Interesting Contract Negotiations with AMC and others

ukitena · ‎07-09-2010

I happen to be a performing artist and am fighting issues of copyright infringement with ATT and other entities. My performances are used over and over to propogate the wealth of these corporations without any return on investment for me.

I stand opposed to ATT actions in everyway. The company nor the executive staff is not transparent and will not respond to letters, complaints or other issues of the day. Human Resources is not reachable and propogates mistrust even in the hiring process with ATT.

Truth in Advertising issues are met with a deaf ear, such as Fiber Optic to and in the home is a misnomer, that does not exist and yet it was marketed to us as such.

Perhaps an investigation into the negative impact ATT has on the consumer and the underhanded ways they do business is called for.

These are viable issues that I stand firm on. I want my residuals and royalties.

ukitena · ‎07-09-2010

I am also addressing communication and instalation issues with ATT. It took 17 installers over a month's period and a lot of my personal time to wait on these people to even get U Verse (watered down from the fake sales of fiber optics) into our home here in Houston. Enough already.

The technicians that appeared at our home were not at all knowledgeable about the product nor the difference in the Cisco and the Motorola boxes they were installing nor how to make them work properly. After damage to my residence with multiple holes drilled through walls and left, well, we have U Verse, a slow version and really not that good.

I would ask these issues to be addressed instead of prorogating wealth for a schyster corporation. I believe a snake oil salesman has more validity than ATT in today's market.

Cissy_1 · ‎07-09-2010

Thanks much for the good posts, pointing out the many failures and lies.

We went for ATT UVerse because of the fiber optic lie, and we're limping along

with the whole ATT thing, which got really screwed up as they gave me a phone number they

had already given someone else, so all her bad credit and constant creditor calls were coming

up on my tv, my att u verse. I was nice about it, I could have contacted the lady and she

probably wouldn't have any more problems paying her bills, ya know? But I was nice to ATT,

I am an idiot.

If they drop AMC or IFC, I am dropping ATT and their whole 'package' the one consisting of their boxes,

and the one full of lies. Maybe I should call that lady after all... I know her number!

randyl · ‎10-25-2007

ukitena wrote:

I am also addressing communication and instalation issues with ATT. It took 17 installers over a month's period and a lot of my personal time to wait on these people to even get U Verse (watered down from the fake sales of fiber optics) into our home here in Houston. Enough already.

The technicians that appeared at our home were not at all knowledgeable about the product nor the difference in the Cisco and the Motorola boxes they were installing nor how to make them work properly. After damage to my residence with multiple holes drilled through walls and left, well, we have U Verse, a slow version and really not that good.

I would ask these issues to be addressed instead of prorogating wealth for a schyster corporation. I believe a snake oil salesman has more validity than ATT in today's market.

oh baloney

dhascall · ‎04-21-2008

Troll x 2. What's worse than one troll? Another. They are multiplying

cahrn74 · ‎08-22-2009

I don't think the problem rests with ATT alone. The rules of the FCC allow the viewing public to be bonbarbed with junk that they would not ordinarily be interested in. For example: all of the sports channels dedicated to baseball, hockey, football and wrestling, while those interested in other sports, such skiing, world equine federation competitions (the Horse Channel/comcast) are not available. In a capatilist society, the market depends on information for fair competition otherwise, it is not competitive and one of the benefits of free competition: effeciency-which can keep prices down and encourage investment is non existent. Hence the high prices we pay for communication in any form other than face to face.

Another example is the absurdity surrounding the case of the "distance channels". I read the court case, the inujunctions and the remedies and disposition of the case. To make a long story short, the whole thing redounded to the benefit of the larger corporations-Ecostar and Comcast, and left the consummer of these services out in the cold. The political machinations surrounding the courts' reasonings on the case were stupid and insulting to the people. It makes my blood boil that these fatcatsare cheating the American people, and we don't even know it most of the time.

kimra · ‎07-09-2010

It's called "Bait and Switch"! That means they sell you on one thing and then deliver another. AT&T can't sell us a package (that includes IFC, AMC, etc.) and then remove parts of the package, and continue to charge us the same monthly fee! I adore AMC (what would life be without "Mad Men"??!) and IFC, and I would be sorely disgruntled to lose them (I will be even more disgruntled when they continue to charge me as if I am still getting them!).

mibrnsurg · ‎07-15-2008

You are getting charged for a package of 100's of channels, they are not going to lower the price if 3 channels are taken away by Rainbox Media.

Chris

_____________________________________________________________________

Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-866-912-8216 for TS to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
Your Results May Vary, In My Humble Opinion
I Call It Like I See It, Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

kimra · ‎07-09-2010

They do look at individual channels as being more valuable than others. What if the 3 channels they took away were CNN, ESPN and NBC? They charge $12 or $14 just for HBO!

mibrnsurg · ‎07-15-2008

You're comparing apples to oranges, HBO charges ATT a much higer fee, so they charge that fee plus some profit and make it optional. Those are not the three that are in play, AMC was a much better channel 10 years ago, but the kids got control of Cablevision (owners of Rainbox Media) and now AMC is what it is (don't think I've watched it once in my 2 years on Uverse). IFC was a cool channel 10 years ago, but not anymore. Read this post from SomeJoe about this negotiation:

http://utalk.att.com/t5/TV-Programming/To-Everyone-Complaining-about-AMC-IFC-and-WE/m-p/230376#M5319...

Chris

_______________________________________________________________________

Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-866-912-8216 for TS to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
Your Results May Vary, In My Humble Opinion
I Call It Like I See It, Simply a U-verse user, nothing more