# What We Know About AT&T/DirecTV’s Proposed Wireless Broadband Service



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

*What We Know About AT&T/DirecTV's Proposed Wireless Broadband Service*

(consumerist.com) - Last fall, an AT&T exec claimed that if his company was allowed to merge with DirecTV it could deploy some sort of wireless data service that delivered around 15Mbps to rural customers, but since then there has been very little talk of what this service would actually look like or how and where it would be deployed. But a dig through regulatory filings on the merger turns up a little more info....

Full Story Here


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Nothing new in there we hadn't already discussed in the AT&T thread, except the mention that this will use different spectrum than what cellular users do. That makes a lot of sense, so they could plan/manage the usage better. Reception shouldn't be a problem as I would anticipate AT&T will use or at least have an option for an outdoor antenna to minimize interference. If you also have Directv they could install the antenna on or near the dish, and share the coax using DECA to deliver the internet into your home.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Reception shouldn't be a problem as I would anticipate AT&T will use or at least have an option for an outdoor antenna to minimize interference. If you also have Directv they could install the antenna on or near the dish, and share the coax using DECA to deliver the internet into your home.


Putting the transceiver/modem at the dish seems unlikely. Having to run power out yonder doesn't make sense and combining the DC loads may be more than the cable can support. I suspect that it is much easier to run an RF cable to an antenna and plug it into the exterior wall-mounted box as the article suggests.

While combining the two may seem like a good idea, removing or replacing either one of the interdependent setups would necessarily frag the other.


----------



## Skyboss (Jan 22, 2004)

If it get the in-laws off of expensive and severely data limited Sat service and into some combined billing, then great.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

And still no confirmation on Data caps, which tells me they will be low.
Otherwise they would be bragging up a storm.


----------



## alnielsen (Dec 31, 2006)

One of the reasons AT&T is probably waiting to deploy the service is to get DirecTV's installation crews that are in place at areas they presently don't have service crews.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

While I have not had good luck with AT&T in the past, I would definitely consider this service if it was made available to me.

Right now my only options are Satellite internet with their low daily/monthly download limits and high prices (used to be slow but I guess the new stuff is pretty quick), or the WISP provider I have now which isn't a bad price ($50/mo) and has no download limits, but my speed is really slow (2M/s).


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I actually like Att, and now I like them even more, because they came out with a 7 GB Family share plan 4 phones for $135.

For us that's awesome, considering we had the 10 GB and never used more than 3,but was paying $160.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

alnielsen said:


> One of the reasons AT&T is probably waiting to deploy the service is to get DirecTV's installation crews that are in place at areas they presently don't have service crews.


The real reason is that the network doesn't exist yet. DIRECTV installers aren't typically qualified/licensed for the technology or they probably wouldn't be installing DIRECTV. 

As noted above, it will NOT be using the conventional voice/data network so they'll have to put up new antennas and all of the associated goodies before they can contemplate installing the service in homes.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

When I was able to get a Verizon manager and asked him about FiOS for my area, he pointed out that my area now had 4GLTE.

So unless the government tackles the density hurdle put up by communication companies, wireless is it for areas that don't meet the density mark for high profitbility.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> The real reason is that the network doesn't exist yet. DIRECTV installers aren't typically qualified/licensed for the technology or they probably wouldn't be installing DIRECTV.
> 
> As noted above, it will NOT be using the conventional voice/data network so they'll have to put up new antennas and all of the associated goodies before they can contemplate installing the service in homes.


I assume he meant installing it at people's homes, something they'd easily be qualified for, not installing it on the towers which is a more specialized job.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

This will be using fixed wireless antennas, kind of like the Dish trials. It'll be directional antennas at the customer location, outside, and a directional antenna on the tower. That's how it works, by using directional antennas they can get a lot more use out of the frequencies they'll be using. It's also why they're using frequencies reserved for this and not shared with regular mobile broadband. It's LTE only in that it's using LTE radios. Otherwise it's gonna look a *lot* like Dish's trials.


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

Might be a better option that satellite but I'd be betting on fairly restrictive caps on bandwidth.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> I assume he meant installing it at people's homes, something they'd easily be qualified for, not installing it on the towers which is a more specialized job.


You can't have one without the other and unfortunately, the scale we're talking about isn't 100:1 -- is is probably more like 10:1.

I'd be concerned about LOS if a directional antenna is required (a reason that microwave isn't more popular).


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

None of this is new and has been tested with many companies and various TELCO providers. If you do enough searching you'll find Sprint and Verizon have tested with Sat companies as well.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

You can follow the link to see what Verizon was using during their LTE trials with DirecTV:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Ends-Fixed-LTE-Trials-With-DirecTV-117363


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> You can't have one without the other and unfortunately, the scale we're talking about isn't 100:1 -- is is probably more like 10:1.
> 
> I'd be concerned about LOS if a directional antenna is required (a reason that microwave isn't more popular).


Why do you think you need to aim VHF and UHF antennas, whether or not you have LOS? LTE works just fine without LOS, as I assume you've used your cell phone when there's a hill between you and the tower and can still get a data connection. That's despite the fact the antennas in your phone are tiny, omnidirectional, and don't make use of beamforming. The antennas on the tower are directional MIMO antennas (there are several to cover all 360*) and use beamforming to optimize that end.

I guess you've never seen what sort of data rates you can get a phone using LTE in a lightly used cell, to be spreading your usual brand of FUD for this solution which will work just as well on the tower end and be more optimized on the user end. I daresay AT&T knows a bit more than you about how well this solution will work.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

I will be watching this service closely. I'm not sure AT&T offers an LTE signal here, and if they did, I'm not sure it matters, as you'd need to be a contortionist in order to get an AT&T signal here. AT&T wireline service is just down the street from me though, so maybe they will make improvements here in this area in the future. Now that AT&T Wireless has completed the Alltel Wireless switchover earlier this year, Verizon is really the only choice for a post-paid wireless service.

My concern, like most everyone else, is the caps. My current provider has no caps on my current plan, and has promised 10mbps for most everyone by the end of 2018, so crossing my fingers.


----------



## krock918316 (Mar 5, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> *I guess you've never seen what sort of data rates you can get a phone using LTE in a lightly used cell,* to be spreading your usual brand of FUD for this solution which will work just as well on the tower end and be more optimized on the user end. I daresay AT&T knows a bit more than you about how well this solution will work.


I can attest to this...


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

This is AT&T LTE at my house.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

AT&T isn't trying to sell this service to you, they are trying to sell it to unserved rural customers (i.e. people who can't get cable and cable modems like you can) Who knows how many you are sharing that cell with, or what sort of backhaul your tower has. Plus you're checking the speed from inside your house, and a cell phone's antenna is rather suboptimal.

I think it is likely AT&T will use LTE-A for this offering, since it is more spectrum efficient, especially given that they haven't even started rolling it out yet.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I was outside by the Way .Lol
And you are going to run into the same issue. And the more rural you get the harder it is to get services. Lots of places are surrounded by state game lands, no towers will be present there.


You have to have towers. And if cell service isn't great , your Home LTE isn't going to be any better.
We all don't live in the plains states. 

And I by no means live in a city.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Verizon Home LTE is present here right now, and the services are just like using cell phone services.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

I live in a rural area. Here's my Verizon Wireless results:










I used to get a MUCH faster speed... often getting results between 40-80mbps download speeds.

My only source of internet are DSL, satellite, and the above (if low caps weren't a problem). Here's my DSL service results:


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Why do you think you need to aim VHF and UHF antennas, whether or not you have LOS? LTE works just fine without LOS, as I assume you've used your cell phone when there's a hill between you and the tower and can still get a data connection. That's despite the fact the antennas in your phone are tiny, omnidirectional, and don't make use of beamforming. The antennas on the tower are directional MIMO antennas (there are several to cover all 360*) and use beamforming to optimize that end.


Since it isn't using the voice/data network, it may not be reasonable to compare it to the voice/data network. It could turn out to be something entirely different in terms of both frequency and modulation technology.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> Since it isn't using the voice/data network, it may not be reasonable to compare it to the voice/data network. It could turn out to be something entirely different in terms of both frequency and modulation technology.


You feel free to keep your dream alive that this will fall flat because you're smarter than all the AT&T engineers put together. I'm sure in your world it will leave Directv looking dumb while Dish will decide to actually use its wireless spectrum and do everything perfectly. Those of us who live in the real world know this is a very easy problem technologically. I'll let someone else play your game of shooting down all your ridiculous assertions, it gets tiring talking to someone whose only contribution to discussion is to come up with an endless list of reasons why anything Directv does will fail.

How well it works from a consumer perspective simply comes down to a business decision on AT&T's part as far as how much money they commit and how quickly. The technology is already proven, to deny that is to expose your ignorance.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Slice don't get me wrong, LTE speeds are much faster in places, In my nearest city, Scranton PA the LTE is much faster.
But from my house to there, many dead spots . As I said Home LTE, is still not going to work everywhere ,many more towers are needed to even remotely have even close the coverage that satellite has now.

This is going to be years in the works,


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

damondlt said:


> Slice don't get me wrong, LTE speeds are much faster in places, In my nearest city, Scranton PA the LTE is much faster.
> But from my house to there, many dead spots . As I said Home LTE, is still not going to work everywhere ,many more towers are needed to even remotely have even close the coverage that satellite has now.
> 
> This is going to be years in the works,


AT&T didn't say they're going to offer it everyone in the country. There are dead spots for OTA broadcasts too, no one assumes that because they have a TV station a certain distance away that they should be able to receive it. Likewise they shouldn't assume that because AT&T offers fixed wireless in their area that they'll serve every single person. But considering the people they're targeting currently have no option other than high latency low cap satellite, it will be a big improvement. Even if they're the ones on the cell edge who only get 10 Mbps.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Yes but I've already read reports data caps are expected to still be low.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Alan Gordon said:


> I live in a rural area. Here's my Verizon Wireless results:
> 
> My only source of internet are DSL, satellite, and the above (if low caps weren't a problem). Here's my DSL service results:


I live within 75 miles of the largest city in the USA and your DSL download service is twice as good as mine.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

This is an improvement over my first DSL connection ...









Still better than dialup. (Half the price of cable and no caps - other than speed.)
A mile further away from the telco and it would be back to half the speed (the speed I had before the telco moved the DSL equipment closer to my house).

DSL speed isn't about how far you are away from a major city ... it is about how far you are away from the ISP's equipment and how well your local telco maintains their lines.

(I do like our upload speed compared to his.)


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

damondlt said:


> Slice don't get me wrong, LTE speeds are much faster in places, In my nearest city, Scranton PA the LTE is much faster.
> But from my house to there, many dead spots . As I said Home LTE, is still not going to work everywhere ,many more towers are needed to even remotely have even close the coverage that satellite has now.
> 
> This is going to be years in the works,


While AT&T has many areas here without LTE or 3G service, or even cell service, Verizon has very few dead spots, and only a couple of spots that I'm aware of without LTE coverage.

AT&T had to let a lot of local Alltel Wireless customers go when they shut Alltel down a couple of months ago. They've never tried to compete here, and I don't have a lot of faith they'll start soon, but they could. The speed and scope will all come down to how much money AT&T is willing to invest in the service.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Drucifer said:


> I live within 75 miles of the largest city in the USA and your DSL download service is twice as good as mine.


I was really lucky to get DSL service at my location years back, and my ISP upgraded the RT several times in a matter of so many years. Since that time, they have upgraded a local CO to offer a 12/1 tier, but haven't bothered with my RT for years, and the service quality and reliability has gone downhill considerably. They offer a 24mbps tier in some newer developments where they've laid fiber, but usually in much bigger cities. They're planning on offering 1gig service in at least one larger city this year, but I'm just hoping to at least be upgraded to a 10mbps tier prior to 2018.

A co-worker of mine lives out in the boonies as well, and she can get U-Verse.



James Long said:


> DSL speed isn't about how far you are away from a major city ... it is about how far you are away from the ISP's equipment and how well your local telco maintains their lines.
> 
> (I do like our upload speed compared to his.)


While AT&T and Verizon seem to be abandoning their copper service in major cities as well as rural areas, I do believe that most other telcos do a much better job with their lines in areas in which there is competition, and if you live in a rural area, there isn't much competition.

I actually have .75 upload speeds, but I don't always get up to that amount sadly.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> The technology is already proven, to deny that is to expose your ignorance.


Do you know what this "proven" technology will be?

This nothing much to do with DIRECTV (or DISH that you seem so fond of dragging into every conversation). This is about AT&T and what they may (or may not if you believe the sabre rattling) do.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

damondlt said:


> Yes but I've already read reports data caps are expected to still be low.


They're making that assumption based on AT&T cellular data caps. They may not understand how this offering will be different from cellular, or the drivers behind AT&T choosing to offer this product now.

Given the low customer density in the target market areas, the fact these customers will not be competing with cellular users for the same bands, and most importantly these customers cannot move around, AT&T will have the ability to offer much higher data caps. Whether they actually do or not depends on market conditions, but it is likely this market will quickly become competitive. Verizon looks to offer this too and Dish may finally decide to make use of all that spectrum they've been stockpiling. If both jump in, and maybe lesser players like Sprint/T-Mobile, rural customers will have more competition for broadband than most suburban/urban customers do five years from now!

I think a lot of people are missing the real driver for all this. AT&T has a lot of 2G towers they need to upgrade both for competitive reasons and because they want to decommission Edge entirely. They chose to skip the upgrade to 3G because the cells are smaller and would have required adding towers, so they have always planned to go directly from 2G to 4G in rural markets.

In order to support LTE they need to upgrade the tower backhaul from copper to fiber. Those fiber upgrades are expensive, and there isn't much revenue to be had from rural cellular customers. Fixed wireless allows them to sell off all that excess backhaul capacity in sparsely used cells. That's why they won't be offering this product in denser areas.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> Do you know what this "proven" technology will be?


The same technology that a billion smartphones use.


----------



## alnielsen (Dec 31, 2006)

JosephB said:


> This will be using fixed wireless antennas, kind of like the Dish trials.* It'll be directional antennas at the customer location, outside, and a directional antenna on the tower.* That's how it works, by using directional antennas they can get a lot more use out of the frequencies they'll be using. It's also why they're using frequencies reserved for this and not shared with regular mobile broadband. It's LTE only in that it's using LTE radios. Otherwise it's gonna look a *lot* like Dish's trials.


Not necessarily. You mobile phone doesn't use a directional antenna and that is a UHF frequency, like that which would be used for this service. My VHF & UHF ham radios in my Jeep have non-directional vertical antennas. Directional antennas would be beneficial in a urban/suburban environment due to multipath distortion which results in phase distortion of the signal.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

It seems to me that there are 3 companies (at least) pursuing a nearly identical strategy, but each are at different stages of development: AT&T, Verizon and Dish Network. All three are investing HEAVILY in wireless broadband (100's of billions easily, once you factor in the actual build out).

Verizon is selling off it's wireline business in most of the country, focusing its efforts on wireless, and FiOS in a few geographical areas
AT&T is also selling off much of their wireline assets, focusing on wireless and Uverse in a few geographical areas.
Dish is obviously selling satellite TV today, but they are investing in terrestrial wireless spectrum almost as heavily as AT&T and Verizon.
The only difference is that Verizon and AT&T can (today) only offer TV service in a limited number of geographies, and Dish, while they own lots of spectrum, has no infrastructure in place to deliver voice and data.

Now, consider what happens if the DirecTV acquisition is approved. AT&T could then deliver TV virtually anywhere in the country along with data and voice almost anywhere, with fiber broadband, voice and video in a few markets. While Verizon has a co-marketing deal with DirecTV is some areas, that is unlikely to continue once AT&T owns DirecTV. While they could just switch to co-marketing Dish, the actual scenario that plays out will likely depend on the degree of success AT&T is able to realize. If they start getting some real traction selling TV, data and voice bundles nationwide you will see Verizon want to do the same. FiOS was never going to give them that capability since it was never getting to rural areas (or most suburbs for that matter) even in their most optimistic predictions. So, I expect that if AT&T is successful with a wireless/satellite hybrid in those areas where Uverse over fiber is not available, Verizon will make a play to acquire Dish Network. All of Dish's wireless spectrum makes them an even more attractive acquisition target.

Imagine a AT&T/DirecTV union versus a Verizon/Dish Network one. They would both be able to offer voice, data and TV virtually anywhere...via fiber where it is available and via wireless/satellite where it isn't. They would both very likely offer mobile video service as well, over existing LTE and the newer frequencies still to come on line. This is also a strategy that allows them to move towards fiber or towards wireless depending on market factors.

I honestly think is where we will end up in a couple of years. If it is not Verizon acquiring Dish, it will be Dish acquiring T-Mobile. Sooner or later it just makes sense for a company to offer all the various digital delivery methods. They can then grow the one the market prefers while protecting (and hopefully enlarging) their current market share.


----------



## Skyboss (Jan 22, 2004)

harsh said:


> Do you know what this "proven" technology will be?
> 
> This nothing much to do with DIRECTV (or DISH that you seem so fond of dragging into every conversation). This is about AT&T and what they may (or may not if you believe the sabre rattling) do.


Probably this with maybe an outdoor antenna for improved signal.

http://www.att.com/cellphones/att/wireless-home-phone-and-internet.html#sku=sku7130587

or the Verizon version:

http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/lte-internet-installed/

I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is the long term future of all internet service providers provided they can deliver enough bandwidth. A fully connected environment probably with device jumping to share the bandwidth and maximize the speed. The technology is pretty much solved. Its all about the speed now.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Exactly...and it will probably be running on the AWS spectrum AT&T just spent a few billion on.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> I live within 75 miles of the largest city in the USA and your DSL download service is twice as good as mine.


DSL in the Metro Area is lousy because the wires are so freaking old. In parts of the region the wires are over 60 years old, with cold splices and uneven twists.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Diana C said:


> DSL in the Metro Area is lousy because the wires are so freaking old. In parts of the region the wires are over 60 years old, with cold splices and uneven twists.


I'm four blocks from the CO.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

I can't seem to post my speed test, but my DSL is .3 up and .1 down. I would sign up for this yesterday if I could. I am very close to just getting a router and running off my cell data. The only thing my dsl has going for it is no cap, but at 80 bucks a month for that and home phone it is really pricey for what I'm getting.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inhd40 said:


> I can't seem to post my speed test, but my DSL is .3 up and .1 down.


As much as I hate satellite internet, if I was in your shoes I would get it in a heartbeat!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

alnielsen said:


> You mobile phone doesn't use a directional antenna and that is a UHF frequency, like that which would be used for this service.


LTE radio frequencies can go up to 3.6GHz. Hardly something I'd classify under the category of UHF.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

peds48 said:


> As much as I hate satellite internet, if I was in your shoes I would get it in a heartbeat!


No satellite if you're doing any remote control or gaming. But I would also be contacting the provider vs. what you're paying for.

.1 / .3 is pretty dismal.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

dennisj00 said:


> No satellite if you're doing any remote control or gaming. But I would also be contacting the provider vs. what you're paying for.
> 
> .1 / .3 is pretty dismal.


Oops, that should have been .3/.1, like it makes much of a difference. :rotfl: I don't game or anything, but what I would like to do is stream video. The caps on the satellite from what I have seen would be rather expensive for that. As far as contacting them, they don't care, take it or leave it. They are not taking new customers for internet on dsl so if I drop it I can't get it back.


----------



## mrknowitall526 (Nov 19, 2014)

Drucifer said:


> I'm four blocks from the CO.


Doesn't necessarily mean that's how the wires travel, especially if you're in a city.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dennisj00 said:


> No satellite if you're doing any remote control or gaming. But I would also be contacting the provider vs. what you're paying for.
> 
> .1 / .3 is pretty dismal.


well, I doubt he is doing any gaming right now with those speeds. So satellite would be an upgrade.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## alnielsen (Dec 31, 2006)

harsh said:


> LTE radio frequencies can go up to 3.6GHz. Hardly something I'd classify under the category of UHF.


Only one company, in North America, uses a frequency above 3 GHz. And they are in B.C. Canada. All the AT& T frequencies are below 2GHz. 3 GHz is the top of what is classified as UHF (300 MHz - 3 GHz).


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

My fastest verizon lte speed test (first pic). It was closer to tower and about 8 blocks away from my house.

In the second pic first test is lte speed outside. Second is inside. Third is my DSL wifi.















Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Your first page is also a year old lol.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

alnielsen said:


> Only one company, in North America, uses a frequency above 3 GHz. And they are in B.C. Canada. All the AT& T frequencies are below 2GHz. 3 GHz is the top of what is classified as UHF (300 MHz - 3 GHz).


On a TV-oriented forum, anything much over 1GHz is probably not spoken of as UHF.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

I received an email from Sprint the other day saying that they will be shutting down Clear/Clearwire WiMax on Nov. 6 and convert the spectrum to LTE. I can't say I didn't see this one coming.


----------



## mrknowitall526 (Nov 19, 2014)

bobnielsen said:


> I received an email from Sprint the other day saying that they will be shutting down Clear/Clearwire WiMax on Nov. 6 and convert the spectrum to LTE. I can't say I didn't see this one coming.


Especially since it was announced years ago! They've already been using the spectrum for LTE on Band 41.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Thank goodness. They need more bandwidth for lte


----------

