# Satellite Services Sputter, Stall



## Nick

*DirecTV and EchoStar face slowing net adds and rising competition*

With satellite services ending the year and counting on the seasonal fourth-quarter push to increase sales, some analysts are looking back over the year pulling the companies down to earth. Worse yet, some see a bleak future for satellite radio and television - and are warning investors to keep their feet on the ground when it comes to the sky-bound services.

One such analyst is Cowen and Company's Tom Watts, who said last week that satellite service's third quarter was dull, weak and anti-climatic. Watts called both Sirius and XM are merely "idling" until next year, WorldSpace is "sputtering" and both DIRECTV and DISH are "stalling."

"XM and Sirius continue to fend off jealous attacks from the music and broadcasting industries (and) royalty negotiations with RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) are going to arbitration," the analyst said. Although "the NAB continues to try to use the FCC to hamper satellite radio's progress in any way possible... these issues (are) resolvable."

Watts also projects rising challenges for the satellite TV business as "DIRECTV and EchoStar face slowing net adds and rising competition." Free cash flow take-off delays, stalled buybacks and a lack of merger and acquisition activity could limit DBS' prospects in the future," he said.

www.SkyReport.com - used with permission


----------



## Chris Blount

I found this article interesting. While I think satellite TV will be around for many years to come, I believe that Dish and DirecTV are fighting an uphill battle against cable and the internet. Let's face it, satellite TV is showing its age with bandwidth limitations and larger dishes. 

I firmly believe that we will see a complete migration to internet based systems much sooner than anyone thought.


----------



## AnubisPrime

I agree, but such a thing is far off in my opinion. I am one of the few people I know in real life that has minimal to no problems with my internet service.

Providers currently enforce the invisible caps on bandwidth. Internet that is fast enough to stream HD content is not available in a form that's affordable to most--and in some places such speeds are not offered.

How do we serve rural areas that kind of bandwidth? Many only have dialup available in their areas. Some rural places have government funded high-speed internet, but problems are rampant (I have a family member experiencing this "bliss"). 

Believe me, government-run/funded internet service stinks. The small company receiving the government funds has to use the backbone provider (oh, say Genuity) designated to them by Uncle Sam or the powers that be. If there's a problem that takes 6 months to fix for whatever reason--TOUGH, your subscribers are stuck with crawling speeds from 5pm to 12am every night.

So, back on track, I also hope satellite sticks around for a long, long time. As far as TV over internet--our country's broadband providers need to overhaul their deployment and service strategies to accomplish that. With the way the government runs things, I'd vote to keep them as minimally involved in the process as possible.


----------



## kenglish

Satellite may have to "reinvent" itself, just like Cable did.

They should have worked with local radio and TV stations to improve home reception, rather than fighting Cable's "Butcha can't git yer local stations!" campaign with so many L-I-L channels.

Having quite a few FTA channels (just buy the equipment without a subscription) would get them "a foot in the door" at your home. Then, they could sell you the primo programming. Satellite radio could have worked more with locals, to offer seamless integration with locallized content (other parts of the world have sat radio with "contribution channels" which allow uploading of regional content to the satellite....sort of like a "spotbeam").

Working with local Cable would have been wise. Satellite is far more efficient for carrying national channels, while Cable is better for local/regional stuff. Why couldn't they have "bundled" services and provided both?


----------



## FTA Michael

I like the FTA idea; it sounds like the way it works in Europe, if I understand it correctly. Imagine a low-cost channel (resurrect Bingo TV? music videos? cheap movies?) made available FTA with limited commercials -- all for Dish Network. It would be a new channel for everybody, selling upgrades to subscribers and Dish Network in general to FTA viewers.

Satellite bundled with cable? My kneejerk reaction is that it doesn't happen because both sides want the whole subcriber fee. For a paradigm shift, what if cable allied itself with somone such as GlobeCast, offering the zillion high-margin international channels that appeal to only a tiny fraction of any cable system's viewers?


----------



## Hound

I would agree in certain parts of the US, satellite growth is going to stall
because of the entry of Verizon Fios into the marketplace. Verizon and the local
cable company will be providing high speed internet bundled with telephone
and a very competitive high definition television offering including local
regional sports networks in high definition. With the triple play pricing,
the satellite companys are going to be underbid. If a customer signs
up for satellite and then phone and high speed cable separately, the
cost is going to be higher than triple play packages. Dish will no longer be
able to use its low cost advantage. The regional sports networks in high
definition are going to be very important in some markets. Dish has
been very slow to add them. With the roll out of Verizon Fios in NJ next year,
both Dish and Directv will suffer. Dish does not have a carriage agreement
with YES and still has not begun offering regional sports networks in
HD. Dish is the only multivideo provider that does not offer RSNs in HD. 
HD penetration in the Pennsylvania, NJ and New York markets is starting
to really take off. Many subscribers look at RSN HD offerings in choosing a provider. Verizon this morning for the first time on its FIOS website for its southeastern Pennsylvania channel lineup lists Comcast Sportsnet Philadelphia in high defintion on channel 829. When Verizon rolls out in NJ, it will be allowed to offer this channel to the southern half of NJ. Unfortunately, Dish and Directv were precluded from this channel by the FCC in its Adelphia conditions and the terrestrial exception. The central part of New Jersey qualifies for five RSNs,
CSN Philadelphia, YES, SNY, MSG and FSNY. Cablevision provides four RSNs in
high definition and on in SD. Comcast provides a continuous feed in HD of CSN
and game feeds in HD of the other four RSNs. The Cablevision expanded basic
cable package is only $48 per month and includes all HD channels and HD RSNs. With cable there is no charge for hooking up the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, tv, etc. without a set top box. With triple play and HD RSNs, the satellite companys face very stiff
competition.


----------



## jaywdetroit

Does anyone want to comment on the claims by D* that they can have 100-150 HD channels by the end of 2007? 

Isn't that going to be difficult/impossible for cable to compete with? And what about all the other services coming down the road on the HR20? I don't have the link but there is a PowerPoint presentation out there done by D* execs with some impressive goals outlined in it.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Cable will have difficulty matching the "Bandwith" needs for 100-150 HD channels. But then again, for that to matter much... there has to *BE* 100-150 HD channels available.

FIOS should have that ability, but then again... FIOS and the IP style of TV transmission is SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWLY rolling out.

I am in a brand new subdivision... and forwhat ever reasons... it is not pre-wired for the next generation of broadband. So for people like me (and a lot of others)... this next transmission method is way off.

I have Cable-Broadband... but once everyone else on the block is using it to larger capacities... not only is the TV going to suffer, but the internet connection, and the phone, and everything else they are trying to cram onto that single line.

I think the next 5-10 years are going to be intresting to see how things pan out. and who is to say, that DirecTV and Dish network won't get into the "land based" transmission game. Just like there are multiple ISPs... why can't there be mulitple Content Providers over the IP method of transmission.

All will depend on what kind of rules, restrictions, ect... that the FCC and our elected officials pass and apply.


----------



## dngrant

jaywdetroit said:


> Does anyone want to comment on the claims by D* that they can have 100-150 HD channels by the end of 2007?
> 
> Isn't that going to be difficult/impossible for cable to compete with? And what about all the other services coming down the road on the HR20? I don't have the link but there is a PowerPoint presentation out there done by D* execs with some impressive goals outlined in it.


If and I do mean IF D* can provide what they promise by the end of next year, then they will have a temporary competitive advantage. I agree with the others that until dish bundles its service with voice and internet, they are really going to be hurting. I only wish I could get FiOS where I am. I think that has the strongest future because of the bandwidth potential of fiber optics.

Another knock against the sats is the need for more than one dish to get TV and internet. It would behoove the providers to combine all of that into one dish. Customers want as clean an install as possible. Rural areas are not as much of a concern, but urban and suburban areas with limited outdoor space, and HOA bylaws, cannot support multiple dishes.


----------



## Cholly

Our area is served by Windstream (wired service spun off from Altell, which is now strictly a wireless provider). I recently switched to Windstream DSL from Time Warner cable. There doesn't seem to be any FIOS in the offing from them. Although I'm in a new subdivision, I don't think the distribution system is fiber. Certainly, the feeds to the homes are copper.


----------



## jaywdetroit

Earl Bonovich said:


> Cable will have difficulty matching the "Bandwith" needs for 100-150 HD channels. But then again, for that to matter much... there has to *BE* 100-150 HD channels available.
> 
> FIOS should have that ability, but then again... FIOS and the IP style of TV transmission is SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWLY rolling out.
> 
> I am in a brand new subdivision... and forwhat ever reasons... it is not pre-wired for the next generation of broadband. So for people like me (and a lot of others)... this next transmission method is way off.
> 
> I have Cable-Broadband... but once everyone else on the block is using it to larger capacities... not only is the TV going to suffer, but the internet connection, and the phone, and everything else they are trying to cram onto that single line.
> 
> I think the next 5-10 years are going to be intresting to see how things pan out. and who is to say, that DirecTV and Dish network won't get into the "land based" transmission game. Just like there are multiple ISPs... why can't there be mulitple Content Providers over the IP method of transmission.
> 
> All will depend on what kind of rules, restrictions, ect... that the FCC and our elected officials pass and apply.


I was just reading over the wiki post on FIOS. It costs verizon $1000 to do an install. When they do, if you move your phone over to them, they will rip out the cooper in your home. Which means you could never switch to DSL and another phone service if I am not mistaken. This would keep me from ever moving over to fiber, unless everyone was doing it.

It looks to me that FIOS has a huge uphill battle.

As for the TV over IP. Wouldn't that require a pre-existing broadband account? Or would that be completely separate?


----------



## Larry Caldwell

Chris Blount said:


> I found this article interesting. While I think satellite TV will be around for many years to come, I believe that Dish and DirecTV are fighting an uphill battle against cable and the internet. Let's face it, satellite TV is showing its age with bandwidth limitations and larger dishes.
> 
> I firmly believe that we will see a complete migration to internet based systems much sooner than anyone thought.


I certainly hope not. As a rural subscriber, there will never be cable or DSL within miles of my house. I went to WildBlue for more bandwidth, but no way will satellite internet ever allow enough bandwidth for unrestricted video on demand.

Satellite TV has been hamstrung by the FCC and its licensing restrictions. The big dishes are required because no satellite provider is allowed to broadcast all its programming from one orbital location. The limitation is only secondarily technical. The primary problem is the lack of planning on the part of the FCC. E* or D* could easily launch satellites that would handle their programming from one orbital slot.


----------



## Steve Mehs

> The big dishes are required because no satellite provider is allowed to broadcast all its programming from one orbital location.


You sure about that? Sky Angel is only on 61.5, Voom was only on 61.5, before the Primestar purchase DirecTV only had 101.


----------



## tiger2005

jaywdetroit said:


> I was just reading over the wiki post on FIOS. It costs verizon $1000 to do an install. When they do, if you move your phone over to them, they will rip out the cooper in your home. Which means you could never switch to DSL and another phone service if I am not mistaken. This would keep me from ever moving over to fiber, unless everyone was doing it.
> 
> It looks to me that FIOS has a huge uphill battle.
> 
> As for the TV over IP. Wouldn't that require a pre-existing broadband account? Or would that be completely separate?


I have FiOS in my home and they don't rip out the copper in the house. They remove the outside copper line running from your house to the pole and replace it with a Fiber line that connects to the ONT on the outside of your house. If you ever wanted to go back to copper it wouldn't be that difficult for the phone company to run a line back to your house from the pole. Although, I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to do this. After moving from DSL, to cable, and then to FiOS I can definitely say that FiOS wins over these other options BY FAR. Cable was more expensive and slower (most of the time) and DSL was A LOT slower than either of them and not that much cheaper.


----------



## harsh

Chris Blount said:


> I firmly believe that we will see a complete migration to internet based systems much sooner than anyone thought.


I firmly believe that you are wrong. There are large portions of many states that aren't served by terrestrial broadband Internet. While talk of wireless cities is fine in populous areas of California, Florida and the Northeast, it isn't happening the areas that only satellite currently serves.

The bandwidth issue isn't over yet with DBS. As inroads are being made into Ka band, the DBS companies will hopefully find a whole lot more breathing room.

I think that clumping Dish Network with DirecTV and Sirius with XM is flawed logic too. From my limited view of the purchasing public, I see both of the second place companies gaining more market share than number one. Sirius is verily clobbering XM in terms of new subscribers (although some of that may be via Internet subscriptions).


----------



## scottchez

I predict Satellite will reinvent itself many years from now with 100% MPEG4 only and 10,000 HD only channels. Cable and the Internet cant do 10,000 HD channels.

In other words they will phase out all the old receivers and cut over someday when the receivers are cheaper and cut to 100% MPEG4.

"Satellite may have to "reinvent" itself, "


----------



## cornflakes

I have FIOS too, and tiger2005 is right in that they remove the copper from your house to their pole. However, when I installed FIOS, they made it very clear that this is permanent. They will not come out and reinstall the copper, they said.

And I can see Verizon not wanting to switch me back to copper since they can sell me and future residents of this home more services with FIOS in the future.

FIOS Internet is great, blazing fast and I don't have to worry about signal levels or distance limitations (although I suppose the service area of FIOS is a distance limitation).

But I do love my satellite, be it D* or E*. Cable has always been crap to me because many of the channels are still transmitted in analog and I see snow or ghosting. A lot of times they'll blame it on the amplifier being set too weak or too strong. Other times they'll just ignore me. My parents have cable and when they come over to my place to watch TV, they're amazed at how clear the local channels (in SD) can be. No ghosts, no snow.

I also added up the cost of cable for me (Time Warner), and I would have to pay much more to get fewer channels.

There are benefits that cable and FIOS can offer that I will wish I had with satellite, such as true video on demand and more local channels in HD (CW, UPN, PBS). 

I think satellite still has to work hard to compete with cable and future technologies, and that's just fine with me. Working hard to compete means better products and better prices.


----------



## jonsnow

With the advent of family packages, it has become clear that satellite companies like echostar are no longer in the business of innovations or gaining subscribers. Instead their offerings are meager at best and aimed at babysitting. Instead of offering a low cost entry level bundled package or standing up to congress and demand la carte reform, Charlie in his ignorance caved in to pressure by special interests and offered a low cost, but highly censored and unwatchable package. With decisions like these now wonder any potential new subs are going to the net/cable bundles, where innovations and choice, not forced censorship and limited options rule the day.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Business is always (if the company stays in business long enough) subject to diminishing new customers. Over time, your acquisition of new customers will slow to a crawl simply because there aren't enough people left!

The bean-counters and wall-streeters go nuts when they don't see huge new subscriber counts each year... but it is simply impossible to grow a company more than there are people to grow with... and I suspect this is much of the reason for the panicking in regards to satellite.

If people would look at the actual profit margins of the company instead of how many new customers acquired... I think there would be less panic.


----------



## dtv757

i work at a booth where we promote verizon FiOS service. and all i can say is there data service is amazing. FiOS is offering 80megs or higher in parts of NY, and NJ and its simply amazing. here in VA we have 30 megs and it still faster than any other cable company can think of.

as for video, i'm not sure as we wont have the video station ready until late winter but from what i have heard the PQ really clear and there is no compression. 

i personaly believe that FiOS and D* will become the HD leaders in TV. 


about the phone issue "one you go to verizon FiOS you cannot be switched back to VERIZON COPPER" that means if you wanted some other bogus land based phone service than you can be connected to there COPPER line. but not back to verizon copper. 

from my understanding FiOS also increases the value of your house.


----------



## Geronimo

i fior one am unaware of any FCC restriction on companies operatng froma single slot. Ia m also not sure how d8 or E8 could manage that given the number of channels today. heck D* has 101 all to itself. What is stopping them from putting more on it? I believe that it is simple bandwidth not FCC restrictions.


----------



## harsh

jaywdetroit said:


> Does anyone want to comment on the claims by D* that they can have 100-150 HD channels by the end of 2007?


D* has amply demonstrated an ability to under-deliver. Not to worry though as they probably won't be able to fill that pipe with desirable content until the end of the decade.

The real hope is that instead of trying to squeeze x+2 HD channels per transponder, they will offer full-resolution and higher bitrate on the content that they are currently putting the hurt on.


> Isn't that going to be difficult/impossible for cable to compete with?


Cable will eventually complete its upgrade to fiber and it will be sufficiently competitive. As it is, they have a lot of bandwidth in most areas while others are choked with old wiring. Until all of the plant gets upgraded, they will have to continue offering VHS quality video to everyone.


> And what about all the other services coming down the road on the HR20?


You mean like OTA?

Satellite VOD is a cruel joke to anyone who lives within short distance of a video store. Thus far neither company seems to be planning for HD VOD (there isn't enough space set aside).

I'm personally not big on the idea of interactive television. I watch almost everything time shifted and I can't imagine they are going to do something compelling enough to make me sit through 3.5 minutes of commercials for every seven minutes of programming.


----------



## UTFAN

Nick said:


> *DirecTV and EchoStar face slowing net adds and rising competition*
> 
> With satellite services ending the year and counting on the seasonal fourth-quarter push to increase sales, some analysts are looking back over the year pulling the companies down to earth. Worse yet, some see a bleak future for satellite radio and television - and are warning investors to keep their feet on the ground when it comes to the sky-bound services.
> 
> One such analyst is Cowen and Company's Tom Watts, who said last week that satellite service's third quarter was dull, weak and anti-climatic. Watts called both Sirius and XM are merely "idling" until next year, WorldSpace is "sputtering" and both DIRECTV and DISH are "stalling."
> 
> "XM and Sirius continue to fend off jealous attacks from the music and broadcasting industries (and) royalty negotiations with RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) are going to arbitration," the analyst said. Although "the NAB continues to try to use the FCC to hamper satellite radio's progress in any way possible... these issues (are) resolvable."
> 
> Watts also projects rising challenges for the satellite TV business as "DIRECTV and EchoStar face slowing net adds and rising competition." Free cash flow take-off delays, stalled buybacks and a lack of merger and acquisition activity could limit DBS' prospects in the future," he said.
> 
> www.SkyReport.com - used with permission


Another "analyst" with a gloom and doom news about the satellite industry. And each year the dang industry keeps on growing.

Analysts and a particular orifice. There's a lot of them!


----------



## Steve Mehs

The biggest hurtle in all of this is going to get people informed. Most people who have the choice have sworn off cable, fiber is too new and not widely available, but they need to go after satellite like satellite went after cable. Fios is coming to the Buffalo area, a few towns south of the city are getting wired for it, including the town where the Bills pay. Yep 15 miles away from me Verizon is deploying Fios, I don't think it's live yet, but from what I heard like in most instances it will start with Fios Internet then Fios TV. On the local channels Verizon is already adverting 'TV, Internet & Phone from one company' ads. Fios is not mentioned by name though.

In many areas where Fios is deployed, cable companies have raised their internet speeds dramatically. Cablevision Optimum Online with Boost I think is up to 30/2 these days and it's cheaper then I'm paying for this slow 8mb connection. But the problem is what someone else mentioned above, these download caps. Time Warner is one of the only major cable providers that has no caps. 30mbps is great but if there's invisible caps or a FAP, I'll stick with whatever I can get from Time Warner. In the spring a buddy of mine that lives in the city got a notice from Adelpha about downloading too much that month. I can do about 1GB in 25 minutes (I think that's too slow but it's the best I can do).



> There doesn't seem to be any FIOS in the offing from them.


Don't mean to nit pick but Fios is to Verizon as Road Runner is to TW. Fios what Verizon calls their service. The actual medium is called Fiber to the Home (FTTH). ATT calls their service U-Verse


----------



## FogCutter

Chris Blount said:


> I found this article interesting. While I think satellite TV will be around for many years to come, I believe that Dish and DirecTV are fighting an uphill battle against cable and the internet. Let's face it, satellite TV is showing its age with bandwidth limitations and larger dishes.
> 
> I firmly believe that we will see a complete migration to internet based systems much sooner than anyone thought.


Chris,

Verizon is pushing fiber-to-the-home very hard in many markets. They started out trying to deliver 10 MBPS downstream and I think 2 MBPS upstream. Their tacit goal was to eventually deliver 100 MBPS.

The point is that is plenty fast enough to deliver 1080p video on demand, which will be the end of the DBS services as we know them. All that will take a while and who knows, the DBS people might just crack the bandwith barrier and stay in the game.

Hi-def video on demand will eventually be the killer-app of choice, how we get it into our homes is problematic.


----------



## soprano_777

The'll be sat for along while ,because of what was mention with rural areas. Plus for D8sports pac. N.F.L. ticket. But in the end fiber optics will be the major suppier in populated areas for what was mentioned above Price with bundles, band with speed , no loss of signal with heavy clouds. T.v. industies favors cable. Example how many new tvs have cardreaders for cable(even if they don"t work right a of now). How many have sat card readers. Fios has media center, record from DVR, watch from any tv in the house! How long for sat when there are having so much with the HDDVR now. Computor will be big part of your media center which will help down load even first run movies playing . just a thought


----------



## oldave

FogCutter said:


> Verizon is pushing fiber-to-the-home very hard in many markets. They started out trying to deliver 10 MBPS downstream and I think 2 MBPS upstream. Their tacit goal was to eventually deliver 100 MBPS.
> 
> The point is that is plenty fast enough to deliver 1080p video on demand, which will be the end of the DBS services as we know them. All that will take a while and who knows, the DBS people might just crack the bandwith barrier and stay in the game.
> 
> Hi-def video on demand will eventually be the killer-app of choice, how we get it into our homes is problematic.


Bzzzzzzt... thank you for playing, but 10 megabits/sec is not enough to deliver HD video.

Broadcast ATSC runs at 19.2 megabits/sec.

Now, if they do get to 100 megabits/sec, they can do it. But until they can deliver at least 20 to *every* home on the network, it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## FogCutter

The 100 Meg number was what I was talking about. Sorry, should have been clearer.


----------



## mfogarty5

Everyone here is focusing on the triple play delivered through a wire(Cable or phone) vs. the possible triple play delivered through a satellite, but what if people elected to get their phone and Internet via cellular provider?

Sprint, for example, has pledged to buildout a national Wimax network by 2008. I am not going to contend that the throughput of Wimax will be as high as cable or Fios, but if you have 150 national HD channels delivered via satellite why do you need 100Mbps internet? Internet via a cellular company also has the benefit of being mobile which the wired providers are not.

There is also something sexy about saying that you are completely "untethered".

*IF* the satellites go up next year, then Directv will have a HUGE HD advantage over the cable companies. People keep saying, but there aren't 150 HD channels! I bet we could name 70-80 HD channels that broadcast right now, not including the former Zoom channels.

How many HD RSNs are there? 30? 40?

If Directv can get that Windows Vista add-in card working they will also have another advantage. Cable companies hate CableCard so most users have to settle for the crappy cable company DVR.

I'm not a Directv zealot, but I think that they will separate themselves even further from cable companies in 2007.


----------



## oldave

mfogarty5 said:


> Everyone here is focusing on the triple play delivered through a wire(Cable or phone) vs. the possible triple play delivered through a satellite, but what if people elected to get their phone and Internet via cellular provider?
> 
> Sprint, for example, has pledged to buildout a national Wimax network by 2008. I am not going to contend that the throughput of Wimax will be as high as cable or Fios, but if you have 150 national HD channels delivered via satellite why do you need 100Mbps internet? Internet via a cellular company also has the benefit of being mobile which the wired providers are not.


Once I can get at least 3mb/sec (what I have now with DSL) via a cell connection, for a similar rate, the wires are cut, and the only one that'll come in this house is electricity. I only have the land-line phone for the DSL (and because I can't get DSL without dial tone).


----------



## Steve Mehs

> I bet we could name 70-80 HD channels that broadcast right now, not including the former Zoom channels.
> 
> How many HD RSNs are there? 30? 40?


Numberswise yes, actually looking at it, not exactly

A&E HD, Cinemax HD, Discovery HD Theater, ESPN HD, ESPN 2 HD, Food Network HD, HBO HD, HDNet, HDNet Movies, HGTV HD, InHD 1, InHD 2, MHD, National Geographic HD, NBA TV HD, NFL Network HD, Outdoor Channel 2 HD, Showtime HD, Starz HD, The Movie Channel HD, TNT HD, Universal HD, Versus HD, Wealth HD

24 National HD channels, plus 15 Voom HD channels, Most HD RSNs only broadcast games and are off air the rest of the time, there are a few exceptions, but to play the numbers game there's 21 RSNs that currently broadcast in HD, and they would only be useful if you live in the right area. So 70 HD channels total and that's really fudging it, considering NBA TV and Versus HD, like most of the RSNs are not full time channels, but if you want to count having 20 channels that are blank most of the time, and that most people can't get, then be my guest.



> Internet via a cellular company also has the benefit of being mobile which the wired providers are not.


And it also has the disadvantage that you're depended on the network. I live in a rural area, not really the middle of nowhere, but rural. I don't care who your provider is, you can't get decent cell phone reception in my house, outside is no problem, but not in my house. It doesn't matter which way I point my cable modem I always have a signal and I always get 96%+ of my quoted bandwidth.  My point is, if you truly live in the in a very rural area, chances are cell phone reception won't be so great which may rule out the data access plans cell phone providers offer for some people. I traveled to some very rural parts of Southern NY and Northern Pennsylvania with a buddy of mine. He has the almighty Verizon Wireless, I have Nextel, we both had no service for the majority of the road trip.

BTW - I absoutley love my 'crappy cable company' DVR


----------



## thiscopy

After falling on their face a couple years ago, Cisco is finally in the IPTV game with their Telepresence product. Granted it is just a Video Conference system for now. I think the hardware driving any future IP solution will be greatly influenced by Cisco and the providers will adapt it accordingly. Someday we will all work for MicroCiscooglesoft.

As for DBS, I really hope it's around for along time. Rural customers and Motor home users don't have any other choice right now. I can't imagine how long the fiber cable would have to be for my motorhome. And with all the other cars running it over as I drive down the road............


----------



## FogCutter

" I can't imagine how long the fiber cable would have to be for my motorhome. And with all the other cars running it over as I drive down the road............"

Ha!


----------



## Hound

Lets not panic. The prediction is that growth in new satellite subscribers is
going to slow down. The satellite companies are not going out of business.
The satellite companies are here to stay and in some parts of the US, satellite
will be the number one multi video provider.


----------



## skyviewmark1

The growth of satellite is already slowing down.. I have been installing these things for years. And sales at the moment are stagnant to some extent. I can explain this simply. I drive through all the normal neighborhoods that use to be my big business.. And each house already has a dish. I think I spend more time right now just swapping customers over from Dish to Direct and from DirecTv to Dish. These are customers that just plain have no choice. If they want TV then they have to have a Satellite System.. Still having a lot of problems trying to pry the cable remote out of the hands of people that have access to cable.. Most cable subscribers who make the switch to satellite, would never go back to cable again. But most cable subscribers are too turned off by having a Dish, or just plain scared to switch because the commercials they keep seeing on their TV (From the cable company by the way) keep telling them that the dish is bad and ugly and goes out when it rains and is unpatriotic or whatever the cable company thinks they need to say to stop their large bleed of customers to a Dish.


----------



## bobukcat

oldave said:


> Once I can get at least 3mb/sec (what I have now with DSL) via a cell connection, for a similar rate, the wires are cut, and the only one that'll come in this house is electricity. I only have the land-line phone for the DSL (and because I can't get DSL without dial tone).


The one thing I like to mention is that if you live in an area with any real potential for a natural disaster I would absolutely keep wired POTS phone service! Why - it NEVER fails, mainly because the basic technology behind it is old and near disaster proof! There were so many stories out of New Orleans / LA / AL about people that had no water, no electric, no gas, no cell service - nothing - but their land line kept working the entire time. The same goes for earthquake regions.

Of course if you don't like in those areas......


----------



## Steve Mehs

Tell that to my coworkers. The last half a dozen people that I work with just got their phone service back last week after our October 12th snow storm. My boss still doesn't have phone service cable and power came back on on the morning of the 19th for him. The phone lines that run through his back yard are laying there still.


----------



## captain_video

Satellite-based internet services have never taken off as well as either FIOS, cable, or DSL services. DTV and Dish should be able to meet the demand for more HD channels in the near future but it will take them time to get their infrastructure in place (i.e., more sats in orbit). Unless they take it upon themselves to create more HD channels similar to the old VOOM service, now operated by Dish, the ability to deliver more HD programming will become moot unless more existing channels switch over to HD (other than shopping networks and religious channels).

FIOS and cable will always have the edge over sat TV in the area of internet services and VOD. I believe FIOS will ultimately win out over all other services but it will take them a lot longer to provide service nationwide. DTV and Dish can do it quicker with the launch of a few new satellites and placement in existing orbital locations, but it still takes time and money to build the birds and get them in orbit. DTV and Dish will always have the rural customer base since none of the hardwired services can provide the same level of service to inaccessible areas like DTV or Dish can.


----------



## Larry Caldwell

FogCutter said:


> Chris,
> 
> Verizon is pushing fiber-to-the-home very hard in many markets. They started out trying to deliver 10 MBPS downstream and I think 2 MBPS upstream. Their tacit goal was to eventually deliver 100 MBPS.
> 
> The point is that is plenty fast enough to deliver 1080p video on demand, which will be the end of the DBS services as we know them. All that will take a while and who knows, the DBS people might just crack the bandwith barrier and stay in the game.
> 
> Hi-def video on demand will eventually be the killer-app of choice, how we get it into our homes is problematic.


I already have HD VOD. It's called a DVR. I select the shows I want to watch in advance, record them, and watch them at my leisure. All the system you are describing would do is succeed in making me pay for every show I want to watch.

No thank you.


----------



## Larry Caldwell

captain_video said:


> Satellite-based internet services have never taken off as well as either FIOS, cable, or DSL services.


Satellite internet has the insurmountable technical difficulty that the Speed of Light is too slow to allow interactive net applications like gaming or VoIP. However, it costs the same in the back country or Manhattan. It is the only broadband service that is available wherever you go.

The early satellite broadband companies either got greedy or didn't have the financial backing to survive without screwing their customers. DirecWay and Starband sold bandwidth that they didn't have, cheating their customers out of the service they were promised, and creating lots of hard feelings.

WildBlue is apparently determined to avoid that mistake. They have declared a moratorium on new installations until they can get another satellite up and into operation. Meanwhile, if you already have WildBlue, you are getting the bandwidth you signed up for. They can also apparently adjust the power of their satellite transmitters. During the last recent heavy storms in the PNW, I had no problem with rain fade.

Technically, FIOS is superior to any other option, but it has to be buried to be reliable. That means resurfacing streets and sidewalks, and a whole lot of digging. Deployment into residential neighborhoods will take decades, and it will only be practical where subscriber density outweighs the costs. Even in large cities, there are neighborhoods with less than 10% internet access. DSL, and even dialup, will be with us for decades yet.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Larry Caldwell said:


> Satellite internet has the insurmountable technical difficulty that the Speed of Light is too slow to allow interactive net applications like gaming or VoIP.


What does the speed of light have to do with anything?

Do you really think that the communications on an electrical wire are faster? Or fiber optics, which in fact is light travelling at the speed of light!

The problem with interactive satellite is that you need a transmitter in the receiver AND you need lots of capability on the satellite in space to process the interactive requests. This is much easier to do down here on earth where you can add more servers to handle requests instead of having to launch new satellites to handle more interactive capacity.


----------



## HD_Wayne

tiger2005 said:


> I have FiOS in my home. After moving from DSL, to cable, and then to FiOS I can definitely say that FiOS wins over these other options BY FAR. Cable was more expensive and slower (most of the time) and DSL was A LOT slower than either of them and not that much cheaper.


Just how fast is FiOS? What upload/download speeds are you getting? Just curious.

Wayne


----------



## HD_Wayne

Actually I like satellite because I can move virtually anywhere in the country and know that my satellite will move with me. No guessing like with cable what channels you will get in each area. For traveling just take your receiver with you in your RV or camper and watch your favorite shows just like at home. Can't do that with cable. Also I believe that cable is not giving the full resulotion of the HD channels although that has been debated here before. So even if optical was available in my area I doubt very much that I would give up the satellite service. For internet an ideal connection is 100mbit and I doubt you will get that speed at consumer rates. 6 mbit on the cable modem seems to be fast enough since most servers at the other end cannot respond much faster.

Wayne


----------



## JM Anthony

I agree with Chris B. on the future direction, especially for urban areas. Satellite is essentially a one trick pony (only has one service to provide) and hence is pretty susceptible to customer churn. From a customer service/convenience perspective, three services seems to be the magic number to shoot for to lock in long term customers. Hi-def TV and VOD, Internet, VoIP, home management services (e.g. energy demand management services, security, etc) would be a pretty sweet package from my perspective.

John


----------



## Larry Caldwell

HDMe said:


> What does the speed of light have to do with anything?
> 
> Do you really think that the communications on an electrical wire are faster? Or fiber optics, which in fact is light travelling at the speed of light!
> 
> The problem with interactive satellite is that you need a transmitter in the receiver AND you need lots of capability on the satellite in space to process the interactive requests. This is much easier to do down here on earth where you can add more servers to handle requests instead of having to launch new satellites to handle more interactive capacity.


The speed of light limit adds half a second to every ping. It's a long ways to synchronous orbit and back, twice. Thats 92,000 miles the signal has to travel, and light only goes 186,000 miles per second. By comparison, a signal can make it the 6000 miles across the continental US and back in just over 0.03 second, and many land line communications don't have to go anywere near that far.

All the processing still happens on the ground. There are no servers in space.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Well, yeah... counting the distance to orbit... that does account for the slowdown as compared to land-based services... but it still doesn't have anything to do with the speed of light... because that same limitation applies down here too.

The main difference in satellite-based internet is (as you mentioned) the incredible distance to the satellite vs here on earth with copper or fiber... and the processing that needs to happen down here since the satellite is essentially just a repeater and not a server processing requests.

But the same would be true if the signal was travelling 400 miles per second or 400,000 miles per second... the land-based services would still be faster because of the shorter distances and processing power here... has nothing to do with the limit of the speed of light.


----------



## Nick

The only thing faster than the speed of light is the speed of 'thought', but once
we deign to communicate our thoughts, we are constrained by the immutable
laws of The Universe.


----------



## harsh

HDMe said:


> Do you really think that the communications on an electrical wire are faster? Or fiber optics, which in fact is light travelling at the speed of light!


The speed of light is indeed different for different media. The speed of light as you know it, C, is measured in a vacuum. The speed of electrons in copper or the speed of photons in fiber are typicallly slower than C. In fact, light can be slowed or even stopped under the right conditions. In an experiment at EPFL, researchers found that they could throttle the speed of light and made light travel through a fiber at speeds greater than C.


----------



## Nick

The "speed of light" (C) is a singular, absolute, unchanging and unchangeable metric. 

"Light", in other forms or mediums, which may travel at a lesser speed, it is not considered
to be the speed of light and should not be referred to as such.

To put it in simple terms, photons, electrons or whatever, traversing in fiber, copper or what-
ever do not move at the (absolute) speed of light. Find your own descriptives, but one would
be in error to refer to anything traveling at less than C, as the "speed of light".


----------



## harsh

Nick said:


> The "speed of light" (C) is a singular, absolute, unchanging and unchangeable metric.


C, as we understand it, is indeed a fixed number. We used to think about e=mc^2 in the same way (until it was found to be incomplete).

The speed of light in other media is typically not C. Since none of us Earthlings is operating in the same environment as C is defined for, it is imperative to consider the speed of light a medium other than a vacuum when discussing terrestrial communications. Perhaps we should use "Speed of Light" to represent C and "speed of light" to represent the contextual speed of light.


----------



## akron05

Will FIOS ever reach even cable's level of penetration though? Those of us who live in rural areas, or the suburbs of cities smaller than say, Cincinnati or Buffalo, may never see it anyway.


----------



## FogCutter

Larry Caldwell said:


> I already have HD VOD. It's called a DVR. I select the shows I want to watch in advance, record them, and watch them at my leisure. All the system you are describing would do is succeed in making me pay for every show I want to watch.
> 
> No thank you.


Larry,

Yeah, but VOD will be among us eventually. Lots of issues to overcome even after two decades of discussion. But like ringtones, people will pay money to get what they want, when they want.

To enhance the profit center I wouldn't doubt that the service providers will pull the plug on DVRs. That probably won't come in time to save Tivo, but I would pay to keep my DVR.


----------



## FogCutter

akron05 said:


> Will FIOS ever reach even cable's level of penetration though? Those of us who live in rural areas, or the suburbs of cities smaller than say, Cincinnati or Buffalo, may never see it anyway.


My guess is that we are close to the point where it doesn't make sense to replace aging infrastructure with copper. When FIOS first appeared it was beastly expensive, but the cost has fallen a lot. With the potential for to pile concurrent frequencies and modulations without EM consequences.

Over time FIOS will be the only service available. Our phone service just added DSL, they never did offer ISDN.


----------



## akron05

FogCutter said:


> My guess is that we are close to the point where it doesn't make sense to replace aging infrastructure with copper. When FIOS first appeared it was beastly expensive, but the cost has fallen a lot. With the potential for to pile concurrent frequencies and modulations without EM consequences.
> 
> Over time FIOS will be the only service available. Our phone service just added DSL, they never did offer ISDN.


I live within the city limits of Akron, Ohio, but can't get DSL. It's here in town, but for whatever reason, I'm over 23000 feet from the station. The way they draw the telephone exchange lines around here is sometimes weird. I have the same prefix as people 5 miles north, but go 2000 feet south or west of me and it's different. And they can get DSL.


----------



## FogCutter

akron05 said:


> I live within the city limits of Akron, Ohio, but can't get DSL. It's here in town, but for whatever reason, I'm over 23000 feet from the station. The way they draw the telephone exchange lines around here is sometimes weird. I have the same prefix as people 5 miles north, but go 2000 feet south or west of me and it's different. And they can get DSL.


Sounds about right. So are you using dial-up?


----------



## akron05

FogCutter said:


> Sounds about right. So are you using dial-up?


No, cable, but I hate Time Warner. Their customer service sucks, but they know i have no other high-speed options.


----------



## FogCutter

akron05 said:


> No, cable, but I hate Time Warner. Their customer service sucks, but they know i have no other high-speed options.


Bummer. I live in the middle of nowhere and we are blessed with three wireless cable ISPs, and now DSL even though I would be shocked if it worked. They can barely keep voice lines running.

Our antenna is 65 ft up in a tree. Interestingly there is a fiber trunk running at the edge of our property. Be fun to splice in and have at it.


----------



## Steve Mehs

akron05 said:


> Will FIOS ever reach even cable's level of penetration though? Those of us who live in rural areas, or the suburbs of cities smaller than say, Cincinnati or Buffalo, may never see it anyway.


As long as Verizon is your telco and you don't actually live in the middle of nowhere I don't see why not. Syracuse suburbs are getting ready for deployment as well, and the Syracuse market is smaler then Buffalo. I believe Albany is getting ready for Fios too as the Time Warner Captol Region franchise will be increasing speeds on Road Runner at the beginning of the year to that of Fios.


----------



## Steve Mehs

And ain't this ironic, my TW division just upgraded our speeds (today I guess) to reflect that of Fios (almost) and the kicker, Verizon doesn't have presence in most areas where my cable company services. TW Rochester is now at 15/1 for Road Runner. Thank you Time Warner, you friggen ROCK!

Last Result:
Download Speed: 14331 kbps (1791.4 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 957 kbps (119.6 KB/sec transfer rate)


----------



## agentss

tiger2005 said:


> I have FiOS in my home and they don't rip out the copper in the house. They remove the outside copper line running from your house to the pole and replace it with a Fiber line that connects to the ONT on the outside of your house. If you ever wanted to go back to copper it wouldn't be that difficult for the phone company to run a line back to your house from the pole. Although, I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to do this. After moving from DSL, to cable, and then to FiOS I can definitely say that FiOS wins over these other options BY FAR. Cable was more expensive and slower (most of the time) and DSL was A LOT slower than either of them and not that much cheaper.


I depends on your location. I have Verizon DSL and it is very fast and I have had no problems over the last 4 years and that includes moving. The speads I see these coaxial people selling is geting out of control. The average joe wanting to view a monkey dancing on YouTube or check E-mail does not need more speed then "city hall"(LOL). The prices I have seen are lower for DSL. The funny thing with FIOS is in some areas that have had brand new roads layed down Verizon has been smart and installed the new fiber at the same time. So in that case you can not go back to copper as the copper was laying on the side of the unfinished road in the dirt with people driving over it and now has been rolled up and auctioned off to a 3rd world country from what a foreman told me.


----------



## agentss

Steve Mehs said:


> And ain't this ironic, my TW division just upgraded our speeds (today I guess) to reflect that of Fios (almost) and the kicker, Verizon doesn't have presence in most areas where my cable company services. TW Rochester is now at 15/1 for Road Runner. Thank you Time Warner, you friggen ROCK!
> 
> Last Result:
> Download Speed: 14331 kbps (1791.4 KB/sec transfer rate)
> Upload Speed: 957 kbps (119.6 KB/sec transfer rate)


Rock onto a coaxial message board this is a DBS site.


----------



## Steve Mehs

:lol: Really? I didn't know.

Amazing how someone’s who has been a member for two days is giving orders to someone who’s been here since 8/12/01, isn't it?


----------

