Will Att Uverse offer NHL Center Ice????

[bedwards_1]

The way it used to work back in 2002, the provider had to guarantee so many buys, and if that number was not achieved, the provider had to pick up the difference. So there may not be enough people to buy the package and resell it. Just because 20 people on the fourm are requesting it, it may not be 10,000 like that may be the required buy, then they would be stuck with the bill. But go ahead, send mail. I'm not green by any stretch of the imagination. I know this. I had a friend who used to work at TWC as a rep. They did not sell all the NASCAR in car packages and gave them free to the reps because they had to buy them up anyways and didn't want them to go to waste. Just something to think about. It IS A BUSINESS after all.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

Sometimes customers get catch up in emotion, especially sports fans, and forget that it's a business.  It's all about the Benjamins!

[jjran286]

I was told by the Rep that came to my house that U-Verse offered all sports packages when I asked about the Center Ice.  Had I known it was not available, I NEVER would have signed up for this service.  I have already left Cox and DirecTV for not being honest about their sports packages.  I have now had U-Verse for three weeks and I am probably going to cancel.  My wants are very simple.  I want my NHL Network, my Versus, and my Center Ice... I do not understand why these people don't get it...

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

You canceled Cox and DirecTV for dishonesty.  Now you are going to cancel U-verse for the same reason.  Sounds like you are running out of options.

[AmishGuy91]

Sounds like he should just get on each company's website and see what each service offers. 

[JayPSU]

So back to the topic at hand, is this something that U-verse is even working on, or are they making the decision to not carry the big sports subscriptions?  Anyone know?

[JamesTheName]

---

JayPSU wrote:

So back to the topic at hand, is this something that U-verse is even working on, or are they making the decision to not carry the big sports subscriptions?  Anyone know?

---

Jay, your guess is as good as anybodys.

[sw24ever]

I just called customer service and had them send a formal request that Center Ice be made available through U-verse.  iNDEMAND offers Center Ice on 19 seperate cable providers and would be relatively easy for U-verse to get on board with them as well.  iNDEMAND is a third party provider of multiple sports packages (except NFL Ticket due to exclusive rights through DirectTV).  Bottom line is, U-verse wont negotiate to add Center Ice if the demand isn't there.  And as most people may be surprised to learn, they dont consider complaining on the discussion board a formal request.  So instead, do as I have done, and voice your needs to a representative on the phone and request them to send a note to the programming staff to demand Center Ice.  If enough of us do this, they will add it.  They have ESPN Gameplan and iNDEMAND has the NHL Channels set up for U-verse customers already.  Problem is, U-verse hasn't moved forward because not enough people have actually called and requested.  The sales people dont know what programming is offered, because their job is to sell the service.  Thus they say yes, we offer sports packages (which technically they do and it does have NHL Network)... Just food for thought, but I really want Center Ice so we need to stand together and everyone needs to call in order to actually get this moving forward.  It wont just happen because we hope it happens.  Consumers drive the industry, and if the industry doesn't think we want it, they wont go after it.  Show them that we do want Center Ice.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

You do not need to call Customer Service.  You can make a formal channel request using the link below.

http://uversechannels.att.com/

[AmishGuy91]

No it really shouldn't depend on customer demand.  Every major providers offers these sports subscription packages except AT&T.  If AT&T wants to compete with TWC, Comcast. and the dishes, they need to step up and start offering what all the others do.  If there wasn't demand for these packages or if these packages weren't profitable, then you wouldn't see everyone else offering them.

The die-hard hockey/basketball fans are not generally going to be on U-verse since U-verse does not offer these packages and therefore they aren't very likely going to be requesting the channel to U-verse.

[oufanindallas]

---

AmishGuy91 wrote:

No it really shouldn't depend on customer demand.  Every major providers offers these sports subscription packages except AT&T.  If AT&T wants to compete with TWC, Comcast. and the dishes, they need to step up and start offering what all the others do.  If there wasn't demand for these packages or if these packages weren't profitable, then you wouldn't see everyone else offering them.

The die-hard hockey/basketball fans are not generally going to be on U-verse since U-verse does not offer these packages and therefore they aren't very likely going to be requesting the channel to U-verse.

---

Really?  Why shouldn't it be based on customer demand?  If it's going to cost me X amount to carry a specific channel, but only enough people to cover say 1/3 of the cost is going to subsribe to it, what business sense does it make for me to carry that channel.   Everyone says you must offer XYZ to compete, but are they really doing any better?

[AmishGuy91]

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

AmishGuy91 wrote:

No it really shouldn't depend on customer demand.  Every major providers offers these sports subscription packages except AT&T.  If AT&T wants to compete with TWC, Comcast. and the dishes, they need to step up and start offering what all the others do.  If there wasn't demand for these packages or if these packages weren't profitable, then you wouldn't see everyone else offering them.

The die-hard hockey/basketball fans are not generally going to be on U-verse since U-verse does not offer these packages and therefore they aren't very likely going to be requesting the channel to U-verse.

---

Really?  Why shouldn't it be based on customer demand?  If it's going to cost me X amount to carry a specific channel, but only enough people to cover say 1/3 of the cost is going to subsribe to it, what business sense does it make for me to carry that channel.   Everyone says you must offer XYZ to compete, but are they really doing any better?

---

As I explained, there's obviously demand for it, which is why every other major carrier offers it.  But if U-verse is sitting around waiting on customer requests for it then they are misguided.  Customers that want it are obviously elsewhere. 

[oufanindallas]

There's not that much of a demand for it.  If you were to rank sport popularity in the US, it would look like this:

1. NFL

2. NBA

3. MLB

4. NCAA Football

5. NCAA Basketball

6. NASCAR

7. WWE

8. NHL

9. AFL

10. WNBA

11. MLS

12. IRL

[Npanzeca]

---

oufanindallas wrote:

There's not that much of a demand for it.  If you were to rank sport popularity in the US, it would look like this:

1. NFL

2. NBA

3. MLB

4. NCAA Football

5. NCAA Basketball

6. NASCAR

7. WWE

8. NHL

9. AFL

10. WNBA

11. MLS

12. IRL

---

I can accept your list for the most part. That being said what does it say about Uverse service that they don't offer #2 (NBA TV or League Pass) or #3 (MLB Network or Extra Innings). I think that says it all about how U-Verse feels about keeping their sports fans happy. Bottom line is that other carriers provide more and better service to their sports customers including 2 of the top 3 in your personal list. And the first can be found by moving to Direct TV.

[bedwards_1]

When the packages are offered to the providers, like NHL to AT&T, there is a number of "MUST" buys in the contract. I don't tnow the specific number that the NHL is demanding, but that is not the point. the point is, the NHL may require 10,000 buys min to the providers in order to carry the service. UV not being a BIG BOY/A PLAYER/Not KEEPING UP WITH THE DISHES....ect, may not HAVE the min number to get the service. In this type of agreement, the provider, AKA AT&T, would be requred to purchase the remaining unsold buys of the service.

I KNOW this. I had a friend who works for another provider, and they did not sell all of the NASCAR in car service and the company gave the subscriptions away to the employees because they were required to buy them per the agreement, weather they sold or not. My friend got 1/2 season free. I don't think NASCAR in car is carried by anyone now.

So IMHO, untill AT&T grows it business, they may not have the min number for ANY of these services. As a company, I can understand them not wanting to take a out of pocket hit to satisfy a few customers.

So, all you die hard, got to HAVE IT OR ELSE guys, may have to go to another provider who has the customer base to support the required number of min buys.

[Npanzeca]

Fair enough, that makes sense. Except then why dont they tell us they dont have enough subs to offer it? I know they would NEVER disclose that but they should to be fair to people who want it and may go elsewhere, rather than have sales reps who keep peoples hopes up that the service will be offered soon. Once again, no company would ever do that but I wish they would. It would help everyone.

Also, how about all the potential subs who may join on to Uverse if these packages were availabe?

---

[Grail]

They don't tell us that they don't have the subscribers becuase they don't reveal the internals of negotiations.

The reality is that AT&T has probably talked to the people at these networks and asked for pricing.  Based on the response they MAY be in negotiations, or they may have determined that they are too far apart to even talk.

If/When the numbers make sense, they will have the channels.

[Npanzeca]

Services I never expect Uverse to have:

NBA TV

MLB Network

Center Ice

Extra Inning

League Pass

Yeah, i guess sports insn't that important in society (eyes rolling) 

[bedwards_1]

I would expect NBA TV to be there by the time the first game is scheduled to be shown in Nov. That is not the same situation.

As to the rest, time will tell. I would bet they get mbl next season. Seems ratings have been on the rise as of late.

As far as sports being "important" in society, eye roll, I am a sports lover, but IMPORTANT...IDK about that. Ask a lot of women if it's important. Popular YES, IMPORTANT...per a lot of articles I found; some say yes, it's important, some point it out as more cultural rather than important. As far a sports subscription services as a cultural importance....Yet to be dertermined.

[Npanzeca]

---

bedwards_1 wrote:

I would expect NBA TV to be there by the time the first game is scheduled to be shown in Nov. That is not the same situation.

As to the rest, time will tell. I would bet they get mbl next season. Seems ratings have been on the rise as of late.

As far as sports being "important" in society, eye roll, I am a sports lover, but IMPORTANT...IDK about that. Ask a lot of women if it's important. Popular YES, IMPORTANT...per a lot of articles I found; some say yes, it's important, some point it out as more cultural rather than important. As far a sports subscription services as a cultural importance....Yet to be dertermined.

---

I wish I had your optimism, I've been waiting 2 plus years for these packages/channels only to continue to watch Uverse come up empty. I'd say I'm willing to bet nothing will happen by opening night next week.  Same with baseball and MLB network next year, not going to happen.

[marcindublin]

I find it hard to believe that there is a bigger demand for Korean or Portugese channels than for the NHL Center Ice package. Clearly, there is more at work here than a simple count of the number of customers wanting a particular channel. For that matter, how much "demand" do you think there is for the many shopping channels which I have to constantly spend time hiding. How much demand could there have been for the "World Fishing Network".

I'd be curious what the real reason is for not offering the InDemand packages. I fear that the real reason is that AT&T, InDemand and the leagues can't agree how to appropriately split the millions of dollars that would be generated.

[AmishGuy91]

---

marcindublin wrote:

I'd be curious what the real reason is for not offering the InDemand packages. I fear that the real reason is that AT&T, InDemand and the leagues can't agree how to appropriately split the millions of dollars that would be generated.

---

Winner winner chicken dinner!  However InDemand has already agreed how to split the cheddar with plenty of other companies.  So the blame at this point needs to be squarely placed on AT&T.

[bedwards_1]

---

marcindublin wrote:

I find it hard to believe that there is a bigger demand for Korean or Portugese channels than for the NHL Center Ice package. Clearly, there is more at work here than a simple count of the number of customers wanting a particular channel. For that matter, how much "demand" do you think there is for the many shopping channels which I have to constantly spend time hiding. How much demand could there have been for the "World Fishing Network".

I'd be curious what the real reason is for not offering the InDemand packages. I fear that the real reason is that AT&T, InDemand and the leagues can't agree how to appropriately split the millions of dollars that would be generated.

---

Based on your post, you didn't read what I posted. It's the truth about these packages, like it or not, or just keep on wondering why....

When the packages are offered to the providers, like NHL to AT&T, there is a number of "MUST" buys in the contract. I don't know the specific number that the NHL is demanding, but that is not the point. the point is, the NHL may require 10,000 buys min to the providers in order to carry the service. UV not being a BIG BOY/A PLAYER/Not KEEPING UP WITH THE DISHES....ect, may not HAVE the min number to get the service. In this type of agreement, the provider, AKA AT&T, would be requred to purchase the remaining unsold buys of the service.

So I don't know about your millions that everyone can't agree where the split should be....maybe AT&T would be out millions if the service didn't sell, then your price goes up and then the whining really starts.

[marcindublin]

I did miss your post, but it begs this question.

Why would InDemand require a minimum number of subscribers? The cost of delivery would have to be close to zero so any incremental revenue would be pure profit.

Also, if true, how can smaller cable systems hope to ever get to the minimum, unless the minimum is based on the size of the carrier but again, what sense would that make?

[bedwards_1]

---

marcindublin wrote:

I did miss your post, but it begs this question.

Why would InDemand require a minimum number of subscribers? The cost of delivery would have to be close to zero so any incremental revenue would be pure profit.

Also, if true, how can smaller cable systems hope to ever get to the minimum, unless the minimum is based on the size of the carrier but again, what sense would that make?

 Good question sir! Why? because it guarantees a specific amount of return. How can smaller systems ever get to the minimum. They either DON'T get the min and therefore do not get into an agreement, or they bite the bullet and shell out $$ for the unused services. Like UV, a small system, with just over 2.5 mil subs, apparently they feel they do not have enought buys to justify the service.

My example was true.  TWC did not sell enough NASCAR In Car service and had to eat about 2,000 subscriptions, so they gave it away to the employees since they had to pay for it anyways. TWC has 24.5 million subs maybe?? I'm not sure of that number. I would think as the business grows, the subs increase, services like this will be made available in the future. That's why I think MBL will be available next season. More subs. I know I know....I can hear the replies now!!

[marcindublin]

You sir, deserve a gold star for the most informative blogger on the forum today!  A casual search for INDEMAND, NHL and MINIMUMS turned up this:

http://ipo.nasdaq.com/ViewFiling_frames.asp?filename=0000950129-06-000953.txt&filepath=%5C2006%5C02%...

and this:

http://ipo.nasdaq.com/ViewFiling_frames.asp?filename=0000950134-06-013609.txt&filepath=%5C2006%5C07%...

Based on this information, we can exclude AT&T from the role of villian in this affair since the inclusion of NHL Center Ice could be a money pit for them. It is not clear whether InDemand is the villian or the leagues are the villian. Based on these filings, it looks like InDemand, however, we do not know what pressures they might be under.

I'm sad, but not surprised that greed is at the bottom of this little game.

[bnichols_1]

---

marcindublin wrote:

You sir, deserve a gold star for the most informative blogger on the forum today!  A casual search for INDEMAND, NHL and MINIMUMS turned up this:

http://ipo.nasdaq.com/ViewFiling_frames.asp?filename=0000950129-06-000953.txt&filepath=%5C2006%5C02%...

and this:

http://ipo.nasdaq.com/ViewFiling_frames.asp?filename=0000950134-06-013609.txt&filepath=%5C2006%5C07%...

Based on this information, we can exclude AT&T from the role of villian in this affair since the inclusion of NHL Center Ice could be a money pit for them. It is not clear whether InDemand is the villian or the leagues are the villian. Based on these filings, it looks like InDemand, however, we do not know what pressures they might be under.

I'm sad, but not surprised that greed is at the bottom of this little game.

---

Where in the pages and pages of SEC filings for NGTV that you posted above is there anything about NHL Center Ice or even something similar? A simple search for "NHL" in both documents yields only that one of their board of directors members once played for the Edmonton Oilers and Detroit Red Wings.

[readytorock]

I absolutely TOTALLY agree! NHL programming sucks. I didn't realize this thread was open/here because I posted a new thread regarding this topic. Leave it to [text removed - keep it courteous] newbie. LOL.

[sharksfansd]

---

texasguy37 wrote:

You do not need to call Customer Service.  You can make a formal channel request using the link below.

http://uversechannels.att.com/

---

Texasguy or anyone else:  have you been able to get this link to work?  I have tried the link multiple times on different days and I get an error message that says

"Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage." 

I have seen this link on the U-verse Facebook page too, so I know it is supposed to work. 

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

The link works for me.