Re: WHAT? NO NBA TV? YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!!!!

RCSMG · ‎12-10-2007

paul416 wrote:

AframesurF wrote:

I am a new customer to AT&T Uverse, as well as this unoticed community of whiners, and complainers, (Myself Included) I've been lied to from a sales rep at an AT&T store who told me that Uverse had carried NBA TV in their sports package.

So I joined AT&T Uverse because I was over Time Warner, and their BS politics with major networks, as well as their poor Scientific Atlanta Cable DVR's. So after joining Uverse, I quickly went to the sports channels, and realized that Uverse does not carry NBA TV. Today is the World Basketball Festival in NYC which I will miss because of my stupidity in joining Uverse. Once again, I am a transplant from Time Warner, and am completely dissatisfied, and angered over this matter. I've been asking the customer service reps if they had any information about this, but no one seems to know when they will carry this channel. I've also contacted AT&T corporate on this matter, and they "noted" my complaint, and promised to respond to me, but no reply. I know that they do not even read, or respond to these postings.I want answers as to why AT &T Uverse does carry NBA TV, or NBA League Pass! C'mon, I'm sure you've made enough money off the iPhone users by now to afford to an agreement with David Stern, and the NBA. O.K. I've registered, I've spoken, now let's hear some feedback!! LET'S GET NBA TV!!!!! Anybody with me?

Don't waste your time waiting, waiting and waiting. U-verse is a minor player in the television game. They refuse to upgrade their programming to compete with the likes of DirecTV and Comcast. Do what I did and take your greenbacks and spend them with another provider that will step up and offer the very best in programming . Now with Comcast I have NBA , FSN and MLB Network (another important channel U refuses to carry). I know it is a pain to keep changing but the programming you want isn't coming to U-verse, so go get the programming. And don't hold your breath waiting for a response from the corporate stuffed shirts. They can't be bothered.

Where did you get that info? If it is accurate that is very nice of you to do all of that research even though you are no longer a Uverse subscriber.

smcleod1106 · ‎12-23-2008

There may not be any hard cold facts to support his theory but it sure does appear that sports programming is near the bottom of the priority list for AT&T U-verse. It's kind of ironic too, because almost every sporting event you watch you will see AT&T advertising. I think there are at least two stadiums that have the AT&T name on them AT&T park in San Francisco and one in Texas. As far as major players I think only U-verse and tight wad Charlie at Dish don't carry the MLB Network.

From Wikipedia regarding MLB Network:

The network has signed contracts with 36 cable and satellite carriers. In a deal that was pioneered by other sports league owned channels, MLB tied carriage of the MLB Network to the ability to carry the popular out of market MLB Extra Innings package. In return, cable and satellite providers were offered a minority share of the new network. Two major television providers that are not currently carrying the channel are AT&T U-Verse and Dish Network, leaving DirecTV with satellite exclusivity. Dish Network has been in an ongoing carriage dispute about MLB Extra Innings since the end of the 2006 season.

kryptonite · ‎04-10-2009

smcleod1106 wrote:
There may not be any hard cold facts to support his theory but it sure does appear that sports programming is near the bottom of the priority list for AT&T U-verse. It's kind of ironic too, because almost every sporting event you watch you will see AT&T advertising. I think there are at least two stadiums that have the AT&T name on them AT&T park in San Francisco and one in Texas. As far as major players I think only U-verse and tight wad Charlie at Dish don't carry the MLB Network.

San Francisco's stadium was originally "Pacific Bell Park" then it became "SBC Park" following the merger between SBC and Pacific Bell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Broadband

AT&T broadband became aquired by Comcast.

RCSMG · ‎12-10-2007

It is intersesting how people make statements like that without adding "it seems like" to them Being patient waiting for apps, channels, and features to rollout can get pretty old. Especially for those who have been waiting for so long. And the author of that other post isn't even a UV subscriber, according to what was written in that post.

ATT is not going to make known their decision, intentions, or expectations for this service to it's subs. Most if not all of us know that. There are people who really want to get this service who don't want or care about sports. And there are former subs coming in making statements like they have inside information, and if they had inside information I have to ask why did they get Uverse in the first place? They should have known what ATT was going to do from the beginning.

smcleod1106 · ‎12-23-2008

kryptonite wrote:

smcleod1106 wrote:
There may not be any hard cold facts to support his theory but it sure does appear that sports programming is near the bottom of the priority list for AT&T U-verse. It's kind of ironic too, because almost every sporting event you watch you will see AT&T advertising. I think there are at least two stadiums that have the AT&T name on them AT&T park in San Francisco and one in Texas. As far as major players I think only U-verse and tight wad Charlie at Dish don't carry the MLB Network.

San Francisco's stadium was originally "Pacific Bell Park" then it became "SBC Park" following the merger between SBC and Pacific Bell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Broadband

AT&T broadband became aquired by Comcast.

I know that so what's your point?

paul416 · ‎10-10-2008

RCSMG wrote:
It is intersesting how people make statements like that without adding "it seems like" to them Being patient waiting for apps, channels, and features to rollout can get pretty old. Especially for those who have been waiting for so long. And the author of that other post isn't even a UV subscriber, according to what was written in that post.

ATT is not going to make known their decision, intentions, or expectations for this service to it's subs. Most if not all of us know that. There are people who really want to get this service who don't want or care about sports. And there are former subs coming in making statements like they have inside information, and if they had inside information I have to ask why did they get Uverse in the first place? They should have known what ATT was going to do from the beginning.

Here's a thought. Maybe someone didn't have inside information when they first acquired U-verse but have since gained inside information.

RCSMG · ‎12-10-2007

It would be nice if they offered where they got the info. Too many times people make statements that aren't true or are basically their opinions. Just like what I posted was my opinion. Because they are opinions it doesn't make either one of them wrong does it?

But regarding information. If I posted that ATT said they were rolling out thdvr 3 this Saturday some pepole would get excited. But it would be bad information. Now if I made the statement and stated the source of the information that would add a little credibility to that statement. Anyone would be well within their rights to ask where I got that information. IMHO

Dead_Terrorist · ‎09-11-2009

paul416 wrote:
RCSMG wrote:
It is interesting how people make statements like that without adding "it seems like" to them Being patient waiting for apps, channels, and features to rollout can get pretty old. Especially for those who have been waiting for so long. And the author of that other post isn't even a UV subscriber, according to what was written in that post.

ATT is not going to make known their decision, intentions, or expectations for this service to it's subs. Most if not all of us know that. There are people who really want to get this service who don't want or care about sports. And there are former subs coming in making statements like they have inside information, and if they had inside information I have to ask why did they get Uverse in the first place? They should have known what ATT was going to do from the beginning.
Here's a thought. Maybe someone didn't have inside information when they first acquired U-verse but have since gained inside information.

Paul.. since you are all knowing - all seeing, perhaps you should research some more. Sports Subscriptions make up less than 1% of the revenues for any TV provider and less than 3% of the customers subscribe to it. Fact is, most providers don't make much $$$ on sports subscriptions. In the industry, sports packages are widely knows as "retention channels" not revenue drivers. Since UV is new to the industry, it makes financial sense to first launch the networks/channels that more folks will subscribe to than those that are "niche" channels. Granted, the sports folks are by far the "loudest complainers" but are amongst the lowest contributors to the bottom line. Since AT&T is a publicly traded company, their responsibility is to their share holders, not the "vocal minority".

As I have said before .. it's all about the Benjamins ..... Me, I am willing to give em time. I am sure they will eventually offer sports subscriptions. To me, its a moot point as I have never subscribed to one and don't plan to. I get enough sports on the regional channels and national games to satisfy my needs.

paul416 · ‎10-10-2008

Dead_Terrorist wrote:
paul416 wrote:
RCSMG wrote:
It is interesting how people make statements like that without adding "it seems like" to them Being patient waiting for apps, channels, and features to rollout can get pretty old. Especially for those who have been waiting for so long. And the author of that other post isn't even a UV subscriber, according to what was written in that post.

ATT is not going to make known their decision, intentions, or expectations for this service to it's subs. Most if not all of us know that. There are people who really want to get this service who don't want or care about sports. And there are former subs coming in making statements like they have inside information, and if they had inside information I have to ask why did they get Uverse in the first place? They should have known what ATT was going to do from the beginning.
Here's a thought. Maybe someone didn't have inside information when they first acquired U-verse but have since gained inside information.
Paul.. since you are all knowing - all seeing, perhaps you should research some more. Sports Subscriptions make up less than 1% of the revenues for any TV provider and less than 3% of the customers subscribe to it. Fact is, most providers don't make much $$$ on sports subscriptions. In the industry, sports packages are widely knows as "retention channels" not revenue drivers. Since UV is new to the industry, it makes financial sense to first launch the networks/channels that more folks will subscribe to than those that are "niche" channels. Granted, the sports folks are by far the "loudest complainers" but are amongst the lowest contributors to the bottom line. Since AT&T is a publicly traded company, their responsibility is to their share holders, not the "vocal minority".

As I have said before .. it's all about the Benjamins ..... Me, I am willing to give em time. I am sure they will eventually offer sports subscriptions. To me, its a moot point as I have never subscribed to one and don't plan to. I get enough sports on the regional channels and national games to satisfy my needs.

Source please?

Dead_Terrorist · ‎09-11-2009

I've posted before .. I am in the TV industry ...

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

Dead_Terrorist wrote:

Paul.. since you are all knowing - all seeing, perhaps you should research some more. Sports Subscriptions make up less than 1% of the revenues for any TV provider and less than 3% of the customers subscribe to it. Fact is, most providers don't make much $$$ on sports subscriptions. In the industry, sports packages are widely knows as "retention channels" not revenue drivers. Since UV is new to the industry, it makes financial sense to first launch the networks/channels that more folks will subscribe to than those that are "niche" channels. Granted, the sports folks are by far the "loudest complainers" but are amongst the lowest contributors to the bottom line. Since AT&T is a publicly traded company, their responsibility is to their share holders, not the "vocal minority".

As I have said before .. it's all about the Benjamins ..... Me, I am willing to give em time. I am sure they will eventually offer sports subscriptions. To me, its a moot point as I have never subscribed to one and don't plan to. I get enough sports on the regional channels and national games to satisfy my needs.

Good points as usual, DT! When I think about it logically it all makes sense. ESPN is generally available to all subscribers of a TV service, but I read recently that only about 25% of customers ever watch anything in that channel. The other 75% could care less about ESPN. ESPN would not be considered a niche channel, but more generalized because it covers all sports. I would imagine that as you get into the sports niche channels (i.e. those that focus on a specific sport) , the percentage of customers who watch those channels would drop dramatically.

It is all about the Benjamins and a new TV service focusing on the needs of the majority and not the vocal minority. I think all the sports channels and packages will come in time. This year U-verse added CBS College Sports and the Tennis Channel. No reason to think that the trend will not continue. The vocal minority whining on the forum will not make it happen any sooner. You can either exercise patience and wait or move to a service that offers the programming that you need and stop whining. If certain programming is that important to some customers, the questions needs to be ask "Why did they switch to U-verse to begin with?"

paul416 · ‎10-10-2008

texasguy37 wrote:
Dead_Terrorist wrote:

Paul.. since you are all knowing - all seeing, perhaps you should research some more. Sports Subscriptions make up less than 1% of the revenues for any TV provider and less than 3% of the customers subscribe to it. Fact is, most providers don't make much $$$ on sports subscriptions. In the industry, sports packages are widely knows as "retention channels" not revenue drivers. Since UV is new to the industry, it makes financial sense to first launch the networks/channels that more folks will subscribe to than those that are "niche" channels. Granted, the sports folks are by far the "loudest complainers" but are amongst the lowest contributors to the bottom line. Since AT&T is a publicly traded company, their responsibility is to their share holders, not the "vocal minority".

As I have said before .. it's all about the Benjamins ..... Me, I am willing to give em time. I am sure they will eventually offer sports subscriptions. To me, its a moot point as I have never subscribed to one and don't plan to. I get enough sports on the regional channels and national games to satisfy my needs.
Good points as usual, DT! When I think about it logically it all makes sense. ESPN is generally available to all subscribers of a TV service, but I read recently that only about 25% of customers ever watch anything in that channel. The other 75% could care less about ESPN. ESPN would not be considered a niche channel, but more generalized because it covers all sports. I would imagine that as you get into the sports niche channels (i.e. those that focus on a specific sport) , the percentage of customers who watch those channels would drop dramatically.

It is all about the Benjamins and a new TV service focusing on the needs of the majority and not the vocal minority. I think all the sports channels and packages will come in time. This year U-verse added CBS College Sports and the Tennis Channel. No reason to think that the trend will not continue. The vocal minority whining on the forum will not make it happen any sooner. You can either exercise patience and wait or move to a service that offers the programming that you need and stop whining. If certain programming is that important to some customers, the questions needs to be ask "Why did they switch to U-verse to begin with?"

You make assumptions without knowing the FACTS. I started with U-verse in early Oct 2008. MLB NETWORK DIDN'T OFFICIALLY LAUNCH UNTIL 1 Jan 2009(had a soft launch 16 Dec 08). So I didn't switch to U-verse hoping to get MLB, because IT DIDN'T EXIST. Once it did , I was told by three separate CSR's that U-verse would probably have it by sometime during the 2009 season but if not FOR SURE BY THE 2010 SEASON. So I switched to U-verse becasue I thought( wrongly ) that this was going to be a top notch system with some great possibilities I stayed with U during 2009 because it was then a good system doing some good things and I enjoyed certain aspects of it. Now 2010, NO MLB, NO NBA, NO SOCCER, limited VOD, still only 2 hd streams , and increasing freeze ups. Turning into a run of the mill , minor player in the tv business. Very sad to what was a promising start.

bedwards_1 · ‎02-23-2010

paul416 wrote:
texasguy37 wrote:
Dead_Terrorist wrote:

Paul.. since you are all knowing - all seeing, perhaps you should research some more. Sports Subscriptions make up less than 1% of the revenues for any TV provider and less than 3% of the customers subscribe to it. Fact is, most providers don't make much $$$ on sports subscriptions. In the industry, sports packages are widely knows as "retention channels" not revenue drivers. Since UV is new to the industry, it makes financial sense to first launch the networks/channels that more folks will subscribe to than those that are "niche" channels. Granted, the sports folks are by far the "loudest complainers" but are amongst the lowest contributors to the bottom line. Since AT&T is a publicly traded company, their responsibility is to their share holders, not the "vocal minority".

As I have said before .. it's all about the Benjamins ..... Me, I am willing to give em time. I am sure they will eventually offer sports subscriptions. To me, its a moot point as I have never subscribed to one and don't plan to. I get enough sports on the regional channels and national games to satisfy my needs.
Good points as usual, DT! When I think about it logically it all makes sense. ESPN is generally available to all subscribers of a TV service, but I read recently that only about 25% of customers ever watch anything in that channel. The other 75% could care less about ESPN. ESPN would not be considered a niche channel, but more generalized because it covers all sports. I would imagine that as you get into the sports niche channels (i.e. those that focus on a specific sport) , the percentage of customers who watch those channels would drop dramatically.

It is all about the Benjamins and a new TV service focusing on the needs of the majority and not the vocal minority. I think all the sports channels and packages will come in time. This year U-verse added CBS College Sports and the Tennis Channel. No reason to think that the trend will not continue. The vocal minority whining on the forum will not make it happen any sooner. You can either exercise patience and wait or move to a service that offers the programming that you need and stop whining. If certain programming is that important to some customers, the questions needs to be ask "Why did they switch to U-verse to begin with?"

You make assumptions without knowing the FACTS. I started with U-verse in early Oct 2008. MLB NETWORK DIDN'T OFFICIALLY LAUNCH UNTIL 1 Jan 2009(had a soft launch 16 Dec 08). So I didn't switch to U-verse hoping to get MLB, because IT DIDN'T EXIST. Once it did , I was told by three separate CSR's that U-verse would probably have it by sometime during the 2009 season but if not FOR SURE BY THE 2010 SEASON. So I switched to U-verse becasue I thought( wrongly ) that this was going to be a top notch system with some great possibilities I stayed with U during 2009 because it was then a good system doing some good things and I enjoyed certain aspects of it. Now 2010, NO MLB, NO NBA, NO SOCCER, limited VOD, still only 2 hd streams , and increasing freeze ups. Turning into a run of the mill , minor player in the tv business. Very sad to what was a promising start.

I like NBA, (Go Sprus Go) I watch it on TV. I lke Football, (Go COWBOYS)I watch it on TV. Sometimes I see a BB game and watch it on...TV, all regular channels, FOX/CBS/ABC/ESPN/ESPN2. We have the Tennis channel, the soccer channel. I find DT comments on the button. If you look at the numbers, and the members posting on this, it is less than 1% of the subscribers U-Verse has. They don't have 10 million like THE BIG BOYS have, but they give the ave customer what they want. Then we have customers who only want ALL SPORTS ALL THE TIME IN SUPER HD NOW NOW AND NOW. Those are the minority. Those people may need to go elsewhere to get all-sports-all-day-long. Too bad, we will miss you 1% ers. Look at the thread when people thought AMC was going away. 1000 posts and many, many complained all we do is cater to sports, It seems there was more regular viewers of non-sports television, than the viewers of sports television. You see the same people, posting over and over again everytime a soccer thread or NBA thread or MLB thread pops up; they jump all over those threads posting the same threats and complaints over and over. Like here is my chance, I MUST post how horrible AT&T are for not "lisiting to us do you hear us" or "need to step up with the big boys" or something like that. Heck, I think there was more Hallmark fans posting than MBL/NBA/SOCCER sports fans. Just the same old ones. I went to nielson ratings and found iCarley out did a recent soccer match!! Go Cowboys, I don't need the NFL package to watch them, Go Spurs Go, I don't need NBA TV to watch them. If i need a good nap, I put on MLS, JK, I know how touchy you fottie fans are. So build a bridge and get over it. Esp the ones who are not even U-Verse customers, gheese enough already.

paul416 · ‎10-10-2008

Too bad there are people willing to pay good money and accept less.

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

Good points, Bedwards. For a system that has "no MLB, no NBA, no soccer", I have access to an awful lot of games in those sports. More than I have time to watch! The other sports channels will come in time, but I'm not suffering for lack of access.

Also, when you look at TV providers by total subscribers, AT&T U-verse is still in the minor leagues compared to the "big boys" (Comcast, DirecTV, Dish, Time Warner, etc.). They still have quite a bit of growing to do to catch up, but it's amazing what has been accomplished for a service that did not exist until July 2006.

http://www.ncta.com/Stats/TopMSOs.aspx

Also, when I look at the providers who carry MLB Network or NBA TV, with the exception of Dish which does not carry the MLB Network, it's generally those providers who have less subscribers than the "big boys" who don't carry those channels. It all makes sense to me.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14422029

bedwards_1 · ‎02-23-2010

paul416 wrote:
Too bad there are people willing to pay good money and accept less.

But that is only YOUR opinion. There were more subscribers ready to go because of AMC than MLB/NBA /FSC/FCS+combined. To them, they pay good money and get what THEY want. You didnt' so you went to get what YOU wanted, but you can't let go of U-Verse. I read you were a 55 yo man. Enjoy you MLB, we will enjoy our standard broadcast, over network television, and might I add, I can see my fav sports with out paying extra for it, for the sports we enjoy. I had NBA TV when I had TWC, and never watched it, not once. I had MLB network as well and never watch it. I know you have a room full of friends and neighbors watching MLB on Comcast right now, so enjoy it and have a good weekend! We'll be fine now thanks.

hwkn · ‎05-25-2010

It's too bad we'll miss the NBA Hall Of Fame induction of Scottie Pippen tonight because AT&T doesn't see fit to carry NBA TV.

randyl · ‎10-25-2007

hwkn wrote:

It's too bad we'll miss the NBA Hall Of Fame induction of Scottie Pippen tonight because AT&T doesn't see fit to carry NBA TV.

yep yep they didnt share at all with espn or ??

" Aug 9, 2010 ... NBA TV and NBA.com will have exclusive coverage of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame Enshrinement festivities in Springfield, ... "

paul416 · ‎10-10-2008

bedwards wrote:
paul416 wrote:
Too bad there are people willing to pay good money and accept less.
But that is only YOUR opinion. There were more subscribers ready to go because of AMC than MLB/NBA /FSC/FCS+combined. To them, they pay good money and get what THEY want. You didnt' so you went to get what YOU wanted, but you can't let go of U-Verse. I read you were a 55 yo man. Enjoy you MLB, we will enjoy our standard broadcast, over network television, and might I add, I can see my fav sports with out paying extra for it, for the sports we enjoy. I had NBA TV when I had TWC, and never watched it, not once. I had MLB network as well and never watch it. I know you have a room full of friends and neighbors watching MLB on Comcast right now, so enjoy it and have a good weekend! We'll be fine now thanks.

Not enjoying Comcast. I'm at the Cell, in a box at the Sox-Tigers game. Rain Delay.

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

paul416 wrote:

bedwards wrote:

But that is only YOUR opinion. There were more subscribers ready to go because of AMC than MLB/NBA /FSC/FCS+combined. To them, they pay good money and get what THEY want. You didnt' so you went to get what YOU wanted, but you can't let go of U-Verse. I read you were a 55 yo man. Enjoy you MLB, we will enjoy our standard broadcast, over network television, and might I add, I can see my fav sports with out paying extra for it, for the sports we enjoy. I had NBA TV when I had TWC, and never watched it, not once. I had MLB network as well and never watch it. I know you have a room full of friends and neighbors watching MLB on Comcast right now, so enjoy it and have a good weekend! We'll be fine now thanks.

Not enjoying Comcast. I'm at the Cell, in a box at the Sox-Tigers game. Rain Delay.

So no refutation to bedwards counterpoints, then? That's because you have no response to his accurate assessment.

paul416 · ‎10-10-2008

SomeJoe7777 wrote:
paul416 wrote:
bedwards wrote:
But that is only YOUR opinion. There were more subscribers ready to go because of AMC than MLB/NBA /FSC/FCS+combined. To them, they pay good money and get what THEY want. You didnt' so you went to get what YOU wanted, but you can't let go of U-Verse. I read you were a 55 yo man. Enjoy you MLB, we will enjoy our standard broadcast, over network television, and might I add, I can see my fav sports with out paying extra for it, for the sports we enjoy. I had NBA TV when I had TWC, and never watched it, not once. I had MLB network as well and never watch it. I know you have a room full of friends and neighbors watching MLB on Comcast right now, so enjoy it and have a good weekend! We'll be fine now thanks.
Not enjoying Comcast. I'm at the Cell, in a box at the Sox-Tigers game. Rain Delay.

So no refutation to bedwards counterpoints, then? That's because you have no response to his accurate assessment.

What accurate statements? I didn't have a room full of friends and neighbors-inaccurate. I wasn't enjoying MLB on Comcast.-inaccurate. What is the SOURCE for the statement that more subs were ready to go because of AMC than MLB/NBA//FSC FSC+ combined??

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

He's accurate that there were more people interested in AMC than in the sports channels. Just look at the thread lengths and post rates in those threads. The AMC thread alone reached dozens of pages within 1 week, far more than the MLB or FSC threads have reached in months.

He's accurate that people pay good money for U-Verse and are happy with what they have. U-Verse has 2.5M customers and is growing. Comcast is losing subscribers in many markets.

He's right that you can't let go of U-Verse. You're no longer a customer, you're no longer burdened with the one missing feature that you wanted -- MLB Network. You wanted U-Verse badly, or you wouldn't have come here and wouldn't have tried it out. And yet, you won't go enjoy your Comcast. You have to come here and attempt to disparage and incite. Do you do this because you need validation for your decision to move to Comcast? Are you that insecure? I notice you didn't refute the age accusation, thus it must be true or close to true. If you're a 55 year old who takes time out of his MLB-filled day to make sure and go attempt to disparage a service that you don't even have, that's truly the epitome of childish, selfish behavior. Absolutely pathetic and pitiful.

His statements seem pretty accurate to me. As are mine.

Your credibility is non-existent, paul. The continued vindictiveness and emotional, angered responses show that you're unable to form objective fact-based arguments.

randyl · ‎10-25-2007

2129iE1C4DC816F34824D

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

Isn't that the truth, LOL.

paul416 · ‎10-10-2008

SomeJoe7777 wrote:
He's accurate that there were more people interested in AMC than in the sports channels. Just look at the thread lengths and post rates in those threads. The AMC thread alone reached dozens of pages within 1 week, far more than the MLB or FSC threads have reached in months.

He's accurate that people pay good money for U-Verse and are happy with what they have. U-Verse has 2.5M customers and is growing. Comcast is losing subscribers in many markets.

He's right that you can't let go of U-Verse. You're no longer a customer, you're no longer burdened with the one missing feature that you wanted -- MLB Network. You wanted U-Verse badly, or you wouldn't have come here and wouldn't have tried it out. And yet, you won't go enjoy your Comcast. You have to come here and attempt to disparage and incite. Do you do this because you need validation for your decision to move to Comcast? Are you that insecure? I notice you didn't refute the age accusation, thus it must be true or close to true. If you're a 55 year old who takes time out of his MLB-filled day to make sure and go attempt to disparage a service that you don't even have, that's truly the epitome of childish, selfish behavior. Absolutely pathetic and pitiful.

His statements seem pretty accurate to me. As are mine.

Your credibility is non-existent, paul. The continued vindictiveness and emotional, angered responses show that you're unable to form objective fact-based arguments.

U-verse has over 2 million customers. Using thread lenghts to determine what is popular and what is not and what is accurate or not ,is laughable . Again, point out a reliable SOURCE.. So you might understand what a "reliable source" may be, AT&T releasing a statement indicating that a certain channel generated X number of reponses one way or another.

I was paying good money and wasn't happy , so that statement cannot be wholly accurate. What SOURCE can you point to to show that Comcast "is losing customers in many markets"? I still am a customer of AT&T so THAT statement is inaccurate. And I am enjoying my Comcast , so that is another inaccurate statement. I have some MLB filled days others none , so that statement is not accurate. As far as angered responses, the only one I see anywhere on this thread is yours. I've disparaged no individual because of what he or she has written, but you seem to enjoy doing just that. Stick to the facts.Bub.

When you can't attack the message

Attack the messenger

wendigo · ‎02-12-2009

Unless you are talking about the merits of adding NBA TV, please drop the arguments. Any further posts not about NBA TV will be removed from this thread - thank you!!

tmink · ‎07-07-2010

The point being that many of us want NBA.TV. Naturally it could be part of the HD extra or in the sports package. ...and while I'm here MLB.TV would be a nice addition as well.

Good that the mod came on to get the fous back to where it belongs. Hopefully our request have been forwarded to those with some clout.

AgmanFSU · ‎10-04-2010

Uverse stop depriving your loyal paying customers of NBATV. Been a Uverse customer since 08' dropped Comcrap for a reason. Uverse is the best service IMO. Please work out a deal with NBATV

bjtheman1 · ‎10-04-2010

I too just found out today that U-Verse does not offer Leage Pass or NBA TV. I started my service in Feb this year and never even thought about asking if they had this till right before season was starting.

Very annoying, especially after finding these forums where customers since 2007+ have been asking for the same channels with no success.

I've had Time Warner, Comcast, & Dish Network and had no probs getting these programs. I've had enouigh issues with U-Verse since I got it that this is enough, I'll go back to Dish so that I can at least get programs I want and know they are available,

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

bjtheman1 wrote:

I too just found out today that U-Verse does not offer Leage Pass or NBA TV. I started my service in Feb this year and never even thought about asking if they had this till right before season was starting.
Very annoying, especially after finding these forums where customers since 2007+ have been asking for the same channels with no success.
I've had Time Warner, Comcast, & Dish Network and had no probs getting these programs. I've had enouigh issues with U-Verse since I got it that this is enough, I'll go back to Dish so that I can at least get programs I want and know they are available,

Hopefully, you are not looking for any the channels mentioned in the link below that Dish recently removed from it's lineup.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/457879-Fox_Pulls_Nets_From_Dish.php