# How long do we think the satellite service will last?



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

I think that the future of DirecTV is obviously through a streamed service rather than a satellite based service. The money saved on equipment and technicians alone will be significant. Of course, people have to have a decent internet connection in their house to rely on it for all of their tv and other needs, so I guess my question for those here far more knowledgeable than me......and that's just about everyone......is how long do you think that the satellite based service of D* will continue? Three years? Five years? Longer? My impression is that the cloud based DVR service on the streamed service of D* isn't fully there yet......I think it will be within a year or two though. I'd be interested in people's thoughts on this issue.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

more then 20 years for sure


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

More more than 20 years. 

Two issues.

First, the number of people with the kind of internet needed for this is really pretty small. And, even if it grew the 80 or 90%, th still leaves millions of potential customers.

Second, look at the comments you get from "cord cutters" today. The don't miss TV "that much" pretty much sums it up. OK fine. Good for them, but there are people that just want a traditional TV service. They want TV presented in the traditional way, with channel numbers and set top boxes and ONE bill from ONE provider. Cord cutters, remember, are a self-selected group, not necessarially "early adopters" of what will become universal.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

Interesting. I recently tried DirecTV Now when we had a snow storm and the satellite signal was out for a couple of days. The trial was free, and I was fine with the service........locals were there......but there was no Cloud DVR functionality. That would be an instant deal breaker for me. I also really missed my D* Remote. The remote with my Roku device made the whole navigation experience less than pleasurable.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

TDK1044 said:


> Interesting. I recently tried DirecTV Now when we had a snow storm and the satellite signal was out for a couple of days. The trial was free, and I was fine with the service........locals were there......but there was no Cloud DVR functionality. That would be an instant deal breaker for me. I also really missed my D* Remote. The remote with my Roku device made the whole navigation experience less than pleasurable.


They released an update for that service yeaterday

DIRECTV NOW Beta App and More


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

WestDC said:


> They released an update for that service yeaterday
> 
> DIRECTV NOW Beta App and More


Great news. I can see myself becoming a streamer in a couple of years. It seems to me that you can get similar packages for less money, and you don't have rain fade or other equipment issues. I'm not ready yet though. I think they need a couple of years to get all the bugs out of the way.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

If that works for you great - but for me even with a one TB cap - it's a none starter as the folks doing the data counting are doing it without any device controlled by any outside agency (meaning) like weights and Measures (My) power use age is controlled by a certified meter -When I buy a Gallon of Gas - The PUMP is tested regular for accu by outside control to ensure everyone gets a even gallon


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

WestDC said:


> If that works for you great - but for me even with a one TB cap - it's a none starter as the folks doing the data counting are doing it without any device controlled by any outside agency (meaning) like weights and Measures (My) power use age is controlled by a certified meter -When I buy a Gallon of Gas - The PUMP is tested regular for accu by outside control to ensure everyone gets a even gallon


Yep. I get your point. In our house, it's just my wife and I. The 1TB cap wouldn't be an issue for us.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

I don't see satellite TV service becoming extinct. It'll be available in the next 20 years or more.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

TDK1044 said:


> Interesting. I recently tried DirecTV Now when we had a snow storm and the satellite signal was out for a couple of days. The trial was free, and I was fine with the service........locals were there......but there was no Cloud DVR functionality. That would be an instant deal breaker for me. I also really missed my D* Remote. The remote with my Roku device made the whole navigation experience less than pleasurable.


In my 23 years as a DIRECTV customer I've never experienced a loss of signal that long. Rain fade usually lasts a few minutes and snow fade lasts as long as it takes me to remove the snow from my dish and LNB.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Satellite will live for home and business use. It is still the best way of getting content to millions of people simultaneously. And the best way to have multiple simultaneous high bandwidth feeds to the same location.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

A lot of people don't realize it but Satellite service for TV and internet is all portions of the county have. There are large areas of Maine where there is no cell service etc. The state has forced "phone" companies to keep land lines in those areas. There aren't a lot of people in those geographical areas but they do have needs for service. I think this exists in a bunch of states where sat is the only real option.
I fortunately don't live in those areas but over the last 6 months I've had a lot more internet provider outages than Sat. There were several days a couple of months ago where internet was out for days but sat worked great.
I think satellite service will exist for a long time.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

MysteryMan said:


> I don't see satellite TV service becoming extinct. It'll be available in the next 20 years or more.


Is that because there are so many people without the necessary internet speed?


MysteryMan said:


> In my 23 years as a DIRECTV customer I've never experienced a loss of signal that long. Rain fade usually lasts a few minutes and snow fade lasts as long as it takes me to remove the snow from my dish and LNB.


I was injured at the time and couldn't get to my Dish to clear it, so we had DirecTV Now for 2 days. It was kinda fun, but I was glad to get D* back.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

TDK1044 said:


> Is that because there are so many people without the necessary internet speed?Several reasons. People without the necessary internet speed is one. Another is I agree with everything James Long stated in post #11. Internet providers can't do what he stated.
> 
> I was injured at the time and couldn't get to my Dish to clear it, so we had DirecTV Now for 2 days. It was kinda fun, but I was glad to get D* back.


Sorry to hear you were injured. Now I understand why you were without signal so long.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

TDK1044 said:


> Is that because there are so many people without the necessary internet speed?


That's one reason. Another is what James Long stated in post #11. Internet providers can't do what he stated in that post.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TDK1044 said:


> Interesting. I recently tried DirecTV Now when we had a snow storm and the satellite signal was out for a couple of days. The trial was free, and I was fine with the service........locals were there......but there was no Cloud DVR functionality. That would be an instant deal breaker for me. *I also really missed my D* Remote.* The remote with my Roku device made the whole navigation experience less than pleasurable.


Just tried PS Vue, felt the same way, but I didn't know how to use the cloud DVR properly. I have been told the correct way and I saw what I was doing wrong. I like the D* remotes. But I could have lived with the cloud DVR.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TDK1044 said:


> Great news. I can see myself becoming a streamer in a couple of years. It seems to me that you can get similar packages for less money, and you don't have rain fade or other equipment issues. I'm not ready yet though. *I think they need a couple of years to get all the bugs out of the way.*


I'm not gonna jump until I can get a service that is at least equal to what I have with D*. This is not the time. The PSV only does 720p...if it was 1080p...gotta have patience.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TDK1044 said:


> Yep. I get your point. In our house, it's just my wife and I. The 1TB cap wouldn't be an issue for us.


We mostly stream. And I have no idea if we have a cap. Never been an issue. Not uncommon to have four streams going at the same time.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> I don't see satellite TV service becoming extinct. It'll be available in the next 20 years or more.


Yup, gonna take a long time. I wonder if there's a point where D* will just give up on the sat business. I'm sure there will always be some folks that want it but there must be a point where the service won't be profitable.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CTJon said:


> A lot of people don't realize it but Satellite service for TV and internet is all portions of the county have. There are large areas of Maine where there is no cell service etc. The state has forced "phone" companies to keep land lines in those areas. * There aren't a lot of people in those geographical areas but they do have needs for service.* I think this exists in a bunch of states where sat is the only real option.
> I fortunately don't live in those areas but over the last 6 months I've had a lot more internet provider outages than Sat. There were several days a couple of months ago where internet was out for days but sat worked great.
> I think satellite service will exist for a long time.


I have that thread running about Net speeds and I've looked at some locations with slow speeds. Not many people in those areas. No cable in some places. I can see the need there.

Rich


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

The wild card would be affordable high speed wireless broadband. If the technical hurdles, and their are many, could be overcome then it would be a real industry disruption for sat and cable providers.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> The wild card would be affordable high speed wireless broadband. If the technical hurdles, and their are many, could be overcome then it would be a real industry disruption for sat and cable providers.


Somebody will come up with something. That's how entrepreneurs get rich, find a hole, fill that hole with something that spews money out...

Rich


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

I see D* and sat to be around for a while possibly 20 years . 


As mentioned above just imagine customers that have POS cable and don't have access to FTTH or Rual customers who have sat broadband . 

Some customers are still stuck on 3 meg DSL like me. I refuse to have " cable" broadband . 

Also as antiquated as POS cable is and people still use that as a tv service with its poor PQ. 

Sat will be around for a long time . 





Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk


----------



## cwarren78 (Jan 16, 2018)

dtv757 said:


> I see D* and sat to be around for a while possibly 20 years .
> 
> As mentioned above just imagine customers that have POS cable and don't have access to FTTH or Rual customers who have sat broadband .
> 
> ...


We bought our home a few months ago, and couldn't get dsl -- no longer offered, thankfully there was a reachable cell tower.

Now working on getting sat tv service....locals are via antenna.


----------



## Mickstix (Feb 13, 2008)

TDK1044 said:


> Yep. I get your point. In our house, it's just my wife and I. *The 1TB cap wouldn't be an issue for us.*


You sure? That's the reason we're going back to DTV.. It's only 2 of us, rarely more than 1 TV streaming at the same time and in 15 days we "exceeded our 1Terabyte data limit" from our internet provider (Comcast/Xfinity) We'd never even approached 100 *GIG* before.. We streamed FUBO for the 5 day trial, then PlaystationVue after that.. Pretty much one tv or the other was streaming +/- 18 hours a day.. Got our first "notice" that we'd exceeded 90% of the limit on the 13th of the month. We're going to end up a little over 2TB's for the month, since I started making sure the TV's (Roku and psvue) are off when no one has eyes glued to it.. Anyway, for an extra TB of data, Xfinity would charge us $200.00 extra per month.. lol (Thankfully they have a 2 month grace period before they start charging the overage.) Note: Stream service isn't all that anyway.. Menu's, DVR functions, picture quality, etc. just not quite up to prime time yet, imo..


----------



## cwarren78 (Jan 16, 2018)

A 5mbps stream is about 2.25gb per hour.

Megabits Per Second to Gigabytes Per Hour | Kyle's Converter


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

I really can't see AT&T operating a satellite TV service 20 years from now. They've stated that they want the majority of their customer base to shift from satellite to streaming by 2020. That goal may be unattainably optimistic but make no mistake that AT&T is working in that direction.

I made several posts on this topic in other threads here late last year. AT&T's CEO says they plan to launch a service this year, based on the next-gen OTT platform they're currently beta testing for DirecTV Now, that will come with an AT&T-issued STB (likely powered by Google's Android TV). You'll be able to use it in conjunction with any home broadband provider, whether or not that's AT&T. It's unclear whether this will just be another iteration of the existing DirecTV Now brand or if this will have its own brand and channel packages. (Maybe it will just be branded as "DirecTV".) At any rate, the CEO was clear in stating that he sees this platform eventually offering everything that DTV satellite currently does, including Sunday Ticket, fat channel packages, 4K HDR, etc. Here's a good short overview:
AT&T CEO: Bye-Bye DirecTV, Hello AT&T OTT Video - Telecompetitor

It looks like Sky, Europe's leading satellite pay TV provider, is moving in the same direction. Like AT&T's DirecTV Now, Sky already has an OTT service aimed at the lower end of the market and accessed with rebadged Rokus. It's called NOW TV. But they've just announced that, starting this year, they will duplicate their entire full-scale satellite TV service as an OTT streaming service, accessed through a Sky STB. I predict that AT&T will do the same thing before long with DirecTV. You'll be able to get the same service, with the same UI and remote control (starting with the next generation of Genie STBs), either by satellite or OTT. And if AT&T is your internet provider, your DTV streaming won't count against your data cap.
Sky signals the end of the satellite dish


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> I really can't see AT&T operating a satellite TV service 20 years from now. They've stated that they want the majority of their customer base to shift from satellite to streaming by 2020. That goal may be unattainably optimistic but make no mistake that AT&T is working in that direction.
> 
> I made several posts on this topic in other threads here late last year. AT&T's CEO says they plan to launch a service this year, based on the next-gen OTT platform they're currently beta testing for DirecTV Now, that will come with an AT&T-issued STB (likely powered by Google's Android TV). You'll be able to use it in conjunction with any home broadband provider, whether or not that's AT&T. It's unclear whether this will just be another iteration of the existing DirecTV Now brand or if this will have its own brand and channel packages. (Maybe it will just be branded as "DirecTV".) At any rate, the CEO was clear in stating that he sees this platform eventually offering everything that DTV satellite currently does, including Sunday Ticket, fat channel packages, 4K HDR, etc. Here's a good short overview:
> AT&T CEO: Bye-Bye DirecTV, Hello AT&T OTT Video - Telecompetitor
> ...


2020 is a bit of stretch 
I could see 2030

Also consider some major cable providers have a 1TB monthly limit. (Comcast, suddenlink , cox)

So going entirely streaming may not work for AT&T/ D*

I wish they didn't kill off iptv / u-verse . Phasing out those (u verse) customers for D* doesn't make sense if u plan to kill off sat.

Don't get me wrong there is a market for OTT and customers are dropping traditional tv service but some don't like change... think about how many folks don't have iPhone X or don't even have genie ...

We don't think about it cause we are tech entheusist here but lost of folks still have old equipment

Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

I can see ATT getting away from satellite delivery for new subscribers, but it won't be exclusively for Internet delivered content. The key issues with Internet based delivery right now:

Unicast streams scale linearly. 100 viewers require 100x the memory, CPU, and network capacity from streaming servers of a single viewer. Current OTT providers have a combined total of what, 3mil out of 100mil subs? Remember the shenanigans Netflix had with Internet peering a couple years back? As streaming continues to ramp up expect more of that fun, especially considering the current state of the FCC.
Broadband networks are statistically multiplexed shared networks. High demands at peak times can lead to congestion, much like rush hour traffic, but where traffic makes your commute annoying, it makes streaming impossible. Most networks are operating with favorable ratios today, but that's going to change as more people all want to stream prime time TV.

Because of these factors, delivery remains inconsistent. If you are on a well built broadband network, and you connect to an acceptably loaded CDN streaming server, you can have a great experience with OTT streaming services. Even today though, it's not hard to find people who are not in that scenario:
Vue: search results - buffering
DirecTVNow: search results - buffering
slingtv: search results - buffering

I think that as ATT is able to develop and deploy 5G network capacity, they'll start to transition over to that for new customer adds. With 5G they can leverage multicast on their own private network, so they gain efficiency of being able to emulate the situation they have now where they only have to broadcast a single feed and whoever wants to watch tunes it in. All they need to do is sell a "receiver" that pulls a signal from their wireless network and people can be up and running - no dish install. If a cell phone works in your house, you can get TV the same way.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

I think you'll eventually see the discounts for satellite TV dry up and prices for satellite based TV continuing to go up. When you call in to try and save on your DirecTV bill, they will begin pushing you to DirecTV Now instead.

I don't think they are quite there yet. There's probably still some infrastructure issues with DirecTV Now, but within the next 5 to 10 years, I could see that happening.

Satellite based TV will probably still be there for quite some time, but it will be expensive and won't see a lot of infrastructure upgrades. I don't know what their current satellite launch schedule looks like, but I'd have to think that whatever satellites are currently up there or are planned to go up there, might be the last.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> I really can't see AT&T operating a satellite TV service 20 years from now. They've stated that they want the majority of their customer base to shift from satellite to streaming by 2020. That goal may be unattainably optimistic but make no mistake that AT&T is working in that direction.
> 
> I made several posts on this topic in other threads here late last year. AT&T's CEO says they plan to launch a service this year, based on the next-gen OTT platform they're currently beta testing for DirecTV Now, that will come with an AT&T-issued STB (likely powered by Google's Android TV). You'll be able to use it in conjunction with any home broadband provider, whether or not that's AT&T. It's unclear whether this will just be another iteration of the existing DirecTV Now brand or if this will have its own brand and channel packages. (Maybe it will just be branded as "DirecTV".) At any rate, the CEO was clear in stating that he sees this platform eventually offering everything that DTV satellite currently does, including Sunday Ticket, fat channel packages, 4K HDR, etc. Here's a good short overview:
> AT&T CEO: Bye-Bye DirecTV, Hello AT&T OTT Video - Telecompetitor
> ...


Att has never said they want to end satelites service. They where really trying to say they would like to see the majority of their new customers sign up with streaming service instead of sat, but not to migrate people off sat. That would cost them more, not less.

And streaming has high costs just like at does on the backend. As I have said many times, the streaming is being paid for by the sat and cable companies right now more than the streaming companies, but if the balance ever hits in terms of users, the backend will start to be the same or even more expensive in the streaming side than the satellite side...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I really can't see AT&T operating a satellite TV service 20 years from now.


They bought DIRECTV ... they can sell DIRECTV. Owning DIRECTV doesn't mean they will own it forever (DIRECTV has been sold before).


----------



## reubenray (Jun 27, 2002)

P Smith said:


> more then 20 years for sure


That is all I will need.

D* needs to remember how it started which was for the people that did not have cable capabilities. These same people most likely don't have wired internet capabilities either. This is AT&T's doing trying to make people switch to their internet options.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

Fascinating thread. I think that in the fruition of time, data caps will go the same way that they did in the cell phone industry, with unlimited plans being the norm. Personally, I think that there'll be a slow transition from satellite\cable to streaming over the next ten years, with satellite becoming the exception rather than the norm after that.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

OK, don't forget to re-open the thread in 20 years ! We will see who was right.


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

MysteryMan said:


> In my 23 years as a DIRECTV customer I've never experienced a loss of signal that long. Rain fade usually lasts a few minutes and snow fade lasts as long as it takes me to remove the snow from my dish and LNB.


He is right. It happened to me in the Hudson Valley a few years ago. Snow and rain event left my service out for a few days too. It does happen.

Sent from my XT1609 using Tapatalk


----------



## grover517 (Sep 29, 2007)

I don't see the sat service going anywhere in the next 20+ either. I see the OTT service right now as more of a way for ATT/D* to gain footholds in areas that currently do not subscribe to D* due to LOS, or as a way to keep those that are cord cutting, etc. vs. as a way to start the mass migration of their current customer base off of the sat service.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

All of the "cord cutter" math starts at the same place.

It ASSUMES the customer is going to pay for high speed internet anyway, and thus the only cost is whatever the content costs.

Memo: It does not work that way. Not everybody is playing Overwatch.

If you change the math to PAYING for high speed internet the customer has no need of otherwise, and then paying AGAIN for the content, the math changes totally.

And how many such people are there? 

MILLIONS. 

About 16% of households have NO INTERNET SERVICE AT ALL. Another 15% have service with speed or data limits that would preclude HQ video. Of that only 2% cannot get it at all and another 5% cannot get high speed, but that is still MILLIONS of people. 

The rest? They don't want it. They are happy to live their lives without it. This is a diverse country. Not everybody is the same. The internet is not a utility, there are people who live their lives without it, thank you very much. 

Sat TV will be around for many decades to come.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

Your position seems to contradict this and many other articles on this subject. AT&T/DirecTV to Phase Out Satellite TV Service, Reports Say I don't doubt the validity of the points that you make, but it feels to me as if AT&T has decided that DirecTV Now is the future.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

TDK1044 said:


> Your position seems to contradict this and many other articles on this subject. AT&T/DirecTV to Phase Out Satellite TV Service, Reports Say I don't doubt the validity of the points that you make, but it feels to me as if *AT&T has decided that DirecTV Now is the future.*


Yes, but I don't think quite in the way you're reading it.

ATT is a publicly traded company, and to generate returns for their shareholders they need to increase revenue. Satellite TV has been available in small dish form for over a couple decades now, so the overwhelming majority of folks who were going to commit to putting a dish on their roof have already done so. To gain new customers they need to overcome a couple key obstacles:

Impossible installation scenarios due to line of sight issues, access issues in apartments/condos, etc.
Potential customers who can't clear a credit check to justify investing the significant up-front installation and equipment costs associated with satellite.
DirecTV NOW is an example of their first approach to tackling these problems. They can get new customers without requiring a costly installation, and it works anywhere you can get a decent Internet connection. (in theory, anyway) The next thing they need to tackle is the problems they've encountered with inconsistent delivery quality over the Internet, and coincidentally ATT operates a wireless mesh network with national coverage that will soon have vastly more capacity with the next technology refresh cycle. Owning the signal from source all the way through distribution would allow them to have much more control around quality.

Unfortunately some of the direct cost data we have is a couple years stale, but in 2015 DirecTV was spending about $120mil per quarter for broadcast operating expenses. (Quarterly reports can be found here: *Directv(DTV) Annual Report (10K) Quarterly Report (10Q)* ) They define broadcast operating expenses as: "...expenses include broadcast center operating costs, signal transmission expenses (including costs of collecting signals for our local channel offerings), and costs of monitoring, maintaining and insuring our satellites. Also included are engineering expenses associated with deterring theft of our signal."

Meanwhile, if we look at current ATT financial statements ( *AT&T Inc(T) Annual Report (10K) Quarterly Report (10Q)* ) the ATT Entertainment Group drove $12.648*bn* in revenue for the last financial quarter. Of that, their reported operating and support expenses for the quarter were $9.953*bn*. Even if we make the assumption that the scale of ATT wasn't able to drive broadcast operating expenses down in the last 3 years (which they absolutely did, with just one tiny factor being they can use their own fiber for local backhauls now), satellite operating costs would still only represent about 1% of the total cost of their operations.

Bottom line: they could never save enough in operating expenses to offset the loss of revenue from a major delivery change that would alienate a portion of their current subscriber base and drive subscriber losses. Also keep in mind they still need those uplink centers and at least a few satellites to cover their operations in places like Puerto Rico and Latin America, where reliable Internet streaming isn't going to happen for a _long_ time for obvious reasons.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

It's going to be an interesting ride


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mickstix said:


> You sure? That's the reason we're going back to DTV.. It's only 2 of us, rarely more than 1 TV streaming at the same time and in 15 days we "exceeded our 1Terabyte data limit" from our internet provider (Comcast/Xfinity) We'd never even approached 100 *GIG* before.. We streamed FUBO for the 5 day trial, then PlaystationVue after that.. Pretty much one tv or the other was streaming +/- 18 hours a day.. Got our first "notice" that we'd exceeded 90% of the limit on the 13th of the month. We're going to end up a little over 2TB's for the month, since I started making sure the TV's (Roku and psvue) are off when no one has eyes glued to it.. Anyway, for an extra TB of data, Xfinity would charge us $200.00 extra per month.. lol (Thankfully they have a 2 month grace period before they start charging the overage.)* Note: Stream service isn't all that anyway.. Menu's, DVR functions, picture quality, etc. just not quite up to prime time yet,* imo..


Use a streaming service that puts out 1080p and you will see a better picture than D*'s 1080i. PS Vue does 720p and you're not gonna see a consistent, great picture using it. Some views will look good (close ups) and some will look washed out (whole field views). NF, Amazon, HBO, Showtime all look great from my streaming boxes. If you can't get 4K content, 1080p upscaled to 2160p is the next best thing.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I really can't see AT&T operating a satellite TV service 20 years from now. They've stated that they want the majority of their customer base to shift from satellite to streaming by 2020. That goal may be unattainably optimistic but make no mistake that AT&T is working in that direction.
> 
> I made several posts on this topic in other threads here late last year. AT&T's CEO says they plan to launch a service this year, based on the next-gen OTT platform they're currently beta testing for DirecTV Now, that will come with an AT&T-issued STB (likely powered by Google's Android TV). You'll be able to use it in conjunction with any home broadband provider, whether or not that's AT&T. It's unclear whether this will just be another iteration of the existing DirecTV Now brand or if this will have its own brand and channel packages. (Maybe it will just be branded as "DirecTV".) At any rate, the CEO was clear in stating that he sees this platform eventually offering everything that DTV satellite currently does, including Sunday Ticket, fat channel packages, 4K HDR, etc. Here's a good short overview:
> AT&T CEO: Bye-Bye DirecTV, Hello AT&T OTT Video - Telecompetitor
> ...


Great post! I'm not into government interference in our daily lives but I think sat providers should be given incentives to maintain their systems so that folks with low speeds have an alternative to streaming...I also think the cable companies should be given incentives to provide Internet service in areas where the population is so low that it makes no economic sense to wire up the area. Or force them to do it. That's all that's stopping the cable companies from wiring up the "empty" areas, money. I don't think there should be any areas where high speed (for now I'd think 100 Mbps would suffice) Internet is not available.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

evotz said:


> *I think you'll eventually see the discounts for satellite TV dry up and prices for satellite based TV continuing to go up.* When you call in to try and save on your DirecTV bill, they will begin pushing you to DirecTV Now instead.
> 
> I don't think they are quite there yet. There's probably still some infrastructure issues with DirecTV Now, but within the next 5 to 10 years, I could see that happening.
> 
> Satellite based TV will probably still be there for quite some time, but it will be expensive and won't see a lot of infrastructure upgrades. I don't know what their current satellite launch schedule looks like, but I'd have to think that whatever satellites are currently up there or are planned to go up there, might be the last.


Isn't that how things actually work? Demand goes down, prices go up. Demand goes up, prices go down. Look at the 4K sets and the way the prices fell...because of demand. With all the cord cutting the demand for sat service is going down and the prices...do what they always do.

Rich


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

Mickstix said:


> You sure? That's the reason we're going back to DTV.. It's only 2 of us, rarely more than 1 TV streaming at the same time and in 15 days we "exceeded our 1Terabyte data limit" from our internet provider (Comcast/Xfinity) We'd never even approached 100 *GIG* before.. We streamed FUBO for the 5 day trial, then PlaystationVue after that.. Pretty much one tv or the other was streaming +/- 18 hours a day.. Got our first "notice" that we'd exceeded 90% of the limit on the 13th of the month. We're going to end up a little over 2TB's for the month, since I started making sure the TV's (Roku and psvue) are off when no one has eyes glued to it.. Anyway, for an extra TB of data, Xfinity would charge us $200.00 extra per month.. lol (Thankfully they have a 2 month grace period before they start charging the overage.) Note: Stream service isn't all that anyway.. Menu's, DVR functions, picture quality, etc. just not quite up to prime time yet, imo..


So, as I'm really not a technical guy.......when does the clock start regarding the streaming of data? We have a Roku stick. We hardly ever use it, but is it consuming data just by being connected to the tv and our wireless router? Or do you have to access an app on the Roku stick to activate the data streaming count? Not sure how that works.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> Isn't that how things actually work? Demand goes down, prices go up. Demand goes up, prices go down.


That isn't the rule of supply and demand that I know.

I'd expect prices to go up for high demand products. The sellers can afford to lose sales due to overpricing. When demand drops the math gets complicated. Fixed costs can't be spread out over as many customers. But there need to be more incentives to capture and keep customers. Mass production helps lower costs when demand is high (it can be cheaper to make a million widgets that to make a thousand). Whether or not the cost savings get passed on is part of the equation. Prices are set based on what the market will sustain.

I expect streaming to be competitive with satellite. Once the content availability catches up with satellite I expect the prices to be about the same (hundred dollar subscriptions).


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SamC said:


> All of the "cord cutter" math starts at the same place.
> 
> It ASSUMES the customer is going to pay for high speed internet anyway, and thus the only cost is whatever the content costs.
> 
> ...


How many millions? With a population of 323 million in 2016...let's say ~350 million now in this country, how many millions of people are in areas where enough Net speed to stream HD is not available? "Not available", not how many people don't care about those speeds or have no use for a Net connection? This is what I'm curious about.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TDK1044 said:


> It's going to be an interesting ride


I think you're right.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> That isn't the rule of supply and demand that I know.
> 
> *I'd expect prices to go up for high demand products.* The sellers can afford to lose sales due to overpricing. When demand drops the math gets complicated. Fixed costs can't be spread out over as many customers. But there need to be more incentives to capture and keep customers. Mass production helps lower costs when demand is high (it can be cheaper to make a million widgets that to make a thousand). Whether or not the cost savings get passed on is part of the equation. Prices are set based on what the market will sustain.


And yet the prices of 4K sets, which are in high demand, keep falling. I'll stick with the simpler way of looking at it. Look at what Google has to say: what happens to prices when demand goes up - Google Search

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TDK1044 said:


> So, as I'm really not a technical guy.......when does the clock start regarding the streaming of data? We have a Roku stick. We hardly ever use it, *but is it consuming data just by being connected to the tv and our wireless router?* Or do you have to access an app on the Roku stick to activate the data streaming count? Not sure how that works.


My first thought was ''no''. Gave it some more thought and...I don't know. Good question. I'm not gonna say anything but "I don't know". Gee, that wasn't hard and it is the truth.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

evotz said:


> I think you'll eventually see the discounts for satellite TV dry up and prices for satellite based TV continuing to go up. When you call in to try and save on your DirecTV bill, they will begin pushing you to DirecTV Now instead.
> 
> I don't think they are quite there yet. There's probably still some infrastructure issues with DirecTV Now, but within the next 5 to 10 years, I could see that happening.
> 
> Satellite based TV will probably still be there for quite some time, but it will be expensive and won't see a lot of infrastructure upgrades. I don't know what their current satellite launch schedule looks like, but I'd have to think that whatever satellites are currently up there or are planned to go up there, might be the last.


I think you'll find it is _streaming_ prices that will be going up in the next few years. Most networks offered lower rates per subscriber for streaming rights to their content than what they charge per cable/satellite customer, because they viewed that as additional revenue. It was free money for them so long as no one was switching away from cable/satellite to stream.

Now that people are starting to switch away from cable/satellite to equivalent streaming packages offered by Sling, Directv Now, PSVue, etc. to save money, the networks will no longer be offering lower rates for streaming - because it is no longer seen as "additional revenue", but as "lost revenue".

There's zero logic to believing that a package that costs $100 on Directv when delivered by satellite will cost $50 when delivered by streaming. If Directv isn't providing equipment then you could save on those monthly charges (though to pay for their infrastructure streamers might start charging per stream) but the base package cost itself will be the same price when the contractual rights cost the same for both types of customer. As I've written (and shown the math) several times on dbstalk, the cost of maintaining/replacing their satellite fleet costs Directv less than 50 cents per customer per month now, which may actually be less than what it would cost them to stream to 20 million customers a month (especially if net neutrality is not enforced and Directv ends up having to pay ISPs to deliver their traffic to their customers)

If anything, streaming will force satellite prices to FALL, because they will have more competition. Today almost everyone can get cable, but have no choice in what cable company. It just depends on where they live. About 10% of people can get TV from their telco like FIOS. Satellite may or may not be an option depending on where you live, if you have LOS etc. but the average number of alternatives nationally is probably less than 2. That's not much competition, so there's room to make money (before AT&T bought them, Directv was making about $3 billion a year or $150/customer)

With streaming the average number of alternatives for people with fast enough internet - a number that is growing all the time - jumps to a half dozen with more coming, so even when they have to compete on equal footing with cable/satellite the increased competition means the days of making money by charging high "list" prices and using discounts/freebies as a way of attracting/keeping customers will be over. They'll have to have a bottom line price that's lower than what they ask today, but forget about getting bill credits or freebies unless you are one of their most profitable customers (i.e. people who have a lot of TVs so they can load up on those $7/month fees)

AT&T is not going to dump satellite, because it is a very cost efficient delivery method. They will instead offer multiple options for delivery that allow the customer to choose what works for them, whether Directv is providing equipment or the customer is, etc.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> And yet the prices of 4K sets, which are in high demand, keep falling. I'll stick with the simpler way of looking at it. Look at what Google has to say: what happens to prices when demand goes up - Google Search
> 
> Rich


You ignored the rest of his quote, where he noted that mass production (induced by demand) will make prices go down. TV prices have been falling for years (at least on a square inches per dollar measure) and demand has remained roughly constant over the years. There isn't really such a thing as "demand for 4K TVs", as most people are simply buying "a TV" and if you buy large enough 4K TVs are all there is. Much of the reason is because it actually costs MORE to make an HDTV at 65" or larger compared to a 4K TV (at least in LCD/LED TVs, because of the large liquid crystals)

The reason people are buying new TVs is generally not because their old TV broke, or they want a "better" TV. Most people upgrade to get a _bigger_ TV. The manufacturers know that if TVs stop getting bigger, demand will drop like a rock, so they keep investing in panel factories that make larger and larger mother glass panels, to allow making bigger TVs at the price they used to sell not-as-big TVs.

That can't continue forever of course - you might like the idea of a 200" TV but even if it cost only $1000 you'd probably have to build a new house (and possibly also marry a new wife) before you could buy it which would cost a lot more than $1000


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> the cost of maintaining/replacing their satellite fleet costs Directv less than 50 cents per customer per month now, which may actually be less than what it would cost them to stream to 20 million customers a month (especially if net neutrality is not enforced and Directv ends up having to pay ISPs to deliver their traffic to their customers)


Oh wow, really? It's that low? I figured that was a large portion of their costs. If it's really that low (and I'm not doubting you, I'm just surprised that it's that low) then I'll walk back on my comments.

I figured DirecTV was spending millions of dollars launching and maintaining those satellites and that they could essentially minimize that 10 fold, if not more, just by focusing on Internet infrastructure.

Although, there has to be a price point some where, where number of subscribers using satellite versus the number of subscribers using streaming, starts to cost them more for per satellite subscriber vs. streaming subscriber. I just thought we were a lot closer to that than apparently we are.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> I think you'll find it is _streaming_ prices that will be going up in the next few years. Most networks offered lower rates per subscriber for streaming rights to their content than what they charge per cable/satellite customer, because they viewed that as additional revenue. It was free money for them so long as no one was switching away from cable/satellite to stream.
> 
> Now that people are starting to switch away from cable/satellite to equivalent streaming packages offered by Sling, Directv Now, PSVue, etc. to save money, the networks will no longer be offering lower rates for streaming - because it is no longer seen as "additional revenue", but as "lost revenue".
> 
> ...


The problem with your math is that the package isn't really $100, it's really around $50. All the rest is extra fees that the sat and cable providers tack on because....they can. The sat and cable providers have their prices set so they make a profit even off the person that only has 1 tv and no DVR, it's the basic package price. Trust me, Sony is making a profit off the package I buy from them which is $39.99. The difference between that and what I was paying to DTV, which was about $120, is all the extra fees that DTV tacked on. Heck, I only had access on 3 of my 6 tv's for that price with DTV. Now I have access on all 6 of my tv's (and can watch up to 5 at the same time) for the same $40. You and several others here have been saying for almost two years now "just wait, those OTT prices will soon be as high as DTV prices", well guess what most of the DTV prices went up as of the first of this year, my PSVue price....still the same. Neither you nor I know what the future will hold. But I'd be willing to bet that 3 years from now I will still be paying less with PSVue or some other OTT provider than you will be with DTV.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

evotz said:


> Oh wow, really? It's that low? I figured that was a large portion of their costs. If it's really that low (and I'm not doubting you, I'm just surprised that it's that low) then I'll walk back on my comments.
> 
> I figured DirecTV was spending millions of dollars launching and maintaining those satellites and that they could essentially minimize that 10 fold, if not more, just by focusing on Internet infrastructure.
> 
> Although, there has to be a price point some where, where number of subscribers using satellite versus the number of subscribers using streaming, starts to cost them more for per satellite subscriber vs. streaming subscriber. I just thought we were a lot closer to that than apparently we are.


They ARE spending millions, but they have over 20 million satellite customers to share the cost. Based on the reported costs of similar satellites I am estimating (probably over-estimating) that Directv's latest satellites cost $400 million each to build and launch. They will need a fleet of five permanently (2 at 99, 1 at 101, 2 at 103 - 110/119 probably go away after 2019) and I'll throw in an in-orbit spare for them because I'm a nice guy, giving us a total of six. If you assume an average life of 20 years (they are designed for 15 but always last longer than that) then they need to replace one every 40 months on average. That's $10 million a month, but they have over 20 million customers. Hence, the cost to maintain/replace that multi billion dollar satellite fleet is less than 50 cents per customer per month.

If the number of satellite customers fell far enough then the cost starts to get higher, but even if they lost over 75% of their satellite customers and fell to only 5 million that's still only $2/month. They'd have to drop even further for those costs to really matter, but you have to assume there is some floor below which they can't fall because some people will never be able to stream - they live in very rural areas, want TV in an RV or boat where they can't depend on internet access all the time, etc.

I think a lot of people make this mistake, they think "those satellites cost so much, streaming is 'free', so of course it is cheaper" but they ignore the economies of scale when they have millions of customers. And streaming isn't free for corporations of course, for a home user it is because you're going to have internet regardless, but there's a lot of cost associated with delivering streams to millions of customers simultaneously (you could look at Netflix's financials and probably get a good idea) And if net neutrality is not enforced, ISPs could begin charging Netflix, Directv, Dish, and other streamers money for the traffic transiting their networks which would raise the cost of delivery for all streaming products.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Satellite isn't going anywhere any time soon. As we discussed in a thread with Rich a month or so ago, the *AVERAGE* internet speed in the US is a measly 18Mbps. That being said, as a *VERY* happy Netflix shareholder , they are doing just fine on a mainly streaming model.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mjwagner said:


> The problem with your math is that the package isn't really $100, it's really around $50. All the rest is extra fees that the sat and cable providers tack on because....they can. The sat and cable providers have their prices set so they make a profit even off the person that only has 1 tv and no DVR, it's the basic package price. Trust me, Sony is making a profit off the package I buy from them which is $39.99. The difference between that and what I was paying to DTV, which was about $120, is all the extra fees that DTV tacked on. Heck, I only had access on 3 of my 6 tv's for that price with DTV. Now I have access on all 6 of my tv's (and can watch up to 5 at the same time) for the same $40. You and several others here have been saying for almost two years now "just wait, those OTT prices will soon be as high as DTV prices", well guess what most of the DTV prices went up as of the first of this year, my PSVue price....still the same. Neither you nor I know what the future will hold. But I'd be willing to bet that 3 years from now I will still be paying less with PSVue or some other OTT provider than you will be with DTV.


Sony can (I don't know if they actually do or not) make a profit at $39.99 because they are paying FAR less for the same package of channels than Directv or Comcast does. But like I said, that's not going to continue to be the case.

Your contention that a $100 package is really $50 and the rest is profit is ridiculous on its face. You only have to look at Directv's financials - and when standalone they were one of the most profitable if not the most profitable TV provider - to see that's not true. In 2010 they had revenue of $24 billion and pretax income of $3.5 billion. That's a 15% profit margin or $15 of profit on a customer paying $100. In 2014 they had revenue of $33 billion and pretax income of $4.5 billion which is a bit less but basically the same profit margin. Dunno where you got this crazy idea they are making a dollar in profit for every two dollars you give them!


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

The issue is much more complex than I had thought. I'm perfectly happy with my D* satellite service.......I've been with them for 20 years. I currently have a 45mbps streaming capability, but with 1 Gig fiber promised within 12 months. I'll stay with what I have until it makes sense not to.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

evotz said:


> Although, there has to be a price point some where, where number of subscribers using satellite versus the number of subscribers using streaming, starts to cost them more for per satellite subscriber vs. streaming subscriber. I just thought we were a lot closer to that than apparently we are.


Satellite is high startup cost, zero incremental cost. Internet streaming is low initial startup cost, and linear growth cost.

The satellite costs them the same whether they have 1 subscriber or 300 million.
Internet streaming can be done with 1 server for 1 subscriber, but you need vastly more server capacity and bandwidth when you scale up.



mjwagner said:


> You and several others here have been saying for almost two years now "just wait, those OTT prices will soon be as high as DTV prices", well guess what most of the DTV prices went up as of the first of this year, my PSVue price....still the same.


While I agree with you overall Vue is still cheaper, it's a little disingenuous to say that prices havent gone up - the product hasn't really stayed the same. In the last 15 months they dropped all the Viacom networks, dropped BeIn Sports, discontinued the "Slim" packages resulting in a $10 price increase for a number of markets, started charging sales tax, dropped NBC On Demand content, moved DIY into the Core package up from access, and moved FOX College Sports into a $10 add-on sports pack.

PlayStation Vue drops all Viacom channels
PlayStation Vue Drops beIN Sports | Multichannel
PlayStation Vue Is Raising Their Price on Some Subscribers in November 2017 - Cord Cutters News
PlayStation Vue Starts Collecting Taxes in Some Sates - Cord Cutters News
PlayStation Vue Drops NBC On Demand From Their Lineup in Some Markets - Cord Cutters News
PlayStation Vue Is Moving Some Fox Sports Networks to Their Sports Add-on - Cord Cutters News

Things are changing as Vue picks up subscribers, just not quite in the same way as regular pay TV straight monthly price hikes.

Your point about equipment fees being a major differentiator is very valid though.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I think you'll find it is _streaming_ prices that will be going up in the next few years. Most networks offered lower rates per subscriber for streaming rights to their content than what they charge per cable/satellite customer, because they viewed that as additional revenue. It was free money for them so long as no one was switching away from cable/satellite to stream.
> 
> Now that people are starting to switch away from cable/satellite to equivalent streaming packages offered by Sling, Directv Now, PSVue, etc. to save money, the networks will no longer be offering lower rates for streaming - because it is no longer seen as "additional revenue", but as "lost revenue".
> 
> ...


Your analysis wants to freeze things as they are now, but the reality is that the entire TV industry is evolving. "Pay TV" has largely moved from just being line-ups of linear channels to being standalone apps like Netflix, Hulu, etc. The big element to watch out for in the coming years is sports. Live sports and news are basically the only things keeping traditional cable TV afloat. We know that Disney is going to launch an ESPN standalone app this year, and a Disney OTT app next year as they acquire Fox. The ESPN OTT service will, at least initially, be a complement to regular cable ESPN. But make no mistake that Disney is positioning themselves strategically to walk away from the whole existing infrastructure and go purely direct-to-consumer if and when they decide it's in their interest. The current cable TV (and OTA broadcast TV) model is a rickety structure and I'm not sure I see it still standing a decade from now. It will, at the least, look different than it does now.

Meanwhile, broadband internet is only going to become more ubiquitous, with ever-faster speeds reaching more and more Americans thanks to 5G, fiber, new low-earth-orbit satellites launching soon, etc. I expect data caps will continue to increase or, in many areas, go away. The internet is simply becoming a baseline-level utility, much like electricity a century or so ago. I've read that the deployment of internet service in many ways tracks how electrical service began in the US. And we know how that ended, with the government regulating it as a utility, with service extended everywhere, even to the most rural areas.

As I've said before, satellite TV isn't going away any time soon but I would expect that a decade from now, it will have less than half the number of subscribers it currently has, basically just elderly and/or rural homeowners. And 20 years from now, it won't exist at all.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Sony can (I don't know if they actually do or not) make a profit at $39.99 because they are paying FAR less for the same package of channels than Directv or Comcast does. But like I said, that's not going to continue to be the case.


No. All the cable and broadcast network owners are actually charging the new OTT providers (e.g. Sony PS Vue, Google YouTube TV, etc.) slightly higher per-subscriber fees than they are charging their traditional cable, satellite and telco distributors. Which makes sense, since their traditional partners bring them way more subscribers. The cable nets want to make sure that, as subs jump ship from traditional carriers' fatter channel bundles to upstart OTT providers' skinnier bundles (which often do not include every single channel offered by a network owner), they actually get paid more, not less on a per-channel per-subscriber basis.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Sony can (I don't know if they actually do or not) make a profit at $39.99 because they are paying FAR less for the same package of channels than Directv or Comcast does. But like I said, that's not going to continue to be the case.
> 
> Your contention that a $100 package is really $50 and the rest is profit is ridiculous on its face. You only have to look at Directv's financials - and when standalone they were one of the most profitable if not the most profitable TV provider - to see that's not true. In 2010 they had revenue of $24 billion and pretax income of $3.5 billion. That's a 15% profit margin or $15 of profit on a customer paying $100. In 2014 they had revenue of $33 billion and pretax income of $4.5 billion which is a bit less but basically the same profit margin. Dunno where you got this crazy idea they are making a dollar in profit for every two dollars you give them!


You actually made me go back and reread my post. Still couldn't find where I said "the rest is profit" or that "they are making a dollar in profit for every two dollars you give them". Look, I'm not trying to make this a contentious conversation but the idea that shortly the OTT providers are going to be charging the same as the sat and cable providers is just silly and not supported by any fact or even short term precedent. Bottom line is you can make conjectures about where you think OTT providers prices are going to go in the future and I can make conjecture otherwise, but since neither of us can see into the future it is just that, unprovable conjecture. The only thing I know for a fact is that in the year or so since I switched from DTV to PSVue I have had access to all the channels I want, a better and easier to use DVR experience, access on all my tv's instead of just a few, and almost $1000 more in my pocket. Hopefully as more people explore other options DTV and the other sat and cable providers will have no choice but to lower their prices so that you and the rest of their subscribers will save a little money too and it will be s win for all of us.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Satellite isn't going anywhere any time soon. As we discussed in a thread with Rich a month or so ago, the *AVERAGE* internet speed in the US is a measly 18Mbps. That being said, as a *VERY* happy Netflix shareholder , they are doing just fine on a mainly streaming model.


Yup, and they just raised the price to ~ $14 a month. Oh, how will we ever afford that? Good post, Mark.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Your analysis wants to freeze things as they are now, but the reality is that the entire TV industry is evolving. "Pay TV" has largely moved from just being line-ups of linear channels to being standalone apps like Netflix, Hulu, etc. The big element to watch out for in the coming years is sports. Live sports and news are basically the only things keeping traditional cable TV afloat. We know that Disney is going to launch an ESPN standalone app this year, and a Disney OTT app next year as they acquire Fox. The ESPN OTT service will, at least initially, be a complement to regular cable ESPN. But make no mistake that Disney is positioning themselves strategically to walk away from the whole existing infrastructure and go purely direct-to-consumer if and when they decide it's in their interest. The current cable TV (and OTA broadcast TV) model is a rickety structure and I'm not sure I see it still standing a decade from now. It will, at the least, look different than it does now.
> 
> Meanwhile, broadband internet is only going to become more ubiquitous, with ever-faster speeds reaching more and more Americans thanks to 5G, fiber, new low-earth-orbit satellites launching soon, etc. I expect data caps will continue to increase or, in many areas, go away. The internet is simply becoming a baseline-level utility, much like electricity a century or so ago. I've read that the deployment of internet service in many ways tracks how electrical service began in the US. And we know how that ended, with the government regulating it as a utility, with service extended everywhere, even to the most rural areas.
> 
> As I've said before, satellite TV isn't going away any time soon but I would expect that a decade from now, it will have less than half the number of subscribers it currently has, basically just elderly and/or rural homeowners. And 20 years from now, it won't exist at all.


Well said. Yet another paradigm shift no one wants to recognize.

Rich


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

espaeth said:


> Satellite is high startup cost, zero incremental cost. Internet streaming is low initial startup cost, and linear growth cost.
> 
> The satellite costs them the same whether they have 1 subscriber or 300 million.
> Internet streaming can be done with 1 server for 1 subscriber, but you need vastly more server capacity and bandwidth when you scale up.
> ...


My words were very carefully chosen. I said that my price had not gone up. And I would not consider any of those items you listed equivalent to the price increase that DTV announced at the beginning of this year.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

How could Disney ever walk away from traditional broadcast and go streaming only? They'd lose tons of money! They charge $8 a month (last I heard, it is probably higher now) just for the ESPN channels, and the large majority of cable/satellite subscribers are paying that.

What percentage of viewers are big enough sports fans willing to pay for a standalone ESPN product? Maybe 1/4? They'd need to charge at least $25/month to get the same revenue if they went OTT only. If they charged $25/month maybe they probably don't get 1/4 of the households to subscribe....if that's true, then they would have to charge even more to break even.

The model of "make most people pay for sports even if they don't watch sports" has reached the breaking point, so things are undoubtedly changing, but I don't see Disney or any major network dropping cable/satellite outlets and going streaming only.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> Yup, and they just raised the price to ~ $14 a month. Oh, how will we ever afford that? Good post, Mark.
> 
> Rich


Netflix is not the equivalent of a cable/satellite package. That's like comparing the price of a motorcycle and the price of an SUV.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Netflix is not the equivalent of a cable/satellite package. That's like comparing the price of a motorcycle and the price of an SUV.


I'm beginning to think about it as NF being a Porsche and D* being a Yugo. YMMV.

Rich


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

The thing with ESPN, how much are they really paying for the talking heads? They've scaled back the number of Sportscenters from several years ago. They have daytime sports talking shows, but does anyone really watch that? And that may not be a lot of their expense, but going to a more PPV model, would remove that cost because you wouldn't have to fill hours of programming with talking heads.

Instead just focus on sports. Like baseball? Offer a Sunday Night Baseball package where you get every Sunday Night Baseball game. Like Monday Night Football, offer a package that gets every Monday Night Football game. How many channels does ESPN have? If you just consider their main, non-college channels, just ESPN and ESPN2, that means at 8PM they can only show 2 different sporting events on those channels. Go OTT, and you can offer as many games as you want at the 8PM hour. I don't know how that would work with their various sports agreement (they would probably have to be rewritten), for example with Sunday Night Baseball I know they get exclusive rights to one game, do they rework that agreement (or when the current agreement expires) to allow for up to 5 games? Or all 15 games? What about their NBA agreement? Keep in mind also, ESPN would probably still rake in some money from various sports bars that want to have as much content available as possible.

I'm a sports fan (select sports). I know ESPN is dying. They're probably going to have to understand that they're not going to get as much money as they used to. But is it more profitable for them to continue bleeding customers using a linear programming schedule or is an OTT multi-avenue PPV model more profitable? I really don't know, but that's the changing landscape of TV viewership.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

evotz said:


> The thing with ESPN, how much are they really paying for the talking heads? They've scaled back the number of Sportscenters from several years ago. They have daytime sports talking shows, but does anyone really watch that? And that may not be a lot of their expense, but going to a more PPV model, would remove that cost because you wouldn't have to fill hours of programming with talking heads.


The cost of the talking heads is a drop in the bucket. The huge cost is the sports rights, so going to a PPV model without any shows would only save a tiny fraction of their overhead.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> And yet the prices of 4K sets, which are in high demand, keep falling.


A market where there is plenty of competition. Don't get a tattoo "high demand lowers prices" unless you are prepared to have that tattoo removed.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> I'm beginning to think about it as NF being a Porsche and D* being a Yugo. YMMV.
> 
> Rich


Really depends on your use case. If you're like me and are impatient and want everything 0 day, NF doesn't really fill that. If you watch backlog stuff, then $14/mo is a steal. As opposed to say paying $13 to watch Ghost Busters II on PPV on DirecTV in a 24 hr window. The other use case NF doesn't really fill for me as a videophile is ultra high quality 4K. I want the best of the best PQ, so 4K UHD discs is really the only way to fly there. NF 4K is good, but selection is still limited there and again, no 0 day stuff.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

I still think that's where the model is going. Maybe they can't do it with their current agreements, but that's where I think it's headed.

The foolish part, with any TV network, is thinking that just because they have a subscriber it means that they actually watch that network. I get all of the gardening, and house building, and do it yourself channels, I've never watched them. If they are considering me a viewer just because I'm a subscriber (because it's in my package) then that's false counting.

Inflated numbers sure do look good, but they are meaningless if they're not accurate. This is what ESPN is starting to realize. That's why they won't be able to maintain their profit model, they will have to start adjusting their model. So will every other content publisher.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

evotz said:


> I still think that's where the model is going. Maybe they can't do it with their current agreements, but that's where I think it's headed.
> 
> The foolish part, with any TV network, is thinking that just because they have a subscriber it means that they actually watch that network. I get all of the gardening, and house building, and do it yourself channels, I've never watched them. If they are considering me a viewer just because I'm a subscriber (because it's in my package) then that's false counting.
> 
> Inflated numbers sure do look good, but they are meaningless if they're not accurate. This is what ESPN is starting to realize. That's why they won't be able to maintain their profit model, they will have to start adjusting their model. So will every other content publisher.


I watch < 0 sports, so I consider ESPN a giant rip off. They're like $8/mo of your cable bill last I read. I'd much rather watch This Old House or Mike Holmes. NF is gaining US subs, that's for sure, but their main growth (they added like 8.8M subs this quarter) is international. Sat & cable are much more limited in their foot print whereas NF isn't.

But cord cutters are kidding themselves if they think streaming is cheaper. After you sub to like 4 or 5 or more services to get all your shows and a higher ISP package, you're probably back to where you started. Especially if you get the higher cost services like NF, Amazon, HBO, ESPN, WWE, etc. All those add up.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

I'll agree that to get comparable packages with streaming and OTT services, you're going to pay about the same.

But the key here is that each individual can choose more of what they want to subscribe to. The ease of having this all on one bill (i.e. DirecTV) is that you end up paying for channels you never watch and thus subsidizing the cost of certain channels for other users.

Let's say the average person is paying $75/mo for 200 channels of which 25 of them they actually watch. If they can piece together those 25 channels using OTT services for $25/mo, you bet they'll switch. Where does the cost/benefit stop being a point? If those 25 channels cost you $60/mo would you go through the hassle to switch? $70/mo?

Smaller bundles like this will be more beneficial to content publishers because the numbers will be more accurate. HGTV might have 600 million subscribers, but if only 6 million people routinely watch the channel, that 600 million figure is vastly overrated. They may not like the lost revenue, but they know they have 6 million people to fight for, not 600 million. Those 6 million people will probably pay more than the subsidized 600 million people price for the content, but it still won't add up to whatever 600 million x subsidized price equals.

All TV networks are going to start losing money compared to what they have been making. This is a reality that they're really just going to have to come to gripes with. in essence they've been cooking the books for decades (not intentionally) and now it's coming back to bite them. I don't blame them for doing this in the past - they were able to gain more profits, kudos - but the public is getting increasingly tired of paying more and more for content that's really not worth it.

This goes for sports too. The regional sports TV bubble is about to pop (if it hasn't already). Each sport still has the diehard fans that will pay for the content, but the days of subsidizing this on non-diehard fans is nearing an end. Sports networks were wrong to think that just because someone was paying for their channel, didn't mean that they wanted to be paying for it.

I just don't see TV maintaining this same model that it's on in 10 years. The viewing habits and the way that content is delivered is bound to change.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mjwagner said:


> My words were very carefully chosen. I said that my price had not gone up.


You are right. It is all about you. What you pay is all that matters. If you don't subscribe to satellite then DIRECTV is wasting millions of dollars uplinking channels and purchasing replacement satellites. 20+ million subscribers be damned if you're not one of them? Yes, you have chosen your words wisely.

There are two major issues when comparing old school subscription services (cable and satellite) to new school (streaming).

The first is distribution. Cable companies need to invest to install their network throughout their footprint so that a distribution cable goes past every potential subscriber. They provide a network that is physically connected to each customer and need to do a cost/benefit analysis to decide where that network serves. If a potential customer lives a mile outside of their footprint they have to decide whether it is worth expanding their footprint and then maintaining the additional equipment needed to reach that customer. Satellite companies have to invest in satellites and uplink centers. Both provide end to end service to the customer's home. Streaming services don't pay for the customers end of the connection but they do pay for the additional bandwidth needed for each customer on the server end of the network.

The second major issue is packaging. Traditional cable and satellite is sold in tiers. One buys a core package and if one wants additional channels one has to choose tiers of channels to get additional channels. Streaming providers have a smaller core set of content. The second issue is one that we have been discussing for the past couple of decades: a la carte programming, paying only for what one wants to watch. Somehow there are always people who believe the fallacy that under a la carte content will cost the same per subscriber. That Disney will be able to run ESPN on a $7 per subscriber charge whether they have 20 million subscribers or 110 million subscribers. That the basic channels that survive on 20c per month from 110 million subscribers will continue to survive when there are only 20 million subscribers without any price increase.

The a la carte discussion divides subscribers by preferences. You will see people argue that they don't care if ESPN survives (they don't like the sports ESPN plays) or they don't care if some 20c channel doesn't survive as long as it isn't one of their favorite 20c channels. They have bought in to the belief that more choice is cheaper.

As long as the content providers (channels) have 80-110 million traditional subscribers they can afford to take some losses to streamers. But the more subscribers they lose the more they will need to charge their distributors to survive. Those that yell that the market place is changing and tout the demise of cable and satellite as if they are destined to fail would be wiser if they didn't assume that the streaming market place would never change. Assuming that streaming prices will always be low is setting oneself up for failure.

So I'm glad you have not personally seen a price increase and can be content with loss of content on the service you are paying for. But past performance will not continue forever.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

evotz said:


> But the key here is that each individual can choose more of what they want to subscribe to. The ease of having this all on one bill (i.e. DirecTV) is that you end up paying for channels you never watch and thus subsidizing the cost of certain channels for other users.


Channels like HGTV, etc. are essentially "free" compared to ESPN. I did find a current list, but its behind a pay wall, so a 2014 one will have to do. ESPN is $6.04 (I think its $8+ in 2018), and the next most expensive channel was TNT @ $1.48. USA was a measly .83c. I'm in LA, so my RSN fee (if I was paying it) is like $8 starting in 2018. DirecTV does have a non RSN package, but its undocumented and you can't order it online and you have to know about it, so most people don't. Most people also don't know you can call up retention and get a big chunk of your bill knocked off. If most people won't go through the "hassle" of making a 5 minute phone call a few times a year to save $50/mo on their bill, they're going to suddenly cord cut and go manage everything themselves?


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> You are right. It is all about you. What you pay is all that matters. If you don't subscribe to satellite then DIRECTV is wasting millions of dollars uplinking channels and purchasing replacement satellites. 20+ million subscribers be damned if you're not one of them? Yes, you have chosen your words wisely.
> 
> There are two major issues when comparing old school subscription services (cable and satellite) to new school (streaming).
> 
> ...


I always try to refrain from attempting to ascribe motive or presume I know someone else's thoughts as you almost always get it wrong. You have no idea what I was thinking when I wrote that so I would appreciate it if you refrained from presuming that you do.

Outside of that first paragraph I would agree with most of the rest. I don't actually think that the sat or cable companies are going to disappear anytime soon. I think they will be around for the foreseeable future. My hope is that the increased competition brought about by the OTT offerings and other things that will inevitably arrive will improve consumer choice and drive down prices. That will be a win for us all.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> and the next most expensive channel was TNT @ $1.48.


I really figured TNT would be combined with all of Turner's networks, but for the sake of argument I'll use the TNT figure.

So say, TNT has 20 million subscribers and they're getting paid $1.48/mo from each of those subscribers, that's $29.6 million per month they are getting. This is a smoke and mirrors figure. Sure it looks nice, but it's not accurate.

But of that 20 million, say 5 million never watch TNT, or 15 million do watch. That's $22.2 million per month of viewership that is actually watching TNT. This is their real worth.

Now for TNT to get $29.6 million per month from that 15 million subscribers they'd have to charge $1.98 per month per subscriber. 15 million people probably aren't going to pay that.

But would 15 million people pay $1.50/mo? That would net them $22.5 million per month or $300K more than their real worth. A $1.60/mo? That would be an even $24 million per month. At what price point do you get diminishing returns?

This same math works for ESPN and is definitely more profound for ESPN, because they have a lot fewer real viewers than TNT would have and their cost to provide that content is a lot more than TNT's.

People are right when they say ESPN can't expect their say 10 million real viewers to pay $8/mo and ESPN would still make a profit. ESPN's monthly cost to provide their content is probably more than $80 million per month. But where ESPN went wrong was assuming that they had 20 million real viewers, netting them $160 million per month.

This is why inflated numbers look good, but they are worthless. I don't blame ESPN for taking the $160 million per month, but someone in accounting should have been telling them that they need to operate or plan to be able to operate on a budget closer to $100 million per month. And if nobody was doing that, then that's a failure on their part.

Now say I can get TNT plus the other Turner networks for $5/mo. Add Fox (FX - I don't know what else they publish, Nat Geo I think is one) for $5/mo. Universal (USA, Syfy, Discovery) for $5/mo. And ESPN for $12/mo - that's $27/mo - that's a far cry from my $70/mo bill. I may have missed some channels that I watch and these figures may not be completely accurate - they are just a guess anyway. Purchase them directly from the publisher and access them on a Roku channel and you have no carriage fee or carriage disputes (Turner may raise the price, but if I don't want to pay it, I don't get their channels).

This is how I see the future of TV. Will satellite TV still exist? Sure, there will still (sadly) be areas of the country that don't have access to broadband Internet where a Roku package would work. But those places are going to be like satellite Internet is now, if you're unlucky enough to be in one of those areas, they will charge you an arm and a leg for the service - because they can.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Really depends on your use case. *If you're like me and are impatient and want everything 0 day, NF doesn't really fill that.* If you watch backlog stuff, then $14/mo is a steal. As opposed to say paying $13 to watch Ghost Busters II on PPV on DirecTV in a 24 hr window. The other use case NF doesn't really fill for me as a videophile is ultra high quality 4K. I want the best of the best PQ, so 4K UHD discs is really the only way to fly there. NF 4K is good, but selection is still limited there and again, no 0 day stuff.


We still waited till a series wrapped up a season to binge on it. Been doing that since the middle '80s. It was easy for us to transition to streaming services. I guess we're not "videophiles", what I've been seeing on my new sets is more than good enough as far as PQ goes. I could buy a UHD player and go berserk on UHD discs and I'd be doing the same thing I did with DVDs, that's not gonna happen again. Once again, I have to say YMMV.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

evotz said:


> I still think that's where the model is going. Maybe they can't do it with their current agreements, but that's where I think it's headed.
> 
> The foolish part, with any TV network, is thinking that just because they have a subscriber it means that they actually watch that network. I get all of the gardening, and house building, and do it yourself channels, I've never watched them. If they are considering me a viewer just because I'm a subscriber (because it's in my package) then that's false counting.
> 
> Inflated numbers sure do look good, but they are meaningless if they're not accurate. This is what ESPN is starting to realize. That's why they won't be able to maintain their profit model, they will have to start adjusting their model. So will every other content publisher.


Good points. Only time I watch ESPN is when they have a Yankees game or NFL football on. And I've always had ESPN. The networks will evolve...or go out of business.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> I watch < 0 sports, so I consider ESPN a giant rip off. They're like $8/mo of your cable bill last I read. I'd much rather watch This Old House or Mike Holmes. NF is gaining US subs, that's for sure, but their main growth (they added like 8.8M subs this quarter) is international. Sat & cable are much more limited in their foot print whereas NF isn't.
> 
> But cord cutters are kidding themselves if they think streaming is cheaper. After you sub to like 4 or 5 or more services to get all your shows and a higher ISP package, you're probably back to where you started. Especially if you get the higher cost services like NF, Amazon, HBO, ESPN, WWE, etc. All those add up.


I have NF, Amazon, HBO, iTunes,Showtime, Hulu and D*. D* costs me about $140 a month without credits and PP pricing and equipment fees. NF is ~ $14, HBO Now ~ $15, Showtime ~ $12, Hulu ~ 15. Amazon is not a "higher cost service", I'd have Amazon Prime for shipping if they stopped the streaming service so I don't think that counts on the monthly bill. Tell me how less than $60 a month is gonna go high enough to make me go back to watching D* content. Add in the $56 a month for equipment, by all means, that's not gonna go away. I pay about $80 a month for my ISP. That would not change if I stopped watching TV. Not sure that should be part of the argument.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

evotz said:


> I'll agree that to get comparable packages with streaming and OTT services, you're going to pay about the same.
> 
> But the key here is that each individual can choose more of what they want to subscribe to. The ease of having this all on one bill (i.e. DirecTV) is that you end up paying for channels you never watch and thus subsidizing the cost of certain channels for other users.
> 
> ...


You missed something. All the streaming services can be easily canceled without penalty. You do not have to maintain a streaming service if you're not gonna use it. So, if money gets tight, you can just sub to one service for a month and then cancel and activate another service. I rarely watch HBO Now or Hulu, there's no reason to keep paying them every month. This simply negates the argument that we're gonna see higher prices than what we pay for cable or sat service. There is a work-around.

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> I have NF, Amazon, HBO, iTunes,Showtime, Hulu and D*. D* costs me about $140 a month without credits and PP pricing and equipment fees. NF is ~ $14, HBO Now ~ $15, Showtime ~ $12, Hulu ~ 15. Amazon is not a "higher cost service", I'd have Amazon Prime for shipping if they stopped the streaming service so I don't think that counts on the monthly bill. Tell me how less than $60 a month is gonna go high enough to make me go back to watching D* content. Add in the $56 a month for equipment, by all means, that's not gonna go away. I pay about $80 a month for my ISP. That would not change if I stopped watching TV. Not sure that should be part of the argument.


You're an edge case. You have like 27,000 TVs and DVRs . I remember a post you made years ago where you said a DirecTV tech came out for some service and saw your wall board and didn't even want to touch it, it was so complicated lol. I have one TV and one DVR and Preferred Xtra and I negotiated my bill down to $50 to $60 a month depending on how good I do with retention when promos roll off.

I don't watch sports, so I save big on the RSN fee. I have an HR24, so that's another $3/mo savings where I avoid the WHDVR fee.

I watch a lot of movies, and I've had the trials & previews of all the services you mentioned, and honestly I've never found much to watch.

They don't have rights to stream new releases and I'm sure as hell not paying the ridiculous DirecTV PPV fees. So that pretty much leaves me with only one viable provider to supplement my DirecTV and that provider is $0/mo wink, wink .

A lot of the content they have is freely available on TV anyways. TV shows like Married With Children, Friends, Seinfeld, Two and a Half Men, That 70's Show, Home Improvement, etc. all the classics, are shown like 50 times a day on various channels.

Yes, the services are commercial free, BUT, streaming has a long way to go in terms of trick play. If I had to choose between no commercials and trick play, I'd take the trick play. If you want to replay 15 seconds something on streaming, you pretty much have to rebuffer. Very annoying.

For something that I really want to see in the highest quality possible, I'll get a UHD disc. I know you don't see a diff, but most people do  and UHD discs end up being almost free if you sell off the BluRay and digital copies at the right places.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Net neutrality or lack there of if it really happens will have a significant impact on all this discussion. If NF is relatively cheap but your ISP charges you for carrying NF to you then costs will go up.
I think most of the country, so far, is looking for one solution to "TV" service - turn on and have 1 guide and find something press enter and it is on. They don't want to remember NF for these channels, Amazon for others, HULU etc. Maybe that type of guide and program solution exists but I haven't heard of anything that covers the range that cable and sat systems do. I think vendors are trying but I and I think a lot need it simple. Sure I can use NF or ?? but not as my standard every day TV.
My thoughts - again Net Neutrality will be big and the need to really cover more of the country with true high speed internet.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> You're an edge case. You have like 27,000 TVs and DVRs . I remember a post you made years ago where you said a DirecTV tech came out for some service and saw your wall board and didn't even want to touch it, it was so complicated lol. I have one TV and one DVR and Preferred Xtra and I negotiated my bill down to $50 to $60 a month depending on how good I do with retention when promos roll off.
> 
> I don't watch sports, so I save big on the RSN fee. I have an HR24, so that's another $3/mo savings where I avoid the WHDVR fee.
> 
> ...


*(1)* Have you tried an Apple TV box or a Fire TV device? I like the trick play on them. The UIs on the streaming devices are different on each device.

*(2)* I've never tried a UHD disc. I do have a couple BD players that upscale to 2160p and I've always wondered how those upscaled BDs compare to UHD discs. That had to be what you read.

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> *(2)* I've never tried a UHD disc. I do have a couple BD players that upscale to 2160p and I've always wondered how those upscaled BDs compare to UHD discs. That had to be what you read.


Upscaled BluRay vs. UHD is a different ball game. Upscaled BluRay is doing exactly what it says: It upscales BluRay. Where do you get all the missing pixels from? Upscaling "makes them up". I've seen some good upscaling and some really bad upscaling, so YMMV based on your device chain there.

What an upscaling player CAN'T do is have true 4K content that was produced that way and doesn't make up any pixels. Upscaling can't reproduce that. Also, upscaling can't reproduce HDR or DolbyVision or wider color gamut or the higher quality audio or the much higher bit rate of a UHD disc.

I have the Oppo 203 which is an expensive player because it had all the goodies I wanted (first) [$550], but they have some cheaper players in the $200 range that do HDR and DolbyVision now.

I recently gave my parents a demo spanning the PQ gamut: DirecTV, OTA, YouTube, YouTube 4K, Amazon HD, Amazon 4K and finally UHD. They noticed the increasing PQ as I moved to better tech.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Upscaled BluRay vs. UHD is a different ball game. Upscaled BluRay is doing exactly what it says: It upscales BluRay. Where do you get all the missing pixels from? Upscaling "makes them up". I've seen some good upscaling and some really bad upscaling, so YMMV based on your device chain there.
> 
> What an upscaling player CAN'T do is have true 4K content that was produced that way and doesn't make up any pixels. Upscaling can't reproduce that. Also, upscaling can't reproduce HDR or DolbyVision or wider color gamut or the higher quality audio or the much higher bit rate of a UHD disc.
> 
> ...


Good post, hope folks who have little knowledge of upscaling will read it.

Rich


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

In reading all of the responses here, and reading a few related articles online, it would appear that satellite tv will be with us for at least another 10 years, even if ultimately it's destined to go the way of the home phone land line.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

> even if ultimately it's destined to go the way of the home phone land line.


And, and I'm not picking on you, just commenting on the whole thread, 43.8% of US homes have landline phones in use as of the last CDC survey (why the CDC is in charge of measuring that, I don't know) last last year.

Early, and even mainline adopters, and boards like this are certainly a self-selected group right from that demographic, forget how diverse and different our nation is, and that the life cycle of a product is not just driven by 18-35 people living in a downtown big city or its wealthier suburbs.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

SamC said:


> And, and I'm not picking on you, just commenting on the whole thread, 43.8% of US homes have landline phones in use as of the last CDC survey (why the CDC is in charge of measuring that, I don't know) last last year.
> 
> Early, and even mainline adopters, and boards like this are certainly a self-selected group right from that demographic, forget how diverse and different our nation is, and that the life cycle of a product is not just driven by 18-35 people living in a downtown big city or its wealthier suburbs.


Yep. A very valid point. I think that price point and decent speed internet connection are the key points going forward. For someone like myself, I currently have 45mbs down, and will have the availability of 1Gig down within a year, so I can see me looking at offerings from Direct Now, Sling TV etc a couple of years from now to see if I can get the channels that I want at a cheaper price.......especially as I have AT&T cell phone and internet. But I completely take your point, in that there will be many areas of the country that won't have sufficient streaming capability, because the cost of providing it in those areas doesn't make sense.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SamC said:


> And, and I'm not picking on you, just commenting on the whole thread, 43.8% of US homes have landline phones in use as of the last CDC survey (why the CDC is in charge of measuring that, I don't know) last last year.


Not that this disputes the point you're making, but I wonder what % of US homes have a landline on good ol' fashioned twisted copper pair POTS lines, the stuff installed by Ma Bell way back when? A lot less than 43.8%. Many folks with landlines now are actually using some form of VOIP (voice over internet protocol) riding over coaxial or fiber lines.



TDK1044 said:


> Yep. A very valid point. I think that price point and decent speed internet connection are the key points going forward. For someone like myself, I currently have 45mbs down, and will have the availability of 1Gig down within a year, so I can see me looking at offerings from Direct Now, Sling TV etc a couple of years from now to see if I can get the channels that I want at a cheaper price.......especially as I have AT&T cell phone and internet. But I completely take your point, in that there will be many areas of the country that won't have sufficient streaming capability, because the cost of providing it in those areas doesn't make sense.


45 Mbps is way more speed than you need to stream any of those OTT "cable" services. Their HD streams tend to run in the 5-10 Mbps range, I believe. So your current internet service should be more than capable of watching on three different TVs/devices at the same time.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TDK1044 said:


> In reading all of the responses here, and reading a few related articles online, it would appear that satellite tv will be with us for at least another 10 years, even if ultimately it's destined to go the way of the home phone land line.


Ten years sounds reasonable.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Not that this disputes the point you're making, but I wonder what % of US homes have a landline on good ol' fashioned twisted copper pair POTS lines, the stuff installed by Ma Bell way back when? A lot less than 43.8%. Many folks with landlines now are actually using some form of VOIP (voice over internet protocol) riding over coaxial or fiber lines.


Is something like an OOMA considered a "landline"? Never factored such devices in. Good point, add in all the folks that don't have a Net connection because they don't care even tho it's available and that percentage will go way down.

Rich


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> Is something like an OOMA considered a "landline"? Never factored such devices in. Good point, add in all the folks that don't have a Net connection because they don't care even tho it's available and that percentage will go way down.
> 
> Rich


Along that same line, I wonder what percent of that 43.8% number are people that still have the landline only for 911 and/or a security system.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> Is something like an OOMA considered a "landline"? Never factored such devices in. Good point, add in all the folks that don't have a Net connection because they don't care even tho it's available and that percentage will go way down.
> 
> Rich


If someone did a poll and they said that was for landline, then that was for landline not a voip Service like OOMA.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

TDK1044 said:


> Of course, people have to have a decent internet connection in their house to rely on it for all of their tv and other needs, so I guess my question for those here far more knowledgeable than me......and that's just about everyone......is how long do you think that the satellite based service of D* will continue? Three years? Five years? Longer? My impression is that the cloud based DVR service on the streamed service of D* isn't fully there yet......I think it will be within a year or two though. I'd be interested in people's thoughts on this issue.


In my belief, the changes that are coming to Direct Broadcast Satellite (DirecTV and Dish) are also the same challenges that the subscription television industry is also facing. Will it go away? No, as there is still a good chunk of the audience that rely on the traditional delivery model. But, those services will have to adapt to the changing marketplace. And, in some areas of the country, DBS is still the only choice as it is not cost effective for cable to run a line to that home.

What is the subscription providers greatest strength? Simple, sports television. People prefer to watch their sports games live rather than watch it later on the DVR, which also makes the programming very advertiser friendly.... provided that you aren't chasing off your audience like what the NFL demonstrated this past season. Even though the ratings are still fairly strong, they are down from the previous year.

Big weakness? People are time-shifting showing and skipping commercials. Shows are available on alternative delivery methods (DVDs, BluRay, streaming services). Also, people are starting to look at the cost-benefit ratio of television after each rate increase and questioning why they should remain subscribers.

Part of the challenge of having an Internet-based delivery system is that, for many residents, the Internet provider is the cable provider, thus they see Netflix, Hulu, and such as a direct threat to their business. Why do you think they have been implementing bandwidth caps? It's not like they can't add capacity. And, in some areas, the only high-speed Internet is through Satellite broadband or mobile phones. This is why physical media such as CDs and DVD/BluRay, while they are experiencing lower sales than a decade ago, won't be going away.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm ready to cut DirecTV. I'm too dang busy to watch television, and only keep it for my mother. (It's part of the costs I have to absorb as part of a rental agreement.)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> If someone did a poll and they said that was for landline, then that was for landline not a voip Service like OOMA.


I doubt it. People I know who have Comcast phone service or Ooma (which my parents have used for years) would say that they have "landline" phone service. (The general public really only thinks of there being two kinds of phones: landline and cell.) That kind of VOIP service uses the same phones and internal wiring that are used for POTS. So when my parents left AT&T and went to VOIP years ago, to them it just seemed like they switched service providers. They even forget sometimes that if their internet service goes down, so does their phone.

In some areas, ILECs such as Verizon are switching out their old copper plant to fiber, so traditional POTS isn't even an option any more. (Well, it's emulated digitally over fiber, I believe.)
Verizon Phasing Out Copper Services


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I proper poll would ask the questions needed to determine if they where pots or voip.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> I proper poll would ask the questions needed to determine if they where pots or voip.


What percentage of people do you think even know what POTS is, or the difference between "traditional" phone lines and VOIP?

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, there are two types of VOIP, private network (like what you get from FIOS or Comcast) and public network (like Ooma or Magicjack)

What NashGuy was saying is correct, most people think any phone that stays home is a "landline" and while they might know they have something different if they signed up with Ooma (though his parents are the counterexample) almost no one realizes that if they get fiber service from their telco they now have a VOIP phone. Even though it connects to the same copper lines it did before, has the same dial tone it did before, continues to operate if your internet is down (well not always but usually) The only difference is if you have a long enough power outage your lose your phone service which never happened with POTS because that was powered from the central office where they had backup generators.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'd count it based on how the line is delivered to the customer at the demarc. If the phone company is delivering a "plain old telephone line" with all converters off premises (on the pole or at the curb) it is still POTS. If they are providing copper from a hut or building it is POTS (even if it converts to fiber to get back to the CO). When the converter is on premises it gets a little fuzzy. One reseller I worked with leased PRIs from the incumbent phone company and installed terminals in the customer's wiring rooms. They delivered individual POTS lines (and often data service if there was room on the PRI). POTS? That is how the business phone systems saw the lines. I have seen cable companies provide service through such a terminal. It is easy to say "this is not POTS" if the customer is doing the conversion from data to the phone system. It is more fuzzy when analog lines are delivered by provider owned equipment.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Along that same line, I wonder what percent of that 43.8% number are people that still have the landline only for 911 and/or a security system.


I have a landline because I don't want to give my cell number to vendors etc. In a bundled package it costs really nothing. I know people who have one, due to bundling, and have never hooked up a phone to it - they do occasionally (every few weeks) check to see if any voicemails on it. May not be the best reason but not wanting to give a cell phone number is a good reason.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> I'd count it based on how the line is delivered to the customer at the demarc. If the phone company is delivering a "plain old telephone line" with all converters off premises (on the pole or at the curb) it is still POTS.


If you count that as POTS, why not if the conversion happens on the outside of the house as is the case for a lot of fiber offerings? It may be customer owned premises but it's still telco owned equipment.

I have VDSL2 internet which is copper to a remote terminal that's about a half mile away. When I had a landline it was still connected all the way to the CO, even though the DSL went to fiber after a half mile, so I assume they were connected in the remote terminal.

If I decided I wanted a landline again, I'm not sure if they'd give me that copper all the way to the CO, or if they'd digitize it at the remote terminal and my calls would be carried back to the CO on fiber. They probably have a lot of excess copper between that remote terminal and the CO so they could, but the internal connections would be simpler and more streamlined if they didn't bother with the CO side copper.


----------



## richall01 (Sep 30, 2007)

And cable TV will put the local Stations out of business. And HBO will put the movie theaters out of business. Who wants to go to the movies when you can watch them at home. This was the talk back in 1972. Oh and ATM's will put the banks out of business.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

I think that a fair summary of the great posts written here, and I thank the contributors for making this a very informative thread, is that satellite tv will be with us for at least another decade, but that its market share will diminish as some customers, who have access to high speed internet, opt for a cheaper streaming based service that doesn't lock them into a contract.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> I proper poll would ask the questions needed to determine if they where pots or voip.


I had OOMA. I considered it the same as a landline. Make your poll, I'll bet most folks feel the same way.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I doubt it. People I know who have Comcast phone service or Ooma (which my parents have used for years) would say that they have "landline" phone service. (The general public really only thinks of there being two kinds of phones: landline and cell.) That kind of VOIP service uses the same phones and internal wiring that are used for POTS. So when my parents left AT&T and went to VOIP years ago, to them it just seemed like they switched service providers. They even forget sometimes that if their internet service goes down, so does their phone.
> 
> In some areas, ILECs such as Verizon are switching out their old copper plant to fiber, so traditional POTS isn't even an option any more. (Well, it's emulated digitally over fiber, I believe.)
> Verizon Phasing Out Copper Services


I agree but I had to look up POTS and ILEC. POTS means Plain Old Telephone Service and ILEC means Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier. I'd really like to see uncommon acronyms explained in their original posts. Uncommon? I had POTS right, but this is my first time with ILEC.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

TDK1044 said:


> I think that a fair summary of the great posts written here, and I thank the contributors for making this a very informative thread, is that satellite tv will be with us for at least another decade, but that its market share will diminish as some customers, who have access to high speed internet, opt for a cheaper streaming based service that doesn't lock them into a contract.


Yes, I'd agree with that statement. There are other reasons, too, why I think satellite TV subs will continue to significantly diminish going forward.

First off, there's a secular decline in traditional pay TV, which is also affecting cable and telco/fiber (e.g. Uverse TV, FiOS TV, etc.).

Secondly, satellite is often at a disadvantage when it comes to bundling. DISH doesn't offer home internet or phone, so they can't bundle. AT&T is in a better position, as in some places they offer fast home internet, but they still are at a bundling disadvantage to cable.

Meanwhile, the largest cable companies continue to improve both their TV and internet services. Comcast's X1 (also used by Cox) has closed the gap in many ways vs. DirecTV Genie and DISH Hopper. Altice is rolling out their One Box, powered in part by TiVo features. And cable is luring more and more subs away from telcos (DSL) as they rapidly upgrade their existing coaxial footprint nationwide to support DOCSIS 3.1 with gigabit speeds; AT&T must install FTTH or fixed 5G wireless to offer gigabit.

Third, a lot of folks don't want or can't have a satellite dish on their roof. And many of us have had problems with rain fade with satellite TV, an issue that cable companies effectively tout in their TV ads.

Fourth, satellite typically requires a 2-year up-front contract. Sometimes you get that with cable too but not usually. And of course there's never any commitment with an OTT streaming service.

I can't really think of anything much that DISH has going for them these days -- other than the Hopper 3, which looks nice, and their willingness to offer some cheaper, skinny bundles. DirecTV satellite's competitive strength, IMO, is their ability to appeal to the high-end crowd who wants the most broadcast 4K HDR content they can get and the best HD broadcast picture quality on everything else (probably 2nd only to Google Fiber TV in HD PQ). That said, AT&T has said their next-gen online video platform will support 4K HDR this year, so I'm not sure how much longer satellite will have the advantage there. As it stands now, DirecTV Now streaming (I'm on their beta for Apple TV) offers HD PQ that's pretty darn close to, if not equal to, DTV satellite.

Beyond that, it seems to me that satellite's only other competitive advantage is its geographical ubiquity. You can get it pretty much anywhere, including those rural areas where broadband isn't yet available. But broadband will continue to move into those rural spaces, and with it, additional pay TV options.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There are issues facing every delivery service. Getting the signal to the home is one of the issues cable and other providers face. We have seen "wired" providers who limit the number of HD streams available per home. No service is available everywhere - so when you list the limitations of satellite delivery do not forget the limitations of other providers.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

AT&T will have better bundling options in a couple years when their LTE fixed wireless internet options begin to become widely available, at least in less populated areas. And a couple years after that, when their 5G fixed wireless internet options become available - probably even in all but the most built up areas since there is so much more 5G spectrum available (LOS or near LOS required for much of it, but that's not a problem in the suburbs where you can site tiny antennas on top of utility poles or streetlights)

Dish owns tons of wireless spectrum, someday they are either going to buy or be bought by one of AT&T's competitors and they'll be able to offer triple plays using their spectrum for fixed wireless and the existing carrier infrastructure for cellular.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> AT&T will have better bundling options in a couple years when their LTE fixed wireless internet options begin to become widely available, at least in less populated areas. And a couple years after that, when their 5G fixed wireless internet options become available - probably even in all but the most built up areas since there is so much more 5G spectrum available (LOS or near LOS required for much of it, but that's not a problem in the suburbs where you can site tiny antennas on top of utility poles or streetlights)
> 
> Dish owns tons of wireless spectrum, someday they are either going to buy or be bought by one of AT&T's competitors and they'll be able to offer triple plays using their spectrum for fixed wireless and the existing carrier infrastructure for cellular.


Yes, all true. But I predict that, as AT&T builds up their fixed wireless home internet services (both LTE and 5G), they'll push those subs to bundle a streaming version of DirecTV rather than satellite (although the latter will still be available for those who want it). I'm assuming that AT&T will zero-rate their own video data over their fixed wireless connections, the way they already do with their mobile wireless connections.

It'll be interesting to see what plays out with Dish (which we think of as a satellite TV company, although a recent analysis pegged nearly 2/3 of their value being their spectrum holdings). I could imagine T-mobile buying them and folding Sling TV into their upcoming OTT streaming service that will be powered by Layer3 tech. And of course T-mo would deploy whatever Dish spectrum was complementary to their existing portfolio in LTE/5G and sell off the rest. But I can't see T-mo wanting to own a satellite TV business, which increasingly has the stench of death about it. Just feels very off-brand for T-mo, IMO (not to mention that Dish is bleeding subs). Maybe we end up seeing Dish getting picked apart, with the satellite TV business ending up on its own or, I predict, eventually merging in with the DTV satellite business, a la Sirius + XM Radio.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Amid Satellite TV Drop, DirecTV Now Streaming Service Hits 1.2 Million Subscribers

"In the spring of 2018, AT&T plans to launch the next generation of its OTT platform, which will include cloud DVR, a third concurrent stream for DirecTV Now (up from two currently), and user-interface enhancements, according to Stephenson. Before the end of 2018, AT&T plans to launch a "home-centric" version of the OTT service, with an in-home connected-TV set-top."


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Maybe we end up seeing Dish getting picked apart, with the satellite TV business ending up on its own or, I predict, eventually merging in with the DTV satellite business, a la Sirius + XM Radio.


Or DISH finally will get to buy DIRECTV's satellite assets. 
(The fourth quarter numbers have not been released for DISH. The 3rd quarter was affected by hurricanes in PR/VI.)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Or DISH finally will get to buy DIRECTV's satellite assets.
> (The fourth quarter numbers have not been released for DISH. The 3rd quarter was affected by hurricanes in PR/VI.)


Yeah. At some point down the road, I see there being one, not two, satellite TV providers in the US, because the market won't be big enough any more to support two. Which company/brand will be the survivor, I don't know. It could even emerge as a new brand, or a fusion of the original two, like when Sirius and XM Radio merged to become Sirius XM. Maybe in 2025 we'll have DirectDISH, operated by a new spin-off company formed from pieces of AT&T and Dish. At any rate, if such a thing came to pass, it wouldn't necessarily be the worst thing for satellite TV subscribers. Sounds like a lot of DTV subs aren't happy with what AT&T has done with their service since acquiring it...


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Seekingalpha.com just posted the AT&T 4q chat transcript. From the sound of it, I could be wrong, but it looks to me like they do want DTV NOW as their primary platform but I wonder if they have pushed the 2020 date back? In the transcript Stephenson was praising DTV NOW and he has been using it. It sounds to me like they would want DTV NOW in the urban areas and SatelliteTV in the rural areas.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

"AT&T added a net 161,000 American video subscribers in the fourth quarter of the year, but that's only because DirecTV Now racked up 368,000 new subscribers to reach nearly 1.2 million. Do some back-of-the-napkin math and that means AT&T would have _lost_ 207,000 US customers if Now's numbers had been perfectly flat. The network doesn't just benefit from internet-only viewers, it needs them." They better hope they deliver the improvements they have promised, particularly the cloud DVR. The OTT competition is not standing still.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, all true. But I predict that, as AT&T builds up their fixed wireless home internet services (both LTE and 5G), they'll push those subs to bundle a streaming version of DirecTV rather than satellite (although the latter will still be available for those who want it). I'm assuming that AT&T will zero-rate their own video data over their fixed wireless connections, the way they already do with their mobile wireless connections.


Why? What's the advantage for AT&T to push subscribers to streaming instead of satellite? They have no reason to push people towards any particular solution, but instead will let customers choose what they want.

Given the pricing of Directv Now versus the satellite product, they ought to have incentive to push people towards the satellite product. Not only does the same package of channels sell for more, they charge $7/month/receiver which pays for the cost of hardware several times over during its five year useful life.

Customers who want to spend as little as possible, provide their own equipment, be pretty much on their own for support, and accept higher risk of problems (remember, these are LIVE streams, so they can't buffer up a bunch to hide network hiccups like Netflix) will go with Directv Now. Customers who are willing to spend more have a more polished product that someone else supports for them, that is pretty much rock solid except during a heavy rain, will choose the satellite offering.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I agree. AT&T will offer any service that remains profitable. There are (and will be) plenty of places where satellite makes more sense than Internet. Maintaining the uplinks for those who do not have a streaming choice keeps them around for those who do have a choice. As the market gets closer to 100% of satellite content is available via streaming we will see more people shift to OTT. Right now people have to compromise and decide what to give up if they move to streaming.

20 years from now it may not make financial sense to maintain competing satellite services. But I expect that there will be at least one surviving service. Despite the exaggerated predictions of how much bandwidth everyone will have in the future. Satellite broadcast is the efficient way of getting live content to hundreds of millions of people at the same time. Cable companies use satellites. Local TV affiliates use satellites. Why not have satellite direct to home?

Read the forums ... see how many people clamor for multiple tuners for their homes. Then look at replicating seven or more simultaneous HD over "broadband". And consider that people will want high quality HD if not 4K or better pictures. Multiple simultaneous feeds is something that is easily done on satellite. Each satellite customer has literally hundreds of HD feeds entering their LNBF 24/7. The limit comes from the number of tuners they can physically connect (and with the right wiring one could receive every channel on the system simultaneously). No bandwidth caps or overage charges.

Bring "hundreds" down to a reasonable number of tuners and I'd still not want to pay the Internet bill for streaming all of the content viewed in the average household.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I think AT&T wants to get rid of installing and maintaining the boxes and the satellite dish. This saves them money and reduces their overhead. I think that is why they want DTV NOW as their main platform. I think Stephenson even said that.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> I think AT&T wants to get rid of installing and maintaining the boxes and the satellite dish. This saves them money and reduces their overhead. I think that is why they want DTV NOW as their main platform. I think Stephenson even said that.


That cost is more than made up for by the $7/month per receiver satellite customers are paying. Trying to get rid of costs is fine, but not when you get rid of an even larger amount of revenue. They might transition to having Directv Now having prime placement in their web page, and you have to scroll over to see the satellite offering, but that only makes sense because it shows up as less expensive. It also will help sell faster internet which AT&T wants to do. They'll have to get Directv Now more stable before they can do that though - lets see how it (and the live streaming competition) handles the Super Bowl and Olympics...

Listening to what CEOs say during earnings calls is not the way to find out about a company's future path. They are going to concentrate on what the analysts want to hear, and leave out what the analysts don't want to hear. Unless one of the analysts explicitly asks them a question like "do you expect to still be offering a satellite product in 2025?" they aren't going to volunteer that information.

Analysts want to hear about streaming because its new and sexy, and don't want to hear about satellite because its old and tired. Similar to the way all they can talk about is 5G even though they don't have any 5G anywhere yet, and AT&T still has many of its rural towers on 2G waiting for the LTE upgrade...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> I think AT&T wants to get rid of installing and maintaining the boxes and the satellite dish. This saves them money and reduces their overhead. I think that is why they want DTV NOW as their main platform. I think Stephenson even said that.


That does not make sense. First because there has been some discussion about AT&T providing a box for DirecTV NOW and second because every time someone mentions some new model of receiver you post on our site some hypothetical that the new receiver will be the hybrid satellite+internet receiver you have been pushing since you joined.

So do you think that AT&T is developing a streaming box or not? Both claims cannot be correct.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> That does not make sense. First because there has been some discussion about AT&T providing a box for DirecTV NOW and second because every time someone mentions some new model of receiver you post on our site some hypothetical that the new receiver will be the hybrid satellite+internet receiver you have been pushing since you joined.
> 
> So do you think that AT&T is developing a streaming box or not? Both claims cannot be correct.


There's a third possibility, that AT&T is developing a private network (as opposed to OTT) streaming option similar to Uverse in that it is only available to customers with AT&T internet where Directv provides equipment.

If congress decides to pass something to guarantee net neutrality zero rating Directv Now bandwidth will no longer fly, but if it is a private network offering like Uverse TV, FIOS TV, and Layer3, then that's not a problem.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

James Long said:


> That does not make sense. First because there has been some discussion about AT&T providing a box for DirecTV NOW and second because every time someone mentions some new model of receiver you post on our site some hypothetical that the new receiver will be the hybrid satellite+internet receiver you have been pushing since you joined.
> 
> So do you think that AT&T is developing a streaming box or not? Both claims cannot be correct.


It could be the DTV NOW box is one that you can buy and not lease from DTV. That can save AT&T equipment repair costs because the customer would own the box. A person can change his mind can't he?


----------



## Reggie3 (Feb 20, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> In my 23 years as a DIRECTV customer I've never experienced a loss of signal that long. Rain fade usually lasts a few minutes and snow fade lasts as long as it takes me to remove the snow from my dish and LNB.


Same here - as a customer since 96. I did mount my own dish and put it where I could reach it from the ground and the subsequent dishes installed by D* were put in the same place.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> "AT&T added a net 161,000 American video subscribers in the fourth quarter of the year, but that's only because DirecTV Now racked up 368,000 new subscribers to reach nearly 1.2 million. Do some back-of-the-napkin math and that means AT&T would have _lost_ 207,000 US customers if Now's numbers had been perfectly flat. The network doesn't just benefit from internet-only viewers, it needs them." They better hope they deliver the improvements they have promised, particularly the cloud DVR. The OTT competition is not standing still.


Be nice if that was in at least 1080p. Same thing can be said of PS Vue. And I'd like to see everything in 5.1 sound.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> It could be the DTV NOW box is one that you can buy and not lease from DTV. That can save AT&T equipment repair costs because the customer would own the box. A person can change his mind can't he?


How often do you hear about someone with a faulty client? There are almost no repair costs - in fact, they are so cheap I doubt Directv even bothers to repair them if they go bad. Cheaper to recycle it and build a new one.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> Be nice if that was in at least 1080p. Same thing can be said of PS Vue. And I'd like to see everything in 5.1 sound.
> 
> Rich


No networks broadcast in 1080p. None. Zero. The only way you'll ever see 1080p channels delivered is if 4K channels come and they downscale them.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

I haven't read through this whole thread yet, but I'm going to say, 5 years as we know it, 10 years as a primary source of TV and 20 years it will be gone completely. I hate to say it, but the future is in streaming internet based TV. Anyone with kids older than 10 should watch how they handle content. Much of it is just online stuff, Netflix, YouTube or whatever. Those of us who depend on cable/Sat TV are becoming dinosaurs. I think what will happen is a company like D* will start to transition much of what we see from from going from dish to cable to internet based. I think in 10 years, the vast majority of TV will be streamed on demand, and the networks as we know them will start to disappear. In 20 years, only those remote areas who's only option is through a dish will maintain access. For those of us who can't fathom any of this happening, think about how radio transitioned. Up until the 1940s, Radio was the primary source of entertainment and information. From the late 1940s through the mid 1950s TV took over. That was really only about a 7 to 8 year transition. Radio became secondary, a place for mostly music and eventually news and talk. From the mid 1950s until the 1970s broadcast TV stayed essentially the same about 20 years. Then Cable/Sat took over in the late 1970s. It's really been a surprisingly long run considering that broadband has been pretty mainstreamed for about 15 years now. I think the transition is starting to happen. We hear more and more about cord cutters, and new streaming platforms are being developed all the time now. In 5 years, when the 15 year old kids move out into their own, they most likely will not be beholden to cable and sat companies, and in 10 years when they have families and kids of their own, they won't have a dish on their roof or a cable. Broadband has come a long way (I remember when Netflix was unwatchable and now it streams in 4k and Dolby Atmos without a hitch.) And 5G for mobile is around the corner. I think those of you who think this will last 20 years or more are dreaming. Will it exist in some form, probably, but there will be few customers.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> No networks broadcast in 1080p. None. Zero. The only way you'll ever see 1080p channels delivered is if 4K channels come and they downscale them.


Do you really think I don't know that? OMG...

Rich


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> That does not make sense. First because there has been some discussion about AT&T providing a box for DirecTV NOW and second because every time someone mentions some new model of receiver you post on our site some hypothetical that the new receiver will be the hybrid satellite+internet receiver you have been pushing since you joined.
> 
> So do you think that AT&T is developing a streaming box or not? Both claims cannot be correct.


Agreed.. He was all over the place and over speculating like crazy when the HS17 info started to trickle.. It was nuts


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I live in Maine and a great deal of the area in Maine doesn't have high speed internet or even some areas don't have cell service. It may not be sat service as we now know it - but I think in 10 years those areas and others around the country will rely on sat service for any communications. It maybe sat internet that will provide the streaming for TV service - at the moment the sat internet isn't very fast so that has to improve. I'm not saying that traditional direcTv won't go away, etc. but I think there will still be sat service of some sort.
Also, we still have the issue of local ownership of the traditional networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc) so the complexity of carrying local still has to be worked out by the streaming services.
As I have said before what also has to be worked out is the one view, one directory, one button for all stations such as cable and Sat systems have today. I don't have to know that this is on Roku, this on NF, this on a OTT - and one DVR that records all of that. We, on this forum, aren't the normal people who can only turn on a device and need to find it all there.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> I hate to say it, but the future is in streaming internet based TV. Anyone with kids older than 10 should watch how they handle content. Much of it is just online stuff, Netflix, YouTube or whatever. Those of us who depend on cable/Sat TV are becoming dinosaurs. I think what will happen is a company like D* will start to transition much of what we see from from going from dish to cable to internet based. I think in 10 years, the vast majority of TV will be streamed on demand, and the networks as we know them will start to disappear.


I can agree with a lot of this.

For the most part people are watching TV shows using either on-demand streaming services (Cloud DVR, if you want to call it that), or set top DVRs.

Not a lot of people are thinking "I have to be unbusy Wednesdays at 7PM to watch the X-Files on FOX" They either DVR it, or stream it from FOX's OTT service. So what's the point of actually broadcasting TV? (I remember back in the 90s when it really sucked when you missed an episode of your favorite show... luckily there wasn't a lot of episode continuity back then).

Now broadcasting channels could just as easily put their content on an on-demand streaming service or on-demand satellite system, and users pick the time they want to watch it. New episodes of X-Files might get "posted" on Wednesdays at 7PM, but it remains up and available for weeks allowing viewers to watch it whenever they want.

Want to fill your TV time with noise? I do that a lot, with the TV on USA for NCIS reruns or FX for the Simpsons reruns. FX is actually already doing this, as they have every Simpsons episode on their FX app. You could do the same thing with various other platforms.

The only place broadcast television still has a place for is unscripted content: News and sports. And sports can also be DVR'd as well, but still a vast majority of people prefer to watch these events live (or perhaps that night follwing a day game... that's what I do a lot of times).

Granted, not everybody has broadband Internet access. And that's the monkey that throws a wrench in these plans. But you could probably accomplish a lot of this with a similar PPV model or Pay Per Library model... or essentially making broadcast satellite a specialized broadband Internet system - i.e. DirecTV with only access to DirecTV's content library of whatever they pick (all the Simpsons episodes, new X-Files episodes when they get posted, etc).

I can see "channels" as we see them now becoming more of a thing of the past, except for News and sports. I don't know if all of this will go Internet based, I think the satellite model can be transitioned to match some of this. But I'm not sure how much companies like DirecTV and Dish will want to invest in the infrastructure for this, especially since most people will likely go the Internet route.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Someday its entirely possible ten years down the road or so people are going to head away from streaming to satellite and cable because they will want a bundled price for a lot of channels instead of having 30 apps for 30
Different channels since every studio will have their own app and won’t share their content amoung different streaming services. The only place you’ll find stuff shared next to other content is on good old satellite and others who will also still allow you to access everything streaming as well. Add in that it won’t hit your data caps and it’ll be cheaper as well. 

That is entirely possible and shouldn’t shock anyone if it happens. 

Netflix is becoming nothing more than HBO. Hulu is Netflix five years ago and will at some point at best become movies anywhere for tv. Amazon is starz... I don’t see this changing. Disney will have its own system soon and Netflix will lose that content. It’s
Going to keep going like that. Wait till FOX and warner bros does the same. And ABC and nbc. They will all follow CBS.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I just saw this article on Telecompetitor.com. According to it AT&T's strategy is use OTT as their main platform and use SatelliteTV in the rural areas.

Execs on AT&T Video Transition Strategy: More OTT with Directv Shifted to Rural Areas - Telecompetitor


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

So, my expectation should be extended from 20 years to 50 !


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Someday its entirely possible ten years down the road or so people are going to head away from streaming to satellite and cable because they will want a bundled price for a lot of channels instead of having 30 apps for 30
> Different channels since every studio will have their own app and won't share their content amoung different streaming services. The only place you'll find stuff shared next to other content is on good old satellite and others who will also still allow you to access everything streaming as well. Add in that it won't hit your data caps and it'll be cheaper as well.
> 
> That is entirely possible and shouldn't shock anyone if it happens.
> ...


Some of this would not shock me either. To get the channels I mainly watch now would require subscription to six different streaming services. My wife is not going to try to remember which service supports which channel. On top of that, there's an incredible amount of overlap so I would be paying for the same channel several times. And as for streaming bandwidth, here in a suburb just north of Dallas I get in theory 16Mb. In practice, 12-13Mb dropping to 2-3Mb sometimes. I can't even guarantee one HD channel streaming consistently.
And all of this ignores the complexity of long term contracts between local stations and the networks, hundreds of local stations would go completely out of business, and there would be no local news and sports. 
And there's ATSC3 coming along which might produce more OTA stations rather than less.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CTJon said:


> I live in Maine and a great deal of the area in Maine doesn't have high speed internet or *even some areas don't have cell service*. It may not be sat service as we now know it - but I think in 10 years those areas and others around the country will rely on sat service for any communications. It maybe sat internet that will provide the streaming for TV service - at the moment the sat internet isn't very fast so that has to improve. I'm not saying that traditional direcTv won't go away, etc. but I think there will still be sat service of some sort.
> Also, we still have the issue of local ownership of the traditional networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc) so the complexity of carrying local still has to be worked out by the streaming services.
> As I have said before what also has to be worked out is the one view, one directory, one button for all stations such as cable and Sat systems have today. I don't have to know that this is on Roku, this on NF, this on a OTT - and one DVR that records all of that. We, on this forum, aren't the normal people who can only turn on a device and need to find it all there.


See a lot of cell towers up there? If the state was blanketed in cell towers...could those towers be used to transmit the same type of signals that a satellite transmits? I'd think more cell towers would be put in place before the state got wired for cable. Not sure if that's even feasible.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

evotz said:


> I can agree with a lot of this.
> 
> For the most part people are watching TV shows using either on-demand streaming services (Cloud DVR, if you want to call it that), or set top DVRs.
> 
> ...


Good post! I agree.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Someday its entirely possible ten years down the road or so people are going to head away from streaming to satellite and cable because they will want a bundled price for a lot of channels instead of having 30 apps for 30
> Different channels since every studio will have their own app and won't share their content amoung different streaming services. The only place you'll find stuff shared next to other content is on good old satellite and others who will also still allow you to access everything streaming as well. Add in that it won't hit your data caps and* it'll be cheaper as well*.
> 
> That is entirely possible and shouldn't shock anyone if it happens.
> ...


If things stay the same that will not happen. With the ability to cancel streaming services without penalty we can just use one service at a time. Why people keep bringing up the cost is beyond me.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> I just saw this article on Telecompetitor.com. According to it AT&T's strategy is use OTT as their main platform and use SatelliteTV in the rural areas.
> 
> Execs on AT&T Video Transition Strategy: More OTT with Directv Shifted to Rural Areas - Telecompetitor


Interesting link, thanx. Hey, you were right on about the 17s, I think you're on the right track on this subject.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

P Smith said:


> So, my expectation should be extended from 20 years to 50 !


Yeah, but in 10 years D* will be like the Kmart across the river, just a shadow of what it was.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

texasbrit said:


> Some of this would not shock me either. To get the channels I mainly watch now would require subscription to six different streaming services. My wife is not going to try to remember which service supports which channel. On top of that, there's an incredible amount of overlap so I would be paying for the same channel several times. And as for streaming bandwidth, here in a suburb* just north of Dallas* I get in theory 16Mb. In practice, 12-13Mb dropping to 2-3Mb sometimes. I can't even guarantee one HD channel streaming consistently.
> And all of this ignores the complexity of long term contracts between local stations and the networks, hundreds of local stations would go completely out of business, and there would be no local news and sports.
> And there's ATSC3 coming along which might produce more OTA stations rather than less.


I just looked "just north of Dallas". Looks heavily populated going NW towards Lewisville Lake. Or do you live farther north? Just thinking what I see looks like a goldmine for cable.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

evotz said:


> Not a lot of people are thinking "I have to be unbusy Wednesdays at 7PM to watch the X-Files on FOX" They either DVR it, or stream it from FOX's OTT service.


I'd like to find more current figures, but in 2016 Nielsen reported that SVOD (subscription video on demand) caught up with DVR penetration. Both were at 50% of US households. A promising trend, but 50% of American homes leaves a lot of people who are still in the "run home to catch TV" lifestyle.

While "watch it later" has undoubtedly continued to grow the current social media push to watch TV at the same time and comment live online pushes viewers back to "live TV". Audience participation shows with voting and highly popular shows encourage "live TV" viewing.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> If things stay the same that will not happen. With the ability to cancel streaming services without penalty we can just use one service at a time. Why people keep bringing up the cost is beyond me.
> 
> Rich


Because most people do not want to do that. In fact most hate that. Heck how often do you swap providers to always get the new customer discounts? It's not as popular as some think...


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> I'd like to find more current figures, but in 2016 Nielsen reported that SVOD (subscription video on demand) caught up with DVR penetration. Both were at 50% of US households. A promising trend, but 50% of American homes leaves a lot of people who are still in the "run home to catch TV" lifestyle.


Not sure those stats mean much without context. Outside of news and sports, I can't think of a single person, relative or friend, that doesn't use some combination of DVR and/or VOD/streaming for the majority of their viewing. Perhaps my family and friends are just unusual. And I'm not a millennial...I'm 58.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mjwagner said:


> Not sure those stats mean much without context. Outside of news and sports, I can't think of a single person, relative or friend, that doesn't use some combination of DVR and/or VOD/streaming for the majority of their viewing. Perhaps my family and friends are just unusual. And I'm not a millennial...I'm 58.


That is why I like stats. Your personal list of friends and family (and mine) are irrelevant against the hundred million TV households. Please don't dismiss facts for feelings.

BTW: I became a "SVOD" user a few years ago when VOD service was added to my satellite subscription. I now use it a couple of times a month to download content missed on linear channels (either due to forgetting to schedule a recording or reception problems). I have also used subscription VOD for movies I do not want to record on schedule. But I do not have a separate SVOD subscription.

December 2017 Numbers --
"While time-shifted TV viewing is growing, it still represents only a fraction of total "traditional TV" viewing. For example, among the total 18-24 population, weekly live TV viewing averaged 11 hours and 22 minutes per week in Q2 2017, while DVR and time-shifted TV viewing averaged 1 hour and 21 minutes per week."
The State of Traditional TV: Updated With Q2 2017 Data - Marketing Charts

The young ones seem to be "giving up" on traditional TV. Perhaps their habits will change when they get older.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Rich said:


> I just looked "just north of Dallas". Looks heavily populated going NW towards Lewisville Lake. Or do you live farther north? Just thinking what I see looks like a goldmine for cable.
> 
> Rich


I'm in Allen, NE of Dallas. Typical 70s to 90s suburb. Choice is cable, which is a mess, unreliable and expensive unless you bundle everything (and who wants to pay ANYTHING for telephone service) and ATT Uverse DSL, where speed of course depends where you are. Verizon was going to do FIOS, but recently sold out to Frontier (probably because laying fiber was too expensive)and goodness knows whether we'll ever see them. Oh, and there are a couple of wireless services that will give you around 2Mb(!!). When people here post that they "only" get 25Mb......


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> That is why I like stats. Your personal list of friends and family (and mine) are irrelevant against the hundred million TV households. Please don't dismiss facts for feelings.
> 
> BTW: I became a "SVOD" user a few years ago when VOD service was added to my satellite subscription. I now use it a couple of times a month to download content missed on linear channels (either due to forgetting to schedule a recording or reception problems). I have also used subscription VOD for movies I do not want to record on schedule. But I do not have a separate SVOD subscription.
> 
> ...


I agree that stats are much more reliable than anecdotal evidence, which is what I was sharing. My only point was that facts like you originally shared are rather meaningless without some sort of context. You need to understand what sort of questions were asked, what population was asked, how the study was administered, etc...context. Just throwing out numbers like 50 % use or don't use this or that provides little real insight. You know the old saw...lies, damn lies, and statistics. I'm not questioning the validity of your numbers, I'm sure Neilsen said exactly what you shared. But before I would be willing to draw any conclusions I would need to understand a bit more about the numbers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'm sure that Nielsen's numbers are better than one person's memory (yours or mine) of what their family and friends do. 

I'm not questioning the validity of your personal memory. But you continue to cast doubt on Nielsen even as you admit that your results are less valid than a respected national poling company that has been in business since 1923. They are not some anonymous person with a blog started last year. Would you accept the numbers if they matched your pre-concieved opinion?


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Deeper Dive-AT&T goes all-in with DirecTV Now, but Wall Street remains unimpressed | FierceCable

"Long story short, AT&T is migrating its video base to the IP-based platform, which will benefit starting this spring from a consumer-facing technology overhaul."

"Despite paying $49 billion to buy a satellite TV company less than three years ago, AT&T clearly sees IP distribution as its future."

After reading this I found this from a AT&T slide presentation during their 2015 analyst conference:

From: TDM Copper Wireline Analog Fixed Feature Voice Text Premise Web
To: IP Fiber Wireless Digital Mobile Smartphone Text Video Cloud Apps


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> I'm sure that Nielsen's numbers are better than one person's memory (yours or mine) of what their family and friends do.
> 
> I'm not questioning the validity of your personal memory. But you continue to cast doubt on Nielsen even as you admit that your results are less valid than a respected national poling company that has been in business since 1923. They are not some anonymous person with a blog started last year. Would you accept the numbers if they matched your pre-concieved opinion?


It's not that I do or don't accept your numbers. I honestly don't know what to think about the numbers without the proper context. Without the details they are simply interesting data points rather than actual insight. I'm sorry if I'm not expressing my point clearly enough.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Because most people do not want to do that. In fact most hate that. Heck how often do you swap providers to always get the new customer discounts? It's not as popular as some think...


But it's so easy to drop a streaming service. Just takes a moment on a computer. Just takes a moment on a computer to reactivate. There! See how simple it is? Streaming "providers" should not be confused with cable or satellite "providers".

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Not sure those stats mean much without context. Outside of news and sports, I can't think of a single person, relative or friend, that doesn't use some combination of DVR and/or VOD/streaming for the majority of their viewing. Perhaps my family and friends are just unusual. And I'm not a millennial...I'm 58.


So, once again, we find ourselves in the minority...I think we're right about this and if we wait a year or two I think we'll see big changes. Went thru this with 4K TVs...see how "fake" they are now? We're gonna see more and more folks realize that streaming is easier and cheaper than what they have now. And a whole lot less problematic.

Rich


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

Rich said:


> But it's so easy to drop a streaming service. Just takes a moment on a computer. Just takes a moment on a computer to reactivate. There! See how simple it is? Streaming "providers" should not be confused with cable or satellite "providers".


Sure, you can cancel any time you want if you're willing to:

1) Lose your promo pricing (ie, people who got in on the $35 Go Big package with DTVN)
2) Lose your DVR content
3) Lose all your favorited show preferences / timers if you cancel for long enough (ie, Netflix scrubs your prefs if you don't pay for a year)

It's also worth noting that none of the major streaming providers pro-rate their billing, so if you want to watch just one thing after cancelling, you're buying another month of service as a minimum anyway.

All these things contribute to the inertia of just paying for the service instead of cancelling.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

texasbrit said:


> I'm in Allen, NE of Dallas. Typical 70s to 90s suburb. Choice is cable, which is a mess, unreliable and expensive unless you bundle everything (and who wants to pay ANYTHING for telephone service) and ATT Uverse DSL, where speed of course depends where you are. Verizon was going to do FIOS, but recently sold out to Frontier (probably because laying fiber was too expensive)and goodness knows whether we'll ever see them. Oh, and there are a couple of wireless services that will give you around 2Mb(!!). When people here post that they "only" get 25Mb......


WoW! I just looked at Allen. The cable ISP is so bad you can't use their service? That area is heavily populated, it would/should be a goldmine for cable. We don't _have _to bundle, we can get stand-alone service for just the Internet. Have you tried a cable hookup recently? Our ISP has improved quite a bit in the last few years. They keep jacking up our speeds without cost and they're laying a lot of what I hope is fiber. What cable ISP do you have access to?

Thanx for getting back to me, I'm really curious about how many folks have the availability to have high speed Net access and don't use it.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

espaeth said:


> Sure, you can cancel any time you want if you're willing to:
> 
> 1) Lose your promo pricing (ie, people who got in on the $35 Go Big package with DTVN)
> 2) Lose your DVR content
> ...


I was talking about streaming services such as NF, Amazon and Hulu. They don't have a DVR feature simply because it's not needed. No promos. Your favorite shows will be exactly where you left them if you drop out and then renew. How do these contribute to the inertia you reference?

What you seem to be talking about are the...I don't even know what to call them...Google tells me "Cable Replacement Services" (hereafter called CRS). A CRS is something very different than Amazon or NF. The way we watch TV the only use we would have for D*NOW or PS Vue is watching sports. If I were content with such a service I would not think about cancelling. I did not have any CRS in mind when I wrote the post you referred to.

Rich


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Ok so we aren't typical - my wife and I are both retired (but we do a lot of volunteering). First run type tv we only watch recorded except sports. We watch very little news anymore. However, during the day when we watch tv we just go through the guide looking for interesting things to watch. So we need and watch both DVR and regular non-recorded. One of the nice thing for us about DVR service is when our Spectrum internet is down (and that happens a lot more than DirecTv "rain fades" )we can still watch shows. Do I like the price of DirecTv no but I like the service and all the channels I get.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

espaeth said:


> Sure, you can cancel any time you want if you're willing to:
> 
> 1) Lose your promo pricing (ie, people who got in on the $35 Go Big package with DTVN)
> 2) Lose your DVR content
> ...


These are good points and certainly when talking about OTT services other than services like NetFlix and Amazon video, for things like DTVNow, YTTV, and PSVue they apply to one extent or another. Their is certainly some inertia/friction involved in switching those kinds of OTT services. But I would say that the friction is MUCH less than it is switching traditional sat or cable providers. No contract/commitments to worry about. No equipment to send back or new equipment to get and certainly no service calls to schedule and be home for. So while their is still some friction in switching these type of OTT providers, many of which you have listed, it's much less than with the traditional providers which really does change the dynamic and increases competition. And increased competition is good for all of us consumers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

OTT must be magical if it can get to my TV without equipment. Please don't tell me I have to buy a smart TV to get OTT or a separate box such as a Roku or Amazon box. That is equipment. The equipment costs may be less (or more depending on the individual situation) but one needs some way to get the content from the Internet to the TV.

The trouble is when I list everything I watch I cannot find a single OTT provider that provides all of that content. I can find streamers that provide some of that content. I can find streamers that provide alternate content. But all of what I watch is simply not available OTT. And the only help OTT proponents can give is go out and buy (and self configure) more equipment.

That is another reason why the cable and satellite delivered companies win. They will send someone to the customer's home to set up the equipment. They will support the equipment. Who do I call to get Directv Now or Sling TV installed? Who do I call to get Netflix or Amazon installed? Some local electronics or computer shop who will charge by the hour to hook up the wiring (no free or discounted install). I suppose satellite will die when we die.

Give me one provider (not a mix of several) who has all of the content I want to watch who provides installation and service. Drop any BS responses about not needing installation to watch OTT or streaming services on my TV. There is no magic that gets that content to my TV without equipment.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> I think the way to look at it is AT&T wants to move to an APP and the Cloud DVR. That way they can deliver TV to any smart device and use it anywhere.


Which is still equipment.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Rich said:


> WoW! I just looked at Allen. The cable ISP is so bad you can't use their service? That area is heavily populated, it would/should be a goldmine for cable. We don't _have _to bundle, we can get stand-alone service for just the Internet. Have you tried a cable hookup recently? Our ISP has improved quite a bit in the last few years. They keep jacking up our speeds without cost and they're laying a lot of what I hope is fiber. What cable ISP do you have access to?
> 
> Thanx for getting back to me, I'm really curious about how many folks have the availability to have high speed Net access and don't use it.
> 
> Rich


My only cable provider is Spectrum. Used to be Time Warner until they were acquired. In a customer satisfaction survey of all the providers in the area, they came in 12th out of 12. ATT Uverse was #1 out of 12, which I can't believe, but there we are.Their ads say 100Mbps for $30 per month, but that's bundled. Internet only is $65 unbundled. Oh, and that's for 60Mbps. Then another $5 monthly if you want wifi. And $35 for installation. Most people report getting around 18Mbps, with dips as low as 2Mbps. Too many customers on a node? With lots of service interruptions, and unresponsiveness when you do have a problem. Typical monopoly provider. Old infrastructure, old equipment, no investment.

Until I moved a couple of years ago, I was in FIOS territory, and a generally satisfied customer. But once they had installed in the newer subdivisions, they stopped, and then sold to Frontier. That was a complete disaster, many people lost service completely, some for weeks!

The "experts" tell me once we all get fixed wireless, everything will be great. I wonder which century that will be.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

I haven’t tried them all, but the one thing I didn’t like about the OTT services is the lack of channel numbers.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> OTT must be magical if it can get to my TV without equipment. Please don't tell me I have to buy a smart TV to get OTT or a separate box such as a Roku or Amazon box. That is equipment. The equipment costs may be less (or more depending on the individual situation) but one needs some way to get the content from the Internet to the TV.
> 
> The trouble is when I list everything I watch I cannot find a single OTT provider that provides all of that content. I can find streamers that provide some of that content. I can find streamers that provide alternate content. But all of what I watch is simply not available OTT. And the only help OTT proponents can give is go out and buy (and self configure) more equipment.
> 
> ...


Yeah, you are right you certainly do need a tv so you do need equipment...
And this technology certainly isn't for everybody. If you need someone to come to your house and install DirecTV Now, Sling tv, NetFlix, or Amazon you definitely aren't ready for the technology...LOL.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mjwagner said:


> Yeah, you are right you certainly do need a tv so you do need equipment...


A TV is expected. But it is something that TV viewers already have. The point is to change to or add a OTT service subscribers need a new TV or some sort of equipment that delivers the content to their existing TV. When changing to satellite or cable that equipment is provided.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> A TV is expected. But it is something that TV viewers already have. The point is to change to or add a OTT service subscribers need a new TV or some sort of equipment that delivers the content to their existing TV. When changing to satellite or cable that equipment is provided.


I get it. I was just making a joke. 
My point is though that for many folks it is actually easier (less "friction") with the OTT providers because they already have various streaming boxes/sticks for other purposes. While their are still some exceptions, and they are getting resolved rather quickly, the OTT provider apps run on all the streaming devices, so when you you switch OTT providers all you do is switch apps. So in the majority of cases their is much less "friction" switching OTT providers than switching sat/cable providers. Not zero "friction" but less "friction" than with the traditional providers. It increases the competitive nature of the marketplace which is good for all consumers. Folks that stay with the traditional sat/cable providers for various very valid reasons should be happy about it too since it will definitely put downward pressure on their prices as well. We all win!


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Someday its entirely possible ten years down the road or so people are going to head away from streaming to satellite and cable because they will want a bundled price for a lot of channels instead of having 30 apps for 30
> Different channels since every studio will have their own app and won't share their content amoung different streaming services. The only place you'll find stuff shared next to other content is on good old satellite and others who will also still allow you to access everything streaming as well. Add in that it won't hit your data caps and it'll be cheaper as well.
> 
> That is entirely possible and shouldn't shock anyone if it happens.
> ...


I think that's wishful thinking on your part as an advocate of all things D*. In fact, I see it differently. While I agree that there will be a return to bundling, I a model similar to DirecTV Now than what we see, currently, where the there will be streaming service aggregators. But this won't be accomplished through dish and cable, but through the internet, with a BYOB deployment. We are JUST seeing the beginnings of this with DirecTV Now, YouTube TV, Sling TV and so forth. As mentioned, Sports is the biggest issue right now, but I think that can also be done through streaming at some point. It's not quite there yet, but it's coming. I'm pretty old school and much prefer the model we have now, but I'm also in my 50s and I'm not the target demo for any of this stuff. I'm not a growth person for these companies. As I said, just watch your kids, or any kids and see how they watch TV. it's definitely not how WE do, and what they do is much cheaper (albeit much more limited) than what we have now.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Rich said:


> See a lot of cell towers up there? If the state was blanketed in cell towers...could those towers be used to transmit the same type of signals that a satellite transmits? I'd think more cell towers would be put in place before the state got wired for cable. Not sure if that's even feasible.
> 
> Rich
> 
> Rich


There was a time when a lot of the country didn't have electricity either . I agree. I think it's more likely that broadband and cell towers cover more territory than cable ever will. I've already driven through the desert from AZ to California and got cell reception the whole way and that was about 7 or 8 years ago. It's much better now even. there's a reason why FIOS stopped building out infrastructure. There simply just won't be enough customers.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Rich said:


> If things stay the same that will not happen. With the ability to cancel streaming services without penalty we can just use one service at a time. Why people keep bringing up the cost is beyond me.
> 
> Rich


Just like what happened with the Internet, these companies will consolidate, and I see a time when there will be 3-4 major streaming services which will have a lot of the same channels and maybe a few channels different. That's how it is now with cable and Sat. Consumers will have to decide, like they do now, what's important to them. Like now, if you want YES and MSG, then Dish Network isn't for you. But with this, I also see two year contracts and all the things we HATE about cable and sat now, and eventually prices will be equitable. But, it's how you watch TV, not where it comes from that's the key. On Demand viewing will be the norm, not the exception. It is already that way for most of us here.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> I get it. I was just making a joke.
> My point is though that for many folks it is actually easier (less "friction") with the OTT providers because they already have various streaming boxes/sticks for other purposes. While their are still some exceptions, and they are getting resolved rather quickly, the OTT provider apps run on all the streaming devices, so when you you switch OTT providers all you do is switch apps. So in the majority of cases their is much less "friction" switching OTT providers than switching sat/cable providers. Not zero "friction" but less "friction" than with the traditional providers. It increases the competitive nature of the marketplace which is good for all consumers. Folks that stay with the traditional sat/cable providers for various very valid reasons should be happy about it too since it will definitely put downward pressure on their prices as well. We all win!


What that also does, is take the current middleman out of the equation and gives us more choices. Remember the days when cable companies would make sweetheart deals with towns so they could be the ONLY provider in exchange for them building out the infrastructure. That was really a bad deal for consumers and until SAT providers became more mainstream many of us had but the one choice (and those who can't face their dish properly, it's STILL the only choice for traditional TV). When you can bring your own equipment, all you are doing is signing up for a service.

Now here's the kicker (and why the big corps were SO against net neutrality). I think the major mobile providers are going to get into this in HUGE way in the next few years will "bundle" this with cell phone service (much the same way cable bundles cable TV, internet, and landline phone service). ATT has started doing this to some extent (I got asked this on my last service call). I expect to see something from Verizon soon, and you are seeing TMobile offering Netflix and Sprint HBO. While I stand by my prediction, unfortunately I believe the landscape will still be similar and now how the "millenials" are expecting it to be.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Which is still equipment.


Equipment that is so easy to install a child can do it. If you sub to Amazon a Fire TV box practically sets itself up.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

texasbrit said:


> My only cable provider is Spectrum. Used to be Time Warner until they were acquired. In a customer satisfaction survey of all the providers in the area, they came in 12th out of 12. ATT Uverse was #1 out of 12, which I can't believe, but there we are.Their ads say 100Mbps for $30 per month, but that's bundled. Internet only is $65 unbundled. Oh, and that's for 60Mbps. Then another $5 monthly if you want wifi. And $35 for installation. Most people report getting around 18Mbps, with dips as low as 2Mbps. Too many customers on a node? With lots of service interruptions, and unresponsiveness when you do have a problem. Typical monopoly provider. Old infrastructure, old equipment, no investment.
> 
> Until I moved a couple of years ago, I was in FIOS territory, and a generally satisfied customer. But once they had installed in the newer subdivisions, they stopped, and then sold to Frontier. That was a complete disaster, many people lost service completely, some for weeks!
> 
> The "experts" tell me once we all get fixed wireless, everything will be great. I wonder which century that will be.


Interesting. Our ISP was never that bad. How can they charge you for Wifi? I really don't understand the monthly charge for Wifi, is that using a router they supply? And you have to pay for that router each month? If so, what happens if you buy/have a better router? My ISP gave us a really crappy router, said it would work better than my Netgear Nighthawks. I tried it, pitiful.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TheRatPatrol said:


> I haven't tried them all, but the one thing I didn't like about the OTT services is the lack of channel numbers.


I was confused at first by the streaming services UIs. They seemed very chaotic. But I got used to it. Once it dawned on me that I could do what I had been doing for years (binging) in a much easier manner, I found ways to navigate thru the chaos and find what I wanted. My way of watching TV is most certainly not "normal", I understand that. But, you have to understand, I watched D* the same way. I did not watch series episodes as they came out, I waited until the season was over and watched the whole season in a binge. Not much has changed for us, we still binge on a whole series then go to the next series we want to watch.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> I think that's wishful thinking on your part as an advocate of all things D*. In fact, I see it differently. While I agree that there will be a return to bundling, I a model similar to DirecTV Now than what we see, currently, where the there will be streaming service aggregators. But this won't be accomplished through dish and cable, but through the internet, with a BYOB deployment. We are JUST seeing the beginnings of this with DirecTV Now, YouTube TV, Sling TV and so forth. *As mentioned, Sports is the biggest issue right now*, but I think that can also be done through streaming at some point. It's not quite there yet, but it's coming. I'm pretty old school and much prefer the model we have now, but I'm also in my 50s and I'm not the target demo for any of this stuff. I'm not a growth person for these companies. As I said, just watch your kids, or any kids and see how they watch TV. it's definitely not how WE do, and what they do is much cheaper (albeit much more limited) than what we have now.


The new YouTube CRS (Cable Replacement Service) looks good to me. They have YES and all the Fox channels I'd need for the Yankee games. 3 streams at a time (this is an important feature), better than the other CRSs. Their cloud DVR has few restrictions (something else you have to be concerned about). And Google owns it, you know it's gotta be good. I have to find out what the rez is, anyone know?

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Why? What's the advantage for AT&T to push subscribers to streaming instead of satellite? They have no reason to push people towards any particular solution, but instead will let customers choose what they want.


They have reason to push people toward whichever solution is ultimately most profitable for them. Their next-gen cloud-based streaming video platform is designed to incorporate more lucrative targeted (programatic) ads, which is a big reason why they want as many of their subs on that platform as possible. And, as pointed out by CraigerM, the cost to attain a new sub (including installation costs) is way less for streaming than it is for satellite. And there are savings to be had eventually when the next-gen platform is the only video platform they must support (which is why U-verse TV's days are numbered, and far shorter than satellite's).



slice1900 said:


> Given the pricing of Directv Now versus the satellite product, they ought to have incentive to push people towards the satellite product. Not only does the same package of channels sell for more, they charge $7/month/receiver which pays for the cost of hardware several times over during its five year useful life.
> 
> Customers who want to spend as little as possible, provide their own equipment, be pretty much on their own for support, and accept higher risk of problems (remember, these are LIVE streams, so they can't buffer up a bunch to hide network hiccups like Netflix) will go with Directv Now. Customers who are willing to spend more have a more polished product that someone else supports for them, that is pretty much rock solid except during a heavy rain, will choose the satellite offering.


In these comments, you are conceiving of their streaming-based product as DTV Now currently exists. But it won't stay that way. Or at least, DTV Now won't be AT&T's only streaming-based product. CEO Stephenson thinks of DTV Now (for whatever reason) as more of a mobile-centric product but has stated that, before the end of 2018, they will roll out a new home-centric product that rides on the same underlying cloud-based platform. But it will have an AT&T-supplied STB with custom voice remote (powered by Android TV, I'm sure) and, likely, a higher level of customer service than DTV Now does. Stephenson has compared DTV Now to AT&T's low-cost Cricket mobile phone service while comparing DTV satellite and the coming DTV streaming product as being comparable to their marquee AT&T Wireless mobile phone service. It's really all about marketing and pricing. The coming "home-centric" streaming TV product will be priced higher and have a better feature set (including 4K HDR, access to Sunday Ticket, etc.) than does DTV Now. And if it's running over AT&T home internet service, it should be prioritized traffic, helping to ensure greater reliability.

I just got an update to the DTV Now beta app on my Apple TV and I have to say, I'm pretty impressed. I can tell they're getting closer to launch, as the UI gets polished and bugs get squashed. The look and feel is just way ahead of the Genie I had with DTV satellite three years ago. Reliability of streams is much better lately too. I haven't had any buffering in awhile now (Comcast home internet), although it was pretty bad in early Jan. on the non-beta app.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> The new YouTube CRS (Cable Replacement Service) looks good to me. They have YES and all the Fox channels I'd need for the Yankee games. 3 streams at a time (this is an important feature), better than the other CRSs. Their cloud DVR has few restrictions (something else you have to be concerned about). And Google owns it, you know it's gotta be good. I have to find out what the rez is, anyone know?
> 
> Rich


I did a 7 day trial of YTTV a couple of weeks ago. Rez looked about the same as PSVue (720p 6fps) which is as good as you are going to get for broadcast tv which is native 720p or 1080i (yes, I know you and I disagree on this point ;-) ). I actually liked the UI but did not like the DVR ff/REW. While you are doing ff/REW the preview is just a little thumbnail, kinda like NetFlix. I prefer being able to see what I'm ff/REW thru full screen like PSVue does it. The other downside was that you didn't get the little thumbnail previews until at least 24 hours after the show aired. I really wanted to like YTTV but still prefer PSVue for the way I view. And the other big issue for me with YTTV is no app on Fire devices (due to the stupid feud between Amazon and Google going on right now). I still have them on a few of my tv's.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> I did a 7 day trial of YTTV a couple of weeks ago. Rez looked about the same as PSVue (720p 6fps) which is as good as you are going to get for broadcast tv which is native 720p or 1080i (yes, *I know you and I disagree on this point* ;-) ). I actually liked the UI but did not like the DVR ff/REW. While you are doing ff/REW the preview is just a little thumbnail, kinda like NetFlix. I prefer being able to see what I'm ff/REW thru full screen like PSVue does it. The other downside was that you didn't get the little thumbnail previews until at least 24 hours after the show aired. I really wanted to like YTTV but still prefer PSVue for the way I view. And the other big issue for me with YTTV is no app on Fire devices (due to the stupid feud between Amazon and Google going on right now). I still have them on a few of my tv's.


What did we disagree on? Yes, the 720p of the PSV disturbed me. Is that what you meant? I'm not gonna try the new YOUTUBE (Google corrected my spelling) app out any time soon, figured I'd wait for the bugs to be eradicated.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

texasbrit said:


> Some of this would not shock me either. To get the channels I mainly watch now would require subscription to six different streaming services. My wife is not going to try to remember which service supports which channel. On top of that, there's an incredible amount of overlap so I would be paying for the same channel several times. And as for streaming bandwidth, here in a suburb just north of Dallas I get in theory 16Mb. In practice, 12-13Mb dropping to 2-3Mb sometimes. I can't even guarantee one HD channel streaming consistently.
> And all of this ignores the complexity of long term contracts between local stations and the networks, hundreds of local stations would go completely out of business, and there would be no local news and sports.
> And there's ATSC3 coming along which might produce more OTA stations rather than less.


Check out Apple TV, which uses an app simply named "TV" as it main app. Clicking the little button with a picture of a TV on the remote takes you directly into the TV app. What does this app do? It acts as an aggregator of content from (almost) all the popular streaming apps. There's two-way communication between the TV app and all the various streaming apps that support it, so the TV app knows what you've watched and where you've stopped in any given episode/series/movie. The top row of the TV app is your "Up Next" queue. In my queue, I have stuff from Hulu, Showtime, PBS, TBS, Tubi TV and a few things from Netflix (which, unfortunately is only partially supported). I could also add stuff from lots of various cable channel apps, as well as CBS All Access, Amazon Prime, etc.

With the TV app, there's no need to keep track of what show is in what app -- except for Netflix original content. So basically, I have two watchlists/queues that I turn to -- "Up Next" in the TV app and "My List" in Netflix.

Besides "Up Next", the TV app also lets you browse through Apple-curated lists of content from across all of your subscribed services: New TV Shows, New Movies, Trending TV Shows, Trending Movies, Our Favorites, etc.

Then there's a separate "Sports" tab in the TV app where I can see every televised game currently playing or coming up soon listed, with optional live scores listed too. Just click on any game listing and it will launch the app where that game is playing.

I imagine Apple will eventually add a "News" tab to the TV app too, with curated up-to-the-minute news clips sourced from various video sources. Plex is already doing this.

Frankly, something like this TV app is where I see TV as a whole going: the UI will be populated mostly with on-demand content, but also with listings for live events such as sports, news, and live shows (awards, competition shows, etc.).


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Just saw this: Best Buy stores will stop selling music CDs, and Target could be next

Best Buy is gonna stop selling CDs! Another paradigm shift.

Streaming music must be better and cheaper digitally...too.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Check out Apple TV, which uses an app simply named "TV" as it main app. Clicking the little button with a picture of a TV on the remote takes you directly into the TV app. What does this app do? It acts as an aggregator of content from (almost) all the popular streaming apps. There's two-way communication between the TV app and all the various streaming apps that support it, so the TV app knows what you've watched and where you've stopped in any given episode/series/movie. The top row of the TV app is your "Up Next" queue. In my queue, I have stuff from Hulu, Showtime, PBS, TBS, Tubi TV and a few things from Netflix (which, unfortunately is only partially supported). I could also add stuff from lots of various cable channel apps, as well as CBS All Access, Amazon Prime, etc.
> 
> With the TV app, there's no need to keep track of what show is in what app -- except for Netflix original content. So basically, I have two watchlists/queues that I turn to -- "Up Next" in the TV app and "My List" in Netflix.
> 
> ...


The way Apple's going with the ATVs they might blow every other box out of the water. The ATVs are so much more sophistacated than the other streamers. But they do have a much steeper learning curve, I don't think a "child" could set one up properly. We have 9 active HRs, 6 active ATVs. The rest of our TVs have FTV devices on them. We bought all our HRs, cost was about...more than $2000. Much more IIRC. Add in the cost of the, at least, 2TB drives I put in all of them and...it was a lot of money.

Cost of the streaming devices...more than $1000, less than $1500. The HRs cost us $56 a month in equipment charges. Or, $672 a year. The streamers have no monthly fees. I've never had one that crashed and burned.

See the difference?

Rich


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> What did we disagree on? Yes, the 720p of the PSV disturbed me. Is that what you meant? I'm not gonna try the new YOUTUBE (Google corrected my spelling) app out any time soon, figured I'd wait for the bugs to be eradicated.
> 
> Rich


Sorry if I wasn't clear. We absolutely don't disagree that the fact that PSVue is 720p is something that you don't like. That is personal opinion/choice so not something for us to agree or disagree about. What, I think, we disagree about is the statement that 720p 60 fps is as good as you are going to get for broadcast tv which is native 720p or 1080i. Based on your statements I don't think you agree with that, so that is something we agree to disagree about...


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Rich said:


> The new YouTube CRS (Cable Replacement Service) looks good to me. They have YES and all the Fox channels I'd need for the Yankee games. 3 streams at a time (this is an important feature), better than the other CRSs. Their cloud DVR has few restrictions (something else you have to be concerned about). And Google owns it, you know it's gotta be good. I have to find out what the rez is, anyone know?
> 
> Rich


Do they have MSG too? If it was YES and MSG, I'd have to look into it.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> The way Apple's going with the ATVs they might blow every other box out of the water. The ATVs are so much more sophistacated than the other streamers. But they do have a much steeper learning curve, I don't think a "child" could set one up properly. We have 9 active HRs, 6 active ATVs. The rest of our TVs have FTV devices on them. We bought all our HRs, cost was about...more than $2000. Much more IIRC. Add in the cost of the, at least, 2TB drives I put in all of them and...it was a lot of money.
> 
> Cost of the streaming devices...more than $1000, less than $1500. The HRs cost us $56 a month in equipment charges. Or, $672 a year. The streamers have no monthly fees. I've never had one that crashed and burned.
> 
> ...


They certainly may "blow every other box out of the water" for those that are committed to the Apple ecosystem. But for many of us, me included, the ATV's are a non-starter. I've had ATV's, sold one on eBay, still have one in a drawer somewhere. I much prefer my Nvidia Shield TV. For me it's a more open platform, and that is what I prefer.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Rich said:


> Interesting. Our ISP was never that bad. How can they charge you for Wifi? I really don't understand the monthly charge for Wifi, is that using a router they supply? And you have to pay for that router each month? If so, what happens if you buy/have a better router? My ISP gave us a really crappy router, said it would work better than my Netgear Nighthawks. I tried it, pitiful.
> 
> Rich


They charge for a router that provides WiFI - rather than you providing one. In the cases I've seen you can still provide your own but that is really what the charge is for


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

CTJon said:


> They charge for a router that provides WiFI - rather than you providing one. In the cases I've seen you can still provide your own but that is really what the charge is for


So if you provide your own you avoid the monthly charge right? IMHO, you are almost always better off, dollar wise and technology/capability wise, to supply your own in home network gear. The only ISP supplied networking gear I'm using is the cable modem and only because it is totally free of charge and it is a top of the line Motorola unit.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Yes, their pricing does not make it clear but I suspect CTJon is correct.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Just like what happened with the Internet, these companies will consolidate, and I see a time when there will be 3-4 major streaming services which will have a lot of the same channels and maybe a few channels different.


There is already far more consolidation from an infrastructure standpoint than it would otherwise appear.

Of the major video players, only Netflix owns and operates its own purpose-built video content delivery network with OpenConnect. The big remaining players include:

Akamai - used primarily by DTVN, Hulu?
Level(3) (now CenturyLink) - used primarily by MLB:AM properties like PS Vue, MLB.tv, NHL.tv, WWE Network, etc.
Fastly - used primarily by SlingTV in early 2017 - this might have changed?
Amazon Cloudfront - Prime Video eats their own dog food and uses their own CDN product, but they aren't their own largest customer
Youtube - Alphabet uses the Youtube CDN infrastructure as part of their YoutubeTV live video feeds, but it is a minority traffic percentage

So when you look at Sling, DTVN, PS Vue, Hulu, FuboTV, Philo TV, etc -- all of these services are built on 3rd party shared infrastructure.

The big issue that everybody glosses over is the scaling problem with mass distribution of unicast video feeds on networks designed around statistically multiplexed resource sharing. One of the best quotes on this from Joe Inzerillo the CTO of BAMTECH:



> "What people forget is that the internet, as a technology, was never designed to do something like this - deliver flawless video simultaneously to millions of people." Inzerillo explains. "I liken it to trying to live on Mercury. The planet is completely inhospitable. Every day all you're doing is [fighting] a battle for survival in a place that really does not want you. Streaming video on the internet is sort of like that."


*Source: How baseball's tech team built the future of television*


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

A few have said 20 years but I personally think it may go away sooner than that.

While I hope it doesn't I think one of the biggest current limiting factors is monthly data caps, which others have mentioned. The cap being an issue will obviously vary widely depending on use case and people's viewing habits. However, if you are watching a bunch of Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, Vudu 4K, that is going to use ~3x the bandwidth and then you lump in the extra load of what used to be linear broadcasts from satellite into the monthly quota and it can add up.

What I see happening is people feeling forced into a certain providers due to zero rating offerings. i.e. "if you use our TV service on our internet line we provide to you, we don't count that traffic towards your monthly limit" which obviously sucks for the consumer. Ajit has not helped this situation.

I am fortunate to have a soft cap where after 2TB of usage they just slow down my connection to 250mbps for the remainder of the month but I am in the minority as far as cap and speed and even I would prefer to stick to satellite vs. using IPTV. That said, if IPTV offered a marked improvement and as much content as DirecTV, I would consider switching.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Nobody can accurately predict what the tech landscape will look like in 20 years, so it is pointless to speculate whether satellite TV will be gone by then or still going strong. Who in 1998 was predicting people would watch movies on a device with a 5" screen they carry with them 24x7?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

you don't know a power of rumors, speculations, etc .... it's _endless_ !!!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Who in 1998 was predicting people would watch movies on a device with a 5" screen they carry with them 24x7?


That was predictable in 1998. The "portable computer phone" that we currently use to perform such amazing feats would probably not be the form predicted in 1998. But the ability to play movies on small screens would not be surprising. (What amazed me about way back then was how people used large screens ... front and rear projection TVs ... long before HD was the standard. Today people complain if they see a pixel but stretching SD content across a large screen was considered amazing.)

The demise of satellite has been predicted for more than a decade. If one were to believe the predictions from a decade ago we would not have satellite TV today ... and yet we still have at least a couple more decades to go before we see satellite delivery replaced.

Predictions are easy ... turning predictions into reality is hard. There are predictions from the 1950's that engineers are still working on. If one is going to predict the end of satellite distribution to homes one must account for how future homes will obtain content. Or will we simply stop watching TV?

I appreciate movies and TV set in the future that show a life similar to ours - Back to the Future's prediction of "2015" showed a thin roll up TV and 3D projections into empty space. But it also supported the concept that people would still go to a movie theater to see the latest Jaws film or watch TV in their home. Not just on small devices (which were also shown in that movie). Star Trek seemed to be devoid of such entertainment (perhaps by the 24th century we will outgrow TV). TNG had the holodeck where people could entertain themselves in virtual reality and showed recitals where crew performed for each other but I do not recall seeing anyone watching TV. (The Orville includes such activities in their portrayal of the future.)

Predictions tempered by reality. I do not expect to have enough bandwidth through alternate providers to replace what we get through satellite delivery. The only way I can accept a prediction of satellite "going away" is to accept LESS content being available and LESS quality for the content received. Lower your standards and the predicted future becomes more achievable.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

mutelight said:


> A few have said 20 years but I personally think it may go away sooner than that.
> 
> While I hope it doesn't I think one of the biggest current limiting factors is monthly data caps, which others have mentioned. The cap being an issue will obviously vary widely depending on use case and people's viewing habits. However, if you are watching a bunch of Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, Vudu 4K, that is going to use ~3x the bandwidth and then you lump in the extra load of what used to be linear broadcasts from satellite into the monthly quota and it can add up.
> 
> ...


Yes data caps suck , more now than ever with 4k video and 4k gaming devices.

If you have Cox or Comcast your screwed with only 1TB or pay $50 more monthly .

Wish more folks had access to FTTH .

Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Sorry if I wasn't clear. We absolutely don't disagree that the fact that PSVue is 720p is something that you don't like. That is personal opinion/choice so not something for us to agree or disagree about. What, I think, we disagree about is the statement that 720p 60 fps is as good as you are going to get for broadcast tv which is native 720p or 1080i. Based on your statements I don't think you agree with that, so that is something we agree to disagree about...


I've been told that 1080p is not possible from D* broadcasts, so I think 1080i is the best rez we're gonna get from D*. For upscaling, of course. Is that what you meant. Sorry for the confusion, I've read and written so many posts recently I can't seem to keep things straight.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> Do they have MSG too? If it was YES and MSG, I'd have to look into it.


I just looked, don't see MSG. But MSG is why I came to D* and DBS. In 2002 Dolan decided not to carry YES and I had to look for another provider. I don't think I have used MSG since. Dolan really upset me (that's not what I was thinking, but forum decorum...and all that) and I've never gotten over it. Look how well the Knicks are doing...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> They certainly may "blow every other box out of the water" *for those that are committed to the Apple ecosystem*. But for many of us, me included, the ATV's are a non-starter. I've had ATV's, sold one on eBay, still have one in a drawer somewhere. I much prefer my Nvidia Shield TV. For me it's a more open platform, and that is what I prefer.


Funny. ATVs are the only Apple devices I use.

I could probably find a couple older ATVs somewhere in my home, along with several Rokus and FTVs that aren't used anymore. I didn't see anything I liked about the ATVs until the ATV4s came out. Then the ATV5s arrived and set the ATV4s on the road to obsolescence. I know you like the Shields, I'm not gonna argue about them with you. This would just be an argument about a preference. Nobody wins those arguments.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CTJon said:


> They charge for a router that provides WiFI - rather than you providing one. In the cases I've seen you can still provide your own but that is really what the charge is for


Geez our ISP, Optimum, hands them out without charge. And they are junk. Perhaps your ISP has a better router? One that might justify a fee?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mutelight said:


> A few have said 20 years but I personally think it may go away sooner than that.
> 
> While I hope it doesn't I think one of the biggest current limiting factors is monthly data caps, which others have mentioned. The cap being an issue will obviously vary widely depending on use case and people's viewing habits. However, if you are watching a bunch of Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, Vudu 4K, that is going to use ~3x the bandwidth and then you lump in the extra load of what used to be linear broadcasts from satellite into the monthly quota and it can add up.
> 
> ...


I think NF and Amazon provide better content then D* does. Add a couple apps like HBO Now and Showtime and there's a whole lot more content available at any given moment than D* has. 1080p is not to be discounted. Normal D* content does not have the PQ that 1080p does.

Rich


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> Funny. ATVs are the only Apple devices I use.
> 
> I could probably find a couple older ATVs somewhere in my home, along with several Rokus and FTVs that aren't used anymore. I didn't see anything I liked about the ATVs until the ATV4s came out. Then the ATV5s arrived and set the ATV4s on the road to obsolescence. I know you like the Shields, I'm not gonna argue about them with you. This would just be an argument about a preference. Nobody wins those arguments.
> 
> Rich


The ATV5 really is an excellent streaming device. I like pretty much everything about it and I think it's every bit as good as a Shield. In fact it does DV which the Shield lacks at the moment. Thankfully that is not an issue for me as my 4k LG tv has a built in NetFlix app that does DV. Unfortunately I am committed to Android and their are several apps that I use daily that aren't available for the ATV.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

For those who say we really can't predict the future - what would forums such as this be if we all had to stick with facts?


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Sat Service will last as long as there is $ to made


----------



## mgmrick (Oct 19, 2004)

With my only option today and long into the future of lte internet with softcap at 22gb and speeds under 10 as my only option. I sure hope sat tv will be around for a long time


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CTJon said:


> For those who say we really can't predict the future - what would forums such as this be if we all had to stick with facts?


Dull and boring.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

WestDC said:


> Sat Service will last as long as there is $ to made


I would expect these services to shrink proportionally as the subscriber count diminishes. Not gonna happen overnight.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mgmrick said:


> With my *only option* today and long into the future of lte internet with softcap at 22gb and speeds under 10 as my only option. I sure hope sat tv will be around for a long time


Would you please tell us where you're located? There's no other option, no cable company?

Rich


----------



## mgmrick (Oct 19, 2004)

Rich said:


> Would you please tell us where you're located? There's no other option, no cable company?
> 
> Rich


I am sure I am not alone in fact millions without high speed internet options. My whole town has no cable tv or cable internet. We have dsl through our local telephone company tdstelecom.... the speeds rarely get to 1 meg download speed and its been like that for years and they will never upgrade. I have an att cell tower 4 1/5 miles away and get an average speed of about 6 meg download using the twenty dollar addon homebase to my cell phone plan. Thankfully att's homebase will pull in a signal as my att cell phones have no signal.

Zipcode 13140 town of conquest ny


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

mgmrick said:


> I am sure I am not alone in fact millions without high speed internet options. My whole town has no cable tv or cable internet. We have dsl through our local telephone company tdstelecom.... the speeds rarely get to 1 meg download speed and its been like that for years and they will never upgrade. I have an att cell tower 4 1/5 miles away and get an average speed of about 6 meg download using the twenty dollar addon homebase to my cell phone plan. Thankfully att's homebase will pull in a signal as my att cell phones have no signal.
> 
> Zipcode 13140 town of conquest ny


I know that area. North of Watkins Glen, south of Oswego...beautiful country. Tough winters with all the lake effect snow. I lived in upstate ny for 9 years. Was glad to get out, upstate pretty much had no say in how the state was run. It was all controlled by the city.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

people that will be hit the hardest are those in the townships just outside the city limits of these smaller rural towns. my city for example has the options of charter, at&t and frontier. You go just outside the city limits into the townships and there are no wired options available.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> But it's so easy to drop a streaming service. Just takes a moment on a computer. Just takes a moment on a computer to reactivate. There! See how simple it is? Streaming "providers" should not be confused with cable or satellite "providers".
> 
> Rich


And while that may be fine for kids, older people do not want to deal with that regularly. It's an annoyance and you have to learn a new GUI for each service as well. People are up in arms about a change in DIRECTV GUI once every 5 years. Imagine if they had to change monthly...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mgmrick said:


> I am sure I am not alone in fact millions without high speed internet options. My whole town has no cable tv or cable internet. We have dsl through our local telephone company tdstelecom.... the speeds rarely get to 1 meg download speed and its been like that for years and they will never upgrade. I have an att cell tower 4 1/5 miles away and get an average speed of about 6 meg download using the twenty dollar addon homebase to my cell phone plan. Thankfully att's homebase will pull in a signal as my att cell phones have no signal.
> 
> Zipcode 13140 town of conquest ny


Looks like a great place to live. I can see why you have no cable in your area.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> And while that may be fine for kids, older people do not want to deal with that regularly. It's an annoyance and you have to learn a new GUI for each service as well. People are up in arms about a change in DIRECTV GUI once every 5 years. Imagine if they had to change monthly...


Hyperbole. Wonderful tool for confusing the masses. One more time...it takes a couple minutes online to cancel one and activate another. This is not like calling D*. Yes, the UIs for the streamers are confusing at first but once you figure them out it becomes easier. None of these things are troublesome. Simply put, the streaming services are much easier to cope with than our 'normal' cable or sat service.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> Hyperbole. Wonderful tool for confusing the masses. One more time...it takes a couple minutes online to cancel one and activate another. This is not like calling D*. Yes, the UIs for the streamers are confusing at first but once you figure them out it becomes easier. None of these things are troublesome. Simply put, the streaming services are much easier to cope with than our 'normal' cable or sat service.
> 
> Rich


My mom has a bar enough time making sure her sprint cell I'll is right every month after her last upgrade. You are far more willing to change the the average person pst the age of 50. Assuming you are over 50. And I have yet to find a person who likes dealing with new interfaces regularly that is over 50 either. They always ask, why do things have to change? I think you are an outlier in this, as almost people on any forum.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> My mom has a bar enough time making sure her sprint cell I'll is right every month after her last upgrade. You are far more willing to change the the average person pst the age of 50. Assuming you are over 50. And I have yet to find a person who likes dealing with new interfaces regularly that is over 50 either. They always ask, why do things have to change? I think you are an outlier in this, as almost people on any forum.


Oh, I understand. My wife's the same way. She looked at that Harmony remote I bought like it was made of ebola. But we're talking about a change in this thread that is gonna happen. Folks are gonna have to adjust. And evolve. Streaming is a whole lot simpler than using cable or satellite. The path of least resistance is almost always the simpler way and streaming is just simpler. And less expensive. And you get a better picture most of the time. Yeah, the Internet can go down. But that's rare. And if it does and I'm desperate I can always use my phone as a hotspot. But what do most folks do if the power to their homes goes out? Before we start using 'what ifs' we should look at 'what is'.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> But we're talking about a change in this thread that is gonna happen.


Not in my lifetime.

And if I happen to outlive satellite delivery I'll probably be watching a lot less TV. Probably one channel that shows nostalgic TV from 2000-2010. 

I am not saying that I will never leave satellite ... but if I do it will be for another package service such as Sling TV or DirecTV NOW. Not a mix of services with separate subscriptions. And they *WILL* need to come up with an interface that is as easy to use as my satellite DVR. I *DO NOT* want to fool around with changing subscriptions to find what I want to watch.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> And while that may be fine for kids, older people do not want to deal with that regularly. It's an annoyance and you have to learn a new GUI for each service as well. People are up in arms about a change in DIRECTV GUI once every 5 years. Imagine if they had to change monthly...


Really, I'm 58 and it certainly doesn't bother me. Mostly just variations on a similar theme really. I find the whole "old people can't/won't do it" meme a bit worn out at this point. Certainly for the under 30 crowd it's a complete non issue but I find more and more people over 50 are embracing much of the technical changes that are occurring.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mjwagner said:


> Really, I'm 58 and it certainly doesn't bother me. Mostly just variations on a similar theme really. I find the whole "old people can't/won't do it" meme a bit worn out at this point. Certainly for the under 30 crowd it's a complete non issue but I find more and more people over 50 are embracing much of the technical changes that are occurring.


If they really were changing things for the better, instead of changing for the sake of change, it wouldn't be a problem. But seriously, I have yet to see anyone say that the new GUI actually improves their Directv experience. They might like the more "modern" look, but it does all the same stuff as the old GUI - they just reordered menus and changed the graphics. I mean, hey, I don't care since I don't have any of the affected equipment but I just don't see the point.

How about adding something truly new? Let's say the guide added a thumbnail of what is currently being shown on each channel shown in the grid? Sure, it would be small, but that would be a lot more useful than the stupid channel logos people are always whining about. It would mean having to create a live feed of every Directv CONUS channel accessible on the guide channel, but since they'd be small and only need to update maybe 2x a second it would be easy to fit within the transponder used for the guide channel (if they removed whatever MPEG2 SD channels may be carried on that transponder) So its certainly technically possible.

I'm sure others could think of other (and probably better) REAL innovations that could make a new GUI truly new, rather than the equivalent of the wife redecorating the living room by swapping out furniture but not actually improving the living room in any way other than looking a bit fresher.


----------



## mgmrick (Oct 19, 2004)

Now if wireless broadband becomes real then I can see the demise of sat tv and sat internet. That does seem to be the way we are headed. It's much cheaper to run wireless than wired and seems to be the way we are headed


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> If they really were changing things for the better, instead of changing for the sake of change, it wouldn't be a problem. But seriously, I have yet to see anyone say that the new GUI actually improves their Directv experience. They might like the more "modern" look, but it does all the same stuff as the old GUI - they just reordered menus and changed the graphics. I mean, hey, I don't care since I don't have any of the affected equipment but I just don't see the point.
> 
> How about adding something truly new? Let's say the guide added a thumbnail of what is currently being shown on each channel shown in the grid? Sure, it would be small, but that would be a lot more useful than the stupid channel logos people are always whining about. It would mean having to create a live feed of every Directv CONUS channel accessible on the guide channel, but since they'd be small and only need to update maybe 2x a second it would be easy to fit within the transponder used for the guide channel (if they removed whatever MPEG2 SD channels may be carried on that transponder) So its certainly technically possible.
> 
> I'm sure others could think of other (and probably better) REAL innovations that could make a new GUI truly new, rather than the equivalent of the wife redecorating the living room by swapping out furniture but not actually improving the living room in any way other than looking a bit fresher.


I completely agree with your sentiment on this. The whole "change just for change sake" bothers me too and I see more and more of it. I can't comment on the DTV UI changes as I don't use DTV anymore but I do see it in many other places.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Really, I'm 58 and it certainly doesn't bother me. Mostly just variations on a similar theme really. I find the whole "old people can't/won't do it" meme a bit worn out at this point. Certainly for the under 30 crowd it's a complete non issue but I find more and more people over 50 are embracing much of the technical changes that are occurring.


Far too much emphasis on age, I really don't see what that has to do with anything. Do I have to talk about my first father in law again? Some folks are gonna have problems with techie stuff, doesn't matter how old they are.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> If they really were changing things for the better, instead of changing for the sake of change, it wouldn't be a problem. But seriously, I have yet to see anyone say that the new GUI actually improves their Directv experience. They might like the more "modern" look, but it does all the same stuff as the old GUI - they just reordered menus and changed the graphics. I mean, hey, I don't care since I don't have any of the affected equipment but I just don't see the point.
> 
> How about adding something truly new? Let's say the guide added a thumbnail of what is currently being shown on each channel shown in the grid? Sure, it would be small, but that would be a lot more useful than the stupid channel logos people are always whining about. It would mean having to create a live feed of every Directv CONUS channel accessible on the guide channel, but since they'd be small and only need to update maybe 2x a second it would be easy to fit within the transponder used for the guide channel (if they removed whatever MPEG2 SD channels may be carried on that transponder) So its certainly technically possible.
> 
> I'm sure others could think of other (and probably better) REAL innovations that could make a new GUI truly new, rather than the equivalent of the wife redecorating the living room by swapping out furniture but not actually improving the living room in any way other than looking a bit fresher.


I could swear I read that this GUI isn't in HD. Is that correct? If it is, why didn't they go HD? That was supposed to be the next logical step.

Rich


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

mgmrick said:


> Now if wireless broadband becomes real then I can see the demise of sat tv and sat internet. That does seem to be the way we are headed. It's much cheaper to run wireless than wired and seems to be the way we are headed


Some of the issue is the same - people who don't today have hi speed internet or cable service won't have wireless broadband either. Sat service allows when there is no other infrastructure into that area of the country. You still need wired to the wireless transmission facilities and many areas don't have that which is why they don't have cell service


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

They are already starting to advertise that you don't need a cable box to watch TV anymore.

DIRECTV NOW TV Commercial, 'Cable B. Ware' Featuring Michael B. Jordan


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

CraigerM said:


> They are already starting to advertise that you don't need a cable box to watch TV anymore.
> 
> DIRECTV NOW TV Commercial, 'Cable B. Ware' Featuring Michael B. Jordan


Saw it last week.

Now, shouldn't this bring down the cost of Satellite?

Wonder if this is a "full" package, or just a handful of channels??????

Spectrum cable is now using an app on Roku to eliminate extra receivers for TV's in multiple rooms. So I'm guessing it's the whole package for them. I don't use a DVR, so no sweat for me. I find myself using more and more apps on Roku now, I just loaded Weather nation's app and found it way more intuitive and informative than the weather channel.
Ironically, Dish sent me my Roku as a "perk" for losing one of my favorite channels during a contract dispute. [ AMC] It sat in a box for a good long while until my techy friend talked me into hooking it up. I never looked back. Thanks Dish. [ I'm still a subber]


----------



## mgmrick (Oct 19, 2004)

CTJon said:


> Some of the issue is the same - people who don't today have hi speed internet or cable service won't have wireless broadband either. Sat service allows when there is no other infrastructure into that area of the country. You still need wired to the wireless transmission facilities and many areas don't have that which is why they don't have cell service


For alot of people thats true. But with att now offering home internet through cell towers at an affordable price wireless is working for me. Hopefully they can get higher speeds at the tower so I and others can get higher speeds at a resonable distance from tower


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

mgmrick said:


> For alot of people thats true. But with att now offering home internet through cell towers at an affordable price wireless is working for me. Hopefully they can get higher speeds at the tower so I and others can get higher speeds at a resonable distance from tower


This is going to expand rapidly over time and the speeds will increase. It has always been the "last mile" connection to the customer premise that has been the most expensive . If they can at least remove some of that cost it will make a huge difference in the equation.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> They are already starting to advertise that you don't need a cable box to watch TV anymore.
> 
> DIRECTV NOW TV Commercial, 'Cable B. Ware' Featuring Michael B. Jordan


Strange ad. The actors discuss "don't we need that cable box" but the voice over at the end says "no satellite needed".

I have not needed a cable box for decades (when I last had cable it was analog and a stock "cable ready" TV could tune the channels).
Cable card was intended to remove the box for cable viewers (but still allow for encryption and access control).

As we have noted, the fine print on streaming services is that one does need a compatible TV. Go buy a new one that is compatible with whatever app you need or buy a box. So much for not needing a box. Cord cutting is cord swapping and box swapping. Plus the best part of the current service *IS* the box capturing, organizing and sharing content received without using bandwidth that must be purchased separately.

The final piece of "fine print" is content availability. Let us know when the DirecTV NOW lineup is identical to DIRECTV satellite. I expect that will take a few more years.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> Strange ad. The actors discuss "don't we need that cable box" but the voice over at the end says "no satellite needed".
> 
> I have not needed a cable box for decades (when I last had cable it was analog and a stock "cable ready" TV could tune the channels).
> Cable card was intended to remove the box for cable viewers (but still allow for encryption and access control).
> ...


I think their are two points that you are missing. First, for most people that are making the switch to an OTT provider (DTVNow, PSVue, YTTV, Sling, Hulu, etc.) from traditional sat/cable they already have a streaming box or smart TV. So they are going to net one less box on every tv. Second, let's hope that the lineup on the OTT providers is NEVER "identical to DIRECTV". That's one of the reasons people are leaving the traditional sat/cable providers, they don't want to have to pay for 100+ channels of which they only ever watch a few dozen.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mjwagner said:


> Second, let's hope that the lineup on the OTT providers is NEVER "identical to DIRECTV".


You are missing the point. Perhaps you like the concept of subscribing to a service where what is available via the satellite provider is no longer available. I do not.

Do you really support losing a myriad of channels ... making them unavailable to anyone just so you can save a few bucks on your subscription?
How about we take away *your* favorite content and make it unavailable to you to save me a few bucks on my subscription. Sounds fair.

Perhaps you are reading in an assumption that when I say the lineup is identical that the package pricing is identical. I did not say that - although I expect that once the content options are the same on DirecTV NOW that DIRECTV will change their satellite packages to match or compete with the "bundles" on DirecTV NOW.

Until DirecTV NOW offers the same content as DIRECTV satellite it will be a compromise. What content are customers willing to give up to lose the dish? If you are happy with the limited content on DirecTV NOW then you'll probably be happy with the service. But giving up satellite is a compromise.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I don't think DTV NOW is ready for prime time yet because it doesn't have all the local channels and it isn't just like DTV yet. However, I wonder what that home centric model of DTV NOW that Stephenson is talking about? What if they are going to offer a full and a lite version of DTV NOW? Could that be they are going to offer the full version of DTV using internet streaming and the DTV NOW interface? Sky Q is doing the same thing. They are going to have three ways to get their service SatelliteTV, the full and lite version of their service using internet streaming.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Now's offering isn't close to what I want/need for watching TV - we'll see. The issue as has been discussed is availability (and potential restrictions for high speed internet) before can be real for real replacement for sat.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mgmrick said:


> For alot of people thats true. *But with att now offering home internet through cell towers at an affordable price wireless is working for me.* Hopefully they can get higher speeds at the tower so I and others can get higher speeds at a resonable distance from tower


What speeds do you get from that?

Rich


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> You are missing the point. Perhaps you like the concept of subscribing to a service where what is available via the satellite provider is no longer available. I do not.
> 
> Do you really support losing a myriad of channels ... making them unavailable to anyone just so you can save a few bucks on your subscription?
> How about we take away *your* favorite content and make it unavailable to you to save me a few bucks on my subscription. Sounds fair.
> ...


Sounds to me like you should stick with DTV. Lots of people are, and should. Choice is good and what is good for one person won't be good for someone else. If you are looking for an OTT offering that exactly duplicates what you currently get with DTV I don't realky see that happening. That is not was I was looking for and it's really not what many people are looking for. It has been said here and many other places, not just by me but many others - people I tired of having to pay for a bunch of channels they never watch just to get a few they do. Nothing selfish about that. None of us are trying to deprive anyone else of what they want to watch. I can only speak for my own personal situation. When I inventoried the channels that my wife and I actually watched, and the features and functions that we needed to have we found that PSVue was a very good fit. The fact that it was $80 less per month than what we were paying DTV was an added bonus. Honestly $80 a month is not even something we would notice one way or another. But why should I pay an extra $80 per month just so you can have the channels you want?...LOL


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> Sounds to me like you should stick with DTV. Lots of people are, and should. Choice is good and what is good for one person won't be good for someone else. If you are looking for an OTT offering that exactly duplicates what you currently get with DTV I don't realky see that happening. That is not was I was looking for and it's really not what many people are looking for. It has been said here and many other places, not just by me but many others - people I tired of having to pay for a bunch of channels they never watch just to get a few they do. Nothing selfish about that. None of us are trying to deprive anyone else of what they want to watch. I can only speak for my own personal situation. When I inventoried the channels that my wife and I actually watched, and the features and functions that we needed to have we found that PSVue was a very good fit. The fact that it was $80 less per month than what we were paying DTV was an added bonus. Honestly $80 a month is not even something we would notice one way or another. But why should I pay an extra $80 per month just so you can have the channels you want?...LOL


How is the picture and sound quality with the PSVue compared to DTV?


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

CraigerM said:


> How is the picture and sound quality with the PSVue compared to DTV?


I only use it for cable channels/broadcast tv, but then I only ever used DTV for cable channels/broadcast tv as well. For that it's perfect for me, 720p 60fps.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> I only use it for cable channels/broadcast tv, but then I only ever used DTV for cable channels/broadcast tv as well. For that it's perfect for me, 720p 60fps.


Just saw this on Reddit.com I think they are discussing the DTV NOW DVR Beta.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252FDirecTVNow%252Fcomments%252F7jvz9m%252F


----------



## mgmrick (Oct 19, 2004)

Rich said:


> What speeds do you get from that?
> 
> Rich


Right now about 5 Mbps up and down... nothing to write home about...lol I have zero issues surfing and streaming at those speeds. Early watched some olympics on demand through my genie and before that a movie using amazon prime on my android box without any pauses. Not sure what 100 Mbps speed really does for users.
I have a buddy in same town 3 miles east of me hitting a tower 3 miles east of him that pulls in 25 Mbps. My closest cell tower is 4 1/2 miles south of me.
This is using att's home base device which is 20 dollars added to my att unlimited cell phone plan.


----------



## FLASAT007 (Oct 28, 2017)

One big difference is those that live in hurricane areas, the first to go out is power with internet and cell towers. So streaming is gone. At least if you have a home generator and satellite you have no outage.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mgmrick said:


> Right now about 5 Mbps up and down... nothing to write home about...lol I have zero issues surfing and streaming at those speeds. Early watched some olympics on demand through my genie and before that a movie using amazon prime on my android box without any pauses. Not sure what 100 Mbps speed really does for users.
> I have a buddy in same town 3 miles east of me hitting a tower 3 miles east of him that pulls in 25 Mbps. My closest cell tower is 4 1/2 miles south of me.
> This is using att's home base device which is 20 dollars added to my att unlimited cell phone plan.


You have nothing else available? No cable company?

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Just saw this on Reddit.com I think they are discussing the DTV NOW DVR Beta.
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252FDirecTVNow%252Fcomments%252F7jvz9m%252F


Since no networks are providing 1080p the only way Directv can do this is via upscaling. Looks like a marketing exercise to me, to fool people who don't know better into thinking Directv Now is providing better quality than the competition.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Since no networks are providing 1080p the only way Directv can do this is via upscaling. Looks like a marketing exercise to me, to fool people who don't know better into thinking Directv Now is providing better quality than the competition.


What we'll see on one of the new sets, if D*NOW does go with 1080p, will be a better picture than D* sat service can give us. Who cares how they do it? That seems simple.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> What we'll see on one of the new sets, if D*NOW does go with 1080p, will be a better picture than D* sat service can give us. Who cares how they do it? That seems simple.
> 
> Rich


If they are taking the raw network feed as input to the upscaler, sure, but I'm not so sure you should assume they are doing that. Because the reddit claim is that only the 1080i feeds are getting upscaled. They may only be doing that to help platforms that don't expect interlaced video (i.e. PCs and smartphones) and don't do as good of a job of converting it to progressive to show on a modern display.

Assuming you take two identical 1080i feeds, one upscaled and streamed to you as 1080p and then upscaled _a second time_ by your 4K TV, and the other streamed to you as as the original 1080i and upscaled by your 4K TV only you should get better quality with the latter. The only way the upscaling they are doing gives you better quality is if they were using better input to their upscaler than they would otherwise deliver to you.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> If they are taking the raw network feed as input to the upscaler, sure, but I'm not so sure you should assume they are doing that. Because the reddit claim is that only the 1080i feeds are getting upscaled. They may only be doing that to help platforms that don't expect interlaced video (i.e. PCs and smartphones) and don't do as good of a job of converting it to progressive to show on a modern display.
> 
> Assuming you take two identical 1080i feeds, one upscaled and streamed to you as 1080p and then upscaled _a second time_ by your 4K TV, and the other streamed to you as as the original 1080i and upscaled by your 4K TV only you should get better quality with the latter. The only way the upscaling they are doing gives you better quality is if they were using better input to their upscaler than they would otherwise deliver to you.


DTV's VOD has some TV shows in 1080p TV. Also did you click on that link that shows the picture of his set? In the upper left corner it shows the specs.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> Really, I'm 58 and it certainly doesn't bother me. Mostly just variations on a similar theme really. I find the whole "old people can't/won't do it" meme a bit worn out at this point. Certainly for the under 30 crowd it's a complete non issue but I find more and more people over 50 are embracing much of the technical changes that are occurring.


I don't think it's just old people, and 58 is not 70's either...

And some people do not like changes often, while some do. And some people thinking having to surf through multiple sources to find one program is a lot more inconvenient than one source.. that is changing thank goodness, slowly but surely.

You will never convince everyone that streaming is easier, nor that cable is easier. Most wont care and can figure out both... and will choose which is best for them that day.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> Oh, I understand. My wife's the same way. She looked at that Harmony remote I bought like it was made of ebola. But we're talking about a change in this thread that is gonna happen. Folks are gonna have to adjust. And evolve. Streaming is a whole lot simpler than using cable or satellite. The path of least resistance is almost always the simpler way and streaming is just simpler. And less expensive. And you get a better picture most of the time. Yeah, the Internet can go down. But that's rare. And if it does and I'm desperate I can always use my phone as a hotspot. But what do most folks do if the power to their homes goes out? Before we start using 'what ifs' we should look at 'what is'.
> 
> Rich


Ha! You know I'd love to hear all the people that think you Hague to have two or more DVRs explain how streamings one point of failure is ok but using a singe DVR is not. Especially for sports since I have never seen a sports program sit in an on demand que that you can grab latter...

Someday yes this stuff may get worked out, but we are a ways away from that right now.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> If they really were changing things for the better, instead of changing for the sake of change, it wouldn't be a problem. But seriously, I have yet to see anyone say that the new GUI actually improves their Directv experience. They might like the more "modern" look, but it does all the same stuff as the old GUI - they just reordered menus and changed the graphics. I mean, hey, I don't care since I don't have any of the affected equipment but I just don't see the point.
> 
> How about adding something truly new? Let's say the guide added a thumbnail of what is currently being shown on each channel shown in the grid? Sure, it would be small, but that would be a lot more useful than the stupid channel logos people are always whining about. It would mean having to create a live feed of every Directv CONUS channel accessible on the guide channel, but since they'd be small and only need to update maybe 2x a second it would be easy to fit within the transponder used for the guide channel (if they removed whatever MPEG2 SD channels may be carried on that transponder) So its certainly technically possible.
> 
> I'm sure others could think of other (and probably better) REAL innovations that could make a new GUI truly new, rather than the equivalent of the wife redecorating the living room by swapping out furniture but not actually improving the living room in any way other than looking a bit fresher.


There's several things they have added that absolutely make the experience better. Starting with the filters that are so simple to use in the playlist now. More lines in the guide... not as much as there should be, but there are some...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> If they are taking the raw network feed as input to the upscaler, sure, but I'm not so sure you should assume they are doing that. Because the reddit claim is that only the 1080i feeds are getting upscaled. They may only be doing that to help platforms that don't expect interlaced video (i.e. PCs and smartphones) and don't do as good of a job of converting it to progressive to show on a modern display.
> 
> *Assuming* you take two identical 1080i feeds, one upscaled and streamed to you as 1080p and then upscaled _a second time_ by your 4K TV, and the other streamed to you as as the original 1080i and upscaled by your 4K TV only you should get better quality with the latter. The only way the upscaling they are doing gives you better quality is if they were using better input to their upscaler than they would otherwise deliver to you.


How about we 'assume' that I'm telling the truth when I say I see a better picture upscaling D*'s sat feeds than I do if I watch the same feeds on a good 1080p set? I don't say these things to justify purchasing the new technology, I'm talking about what I see. No amount of arguing is gonna change what I see. What I see is the best PQ I've ever had.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> *I don't think it's just old people, and 58 is not 70's either... *
> 
> And some people do not like changes often, while some do. And some people thinking having to surf through multiple sources to find one program is a lot more inconvenient than one source.. that is changing thank goodness, slowly but surely.
> 
> You will never convince everyone that streaming is easier, nor that cable is easier. Most wont care and can figure out both... and will choose which is best for them that day.


Let me go back to what I was saying about my first father in law again...he was 'old' when I met him. I met him when I was 15, he passed when I was 25. He was old when I met him and old when he passed. He was 57 the day of his death. My father was 10 years younger than him. My father was never 'old' the way my father in law was. I played catch with my father for the first time when he was 55 (how sad is that?) and it turned into 'show me what you got' and I did just that without a thought of harming him. No problems, he caught everything I threw at him. Can't begin to imagine doing that with an 'old' man. Like my first father in law, 'old' at 47. Get it?

Liked everything else you wrote...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Ha! You know I'd love to hear all the people that think you *Hague* to have two or more DVRs explain how streamings one point of failure is ok but using a singe DVR is not. Especially for sports since I have never seen a sports program sit in an on demand que that you can grab latter...
> 
> Someday yes this stuff may get worked out, but we are a ways away from that right now.


Google says: _The Hague is a city on the western coast of the Netherlands and the capital of the province of South Holland. With a population of more than 1 million including the suburbs, it is the third-largest city in the Netherlands, after Amsterdam and Rotterdam. The Rotterdam The Hague Metropolitan Area, with a population of ..._

Somehow Tapatalk changed 'have' to 'Hague', capitalized it correctly and you let that slide...

Back to the stuff that matters: There's always a single point of failure in just about anything if you wanna get really picky. I keep saying the only reason I still sub to D* is sports. I see YES on a couple CRSs. They might actually fit my needs better than D* does.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Since no networks are providing 1080p the only way Directv can do this is via upscaling. Looks like a marketing exercise to me, to fool people who don't know better into thinking Directv Now is providing better quality than the competition.


If they're just taking 1080i broadcast signals (which accounts for a lot of channels -- most everything not owned by Disney or Fox) and turning them into 1080p streams, that's not upscaling. It's just de-interlacing (which produces smoother motion), the same thing any "Full HD" 1080p TV does when its internal OTA tuner receives a local broadcast in 1080i. Unlike OTA tuners, streaming boxes and apps generally cannot accept interlaced streams, so everything pumped out by ALL streaming services -- DTV Now, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc. -- is progressive scan.

All that said, there's no reason to think that, say, CNN in 1080p looks better on DTV Now than it does in 1080i on DTV satellite, assuming that either your TV or Genie STB do a decent job of de-interlacing the 1080i signal.

Now, if DTV Now is taking 720p broadcast signals (from, say, ESPN, Fox, ABC, etc.) and streaming them out at 1080p, that would be upscaling. But I seriously doubt they would do that. While their servers could probably do a marginally better job of upscaling 720p to 1080p than the average retail TV or streaming box, I can't see how that edge would justify the increased bandwidth costs for AT&T, given that 1080p requires over 50% more bandwidth than 720p.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> If they're just taking 1080i broadcast signals (which accounts for a lot of channels -- most everything not owned by Disney or Fox) and turning them into 1080p streams, that's not upscaling. It's just de-interlacing (which produces smoother motion), the same thing any "Full HD" 1080p TV does when its internal OTA tuner receives a local broadcast in 1080i. Unlike OTA tuners, streaming boxes and apps generally cannot accept interlaced streams, *so everything pumped out by ALL streaming services -- DTV Now, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc. -- is progressive scan.*
> 
> All that said, there's no reason to think that, say, CNN in 1080p looks better on DTV Now than it does in 1080i on DTV satellite, assuming that either your TV or Genie STB do a decent job of de-interlacing the 1080i signal.
> 
> Now, if DTV Now is taking 720p broadcast signals (from, say, ESPN, Fox, ABC, etc.) and streaming them out at 1080p, that would be upscaling. But I seriously doubt they would do that. While their servers could probably do a marginally better job of upscaling 720p to 1080p than the average retail TV or streaming box, I can't see how that edge would justify the increased bandwidth costs for AT&T, given that 1080p requires over 50% more bandwidth than 720p.


What resolution does Hulu use? Hulu's picture never seems to be quite as good as NF or AP on my sets.

Rich


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

Rich said:


> What resolution does Hulu use? Hulu's picture never seems to be quite as good as NF or AP on my sets.


720P / 30fps

The key problem with the services that cut 60fps video down to 30fps is they tend to not do motion blur correction. The magic ratio is to have your camera shutter speed be double your frame rate, so for 30fps you'd have a 1/60 shutter speed, and for 60fps you'd have a 1/120 shutter speed. Services like Hulu and Sling drop every other frame, so you end up with 30fps but with a shutter speed of 1/120 (or 1/125). This results in not enough blur to compensate for the time between frames, so things start to look like stop motion videos.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> How about we 'assume' that I'm telling the truth when I say I see a better picture upscaling D*'s sat feeds than I do if I watch the same feeds on a good 1080p set? I don't say these things to justify purchasing the new technology, I'm talking about what I see. No amount of arguing is gonna change what I see. What I see is the best PQ I've ever had.
> 
> Rich


What does this have to do with what I said? All I said was that upscaling once from the source will produce a better product than upscaling twice with an intermediate step along the way.

I think NashGuy is right, all they are doing is de-interlacing the 1080i video because PCs/phones may not do a very good job of it themselves because they aren't designed to handle interlaced video. If so it isn't going to be any better than what it started out with, unless you watched on a very old (i.e. 10-15 years older or more) TV that doesn't deinterlace very well.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

espaeth said:


> 720P / 30fps
> 
> The key problem with the services that cut 60fps video down to 30fps is they tend to not do motion blur correction. The magic ratio is to have your camera shutter speed be double your frame rate, so for 30fps you'd have a 1/60 shutter speed, and for 60fps you'd have a 1/120 shutter speed. Services like Hulu and Sling drop every other frame, so you end up with 30fps but with a shutter speed of 1/120 (or 1/125). This results in not enough blur to compensate for the time between frames, so things start to look like stop motion videos.


Thanx. Kinda figured it was in 720p. Probably why I don't use Hulu much.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> What resolution does Hulu use? Hulu's picture never seems to be quite as good as NF or AP on my sets.
> 
> Rich


I've never used Hulu with Live TV. But if you're talking about their original on-demand service, it uses a mix of 720p and 1080p. They're actually pretty quiet about what resolution they provide; nothing in the app lets you know which version of HD you're getting. But they did confirm awhile back that they stream at least some stuff in 1080p on this help page.

Based on what I've seen (and what logically makes sense), I think they're streaming stuff from Fox and ABC (and their related cable nets) in 720p while stuff from NBC and other channels that originally broadcast in 1080i (e.g. Showtime, TBS, etc.) is streamed in 1080p. I also think they're doing Hulu Originals in 1080p (actually, many of them in 4K on XBox One and PS4) and probably movies as well.

I remember the first time I watched a new episode of SNL through Hulu how stunned I was at the picture quality compared to my local OTA NBC affiliate (which broadcasts in 1080i). So I definitely think that's in 1080p, not 720p, since it was an improvement, not a downgrade, compared to the OTA station.

I'll agree that, on average, Hulu's HD isn't as good as Netflix and Prime Video but it's still pretty good. With Hulu, it just seems to vary more from one show to another.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> With Hulu


what about your opinion related to the topic; while it's clear you're on Hulu


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I've never used Hulu with Live TV. But if you're talking about their original on-demand service, it uses a mix of 720p and 1080p. They're actually pretty quiet about what resolution they provide; nothing in the app lets you know which version of HD you're getting. But they did confirm awhile back that they stream at least some stuff in 1080p on this help page.
> 
> Based on what I've seen (and what logically makes sense), I think they're streaming stuff from Fox and ABC (and their related cable nets) in 720p while stuff from NBC and other channels that originally broadcast in 1080i (e.g. Showtime, TBS, etc.) is streamed in 1080p. I also think they're doing Hulu Originals in 1080p (actually, many of them in 4K on XBox One and PS4) and probably movies as well.
> 
> ...


I did some research yesterday and read what you linked to. Well, your post made me feel better about Hulu.

Would be nice if my TVs gave me some indication of resolutions other than what the streaming boxes put out. I guess there's no way to do that. HBON (HBO NOW) seems to put out an almost excellent picture but not quite as good as what I see on NF or AP. What I read about HBON yesterday led me to believe that it outputs 720p, if that's true they do a great job with that rez. Kinda like what ESPN does with their 720p.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

P Smith said:


> what about your opinion related to the topic; while it's clear you're on Hulu


Try this: Put 'define snarky' in the Google search box. Then reread what you posted above. Please.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

P Smith said:


> what about your opinion related to the topic; while it's clear you're on Hulu


I'm not sure what you mean. Are you pointing out that we're getting off-topic from the original purpose of this thread? Guilty as charged. But then that seems to typically happen on forum threads. Only so much to say on a topic, then folks start wandering down rabbit trails.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> Would be nice if my TVs gave me some indication of resolutions other than what the streaming boxes put out. I guess there's no way to do that.


I agree. Getting info about the actual native stream itself (as opposed to whatever possibly upscaled resolution and bitrate that the box is outputting) is hard to do. On Apple TV I believe it's possible if you have a developer account. The YouTube app on many devices lets you see that kind of stream info through their "Stats for nerds" menu option.



Rich said:


> HBON (HBO NOW) seems to put out an almost excellent picture but not quite as good as what I see on NF or AP. What I read about HBON yesterday led me to believe that it outputs 720p, if that's true they do a great job with that rez. Kinda like what ESPN does with their 720p.


Hmm. I've never been thrilled with HBO's picture quality in either the HBO Now or HBO Go app (although it's still probably better than through the average cable system). It looks OK in "non-stressful" scenes but in difficult scenes, such as shadowy night scenes with subtle gradations, I always see quite a bit of compression artifacts. Same with the Showtime apps, although I'd rate them slightly better than HBO's. Both fall short of Netflix and Amazon's HD PQ. That said, I haven't had HBO since last summer when The Leftovers concluded (what a show!), so maybe they've upped their bitrate since then.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I found this article from Multichannel interesting:

www.multichannel.com/news/content/att-ceo-we-re-very-bullish-video/417856

Stephenson also offered some details about AT&T's plans to introduce a new "home-centric" streaming device that will "repurpose" the company's traditional linear TV platform.

He said the new in-home offering will take the form of an inexpensive, "very thin client" that can be connected to any broadband service and include a voice-controlled interface. In addition to supporting DirecTV Now, it will also integrate access and search to other OTT services, including Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and YouTube, among others.

"It also gives you a premium live video experience in your home with the flexibility and ease of use [that] you would expect out of an OTT service," Stephenson said.

"That [device] will actually drive cost structure of the traditional video product down, so that you can preserve margins in the traditional video as you grow in the over-the-top applications and video services," he added.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

CraigerM said:


> I found this article from Multichannel interesting:
> 
> www.multichannel.com/news/content/att-ceo-we-re-very-bullish-video/417856
> 
> ...


so, how it will affect sat broadcasting ?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> I found this article from Multichannel interesting:
> 
> www.multichannel.com/news/content/att-ceo-we-re-very-bullish-video/417856
> 
> ...


Sounds like Directv Now with a Directv/AT&T branded client like the upcoming C71KW. Presumably they would still support BYOD like Apple TV etc. but those who are uncomfortable with managing their own technology like some older people might pay a little extra to have someone install it for them and come fix it if it stops working.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

P Smith said:


> so, how it will affect sat broadcasting ?


They way it sounded to me that AT&T wants to replace SatelliteTV with DTV NOW but I don't think DTV NOW is ready to that yet. Just imagine if they can get DTV NOW just like DTV.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

DIRECTV NOW is still a diamond in the rough. Add to that a sizeable portion of AT&T customers don't have access to high speed internet. There will still be a need for satellite TV in the foreseeable future.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> *(1)* I agree. *Getting info about the actual native stream itself *(as opposed to whatever possibly upscaled resolution and bitrate that the box is outputting) is hard to do. On Apple TV I believe it's possible if you have a developer account. The YouTube app on many devices lets you see that kind of stream info through their "Stats for nerds" menu option.
> 
> *(2)* Hmm. I've never been thrilled with HBO's picture quality in either the HBO Now or HBO Go app (although it's still probably better than through the average cable system). It looks OK in "non-stressful" scenes but in difficult scenes, such as shadowy night scenes with subtle gradations, I always see quite a bit of compression artifacts. Same with the Showtime apps, although I'd rate them slightly better than HBO's. Both fall short of Netflix and Amazon's HD PQ. That said, I haven't had HBO since last summer when The Leftovers concluded (what a show!), so maybe they've upped their bitrate since then.


*(1)* I struggled with that for months. Then I asked Google what the services put out and got answers to each question. Why I didn't ask Google in the first place is beyond me.

*(2)* I did a search for Preacher on one of my ATVs last night and found it on Hulu. Been quite a while since I've used Hulu and I was pleasantly surprised by the way it is now laid out. Much easier to navigate and I was not bothered by the PQ. Seemed like 1080p.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Sounds like Directv Now with a Directv/AT&T branded client like the upcoming C71KW. Presumably they would still support BYOD like Apple TV etc. but *those who are uncomfortable with managing their own technology* like some older people might pay a little extra to have someone install it for them and come fix it if it stops working.


The only streaming boxes I have had problems with are the 4K ATV5s. The better boxes, the Rokus and Fire TV devices and the Nvidia Shields are so easy to set up a child can do it. I know a child of 8 or 9 can do just that, I've seen it. One HDMI cable and a power cord on each device. Not difficult at all.

But I can see need for an installer for the 4K ATV5s. Installing one of those on a Samsung TV is an ordeal. For ease of use and installation I'd recommend any Fire TV box first, followed closely by a Shield. I have no idea what happens if you put an ATV5 on a 4K Sony or a 4K LG.

Rich


----------



## Jason Goodland (Feb 15, 2018)

MysteryMan said:


> In my 23 years as a DIRECTV customer I've never experienced a loss of signal that long. Rain fade usually lasts a few minutes and snow fade lasts as long as it takes me to remove the snow from my dish and LNB.


If your dish is on the roof, I would highly recommend installing a dish heater in the spring. If its on a pole then meh.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Jason Goodland said:


> If your dish is on the roof, I would highly recommend installing a dish heater in the spring. If its on a pole then meh.


Where do you live? I'm in Central NJ and I've never seen a need for a heater on the dish.

Rich


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Jason Goodland said:


> If your dish is on the roof, I would highly recommend installing a dish heater in the spring. If its on a pole then meh.


Come Spring I'm planning on relocating my dish from the roof to a pole mount.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> The only streaming boxes I have had problems with are the 4K ATV5s. The better boxes, the Rokus and Fire TV devices and the Nvidia Shields are so easy to set up a child can do it. I know a child of 8 or 9 can do just that, I've seen it. One HDMI cable and a power cord on each device. Not difficult at all.
> 
> But I can see need for an installer for the 4K ATV5s. Installing one of those on a Samsung TV is an ordeal. For ease of use and installation I'd recommend any Fire TV box first, followed closely by a Shield. I have no idea what happens if you put an ATV5 on a 4K Sony or a 4K LG.
> 
> Rich


A child can set plenty of things up a technologically clueless 75 year cannot.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> The only streaming boxes I have had problems with are the 4K ATV5s. The better boxes, the Rokus and Fire TV devices and the Nvidia Shields are so easy to set up a child can do it. I know a child of 8 or 9 can do just that, I've seen it. One HDMI cable and a power cord on each device. Not difficult at all.
> 
> But I can see need for an installer for the 4K ATV5s. Installing one of those on a Samsung TV is an ordeal. For ease of use and installation I'd recommend any Fire TV box first, followed closely by a Shield. I have no idea what happens if you put an ATV5 on a 4K Sony or a 4K LG.
> 
> Rich


Wow! Setting up my 4K ATV5s couldn't have been simpler if it tried! I did one for my Sony, dead simple. And one for my Sammy, still dead simple. Both are 4K TVs. 

I mean how much simpler can it get? Plug in to available HDMI port on TV, plug in power, login with your Apple ID and it is set up. Of course you can twiddle, and you'll probably need more apps that are standard.

Sent from my Google Pixelbook using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> A child can set plenty of things up a technologically clueless 75 year cannot.


Or a clueless 30 year old. Ignorance isn't limited to old folks.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Wow! Setting up my 4K ATV5s couldn't have been simpler if it tried! I did one for my Sony, dead simple. And one for my Sammy, still dead simple. Both are 4K TVs.
> 
> I mean how much simpler can it get? Plug in to available HDMI port on TV, plug in power, login with your Apple ID and it is set up. Of course you can twiddle, and you'll probably need more apps that are standard.
> 
> Sent from my Google Pixelbook using Tapatalk


Nothing's ever that simple for me. Never had problems with ATVs and I've had a problem with every ATV5. Every one of them. What model Samsung do you have?

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Nothing's ever that simple for me. Never had problems with ATVs and I've had a problem with every ATV5. Every one of them. What model Samsung do you have?
> 
> Rich


Beats me!  It is a 1 year old bottom of the line curved 4K Sammy. It is the model that had 'limited' 4K HDR whatever the hell that means.

Sent from my Google Pixelbook using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Beats me!  It is a 1 year old bottom of the line curved 4K Sammy. It is the model that had 'limited' 4K HDR whatever the hell that means.
> 
> Sent from my Google Pixelbook using Tapatalk


What kills me is the ATV5s all work as they should with any of our other sets. There has to be a compatibility problem. I could not get the ATV5s to 'sleep' and the ATV5s have those vents on the bottom for a reason, leaving them on 24 hours a day would cause heat problems I think. When I tried to put them to sleep they came right back on. And the TV turned on. I had to unplug the ATV5 to turn the TV set off.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> Or a clueless 30 year old. Ignorance isn't limited to old folks.


Clueless is clueless ... but I have found that people have different clues.

My father was a gifted mechanic but didn't do too well on computers. I know people with masters degrees and doctorates who don't know how to use a DVR. When I know something that someone else doesn't know I can usually find an area where their talents exceed mine.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> What kills me is the ATV5s all work as they should with any of our other sets. There has to be a compatibility problem. I could not get the ATV5s to 'sleep' and the ATV5s have those vents on the bottom for a reason, leaving them on 24 hours a day would cause heat problems I think. When I tried to put them to sleep they came right back on. And the TV turned on. I had to unplug the ATV5 to turn the TV set off.
> 
> Rich


Probably had CEC turned in the ATV5. I have that turned off in everything because it has issues. And also, the ATV's tend to not want to turn off and stay off for whatever reason. I just ignore the light.

Sent from my Google Pixelbook using Tapatalk


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

What if they did a hybrid model of DTV and DTV NOW and they abandoned managed IPTV. DTV, DTV NOW and the DTV Mobile app would have the DTV NOW interface plus they would all have the same PQ, sound quality and features. Use DTV NOW in the urban areas and DTV in the rural areas? Maybe even let DTV customers still stay on it if they didn't want to do internet streaming but they would still promote DTV NOW as the primary service. Also let the DTV customers use DTV NOW for bad weather backup for free.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I found this Humax video searching for Humax 4k OTT boxes and you should see what they said at the 1:07 point. I think this video is what Stephenson was saying in one of AT&T quarterly reports you would still need a box just not a big set-top box in the home and no Satellite dish. The Humax H3 fits in the palm of your hand. All you would need is the Gateway, Cloud DVR, APP and a small set-top or an APP on the TV. This would also eliminate equipment costs. Maybe they won't lease the small streaming boxes and you would be able to buy them and they wouldn't charge an HD stream fee.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> What kills me is the ATV5s all work as they should with any of our other sets. There has to be a compatibility problem. I could not get the ATV5s to 'sleep' and the ATV5s have those vents on the bottom for a reason, leaving them on 24 hours a day would cause heat problems I think. When I tried to put them to sleep they came right back on. And the TV turned on. I had to unplug the ATV5 to turn the TV set off.





lparsons21 said:


> Probably had CEC turned in the ATV5. I have that turned off in everything because it has issues. And also, the ATV's tend to not want to turn off and stay off for whatever reason. I just ignore the light.


Yep, I'd bet a yankee dollar that the issue was HDMI-CEC, a system that attempts to turn on the TV to the correct input when you turn on/wake up a compatible HDMI-connected device. Different brands have slightly different implementations of HDMI-CEC and the results can be unpredictable. I just bought a new receiver that can pass through 4K HDR/Dolby Vision/HLG signals and which is also HDMI-CEC compatible. For the most part, HDMI-CEC works well between it, my LG TV, my ATV4K, my Chromecast, and my Panasonic BD player but there have definitely been some weird moments with things unexpectedly turning off or on and inputs switching when I didn't want.

In short, on your ATV4K connected to the Samsung TV, turn off HDMI-CEC. Go to Settings > Remotes and Devices > Controls TVs and Receivers > Off. You may also want to turn off the feature (called "Anynet+") on the Samsung TV too.


----------



## redskittle007 (Jan 11, 2018)

2020


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

redskittle007 said:


> 2020


and they are going to give sports bars fiber lines at the DTV cost with TV?? and list them have 8-16 streams?


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

JoeTheDragon said:


> and they are going to give sports bars fiber lines at the DTV cost with TV?? and list them have 8-16 streams?


Who knows. The one thing that is for certain is that broadband delivery is not standing still. The major players are working pretty hard on 5G right now. The FCC just provided SpaceX with preliminary approval for a constellation of LEO sats for broadband. Maybe none of that will pan out and be able to provide the kind of access and bandwidth required, or maybe some other technology will. I think 2020 might be a bit aggressive but it is going to happen.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

mjwagner said:


> I think 2020 might be a bit aggressive but it is going to happen.


do you agree *sat service[DTH]* will exist another 20 years ?


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

JoeTheDragon said:


> and they are going to give sports bars fiber lines at the DTV cost with TV?? and list them have 8-16 streams?


I thought I read somewhere that DTV NOW can have up to 10 HD streams.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

P Smith said:


> do you agree *sat service[DTH]* will exist another 20 years ?


2020 is 2 years from now not 20. Sat service will certainly still be here 2 years from now, 20 years from now, who knows that's a long time to predict for technology.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mjwagner said:


> 2020 is 2 years from now not 20. Sat service will certainly still be here 2 years from now, 20 years from now, who knows that's a long time to predict for technology.


The question is how long ... you said 2020 was aggressive. Pete asked if you believed it would take 20 years.

I believe we will still have satellite delivery in 20 years but I cannot say that DIRECTV will be delivering via satellite. The company has gone through so many hands I doubt that the satellite service will be owned by AT&T in 20 years. AT&T will probably sell their remaining customers to DISH or another company interested in providing satellite service when it makes more financial sense to sell than continue service. Maybe in 10 years?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I think tipping ponit will happen, when most of sats in their fleet will require replacement, it will raise expenses of DTV to that level where ATT will begin dishing out the sat service; dish will continue own sat business longer.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> The question is how long ... you said 2020 was aggressive. Pete asked if you believed it would take 20 years.
> 
> I believe we will still have satellite delivery in 20 years but I cannot say that DIRECTV will be delivering via satellite. The company has gone through so many hands I doubt that the satellite service will be owned by AT&T in 20 years. AT&T will probably sell their remaining customers to DISH or another company interested in providing satellite service when it makes more financial sense to sell than continue service. Maybe in 10 years?


Like I said, who knows. 20 years is a long time in the technology arena. If I had to make a guess I would say sat delivered tv service, in some form, will still be around 20 years from now but it's overall market share will be MUCH smaller and it will be there only for specific use cases.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

CraigerM said:


> I thought I read somewhere that DTV NOW can have up to 10 HD streams.


Currently DirecTVNow is limited to 2 simultaneous streams. Sorry, I guess that wasn't the question/issue here. Theoretically you could have as many streams, on as many devices, as your broadband connection would support.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Probably had CEC turned in the ATV5. I have that turned off in everything because it has issues. And also, the ATV's tend to not want to turn off and stay off for whatever reason. I just ignore the light.
> 
> Sent from my Google Pixelbook using Tapatalk


I thought the HDMI-CEC thing was the problem. So did the Amazon CSR. We shut that off quickly. Had no effect. What worked was keeping the ATV from being recognized by the 9000. After we did that the ATV worked correctly. I have no idea why. Try that. With the ATV not being recognized the ATV shuts off when it should and stays off. I do have HDMI-CEC turned off on the 9000 but both the 8500 and the 8000 have it turned on and the ATVs are recognized by both sets. Both ATVs on those sets work as they should. I have no idea why this is happening.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yep, I'd bet a yankee dollar that the issue was HDMI-CEC, a system that attempts to turn on the TV to the correct input when you turn on/wake up a compatible HDMI-connected device. Different brands have slightly different implementations of HDMI-CEC and the results can be unpredictable. I just bought a new receiver that can pass through 4K HDR/Dolby Vision/HLG signals and which is also HDMI-CEC compatible. For the most part, HDMI-CEC works well between it, my LG TV, my ATV4K, my Chromecast, and my Panasonic BD player but there have definitely been some weird moments with things unexpectedly turning off or on and inputs switching when I didn't want.
> 
> In short, on your ATV4K connected to the Samsung TV, turn off HDMI-CEC. Go to Settings > Remotes and Devices > Controls TVs and Receivers > Off. You may also want to turn off the feature (called "Anynet+") on the Samsung TV too.


Read post #289 of this thread. First thing the Amazon CSR and I tried was turning it off.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

JoeTheDragon said:


> and they are going to give sports bars fiber lines at the DTV cost with TV?? and list them have 8-16 streams?


Nothing's gonna happen overnight. There will be plenty of time to adapt.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yep, I'd bet a yankee dollar that the issue was HDMI-CEC, a system that attempts to turn on the TV to the correct input when you turn on/wake up a compatible HDMI-connected device. Different brands have slightly different implementations of HDMI-CEC and the results can be unpredictable. I just bought a new receiver that can pass through 4K HDR/Dolby Vision/HLG signals and which is also HDMI-CEC compatible. For the most part, HDMI-CEC works well between it, my LG TV, my ATV4K, my Chromecast, and my Panasonic BD player but there have definitely been some weird moments with things unexpectedly turning off or on and inputs switching when I didn't want.
> 
> In short, on your ATV4K connected to the Samsung TV, turn off HDMI-CEC. Go to Settings > Remotes and Devices > Controls TVs and Receivers > Off. You may also want to turn off the feature (called "Anynet+") on the Samsung TV too.


Couldn't stop thinking about this and turned on HDMI-CEC in the settings of the 9000. The ATV5 works correctly on that set too. I'm heading back to the 9000 to see if Anynet+ is turned on or off...I'll be back...Anynet+ is turned 'on'. Has been on since I got the 9000. I'm not gonna turn it off since the ATV is working correctly.

Only thing left is not letting the TV recognize the ATV5. Could it be that simple?

Gotta remember, I am now using the 9000, the problems I've had with that are nowhere near the issues I had with the 8000.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

I think it's more likely than not that satellite TV will still be around in 10 years but I think 20 is a stretch. AT&T sees value in the DirecTV brand, which they're now extending to next-gen streaming platforms, so even if they dump their satellite business at some point (perhaps selling it to merge with whatever exists of the DISH satellite business, which will be owned by God-only-know-who by then), it's possible the DirecTV brand would live on at AT&T but without an option for satellite service.

Ultimately, we'll have only one type of communications connection to our homes and that will be internet. All forms of media, including TV, will just ride over that internet connection rather than have their own dedicated pipe. Cable will eventually do away with QAM TV, so that their entire pipe is IP-only, with TV just being one form of data in that internet pipe. Yes, there will be satellite internet (through which TV can be viewed) but there will eventually not be any satellite service dedicated to just TV. I question whether we will, years from now, have OTA spectrum dedicated to broadcast TV (i.e. ATSC 1.0 or 3.0). Perhaps it will be deemed best to use that spectrum for general internet usage (LTE/5G/6G/whatever) with the provision that data carriers (e.g. Verizon, T-Mobile, Comcast, etc.) must offer free access to the live streams of licensed local "broadcasters". Who knows.

But dying technological formats can hang on in a diminished state for quite some time. Take 8-track tapes ("Stereo 8") as an example (albeit one that may or may not be particularly apt here). Based on what I can glean from its Wikipedia entry, it sounds like that format peaked in popularity around 1970 (maybe a bit later, say, '72), then declined throughout the remainder of the decade as cassette tapes become more popular. By the end of '82, 8-tracks were generally gone from retail stores. So while the format seemed "kinda dead" at that point, it wasn't totally done yet. You could still buy 8-tracks from mail order (Columbia House & BMG) until late '88. And some high-profile albums continued to be released on the format in the '80s, with the final mainstream commercial release apparently being Fleetwood Mac's _Greatest Hits_ in Nov. '88. The final nail in the coffin was apparently when RadioShack stopped selling blank 8-track tapes in 1990 (about 8 years after the debut of the compact disc). At that point, about 20 years after its peak, the format could be called completely and totally commercially dead.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> I think it's more likely than not that satellite TV will still be around in 10 years but I think 20 is a stretch. AT&T sees value in the DirecTV brand, which they're now extending to next-gen streaming platforms, so even if they dump their satellite business at some point (perhaps selling it to merge with whatever exists of the DISH satellite business, which will be owned by God-only-know-who by then), it's possible the DirecTV brand would live on at AT&T but without an option for satellite service.
> 
> Ultimately, we'll have only one type of communications connection to our homes and that will be internet. All forms of media, including TV, will just ride over that internet connection rather than have their own dedicated pipe. Cable will eventually do away with QAM TV, so that their entire pipe is IP-only, with TV just being one form of data in that internet pipe. Yes, there will be satellite internet (through which TV can be viewed) but there will eventually not be any satellite service dedicated to just TV. I question whether we will, years from now, have OTA spectrum dedicated to broadcast TV (i.e. ATSC 1.0 or 3.0). Perhaps it will be deemed best to use that spectrum for general internet usage (LTE/5G/6G/whatever) with the provision that data carriers (e.g. Verizon, T-Mobile, Comcast, etc.) must offer free access to the live streams of licensed local "broadcasters". Who knows.
> 
> But dying technological formats can hang on in a diminished state for quite some time. Take 8-track tapes ("Stereo 8") as an example (albeit one that may or may not be particularly apt here). Based on what I can glean from its Wikipedia entry, it sounds like that format peaked in popularity around 1970 (maybe a bit later, say, '72), then declined throughout the remainder of the decade as cassette tapes become more popular. By the end of '82, 8-tracks were generally gone from retail stores. So while the format seemed "kinda dead" at that point, it wasn't totally done yet. You could still buy 8-tracks from mail order (Columbia House & BMG) until late '88. And some high-profile albums continued to be released on the format in the '80s, with the final mainstream commercial release apparently being Fleetwood Mac's _Greatest Hits_ in Nov. '88. The final nail in the coffin was apparently when RadioShack stopped selling blank 8-track tapes in 1990 (about 8 years after the debut of the compact disc). At that point, about 20 years after its peak, the format could be called completely and totally commercially dead.


I like the idea of eventually everything being done on the internet and not having any boxes even having the Playstation and XBOX in the cloud. However, what happens when the internet and the gateway went down? Also what happens if the networks went all streaming and there wasn't any free over the air TV anymore to use when the internet and gateway went down?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

P Smith said:


> I think tipping ponit will happen, when most of sats in their fleet will require replacement, it will raise expenses of DTV to that level where ATT will begin dishing out the sat service; dish will continue own sat business longer.


The satellites all have different ages, there won't be a time when "most" require replacement, but every few years something will need to be replaced. T16 will take care of 101. Assuming 110/119 go away, and since D10 is pretty much unnecessary as D15 can handle its load, D11 is the oldest one that would actually require replacement at ten years old.

Unless something has gone wrong with it we don't know about to reduce its fuel budget, it probably has another decade in it at least.

As for who will go away first Directv or Dish, since Dish is half Directv's size I think it is much more likely it goes away before Directv. Most likely is some sort of merger but if that happens they'll move everyone to Directv's system because that will be half the cost of doing it the other way around.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> As for who will go away first Directv or Dish, since Dish is half Directv's size I think it is much more likely it goes away before Directv. Most likely is some sort of merger but if that happens they'll move everyone to Directv's system because that will be half the cost of doing it the other way around.


12 million (estimated) is more than half of 21 million (satellite customers) and the DISH/Echostar fleet isn't small.
"Half the size" is derogatory. 

Until Mr Ergen passes I expect DISH network to be an owner of companies not owned by another company. DIRECTV already has a long history of being owned by other companies. Selling off the satellite service when AT&T is done with it seems natural.

BTW: As of the end of 2017 AT&T reported 85% of their video subscribers were DIRECTV satellite. 1.2 million of 25.2 (4.7%) were DIRECTV NOW leaving just over 10% on UVerse. It will be interesting to see how the customers shift over the next year. DIRECTV satellite actually grew as a percentage from 83% to 85% in 2017.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

One thing I will say for DirecTV it has been reliable. The only main thing I don't like is HD staying out longer in bad weather. The signal strengths are in upper 90's. I have even seen some in the 100's on the 101. One I saw had a 72 in the 1-8 range and a 76 in the 25-32 range on the 101.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> I like the idea of eventually everything being done on the internet and not having any boxes even having the Playstation and XBOX in the cloud. However, what happens when the internet and the gateway went down? Also what happens if the networks went all streaming and there wasn't any free over the air TV anymore to use when the internet and gateway went down?


What happens when the electricity goes out? Pretend you're in Little House on the Prairie and read a book by candlelight, I guess.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> What happens when the electricity goes out? Pretend you're in Little House on the Prairie and read a book by candlelight, I guess.


Electricity out kills most options. But crank up the generator and one is back in business as long as the power outage doesn't affect the delivery system. The generator at my house doesn't restore cable when some amplifier or relay in the system between the head end and my house is down. But I have watched any channel I wanted to via satellite on a generator while waiting for cable Internet to eventually come back. I have also lost phone service in a widespread outage where the phone company did not have enough generators to power all of their repeaters.

The best streaming can do without power is let me watch on my cell phone if the wireless service is not overwhelmed. And I can do that with my satellite subscription. 

It has been more than a decade since I had a battery operated TV that could watch an OTA signal.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Electricity out kills most options. But crank up the generator and one is back in business as long as the power outage doesn't affect the delivery system. The generator at my house doesn't restore cable when some amplifier or relay in the system between the head end and my house is down. But I have watched any channel I wanted to via satellite on a generator while waiting for cable Internet to eventually come back. I have also lost phone service in a widespread outage where the phone company did not have enough generators to power all of their repeaters.
> 
> The best streaming can do without power is let me watch on my cell phone if the wireless service is not overwhelmed. And I can do that with my satellite subscription.
> 
> It has been more than a decade since I had a battery operated TV that could watch an OTA signal.


That's great and all but honestly, how often does your power go out? The uptime for my electricity is way better than DirecTV or DISH satellite were, due to rain fade. I get that there are folks out there with prepper-like mentalities who want to have the right set-up to ensure that they're never a moment without pay TV service but that's a really narrow niche of the market. For most of us, if our TV goes out briefly now and then, it's an annoyance but no big deal. I kept satellite TV for years despite losing some or all channels whenever rain moved in.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> That's great and all but honestly, how often does your power go out? The uptime for my electricity is way better than DirecTV or DISH satellite were, due to rain fade. I get that there are folks out there with prepper-like mentalities who want to have the right set-up to ensure that they're never a moment without pay TV service but that's a really narrow niche of the market. For most of us, if our TV goes out briefly now and then, it's an annoyance but no big deal. I kept satellite TV for years despite losing some or all channels whenever rain moved in.


I have had my Internet go out more often than my electricity. It sure is nice to be able to do something other than "read a book".

Having all of your entertainment "in the cloud" works when you have access to the cloud. My satellite DVR works when the satellite signal is blocked. I can watch previously recorded programming. Cloud storage does not work so well when the connection is down.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> I have had my Internet go out more often than my electricity. It sure is nice to be able to do something other than "read a book".
> 
> Having all of your entertainment "in the cloud" works when you have access to the cloud. My satellite DVR works when the satellite signal is blocked. I can watch previously recorded programming. Cloud storage does not work so well when the connection is down.


It is all very dependent on where you live. As an example, where I live the power goes out way more often than the internet connection. That's why we have an automatic whole home generator. It only takes 30-60 seconds for the generator to start and for everything to switch over to generator power. All our network and entertainment equipment is also on UPS battery backup so it never even drops during those 30-60 seconds.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> That's great and all but honestly, how often does your power go out? The uptime for my electricity is way better than DirecTV or DISH satellite were, due to rain fade. I get that there are folks out there with prepper-like mentalities who want to have the right set-up to ensure that they're never a moment without pay TV service but that's a really narrow niche of the market. For most of us, if our TV goes out briefly now and then, it's an annoyance but no big deal. I kept satellite TV for years despite losing some or all channels whenever rain moved in.


I bought a Generac generator after Sandy hit. We have a very stable grid and I had a portable genny but my wife is terrified of hurricanes and wanted the security. What a waste of ten grand. And what a PITA that generator has become.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Gas pump discussion moved elsewhere ...
NJ Anti-Self Service Gas Law


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

28 December 17 DIRECTV NOW customers experience buffering and outages......2 January 18 DIRECTV NOW customers experience outages during Rose Bowl......4 January 18 DIRECTV NOW customers suffer technical issues......24 January 18 HULU subs unable to login......8 February 18 HULU offers free month for Super Bowl 4th Quarter meltdown......19 February 18 HULU experienced widespread login issues. Not a very good track record for those two streaming services.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

MysteryMan said:


> for those two streaming services.


if they would stream via satellites, then the issues wasn't happen


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

I live in a very rural area. We average 6-8 electrical power outages a year. We average 4-6 phone service outages a year. We average 4 service calls a year with out internet service provider due to technical issues. DIRECTV rain/snow fade issues average less than 1 hour a year. Last DIRECTV service call was in July 16 for 4K upgrade making DIRECTV our most reliable service provider.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

I live in a city, Nashville. I'd say I've averaged maybe 2 electrical outages per year over the nearly two decades I've lived here (at least outages lasting more than a few seconds, just enough to make me have to reset the clocks). I switched back and forth between Comcast and AT&T for home internet service, but have had the former much more over the years. 

There was a period a few years ago where Comcast internet was troublesome for me, with several significant outages over a 1-2 year period. But since then, I've probably only averaged a 1 to 2 internet outage per year, at least ones that I've noticed, lasting more than a minute or two.

Satellite TV would go out for me pretty much any time it rained over the ~5 years I had it. DirecTV was better in that regard than DISH but both did it. Actually, channels would often drop out even before a storm arrived at my house; just the approaching rain clouds to the west/south would knock at least some channels out. And then sometimes TV service would come back before the rain fully stopped coming down at my house. I did have a technician out to try to improve reception but he said everything was A-OK and couldn't be improved. I do realize that my experience must be worse than the average satellite TV subscriber, otherwise DirecTV and DISH wouldn't likely still be in business.

Now, I never had satellite TV drop out for hours on end (unless the power was also out) and I have had both electricity and internet service outages that lasted hours. But, to me, it's more annoying for TV service to drop out 20 times in a year for 15 minutes each time, as opposed to dropping out once a year for 5 hours.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The only time I lose satellite service (other than a little sticky snow that is easily removed) is when the weather is bad enough that I shouldn't be watching TV (and I have OTA to watch weather coverage). No where near 20 times per year for me.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

...all of which goes to prove a point I have been making, in various ways, for some time...there is no one correct universal answer that is right for everyone. What’s good is having options and choice. That allows everyone to choose the solution that fits their unique situation and requirements. Choice and competition are good and drive up quality, and drive down price. When that happens we as consumers all win.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

P Smith said:


> if they would stream via satellites, then the issues wasn't happen


Wouldn't that just be satellite then? And I've heard satellite internet isn't that good, too much latency?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I wouldn't say too much, just count full path from a router to sat and to home, so by law of physics it will have its own latency


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

On Saturday their was 1" of snow and that knocked DTV for awhile I forgot how long. The signal strengths are all in the upper 90's and some 100's. Except their are two that are in the 70's.

I like DTV getting rid of the SD duplicates in 2019 but wonder what's going to happen when HD stays out longer in bad weather since its on the KA band.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> On Saturday their was 1" of snow and that knocked DTV for awhile I forgot how long. The signal strengths are all in the upper 90's and some 100's. Except their are two that are in the 70's.
> 
> I like DTV getting rid of the SD duplicates in 2019 but wonder what's going to happen when HD stays out longer in bad weather since its on the KA band.


Worst case HD won't stay out any longer than it does today, so what's the problem? Probably very few Directv customers switch to SD when HD goes out because they have no idea it is a little more resistant to rain fade.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Wouldn't that just be satellite then? And I've heard satellite internet isn't that good, too much latency?


It is all "streaming" if one has the right perspective. Current digital satellite services are just unidirectional broadcast with data assigned to PIDs instead of TCP/IP and ports.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

DTV has UDP PIDs for some channels now, and FW spooling like that,as UDP


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Worst case HD won't stay out any longer than it does today, so what's the problem? Probably very few Directv customers switch to SD when HD goes out because they have no idea it is a little more resistant to rain fade.


I forgot what's the typical time HD stays out in bad weather? When mine goes out its for 10 mins. or longer.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

CraigerM said:


> I forgot what's the typical time HD stays out in bad weather? When mine goes out its for 10 mins. or longer.


There is no typical time for rain fade. Water saturated clouds block your dish's LOS. Depending how fast those clouds are moving determines how long the rain fade will last.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Obviously, location has big effect on this. I live in Maine and my dish is almost completely vertical. This makes it much harder for snow to stick. We had about 7" where I live - over the weekend and I think I lost some stations for about 45 minutes - some were still OK so snow blocked some Sat but not all.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

MysteryMan said:


> There is no typical time for rain fade. Water saturated clouds block your dish's LOS. Depending how fast those clouds are moving determines how long the rain fade will last.


I was just wondering about HD's time staying out longer in bad weather with SD it comes back sooner than HD.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> I was just wondering about HD's time staying out longer in bad weather with SD it comes back sooner than HD.


It depends on rain intensity, there's no way to tell how long. Sometimes SD may not drop at all, but with supercells I've seen SD disappear only seconds after HD.

Once I had a steady snow/ice mixture falling on my dish slowly blocking signal, so I was able to observe the process in slow motion. HD(Ka) was fine until signal drops to the low 20s. At that point it started flaking out and disappeared entirely below 19. When HD dropped SD(Ku) was about 70. It flaked out and disappeared in the mid 40s (you lose SD at a higher signal level than HD because it uses less error correction and therefore has a higher minimum SNR)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Wouldn't that just be satellite then? And I've heard satellite internet isn't that good, too much latency?


That's true with current satellite internet. But four different companies, including Elon Musk's SpaceX, have plans to launch a constellation of low-earth-orbit internet satellites that will offer service with latency comparable to cable. SpaceX launches their first two such satellites, as demo test units, tomorrow morning. Launch will probably be live on YouTube.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

DTV NOW 2.0 Beta add DTV channel numbers.

DIRECTV NOW Beta Adds Satellite Channel Numbers - Cord Cutters News


----------



## Brian Hanasky (Feb 22, 2008)

CraigerM said:


> DTV NOW 2.0 Beta add DTV channel numbers.
> 
> DIRECTV NOW Beta Adds Satellite Channel Numbers - Cord Cutters News


Yea this was added to the Android beta a while ago. Nice touch. The DVR is still a work in progress though. Can't record only new episodes. Often I get an error message when scheduling recording on Chrome and Android. Roku beta (not DVR just beta) just released a few weeks ago. Directv Now is huge steps behind other OTT providers. The biggest thing they can boast about is their channel lineup as they have the complete channels list that each of the other OTT service is missing in some combination.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I found this interesting article.

Deeper Dive-AT&T goes all-in with DirecTV Now, but Wall Street remains unimpressed | FierceCable


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> I found this interesting article.
> 
> Deeper Dive-AT&T goes all-in with DirecTV Now, but Wall Street remains unimpressed | FierceCable


Interesting comment in there I quoted below. I keep saying that streaming MVPD plans at current prices is a money losing proposition but some refuse to believe it. All the companies offering it like Dish, Directv, PSVue, etc. are willing to do it / have no choice but to do it because now is the time build market share. They will need scale to make better deals - which some providers like Directv & Dish have (or will have when they're able to cover everything under a single contract) and others like PSVue do not. Profit will have to come later (sort of like Amazon has been doing for the past 20 years) once the market shakes out.

I posted in another thread how my local cable company (Mediacom, which has under a million subscribers) is now charging me $11 a month for local channels, and the cable lobbying group says that the average for smaller providers. They expect those rates to go up by 88% by 2020, to an average of $19 per subscriber per month!! If you don't have scale you have no leverage in negotiations against big companies like Sinclair (who is threatening to become even bigger thanks to their overly cozy relationship with the new FCC commissioner who I'm to bet goes to work for them or joins their board when he leaves the FCC) Let alone against even bigger companies like Disney.



> For their part, investment analysts have been impatient with the strategy, with MoffettNathanson's Craig Moffett noting, "That the company continues to grow its base of DirecTV Now subscribers isn't helpful-AT&T loses money on them. What matters is that their satellite subscribers are leaving. Whether they can stop the declines of high-value legacy satellite subscribers, where they ultimately make all (or more than all) of their profits, will be critical to the company's fortunes going forward."


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Interesting comment in there I quoted below. I keep saying that streaming MVPD plans at current prices is a money losing proposition but some refuse to believe it. All the companies offering it like Dish, Directv, PSVue, etc. are willing to do it / have no choice but to do it because now is the time build market share. They will need scale to make better deals - which some providers like Directv & Dish have (or will have when they're able to cover everything under a single contract) and others like PSVue do not. Profit will have to come later (sort of like Amazon has been doing for the past 20 years) once the market shakes out.
> 
> I posted in another thread how my local cable company (Mediacom, which has under a million subscribers) is now charging me $11 a month for local channels, and the cable lobbying group says that the average for smaller providers. They expect those rates to go up by 88% by 2020, to an average of $19 per subscriber per month!! If you don't have scale you have no leverage in negotiations against big companies like Sinclair (who is threatening to become even bigger thanks to their overly cozy relationship with the new FCC commissioner who I'm to bet goes to work for them or joins their board when he leaves the FCC) Let alone against even bigger companies like Disney.


I know AT&T has sent mixed signals on DTV NOW that it is not a replacement for DTV but what if they have changed their minds and they see DTV NOW not for cord cutters but as their main TV service but its not ready to do that just yet. Maybe that is why they said 2020 for DTV NOW to be the main platform not just the 5g deployment. This is what Stephenson said in their last quarterly report:

AT&T's (T) CEO Randall Stephenson on Q4 2017 Results - Earnings Call Transcript | Seeking Alpha

*Randall Stephenson:*

"Okay, Amir, I'll go first. I'll talk a bit about the video industry and how we think about it. But since the day we bought DIRECTV, we assume that traditional linear video would be in a declining mode since kind of the nature of it, OTT and the ability to consume video on mobile devices, we believe would be the trend and the way where things went, we wanted to be in the leadership position and facilitating that kind of consumption of premium video on mobile devices. And we have been in the leadership position in that.

We have made an objective to ensure that we can transition. We run these transitions all the time, right? When you have technology transitions or business model transitions whether it's fixed phone service to mobile, whether it's a private line kind of service for business to VPN, whether it's -- you can kind of go down the list of whether it's feature phones to smartphones, we run these transitions and we think we're pretty good at it.

As it relates to video, we are standing up a video product that we are convinced will give us growth in the video platform for the next few years, and that's our DIRECTV NOW. So, as traditional linear declines, DIRECTV NOW, we think can offset that and not only that, but our traditional linear video will be repurposed.

You heard me talk about our next-gen platform that is home centric, a very thin client into the home. That will actually drive cost structure of the traditional video product down so that you could preserve margins in the traditional linear video as you grow in the over-the-top applications and video services. So, we're very bullish on video.

As we look at the numbers, our consumers are consuming more value than they used to, not less. They're consuming it on different devices. They're not just consuming it in their home. They're consuming it on tablets and smartphones, and that's where we want to be. And so we're rather bullish on that, Amir."


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Interesting comment in there I quoted below. I keep saying that streaming MVPD plans at current prices is a money losing proposition but some refuse to believe it. All the companies offering it like Dish, Directv, PSVue, etc. are willing to do it / have no choice but to do it because now is the time build market share. They will need scale to make better deals - which some providers like Directv & Dish have (or will have when they're able to cover everything under a single contract) and others like PSVue do not. Profit will have to come later (sort of like Amazon has been doing for the past 20 years) once the market shakes out.
> 
> I posted in another thread how my local cable company (Mediacom, which has under a million subscribers) is now charging me $11 a month for local channels, and the cable lobbying group says that the average for smaller providers. They expect those rates to go up by 88% by 2020, to an average of $19 per subscriber per month!! If you don't have scale you have no leverage in negotiations against big companies like Sinclair (who is threatening to become even bigger thanks to their overly cozy relationship with the new FCC commissioner who I'm to bet goes to work for them or joins their board when he leaves the FCC) Let alone against even bigger companies like Disney.


I have no doubt that DirecTV loses money on their Now subscribers, they have a bloated cost structure to support. That quote says absolutely nothing about the other providers in that space, particularly the pure OTT players.


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

James Long said:


> 12 million (estimated) is more than half of 21 million (satellite customers) and the DISH/Echostar fleet isn't small.
> "Half the size" is derogatory.
> 
> Until Mr Ergen passes I expect DISH network to be an owner of companies not owned by another company. DIRECTV already has a long history of being owned by other companies. Selling off the satellite service when AT&T is done with it seems natural.
> ...


ATT has been pushing customers in U-verse areas to DirecTV, rather than U-Verse. That would certainly explain why the U-Verse penetration is so low. They will provide U-Verse TV but prefer to provide DirecTv.

This even extends to the att.com website. I currently have ATT 1000 (once U-Verse Gigapower) and trying to get a quote for U-Verse television is very difficult. It keeps steering me to DirecTv.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mjwagner said:


> I have no doubt that DirecTV loses money on their Now subscribers, they have a bloated cost structure to support. That quote says absolutely nothing about the other providers in that space, particularly the pure OTT players.


What is Directv's "bloated cost structure"? I hope you're not going to claim the satellites are expensive, because amortized for their lifetime over all of Directv's satellite customers they cost little more than 50 cents per subscriber per month. Even if Directv lost half their satellite customers in a few years that's still only a buck a month to maintain the satellite fleet and build/launch new ones as needed. The infrastructure to stream video to millions of customers isn't free, either.

Centurylink just announced they are dropping their OTT streaming "beta" they began offering a year ago. Since they already have a deal to resell Directv satellite service, I'm willing to bet they will either offer Directv Now or the "third" version of Directv that's coming (i.e. like Uverse delivered over a provider's internal network instead of over the internet, so they don't need separate streaming contracts for every channel and could offer the "full" Directv including NFLST)


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> What is Directv's "bloated cost structure"? I hope you're not going to claim the satellites are expensive, because amortized for their lifetime over all of Directv's satellite customers they cost little more than 50 cents per subscriber per month. Even if Directv lost half their satellite customers in a few years that's still only a buck a month to maintain the satellite fleet and build/launch new ones as needed. The infrastructure to stream video to millions of customers isn't free, either.
> 
> Centurylink just announced they are dropping their OTT streaming "beta" they began offering a year ago. Since they already have a deal to resell Directv satellite service, I'm willing to bet they will either offer Directv Now or the "third" version of Directv that's coming (i.e. like Uverse delivered over a provider's internal network instead of over the internet, so they don't need separate streaming contracts for every channel and could offer the "full" Directv including NFLST)


Verizon was going to get rid of its QAM/IPTV and replace it with a full IPTV service but decided to go OTT instead.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Should the thread be renamed to "ATT/DTV is going OTT/IPTV" ?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Verizon was going to get rid of its QAM/IPTV and replace it with a full IPTV service but decided to go OTT instead.


Probably because they wanted to be able to offer it nationwide instead of being limited to where Verizon provides service, to get the scale I was talking about.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

P Smith said:


> Should the thread be renamed to "ATT/DTV is going OTT/IPTV" ?


No, because they're not. They may start selling OTT/IPTV in preference to satellite down the road, but "going OTT/IPTV" would imply they are getting rid of satellite.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

last weeks posts here have nothing to do with sat longevity


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Centurylink just announced they are dropping their OTT streaming "beta" they began offering a year ago. Since they already have a deal to resell Directv satellite service, I'm willing to bet they will either offer Directv Now or the "third" version of Directv that's coming (i.e. like Uverse delivered over a provider's internal network instead of over the internet, so they don't need separate streaming contracts for every channel and could offer the "full" Directv including NFLST)


Yes, seems likely that Centurylink may extend their relationship with AT&T by offering DTV Now given that their similar OTT service is dying next month.

I've seen you speculate more than once that the upcoming DTV service, slated to launch later this year, will be managed IPTV over AT&T's own internal network. But AT&T's CEO has more than once stated that's not the case. Here's a remark he made on their quarterly call last month (just after talking up recent performance of DTV Now):

_And so then before year end, we plan to launch in the next-gen product in a home-centric configuration with a very thin hardware client. And just think about it this way, it's a very small, inexpensive streaming device plugged into your TV and then *you connect it to any broadband service*._

Here he is speaking about the same upcoming "home-centric" streaming version of DTV at a Goldman Sachs conference last Sept. 12:

_*We will be ambivalent as to whose broadband the television service traverses.* And so, a software-based platform, we are delivering that will not require a satellite dish on the roof, and a very thin client in the home, rather than a big set-top-box..._

AT&T already has a managed IPTV product in Uverse TV and it's practically deprecated at this point. AT&T sees managed IPTV as yesterday's technology. They see the future of video as purely OTT -- one unified platform driving all viewing on any screen, anywhere. As they continue to make gains in edge computing and software-defined cloud-based networks, I imagine the performance of HD and 4K HDR video via OTT streams will improve, particularly for those viewers who are watching through an AT&T connection. The only real difference I imagine we may see for OTT viewers connected via AT&T versus a competitor's home broadband connection is that AT&T may provision multicast streams of the most popular linear TV channels over their own network, to cut down on video traffic congestion. It's simple enough to make the thin client STB for the forthcoming service multicast-compatible.

As for the content provider contracts for this new service (if it is, in fact, really a new service and not just an extension of the DTV Now brand), that will all work itself out in time. But the vision is for it to support everything that satellite currently offers. From the same GS conference last Sept:

_Interviewer: You see that product as being able to support if the consumer wanted it what is essentially similar to what the full featured satellite product has today including some of the premium concept like SUNDAY TICKET?

AT&T CEO: Oh, yes, ultimately without a doubt. In fact, even including 4K ultra high definition TV is on the roadmap for doing this. And so, yes, *it will be a full spectrum of services* that we think we can ultimately provision on this platform._


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

AT&T has a long, long way to go before DirecTVNow is a truly competitive product. I lacks DVR which is coming I guess - doesn't have all the stations, doesn't have the regional sports networks etc. and it requires you to own a box of some sort to use. 
And you need reliable high speed internet.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> _And so then before year end, we plan to launch in the next-gen product in a home-centric configuration with a very thin hardware client. And just think about it this way, it's a very small, inexpensive streaming device plugged into your TV and then *you connect it to any broadband service*._


What he's talking about there is no different than Directv Now except they provide you with set tops (and probably charge you monthly for them) If that's what he has been talking about all along, then consider me underwhelmed.

The reason they are dumping Uverse is because they had terrible contracts and were paying $14/customer/month more than they pay for an equivalent Directv satellite package. Plus they want to do like Verizon and sell off their copper, but they gotta get the Uverse TV customers off it first.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> What he's talking about there is no different than Directv Now except they provide you with set tops (and probably charge you monthly for them).


Well, you don't know if that's true or not. Nor do I. Could be true. It could be that this "new" thing he's talking about is exactly the same as DTV Now -- same branding, same feature set, same channel packages, same (missing) locals, same pricing, etc. -- but with an AT&T-branded dedicated STB that they'll sell or rent to you for accessing DTV Now (along with whatever other OTT services that are supported by Android TV). That would essentially be no different than what DISH has done by rolling out their AirTV Player for use with Sling TV (a product that hasn't exactly set sales records). So yes, if that's all AT&T is going to do, I'll be underwhelmed too.

But I don't think that will be the case. The way the CEO keeps talking it up and saying how it will be leveraged to ultimately offer the full spectrum of DTV services across the full spectrum of users, including those folks who want multi-room viewing with 4K, all the channels, Sunday Ticket, etc., it definitely sounds like they have more in mind for this coming initiative than just "we're going to offer our own box for DTV Now as an alternative to using a Roku".


----------



## Janice805 (Nov 27, 2005)

OK, now I'm confused. I'm a 20-year Direct TV customer and today I signed up for DIRECT TV NOW (just to try) for $10 x month. I don't find their navigation very easy. I also don't understand why I cannot get ALL of my network programs when they have a library of network programs. What the heck am I missing? For example: ABC (General Hospital) = NONE, NBC (Days of our Lives) = NONE, CBS (Young and the Restless is there but not the Bold and the Beautiful). Now I know you guys aren't interested in these shows but what's happening? When I tried PS Vue about 6 months ago, I could watch everything. What's up with Direct TV Now ??? I mean so far after just one hour I'm regretting it.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

CTJon said:


> AT&T has a long, long way to go before DirecTVNow is a truly competitive product. I lacks DVR which is coming I guess - doesn't have all the stations, doesn't have the regional sports networks etc. and it requires you to own a box of some sort to use.
> And you need reliable high speed internet.


For many people one of the advantages of the OTT services is that they run on a box they already own and use for other purposes. The net is that in reality for many users it equates to one less box per tv.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Well, you don't know if that's true or not. Nor do I. Could be true. It could be that this "new" thing he's talking about is exactly the same as DTV Now -- same branding, same feature set, same channel packages, same (missing) locals, same pricing, etc. -- but with an AT&T-branded dedicated STB that they'll sell or rent to you for accessing DTV Now (along with whatever other OTT services that are supported by Android TV). That would essentially be no different than what DISH has done by rolling out their AirTV Player for use with Sling TV (a product that hasn't exactly set sales records). So yes, if that's all AT&T is going to do, I'll be underwhelmed too.
> 
> But I don't think that will be the case. The way the CEO keeps talking it up and saying how it will be leveraged to ultimately offer the full spectrum of DTV services across the full spectrum of users, including those folks who want multi-room viewing with 4K, all the channels, Sunday Ticket, etc., it definitely sounds like they have more in mind for this coming initiative than just "we're going to offer our own box for DTV Now as an alternative to using a Roku".


I think you are going the wrong way there. I expect this new Service to be almost identical in channels and such to DIRECTV Sat Service not DIRECTV now Service. That will be the difference imho.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> I think you are going the wrong way there. I expect this new Service to be almost identical in channels and such to DIRECTV Sat Service not DIRECTV now Service. That will be the difference imho.


I tend to agree with you. In my first paragraph that you quoted above, I was laying out a possible scenario that would agree with Iowahawk's preceding comment that the new service would be nothing more than DTV Now with a dedicated STB that they rent to you. But I as I explain in my second paragraph you quoted, I doubt that is what will happen. AT&T is making too big of a deal about this coming service -- what it's going to offer and the range of consumers it will cater to -- to believe that it's going to be nothing more than the existing DTV Now service with its own new box. It sounds to me like it will eventually become AT&T's flagship pay TV service, taking precedence over DTV satellite, which is the current flagship.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> I tend to agree with you. In my first paragraph that you quoted above, I was laying out a possible scenario that would agree with Iowahawk's preceding comment that the new service would be nothing more than DTV Now with a dedicated STB that they rent to you. But I as I explain in my second paragraph you quoted, I doubt that is what will happen. AT&T is making too big of a deal about this coming service -- what it's going to offer and the range of consumers it will cater to -- to believe that it's going to be nothing more than the existing DTV Now service with its own new box. It sounds to me like it will eventually become AT&T's flagship pay TV service, taking precedence over DTV satellite, which is the current flagship.


But then what's the difference between them other than channel lineups? Why would someone subscribe to this "flagship pay TV service" delivered over the internet vs Directv Now? And why would they have different channel lineups, if they have contractual rights to stream a given channel over the internet they could make it available in Directv Now...do you think they will withhold some channels from Directv Now just to make them different for no particular reason? Why not just add some more package choices to Directv Now to match the packages Directv satellite offers and then you don't need a third product which is otherwise identical to Directv Now?

I don't get where you think this third product would fit, especially given what CSM posted in that other thread with two versions of the C71KW, one claiming to be designed for Directv "IPTV" (which could easily include RVU since that's IPTV) and the other designed for Directv "OTT/streaming".

There has to be a bigger difference. There's no reason to have different channel lineups for Directv Now if it is streaming over the internet either way. Both have clients available (maybe you have a choice whether you want one with Directv Now but not with the third product, but that's a pretty thin differentiator) Maybe they are the same except you pay the same as for satellite for the third product, rather than the lower prices for Directv Now, and that's why the CEO is so excited about it?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> But then what's the difference between them other than channel lineups? Why would someone subscribe to this "flagship pay TV service" delivered over the internet vs Directv Now? And why would they have different channel lineups, if they have contractual rights to stream a given channel over the internet they could make it available in Directv Now...do you think they will withhold some channels from Directv Now just to make them different for no particular reason? Why not just add some more package choices to Directv Now to match the packages Directv satellite offers and then you don't need a third product which is otherwise identical to Directv Now?
> 
> I don't get where you think this third product would fit, especially given what CSM posted in that other thread with two versions of the C71KW, one claiming to be designed for Directv "IPTV" (which could easily include RVU since that's IPTV) and the other designed for Directv "OTT/streaming".
> 
> There has to be a bigger difference. There's no reason to have different channel lineups for Directv Now if it is streaming over the internet either way. Both have clients available (maybe you have a choice whether you want one with Directv Now but not with the third product, but that's a pretty thin differentiator) Maybe they are the same except you pay the same as for satellite for the third product, rather than the lower prices for Directv Now, and that's why the CEO is so excited about it?


I'm imagining that this upcoming streaming version of DTV will essentially be equivalent in terms of features and user experience to DTV satellite. That isn't the case with DTV Now, is it? And the lack of a dedicated STB and remote for DTV Now isn't the only reason for that.

Is Cricket (AT&T's prepaid mobile brand) the same thing as AT&T Wireless (their flagship mobile brand)? They both use the same 4G LTE towers to schlep data and voice. But they're not the same thing. They differ in terms of features, pricing, and how they're positioned in the market (whom they are marketed toward). Same is true of DTV Now vs. DTV satellite. DTV Now is aimed at younger, cost-conscious cord-cutters while DTV satellite is aimed at more mature homeowners who are willing to pay a little more for "the full monty". Perhaps this new steaming service will also aim more toward that latter group, although to some additional folks as well (e.g. condo/apartment renters who can't stick a dish on their roof).

Aside from higher prices for the forthcoming streaming service (which for simplicity's sake I'll label "DTV Stream") vs. DTV Now, imagine these other _possible_ differences. (I have no idea at this point whether any of this will happen, this is just a thought exercise.)


DTV Stream always includes a cloud DVR that lets you record and keep 200 hours of programming. Recordings never auto-delete until space is needed for new recordings and you can always FF and rewind within recordings, even past ads. Recordings are never replaced with on-demand versions. (In other words, its cloud DVR isn't a step down from the Genie DVR; in fact, since it never has recording conflicts, it could be seen as better.) DTV Now, however, only provides 20 hours of recording space and recordings auto-delete after 30 days, although you can pay extra to upgrade your storage space and time to a maximum of 100 hours and 180 days. You can never FF past ads in DTV Now cloud DVR recordings.
DTV Stream offers fuller channel packages that largely mirror those offered for satellite while DTV Now stays with its current packages with a lower starting price. Some channels will be available on DTV Stream or satellite that aren't on DTV Now.
DTV Stream only launches in markets where AT&T is able to offer all four major local affiliates (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC), eventually spreading nationwide over the course of a year. DTV Now is available everywhere but you may not have all of your locals.
"Home-centric" vs. "mobile-centric": DTV Stream (like DTV satellite) will be bundled in with AT&T home internet and phone for a reduced price. Use of the service will not count against your data cap on AT&T's own home internet service (if you have it; DTV Stream will also be compatible with other ISPs). DTV Now will continue to be offered at a bundling discount only to AT&T Wireless subscribers and use of it will not count against your mobile data usage.
DTV Stream will have traditional post-paid billing, like satellite, with pro-rated billing for partial months. DTV Now has pre-paid billing (like virtually all OTT services) -- no refunds for cancellations after the start of the billing cycle. DTV Stream will also offer a higher level of customer service than DTV Now. DTV Stream may also offer special promotion deals to get reduced rates for the first year of service in exchange for agreeing to a minimum term (e.g. 24 months). DTV Stream may require a credit check at sign-up but DTV Now does not.
DTV Stream will offer the same 4K HDR content with Dolby Atmos sound as satellite, although much of it will be available on-demand in addition to just over special linear channels. DTV Now will remain (for awhile, anyhow) at a max resolution of 1080p.
DTV Stream will offer NFL Sunday Ticket while DTV Now will not.
The "free" Android TV STB and voice remote that automatically come with DTV Stream will be a bit slicker and more advanced than the optional Android TV STB and remote that can be purchased to use with DTV Now. (And the vast majority of DTV Now users will continue to access the service via mobile devices and retail STBs like Roku, Apple TV and Fire TV.)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The only way I see "DTV Stream" succeeding is if it is virtually identical to DTV Satellite. Otherwise one might as well just consider it "DTV Now Plus" assuming it has anything more than DTV Now.

I can see the "DTV Stream" service being a full service offering: Sign up for "DIRECTV" and the only difference will be whether the content is delivered via satellite or via OTT. If DTV Now survives after a "DTV Stream" product is introduced it can be the cheap version of streaming.

I do not see why DTV Now cannot have an optional receiver provided by DIRECTV (instead of bring your own streaming device). And AT&T has already announced the desire to add cloud DVR to the DTV Now service. The more they develop the offering the more I lean toward there being two service offerings ... DIRECTV (satellite) and DIRECTV Now (OTT) with DTV Now improving to the point where leaving satellite is not a compromise.

In order for DTV satellite to "go away" it needs to be replaced in a way that AT&T can keep their customers. DTV Now is keeping some of the customers DIRECTV/UVERSE is losing ... it needs to improve to keep more of the customers who are "cutting the cord".


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> I'm imagining that this upcoming streaming version of DTV will essentially be equivalent in terms of features and user experience to DTV satellite. That isn't the case with DTV Now, is it? And the lack of a dedicated STB and remote for DTV Now isn't the only reason for that.
> 
> Is Cricket (AT&T's prepaid mobile brand) the same thing as AT&T Wireless (their flagship mobile brand)? They both use the same 4G LTE towers to schlep data and voice. But they're not the same thing. They differ in terms of features, pricing, and how they're positioned in the market (whom they are marketed toward). Same is true of DTV Now vs. DTV satellite. DTV Now is aimed at younger, cost-conscious cord-cutters while DTV satellite is aimed at more mature homeowners who are willing to pay a little more for "the full monty". Perhaps this new steaming service will also aim more toward that latter group, although to some additional folks as well (e.g. condo/apartment renters who can't stick a dish on their roof).
> 
> ...


so DTV Stream is att-uverse with the lineup being more like the sat one + maybe more locals ?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> The only way I see "DTV Stream" succeeding is if it is virtually identical to DTV Satellite. Otherwise one might as well just consider it "DTV Now Plus" assuming it has anything more than DTV Now.
> 
> I can see the "DTV Stream" service being a full service offering: Sign up for "DIRECTV" and the only difference will be whether the content is delivered via satellite or via OTT. If DTV Now survives after a "DTV Stream" product is introduced it can be the cheap version of streaming.
> 
> ...


Well, in the scenario I outlined above, DTV Stream would be pretty much identical to DTV satellite, although without having to put a tacky dish on your roof and worrying about rain/snow fade. (It would, however, be entirely dependent on your broadband connection.) It would likely be priced a _bit_ lower than DTV satellite, for a comparable channel package; AT&T's CEO has talked about how having lower customer acquisition costs, lower CPE costs, and higher ad revenues thanks to programmatic ads will allow them to charge less for this service than for their traditional satellite offering. But I imagine this hypothetical "DTV Stream" service going after largely the same group of consumers as DTV satellite, Xfinity X1, and other "full-freight" pay TV providers.

DTV Now, on the other hand, will always have some compromises. A big one will likely be in its cloud DVR feature set. But it will always have a lower starting price and always be a contract-free service than can be turned on and off as easily as Netflix. It will always allow you a few simultaneous streams that you can access on multiple retail devices (while I imagine that DTV Stream will, like DTV satellite, require a separate AT&T-issued STB for each TV you want to watch on in your home, with a small upcharge for each additional box/TV).

Depending on how the market and the general TV landscape evolves, there may be a point in the future where it wouldn't make sense any more to have separate DTV Stream and DTV Now services, just as at some point it may not make sense to have the separate Cricket Wireless and AT&T Wireless brands in the mobile phone arena.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

JoeTheDragon said:


> so DTV Stream is att-uverse with the lineup being more like the sat one + maybe more locals ?


Kinda. The similarity between "DTV Stream" and Uverse is that both services are offered over the internet, although DTV Stream will be "over-the-top" (OTT), meaning that it's offered over any provider's broadband connection, while Uverse is managed IPTV that travels only over AT&T's own network. You can't sign up for Uverse TV if Comcast is your home internet provider. You will be able to sign up for DTV Stream (or whatever it's actually called) regardless of who is your home internet provider, same as with DTV Now.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Came across this article and thought of this thread. The article is about DISH specifically but, given that they represent about 40% of all US satellite TV subscribers, it's relevant to the discussion about the future viability of satellite TV here.

Deeper Dive-How did satellite TV go from a $50B business to 'less than zero' in 3 short years? | FierceCable


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

the article without real analysis just try to stir a pot o bring down a value of dish... I wouldn't quote it as a reliable source but a wave's maker


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Last year DISH changed the company description they place at the bottom of press releases to the following:


> About DISH
> DISH Network Corporation is a connectivity company. Since 1980, DISH has served as the disruptive force in the pay-TV industry, driving innovation and value on behalf of consumers. Through its subsidiaries, the company provides television entertainment and award-winning technology to millions of customers with its satellite DISH TV and streaming Sling TV services. DISH operates a national in-home installation workforce, as well as an advertising sales group delivering targeted advertising solutions on DISH TV and Sling TV. In addition to its TV services, DISH has commenced buildout of a national narrowband "Internet of Things" network that will apply capacity from its strategic spectrum portfolio. DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH) is a Fortune 200 company.


I appreciate DISH breaking out the SlingTV customer count in the quarterly/annual reports. It is reflective of the change in the marketplace. But I do not share the article's author's opinion that DISH is preparing to sell or abandon satellite. They made $1.39 BILLION in the fourth quarter off of DISH network (out of a total profit of $3.48 BILLION including investments). That doesn't sound dead to me.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> They made $1.39 BILLION in the fourth quarter off of DISH network (out of a total profit of $3.48 BILLION including investments). That doesn't sound dead to me.


It's not dead but it is dying. And the stock market prices in expectations of _future_ profits. When you have a company whose core business is widely seen to be in long-term irreversible decline, it's not good for the company. Although, that said, I'm not sure that Wall Street really sees DISH's primary business as even being satellite any more; equity analysts say that the majority of the company's value now lies in its (unused) wireless spectrum licenses. They're ripe for some kind of M&A action...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Comcast just made a $31 billion bid for Sky's satellite service across the pond, so I guess not everyone thinks satellite's days are over.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

James Long said:


> Last year DISH changed the company description they place at the bottom of press releases to the following:
> 
> I appreciate DISH breaking out the SlingTV customer count in the quarterly/annual reports. It is reflective of the change in the marketplace. But I do not share the article's author's opinion that DISH is preparing to sell or abandon satellite. They made $1.39 BILLION in the fourth quarter off of DISH network (out of a total profit of $3.48 BILLION including investments). That doesn't sound dead to me.


But there is nothing new about the "Dish is dead" talk, been going on for years.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Comcast just made a $31 billion bid for Sky's satellite service across the pond, so I guess not everyone thinks satellite's days are over.


Sky announced it is doing its full TV service Sky Q on the internet launching this fall in Italy with other countries coming soon.

Sky just announced some MAJOR changes to your TV - here's how it will affect you


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Comcast just made a $31 billion bid for Sky's satellite service across the pond, so I guess not everyone thinks satellite's days are over.


Yeah, I was going to post the same thing CraigerM just did. They've had a skinny OTT service, Sky NOW, for awhile, but later this year, they'll begin offering their full-blown pay TV service via streaming in addition to satellite. Like DirecTV, Sky isn't banking its future on delivery via "grandpa tech" (i.e. DBS).


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I was going to post the same thing CraigerM just did. They've had a skinny OTT service, Sky NOW, for awhile, but later this year, they'll begin offering their full-blown pay TV service via streaming in addition to satellite. Like DirecTV, Sky isn't banking its future on delivery via "grandpa tech" (i.e. DBS).


I posted an article earlier that said AT&T isn't completely getting of DTV it would still want to use it in the rural areas where you couldn't get fast internet to handle DTV NOW. I know people have said why bother launching new satellites if they want to get rid of DTV but couldn't they use those satellites for both DTV and DTV NOW?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> I posted an article earlier that said AT&T isn't completely getting of DTV it would still want to use it in the rural areas where you couldn't get fast internet to handle DTV NOW. I know people have said why bother launching new satellites if they want to get rid of DTV but couldn't they use those satellites for both DTV and DTV NOW?


Yeah, as I've said before, satellite TV will still be around for several years to come, _especially in rural areas_. There are still plenty of folks for whom DBS just makes the most sense (or for whom it's the only option for pay TV).

As for using the same satellites for traditional DTV as well as DTV Now -- um, what? How would that work, unless those satellites were dual-purpose, offering DBS TV as well as satellite-based internet service, over which DTV Now could be delivered (since DTV Now is an OTT internet streaming service). And I doubt that's gonna happen.

Now, as satellite internet from various providers continues to improve (higher speeds, higher or no caps, lower prices), I do expect you'll start seeing some rural dwellers subscribing to services like DTV Now, Hulu Live, etc. over their satellite internet service. Viasat just announced a new 100 Mbps unlimited data plan, although I'm sure it's expensive. But there are four companies right now with plans to offer a new type of internet service using low-earth-orbit satellites. One of those four companies is Elon Musk's SpaceX, which just launched the first two of those satellites last week. They plan to launch thousands more in the next few years to create their "Starlink" satellite constellation, with service beginning in some places in 2020.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, as I've said before, satellite TV will still be around for several years to come, _especially in rural areas_. There are still plenty of folks for whom DBS just makes the most sense (or for whom it's the only option for pay TV).
> 
> As for using the same satellites for traditional DTV as well as DTV Now -- um, what? How would that work, unless those satellites were dual-purpose, offering DBS TV as well as satellite-based internet service, over which DTV Now could be delivered (since DTV Now is an OTT internet streaming service). And I doubt that's gonna happen.
> 
> Now, as satellite internet from various providers continues to improve (higher speeds, higher or no caps, lower prices), I do expect you'll start seeing some rural dwellers subscribing to services like DTV Now, Hulu Live, etc. over their satellite internet service. Viasat just announced a new 100 Mbps unlimited data plan, although I'm sure it's expensive. But there are four companies right now with plans to offer a new type of internet service using low-earth-orbit satellites. One of those four companies is Elon Musk's SpaceX, which just launched the first two of those satellites last week. They plan to launch thousands more in the next few years to create their "Starlink" satellite constellation, with service beginning in some places in 2020.


Sorry I should have added the broadcast centers that house the DTV and DTV servers. Would those broadcast centers use the same satellites for DTV and DTV NOW or does DTV NOW not need satellites just DTV?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I do not believe DTV Now will need satellites to distribute their signal to regional CDNs (content delivery networks).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Sorry I should have added the broadcast centers that house the DTV and DTV servers. Would those broadcast centers use the same satellites for DTV and DTV NOW or does DTV NOW not need satellites just DTV?


They need satellites to receive the content from networks. I suppose eventually that will be delivered via IP but every provider whether satellite, cable or streaming needs satellites to receive most of their content.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

AT&T's John Donavan reiterates shifting from SatelliteTV to OTT. In this article he says their TV product is not their yet.

AT&T DIRECTV NOW Roadmap: More Flavors to Come, Will Follow Mobile Product Strategy - Telecompetitor


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> AT&T's John Donavan reiterates shifting from SatelliteTV to OTT. In this article he says their TV product is not their yet.
> 
> AT&T DIRECTV NOW Roadmap: More Flavors to Come, Will Follow Mobile Product Strategy - Telecompetitor


"Donovan cautioned, however, that a full transition will take time. Delivering video via OTT assumes a customer has sufficient broadband bandwidth to support streaming video and some AT&T customers currently do not have the necessary bandwidth, although the company is working to change that."


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

James Long said:


> "Donovan cautioned, however, that a full transition will take time. Delivering video via OTT assumes a customer has sufficient broadband bandwidth to support streaming video and some AT&T customers currently do not have the necessary bandwidth, although the company is working to change that."


It sounds to me like they want to make DTV NOW their primary TV platform but not until everyone has 25 mbps or more and that will take time?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I believe the market will take care of which delivery method is primary. That will not be dictated by AT&T or anyone else. 
As long as it is profitable satellite delivery will continue.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> I believe the market will take care of which delivery method is primary. That will not be dictated by AT&T or anyone else.
> As long as it is profitable satellite delivery will continue.


Eh, sorta. I don't know if you live in an AT&T area like I do but, if so, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Uverse TV no longer exists. The Uverse brand has pretty much died in terms of active marketing. Yes, you can still subscribe to it but AT&T's marketing efforts, including the choices you're presented on their webpage, are definitely designed to steer consumers toward DTV satellite.

There's no reason to think that, a year or two from now, DTV satellite won't be in the same situation that Uverse TV is in now -- still available for those consumers who know they want it but not actively promoted. Instead, AT&T will be steering consumers (through their marketing efforts as well as more attractive pricing and terms) toward their various "flavors" of OTT streaming DTV.

Yes, the market will ultimately decide but the market_er_ can tip the playing field in one direction or another.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Eh, sorta. I don't know if you live in an AT&T area like I do but, if so, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Uverse TV no longer exists. The Uverse brand has pretty much died in terms of active marketing. Yes, you can still subscribe to it but AT&T's marketing efforts, including the choices you're presented on their webpage, are definitely designed to steer consumers toward DTV satellite.
> 
> There's no reason to think that, a year or two from now, DTV satellite won't be in the same situation that Uverse TV is in now -- still available for those consumers who know they want it but not actively promoted. Instead, AT&T will be steering consumers (through their marketing efforts as well as more attractive pricing and terms) toward their various "flavors" of OTT streaming DTV.
> 
> Yes, the market will ultimately decide but the market_er_ can tip the playing field in one direction or another.


True, but they have to be able to make more money from the different delivery method. Sure Directv saves a lot up front if they don't need to send someone out to install a dish and provide a Genie and clients, instead letting the customer provide their own Apple TVs or whatever. But at the price they are charging for Directv Now versus Directv satellite, it is pretty obvious which one makes them more money.

It is certainly possible those prices change over time so in a few years maybe they have a financial reason to steer people to Directv Now. They certainly do not have any reason to want to do that yet.

AT&T stated a few years back it cost them $14 more per customer per month for the rights fees they pay broadcasters for Uverse TV compared to Directv satellite. That's the primary reason Uverse TV is no longer actively marketed. Well that and the fact AT&T wants to divest their copper as soon they can - they can sell off their copper with attached DSL customers but not with TV customers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Instead, AT&T will be steering consumers (through their marketing efforts as well as more attractive pricing and terms) toward their various "flavors" of OTT streaming DTV.


The first step toward that would be creating attractive pricing and terms that are also profitable enough to sustain the service. Replacing satellite customers with streaming customers saves DIRECTV some money on the initial equipment and installation. AT&T|DIRECTV's costs will rise if they deploy IPTV receivers and do installs/advanced tech support. Right now they are relying on their customers to be knowledgeable enough to set up their own systems. Limiting their service to only the tech savvy will cost them customers.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

James Long said:


> The first step toward that would be creating attractive pricing and terms that are also profitable enough to sustain the service. Replacing satellite customers with streaming customers saves DIRECTV some money on the initial equipment and installation. AT&T|DIRECTV's costs will rise if they deploy IPTV receivers and do installs/advanced tech support. Right now they are relying on their customers to be knowledgeable enough to set up their own systems. Limiting their service to only the tech savvy will cost them customers.


The other step that will have to happen is to make the OTT/IPTV services much easier for those not tech savvy to use. As it is, there is a hodgepodge of different UI's and since no one streaming service has it all, that is an issue. Going forward it will be interesting how the streamers address the issue, and how much the costs for service will rise.

As it is today you essentially can save money by going streaming as long as you are willing to accept less in offerings, DVR and UI.

Sent from my Google Pixelbook using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> The other step that will have to happen is to make the OTT/IPTV services much easier for those not tech savvy to use. *As it is, there is a hodgepodge of different UI's and since no one streaming service has it all, that is an issue.* Going forward it will be interesting how the streamers address the issue, and how much the costs for service will rise.
> 
> As it is today you essentially can save money by going streaming as long as you are willing to accept less in offerings, DVR and UI.
> 
> Sent from my Google Pixelbook using Tapatalk


I think that's the major reason folks are put off on streaming. The NF UI is chaotic. The Amazon apps are just as bad and Hulu is a lulu. Once you get used to searching on the SVSs (streaming video services)...well, it gets easier but it could be a whole lot better. If you know what you want and have a remote that allows you to talk to it searches are easy and quick.

Will this ever be addressed? NF has been about the same for years, why would they change? Amazon comes out with an app for the ATVs that I think is better than the Amazon app on an FTV and leaves the original apps just as they were. Kinda doubt we'll ever see consistency across apps.

Rich


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

The other variable here, I think, is net neutrality. If your ISP - wants to charge you another $25 a month for carrying something like DTvNow that could change the whole market. I don't necessarily think that would be the charge but it could add up to that. I also think, as they well know, that DTVNow has a long way to go before it has anywhere the same capability as DirecTv or even cable service.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CTJon said:


> The other variable here, I think, is net neutrality. If your ISP - wants to charge you another $25 a month for carrying something like DTvNow that could change the whole market. I don't necessarily think that would be the charge but it could add up to that. I also think, as they well know, that DTVNow has a long way to go before it has anywhere the same capability as DirecTv or even cable service.


If net neutrality isn't enforced the ISPs won't charge their customers extra - that would be guaranteed to have people up in arms complaining to their congressman and forcing action. What they'll do is charge Directv, Netflix, and so forth for transit, forcing them to raise the prices they charge us.

It sounds like it would be the same thing but even though those companies would say net neutrality is to blame most people would point the finger at AT&T and Netflix being greedy and jacking up their prices.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> The first step toward that would be creating attractive pricing and terms that are also profitable enough to sustain the service. Replacing satellite customers with streaming customers saves DIRECTV some money on the initial equipment and installation. AT&T|DIRECTV's costs will rise if they deploy IPTV receivers and do installs/advanced tech support. Right now they are relying on their customers to be knowledgeable enough to set up their own systems. Limiting their service to only the tech savvy will cost them customers.





lparsons21 said:


> The other step that will have to happen is to make the OTT/IPTV services much easier for those not tech savvy to use. As it is, there is a hodgepodge of different UI's and since no one streaming service has it all, that is an issue. Going forward it will be interesting how the streamers address the issue, and how much the costs for service will rise.
> 
> As it is today you essentially can save money by going streaming as long as you are willing to accept less in offerings, DVR and UI.


You both raise some good points here. If I were running AT&T, I'd do the following:


Keep DTV Now essentially as it is. The consumer brings his own retail STB and sets everything up himself. Can be accessed on 2-3 retail devices simultaneously (but no more than that).
Roll out a higher-end OTT service, i.e. "DTV Stream". The subscriber can access this service in only three ways: via a TV-connected STB supplied directly by AT&T (first box free, then an additional charge per STB/TV), via the free DTV mobile app, and via the free DTV website. Delivery and support for this service can be superior to DTV Now because everything will be benchmarked against this one TV-connected STB with its custom-designed remote as opposed to multiple models of Rokus, Apple TVs, Fire TVs, etc.
Offer free self-install for DTV Stream -- The consumer gets the STBs w/ voice remotes from AT&T within 2-3 days by FedEx, complete with very simple printed and on-screen instructions on how to set up. Basically, it's just plug it in, connect it to your wifi or ethernet network, and enter your AT&T user name and password. That's it. A printed guide would offer tips on how to navigate the UI and make the most of the feature set.
Also offer a pro install for DTV Stream for a modest price ($50?) that simply covers the labor cost -- This is basically for folks like my parents (in their 70s-80s) who are intimidated by new tech but don't have a younger relative around to do the self-install for them. The installer would get everything working and do a short training session on how to use the box/service. Unless something is wrong with the subscriber's internet service or home network, the whole pro install should be able to be finished in under 30 minutes for 2 TVs.
As is the case with DTV satellite, there would be post-install support for DTV Stream subs through various channels: phone, online and the STB itself. ("If you need help, ask a question to the voice remote.")

One of the frustrations of TVs these days is that our video increasingly comes from different sources, e.g. traditional pay TV, Netflix, Hulu, etc. That's why you're seeing Comcast's X1, Sky's Q Box, TiVo, etc. integrating those streaming sources in with traditional TV. AT&T will do this as well with their next-gen DTV STB -- both for satellite and "DTV Stream" customers -- because it will be powered by Google's Android TV operating system. The STB will boot up/wake up within the main DTV UI but it will be easy to get to other popular apps on the same box. You may even see your Netflix queue featured as a row within the DTV UI itself, next to your DVR recordings. AT&T -- like other MVPDs -- clearly sees that Netflix & co. are here to stay. May as well accommodate what consumers want.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I was thinking do they really need to do the full DTV channel packages on the internet anyway? I was looking at the channels in the XTra Package that I have and I saw that their are 39 shopping and infomercial channels that I don't think we need online. The Got To Have It package has 120 channels. If you just count the channels from 200 to 388 that's 188 channels and subtract those 39 channels then it just 149 channels. Does DTV NOW have all the popular channels anyway? It also looks like they are going to charge for the cloud DVR.

DIRECTV NOW's New DVR Will Cost Extra - Cord Cutters News


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

When I talk about the cable/satellite channels that are not available via streaming I am not referring to shopping/infomercial channels.

There is plenty of content that has not made the transition.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I remembered why I thought about DTV, DTV NOW and their channels. TVPredictions.com had a good article about why do cable and satellite companies keep raising their prices and he was saying that its because of them paying for the programming and content. This made me see why more people are going with cord cutting.

Why Does Cable & Satellite Keep Raising Prices? - The TV Answer Man!


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Content provider greed is the main reason our bills keep going up with Disney and ESPN being the biggest culprits.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If you don't pay for the content you don't get the content. Due to the way channels are sold to service providers that usually includes unrelated content that one might like.

When one complains that they have to buy X to get Y and cheers on the opportunity to buy packages without Y they should be prepared to do without X as well.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I guess DTV NOW is not ready to replace DTV just yet. According to this member he said DTV has better PQ than DTV NOW. I wonder if DTV NOW is only at 720p and AT&T wants to upgrade DTV NOW to 1080i for TV and 1080p for movies? I have also read they do want DTV NOW to have 4k. I wonder how DTV NOW can do 4k depending on a persons internet connection? I guess that info I posted earlier in this thread from Reddit.com from a DTV NOW user saying it was 1080p was wrong. I keep forgetting about PQ and sound quality. I think DTV NOW doesn't even have 5.1 Dolby Surround Sound.

The grass ain't always greener


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> I guess DTV NOW is not ready to replace DTV just yet. According to this member he said DTV has better PQ than DTV NOW. I wonder if DTV NOW is only at 720p and AT&T wants to upgrade DTV NOW to 1080i for TV and 1080p for movies? I have also read they do want DTV NOW to have 4k. I wonder how DTV NOW can do 4k depending on a persons internet connection? I guess that info I posted earlier in this thread from Reddit.com from a DTV NOW user saying it was 1080p was wrong. I keep forgetting about PQ and sound quality. I think DTV NOW doesn't even have 5.1 Dolby Surround Sound.
> 
> The grass ain't always greener


What I read said D* was working towards 1080p for D*Now. Right now it's just 720p, from what I've read as are all the CRSs.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> I guess DTV NOW is not ready to replace DTV just yet. According to this member he said DTV has better PQ than DTV NOW. I wonder if DTV NOW is only at 720p and AT&T wants to upgrade DTV NOW to 1080i for TV and 1080p for movies? I have also read they do want DTV NOW to have 4k. I wonder how DTV NOW can do 4k depending on a persons internet connection? I guess that info I posted earlier in this thread from Reddit.com from a DTV NOW user saying it was 1080p was wrong. I keep forgetting about PQ and sound quality. I think DTV NOW doesn't even have 5.1 Dolby Surround Sound.
> 
> The grass ain't always greener


I've seen more than one person (who has both DTV Now & DTV satellite) post the opposite: that DTV Now has better HD PQ. (Here's one I just saw this week.)

I do think DTV Now is doing 1080i stations at 1080p and keeping 720p stations at 720p, at least on the beta app. I've read that they've also experimented with DD 5.1 audio now and then on some stations in the beta app. I'm betting that it's coming this year for all stations as a regular feature.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I've seen more than one person (who has both DTV Now & DTV satellite) post the opposite: that DTV Now has better HD PQ. (Here's one I just saw this week.)
> 
> *I do think DTV Now is doing 1080i stations at 1080p and keeping 720p stations at 720p, at least on the beta app. I've read that they've also experimented with DD 5.1 audio now and then on some stations in the beta app. I'm betting that it's coming this year for all stations as a regular feature.*


That's pretty much what I read. I know the cloud DVR is coming and I would hope they'd do 5.1. Once they get things settled down and get everything in place I'll give it a try. Thanx for that link.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Streaming 1080i channels as 1080p is just converting them on their end - the same conversion your 1080p TV would do. The PQ would be the same either way.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I wonder what that picture quality would be like with both DTV NOW and your TV up-converting it to 1080p and even 4k if you have a 4k TV? Or would it just be the same it wouldn't double the picture quality?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> I wonder what that picture quality would be like with both DTV NOW and your TV up-converting it to 1080p and even 4k if you have a 4k TV? Or would it just be the same it wouldn't double the picture quality?


Converting from 1080i to 1080p is about as simple a task as can be, so there will be no difference who does it. It will look the same either way. Now actually changing resolution like upscaling 720p to 1080p there may be a bit of difference in the quality of the upscaling (much less difference than there used to be, but still probably some) because that's a more involved process.

Theoretically you should get the best results if the device that is uncompressing the video (i.e. MPEG4 -> 720p or whatever) is the one doing the upscaling, since potentially at least it can derive some "hints" from the compressed data that better inform it how to optimally upscale. Directv doesn't like to spend an extra dime on hardware if they don't have to, so it may not upscale as well as some other set tops do (my Bolt does a slightly better job than my Panasonic plasma, for instance, so I have it locked at 1080p output and let it do the scaling)

Like I said before, I'll bet the reason Directv is streaming 1080i channels as 1080p is because not all devices receiving the streams can properly handle interlaced video. Does Directv Now have any non-HD channels? If they do, I'll bet they are streamed at 480p instead of 480i for the same reason...


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Well, looks like we _may_ have a name for the forthcoming new "home-centric" OTT TV service (which I had hypothetically dubbed "DirecTV Stream" earlier in this thread):

AT&T TV

(Hat tip to CraigerM who brought this to my attention a few days ago.)


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Well, looks like we _may_ have a name for the forthcoming new "home-centric" OTT TV service (which I had hypothetically dubbed "DirecTV Stream" earlier in this thread):
> 
> AT&T TV


That is an awkward name to say out loud.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

trainman said:


> That is an awkward name to say out loud.


and have nothing common with lasting satellites


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> What I read said D* was working towards 1080p for D*Now. Right now it's just 720p, from what I've read as are all the CRSs.
> 
> Rich


The key is being able to do real time HEVC (h.265) encoding. Most of the current streaming devices already have hardware HEVC decoders built-in. HEVC is what folks like NetFlix and Amazon are already using for their 4k streams.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

mjwagner said:


> The key is being able to do real time HEVC (h.265) encoding. Most of the current streaming devices already have hardware HEVC decoders built-in. HEVC is what folks like NetFlix and Amazon are already using for their 4k streams.


As we discuss satellite's life, then yes - UHD [4k] channels compressed by HEVC eg H.265 codec.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

2/31/15 3/31/16 6/30/16 9/30/16 12/31/16 3/31/17 6/30/17 9/30/17 12/31/17

Satellite 19,784 20,112 20,454 20,777 21,012 21,012 20,856 20,605 20,458

U-verse 5,614 5,232 4,841 4,515 4,253 4,020 3,825 3,691 3,631

DIRECTV NOW 267 339 491 787 1,155

Total Video 25,398 5,344 25,295 25,292 25,532 25,371 25,172 25,083 25,244

Looks like total connections is flat but satellite started dropping a year ago. So, they are keeping the customers but changing the delivery service


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

I think it's clear that AT&T sees DirecTV Now as the future of its television service. It's very much a Beta offering right now, but based on the totality of what I've read on the subject, it will be a full parallel offering to the DirecTV satellite service by 2021. I think that many with a decent internet speed will then transfer from satellite to streaming, driven mostly by cost. Without the high equipment cost associated with the satellite service, the streaming service for the same channels is significantly lower, and D* has to match to some degree its streaming competitors. The game is early in the first quarter, but it has begun.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

One think to keep In mind is a lot of residential providers have data caps (1TB)

Cox 
Comcast 
Suddenlink 

So that will be a slight drawback for some customers

I prefer the sat since currently I don't have FTTH and have an un reliable broadband provider  


Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

TDK1044 said:


> I think it's clear that AT&T sees DirecTV Now as the future of its television service. It's very much a Beta offering right now, but based on the totality of what I've read on the subject, it will be a full parallel offering to the DirecTV satellite service by 2021. I think that many with a decent internet speed will then transfer from satellite to streaming, driven mostly by cost. Without the high equipment cost associated with the satellite service, the streaming service for the same channels is significantly lower, and D* has to match to some degree its streaming competitors. The game is early in the first quarter, but it has begun.


I agree, although I really don't think it's going to take until anywhere near 2021 for AT&T to offer an OTT streaming service that is essentially a parallel replacement for DirecTV satellite and Uverse TV. If we don't see that happen this year, I think it will happen next year. Getting all the locals across the nation on board is taking awhile but I really see that as the only sticking point. (And it's possible that they launch the new service on a market-by-market basis as they get contracts in place with all the major locals in each market.) Once the new cloud-based video platform, currently in beta for DTV Now, is finalized -- which will happen this year -- there's really nothing holding AT&T back from rolling out "AT&T TV" or whatever they're going to call their higher-end, full-featured OTT service. They likely already have the thin client STBs designed for use with AT&T TV.

One last note: I had AT&T Internet (formerly known as "AT&T Uverse") installed on Friday. I chatted with the installer about where things stand and where they're headed with the company. Now, I realize you have to take stuff an installer says with a grain of salt, but he says that Uverse TV will be "shut down" at some point this year. I asked if he meant that it will completely cease service or if he just meant that no new sign-ups will be allowed and he confirmed the latter. Current subs would be given some amount of time to transition over to another AT&T video service, he said.

You know that AT&T is not going to completely stop allowing Uverse TV sign-ups if the only comparable option (i.e. full channel line-ups with AT&T-provided STBs and bundled billing) they have for customers is DTV satellite, given that lots of folks can't or won't put up a rooftop dish. Although AT&T hasn't actively marketed Uverse TV for many months now, they're still offering it. They won't actually stop allowing Uverse TV sign-ups until the new "home-centric" OTT service -- "AT&T TV" or whatever it's branded -- launches. And all signs are that that will happen in 2018.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I do think that Uverse will be more quickly replaced by Directvnow but I think satellite will remain although not emphasized. I used to live in a place with UVERSE and it was Internet + TV + phone so I assume those place have or could have AT&T internet so I would assume even if not for other services AT&T would not limit usage for DirecTvnow people.

2021 is a long time away and things could change drastically before then. If, for instance, net neutrality really goes away, then I would think keeping satellite service would become more valuable and remain a key part of AT&T TV offering.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Interesting new DTV NOW commerical. Look what the woman does with the cable box and what the announcer says about the dish.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> Interesting new DTV NOW commerical. Look what the woman does with the cable box and what the announcer says about the dish.


Nothing. She says "no satellite" not "no dish" (but yes, I believe that is what she meant).

Mentioning "no satellite" in a DIRECTV NOW ad is a good thing since DIRECTV is better known as a satellite provider. (No, they do not provide satellites to customers. DIRECTV provides TV via satellite.) People see DIRECTV and they think "satellite". AT&T is working to break that connection.

Of course when people see AT&T most think phone. People in UVERSE areas might think TV.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

James Long said:


> Nothing. She says "no satellite" not "no dish" (but yes, I believe that is what she meant).
> 
> Mentioning "no satellite" in a DIRECTV NOW ad is a good thing since DIRECTV is better known as a satellite provider. (No, they do not provide satellites to customers. DIRECTV provides TV via satellite.) People see DIRECTV and they think "satellite". AT&T is working to break that connection.
> 
> Of course when people see AT&T most think phone. People in UVERSE areas might think TV.


Here's a new Charter commerical that the woman says no dish.

Spectrum TV Commercial, 'Spectrum vs. DIRECTV'


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> Here's a new Charter commerical that the woman says no dish.


Charter's commercials have nothing to do with AT&T shifting customers from satellite to IPTV.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

James Long said:


> Charter's commercials have nothing to do with AT&T shifting customers from satellite to IPTV.


I posted it because she mentions not needing the dish and AT&T's DTV NOW commercial's also promote not needing the dish.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> I posted it because she mentions not needing the dish and AT&T's DTV NOW commercial's also promote not needing the dish.


O yea the commercial with Goldberg and Michael Jordan lol

Michael B Jordan lol

Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Got this article this morning, interesting reading...No one wants satellite TV any more

Rich


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Rich said:


> Got this article this morning, interesting reading...No one wants satellite TV any more
> 
> Rich


I read over at another forum that a AT&T salesman was talking with a customer about DirecTV and she said she didn't want a dish on her roof. Then he mentions DTV NOW and its like Netflix and has live TV then the customer that was ok. I still think DirecTV NOW has to get just like DirecTV for it to be ready for prime-time.

I wonder if AT&T really bought DTV just for the subscriber base so that they could have better channel contract negotiations. With UVerseTV they couldn't with UVerseTV at the time of the merger only having 6 million subscribers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> I wonder if AT&T really bought DTV just for the subscriber base so that they could have better channel contract negotiations.


That was clearly stated by AT&T when they purchased DIRECTV.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

James Long said:


> That was clearly stated by AT&T when they purchased DIRECTV.


Thanks for reminding me, I forgot about that.


----------

