Dropping channels from a bundle

Nope. Channels are based on your subscription package. Of course you can setup a favorite list and use as your channels of choice.

Yah the only thing you can do, for now, is not put them on your favorites list. Would be nice if those channels were replaced with channels that don't spread dangerous conspiracy theories. Of course ATT funded OAN and helped get them going that's why they are on the Dtv platform. Newsmax has to go as well. It's OAN lite. Hopefully after all the defamation lawsuits from Smartmatic and Dominion these two 'networks" won't exist. 

Geez guys get a life. Just ignore them. You may not like them but others may. You have choices you know!

I don't think there is any one person who likes every channel in their package, we all have channels we have no interest in. So do as we all do just ignore them.

@Ludwick577 

From Reuters, who published the story about AT&T funding OANN:

"After this story was published, AT&T issued a statement saying it has “never had a financial interest in OAN's success and does not 'fund' OAN.”

Newsmax is growing and in fact has a larger audience and higher ratings than CNN and MSNBC.

@chasf00 

I'm being careful how I answer. I don't want to get booted off again.

@chasf00 

I didn't realize you got blocked too. What type of egregious statement did you make? You didn't mention something about a um l.e.t.t.e.r. did you?

@chasf00 

Yeah, me too. 

And Elmer has to sit in the corner again until he can behave himself. 

@chasf00 

I noticed that, too. 

They were pertinent to the conversation so I wonder why they were pulled. All I  find is a 404.

AT&T/DirecTV didn't "fund" OANN more than any other channel. They paid for it like any other carriage agreement. Though some might perceive even paying for it as funding it. or that opportunity for them carrying the channel was helping to get them started.

I think the difference is that AT&T/DirecTV decided to try a new channel on the lineup as it had a chance to be popular enough, not that they as a business were supporting what the channel was about.

Suggesting someone is providing misinformation (knowingly or not) doesn't seem like something to cause an issue. Should be fine as long as people aren't toxic in how they go about it. If you got edited or blocked for such a statement, but were civil about it, that would be wrong.

@Juniper 

"AT&T/DirecTV didn't "fund" OANN more than any other channel. They paid for it like any other carriage agreement. Though some might perceive even paying for it as funding it. or that opportunity for them carrying the channel was helping to get them started.

I think the difference is that AT&T/DirecTV decided to try a new channel on the lineup as it had a chance to be popular enough, not that they as a business were supporting what the channel was about."

From what i've read that was their intention. 

I have no issue with venting. But some posters, on both sides of the discussion, got rather toxic and just insulted back and forth. And both sides are guilty of starting down the insult path. That is where editing, or the blocking (even if temporary), I would expect comes into play.

You say there is no such thing as the high road. So everybody should just beat each other down and make the human race that much worse? Even in a forum where you have anonymity, you can still choose to be civil and response without mudslinging (or even ignore the juvenile insults and move on). If you actively refuse to, saying there is only the "low road", then you become part of the problem.

@Juniper 

You have been here a lot longer than me. In fact this is the first forum that I've been this active in. I see new threads popping up all the time around the same subject line,  whether for or against. Have you ever seen this much controversy in these forums? Is this one unique?

This is probably the biggest controversy to date that I have witnessed, including when OANN was first added. Even the acquisition of DirecTV by AT&T, or the discontinuation of prorating final bills, do not generate this much attention (in my opinion).

Unfortunately, when it comes to politics or religion (or anything that may be a result of them), there are individuals who just want to fight or beat down to submission others who do not share their point of view.

The real issue is rooted in people trying to control what others are able to watch / hear in support of certain political ideologies.   

If everyone simply changed the channel on content they did not agree with, there would be no disagreements.  People simply need to follow the “You do what’s good for you, and I’ll  do what’s good for me” philosophy.  Support freedom of press / speech and simply ignore what you don’t agree with. 

As for the editing, blocking, booting…. it’s a fact that very respectful and factual posts were removed or people were blocked simply because someone did not agree with them.  It’s called censored / silenced and very anti-American.