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 (3,313 Views)
ACE - Master

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.


Unfortunately, if one comes from Comcast, Brighthouse, TWC and so on, that do carry them, it would be.  Plus you can DVR the programs.  Yes you can hook "1950's technology" (OTA antenna) to your set and hope that the all of them come in (I can't get 13.2, .3 nor can I get 8.2 or .3, reliably).  Our PBS station has many "mainstream PBS" programs on their .2 or .3.  Those can only be recorded with a Tivo or VCR.  Let's rethink possible, here.

 

I'll say it again - new subscribers "look at the channel list, yourself."

*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 31 of 45 (1,108 Views)
Highlighted
Scholar

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

I'll say it again - new subscribers "look at the channel list, yourself."

 

And then hope they don't delete the channels you care about after you sign your contract.

Message 32 of 45 (1,102 Views)
ACE - Master

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels


marcindublin wrote:

I'll say it again - new subscribers "look at the channel list, yourself."

 

And then hope they don't delete the channels you care about after you sign your contract.


Unless your provider is Comcast - it happens.  Every major provider (except Gawd Almighty Comcast) has lost channels.  Or added them. Smiley Wink There were some who threatened to leave U-Verse if they added Al-Jazeera.  Go figure!

*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 33 of 45 (1,088 Views)

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

[ Edited ]

dhascall wrote:

marcindublin wrote:

I'll say it again - new subscribers "look at the channel list, yourself."

 

And then hope they don't delete the channels you care about after you sign your contract.


Unless your provider is Comcast - it happens.  Every major provider (except Gawd Almighty Comcast) has lost channels.  Or added them. Smiley Wink There were some who threatened to leave U-Verse if they added Al-Jazeera.  Go figure!


Don't they own about 1/2 the stations out there? Could be why they don't lose them. That and the fact they randomly raise their rates to cover the costs of adding/keeping those channels.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway
Message 34 of 45 (1,065 Views)
ACE - Master

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

Probably not that many but if Comcast wanted to they could break a lot of programmers.  They are one that everyone bows down too.

*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 35 of 45 (1,050 Views)

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

[ Edited ]

AT&T U-verse in the Los Angeles market carry both MeTV (Channel 3) and qubo (Channel 328).  However qubo is not part of the U200 package.

Message 36 of 45 (994 Views)
Teacher

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

  1. Disappointed to see that the only ATT responses is add an Antenna to your TV - I pay $163 a month for their viewing and internet and equipment and they tell me to add an antenna.  I live in a subburb and I cannot pick up those channels
  2. The other response from an ATT Rep to someone on my blog was - If you are under contract it will cost to $180 to break the contract.

So sorry to hear these responses.  I am not use to ATT taking such a passive view of its customers.  Typically ATT has been very customer centric.  Google is Piloting its Google TV and Internet here in Kansas City and Comcast is still a competitor in this town.  Excited to have choices. 

Message 37 of 45 (975 Views)
ACE - Professor

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels


Slee661 wrote:
  1. Disappointed to see that the only ATT responses is add an Antenna to your TV - I pay $163 a month for their viewing and internet and equipment and they tell me to add an antenna.  I live in a subburb and I cannot pick up those channels
  2. The other response from an ATT Rep to someone on my blog was - If you are under contract it will cost to $180 to break the contract.

So sorry to hear these responses.  I am not use to ATT taking such a passive view of its customers.  Typically ATT has been very customer centric.  Google is Piloting its Google TV and Internet here in Kansas City and Comcast is still a competitor in this town.  Excited to have choices. 


If you live in a suburb, I have little doubt that you'll have any problem picking up any OTA signals.

-------

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 38 of 45 (965 Views)
Teacher

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

Really the point is not the antenna.  I dont want another cable hanging off of my TV and for what I am paying I shoudnt have too  The Point  is ATT is the only cable company out of Time Warner, Comcast and ATT that do not supply Subchannels to their customers.  This discussion really doesnt matter because it is not important to ATT.  


americangame wrote:

Slee661 wrote:
  1. Disappointed to see that the only ATT responses is add an Antenna to your TV - I pay $163 a month for their viewing and internet and equipment and they tell me to add an antenna.  I live in a subburb and I cannot pick up those channels
  2. The other response from an ATT Rep to someone on my blog was - If you are under contract it will cost to $180 to break the contract.

So sorry to hear these responses.  I am not use to ATT taking such a passive view of its customers.  Typically ATT has been very customer centric.  Google is Piloting its Google TV and Internet here in Kansas City and Comcast is still a competitor in this town.  Excited to have choices. 


If you live in a suburb, I have little doubt that you'll have any problem picking up any OTA signals.


 

Message 39 of 45 (936 Views)

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

"This discussion really doesnt matter because it is not important to ATT. "

 

It must not be that import to the over 5 million subscribers and growing either.  The majority of sub-channels don't really show anything that the majority of typical cable subscribers watch.  There are a few exceptions in the case where a network like the CW is a sub-channel, but in reality, sub-channels are not watched by more than a handful of people.  Would it be nice if AT&T added them, yes, is it a deal breaker for 99% of the people, no.  Until such time that AT&T no longer grows by over 1 million subscribers a year then it's probably not that big of a concern.

 

 

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway
Message 40 of 45 (927 Views)
ACE - Master

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels


americangame wrote:
 

If you live in a suburb, I have little doubt that you'll have any problem picking up any OTA signals.


Incorrect.  I live in a suburb and two of my stations' ATSC signals are broadcast on high-band VHF.  I can't get
8.1, .2 or .3, or 13.1, .2 or .3 reliably.  I am only 15 air miles from them.  Folks further out can get them, just fine.

 

It all depends on location, terain and where a station chooses to broadcast their ATSC signal.  Our channel 6 uses UHF (25) to broadcast and it works great. 

 

Again adding an antenna to high-end system to get a handful of channels is a stop-gap, work around.

*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 41 of 45 (907 Views)
Expert

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

To pull in VHF-high stations (7-13), you need one of the larger conventional long-element TV antennas. Because most digital TV stations are broadcasting on UHF, many "HD" over-the-air antennas are designed only for UHF (loop or bowtie style), and they won't pick up VHF-high at all.

VHF-high antennas are also more sensitive to the direction they're pointed than UHF loop or bowtie antennas. Typically, they need to be pointed within 15 degrees of the transmitter otherwise the received signal strength falls off considerably.

Message 42 of 45 (886 Views)
Mentor

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

I just gave up looking for Uverse to add the sub-channels here in Columbus, Ohio. No response from anyone at Uverse about it. 

Message 43 of 45 (849 Views)
ACE - Professor

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels


ErnestK wrote:

I just gave up looking for Uverse to add the sub-channels here in Columbus, Ohio. No response from anyone at Uverse about it. 


What is U-Verse supposed to respond? Nothing has changed. U-Verse does not have sub-channels other than ME-TV in some markets.  Hopefully, one day, U-Verse will work out a system that will allow sub-channels.

 


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 44 of 45 (817 Views)
Scholar

Re: Frustrated by Uverse refusal to add sub-channels

I'd like Uverse to carry the WCIU-Chicago subchannel that carries the Chicago Wolves games[ME-TOO I believe it is] but I know they probably will never do so.
Message 45 of 45 (794 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.