Dfw area. Can’t get channel 29 to watch the Mavericks

I was guaranteed local sports programing when I sign up with DTV streaming.  They are refusing to add the local channel 29 giving access to the Dallas Mavericks games to their regular lineup.  Then one proper solution is that DTV streaming should provide each subscriber with a digital antenna and installation.  Why should I incur the extra expense and trouble of procuring a digital antenna and installing it to access programming that I was agreed to receive.

I never said that "DIRECTV STREAM can do nothing wrong". And they have stated they are in talks with Tegna, which contradicts your implication they haverefused to add the channel.

What I did is give a realistic perspective considering both the consumer and the company. In any case, there is no proof that they have done something wrong in this situation. All you have to go on is they don't have it as soon as you demand it. Your sarcasm and exaggerations do not change the reality of the situation.

Reality is losing 1.8 million customers in a year. It is not exaggeration to suggest that perhaps their business strategy has some flaws.

That 1.8 million report is 2023. And it was not just from DIRECTV STREAM but between services, including U-Verse which is legacy so stopped accepting new customers.

The Mavs moved what channel they were on this year (2024). So unrelated to DIRECTV STREAM negotiating with Tegna on the new channel the Mavs moved to.

They (DIRECTV STREAM) are not perfect, certainly no TV provider is. Yet they have not refused to carry the channel (that was your own false implication since they confirmed are in talks with Tegna. And where is your blame on Tegna (the channel owner) for not just giving the feed to DIRECTV STREAM or on the Mavs for changing to a channel you didn't already have? There are many moving parts but you seem to want to blame one entity and only them, such as claiming "hardheaded apathy" even though they are actively negotiating.

At the end of the day, no matter how much you stomp your feet, it is not resulting in their talks resolving quicker or the channel arriving any sooner. Waiting, using a regular antenna (if you can), switching, or just watch something else are the options. And don't forget pay TV is just optional entertainment, not a right, so nothing requires you be provided that channel. Regardless, they are still talking to see about obtaining it so one of these days we will hopefully have an answer on if they got it and when it launches.

You can defend bad decisions until you're blue in the face and insinuate that anyone who doesn't like it is irrational, but it doesn't change the fact that DirecTV Stream is making a bad business decision, assuming that the business goal is to attract new customers and maintain their current customer base. I suspect that their goal is a more short-sighted maximum bottom line in the short term, in which case your apologist position makes sense. 

I am not defending any decision (bad or otherwise). They are IN TALKS/NEGOTIATION with the channel owner.

So complain about a decision when one is actually made. I have no apologist position, just a realistic one. I get that you will accept no response except "you have the channel now", and apparently view your group is the be all/end all of the company's future, regardless of how it works. So we can stop going in circles and just agree to disagree.

You'll get the channel once the agreement is made and no sooner.

Exactly. The customer will get what they want when DTS is ready to give it to them. Or when they drop DTS and select a provider that has what they want, while potential new customers look elsewhere. That's the point.

The point is there is a two-way street. Tegna cannot be forced to provide the channel (free or reasonable cost). And since Tegna pulled channels earlier this year to push for higher costs, I would expect they are using the Mavs as leverage and holding those viewers hostage to milk it on top of the recent agreement. Whether that has to modify the existing new agreement or perhaps add a separate one (taking into account the other), I suspect that adds to the complexity of the negotiations.

But the viewers of the Mavs will get the channel when DIRECTV STREAM and Tegna work out an agreement. DIRECTV STREAM is not sitting on the channel waiting until they feel ready, they don't have it to begin with. If you cannot wait for that, than absolutely go elsewhere. The Mavs moving channels (not a decision by DIRECTV STREAM), doesn't control the existence of the overall business. They are just a factor among others.

They are negotiating to find the best long-term deal that works for them and us customers, just like Tegna is on the other side where what works for them but at the expense of customers. So if that is a "gamble" than all businesses are gambling.

Your "gamble" appears to be that all who watch the Mavs (current and prospective customers) have the sole power to determine if DIRECTV STREAM succeeds as a business. I highly doubt a single local channel, that cannot be viewed nationally as would be restricted to its Designated Market Area (DMA), outweighs every other team, sports franchise, or channel in general.

Hope you are letting Tegna know that you're not satisfied they haven't just accepted DTS's offers and given you the channel and not trying to claim they have no part in this. They will have this hashed out and a result eventually.

If a dozen other providers had not already successfully negotiated terms with Tegna, your argument would make sense. It's risky to underestimate the desirability of sports programming. Back in the 60's, a network cut off the end of an NFL game and the uproar caused the networks to change policies.

Business is a gamble. Among a large number of smart business moves is that smart gamblers are the first to get desirable products on the market and, by doing so, capture a larger market share.

All business is a gamble. Good gamblers get desirable products to the market quickly to attract the biggest market share. To underestimate the sports market is folly. In the sixties, a network cut the end of an NFL game to go to other programming. The uproar was so loud that it caused changes in network policies. The marketing value of sports programming is evidenced by the team values and payrolls.

But this discussion has gone on long enough. You've argued eloquently for a position that lost revenue is less important than low cost. The paradox is that lost revenue produces higher consumer cost. I would rather see DTS with many more customers than to pay higher rates to compensate for the lost revenue.

I am a huge fan of DTS and I do not want to see them fail. I also do not want to see their business decisions made by venture capitalists whose sole interest is to keep the current stock price up. 

The only decision by DTS is they went into carriage negotiations with Tegna about carrying a new channel. This is after renewing the main carriage agreement with Tegna earlier this year.

Though the channel would be well more than that, they of course would take sports into consideration. On the flip side I would suggest not overestimating a local channel or the Mavs as having the ultimate power over DTS that outweighs all other channels and programming.

As a business, their interest of course would be to make money and not just a quick buck here and there but for the long term. They aren't doing this for charity, so as a consumer we are simply a resource.

I agree this discussion has gone on long enough (way more than it should have). No matter what is said, it does not result in an upset at the negotiation table. So enjoy the channel when/if it comes to DTS.