Thank you dgw, I think your point is a significant view of the larger picture on this one.  I am not happy that FNC is no longer available to me, and I am not willing to part with an $120 per yer to upgrade for one channel, and I don't like the fact that my rates were raised, albiet slighly in comparison to other companies, but raised nonetheless at the same time they subtracted this channel as an option to me.  i don't like it any of that, but I do understand it.  I read this this thread, initially out of my knee jurk (apparently the right spelling of that word is prohibted iin a post) unhappiness with AT&T.  After reading, nearly every post, I had a better understanding and, I still don't agree, buthave a better idea where the change originated.   However, while reading each post, in the back of my mind I was thinking what you said.  What upsets me to the point of considering other options, is that AT&T has taken away a news source that is almost a necessity in combination with CNN in order to get one full story between the two of them, and to make this change in an election year and in the middle of the primaries is extremely disappointing.  No matter which news source your prefer, it is my opinion that they might as well both be in U100 or both U200, because having one or the other is like hearing only one side of the story in a court room.  Yes,  FNC is just one channel, but the timing of it is hard for me swallow.  There was mention earlier of the $0.78 per subscriber fee for FNC, out of curiosity, does anyone know the equivilant rate that CNN requires?