Contributor
•
2 Messages
Where is the Hallmark Channel?
I am new to At&t U verus. I was told when I signed up the Hallmark Channel was available. It took me a week to finally realize you don't have it. Very misleading.
Contributor
•
2 Messages
I am new to At&t U verus. I was told when I signed up the Hallmark Channel was available. It took me a week to finally realize you don't have it. Very misleading.
JefferMC
ACE - Expert
•
36.9K Messages
11 years ago
I'm glad you checked, too. Actually, ME-TV is available on AT&T U-verse in some markets.
*I am not a DIRECTV employee, and the views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
0
0
JefferMC
ACE - Expert
•
36.9K Messages
11 years ago
I mean to say that AT&T has revenue targets like any other company. If they don't meet them some other way, then they get more money from you and me to meet them. Most of these shopping channels can be easily hidden from the guide and have exactly that much effect on me.
*I am not a DIRECTV employee, and the views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
0
0
americangame
Professor
•
265 Messages
11 years ago
Compared to two years ago my current bill is much lower 🙂
0
0
dhascall
ACE - Master
•
1.4K Messages
11 years ago
What cable company has lowered their bills? I will say that between Comcast and U-Verse, my bill has gone up less (and less often) and "retentions" will offer more to keep existing customers.
As far as Hallmark, my wife misses them - if it's important to her - it's important to me. I keep plugging to get them back. Against all odds, lol.
*I am not a DIRECTV employee, and the views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
0
0
SomeJoe7777
Expert
•
346 Messages
11 years ago
There is not supposed to be any such thing as a "big company fee" or a "small company fee". That is exactly the issue.
The fee is per subscriber per month. So, hypothetically, if Hallmark wants 6 cents per subscriber per month, then with AT&T on U200 (about 5M subscribers), AT&T would have to pay $300,000 per month to carry the channel. For DirecTV, with 15M subscribers, they pay 3 times as much.
The issue is that DirecTV, Dish, other cable providers, etc. were paying Crown Media (owners of Hallmark) a lot less per subscriber per month than Crown was demanding from AT&T. How is that fair that AT&T has to pay more? Thus AT&T dropped them.
How would you feel if Wal-Mart was selling Levi's blue jeans to everyone else for $19.95, but demanded that you pay $29.95? You'd tell them to go sit and spin too ...
0
JefferMC
ACE - Expert
•
36.9K Messages
11 years ago
I doubt Crown will accept the correspondingly lower number of subscribers at the offered price, so they'd want yet more money per subscriber.
*I am not a DIRECTV employee, and the views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
0
0
SomeJoe7777
Expert
•
346 Messages
11 years ago
Why not? It's revenue, and additional audience for advertisers.
The answer to this whole thing is the elimination of these 1-to-1 negotiations between content providers and content distributors. The content should be traded on an open market just like commodities futures, and any content distributor can buy it at the market price.
If DirecTV goes to the market and buys June 2014 delivery of Hallmark for 6 cents/subscriber, every other provider should be able to buy it at the same price.
If Fox Sports Southwest loses coverage of the Astros and Rockets, the price for future delivery of the channel would drop sharply because providers wouldn't buy it at the former price.
If customer tastes for programming change, channel pricing should change accordingly because of increasing or decreasing demand.
0
0
americangame
Professor
•
265 Messages
11 years ago
In my opinion, doing something like that would sharply drop the price of ESPN.
0
0
JefferMC
ACE - Expert
•
36.9K Messages
11 years ago
Because if it were that simple, the deal would have been done years ago.
What great seismic shift do you foresee that would get the sides to move to such a marketplace?
*I am not a DIRECTV employee, and the views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
0
0
SomeJoe7777
Expert
•
346 Messages
11 years ago
1. Smaller content providers are being pushed out of the market because distributors won't pay their demanded price. Some of those content providers might like a market concept because it lets them get more subscribers.
2. There are many more distributors now. It's not just the big cable and satellite companies, but smaller providers have entered the marketplace. If IPTV delivery becomes commonplace (which it's moving towards), virtually anyone could have a small distribution company. Hotels, restaurants, etc. could each become their own mini-distributor, and buy only the channels that they need for their business in the marketplace.
3. Congress and associated representatives are beginning to notice the constant arguments and dropping of channels that's happening more and more frequently now. If something doesn't change, the threat of additional regulation looms. Content providers and content distributors would be wise to implement such a marketplace on their own to avoid that.
4. Part of the overall problem is an issue that has become more and more prevalent throughout the US: No one wants to understand or pay for the true cost of an item anymore. You say that Hallmark should charge a smaller provider more, while I say the cost per subscriber should remain fixed. Why does Hallmark think that a smaller provider should pay more? Volume discount really doesn't apply here because there is no cost savings to the provider with scale. This isn't a manufacturing line with widgets ... the content is already created and already exists. If Hallmark has priced the content correctly, costs are already covered, and anything additional from more providers is simply profit.
If costs aren't covered yet, then what that means is that Hallmark priced the content too low in the first place or has failed to control overhead. Either way, there is a disconnect between what Hallmark thinks the content costs them and what the true cost is, and they are either unable to unwilling to see that.
Another (non-TV industry) example is gasoline taxes. Gas taxes fund the maintenance of highways, roads, bridges, public transportation, etc. Total cost of those items nationwide was about $52B last year, but because people are driving less and driving more fuel efficient cars, total revenue from gas taxes was only about $41B, an $11B shortfall. Obviously, the answer is to raise revenue by raising the per-gallon tax, but nobody wants to hear it. People have trained themselves to ignore the true cost of their luxuries. The true cost of driving a car includes paying for the road maintenance but people stick their fingers in their ears on "principles" like "smaller government and lower taxes".
The bottom line is that these days, everyone wants to enjoy the items and nobody wants to pay for them. THAT is the true reason we deficit spend.
0
0
skeeterintexas
ACE - Expert
•
28.3K Messages
11 years ago
This whole Hallmark discussion makes me think of a messy divorce and the customers are the kids.
Dr. skeeter will now answer your questions:
1. Why are they parting ways? Well, kiddies, sometimes relationships end and it's just best to shut it down.
2. Why can't they work something out? Both parties want what they want and it doesn't look like they can come to an amicable compromise.
3. But we're the ones who are suffering. We know but that's life but you need to put on your big boy/girl panties and deal with it.
4. Why did you have to go and mess up a good thing? LIfe happens and you'll survive. You might not like it but you'll survive.
5. Will we ever see you again? Of course, but only if you have a friend with Dish or Direct TV or other cable provider.
You can stomp your feet and pout all day long and if you want to run away (leave Uverse), you can do that but just know that it's not going to change anything.
*note to self: I gotta stop watching so much Dr. Phil.
Don't mess with old people. The older we get, the less "Life in Prison" is a deterrent.
*I am not a DIRECTV employee, and the views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
0
dhascall
ACE - Master
•
1.4K Messages
11 years ago
*I am not a DIRECTV employee, and the views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
0
0
skeeterintexas
ACE - Expert
•
28.3K Messages
11 years ago
What Dr. Skeeter meant is Dish, Direct or any other major provider. Just not U-Verse.
She also failed to answer #6 "Are ego's involved?" The answer is yes, one or both parties had their ego bruised and picked up their marbles and sulked away, in disgust.
EGO can definetly be a big problem in any relationship!
Don't mess with old people. The older we get, the less "Life in Prison" is a deterrent.
*I am not a DIRECTV employee, and the views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
0
0
baseballisback
ACE - Professor
•
8.2K Messages
11 years ago
*I am not a DIRECTV employee, and the views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.
0
0
LoveHD
Scholar
•
63 Messages
11 years ago
baseballisback writes, "Between the thread that was shut down, this thread and the numerous others, I cannot believe there are this many unique individuals who would blindly sign up for AT&T without checking the channel lineup."
I can.
Many people switching to a different company to provide cable television programming assume a sameness. ("They're all the same!") Particular companies are identified for a specialty in what may be exclusivity of some unique programming (like NFL Sunday Ticket with DirecTV). But when it comes to full-service programmers like that from basic cable—CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, MTV, VH1, CMT, BET, WGN America, FX, Comedy Central, TBS, TNT, Turner Classic Movies, AMC, E!, Bravo, USA Network, Syfy, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, Disney, Discovery, TLC, Animal Planet, A&E, History Channel, National Geographic Channel, HGTV, Food Network, Travel Channel, Lifetime, Lifetime Movie Network, etc.—there is an assumption by many who figure that every provider naturally has all the essential programmers.
That is how the mistake would be made by those who did not check the programming lineup, to see no Hallmark Channel and/or Hallmark Movie Channel, in advance to signing up for AT&T U-verse.
I want AT&T U-verse and Crown Media to reach agreement—finally!—with returning the programming to the lineup. There has to be some pathetic, behind-the-scenes reason[s] for why Hallmark Channel (SD/HD) and Hallmark Movie Channel (SD/HD) have not been returned. (I'm tired of the topic.)
0
0