
0
(0)
Teacher

I live in the Nashville area and would like to see Uverse pick up the subchannels.

 

We have a good 24 hour local weather channel. On Saturday I tuned in to Uverse Weather  on demand channel. It said the temperature in Nashville was 7 degrees when in reality it was in the 40's. Accu Weather is not reliable.

I'd settle for Local on the 8's!

 

We have a 24 hour newschannel that broadcasts the news plus local talk shows.

 

One channel has a Retro TV subchannel.

 

I see people post that you could get an antenna and attach it to pick up the local channels. Why are we paying big money for cable/subscription television for? Most people want the clear reception it can give us over the added antennas!

I live in the Nashville area and would like to see Uverse pick up the subchannels.

 

We have a good 24 hour local weather channel. On Saturday I tuned in to Uverse Weather  on demand channel. It said the temperature in Nashville was 7 degrees when in reality it was in the 40's. Accu Weather is not reliable.

I'd settle for Local on the 8's!

 

We have a 24 hour newschannel that broadcasts the news plus local talk shows.

 

One channel has a Retro TV subchannel.

 

I see people post that you could get an antenna and attach it to pick up the local channels. Why are we paying big money for cable/subscription television for? Most people want the clear reception it can give us over the added antennas!

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

2 of 45 (2,534 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 25, 2013 6:37:57 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Expert

JaCruTN wrote:

...

 

We have a good 24 hour local weather channel. On Saturday I tuned in to Uverse Weather  on demand channel. It said the temperature in Nashville was 7 degrees when in reality it was in the 40's. Accu Weather is not reliable. 

...


7 degrees Celsius is 44 degrees Fahrenheit.  I believe there is a setting to control which scale temperatures are to be displayed in if you prefer °F to °C.


JaCruTN wrote:

...

 

We have a good 24 hour local weather channel. On Saturday I tuned in to Uverse Weather  on demand channel. It said the temperature in Nashville was 7 degrees when in reality it was in the 40's. Accu Weather is not reliable. 

...


7 degrees Celsius is 44 degrees Fahrenheit.  I believe there is a setting to control which scale temperatures are to be displayed in if you prefer °F to °C.

*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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

3 of 45 (2,502 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 25, 2013 8:44:51 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master
Edited by dhascall on Nov 25, 2013 at 8:50:02 AM

Slee661 wrote:

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.


Yeah, me too!  I do not understand the reluctance to carrying them and they may never carry them.  I had an email conversation with the GM of two local stations (WTTV/Fox59), who said that he offered AT&T free equipment, support and so on to get the subchannels on U-Verse and AT&T told him to get lost.

 

One could request the subchannels here but it is automated (i.e. no one reads the individual requests) and I'm not sure how effective it is.

 

Someone will be along directly to tell you that you can get an antenna, coax (and maybe an antenna rotator) to receive the subchannels over the air (OTA).  They will not be able to tell you, however, how to incorporate the U-Verse DVR............ Smiley Tongue


Slee661 wrote:

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.


Yeah, me too!  I do not understand the reluctance to carrying them and they may never carry them.  I had an email conversation with the GM of two local stations (WTTV/Fox59), who said that he offered AT&T free equipment, support and so on to get the subchannels on U-Verse and AT&T told him to get lost.

 

One could request the subchannels here but it is automated (i.e. no one reads the individual requests) and I'm not sure how effective it is.

 

Someone will be along directly to tell you that you can get an antenna, coax (and maybe an antenna rotator) to receive the subchannels over the air (OTA).  They will not be able to tell you, however, how to incorporate the U-Verse DVR............ Smiley Tongue

*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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

[ Edited ]
4 of 45 (2,485 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 25, 2013 9:55:10 AM
0
(0)
Employee

dhascall wrote:

Slee661 wrote:

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.


Yeah, me too!  I do not understand the reluctance to carrying them and they may never carry them.  I had an email conversation with the GM of two local stations (WTTV/Fox59), who said that he offered AT&T free equipment, support and so on to get the subchannels on U-Verse and AT&T told him to get lost.

 

One could request the subchannels here but it is automated (i.e. no one reads the individual requests) and I'm not sure how effective it is.

 

Someone will be along directly to tell you that you can get an antenna, coax (and maybe an antenna rotator) to receive the subchannels over the air (OTA).  They will not be able to tell you, however, how to incorporate the U-Verse DVR............ Smiley Tongue




I've seen you post that for years. It is incorrect. Please stop spreading this misinformation.

 

 

 


dhascall wrote:

Slee661 wrote:

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.


Yeah, me too!  I do not understand the reluctance to carrying them and they may never carry them.  I had an email conversation with the GM of two local stations (WTTV/Fox59), who said that he offered AT&T free equipment, support and so on to get the subchannels on U-Verse and AT&T told him to get lost.

 

One could request the subchannels here but it is automated (i.e. no one reads the individual requests) and I'm not sure how effective it is.

 

Someone will be along directly to tell you that you can get an antenna, coax (and maybe an antenna rotator) to receive the subchannels over the air (OTA).  They will not be able to tell you, however, how to incorporate the U-Verse DVR............ Smiley Tongue




I've seen you post that for years. It is incorrect. Please stop spreading this misinformation.

 

 

 

*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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

5 of 45 (2,473 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 25, 2013 10:15:10 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master
Edited by dhascall on Nov 25, 2013 at 10:25:41 AM

I haven't been saying that for years. Smiley Indifferent  I have mentioned maybe 3-4 times, that IMHO that link isn't useful.  I was told that the channel names were electronically gathered and an aggregated  spreadsheet is provided to U-Verse managers once per week.  Is that not correct / Do you have any other information?  Thanks.  

 

As a subscriber (and entitled to my opinion), I am not sure of the usefulness of that link.  i.e. if a channel has ever been added by that link or not.

I haven't been saying that for years. Smiley Indifferent  I have mentioned maybe 3-4 times, that IMHO that link isn't useful.  I was told that the channel names were electronically gathered and an aggregated  spreadsheet is provided to U-Verse managers once per week.  Is that not correct / Do you have any other information?  Thanks.  

 

As a subscriber (and entitled to my opinion), I am not sure of the usefulness of that link.  i.e. if a channel has ever been added by that link or not.

*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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

[ Edited ]
6 of 45 (2,468 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 25, 2013 12:08:22 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Expert

dhascall wrote:

...  I was told that the channel names were electronically gathered and an aggregated  spreadsheet is provided to U-Verse managers once per week. ... 

 


People are likely to overlook the word "individual" in your statement to read it as "no one reads those requests."  Which, assuming the U-verse managers actually read the aggregated information, is not true.


dhascall wrote:

...  I was told that the channel names were electronically gathered and an aggregated  spreadsheet is provided to U-Verse managers once per week. ... 

 


People are likely to overlook the word "individual" in your statement to read it as "no one reads those requests."  Which, assuming the U-verse managers actually read the aggregated information, is not true.

*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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

7 of 45 (2,451 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 25, 2013 1:03:31 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

JefferMC wrote:

dhascall wrote:

...  I was told that the channel names were electronically gathered and an aggregated  spreadsheet is provided to U-Verse managers once per week. ... 

 


People are likely to overlook the word "individual" in your statement to read it as "no one reads those requests."  Which, assuming the U-verse managers actually read the aggregated information, is not true.


I believe that managers do look at the aggregated results, however, when it comes to subchannels, in individual cities, the aggrageted results aren't going to amount to much, i.e. "only two people requested MeTV, WTHR 13.3.  I'm not going to pursue that, since only 2 folks out of 5 million subscribers requested it." 

 

Again, it is dhascall's opinion (for whatever it's worth) that the link isn't too useful.


JefferMC wrote:

dhascall wrote:

...  I was told that the channel names were electronically gathered and an aggregated  spreadsheet is provided to U-Verse managers once per week. ... 

 


People are likely to overlook the word "individual" in your statement to read it as "no one reads those requests."  Which, assuming the U-verse managers actually read the aggregated information, is not true.


I believe that managers do look at the aggregated results, however, when it comes to subchannels, in individual cities, the aggrageted results aren't going to amount to much, i.e. "only two people requested MeTV, WTHR 13.3.  I'm not going to pursue that, since only 2 folks out of 5 million subscribers requested it." 

 

Again, it is dhascall's opinion (for whatever it's worth) that the link isn't too useful.

*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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

8 of 45 (2,444 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 26, 2013 5:27:51 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

I've had UVerse so long I couldn't even begin to tell you what subchannels are available in the DFW area and to be honest, I don't have enough hours in the day to watch all the shows I record now as it is.  I WAS going to get an antenna and a Boxee Box but when they sold out to Samsung it's not available anymore so that blew that idea out of the water. I was going to use to record the shows the only I watch and not the ones my wife and I watch together.  I would like to see UVerse add more channels as well so the requests to add channel X and Y would stop, but I don't know if that will ever happen.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway

I've had UVerse so long I couldn't even begin to tell you what subchannels are available in the DFW area and to be honest, I don't have enough hours in the day to watch all the shows I record now as it is.  I WAS going to get an antenna and a Boxee Box but when they sold out to Samsung it's not available anymore so that blew that idea out of the water. I was going to use to record the shows the only I watch and not the ones my wife and I watch together.  I would like to see UVerse add more channels as well so the requests to add channel X and Y would stop, but I don't know if that will ever happen.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway
*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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

9 of 45 (2,404 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 26, 2013 1:04:18 PM
0
(0)
Explorer

I, too, am annoyed they don't have any subchannels.  Every Texas Rangers game on Friday night's is shown on a local station's subchannel up here in OKC which U-Verse does not get so I miss out on the Friday night game.  Lame if you ask me.....

I, too, am annoyed they don't have any subchannels.  Every Texas Rangers game on Friday night's is shown on a local station's subchannel up here in OKC which U-Verse does not get so I miss out on the Friday night game.  Lame if you ask me.....

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

10 of 45 (2,370 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 27, 2013 7:47:46 AM
0
(0)
Community Support

Although we can't guarantee what channels will or will not be added, you can request channels. Visit here to submit your requests! Smiley Wink

Did a post have a solution that worked for you? Help other people find solutions faster by marking posts that helped you as an "Accepted Solution". Learn about accepted solutions here.

Although we can't guarantee what channels will or will not be added, you can request channels. Visit here to submit your requests! Smiley Wink

Did a post have a solution that worked for you? Help other people find solutions faster by marking posts that helped you as an "Accepted Solution". Learn about accepted solutions here.

*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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

11 of 45 (2,333 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 27, 2013 8:01:27 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

Smiley Wink

Smiley Wink

*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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

12 of 45 (2,325 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 27, 2013 6:10:11 PM
0
(0)
Teacher

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 compitition.  ATT has been head and sholders above the other companies in KC, But they are a risk of losing their competitive edge.

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 compitition.  ATT has been head and sholders above the other companies in KC, But they are a risk of losing their competitive edge.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

13 of 45 (2,289 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 27, 2013 6:12:25 PM
0
(0)
Teacher
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.
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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

14 of 45 (2,289 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 28, 2013 2:13:27 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Expert

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.


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.

*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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

15 of 45 (2,248 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 29, 2013 9:10:57 AM
0
(0)
Teacher
Edited by Slee661 on Nov 29, 2013 at 9:12:10 AM

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?

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?

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

[ Edited ]
16 of 45 (2,205 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 2, 2013 7:54:37 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

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.


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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

17 of 45 (2,130 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 2, 2013 7:58:44 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master
Edited by dhascall on Dec 2, 2013 at 8:00:33 AM

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.


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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

[ Edited ]
18 of 45 (2,130 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 2, 2013 8:15:12 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master
Edited by skeeterintexas on Dec 2, 2013 at 8:20:35 AM

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.


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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

[ Edited ]
19 of 45 (2,122 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 2, 2013 11:35:05 AM
0
(0)
Teacher
Edited by JaCruTN on Dec 2, 2013 at 11:36:19 AM

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.

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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

[ Edited ]
20 of 45 (2,102 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 2, 2013 1:34:15 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Expert

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.

 


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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

21 of 45 (2,089 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 2, 2013 4:38:01 PM
0
(0)
Teacher

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.

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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

22 of 45 (2,070 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 2, 2013 6:22:28 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

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.


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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

23 of 45 (2,053 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 7, 2013 9:59:59 AM
0
(0)
Contributor

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 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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

24 of 45 (1,946 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 7, 2013 10:36:53 AM
0
(0)
Employee
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.
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.
*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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

25 of 45 (1,942 Views)
Highlighted
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 7, 2013 11:07:16 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor

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.

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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

26 of 45 (1,935 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 7, 2013 1:26:09 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor

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.


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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

27 of 45 (1,927 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 7, 2013 4:28:33 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

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

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
*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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

28 of 45 (1,912 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 8, 2013 12:45:00 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor

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.

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.

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

29 of 45 (1,878 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 8, 2013 6:41:39 PM
0
(0)
Mentor

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. 

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. 

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

30 of 45 (1,854 Views)
Advanced
You must be signed in to add attachments
Share this post
Share this post