The Blackout Sheriff

[bugmenot121]

---

Ish Kabibble wrote:

---

texasguy37 wrote:

---

cliffjg wrote:

I'm sure Texas Guy will tell me why I am wrong about this.

---

The only thing that I will tell you is that you have options.  If you are not  pleased with the service provided by you current TV provider, you have the option of switching to a provider who you feel will better meet your needs. Continuing to express your viewpoints to other customers, who have no control over black out decisions, is not a very productive use of your time.

---

I would offer the same advice except for one thing. Not everyone has options. Some people like myself signed contracts for their service. How would you like to sign up for for the U450 package for a year because you like movies and hockey only to have them pull the plug on NHL network. You could still change but that early termination fee is a tough pill to swallow.

---

AT&T did NOT "pull the plug" on NHL Network. Why would AT&T deliberately do such a thing?

The real answer is that NHL Network removed the channel from AT&T's lineup when AT&T refused to cave in to the NHL's demands.

Saying that a provider "pulls the plug" on a channel is EXACTLY what those channel operators want. They want the pay-TV providers to look like "the bad guy" when in reality, that's the furthest thing from the truth.

[Ish Kabibble]

By not reaching an agreement with the NHL Network AT&T effectively pulled the plug. Call it what you want it doesn't change the facts of my post. If you are under contract you don't have options other users have.

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

---

Ish Kabibble wrote:
By not reaching an agreement with the NHL Network AT&T effectively pulled the plug. Call it what you want it doesn't change the facts of my post. If you are under contract you don't have options other users have.

---

So, then you would be willing to pay the rate hike that NHL Network wanted?  No problem with that?

[Ish Kabibble]

I don't know. I don't know what the Network wanted. Based on what happened when I was with TWC it probably had more to do with wanting to be dropped down to a lower package. That being said if you are under contract you don't have the options other users do.

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

Wanting to be placed on a lower tier is a common request amongst content providers. This effectively brings the same thing as a rate hike -- more customers subscribe to the lower tier package, thus more money has to be paid to the content provider. For the distributor, this is a worse deal because instead of passing the cost on to a narrow set of viewers (the ones on the higher tier who really want the channel), now they have to spread the cost amongst all the lower tier customers. Those customers are now subsidizing the channel for the few who really want it.

If you are under contract, you can usually break the contract for a fee. You might want to weigh that fee against the value of the channel to see if it might be worth it to you. Another option might be a very inexpensive package from one of the satellite providers (like Dish Network) and then add that channel and pay for both services until the contract expiration. You might also look to see if there's a way to subscribe to NHL Network via the Roku box (perhaps with a Center Ice package?) or on the Internet, if it's offered.

[Ish Kabibble]

First off, I am not a hockey fan so losing the NHL Network is no big deal to me. I was using that channel to make a point. The early termination fee starts at $165 and goes down at small intervals for each month you have the service. A bitter pill indeed.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

Ish Kabibble wrote:

First off, I am not a hockey fan so losing the NHL Network is no big deal to me. I was using that channel to make a point. The early termination fee starts at $165 and goes down at small intervals for each month you have the service. A bitter pill indeed.

---

Then I am truly mystified by your comments unless you are arguing just to be arguing.

The early termination fee starts at $180 ($15 x 12 months), and it is reduced by $15/month over the course of the 12 month commitment.  If someone had a commitment that actually started on the day the NHL Network was removed from the lineup, they would have 5 months left on their contract and would now have to pay $75 ($15 x 5 months) to terminate the contract.  If their commitment period began earlier than October 1, 2011, the fee to terminate the contract would be less than that amount.

[Ish Kabibble]

Your the one who is telling people if they they have a problem to switch carriers. I was simply pointing out that it ain't always that easy.

[bugmenot121]

---

SomeJoe7777 wrote:
Wanting to be placed on a lower tier is a common request amongst content providers. This effectively brings the same thing as a rate hike -- more customers subscribe to the lower tier package, thus more money has to be paid to the content provider. For the distributor, this is a worse deal because instead of passing the cost on to a narrow set of viewers (the ones on the higher tier who really want the channel), now they have to spread the cost amongst all the lower tier customers. Those customers are now subsidizing the channel for the few who really want it.

If you are under contract, you can usually break the contract for a fee. You might want to weigh that fee against the value of the channel to see if it might be worth it to you. Another option might be a very inexpensive package from one of the satellite providers (like Dish Network) and then add that channel and pay for both services until the contract expiration. You might also look to see if there's a way to subscribe to NHL Network via the Roku box (perhaps with a Center Ice package?) or on the Internet, if it's offered.

---

Good point about breaking contracts. A lot of providers will offer gift cards, or enough of a "new customer discount" to off-set any contracts that may have to be broken.

A Roku device would also be a good option to look at.

[Lucero5000]

Does anyone know why baseball games on the various fox sports networks (FSN, FSDa) baseball games seem to all be blacked out where I live?i live in California so why are Detroit Tiger and Arizona Diamondback and Seattle Mariner games blacked out? I understand the blackout rules for the teams in my area ( no matter how silly they might be) but why would the tigers vs the devil rays be blacked out? Or mariners vs Yankees? I don't get it. If it weren't for the blackouts I'd be able to watch most games on any given day which I'd be very happy about but blackouts I'm not so happy about. Can anyone explain?

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

Lucero5000 wrote:

Does anyone know why baseball games on the various fox sports networks (FSN, FSDa) baseball games seem to all be blacked out where I live?i live in California so why are Detroit Tiger and Arizona Diamondback and Seattle Mariner games blacked out? I understand the blackout rules for the teams in my area ( no matter how silly they might be) but why would the tigers vs the devil rays be blacked out? Or mariners vs Yankees? I don't get it. If it weren't for the blackouts I'd be able to watch most games on any given day which I'd be very happy about but blackouts I'm not so happy about. Can anyone explain?

---

Per MLB rules, games on the regional sports networks (RSN's) are blacked out in areas outside of a team's territory. The only way to watch games broadcast on out of the market RSN's would be to purchase the MLB Extra Innings out of market package which U-verse does not offer.  If you live in California, you are not in the territories of either the Tigers, Diamondbacks, Mariners, Devil Rays or Yankees; therefore, you would not be able to view games broadcast on their local RSN's.  Once again, these are MLB rules not the rule of a TV provider.

To see your local RSN's and the professional games available to you on those RSN's, enter your zip code in the link below:

http://www.att.com/Common/iptv/files/dkpages/sportsnetworkinfo.html

[cliffjg]

The Sheriff wants to know what ATT UV intends to do about the Brooklyn Nets broadcasts on YES this coming season.  The team has relocated from Newark, New Jersey.  ATT UV has chosen to blackout the games in my area of Connecticut up until now.  This was a marketing decision by ATT, not a league blackout rule decision (which I confirmed with the NBA and YES), but they tried to justify it to me based on geography and black out rules when I inquired ("the New Jersey Nets are not a New York team"), even though Newark is 10 miles from Broadway.  Since I get every other New York professional team, including the Knicks, as part of my RSN home area, I am interested to see what they decide to do about these games now that the team will be based in New York proper.

Any info out there?

[cliffjg]

Still waiting for an answer to my last post above, which dates back to the summer.  ATT seems to have ignored me on this.

No matter what blackout rule or protocol you subscribe to, there is absolutely no geographic or other logical reason to show all Knicks games in my region on one RSN (MSG) but to simultaneously black out Nets games on another RSN (YES).  I'm still waiting for ATT to either admit they are not paying for the Nets broadcasts (and falsely telling us they are blacked out by league rule) or to otherwise explain this anomaly.

Are there any other subscribers out there in two-franchise/same sport cities where one franchise is shown and the other is blacked out?

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

cliffjg wrote:

Still waiting for an answer to my last post above, which dates back to the summer.  ATT seems to have ignored me on this.

---

This is the U-verse customer forum.  If you want a reply from AT&T,  you need to contact AT&T directly.

[John in Florida]

I am getting blacked out on my Fox/Sunsport Florida when the network broadcasts the Miami Dolphins talk show on Monday nights. The games are not blacked out. So I called support and was told that ATT was following the NFL blackout policy. This is not a game but a talk show after the game. So I called back and spoke to a different support person who told me that I am not subscribed to this channel.  I am subscribed to this channel. It is my regional sports channel in the U450 package. I don't know where ATT is getting their support people from. All they know how to do is read from a script. I guess you get what you pay for.

[dhascall ACE - Professor]

---

cliffjg wrote:

Still waiting for an answer to my last post above, which dates back to the summer.  ATT seems to have ignored me on this.

No matter what blackout rule or protocol you subscribe to, there is absolutely no geographic or other logical reason to show all Knicks games in my region on one RSN (MSG) but to simultaneously black out Nets games on another RSN (YES).  I'm still waiting for ATT to either admit they are not paying for the Nets broadcasts (and falsely telling us they are blacked out by league rule) or to otherwise explain this anomaly.

Are there any other subscribers out there in two-franchise/same sport cities where one franchise is shown and the other is blacked out?

---

Interesting research!  I guess that puts some doubt on some of the generic "AT&T does not black out games," responses.  I have always thought that AT&T "over reacted" on some sports blackouts now it seems that there is more to it. 

If it were that big of a deal - I would switch - surely your contract is up, by now.

To push AT&T for an answer, one could always  send a private message to the escalation team at AT&T Customer Care.

[cliffjg]

Obviously, ATT does not need to stand on its head to satisfy the needs of one knucklehead (me) who would like to be able to watch the games of a particular team.  But, as the posts in this thread indicate quite clearly, there is a "kneejerk" response regarding blackout inquiries that will not withstand scrutiny.  Stuff gets "blacked out" for no reason.  And that goes far beyond the issue of Nets games.  This Nets/Knicks thing intrigues me because it is a test with a clear set of facts which so far cannot be explained by ATT or Texas Guy or the OU guy saying "go to the blackout page locator and type in your zip code....see you later."  Here we have two teams based literally 5 miles apart and one team is being televised to an area while the other is being blacked out.  How does that make sense?

I continue to believe that ATT has decided not to pay for the content -- the Nets games on YES -- and that, rather than blackout rules or league policies is the reason we do not get them.  The blackout policy explanation is a pretext for the real reason.  If so, be straight with us and tell us you have chosen not to carry them.

Incidentally, the same thing happens with the NHL games (when there were NHL games) from NYC.  We get the Rangers, but the Devils and Islanders are blacked out.  How can that be "league policy" -- does the league like the Rangers better? 

As far as just giving up and going to another provider (which is Texas Guy's ultimate response to anything which cannot be easily explained -- "you have options, so take your ball and go home.") it is my nature to try to get this straightened out.  And I am grateful to have this forum available to me and others to try to do that.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

cliffjg wrote:

As far as just giving up and going to another provider (which is Texas Guy's ultimate response to anything which cannot be easily explained -- "you have options, so take your ball and go home.") it is my nature to try to get this straightened out.  And I am grateful to have this forum available to me and others to try to do that. 

---

One thing that should be apparent to you since March when you started this thread is that continuing to post the same comments on this customer forum and argue with other AT&T customers isn't going to resolve your issue.

If you want to receive answers from AT&T, you need to contact AT&T directly.  You are not going to receive answers from the other customers on this forum who have no knowledge of internal decisions made by AT&T.