Possible Smithsonian channel move?

I suspect there's something going on between cable operator and cable programmer for some of the moves that have been made by AT&T U-verse as discussed from this topic.

I certainly don't know anything specific. But these efforts shows.

---

@LoveHD wrote:

I suspect there's something going on between cable operator and cable programmer for some of the moves that have been made by AT&T U-verse as discussed from this topic.

 

I certainly don't know anything specific. But these efforts shows.

---

I'm sure that is correct.

Update on the inquiry.  I sent a message to Customer Support, as Dhascall suggested.  I got a very nice response from a Social Media Manager.  A possibly encouraging response at that.  He said he liked the suggestion and that it seems like a no brainer.  He also said that he would definitely refer the suggestion up to see if gets any traction.  

It all could just be lip service, but we shall see.

Why was this topic marked as solved?  The "accepted solution" is in direct contrast from the information that I received from the content provider.  More importantly, the channel hasn't changed locations as of yet.

---

@NormChar wrote:

Why was this topic marked as solved?  The "accepted solution" is in direct contrast from the information that I received from the content provider.  More importantly, the channel hasn't changed locations as of yet.

---

Posting a wish on this forum wouldn't be the best way to get a channel to move slots. I would suggest contacting the operator of the channel.

Maybe channels like Discovery and Smithsonian are considered more "general interest" and a lot of the other such channels are more in-depth...that might be why they're not closer to each other. When I had basic cable, I had Discovery on channel 40-something...yet, the channels that used to be known as Discovery Wings, Discovery Kids, etc, were all in the digital tier way up the list.

Baseball,

Skip up a couple of posts.  I did contact both the Smithsonian channel and Uverse customer care.

---

@NormChar wrote:

Why was this topic marked as solved?  The "accepted solution" is in direct contrast from the information that I received from the content provider.  More importantly, the channel hasn't changed locations as of yet.

---

IMHO the forum uses the term "solved" a bit loosely.  A better term would be "best response."  It does not always mean that the issue has been solved.  In topics where it is a technical issue, and someone provides an answer on what to do to resolve it, the solved tag is a good fit but some folks who will tell a poster that something can't happen, marking something as "solved," is a bit of a misnomer and posters do mention that it;s not solved, all the time.    I have been thinking about bringing this issue up with Forum moderators - as some folks think that "tag" means that the issue has been resolved and that rarely is, what that truly means.  

Hate to be a wet-blanket BUT if AT&T does move Smithsonian, I can see the posts now where folks are complaining that it is no longer on 118, why did it get moved and so on.  Good luck.

FWIW, If I had to choose between an unofficial answer from Fox Mulder and a answer given by an AT&T Support person, I'd take Fox's every time. 

Channel numbering is part of the negotiation process, just like tier, OnDemand, multi-screen, etc, etc.

The truth is out there.

---

@dhascall wrote:

Hate to be a wet-blanket BUT if AT&T does move Smithsonian, I can see the posts now where folks are complaining that it is no longer on 118, why did it get moved and so on.  Good luck.

---

Probably true.  There's never a way to please 100%.  But to me, if it's moved to the other block, it would be with similar content providers.  The same way they've tiered music, news, sports, movies, etc.  That would at least be a logical response as to why it was moved.  Where as the response as to why the current location seems to be "because".    

At one time Smithsonian was HD only.  U-Verse placed the Smithsonian channel - and other HD only channels such as HD Movies in the low 1100's.  I bet they did that tio showcase the HD content.

---

@dhascall wrote:

At one time Smithsonian was HD only.  U-Verse placed the Smithsonian channel - and other HD only channels such as HD Movies in the low 1100's.  I bet they did that tio showcase the HD content.

---

This is correct, which is why it was placed in that range, alongside HDNet (now AXS), HDNet Movies, Universal HD and HD Theater (now Velocity).  Comcast did the same in their HD infancy, in that ESPN, Discovery HD Theater, iNHD1, and iNHD2 were all grouped together -- followed by adding TNT, UniversalHD, MHD (now Palladia) and changing iNHD1 to MOJO (later to Versus HD, now NBCSN), iNHD2 to Golf Channel HD.  On most Comcast systems, after 10 years, those channels *still* occupy the same spots.

CBS/Showtime, the channel's owner, probably loves the placement, and would fight AT&T to move it into the "correct" tier.

As to the reasons for placements like Discovery Channel, A&E and others in the 100s would be more related to AT&T keeping those networks grouped in their own "basic cable" tier.  ALL of the programmers would LOVE to have a low channel placement, which is still the case even with the sports specialty networks.  For example, when the SEC Network goes live, you can believe that they will want placement on the old "sub-100" channels of the cable providers in their stomping grounds -- in the space people have come to associate with the old "basic cable" networks.

Someone saw a "bug" that said SEC would be 607/1607, which is a pretty darned good placement, if you ask me. 

As far as Smithsonian "fighting" the move, he had an email purportedly from Smithsonian that said it's AT&T's call.  You know that AT&T could have the channel in two places but I bet that would be expensive.

---

@dhascall wrote:

Someone saw a "bug" that said SEC would be 607/1607, which is a pretty darned good placement, if you ask me. 

 

As far as Smithsonian "fighting" the move, he had an email purportedly from Smithsonian that said it's AT&T's call.  You know that AT&T could have the channel in two places but I bet that would be expensive.

---

The SEC Network at 607/1607 would make sense considering it's owned/operated by ESPN and it would be (almost) right beside Longhorn Network at 609/1609.

Now what would be nice is the ability to put channels where the user would want them. ... it would also make migration TO U-Verse easier as you wouldn't have to adjust to a new lineup...just put the channels where they were on the old lineup... say you go from DirecTV to U-Verse, you could put U-Verse's ESPN on 206, etc.

---

@baseballisback wrote:

---

@dhascall wrote:

Someone saw a "bug" that said SEC would be 607/1607, which is a pretty darned good placement, if you ask me. 

 

As far as Smithsonian "fighting" the move, he had an email purportedly from Smithsonian that said it's AT&T's call.  You know that AT&T could have the channel in two places but I bet that would be expensive.

---

 

The SEC Network at 607/1607 would make sense considering it's owned/operated by ESPN and it would be (almost) right beside Longhorn Network at 609/1609.

 

 

Now what would be nice is the ability to put channels where the user would want them. ... it would also make migration TO U-Verse easier as you wouldn't have to adjust to a new lineup...just put the channels where they were on the old lineup... say you go from DirecTV to U-Verse, you could put U-Verse's ESPN on 206, etc.

---

That last part would be a "killer app."   I have always said that setting things up like Favorites would be much easier to do online, where you could drag and drop.  I suppose reordering your lineup could be similar.