Teacher
•
11 Messages
NO to Time Warner and the Dodgers Channel!!!!!!
UVerse (and DirecTV for that matter) are in negotiations with Time Warner here in Los Angeles. Time Warner is attempting to force them to require every subscriber to subscribe to the Dodgers Channel at $5 a month! Enough is enough! Tell UVerse no more unwanted channels!!! In the past few months we've gotten another crazy conservative news channel and several more channels that offer the standard fare of lame reality tv and informercials. And we have to pay for them! Enough is enough!! Tell UVerse you'll cancel if they attempt to foist the Dodgers upon people who don't want them. It's bad enough I have to pay for a half-dozen ESPN channels and all the related Fox Sports channels. Enough is enough. You should be cutting channels, not adding them. Ever hear of Netflix?
dwinth
ACE - Professor
•
2.5K Messages
10 years ago
Wow!!!!! I hope that you are not being serious in your post. As SkeeterinTexas stated in a post from a few days ago, "Where should I start?"
From what I have read after Googling the subject, there are no negotiations between Time Warner and Dirct TV and U-Verse at this time concerning carriage of the Dodger channel. I have included three links from three days ago that indicate that binding arbitration is being advocated by six members of the U.S. House of Representatives from California.
http://dodgers.mlblogs.com/2014/07/28/dodgers-support-binding-arbitration-to-solve-distribution-of-sportsnet-la/
"On behalf of the Dodgers, team president and CEO Stan Kasten spoke tonight in favor of a proposal from a group of six California-based members of the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Brad Sherman, calling for binding arbitration between Time Warner Cable and potential carriers that would enable immediate distribution of 24-hour Dodger channel SportsNet LA to all available homes in Southern California."
Here is another link from three days ago with similar information: http://www.scpr.org/blogs/economy/2014/07/29/17068/time-warner-says-it-s-willing-to-go-to-binding-arb/
This link from July 29, 2014, indicates that "DirecTV (NASDAQ: DTV) appears to have no interest in entering a binding arbitration process with Time Warner Cable over a lengthy carriage impasse that has kept 70 percent of the L.A. market blacked out from Dodgers games this season." http://www.fiercecable.com/story/twc-agrees-binding-arbitration-end-dodgers-channel-impasse/2014-07-29
Where do you get your figure of $5 per month that Time Warner asseses for the Dodger Channel? Is that what people who have Time Warner currently pay? Please give a link.
Now for this statement that you made: "Enough is enough. You should be cutting channels, not adding them. Ever hear of Netflix?" I am sure that cutting channels would go over real big with U-Verse subscribers. A lot of channels have been added to the U-Verse lineup in the last year, and other than the once a year raise in fees, my subscription cost has not gone up. Why would any television service cut channels just to please someone who does not agree with their content and opinion?
Your opinion of One Network News is not the opinion of all U-Verse subscribers. Just because you do not like their point of view is not a reason to eliminate a channel that others enjoy.
As far as this statement about cutting "several more channels that offer the standard fare of lame reality tv and informercials. ", you are totally off base. Those channels are the reason that your subscription fees have stayed where they are because these channnels that you dislike so much actually pay U-Verse a fee to be carried.
______________________________________________________________
0
0
JefferMC
ACE - Expert
•
35.2K Messages
10 years ago
$4.95/month/subscriber was the figure that was being distributed as what TWC was asking other video distributors for access. I'm betting that's where he gets the $5.
0
0
dwinth
ACE - Professor
•
2.5K Messages
10 years ago
JefferMC: Thank you for the information.
_________________________________________________________________
0
0
notafan12
Contributor
•
1 Message
9 years ago
While I like to watch some sports including the Dodgers, I do not think it is fair to charge all subscribers for it. A tiered pay systems would be most fair, but TWC needs to recoupe their ridiculous fee ($8.35 BILLION), so they refuse to negotiate on that option. For my part, if ATT bows down to TWC I will leave. And beyond that, I have not gained anything even though my fees continue to be raised above the typical inflation rate/cost of living. I don't need Uverse at those prices - I can find plenty of things to do with out cable.
0
0
CostaMesaCAGuy
Scholar
•
223 Messages
9 years ago
U-verse can do one of two things. Either add the Dodgers channel without raising our monthly rates or add it as an option in which only people who want it will need to pay the extra money.
0
0
texasguy37
Expert
•
14.5K Messages
9 years ago
Since channel placement in a tier and how a channel is offered is part of the carriage agreement between a TV provider and a channel owner, how can U-verse on it's own make a decision to carry the channel in the way that you state?
The number of subscribers that receive the channel determines the total carriage fee that a channel owner receives. You better believe that how a channel is offered is part of the carriage agreement. The TV provider cannot make that decision in a vacuum.
0
0
PatrickDodger
Contributor
•
1 Message
9 years ago
YES to the Dodgers channel. I live in LA and want to see my Dodgers. I have plenty of channels I have no interest in, but thst is besides the point. Subscribers in LA should be able to see their baseball team. FULL STOP.
0
0
mibrnsurg
Expert
•
20.4K Messages
9 years ago
Request it here:
http://uversechannels.att.com/
It's listed on the Sports pulldown list. 😉
Chris
__________________________________________________________
Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
Need Help? PM ATT Uverse Care (all service problems)
ATT Customer Care(billing and all other problems)
Your Results May Vary, In My Humble Opinion
I Call It Like I See It, Simply a U-verse user, nothing more
0
0
Anonymous
New Member
•
25.7K Messages
9 years ago
There was some hope that when Comcast entered their bid for TWC that the impasse would end after the merger was completed. Then that ended when the merger fell through now it's time has come to play the waiting game again as TWC was just bought by Charter.
0
0
baseballisback
ACE - Professor
•
7.7K Messages
9 years ago
Oh, really?
http://www.multichannel.com/news/fcc/fcc-republicans-start-clock-chartertwc/392639
0
0