Fox Sports 1 - Alternate Programming

1658 HD

3005 SD

Those channels have the games in Spanish.

Fact: AT&T raises prices one per year

This *could* be a factor as to why they're not negotiating now. It's possible they don't want to raise prices now and later when Fox demands even a higher rate.

It's like this: Imagine being a tenant and you're paying your rent every month on time. You let your landlord know of any issues that come up that need attention. Your lease expires in May of 2017. Well, in summer of 2015, your landlord paves the driveway and builds a new porch off the side of the house. One day, you get a letter stating that because of the improvements, your rent is going up $300/mo.

You've been a good tenant, never causing complaints with the neighbors and paying your rent on time. All of a sudden, your landlord demands more money. Why can't he wait for the lease to be up so you can re-negotiate then? Of course you'd be mad.

In this case, Fox can't kick AT&T out entirely, but Fox can deny the tenant access to the new porch and re-paved driveway, which you weren't complaining about, but you don't mind having a fresh driveway.

So, you'll just park on the street (watch soccer in Spanish) and not use the new porch (NASCAR.)

Fox is the landlord. AT&T is the tenant.

Your analogy included two parties, neither of which was THE CUSTOMER!

From the customer's perspective, it's like this: Imagine looking for a house for your family that includes three children. You find a nice, four bedroom home. The rent is a little higher than you'd like, but the house meets your needs so you sign the lease. A few months after moving into the house, your landlord comes over with a bulldozer and rips one of the bedrooms off of the house and tells you that you still have to pay the same amount for rent even though the house no longer meets your needs/expectations.

You're reply is indicative of AT&T's problem: a complete focus inward on your own organization, with little thought to the customer.

However, I will qualify the statement above to exclude customer service and tech support. For the 15 years that I've been an AT&T customer, the quality of service provided from those groups has been outstanding, for me. The problem has always been with U-verse programming/TV lineups (willingness to negotiate with content providers), and an antiquated Internet network infrastructure that cannot support high bandwidth demands.

I live in Houston and I was unable to watch my local professional basketball, baseball, and soccer teams for almost two years because AT&T could not reach a deal with Comcast SportsNet. Thank the lord that Comcast went under and I'm once again able to watch my teams, but I'm really getting sick of paying almost $200/month and not being able to watch the sports programming I want, especially when it's being shown on a channel that I ALREADY PAY FOR!

I'm afraid the previous analogy was more accurate.  What is at issue is that FS1 has added new programming that wasn't available previously and while offering to give to AT&T at an additional fee, is currently withholding it.  Thus, you never had that fourth bedroom you're complaining was ripped away by a bulldozer.

Instead, the builder is telling you that all the homes he's building today are 4 bedroom homes, and you should have one, and would if you bought a house from him now.  That doesn't affect the house you've already bought.

---

@FatsDillon wrote:
But why punish me, the customer? 

---

Ask Fox... they're the one offering two different services under the same name and trying to extort more money.

@JefferMC, your reply further emphasizes my point! The previous analogy might be more accurate from AT&T's internal perspective, but it completely ignores the customer! Man, you just don't get it, do you?

The bedroom is the channel, not the programming.The house I already bought includes the FS1 channel! As a customer, it's not unreasonable to expect that I'll be able to watch the programming airing on that channel.

You're basically saying that I should have zero expectation of what I'll be able to watch on any given channel. I don't pay $190/month to hope that AT&T will be kind enough to pass along the content from the channels I already pay for.

Please tell me this: Why were other providers able to reach an agreement with FS1—allowing their customers to watch the soccer match today—but AT&T was not able to reach an agreement? (If you're going to give me some line about not knowing the details of their negotiations, blah, blah, blah, please don't bother.)

---

@seanTX wrote:

@JefferMC, your reply further emphasizes my point! The previous analogy might be more accurate from AT&T's internal perspective, but it completely ignores the customer! Man, you just don't get it, do you?

The bedroom is the channel, not the programming.The house I already bought includes the FS1 channel! As a customer, it's not unreasonable to expect that I'll be able to watch the programming airing on that channel.

You're basically saying that I should have zero expectation of what I'll be able to watch on any given channel. I don't pay $190/month to hope that AT&T will be kind enough to pass along the content from the channels I already pay for.

Please tell me this: Why were other providers able to reach an agreement with FS1—allowing their customers to watch the soccer match today—but AT&T was not able to reach an agreement? (If you're going to give me some line about not knowing the details of their negotiations, blah, blah, blah, please don't bother.)

---

You're still getting the FS1 channel.  Fox, for all intents and purposes, already having a channel called FS1, decided to make a new channel with different programming and call it FS1, advertise it as FS1, list its shows as the shows on FS1, while still providing AT&T with a channel called FS1 that Fox no longer provides accurate publicity for.  AT&T is not editing the content off of the FS1 it gets from Fox, Fox is providing an FS1 with content different from what it publicizes is the FS1 content.

Fox has pulled a bait and switch and blamed it on AT&T.  And all these posters continue to fall for it.

Other providers have decided forgo their right to continue to broadcast the old FS1 and are paying Fox extra for this new FS1.  I don't know why.  I don't know why AT&T is not.

---

@JefferMC wrote:

You're still getting the FS1 channel.  Fox, for all intents and purposes, already having a channel called FS1, decided to make a new channel with different programming and call it FS1, advertise it as FS1, list its shows as the shows on FS1, while still providing AT&T with a channel called FS1 that Fox no longer provides accurate publicity for.  AT&T is not editing the content off of the FS1 it gets from Fox, Fox is providing an FS1 with content different from what it publicizes is the FS1 content.

Fox has pulled a bait and switch and blamed it on AT&T.  And all these posters continue to fall for it.

 

Other providers have decided forgo their right to continue to broadcast the old FS1 and are paying Fox extra for this new FS1.  I don't know why.  I don't know why AT&T is not.

 

 

 

 

 

---

@skeeterintexas Yeah, I see that a match I want to watch is being televised on a channel that I subscribe to, so I take off work to watch it, and then when I turn on my TV and tune in to the channel I see a dart tournament... it makes me want to complain a little bit. I'm unreasonable like that—call me crazy. SMH

@JefferMC Wow, that's one wildly ridiculous way of trying to rationalize the situation. You are still completely incapable of seeing this from a customer's point of view. AT&T is the perpetrator of the bait and switch, as far as a customer is concerned.

The answer to my question is pretty obvious. The other providers decided to absorb the cost of the additional fee in the interest of their customers. I'm not saying that they're just taking the hit to be good guys—I'm sure they'll find some way to make up for it. But they realize that situations like the one I described above breaks the trust of, if not the contract with, their customers. AT&T simply wants to play hardass at the expense of their existing customers.

Another point: I've seen AT&T apologists like yourself make comments to the effect of, "the timing is bad for AT&T to pass on to their customers the additional cost that FS1 wants," as if that's the only option. Okay, well I'm sure that FS1 paid a pretty penny for FIFA television rights. So you're saying that it's okay for AT&T to pass on additional costs to its customers, but it's not okay for FS1 to pass on additional costs that it incurs to its customer, AT&T?

I will say that I'm really curious to see what type of convoluted reasoning you try to use to explain away that bit of hypocrisy.

me,too

---

@2Slick wrote:

Please let me know why U-verse is the only program provider that is not showing the US Men's National Game today.  While online looking for another alternative to watch the game, I learn that U-verse will not be carrying the US Open.  It's misleading to offer better pricing when you do not provide the same services.  As a new customer, I am very disappointed to learn that U-verse is selective in what they choose to show.  Would like to have U-verse offer this side of the story?  Certainly not telling customers that they will have all the channels but not the programming...

---

me,too
me,too

Darts is FS1's way of sticking it to us. You see the crap long enough, you get angry at AT&T, not FS1 who's actually holding all of us hostage.

I've been living without NHL Network for years. Don't like it but also don't like paying $200 a month because of greedy networks.

---

@beatfan4 wrote:

Darts is FS1's way of sticking it to us. You see the crap long enough, you get angry at AT&T, not FS1 who's actually holding all of us hostage.

 

I've been living without NHL Network for years. Don't like it but also don't like paying $200 a month because of greedy networks.

---

True dat.  It probably is time forAT&T to pay up.