Not much of an answer shannon02. It's not in the line-up because it's not in the line-up. Who decided to remove it. What reason was given. Why is FSTV still on, an extremely socialist channel and very anti-American. Who are the people in charge of this. What are their names. How do I speak to them.
AT&T's answer for their TV services is that from an "internal review" they decided to not even attempt to renew the carriage agreement when it ended. So far, that is the only reason they have given (though many have their opinions on the reason). This was announced months ago. They followed through last month.
You are not getting OANN back on DirecTV. Check their website for the few other providers that have them.
As AT&T owns the business, not you, it was their right to make the decision as much as you don't like it. And as a consumer, we don't get to talk to the people in charge of these decisions. Calling customer support will not change the situation as they have no control over those decisions.
Would you be as dispassionate and understanding if BET was pulled. Or, if LOGO got yanked for no reason. But, some how, all the far left channels seem to survive without any fear of removal, no matter how tiny the viewership is. If a private Christian bakery can be forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, then DirecTV should be forced to run OAN. Equity under the law.
If BET and/or LOGO got yanked, I would see it no differently. I do not have such attachments to any given channel like some others do.
And for your bakery reference, I submit that is not a fair comparison. AT&T/DirecTV are choosing what products (channels) to carry, not refusing someone from being a customer because of something personal to them. There is no obligation of any channel in particular being carried.
The bakery is choosing not to carry gay wedding cakes. According to your argument this should be acceptable. They aren't refusing to serve anyone, they have chosen not to carry a particular type of cake. This is just as you have framed DirecTV's position.
My understanding was said bakery made the cakes themselves. DirecTV provides the same services to all customers. They don't forbid certain customers from a service they provide others.
I see it more equivalent of a bakery choosing not to do cakes anymore for any customer. They still provide other baked goods, just not the exact one that some may want.
In any case, DirecTV cannot be forced to pay for any given channel. They are a private business, so what products they carry is their choice. As long as they provide what they carry as options to all customers, then it is fine according to the laws and regulations of our country. As a consumer if the company does not carry a product that you want then you are free to shop elsewhere.
So, if I entered this bakery and requested a gluten-free cake, which the bakery doesn't provide, the court can force the owners of the bakery to begin making gluten-free goods. Does this mean that every bakery must make every form of pastry that a customer demands? If the court can force a private bakery to provide a cake they do not make under penalty of law, then the same court can force a private media company to provide a product (OAN) they don't provide. Otherwise, it's a double standard.
DirecTV did not provide OANN but forbid it from certain groups. That is the differenc.
They don't pick and choose which customers get a channel. It is all or none per the available packages (and areas regarding locals and sport teams).
In the end, they aren't forced to have a business relationship with OANN or any other channel. If they kept OANN but refused to provide it to a group of people, that would be a different matter. And remember DirecTV is a rebroadcaster providing the content exactly as it comes to the viewers. They are not custom making the content and then refusing to provide the same service to certain customers.
To be clear, I am not saying what the right result was for the bakery situation. Simply pointing out there are key differences between them and must be approached differently.
Anyways you have the practical information you need. The channel is gone from DirecTV and your saying (demanding?) that you want it back "now" doesn't change matters. If you want the channel, then search elsewhere.
AT&T's answer for their TV services is that from an "internal review" they decided to not even attempt to renew the carriage agreement when it ended. So far, that is the only reason they have given (though many have their opinions on the reason). This was announced months ago. They followed through last month
That is misleading news…. Read complaint OAN filed in California Supreme Court for facts. It’s posted on OANN site. It’s no surprise why it was canceled, it’s called the woke extreme leftists in DIRECTV leadership who are against the freedom of press and speech that does not line up with Fake CNN and the newly formed DHS board ensuring America is fed with misinformation.
@birdman Conduct you own “internal review”, fight for principle first, and cancel DIRECTV like they canceled us.
That is not "misleading news". My post showed what reason AT&T gave. I stated others do have their opinions the reason (which could be correct but has not been clarified by AT&T one way or another). Until AT&T gives clear reason, or documentation from them showing it is forced into the public view, then anything else at this point is conjecture/opinion as to the actual reason. I feel this is a lot of circumstance evidence pointing to one reason (which fair enough may be correct), but as it stands is not hard proof of the reason.
Too many I feel are relying on limited facts and coming to their own conclusion based on their feelings and taking a lot of surrounding factors to formulate the answer they want when the bottom-line factual answer has not been given.
Freedom of Press is not violated. There is no obligation of any TV provider to carry any news-genre channel for any length of time or ever. As a free entity, DirecTV can choose to carry or not the channels they decide on. Now if government came in and dictated what OANN was allowed to report on, that would be a violation. But it is up to each TV provider what channels they have.
A TV provider choosing not to carry a channel anymore is not canceling you. If you cancel over the decision, then you canceled yourself as that is your free will.
Not a limited fact.. read complaint OANN field in California Supreme Court.
1) DIRECTV profited from OAN
2) Robert Herring Sr was surprised to hear news media release that OAN was canceled. E.G. DIRECTV did not inform him first. 3) New board chair of AT&T is a political operative from Obama error, big time democrat donor and activist, with a financial ties to Dominion Voting systems (OAN was critical of). 4) DIRECTV violated contractual agreements with OAN by disclosing business sensitive information to left wing extremists groups like media matters and Reuters.
5) The fact the decision was made public mere days after POTUS asked media companies to combat “disinformation”.
6) list goes on and on….
Freedom of press is absolutely violated when a tech giant cancels a reputable and reliable news outlet solely for political purposes. At least Elon will soon fix Twitter and the violations of free speech uncovered by project Veritas.
Maybe the DIRECTV Board should open their eyes and cancel CNN, ABC, and NPR for incredibly biased news rampant with disinformation. Perfect example was the failure to discourage protesters in front of Supreme Court justices homes, threats to their families or neighbors, or the fact it is actually against federal law to do so. How about the fact that not one of those news stations offered a view different from pro-choice: 75% of the country who is actually for some sort of restrictions were ignored. That brings us to out of control inflation, our commander chief in severe cognitive decline (warning signs of dementia rampant), the war on gas and American pocket books, a failed economy, mismanagement of critical supplies like baby formula, and an incredibly broken southern border… more facts they ignore.
shannon02
ACE - Expert
•
20.4K Messages
2 years ago
DTV decided not to renew the contract so you have to look elsewhere.
0
Bird-man
Contributor
•
11 Messages
2 years ago
Not much of an answer shannon02. It's not in the line-up because it's not in the line-up. Who decided to remove it. What reason was given. Why is FSTV still on, an extremely socialist channel and very anti-American. Who are the people in charge of this. What are their names. How do I speak to them.
0
shannon02
ACE - Expert
•
20.4K Messages
2 years ago
This is a customer to customer forum, you have to ask DTV.
0
Juniper
ACE - Expert
•
21.3K Messages
2 years ago
AT&T's answer for their TV services is that from an "internal review" they decided to not even attempt to renew the carriage agreement when it ended. So far, that is the only reason they have given (though many have their opinions on the reason). This was announced months ago. They followed through last month.
You are not getting OANN back on DirecTV. Check their website for the few other providers that have them.
As AT&T owns the business, not you, it was their right to make the decision as much as you don't like it. And as a consumer, we don't get to talk to the people in charge of these decisions. Calling customer support will not change the situation as they have no control over those decisions.
0
0
Bird-man
Contributor
•
11 Messages
2 years ago
Would you be as dispassionate and understanding if BET was pulled. Or, if LOGO got yanked for no reason. But, some how, all the far left channels seem to survive without any fear of removal, no matter how tiny the viewership is. If a private Christian bakery can be forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, then DirecTV should be forced to run OAN. Equity under the law.
0
Juniper
ACE - Expert
•
21.3K Messages
2 years ago
If BET and/or LOGO got yanked, I would see it no differently. I do not have such attachments to any given channel like some others do.
And for your bakery reference, I submit that is not a fair comparison. AT&T/DirecTV are choosing what products (channels) to carry, not refusing someone from being a customer because of something personal to them. There is no obligation of any channel in particular being carried.
0
0
Bird-man
Contributor
•
11 Messages
2 years ago
The bakery is choosing not to carry gay wedding cakes. According to your argument this should be acceptable. They aren't refusing to serve anyone, they have chosen not to carry a particular type of cake. This is just as you have framed DirecTV's position.
0
0
Juniper
ACE - Expert
•
21.3K Messages
2 years ago
My understanding was said bakery made the cakes themselves. DirecTV provides the same services to all customers. They don't forbid certain customers from a service they provide others.
I see it more equivalent of a bakery choosing not to do cakes anymore for any customer. They still provide other baked goods, just not the exact one that some may want.
In any case, DirecTV cannot be forced to pay for any given channel. They are a private business, so what products they carry is their choice. As long as they provide what they carry as options to all customers, then it is fine according to the laws and regulations of our country. As a consumer if the company does not carry a product that you want then you are free to shop elsewhere.
0
0
Bird-man
Contributor
•
11 Messages
2 years ago
So, if I entered this bakery and requested a gluten-free cake, which the bakery doesn't provide, the court can force the owners of the bakery to begin making gluten-free goods. Does this mean that every bakery must make every form of pastry that a customer demands? If the court can force a private bakery to provide a cake they do not make under penalty of law, then the same court can force a private media company to provide a product (OAN) they don't provide. Otherwise, it's a double standard.
0
Juniper
ACE - Expert
•
21.3K Messages
2 years ago
DirecTV did not provide OANN but forbid it from certain groups. That is the differenc.
They don't pick and choose which customers get a channel. It is all or none per the available packages (and areas regarding locals and sport teams).
In the end, they aren't forced to have a business relationship with OANN or any other channel. If they kept OANN but refused to provide it to a group of people, that would be a different matter. And remember DirecTV is a rebroadcaster providing the content exactly as it comes to the viewers. They are not custom making the content and then refusing to provide the same service to certain customers.
To be clear, I am not saying what the right result was for the bakery situation. Simply pointing out there are key differences between them and must be approached differently.
Anyways you have the practical information you need. The channel is gone from DirecTV and your saying (demanding?) that you want it back "now" doesn't change matters. If you want the channel, then search elsewhere.
0
0
Tiger593
ACE - New Member
•
1.5K Messages
2 years ago
you can still watch it for free on Pluto tv
0
semockru
Tutor
•
56 Messages
2 years ago
OAN is also on klowdTV and offers the OAN Live! streaming channel for $5/mo.
0
0
Pro1A
New Member
•
138 Messages
2 years ago
That is misleading news…. Read complaint OAN filed in California Supreme Court for facts. It’s posted on OANN site. It’s no surprise why it was canceled, it’s called the woke extreme leftists in DIRECTV leadership who are against the freedom of press and speech that does not line up with Fake CNN and the newly formed DHS board ensuring America is fed with misinformation.
@birdman Conduct you own “internal review”, fight for principle first, and cancel DIRECTV like they canceled us.
(edited)
0
Juniper
ACE - Expert
•
21.3K Messages
2 years ago
That is not "misleading news". My post showed what reason AT&T gave. I stated others do have their opinions the reason (which could be correct but has not been clarified by AT&T one way or another). Until AT&T gives clear reason, or documentation from them showing it is forced into the public view, then anything else at this point is conjecture/opinion as to the actual reason. I feel this is a lot of circumstance evidence pointing to one reason (which fair enough may be correct), but as it stands is not hard proof of the reason.
Too many I feel are relying on limited facts and coming to their own conclusion based on their feelings and taking a lot of surrounding factors to formulate the answer they want when the bottom-line factual answer has not been given.
Freedom of Press is not violated. There is no obligation of any TV provider to carry any news-genre channel for any length of time or ever. As a free entity, DirecTV can choose to carry or not the channels they decide on. Now if government came in and dictated what OANN was allowed to report on, that would be a violation. But it is up to each TV provider what channels they have.
A TV provider choosing not to carry a channel anymore is not canceling you. If you cancel over the decision, then you canceled yourself as that is your free will.
0
0
Pro1A
New Member
•
138 Messages
2 years ago
Not a limited fact.. read complaint OANN field in California Supreme Court.
1) DIRECTV profited from OAN
2) Robert Herring Sr was surprised to hear news media release that OAN was canceled. E.G. DIRECTV did not inform him first.
3) New board chair of AT&T is a political operative from Obama error, big time democrat donor and activist, with a financial ties to Dominion Voting systems (OAN was critical of).
4) DIRECTV violated contractual agreements with OAN by disclosing business sensitive information to left wing extremists groups like media matters and Reuters.
5) The fact the decision was made public mere days after POTUS asked media companies to combat “disinformation”.
6) list goes on and on….
Freedom of press is absolutely violated when a tech giant cancels a reputable and reliable news outlet solely for political purposes. At least Elon will soon fix Twitter and the violations of free speech uncovered by project Veritas.
Maybe the DIRECTV Board should open their eyes and cancel CNN, ABC, and NPR for incredibly biased news rampant with disinformation. Perfect example was the failure to discourage protesters in front of Supreme Court justices homes, threats to their families or neighbors, or the fact it is actually against federal law to do so. How about the fact that not one of those news stations offered a view different from pro-choice: 75% of the country who is actually for some sort of restrictions were ignored. That brings us to out of control inflation, our commander chief in severe cognitive decline (warning signs of dementia rampant), the war on gas and American pocket books, a failed economy, mismanagement of critical supplies like baby formula, and an incredibly broken southern border… more facts they ignore.
(edited)
0