Longhorn Network - Just say 'No'

That's interesting, the BYU network is up and running right now on Uverse.  Don't see why Texas should be treated any different.

---

@kbake77 wrote:

Count me in as one that would change services if the longhorn network were included in a base package.  People should not have to direclty support a school's television network if they don't want to. 

---

---

@sb01674 wrote:

 

That's interesting, the BYU network is up and running right now on Uverse.  Don't see why Texas should be treated any different. 

---

The difference is that BYU TV is made available to TV providers with no carriage fee where it appears that the Longhorn Network is seeking a 40 cents per subscriber carriage fee for Texas subscribers.  Which is financially easier to carry a channel that has no carriage fee or one that has a 40 cents per subscriber carriage fee?

The "solid" information from AT&T is posted in the above message.

It is reported that the Longhorn Network is asking for 40 cents per subscriber in Texas for carriage of the channel.  Maybe it's easier for Grande Communications with 140,000 total subscribers to add the Longhorn Network than AT&T U-verse with 3.5 million subscribers since the cost will be considerably less for Grande.

---

@CaptainAnt wrote:
Oh, also, Time Warner has LHN now. Clock is ticking on your time, U-Verse.

I guess they also understood what their customers wanted.

---

If U-Verse used this thread to gauge what their customers truly wanted, then U-Verse did exactly that. It seemed to me that the majority of the postings on this subject were anti-Longhorn Network. CaptainAnt, you appear to be in the minority.

Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.

NO to Longhorn Network! 

---

@texag2006 wrote:

NO to Longhorn Network! 

---

Looking at your username, I would expect no other comment.

---

@CaptainAnt wrote:

Oh, also, Time Warner has LHN now. Clock is ticking on your time, U-Verse.

I guess they also understood what their customers wanted.

---

I have seen no announcement that Time Warner has picked up the Longhorn Network.  What is the source of your information?

dwinth, I don't understand how a thread of angry anti-UT fans constitues what their ENTIRE market wants. If you took an even sample of every football fan in Texas, you are statistically more likely to find a Texas fan than any other. I think it's safe to say that inside the state of Texas the LHN is wanted.

Also Texasguy, I got the information from a friend of mine that spoke with a TWC chat rep last night.

http://i54.tinypic.com/10fnjwn.jpg

this is the chat log from it. However, it appears that he was lied to as TWC does not have LHN.

Regardless, Grande Communications, GRANDE! Has Longhorn Network before yall do. As a Texas-based company and a strong and visible supporter of UT athletics U-Verse has dropped the ball on this network. I understand that ESPN is asking more than AT&T wants to pay, but yall have known this is coming for at least a month. If yall really couldn't work a deal out, I am disapointed that I have a service provider that cannot get what its customers want.

All I'm saying is that it's frustrating and doesn't make any sense to me why yall aren't picking it up.

Let's assume U-Verse has 1 million subscribers in Texas. The average monthly bill of those subscribers is most likely 90-100 dollars a month. I'll assume 90 dollars/month for this, which means that yall take in 90 million dollars a month from your U-Verse subsscribers. The Longhorn Network would cost $0.40 per customer in the state of Texas, costing U-Verse $400k each month. If 4500 customers drop yall's service because you don't have Longhorn Network, yall lose $405K from your revenue, which is more than you would lose than if you had just picked up the channel.

Is it really that hard to imagine 4500 customers in the state of Texas dropping your service for someone that does have LHN?

The proposed programming is horrendous. One actual University of Texas football game and 5 University of Texas @ San Antonio (UTSA) games?  And that’s only on Saturdays, the rest of the time is filled with substandard programming.  I hope Uverse is smart enough to understand this is not a subscriber magnet.  Carry it as a premium/opt-in package, if at all. 

Pay attention, the conference is quickly dissolving, why buy into a network that focuses around one team in wht may be an irrelevant conference by week 3.

This is a schedule on SATURDAY. 
    1100AM/CT  Longhorn Extra

    1000AM/CT  Longhorn Extra

    1200PM/CT  Soccer
        UT- San Antonio vs. Texas

    0200PM/CT  Football
        Texas vs. Rice

    0400PM/CT  Espn Radio
        Game Plan with Mack Brown

    0500PM/CT  Longhorn Network
        Texas GameDay

    0700PM/CT  Football
        Rice vs. Texas

    1000PM/CT  Longhorn Network
        Texas GameDay Final

    1130PM/CT  Football
        Rice vs. Texas

---

@CaptainAnt wrote:

All I'm saying is that it's frustrating and doesn't make any sense to me why yall aren't picking it up.

---

Well, first of all, you can drop the "ya'll".  None of us here work for AT&T, we're just customers like you.

Second, the $400K that you speak of is just the revenue that has to be paid to LHN.  There's other costs, including encoders, signal processors, bandwidth, routing, guide services, etc.  Actual cost to AT&T is higher than that.

Third, your numbers are off, because there aren't 1M U-Verse subscribers in Texas.  U-Verse has 3.4M subscribers total, throughout the nation.  Texas is probably 500K or so.  Average TV revenue per subscriber per month is less than you're quoting, probably around $75 or so, because the majority of people have U200.  Finally, you can't just say that the fees to LHN would be just Texas subscribers ... they're going to want the 40 cents for everyone who can view the channel.  If LHN makes AT&T put the channel on U200, that means 95%+ of the 3.4M customers would be able to view the channel and therefore figure into the 40 cents.

So, using these more realistic figures, the LHN cost is 3.4M * 0.40 = $1.36M in fees.  Add another 20% in overhead for AT&T, = $1.63M true cost to carry the channel.

$1.63M / $75 = 21,760 customers who have to cancel.  In Texas, this is 21,760 / 500K = 4.3 % of customers.  There is NO WAY you would have a nearly 5% cancel rate if you didn't carry this channel, especially with only ONE UT football game committed.  You have to remember, cancellation is a big deal for the end consumer -- last figures showed that 75% of AT&T customers are triple or quad play.  Cancelling means switching TV, Internet, phone, and in many cases, wireless also.  Consumers don't do that on a dime, even when they're upset.

I wonder how many would subscribe if they offered it as a separate tier?