Dropping channels from a bundle

@Juniper 

The OAN thing were people venting. They know no matter what is said on the forum would make no difference. The problem arose when members of a different bent took it upon themselves to chastise the pro OAN voices.If a member posts a snarky response they should expect the same back. Don't say take the high road, there is no such thing. This is a forum that reaches tens of tens of people. Let people vent about the service and to those seeking a solution good luck. 

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?

@Juniper 

Who has the power to give the members a time out.

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. 

I agree that simply changing the channel if you don't like the content, would be most beneficial the viewer. However, if DirecTV wishes to no longer pay for the channel (no matter the reason), then they have every right to not renew the carriage agreement regardless of if you approve of it or not.

I highly doubt it is a "fact", but would actually be your strong belief, that posts were edited/blocked because someone didn't agree with their view. Are you in direct contact with the moderators or such for the reasons of such edits? My suspicion is that some posts were too toxic, not just simple disagreement. And historically political discussions haven't been allowed in the forum (with how volatile they can get, I certainly can see why). I believe the forum moderators have given more leeway with the unique situation of the OANN decision, but perhaps some crossed the line too far. And for a while I noticed a few people copying/pasting a post into multiple threads which would naturally be a form of spamming that those mods would address. But again, that is just from what I've perceived as like everyone else, I don't get told by the mods their reasons.

We will have to agree to disagree… the circumstances involve more then DIRECTV simply deciding to not pay for a channel.  It’s well documented and not a conspiracy. 

I agree with what others have said on respectful posts being removed / blocked…. If one does some research they will find several posts citing factual data which was relevant to the conversation were removed.  Posts containing links to documents on government letter head are far from toxic.  I saw another thread (opposite from OAN / Fox / Newsmax requests) get removed, yes not closed but removed.  I’m so certain about what I have seen that if given the opportunity, I’d testify under oath.

There may be more circumstances, which viewers can certainly disagree with or be upset about. That does not change the fact they still operated within the rules. Now if they had ceased rebroadcasting the channel during the carriage agreement, as opposed to just not renewing it, then there would be a violation. Not saying the reason people are claiming is a conspiracy, only that it doesn't change the fact it was their choice to make and not ours.

As I recall, at least one poster commented that their posting the letter (or link to PDF) was removed several times. This was after they had copied that post word for word over multiple threads. And in that they assured that they would continue doing so. That spamming and continuing to do so, seemingly knowing it was in violation, would be prime for further action from the mods. I don't believe that was facts they wanted to hide, and was not toxic (outside of spamming across the board of course), but perhaps it pushed to far into political discussion. At that point, that discussion is for another medium, not the DirecTV forum (at least how the perception might have been from their side).

As for "testify under oath", the handling of the forum or DirecTV making a decision that was theirs to make (no matter how unpopular for some), would not warrant such a situation. The not negotiating for a new carriage agreement, and certainly their management of their privately owned forum (though open to the public at this time), has not violated any rules requiring any kind of "testifying" (in my opinion).

Again… do research…. Links and images completely removed… not a spam issue…. It’s a deciding what one sees issue.

Fact, OAN sued DIRECTV for a violation of contractual obligations in the California Supreme Court.  It will be up to the lawyers and judges to decide if there was a violation and what was in AT&T’s purview.  In additional, Congress has sent an inquiry demanding answers to questions.  This is not a conspiracy and has only been validated by the remarks of main stream media. 

It will sure be interesting to see what happens in the end.  My bet is this whole situation with drag on for years and will definitely be resolved when powers shift and government leadership has an opportunity to finally address the public’s grievances with respect to several attacks on freedom of speech / press. 

If there is a violation of their existing contractual obligation, that would be a separate matter. Choosing not to make a new contract going forward should not violate the existing one. A contact shouldn't have anything along the lines of "when this contract is up you make a new one and keep paying the channel".

Perhaps all "news" genre (and I do mean that across the board) channels should pay the TV providers if they want it required that they be carried. Cannot have the government pay their way as would probably be a conflict of interest between free press and what would be considered government owned media.

Juniper, please read the entire lawsuit to familiarize yourself with the details.  It was posted In main forum but I believe the link was removed.  It will become readily apparent the issue was not as simple to renew a contract. 

It’s hard for many news channels to “pay” TV providers for fair access to distribution when the TV providers are also the media Giants that own many of the news channels. AT&T owns WarnerMedia, which owns CNN.  AT&T owns 70% of DIRECTV.  Comcast owns NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC. Charter Communications owns Spectrum News, a slate of regional cable channels, including  NY1.

In the near future, FCC rules which state TV distributors cannot give preferential treatment to the channels they own will get tested.  It will be interesting to see what happens. 

Is there a reason this thread was moved to Community Lounge? Does anyone want to answer who initiates the time outs?

I see it under a forum thread. 

I don't even know what community lounge is.

As far as the time outs...so would I.

I think our friend @ElmerFudd79 is still sitting in the corner. 

@Catskills_Dan You will find the truth if you click on Elmer's profile.  It looks like his has been walked off the plank... no more time outs given.    I bet he wishes there was a way to let people know what happened.  

Also, my last post was deleted.   I said nothing controversial or disrespectful; it only responded to Junipers last post by summarizing who owns which news stations.   Its an alarming world we live in... fahrenheit 451