Ask a question
Search in U-verse Forums

U-verse Forums

Reply
Posted Aug 21, 2013
9:57:27 AM
You have NO RIGHT
People getting on here and saying that AT&T should not carry a certain channel have NO RIGHT to be doing so. In effect, you are saying that no one should get the option of watching this channel just because YOU don't like the channel and you sate trying to make decisions for EVERYBODY! It does not hurt you ONE BIT for AT&T to carry a channel you don't like! NOT ONE BIT! Because this is the land of the free and the home of the brave and YOU DON'T HAVE TO WATCH! Use a little common sense here. Just ignore the channels you don't like and watch the ones you do! But you'd rather tell other people that they shouldn't be given the choice to watch something, which is TOTALLY UNAMERICAN! Ironic, isn't it? The very people that say they are so pro America are often the very ones practicing un-American actions. This country is just so full of hypocrites.
People getting on here and saying that AT&T should not carry a certain channel have NO RIGHT to be doing so. In effect, you are saying that no one should get the option of watching this channel just because YOU don't like the channel and you sate trying to make decisions for EVERYBODY! It does not hurt you ONE BIT for AT&T to carry a channel you don't like! NOT ONE BIT! Because this is the land of the free and the home of the brave and YOU DON'T HAVE TO WATCH! Use a little common sense here. Just ignore the channels you don't like and watch the ones you do! But you'd rather tell other people that they shouldn't be given the choice to watch something, which is TOTALLY UNAMERICAN! Ironic, isn't it? The very people that say they are so pro America are often the very ones practicing un-American actions. This country is just so full of hypocrites.

You have NO RIGHT

696 views
8 replies
(0) Me too
(0) Me too
Reply
View all replies
(8)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 21, 2013 10:03:19 AM
0
(0)
Scholar
The above post is not directed at AT&T for not carrying channels . It is directed at the POSTERS who get on here and say. "This channel should not be carried" or "I am glad this channel is not being carried" because as I said they have no right to say that I should not have the option of watching something. Just
The above post is not directed at AT&T for not carrying channels . It is directed at the POSTERS who get on here and say. "This channel should not be carried" or "I am glad this channel is not being carried" because as I said they have no right to say that I should not have the option of watching something. Just

Re: You have NO RIGHT

2 of 9 (689 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 21, 2013 10:31:35 AM
0
(0)
Scholar
I don't watch that type of channel so it does not effect me sure they have the right be carried but if cable or satellite provider does not want to carry them that's there right also .
I don't watch that type of channel so it does not effect me sure they have the right be carried but if cable or satellite provider does not want to carry them that's there right also .

Re: You have NO RIGHT

3 of 9 (669 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 21, 2013 11:04:43 AM
0
(0)
Teacher

What you say wouild sorta be OK, except we are REQUIRED to pay for it whether we watch it or not. I am an advocate for pay by channel, the technology is there and I hope someday I can only pay for the few channels I actually watch. I am sad to see all the bad stuff on some channels, but the bottom line is money, not morality or fairness in any service these days. 

What you say wouild sorta be OK, except we are REQUIRED to pay for it whether we watch it or not. I am an advocate for pay by channel, the technology is there and I hope someday I can only pay for the few channels I actually watch. I am sad to see all the bad stuff on some channels, but the bottom line is money, not morality or fairness in any service these days. 

Re: You have NO RIGHT

4 of 9 (652 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 21, 2013 11:14:51 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

13rob13 wrote:

What you say wouild sorta be OK, except we are REQUIRED to pay for it whether we watch it or not. I am an advocate for pay by channel, the technology is there and I hope someday I can only pay for the few channels I actually watch. I am sad to see all the bad stuff on some channels, but the bottom line is money, not morality or fairness in any service these days. 


I don't watch the kiddie channels, the shopping channels or the Jesus channels but I'm paying for them too. 

 

What do I do?  Hide them. 

 

Maybe someday I'll figure out how many of the 699 channels I have that I actually watch!


13rob13 wrote:

What you say wouild sorta be OK, except we are REQUIRED to pay for it whether we watch it or not. I am an advocate for pay by channel, the technology is there and I hope someday I can only pay for the few channels I actually watch. I am sad to see all the bad stuff on some channels, but the bottom line is money, not morality or fairness in any service these days. 


I don't watch the kiddie channels, the shopping channels or the Jesus channels but I'm paying for them too. 

 

What do I do?  Hide them. 

 

Maybe someday I'll figure out how many of the 699 channels I have that I actually watch!

*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: You have NO RIGHT

5 of 9 (635 Views)
Highlighted
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 21, 2013 11:55:55 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

codycooper864 wrote:
The above post is not directed at AT&T for not carrying channels . It is directed at the POSTERS who get on here and say. "This channel should not be carried" or "I am glad this channel is not being carried" because as I said they have no right to say that I should not have the option of watching something. Just

It took me a second (and your second post) to figure out your angle.  I agree partly with where you are going.  I have been on this forum for quite a while and I agree with what AT&T does sometimes and sometimes I vehemently disagree with what they do.  The best thing about the forum (IMO) is openess and transparency.  So the part of your post that I have the biggest issue with is that someone has "no right" to post something.  I agree that many of these folks who bash Al Jazeera are a bit off their rocker and mis-informed, it is AT&T and the Moderators call if a person has the right to post something. 


codycooper864 wrote:
The above post is not directed at AT&T for not carrying channels . It is directed at the POSTERS who get on here and say. "This channel should not be carried" or "I am glad this channel is not being carried" because as I said they have no right to say that I should not have the option of watching something. Just

It took me a second (and your second post) to figure out your angle.  I agree partly with where you are going.  I have been on this forum for quite a while and I agree with what AT&T does sometimes and sometimes I vehemently disagree with what they do.  The best thing about the forum (IMO) is openess and transparency.  So the part of your post that I have the biggest issue with is that someone has "no right" to post something.  I agree that many of these folks who bash Al Jazeera are a bit off their rocker and mis-informed, it is AT&T and the Moderators call if a person has the right to post something. 

*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: You have NO RIGHT

6 of 9 (616 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 21, 2013 1:45:24 PM
0
(0)
Scholar
Edited by LoveHD on Aug 21, 2013 at 1:46:30 PM

Cable television programming, and other telecommunications services, are not designed for just one person. With the video part, it is a vast array of different demographic-appealing selections bundled up in packaging and support, just as the case with broadcast and local affiliates, through advertising. The notion that anyone objecting to a programmer, due conspicuously to political reasons, and expressing that via ultimatum, strikes me as a waste of one's time.

Cable television programming, and other telecommunications services, are not designed for just one person. With the video part, it is a vast array of different demographic-appealing selections bundled up in packaging and support, just as the case with broadcast and local affiliates, through advertising. The notion that anyone objecting to a programmer, due conspicuously to political reasons, and expressing that via ultimatum, strikes me as a waste of one's time.

Re: You have NO RIGHT

[ Edited ]
7 of 9 (557 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 21, 2013 3:37:58 PM
0
(0)
Guru

First, I believe anyone can post any opinion here, so long as it is within forum guidelines.  I also believe that ala carte channels would be disproportionately expensive for most folks (just like an ala carte Chicago steakhouse is a lot more expensive than a buffet).  You get some selections at the buffet that do not appeal to you, but you get a broad selection at a reasonable price.  If you don't like a dish, don't eat it.  Or, you can go the steakhouse and get exactly what you want, but the bill will be much higher.  If you find the menu too objectionable, you can go to a different restaurant.  So I agree with most of the comments in this thread.  I have no strong feelings about Al Jazeera one way or the other, so it's loss is not too upsetting to me.  But there will always be lineup changes with any provider, so it is not too surprising, either.

 

docbombay

"Everything should be made as simple as possible--but not simpler."
--Albert Einstein

First, I believe anyone can post any opinion here, so long as it is within forum guidelines.  I also believe that ala carte channels would be disproportionately expensive for most folks (just like an ala carte Chicago steakhouse is a lot more expensive than a buffet).  You get some selections at the buffet that do not appeal to you, but you get a broad selection at a reasonable price.  If you don't like a dish, don't eat it.  Or, you can go the steakhouse and get exactly what you want, but the bill will be much higher.  If you find the menu too objectionable, you can go to a different restaurant.  So I agree with most of the comments in this thread.  I have no strong feelings about Al Jazeera one way or the other, so it's loss is not too upsetting to me.  But there will always be lineup changes with any provider, so it is not too surprising, either.

 

docbombay

Re: You have NO RIGHT

8 of 9 (504 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Aug 21, 2013 5:38:00 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor
Exactly what doc said. Most channels charge under $1 per subscriber. Say we watch a few of those channels only a little bit each week...it's nice to have them for those 1-2 shows. If they went to "pay per channel," would we pay $12 or $15 for those kiddie channels or sports or religious channels?

We might pay 40 cents a month for Discovery... but if we only watch Mythbusters and Shark Week, the channel comes in handy...but because others watch that channel more often, they're helping keep our costs for that channel low.

Would we pay $60/month for 7 or 8 channels? That's what "pay per channel" would probably look like, if not worse.

I agree...if you don't like a channel, block it...same as the buffet...no one is forcing a vegetarian to eat steak because it's offered...they simply move to the next option.
Exactly what doc said. Most channels charge under $1 per subscriber. Say we watch a few of those channels only a little bit each week...it's nice to have them for those 1-2 shows. If they went to "pay per channel," would we pay $12 or $15 for those kiddie channels or sports or religious channels?

We might pay 40 cents a month for Discovery... but if we only watch Mythbusters and Shark Week, the channel comes in handy...but because others watch that channel more often, they're helping keep our costs for that channel low.

Would we pay $60/month for 7 or 8 channels? That's what "pay per channel" would probably look like, if not worse.

I agree...if you don't like a channel, block it...same as the buffet...no one is forcing a vegetarian to eat steak because it's offered...they simply move to the next option.
*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: You have NO RIGHT

9 of 9 (472 Views)
Advanced
You must be signed in to add attachments
Share this post
Share this post