Fox News & Business changing packages on 1-1-12

[americangame ACE - Guru]

---

envsys wrote:

---

KnoxvilleMark wrote:
Moving FNC up to U200 does not add subscribers. It may add revenue if U100 subcribers upgrade to U200 but total FNC viewers on U-Verse will decrease if they don't. The additional channels and DVR only add value if you value you them.

---

Some companies increase revenue by getting more customers; others by squeezing more money out of customers they already have.  When other channels have raised subscription fees, ATT has

gone through very public battles by threatening to remove the channel from the liine up entirely.  The actions show in this case that ATT was trying to increase revenue; not looking out for their

customers.  They still act like they are a monopoly.

---

Where do you think that AT&T can get more customers from? They've almost hit their saturation point. When your pool of potential customers can only grow to so big, eventuially other choices you make as a company come into play. 

For dramatic purposes I will explain how this contract negoation most likely played out.

News Corp agreed to a new contract with AT&T stating that they want x amount for each customer subscribed to Fox News and y amount for Fox News and Buisness. 

AT&T countered stating that at those prices they would be willing to place FN&B onto a lower tier (meaning more subcribers, but less revenue per subscriber) but they would have to be willing to move Fox News up to U-200 (meaning less eyeballs capable of watching but more money per subscriber).

News Corp agreed to these terms and everybody left the negoation table happy.

[jbdet313]

---

envsys wrote:

---

KnoxvilleMark wrote:
Moving FNC up to U200 does not add subscribers. It may add revenue if U100 subcribers upgrade to U200 but total FNC viewers on U-Verse will decrease if they don't. The additional channels and DVR only add value if you value you them.

---

Some companies increase revenue by getting more customers; others by squeezing more money out of customers they already have.  When other channels have raised subscription fees, ATT has

gone through very public battles by threatening to remove the channel from the liine up entirely.  The actions show in this case that ATT was trying to increase revenue; not looking out for their

customers.  They still act like they are a monopoly.

---

Both of you would be complaining up a storm if AT&T left everything the same, yet raised your monthly cost $10 if they followed what Comcast and Time Warner are doing for the new year. And in fact, I don't know why they just didn't raise the cost on the U-100 package beyond the $3 TO that $10 level, and then tell you that because you're costing them more to give FNC to, then YOU should shoulder the additional cost.

Yeah ... companies like AT&T just raise prices so they can run to the bank, throw it all in the safe deposit vault on the floor, and take turns rolling in it. They could NEVER be like any other company whose costs have increased, so they have to try to spread it equally amongst the customers in the easiest way all can handle. So what you two would rather they do, is raise the prices on everyone, just to absorb the higher cost of providing FNC to those subscribing at the bare minimum level.

Would you have looked at the value of your monthly subscription price if AT&T raised your U-100 cost from $59/month to $69, versus having U-200 at $72 with that level's $3 increase? Oh, I'm sure you would have somehow discovered it, and THEN complained to AT&T, "Why didn't you tell me that for only $3 more I can get all those extra channels?"

Your cable company or one of those satellite companies may be a better alternative for both of you. You had a reason to get Uverse in the first place, but now you're ready to throw all of those reasons out the window over ONE channel. Hope you are happy elsewhere.

[envsys]

---

americangame wrote:

---

envsys wrote:

---

KnoxvilleMark wrote:
Moving FNC up to U200 does not add subscribers. It may add revenue if U100 subcribers upgrade to U200 but total FNC viewers on U-Verse will decrease if they don't. The additional channels and DVR only add value if you value you them.

---

Some companies increase revenue by getting more customers; others by squeezing more money out of customers they already have.  When other channels have raised subscription fees, ATT has

gone through very public battles by threatening to remove the channel from the liine up entirely.  The actions show in this case that ATT was trying to increase revenue; not looking out for their

customers.  They still act like they are a monopoly.

---

Where do you think that AT&T can get more customers from? They've almost hit their saturation point. When your pool of potential customers can only grow to so big, eventuially other choices you make as a company come into play. 

For dramatic purposes I will explain how this contract negoation most likely played out.

News Corp agreed to a new contract with AT&T stating that they want x amount for each customer subscribed to Fox News and y amount for Fox News and Buisness. 

AT&T countered stating that at those prices they would be willing to place FN&B onto a lower tier (meaning more subcribers, but less revenue per subscriber) but they would have to be willing to move Fox News up to U-200 (meaning less eyeballs capable of watching but more money per subscriber).

News Corp agreed to these terms and everybody left the negoation table happy.

---

They can get more customers by expanding their footprint.  They could have used some of the money they blew on the TMobile attempt.  Rather than try and trick the public/government into allowing

the merger, they could have spent on getting more customers the old fashion way, by earning them.

Spare me the drama, drama does not equal reality, no matter how much you dream about it.

[envsys]

---

jbdet313 wrote:

---

envsys wrote:

---

KnoxvilleMark wrote:
Moving FNC up to U200 does not add subscribers. It may add revenue if U100 subcribers upgrade to U200 but total FNC viewers on U-Verse will decrease if they don't. The additional channels and DVR only add value if you value you them.

---

Some companies increase revenue by getting more customers; others by squeezing more money out of customers they already have.  When other channels have raised subscription fees, ATT has

gone through very public battles by threatening to remove the channel from the liine up entirely.  The actions show in this case that ATT was trying to increase revenue; not looking out for their

customers.  They still act like they are a monopoly.

---

Both of you would be complaining up a storm if AT&T left everything the same, yet raised your monthly cost $10 if they followed what Comcast and Time Warner are doing for the new year. And in fact, I don't know why they just didn't raise the cost on the U-100 package beyond the $3 TO that $10 level, and then tell you that because you're costing them more to give FNC to, then YOU should shoulder the additional cost.

Yeah ... companies like AT&T just raise prices so they can run to the bank, throw it all in the safe deposit vault on the floor, and take turns rolling in it. They could NEVER be like any other company whose costs have increased, so they have to try to spread it equally amongst the customers in the easiest way all can handle. So what you two would rather they do, is raise the prices on everyone, just to absorb the higher cost of providing FNC to those subscribing at the bare minimum level.

Would you have looked at the value of your monthly subscription price if AT&T raised your U-100 cost from $59/month to $69, versus having U-200 at $72 with that level's $3 increase? Oh, I'm sure you would have somehow discovered it, and THEN complained to AT&T, "Why didn't you tell me that for only $3 more I can get all those extra channels?"

Your cable company or one of those satellite companies may be a better alternative for both of you. You had a reason to get Uverse in the first place, but now you're ready to throw all of those reasons out the window over ONE channel. Hope you are happy elsewhere.

---

In a down economy, a lot of companies are eating additional costs.  Those who are a monopoly (or who still think and market like they are one) send the costs to their customers.  I got Uverse cause

they were better than Charter TV.  Some of my friends and family have been using DirectTV for a while so I will give them a chance.  I will at least know the monthly costs for two years.  Even with the

end of their discount after one year it will be less than what Uverse costs now, not counting the $3 or $10 or whatever they choose to impose in monopolistic fashion.

[americangame ACE - Guru]

There's an eventuial point of where you just can't eat anymore costs or you will be losing money. Almost every other TV provider increased their rates by $10 where AT&T only increased their rates by $3. If anything that shows AT&T is trying to do the best for their customers while everyone else thinks that they are a monopoly.

[envsys]

---

americangame wrote:

There's an eventuial point of where you just can't eat anymore costs or you will be losing money. Almost every other TV provider increased their rates by $10 where AT&T only increased their rates by $3. If anything that shows AT&T is trying to do the best for their customers while everyone else thinks that they are a monopoly.

---

In my area, neither ATT nor Direct TV have raised their rates.  I take it that ATT has in your area.  This goes to show ATT will do what they can get away with, based on market conditions,

rather than on costs, since I doubt that Fox News only raised their subscription fee in your area.

[texasguy37 ACE - Expert]

DirecTV has a 4% rate increase that will go into affect on February 9, 2012.

http://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2613/~/new-rates-for-directv-service

Dish Network has no rate increase scheduled for this year.  When they increase rates $3 to $5 in February 2011 , they indicated that those rates would remain in effect through January 2013.  Thus, expect a rate increase next year.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=188387

Also, AT&T has an across the board rate increase as of February 1, 2012.

http://forums.att.com/t5/Billing/2012-Price-increase/m-p/2972085

[jbdet313]

Looks like Comcast is playing the same type of "change the tier, no notice" game. With theirs, it's TCM. And looking over at the Charter forum on DSLR, channel changes are usually on the bills, but not always.

Interestingly, in the new move-TCM-up saga, someone actually brings up an increase in DISTRIBUTION COSTS as possibly a reason for Comcast doing it. Now while Comcast does these decisions regionally, another astute observer says to wait for the other shoe to drop -- meaning, it may be something they'll end up doing everywhere. They have done that, from my experience.

To add to TexasGuy's links about the competition's price increases, found that CHARTER hasn't technically finalized their 2012 rate increases, but in the same article, Knology has increased their Triple Play customers' rates $9.95/month across the board. Pay close attention to what the spokespersons say is behind these increases:

.... At Knology: “Knology is very conscious of how the increases affect our customer base, and we’re doing everything we can to negotiate our rates to look out for our customers’ best interest,” he said. “The cost of sports programming is what’s driving these costs up.”

.... At Charter: “We make enhancements to our products and services on a regular basis, continuously adding value to our products and services,” Hill said. “As higher operating expenses are incurred, specifically for broadcast TV retransmission and programming fees, Charter’s prices are impacted. We are always mindful of the impact price adjustments have on our customers, and provide an array of pricing and packaging options to meet customer’s needs.”

Here's a link to practically all of the cable 2012 price increases.

Think Fox News' carriage rates could be behind these increases, just like the sports channels? Hmmm, I'm not psychic, but I'm thinking it's a good bet.

I still think passing the increased cost off to U-100 subscribers for Fox News Channel is better than a rate increase for everyone else. AND, that AT&T has kept cost increases to a mild $3 per month across the board.

[John_08]

Anybody else here upset about AT&T's squeeze play.? They have removed fox news from U100. When I called support they were rather flipant about it, "All you have to do is upgrade($15.00)to u200 and you will be able to get fox news. I am going to check out xfinity and comcast. I would love to hear from other unhappy customers.

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Expert]

Remember that they moved Fox News from U100 to U200, but also moved Fox Business from U300 to U200.

That to me looks like a compromise. Yes, you made some U100 users angry. But you also made a lot of U200 users happy.

You can't really say that AT&T is squeezing people on this one. Moving Fox News from U100 to U200 reduces the subscriber base for Fox News slightly, reducing Fox's revenue. Moving Fox Business from U300 to U200 significantly increases Fox's revenue because way more people subscribe to U200 than U300. The two things together actually add up to more money leaving AT&T's pocket and entering Fox's pocket. AT&T figures they'll make up the difference by people who upgrade their package from U100 to U200 to retain Fox News.

I'm betting this came down to a choice of AT&T having to agree to this or risk losing one or both of the Fox channels. So you have to point the finger at Fox (News Corp.) for a major part of this.

[dgw]

This is my first post of any kind.  This string has been helpful and expresses some of my frustrations, but the business case for moving FNC will be lost in the perception that AT&T is choosing an election year to eliminate one point of view from its U100 package while leaving others.  I realize this was a business decision, not a political one.  However, I believe the program negotiators did not anticipate what the customer response will be.  I watch all news channels and try to stay away from the most partisan programming on each.  That being said, the FNC 3PM CST, 5PM CST, and 9PM CST programming is informational as well as analytical.  The company's lack of understanding of this matter in our current political landscape will cause public attention in a way that will be distracting to senior AT&T leadership.  The resulting public relations damage control will cost more in goodwill than the increased revenue.  Additionally, I suspect some of the most partisan viewers of FNC will choose a different direction, or worse begin to research AT&T contributions and habits trying to build a fase case of political partisanship.  In any event, I don't see how this will help the business model AT&T is trying to build.  People are pretty passionate right now, and very sensitive.  Now i've vented.

[dwinth]

---

dgw wrote:

This is my first post of any kind.  This string has been helpful and expresses some of my frustrations, but the business case for moving FNC will be lost in the perception that AT&T is choosing an election year to eliminate one point of view from its U100 package while leaving others.  I realize this was a business decision, not a political one.  However, I believe the program negotiators did not anticipate what the customer response will be.  I watch all news channels and try to stay away from the most partisan programming on each.  That being said, the FNC 3PM CST, 5PM CST, and 9PM CST programming is informational as well as analytical.  The company's lack of understanding of this matter in our current political landscape will cause public attention in a way that will be distracting to senior AT&T leadership.  The resulting public relations damage control will cost more in goodwill than the increased revenue.  Additionally, I suspect some of the most partisan viewers of FNC will choose a different direction, or worse begin to research AT&T contributions and habits trying to build a fase case of political partisanship.  In any event, I don't see how this will help the business model AT&T is trying to build.  People are pretty passionate right now, and very sensitive.  Now i've vented.

---

 This is an excellent first time post. I hope this will not be your last. Welcome to the forum.

[jimgfitzgerald]

I'll pay an extra $5 per month to get Fox News removed from my tv altogether.

[samson3313]

Time Warner still has Fox News as basic tier.  I switched to TW and reduced my monthy bill by $26 and I got incresed Internet speed from the package I had with Uverse.  So, the number one reason for losing subscribers is to P-ss them off.  change channel lineup without notice (I saw no notice) and demand we move to higher tier caused me to cancel Uverse.  I am now a very satisfied TW customer.

[dwinth]

---

samson3313 wrote:

Time Warner still has Fox News as basic tier.  I switched to TW and reduced my monthy bill by $26 and I got incresed Internet speed from the package I had with Uverse.  So, the number one reason for losing subscribers is to P-ss them off.  change channel lineup without notice (I saw no notice) and demand we move to higher tier caused me to cancel Uverse.  I am now a very satisfied TW customer.

---

And employee?

[KnoxvilleMark]

It has been a week since FNC was moved to U200 and I wrote my first post to this or any board. I still believe parity with other cable news channels and customer constancy are extremely important considerations and I am confident AT&T managers would agree. Obviously, there were other considerations involved in their decision that we can only speculate about. The truth about those considerations and any potential political biases involved will likely remain unknown but customer perceptions will remain. To AT&T's credit, they understand, like any successfull company, that it it generally less costly to retain a customer that to gain a new one. Given the opportunity, they will do what they can to keep you as a customer. They retained me today and I'll be watching the GOP debate on FNC tonight.

[oufanindallas]

---

KnoxvilleMark wrote:
It has been a week since FNC was moved to U200 and I wrote my first post to this or any board. I still believe parity with other cable news channels and customer constancy are extremely important considerations and I am confident AT&T managers would agree. Obviously, there were other considerations involved in their decision that we can only speculate about. The truth about those considerations and any potential political biases involved will likely remain unknown but customer perceptions will remain. To AT&T's credit, they understand, like any successfull company, that it it generally less costly to retain a customer that to gain a new one. Given the opportunity, they will do what they can to keep you as a customer. They retained me today and I'll be watching the GOP debate on FNC tonight.

---

Other than the fact that you stayed with UVerse, that post made no sense whats so ever.

[demopilot]

It was there when I signed up for Uverse, but now it's gone.

[jfw ACE - Professor]

It was moved to the U200 and up program packages.

[Chad-5559]

Thank you dgw, I think your point is a significant view of the larger picture on this one.  I am not happy that FNC is no longer available to me, and I am not willing to part with an $120 per yer to upgrade for one channel, and I don't like the fact that my rates were raised, albiet slighly in comparison to other companies, but raised nonetheless at the same time they subtracted this channel as an option to me.  i don't like it any of that, but I do understand it.  I read this this thread, initially out of my knee jurk (apparently the right spelling of that word is prohibted iin a post) unhappiness with AT&T.  After reading, nearly every post, I had a better understanding and, I still don't agree, buthave a better idea where the change originated.   However, while reading each post, in the back of my mind I was thinking what you said.  What upsets me to the point of considering other options, is that AT&T has taken away a news source that is almost a necessity in combination with CNN in order to get one full story between the two of them, and to make this change in an election year and in the middle of the primaries is extremely disappointing.  No matter which news source your prefer, it is my opinion that they might as well both be in U100 or both U200, because having one or the other is like hearing only one side of the story in a court room.  Yes,  FNC is just one channel, but the timing of it is hard for me swallow.  There was mention earlier of the $0.78 per subscriber fee for FNC, out of curiosity, does anyone know the equivilant rate that CNN requires?

[texasguy37 ACE - Expert]

---

Chad-5559 wrote:

Thank you dgw, I think your point is a significant view of the larger picture on this one.  I am not happy that FNC is no longer available to me, and I am not willing to part with an $120 per yer to upgrade for one channel, and I don't like the fact that my rates were raised, albiet slighly in comparison to other companies, but raised nonetheless at the same time they subtracted this channel as an option to me.  i don't like it any of that, but I do understand it.  I read this this thread, initially out of my knee jurk (apparently the right spelling of that word is prohibted iin a post) unhappiness with AT&T.  After reading, nearly every post, I had a better understanding and, I still don't agree, buthave a better idea where the change originated.   However, while reading each post, in the back of my mind I was thinking what you said.  What upsets me to the point of considering other options, is that AT&T has taken away a news source that is almost a necessity in combination with CNN in order to get one full story between the two of them, and to make this change in an election year and in the middle of the primaries is extremely disappointing.  No matter which news source your prefer, it is my opinion that they might as well both be in U100 or both U200, because having one or the other is like hearing only one side of the story in a court room.  Yes,  FNC is just one channel, but the timing of it is hard for me swallow.  There was mention earlier of the $0.78 per subscriber fee for FNC, out of curiosity, does anyone know the equivilant rate that CNN requires?

---

That change took place over a month and a half ago.  If you just noticed, it must not be one of your most watched channels.

By the way, the price of CNN and HLN combined is about $0.51.

[Chad-5559]

Yes, I believe it was a just over five weeks ago that the change took place, and no, it is not the channel I watch most, although I do (did) watch it often.  However, please don't jump to the conclusion that it means I have just now noticed, rather, you could say that it means that after over a month later it is still important enough that it still irritates me.  Forgive me, but I am not a frequent visitor to these forums, and I have other things that occupy my day other than just TV or talking to utility companies, so it took me a month before I was able to call AT&T to let them know I was displeased.  The lady at AT&T was surprised to learn that FNC was not part of U100 as well, she apparently just found out when I told her today, so my visiting this site was a last resort to try to find out some information.

Thanks for the information regarding CNN, that is interesting to know.

[texasguy37 ACE - Expert]

By the way, U-verse no longer offers the U100 package to new customers.

[Chad-5559]

That's too bad, for the extra $10 I wouldn't have switched to them a year ago, I wonder why they don't offer it anymore.

[jbdet313]

---

Chad-5559 wrote:

That's too bad, for the extra $10 I wouldn't have switched to them a year ago, I wonder why they don't offer it anymore.

---

For what you get in U200, in most markets it's cheaper than what the cable company can do. And AFAIK, everywhere there's Uverse territory, the local cable company wants $12-15 extra/month for DVR in addition to the cost of their U200-comparable.

[MadAsHellinDall…]

Can't believe you dropped Fox News from my U100 lineup.  Lets call it what it is, a simple bait and switch.

So, I will spend my next couple evenings researching where to take my business (Multiple Cell Phones, Home Phone, Broadband, and TV).

Dumb move AT&T.  Sheesh!

Adios

[texasguy37 ACE - Expert]

Good luck.  U-verse no longer offers the U100 Package to new customers.

[dwinth]

---

MadAsHellinDallas wrote:

Can't believe you dropped Fox News from my U100 lineup.  Lets call it what it is, a simple bait and switch.

So, I will spend my next couple evenings researching where to take my business (Multiple Cell Phones, Home Phone, Broadband, and TV).

Dumb move AT&T.  Sheesh!

Adios

---

Let us know which provider you choose, and why you made that choice. Your nickname sounds a bit familiar. Have you posted here before under a slightly different name?

[texasguy37 ACE - Expert]

The really interesting thing is that Fox News was removed from the U100 package on January 1st.

[futuresq1]

me too. I am out of here. i turned on fox news tonight and suddenly it is gone. I am done. researching next provider immediately--all the services I take==uverse, land line, modem. psssssst. dpne with this