Re: Looks like we might possibly be losing AMC, IFC, & WE.

Melissa69 · ‎07-13-2010

Xbef wrote:
I really don't get the logic. People are blaming the company that wants the status quo and not blaming the company that is raising prices.

I really don't get this logic. People will change providers to support the company that wants to raise prices.

I can understand why people might think that AT&Ts relatively low user base means it should pay more for channels than the big players, but really that arguement doesn't hold any water. When one is doing bulk purchasing there are benefits for the seller so the price drops because the other side of that coin is selling singles to many people.

This isn't as if you are selling to 1000s of people. Rainbow Networks has less than 200 names on its client list I would imagine. I could believe less than 100 (but certainly that is a guess). It takes as much resources to support 201 clients (by keeping AT&T at the cost it has now rather than removing AT&Ts rights to the channels) as it does 200.

Melissa, you say that this is all over a quarter. Couldn't you say the same thing about Rainbow? I mean if it is so easy for AT&T to pay the money then wouldn't it be as easy for Rainbow to not collect it?

This will cost Rainbow much more in the end than AT&T. 2million+ multiplied by a quarter each month or a few Uverse customers leaving for a while until Rainbow gets their heads out of their **bleep** and starts missing their easy money from AT&T each month and negotiates in good faith.

Thank you AT&T for not caving. I am sorry too many are too dumb to realize you are doing them a favor.

Sorry, I was just reading the article from Bloomberg news. So, if you want to get nasty about this write them. I'm done for the night I have better things to do then to be attacked on a webpage. Thanks for the laughs.

Dead_Terrorist · ‎09-11-2009

XB.. sometimes you just can't reason with ignorance...

paul416 · ‎10-10-2008

Melissa69 wrote:
Xbef wrote:
I really don't get the logic. People are blaming the company that wants the status quo and not blaming the company that is raising prices.

I really don't get this logic. People will change providers to support the company that wants to raise prices.

I can understand why people might think that AT&Ts relatively low user base means it should pay more for channels than the big players, but really that arguement doesn't hold any water. When one is doing bulk purchasing there are benefits for the seller so the price drops because the other side of that coin is selling singles to many people.

This isn't as if you are selling to 1000s of people. Rainbow Networks has less than 200 names on its client list I would imagine. I could believe less than 100 (but certainly that is a guess). It takes as much resources to support 201 clients (by keeping AT&T at the cost it has now rather than removing AT&Ts rights to the channels) as it does 200.

Melissa, you say that this is all over a quarter. Couldn't you say the same thing about Rainbow? I mean if it is so easy for AT&T to pay the money then wouldn't it be as easy for Rainbow to not collect it?

This will cost Rainbow much more in the end than AT&T. 2million+ multiplied by a quarter each month or a few Uverse customers leaving for a while until Rainbow gets their heads out of their **bleep** and starts missing their easy money from AT&T each month and negotiates in good faith.

Thank you AT&T for not caving. I am sorry too many are too dumb to realize you are doing them a favor.
Sorry, I was just reading the article from Bloomberg news. So, if you want to get nasty about this write them. I'm done for the night I have better things to do then to be attacked on a webpage. Thanks for the laughs.

When certain ATT kool-aiders can't argue the facts, they will resort to personal attacks. Good Night.

Xbef · ‎08-27-2009

I did write to RN. I am really smart that way.

Also, when the problem is the lack of intellegence by others describing it as such is a fact and not an attack.

Xbef · ‎08-27-2009

You are so right Achmed. You also can't fix stupid.

Oh well, the drama will continue tomorrow I guess.

mmaslar_1 · ‎02-21-2010

Looks like I'll be waiting for the DVDs of Mad Men, considering that is the only show I watch on ANY of the channels that we might lose. After reading a number of news articles on the subject, it seems that it truly is Cablevision being unfair and charging AT&T ridiculous prices to keep them from competing in their markets. It's seems that Cablevision doesn't want U-Verse in Connecticut, so they are trying to make it impossible for AT&T to renew the contract. For once, it isn't AT&T screwing the customers. I'm actually kind of impressed by this move, rather than have them pass any ridiculous fees on to us. Maybe AMC will become a premium channel like Showtime or HBO. I read an article that said that Comcast dropped AMC from the basic package in some markets for the same reason.

spd2demun · ‎07-28-2007

This was the most pizz-poor idea I've seen, asking people to come to the forum to express their opinions. What did this accomplish, other than 15+ pages of...

I've never seen so many OPWs...my head is still spinning.

Offer all 3 as an optional add-on package.

rainbowanon · ‎07-15-2010

Just FYI - I work for Rainbow Network Communications (RNC). This is all AT&T's doing, not ours. If you write anyone, it should be AT&T, not Rainbow, as there's nothing we can do about it.

shoe · ‎01-05-2010

So what is the deal I thought they were pulling the plug at

midnight as of this morning they are still here

willIBremoved · ‎07-15-2010

An open letter to AT&T

From your "We're fighting for you" website at:
http://www.att.com/Common/iptv/files/dkpages/dk_fighting4you.html

Fair or Unfair, You decide
Below are some of the terms that we won’t accept for you...
* Pay for channels that you don’t want to watch, in order to get the one channel that you do watch.
* Keep the channels you have today, only if you also buy a new channel that you’ve never heard of.

Funny, these are the same terms you force on us, but won't accept for yourselves. Do you see the hypocrisy

wxray · ‎03-22-2010

rainbowanon wrote:
Just FYI - I work for Rainbow Network Communications (RNC). This is all AT&T's doing, not ours. If you write anyone, it should be AT&T, not Rainbow, as there's nothing we can do about it.

Thanks for the honesty.

But you either drank some RNC Kool Aide, or you are naive to make such a statement.

I'm not saying ATT is 0% party in this, but you are saying RNC is 0% party in this and that is naive, friend.

But thanks for replying to let us know what they are feeding you folks at RNC. Helps us understand a bit more.

gemacrill · ‎07-15-2010

Plain and simple, if AT&T drops Fox, I'll drop U-Verse, Internet and Phone.

shoe · ‎01-05-2010

gemacrill wrote:
Plain and simple, if AT&T drops Fox, I'll drop U-Verse, Internet and Phone.

And I will be right behind you

hisandhers · ‎07-15-2010

three of the most watched channels in our area. Wonder if they will reduce our monthly if they reduce our service ??? right

shoe wrote:
gemacrill wrote:
Plain and simple, if AT&T drops Fox, I'll drop U-Verse, Internet and Phone.
And I will be right behind you

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

From Multichannel News.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/454781-AT_T_Rainbow_Continue_Discussions_As_Contract_Deadline_Pa...

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

spd2demun wrote:

This was the most pizz-poor idea I've seen, asking people to come to the forum to express their opinions. What did this accomplish, other than 15+ pages of...
I've never seen so many OPWs...my head is still spinning.

Offer all 3 as an optional add-on package.
Spd, it has been good for a few laughs.

richardwhitman · ‎07-09-2010

From the multichannel news article:
"Relative to rates, SNL Kagan Associates estimates AMC's monthly license fee at 25 cents per subscriber, IFC's at 20 cents and We's at 12 cents.

Does Uverse really want to lose my $188.00 per month over .57 cents?

Dead_Terrorist · ‎09-11-2009

Simple.. mulitiple it by 2+ Million and it's not .57 cents per month... AT&T has to pay for every single subscriber, not just the .08% of it's base (as quoted by SomeJoe777) who watch the channels....

It's all about the benjamins... read all the press releases if you want to be un-biased.. AT&T wants to pay the same amount per customer as their cable competitors... btw, Rainbow's parent company Cablevision is one of them...

I see nothing wrong with wanting a level playing field.

dhascall · ‎04-21-2008

texasguy37 wrote:
spd2demun wrote:

This was the most pizz-poor idea I've seen, asking people to come to the forum to express their opinions. What did this accomplish, other than 15+ pages of...
I've never seen so many OPWs...my head is still spinning.

Offer all 3 as an optional add-on package.
Spd, it has been good for a few laughs.

And even a few groans.

This is not my forum but I believe that I would have made a subforum, which i would have ignored. The TV forum is where I spend lots of my time. If this gets resolved (don't care one way or the other, as long as my prices don't go up) the one post wasters will go away, as I think that it's evident that many are not even U-Verse subscribers. One even announced he was a Rainbow employee / troll. Does Rainbow offer such a forum for us to rant? Nope.

unhappybirthday · ‎10-18-2008

rainbowanon wrote:
Just FYI - I work for Rainbow Network Communications (RNC). This is all AT&T's doing, not ours. If you write anyone, it should be AT&T, not Rainbow, as there's nothing we can do about it.

Fantastic! Then how about answering this question instead:

Why won't Rainbow Network allow AT&T to carry its channels in areas serviced by Cablevision? Isn't fair competition good for consumers?

paul416 · ‎10-10-2008

Dead_Terrorist wrote:
Simple.. mulitiple it by 2+ Million and it's not .57 cents per month... AT&T has to pay for every single subscriber, not just the .08% of it's base (as quoted by SomeJoe777) who watch the channels....

It's all about the benjamins... read all the press releases if you want to be un-biased.. AT&T wants to pay the same amount per customer as their cable competitors... btw, Rainbow's parent company Cablevision is one of them...

I see nothing wrong with wanting a level playing field.

It is not a level playing field. ATT has only 2 million susbs compared with DIRECT 19, DISH 14,COMCAST 23. When a ma/pa store buys from a distributor, do you think they get the same deal as Wal-Mart?? Econ 101.

robbo_1 · ‎07-14-2010

SomeJoe7777 wrote:
robbo,

The actual cost of AMC to you, the end customer, if it were an a-la-carte channel, would be about $57 per month.

Would you pay that price to keep it?

See, you watch AMC or IFC or WE, so you say you would pay more. But you're in the 0.8% of people who regularly watch these channels (yes, it's that tiny, look at the Nielsen ratings). Rainbow wants their money, no matter what. If 99.2% of U-Verse subscribers (like me) don't want to pay extra because we don't watch these channels, then the entire monthly cost of AMC/IFC/WE to AT&T falls on your 0.8%.

That's why AT&T doesn't want to pay Rainbow more money and be forced to increase rates. Because there's 99.2% of us that would be very unhappy with that move, because I would be charged more to support channels I don't watch.

your numbers are sound, but you're being a bit 'chicken -little' like, with your doomsday scenario. How many users would quit over a .57 increase imposed by AT&T so they could keep their profit margin the same? AT&T has never priced channels like this before (based on ratings).honestly - AT&T is making more than this per user just on equipment rental. no one is outraged over that... i wasn't even given the option to buy my box outright. personally, i'd much rather do this than pay every month.

if we're talking pure a-la-carte, yes, i would pay to keep the Rainbow Media channels. I'd also choose not to pay for any of the ESPNs, CMT, BET, Urge, Golf Channel, Military Channel, and many others. Based on their price/user * nielsen share that you used above, my bill would probably stay the same.

...Let's not forget about the HD "premium tier" package with 6 channels for $5. how many people subscribe to those? It includes such watched channels as "World Fishing Network" and "Palladia". If their Nielsen share is less than .8%, shouldn't that package be over $100?

richardwhitman · ‎07-09-2010

So you are saying yes - they'd rather lose my 188.00 per month. I find it hard to believe that only 1600 viewers (8 % of 2 million) are watching Mad Men for example, but be that as it may - 2 mil x .57 cents is 1.14 million a month to provide the service. They risk losing 1800 x 188.00 = 300k. so they are 850k ahead a month - big deal. And we all know that one pissed customer = 10 people that they will strongly encourage never to use ATT.

Its all about the benjamins.

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

The figure is 0.8% (16,000 of AT&T's 2M customers). This is based on the Nielsen share rating for Mad Men, which is AMC's top show.

I did the analysis in the "What We Really Want" thread, which discussed a-la-carte pricing. AT&T breaks even if they drop the channels. Under any other scenario, AT&T loses money.

Also, from AT&T's perspective, I would also demand to be able to carry AMC in all markets and be able to carry AMC HD. I have a feeling this is the major sticking point. AT&T might be willing to pay a bit more, but to withhold AMC in some markets and withhold AMC HD entirely is unfair when other providers are given those channels without issue.

terann · ‎07-11-2010

And even a few groans.

This is not my forum but I believe that I would have made a subforum, which i would have ignored. The TV forum is where I spend lots of my time. If this gets resolved (don't care one way or the other, as long as my prices don't go up) the one post wasters will go away, as I think that it's evident that many are not even U-Verse subscribers. One even announced he was a Rainbow employee / troll. Does Rainbow offer such a forum for us to rant? Nope.

I'm a new poster that came to the community for some information on my equipment and wandered into this forum for information on AMC et al and stayed to laugh at all the outrage from the OPWs. I have marvelled at the number of OPWs that make the very same spelling error. (You will not be "loosing" those channels!) Makes me wonder if they are all by the same poster or if this forum has suddenly been inundated by a slew of illiterates.

I have complained to Rainbow via email but, no, there is no forum allowing us ATT subs to rant and rave on their site. It would have been nice for Rainbow to take the same thing they are dishing out.

Are there really subs out there that pay $200 a month for one or two channels. Really?? We have a core of 30 channels that we watch as well as another 20 or so that we watch occasionally. AMC, WE, and IFC are not among them. I wouldn't pay anything for the first two. Believe it or not, channels have been dropped by providers before. New channels are added. When network TV drops your favorite show, do you stop watching that network forever?

But then again, these are the same people that are switching to other providers if they can't have their way ..oops I mean, channels. Nor can they be bothered to read the entire thread that has some great facts and insights before they start spouting and sputtering. In fact, I can't even understand why they went to ATT to begin with! They had choices between cable, satellite, and ATT so if they're not happy with ATT, why are they here at all??

Competition is a good thing! First it was all cable, then it was cable vs satellite, now ATT has been thrown in the mix. Rainbow (owned by Cablevision) does not want the status quo to change. ATT is trying to change it. Change is good. It gives us choices. If you are not happy with ATT, please exercise your freedom of choice and find a provider that does make you happy.

sigh! A sub-forum for this thread would have been nice. I've been sucked in. :-)

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

Melissa69 wrote:

Some Joe, I really don't appreciate being attacked by what I believe to be an ATT employee. It just shows how insecure you all are. If all of these people that r threatening to leave U-VERSE will be no more. And as hard as the job market is right now it won't be a good thing. Keep attacking me. I must be hitting a nerve. I did read the article and U-VERSE is in it's infancy with plenty of other competitors to switch to.

LOL.

Another person who when confronted by facts, can't argue them, so resorts to the lowest common denominator of employee accusations.

When I get the 1000th employee accusation, AT&T gives me a free set of steak knives.

terann · ‎07-11-2010

SomeJoe7777 wrote:

I did the analysis in the "What We Really Want" thread, which discussed a-la-carte pricing. AT&T breaks even if they drop the channels. Under any other scenario, AT&T loses money.

Also, from AT&T's perspective, I would also demand to be able to carry AMC in all markets and be able to carry AMC HD. I have a feeling this is the major sticking point. AT&T might be willing to pay a bit more, but to withhold AMC in some markets and withhold AMC HD entirely is unfair when other providers are given those channels without issue.

Excellent analysis! I love a person that can look at the facts and explain them!

I also agree that is probably the sticking point. Not every ATT sub has AMC, none have AMC-HD, and this is Rainbow's doing not ATT!

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

SomeJoe7777 wrote:

LOL.

Another person who when confronted by facts, can't argue them, so resorts to the lowest common denominator of employee accusations.

When I get the 1000th employee accusation, AT&T gives me a free set of steak knives.

I already have 2 sets of steak knives! LOL

Dead_Terrorist · ‎09-11-2009

SomeJoe7777 wrote:

Melissa69 wrote:
Some Joe, I really don't appreciate being attacked by what I believe to be an ATT employee. It just shows how insecure you all are. If all of these people that r threatening to leave U-VERSE will be no more. And as hard as the job market is right now it won't be a good thing. Keep attacking me. I must be hitting a nerve. I did read the article and U-VERSE is in it's infancy with plenty of other competitors to switch to.

LOL.

Another person who when confronted by facts, can't argue them, so resorts to the lowest common denominator of employee accusations.

When I get the 1000th employee accusation, AT&T gives me a free set of steak knives.

Joe.. they are Yoshiblades.. .they stay sharp all the time!!!!

richardwhitman · ‎07-09-2010

SomeJoe7777 wrote:
The figure is 0.8% (16,000 of AT&T's 2M customers). This is based on the Nielsen share rating for Mad Men, which is AMC's top show.

I did the analysis in the "What We Really Want" thread, which discussed a-la-carte pricing. AT&T breaks even if they drop the channels. Under any other scenario, AT&T loses money.

Also, from AT&T's perspective, I would also demand to be able to carry AMC in all markets and be able to carry AMC HD. I have a feeling this is the major sticking point. AT&T might be willing to pay a bit more, but to withhold AMC in some markets and withhold AMC HD entirely is unfair when other providers are given those channels without issue.

Aren't you making my point for me? If it's 16,000 customers then they stand to potentially lose 1.6 million a month at only a $100 average. That's more than the 1.14 million this would cost. "Under any other scenario" apparently doesn't include increasing their customer base by making current customers into net supporters (Would you recommend ATT to someone else - yes or no). More subscribers = more money.

As to all the disdain over the one post wonders here - we're only here at AT&T's request.