08-09-2011 3:50 PM
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.
Solved by: Go to Solution.
08-09-2011 4:18 PM
Glad someone is saying it, I also don't wish to subsidize the Longhorn Athletic Department through some kind of forced addition to my existing cable package.
If someone wants to add the channel as a separate charge then they are welcome to do so but please allow me to say no while continuing to be a satisfied subscriber of your service.
08-09-2011 4:36 PM
From the article found in the link below:
Industry sources say that ESPN, which is selling the channel to cable operators, wants 40 cents per subscriber per month for placement on expanded basic cable tiers in Texas and various markets in three adjoining states: Louisiana, New Mexico and Oklahoma.
At 40 cents, Longhorn Network instantly would become one of the 30 or 40 highest priced cable channels. But the price is relatively low compared with regional sports networks, which frequently command more than $2. A similar channel, Big Ten Network, charged in-market distributors 70 cents for the right to carry its channel when it launched four years ago.
08-09-2011 5:13 PM
Big 10 network carries the games of an entire conference, so its really absurd to compare the prices. Maybe if you divide the $0.70 the Big 10 network was charging by the number of teams that were available at that time (11) you get less than 7 cents per school.
So at 40 cents you are paying over 500% more per school to watch the longhorn network. NO THANK YOU!
08-09-2011 5:34 PM
08-09-2011 5:57 PM
@vaughanjm wrote:I am an AT&T U-Verse customer in the Houston market and I agree with the sentiment that any subscription to the Longhorn Network should be voluntary and not bundled into already existing packages. Given that this network is targeted at a single community the network should only be offered to those who want it and not forced upon those who do not.
I suppose one could use that argument about most of the channels in the U-verse lineup.
08-09-2011 6:07 PM
I agree. Why not make it a pay-for channel like ESPN Gameplan or something? That way those who want to watch it can pay for it, and the rest of us don't have to fund the channel's existence.
08-09-2011 6:21 PM
Thank you very much for this post. Not only a "No" but "HeII No!". If I am forced to pay one penny for a channel that I don't want like the LHN, I'd be forced to look elsewhere for TV, Internet and Cell phone service. Thanks again OP!
08-09-2011 6:33 PM
Yes, I did. And I think it's a bit early to get worked up. But that's just me, the no-sports-person.
I thought it was just Aggies?
I would guess this would be an optional addition.
Did you see the Facebook page in my message above. Some of the comments on that page are very amusing.
|08-26-2013 9:37 AM|
|10-21-2014 6:05 PM|
|10-29-2017 10:01 AM|
|03-11-2014 3:35 PM|
|08-12-2013 3:04 PM|