Longhorn Network - Just say 'No'

[nathan.seitz]

Don't add it to the U200 package as you will lose me. Make it an add-on, if anyone really wants this crap station.

----------------

Exactly. Let the teasips support their own network. Don't make it automatic for everyone.

[nathan.seitz]

Don't add it to the U200 package as you will lose me. Make it an add-on, if anyone really wants this crap station.

----------------

Exactly. Let the teasips support their own network. Don't make it automatic for everyone.

[geconomides]

No way would i stand for uverse to add this to any package.  I would cancel immediatly and well as all my family members.

Please don't push this on us.

[okghal]

I wasn't aware of any campaign until you posted your link, but even so, how do you explain the fact that its an outrageous cost for just one school. I would be happy to hear an explanation of the difference in costs as I laid it out earlier in a more accurate comparison to the Big 10 network.

Big 10 network = $.07 per school

LHN = $.40

Assume inflation and a discount for having multiple schools on at one time and raise it to $.10 a school, it is still 4x more to get the LHN. On top of that, the Big 10 network gets me a ton more games to watch, football and other sports, with the LHN, all I get is the Rice game and only UT's other sports - so you are getting even less than you would with the conference network.

Conspiracy, campaign, whatever you want to call it, it makes no sense financially, which is why no other school has attempted to do this. The LHN will fail because the cable providers wont be able to sell the product - at least not at the rate required for ESPN to profit enough to pay UT. 

My Original estimation, in case you never read it...

"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!"

[okghal]

I wasn't aware of any campaign until you posted your link, but even so, how do you explain the fact that its an outrageous cost for just one school. I would be happy to hear an explanation of the difference in costs as I laid it out earlier in a more accurate comparison to the Big 10 network.

Big 10 network = $.07 per school

LHN = $.40

Assume inflation and a discount for having multiple schools on at one time and raise it to $.10 a school, it is still 4x more to get the LHN. On top of that, the Big 10 network gets me a ton more games to watch, football and other sports, with the LHN, all I get is the Rice game and only UT's other sports - so you are getting even less than you would with the conference network.

Conspiracy, campaign, whatever you want to call it, it makes no sense financially, which is why no other school has attempted to do this. The LHN will fail because the cable providers wont be able to sell the product - at least not at the rate required for ESPN to profit enough to pay UT. 

My Original estimation, in case you never read it...

"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!"

[A1Ag1995]

another vote against adding the LHN to a package.  should stand on its own and optional for those that want it.

[cfig]

Houston U-verse subscriber here and I do not want this added to my U200 package as I have no desire to subsidize this channel. If the Longhorn Network isn't made a premium option of some type I'll start to look at my other options for cable tv and internet service.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

okghal wrote:

Conspiracy, campaign, whatever you want to call it, it makes no sense financially, which is why no other school has attempted to do this. The LHN will fail because the cable providers wont be able to sell the product - at least not at the rate required for ESPN to profit enough to pay UT. 

---

Have you ever hear of Brigham Young University Television (BYU TV)?

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

Conspiracy, campaign, whatever you want to call it, it makes no sense financially, which is why no other school has attempted to do this. The LHN will fail because the cable providers wont be able to sell the product - at least not at the rate required for ESPN to profit enough to pay UT. 

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

By the way, Notre Dame also plans to launch it's own network, so you guys can start gearing up your campaign to oppose it.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/730927-notre-dame-ad-swarbrick-will-have-her-own-television-netwo...

[ksr3todd]

Is BYU TV on Uverse?  If so, I haven't noticed it yet.  Neither BYU TV nor the LHN should be on a base package like U200.  If people want either of these they should be an add-on feature.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

Also, Oklahoma wants to launch it's own network soon.  You guys have your work cut out for!

http://www.examiner.com/oklahoma-sooners-in-oklahoma-city/oklahoma-sooners-television-network-coming...

[jdop09]

Agreed, this is a niche channel and should not be forced on everyone. Notice how there is exactly one person defending this network, and his username is texasguy. Every UT grad I know has no interest in watching UT track, tennis, golf, etc...why would the rest of the state (and outlying areas) be interested?

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

jdop09 wrote:

Agreed, this is a niche channel and should not be forced on everyone. Notice how there is exactly one person defending this network, and his username is texasguy. Every UT grad I know has no interest in watching UT track, tennis, golf, etc...why would the rest of the state (and outlying areas) be interested?

---

I'm defending nothing.  I am providing facts as opposed to propaganda that has no basis in fact.

Also, perhaps you have not learned to not tune to channels in your TV package that you have no interest in watching, or do you watch all the channels in the package that you currently receive?

[okghal]

I hadnt heard of it until now, I appreciate the information, but do you also know how much are the school is getting paid, and how much the subscribers have to pay for it? I would bet that it is nowhere near the $.40 price tag the LHN is asking.

The problem is not having a network by itself, it's the cost to the subscriber, and the operating costs associated with it. Due to the ESPN contract with UT for $15M / year, the costs are too high for it to be sustainable with only one football game and the coverage of only one school available for content.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

I have no idea of the price per subscriber paid by TV providers for BYU TV or what the price would be for either the Notre Dame Network or the Oklahoma Sooners Network.

Also, in 2012 the Pac 12 Conference will be launching a national network and six regional networks.  I would expect another campaign to be launched by those opposed adding those channels since they have no interest in the Pac 12 Conference; therefore, no one should have access to those channels.

[okghal]

So I was searching the BYU Tv site and it is all available for free...see for yourself at http://byutv.org/

It appears that the content is provided for free and they likely only have to cover their production costs with any advertising money that they recieve...therefore there is no way they are clearing the millions of dollars that the LHN is trying to make. Again, the problem is not having a network, its the exhorbitant costs that ESPN is now trying to recover to make it a viable business venture.

Passing the costs on to subscribers who do not demand it is the only way it can be done, and the only way for those of us who dont want to pay for it can speak up is to voice our opinions in forums such as this.

I am sure they will find a way for it to stay alive, but it doesnt seem that it will be a profitable endeavour for ESPN or UT at this point, not without gaining rights to more than one football game or if the NCAA allows the airing of high school games, which seems unlikely at this point.

FYI, you can watch the BYU upset of OU streaming online...

http://byutv.org/watch/19515364-3e5f-4283-8db1-ebf6a75cd2c1

[CTEL08]

---

texasguy37 wrote:

---

okghal wrote:

Conspiracy, campaign, whatever you want to call it, it makes no sense financially, which is why no other school has attempted to do this. The LHN will fail because the cable providers wont be able to sell the product - at least not at the rate required for ESPN to profit enough to pay UT. 

---

Have you ever hear of Brigham Young University Television (BYU TV)?

---

to say the least, this isnt a good analogy at all.

b/c for one, BYU TV's mandate reaches far beyond just sports or the university in general for that matter.

and secondly,  how much is att paying in subscriber fees to provide BYU tv to uverse customers?  its very few pennies, if anything at all. BYU TV isnt about maximizing their sub fees, they make it available for free OTA, cband, ku band, and on the net

[CTEL08]

Conspiracy, campaign, whatever you want to call it, it makes no sense financially, which is why no other school has attempted to do this. The LHN will fail because the cable providers wont be able to sell the product - at least not at the rate required for ESPN to profit enough to pay UT. 

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

CTEL08 wrote:

to say the least, this isnt a good analogy at all.

b/c for one, BYU TV's mandate reaches far beyond just sports or the university in general for that matter.

and secondly,  how much is att paying in subscriber fees to provide BYU tv to uverse customers?  its very few pennies, if anything at all. BYU TV isnt about maximizing their sub fees, they make it available for free OTA, cband, ku band, and on the net

---

So you also opposed the Longhorn Network being added by any TV provider?

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

okghal wrote:

Passing the costs on to subscribers who do not demand it is the only way it can be done, and the only way for those of us who dont want to pay for it can speak up is to voice our opinions in forums such as this.

---

Interesting.  I have been a customer for over 2 years.  During that time, quite a few new channels have been added to the U-verse lineup.  Some with higher carriage fees that others.  Some of channels I have been interested in and watch on a regular basis while other channels I never watch.  Yet I "subsidize" those channels that I never watch and have no interest in.

Do you opposed all new channel that are added to U-verse or just the ones that you have no interest in?

[CTEL08]

---

texasguy37 wrote:

---

CTEL08 wrote:

to say the least, this isnt a good analogy at all.

b/c for one, BYU TV's mandate reaches far beyond just sports or the university in general for that matter.

and secondly,  how much is att paying in subscriber fees to provide BYU tv to uverse customers?  its very few pennies, if anything at all. BYU TV isnt about maximizing their sub fees, they make it available for free OTA, cband, ku band, and on the net

---

So you also opposed the Longhorn Network being added by any TV provider?

---

youre the one who said youre hear to post facts, if you want to ask questions, ask yourself why youre reaching for bogus "facts". 

there seems to be some uverse customers who are new , i'd rather here their opinions on the subject, unless you finally so have one.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

CTEL08 wrote:

---

So you also opposed the Longhorn Network being added by any TV provider?

---

youre the one who said youre hear to post facts, if you want to ask questions, ask yourself why youre reaching for bogus "facts". 

there seems to be some uverse customers who are new , i'd rather here their opinions on the subject, unless you finally so have one.

---

Wow!  Didn't respond to my question.

By the way, what are the "bogus" facts?  That BYU has it own TV network or that both Notre Dame and Oklahoma are also looking to start there own networks?  Could the bogus fact be the the Pac-12 conference will be starting 7 new networks next year?

[CTEL08]

---

texasguy37 wrote:

---

CTEL08 wrote:

---

So you also opposed the Longhorn Network being added by any TV provider?

---

youre the one who said youre hear to post facts, if you want to ask questions, ask yourself why youre reaching for bogus "facts". 

there seems to be some uverse customers who are new , i'd rather here their opinions on the subject, unless you finally so have one.

---

Wow!  Didn't respond to my question.

By the way, what are the "bogus" facts?  That BYU has it own TV network or that both Notre Dame and Oklahoma are also looking to start there own networks?  Could the bogus fact be the the Pac-12 conference will be starting 7 new networks next year?

---

right! i did not answer your question. b/c my opinion isnt important, as i dont live in texas so if the long* network would almost certainly be available only thru a sports pack, if at all

but if you ask me, espn was overly ambitious to get a deal done with UT and overpaid. just b/c they make a bad deal, doesnt mean everybody should have to pay for it. the deal, by its nature, alienates all the other TT, A&M, TCU, SMU etc...fans.

if there was a usc or a cal berkeley only network, that only profited the one school, i'd be *ed and would be campaigning against that too! 

which brings up your comapraisons. the only one that is remotely comaparable is if OU starts its own network, and that deal hasnt been cut yet

the pac 12 deal, all the money is still pooled equally between schools, even with the local networks. utah and washington state will get as much money as usc and ucla.and theyre going to be carring a ton of football games, not just one creampuff per year.

 and from what i've read, larry scott made gave the cable co's a fair rate. whereas ut is all about ut. they were a  major force in running one conference into the ground, and theyre doing their best to do it a second time. i learn this from reading fans opinions. ppl are more likely to express their opinions when theyre not being shouted down.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

CTEL08 wrote:

which brings up your comapraisons. the only one that is remotely comaparable is if OU starts its own network, and that deal hasnt been cut yet

---

And Notre Dame?

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

CTEL08 wrote:

if there was a usc or a cal berkeley only network, that only profited the one school, i'd be *ed and would be campaigning against that too! 

---

Why?

[CTEL08]

---

texasguy37 wrote:

---

CTEL08 wrote:

if there was a usc or a cal berkeley only network, that only profited the one school, i'd be *ed and would be campaigning against that too! 

---

Why?

---

it undermines the ideals of a conference in many ways. the competition is suppose to be limited to the play on the field.

for instance, the long* network's competitive advantage go beyond just a financial one, it would give them an even more significant recruiting advantage than they already have.

it would be much more beneficial to the conference and the consumer as  a whole if UT worked with the rest of the big twelve conference. but, just one fans opinion, it looks like UT is setting itself up to tell the rest of the schools to shove it, and theyre going independent sometime in the future, if they so desire. 

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

What people seen to not remember is that Texas is doing exactly what the Big 12 Conference said that it would do when they agreed to not go to the Pac 10 Conference last year.  If Texas had gone to the Pac 10 Conference, other Big 12 teams would have gone with them, and the Big 12 Conference would no longer exist.  As part of the agreement for Texas to reman in the Big 12 Conference and keep the conference in tact, the Big 12 Conference agreed to allow Texas to start it's own network.  They are now doing that.

http://web.yesnetwork.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100614&content_id=11183122&oid=9&vkey=10&print=true...

[CTEL08]

---

texasguy37 wrote:

---

CTEL08 wrote:

which brings up your comapraisons. the only one that is remotely comaparable is if OU starts its own network, and that deal hasnt been cut yet

---

And Notre Dame?

---

again, ND has a strong religious affiliation, i'd think their blueprint would follow BYU tv's as much as UTs

but then again, for sports purposes, they are considered a national school and unlike UT have a STRONG national following, so as much as i personally wouldnt like it, it would probably be justifiable. i think that in the end, that versus/nbc sports will in how NDtv moves forward. 

[CTEL08]

---

texasguy37 wrote:

What people seen to not remember is that Texas is doing exactly what the Big 12 Conference said that it would do when they agreed to not go to the Pac 10 Conference last year.  If Texas had gone to the Pac 10 Conference, other Big 12 teams would have gone with them, and the Big 12 Conference would no longer exist.  As part of the agreement for Texas to reman in the Big 12 Conference and keep the conference in tact, the Big 12 Conference agreed to allow Texas to start it's own network.  They are now doing that.

http://web.yesnetwork.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100614&content_id=11183122&oid=9&vkey=10&print=true...

---

its a common negotiating technique called "Strongarming", it good for the short term, not as good for long term success.  

ut used the pac 10's interest to get what they wanted. what wasnt mention is that a 16 team conference would  have revolutioned college football, causing mayhem and creating a brave new world scenario, that would have looked more like an nfl/pro sports model, than a traditional college one. 

espn and fox sports came to the rescue with extra money to help maintain the status quo, for now. 

[okghal]

"Do you opposed all new channel that are added to U-verse or just the ones that you have no interest in?"

I only oppose a channel that would 1) raise my costs, or 2) would give money to entities that I would prefer to not support.

So as they added new channels, were your rates raised?

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

CTEL08 wrote:

---

again, ND has a strong religious affiliation, i'd think their blueprint would follow BYU tv's as much as UTs

but then again, for sports purposes, they are considered a national school and unlike UT have a STRONG national following, so as much as i personally wouldnt like it, it would probably be justifiable. i think that in the end, that versus/nbc sports will in how NDtv moves forward. 

---

LOL.  Interesting how you find a way to justify some things, but be opposed to other things that are the same.  Where are you comments about how the Notre Dame Network would harm the other teams in the Big East Conference?

 Also, reading the comments by the Notre Dame AD, I see no mention of religious programming but only comments about all the athletic programming that the fans will have access to from coast to coast.

[jdop09]

texasguy, you're not arguing the right points. Of course no one here complained about the Notre Dame network...safe to say that most people commenting here don't live in that region and weren't charged for the channel. We aren't TV programming freedom fighers, we're people who are upset that, 1. we are being charged for a network that hardly appeals to anyone, and 2. the University of Texas cares so little for the rest of the schools that make up the Big 12 Conference.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

okghal wrote:

"Do you opposed all new channel that are added to U-verse or just the ones that you have no interest in?"

I only oppose a channel that would 1) raise my costs, or 2) would give money to entities that I would prefer to not support.

So as they added new channels, were your rates raised?

---

There have been 2 annual rate increases since I have had the service.  The rate increases cover the increased cost incurred by U-verse including programming costs.  No TV provider, including U-verse, increases costs with each channel addition.  Rate increases typically occur on an annual basis.

If U-verse adds the Longhorn channel in August, there will be no rate increase in August just as there have been no rate increases when other channels have been added this year.

By the way, any new channel can raise your costs if there is carriage fee paid to carry that channel.  This describe almost all the channels in the U-verse lineup.  

Are you saying that every channel in the U-verse lineup that receives a carriage fee is provided by an entity that you support?