# Direct TV fixed wireless Broadband



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Been waiting on this for a long time, says starting by years end. Anybody got any word on the rollout of this, I am so ready to drop my slooooow satellite internet.

*3. So How Fast Will It Be?*
The filing echoes what AT&T said back in September - speeds of 15-20Mbps, which is more than sufficient for streaming video and most online applications. However, it's worth noting that this number was given long before the FCC voted to revise its definition of broadband to 25Mbps.

http://consumerist.com/2015/03/03/what-we-know-about-attdirectvs-proposed-wireless-broadband-service/

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/technology/headlines/20140523-a-fast-evolving-technology-helps-att-in-directv-deal.ece


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

Enjoy the super low data caps.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Could be no worse than satellite internet. Have you anything official from AT&T that shows data caps? With TV coming over the wireless loop it will have to be very large.

AT&T guy told me he" thought" it would be 300gb or higher with the cloud DVR TV service.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Aridon said:


> Enjoy the super low data caps.


Fixed wireless broadband is wholly separate from the data packages you get on phones/tablets, even though they originate from the same source, and won't be subject to the same pricing or caps you have on an AT&T phone. The reason is because AT&T can control where geographically it is sold, and it will be "fixed" (i.e. the antenna will only work with the tower(s) nearest your house, if you try to take it with you when you travel it won't work)

When towers are upgraded to LTE in rural areas with low population density, there is a lot of spare capacity that would otherwise go unused. AT&T (and Verizon et al as well no doubt) will monetize that by selling fixed wireless broadband. You won't be able to get it in the cities or suburbs, only in areas with low population density where the towers have that spare capacity. Of course the tower will have to be upgraded to LTE and have a fiber backhaul, so it will take a few years to roll out everywhere AT&T intends to offer it.

AT&T left a lot of those rural areas on Edge instead of upgrading to 3G, because GSM cells are smaller and would have required additional towers. LTE cells are comparable in size to 2G, so they skipped the 3G upgrade in many of those areas and will take them directly to LTE.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

This sounds a little like what Clear(wire) was offering (and is now going away since they were purchased by Sprint. I had it for several years but the speeds were more like 4 Mbps. If they had an option to use an external antenna I suspect the speed would have been higher.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

AT&T said in their FCC filings that it would have caps "on par" with their current wired broadband offerings. With U-Verse, there are no caps, and with DSL there are caps in the 250-300GB range.

Speeds will be in the range that AT&T originally said in the filings (10-20Mbps). The FCC's redefinition of broadband has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

I am assuming if you subscribe to the AT&T Direct TV cloud television service thru the Fixed wireless service that I will be able to get the tv service on my tablet anywhere that I travel??

Also I will no longer have to have the internet satellite dish in the yard nor the satellite tv dish mounted on the house, is this correct?

Looks like a lot less hardware involved, shouldn't the price be cheaper also?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

There's no way AT&T or anyone else has remotely enough bandwidth to give everyone the kind of TV service they get via Directv today through the "cloud". That's a fantasy that won't come true for at least a decade at least. Even bigger fantasy that it would be cheaper because there's less hardware on the customer end. What matters is the total cost of everything involved, not just the equipment on the customer end.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

A local AT&T guy turned me on to these links and said it was coming a lot sooner than most think.

However, AT&T sees its new advantage in scale leading to far more than cross-promotional selling. As part of the company's product roadmap, it plans to "bring legacy U-verse and DirecTV customers to a new and common customer experience with personalization features, user controls and the ability to integrate managed and unmanaged content." This means converging its current CPE platform and transitioning "to a *more efficient software model* in the future."
In a lot of ways, AT&T's strategy sounds similar to the one pursued by Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ), if approached in a much different way. The shift to a New IP model will allow AT&T to make its video portable and maximize the advantage of its broadband network assets for distribution. (See Verizon Builds Toward OTT Launch .)

Guess who?

A new, direct-to-home, all-software head-end for satellite providers. Offering MPEG-2, H.264 or HEVC in superior quality with enhanced statistical multiplexing, Envivio Muse and its new all-software Envivio Spark Multiplexer have been selected by a major US satellite operator to move its operations to private cloud with software-based processing to optimize costs


*A new Cloud DVR solution combining all the latest processing techniques, from efficient software-defined storage, the use of the latest compression standards to packaging and even transcoding on the fly, resulting in up to 26X reduction in necessary storage capacity. The software allows operators to offer start over, time shifting and to offer network personal video recording to any screen*

The service will have to be cheaper to compete with all the new Apple TV, Sling TV etc. that will entering the market.

http://www.lightreading.com/video/multi-screen-video/atandt-has-its-mobile-video-moment/d/d-id/717607

http://news.sys-con.com/node/3405738

http://www.multichannel.com/prfeed/envivios-innovations-help-service-providers-accelerate-roi-their-video-services/392870


----------



## Naveb (Jul 7, 2013)

bobnielsen said:


> This sounds a little like what Clear(wire) was offering (and is now going away since they were purchased by Sprint. I had it for several years but the speeds were more like 4 Mbps. If they had an option to use an external antenna I suspect the speed would have been higher.


Pixius offers a similar service in rural Kansas. A radio receiver antenna is mounted on the roof or side of house. It points toward a cell phone tower which broadcast wireless broadband up to 10 Mbps. There are no data caps. If AT&T offers similar service with higher data speeds, I will be very interested.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

No set top box, all cloud based over broadband internet?

Reducing the number of home visits and eliminating duplication in support functions will help it make cost savings, and the telco also outlined a plan to eliminate complexity from its operations. It will focus solely on the DirecTV architecture within the home and plans to roll out a* single IP video distribution platform.*

*Cheaper too.*

In addition, it believes its new scale in TV can help it reduce content acquisition costs.
"We have some room to negotiate," on the cost of content, Stephens said. "Our 6 million U-verse customers' content costs us about *$17 per month more than our DirecTV customers."*
However, he insists there is an upside for content owners. "It's not just about a zero sum game with content providers," he said, noting that AT&T can provide them with information about who is watching what, and help them with targeted advertising.

http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=490811&G=5&C=5&page=2

http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=490811


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bedford11 said:


> In addition, it believes its new scale in TV can help it reduce content acquisition costs.
> "We have some room to negotiate," on the cost of content, Stephens said. "Our 6 million U-verse customers' content costs us about *$17 per month more than our DirecTV customers."*


That's kind of shocking to me. I would never have thought it was that big a difference negotiating with 6 million customers and negotiating with 20 million customers. Even if there is zero difference going from 20 to 26 million, _AT&T will be saving $1.2 billion a year _when they start paying the same price for Uverse customer content that Directv does! That's pretty nice, and that's before the savings they get from having a common hardware/software platform for both, integrate billing and other back office tasks to eliminate redundancy, etc.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

Unless they convert those Uverse subscribers or somehow combine both services to the point where the content holders will look at them as all the same they want save anything.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Does it sound like AT&T is moving DTV to SAT-IP? If so I wonder how that would work? I guess they would keep both IPTV over wireline in addition to SAT-IP and those two IP system would be kind of like having one video delivery platform like Stankey said? Would they have to come out to a persons home and switch out the multi-switch with a SAT-IP type of multiswitch? I looked some of the diagrams up online they showed one that took coax connections from one end and Ethernet out of the other. Or maybe the HD server box will have the tuners and the other equipment in the home will be IP Ethernet/Wifi only?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

west99999 said:


> Unless they convert those Uverse subscribers or somehow combine both services to the point where the content holders will look at them as all the same they want save anything.


They have "combined them to the point where the content holders will look at them the same" by buying Directv. When Directv's negotiators come knocking on the door next time they'll be negotiating for 26 million customers, instead of 20 million. Disney can hardly say "we want to negotiate Directv and Uverse separately" just because they feel like it, anymore than they could tell Comcast they want a little contract for each state Comcast does business in, versus a national contract that covers all of Comcast's customers.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Does it sound like AT&T is moving DTV to SAT-IP? If so I wonder how that would work? I guess they would keep both IPTV over wireline in addition to SAT-IP and those two IP system would be kind of like having one video delivery platform like Stankey said? Would they have to come out to a persons home and switch out the multi-switch with a SAT-IP type of multiswitch? I looked some of the diagrams up online they showed one that took coax connections from one end and Ethernet out of the other. Or maybe the HD server box will have the tuners and the other equipment in the home will be IP Ethernet/Wifi only?


Yes, but just because the marketing material shows ethernet out for SAT-IP don't make the mistake of thinking that's how it must be. That's really not practical for outdoor installations, so I doubt you'll see any real-world SAT-IP installs that actually have ethernet over twisted pair coming out of the LNB. That's the difference between marketing fluff created by marketers and actual solutions created by engineers who have to deal with real world problems like rain and RJ45 connectors not getting along  (Yes, if they put a cover around it like the NID on the outside of your house they can get around that problem, but cat5 twisted pair being unshielded has other issues that make RG6 better suited for the outdoor part of the install)

Whether the LNB directly outputs IP, or whether it feeds SWM into a gateway which outputs IP, what matters is getting Directv content converted to IP because at that point it is for all practical purposes identical to Uverse so the same equipment can be used for either one, which is what AT&T wants because it will save them money.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Sorry, I should have added that the diagrams I saw had the Sat-IP server, convertor or multi-switch on the inside. I don't think the SAT-IP server had the HD DVR in it. Looked like they had it in the attic and the Ethernet cables coming from their they weren't on the outside of the house. I did a Google image search for Sat-IP. I keep forgetting that AT&T could go with an all ip set-up with coax. Maybe have tuners in the gateway then the devices connected to that wouldn't have tuners in them? The only bad thing about that if that Media Gateway their talking about goes down you would be screwed. However advantages to the other devices being all IP and no tuners would be you could move them to different rooms and use video with Ethernet or video over WIFI in tablets, laptops. PC's game consoles, TV's.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> The only bad thing about that if that Media Gateway their talking about goes down you would be screwed.


That's no different than if your LNB goes down. There is always going to be a single point of failure somewhere.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

And none of that means that the cost to the consumer will go down.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CTJon said:


> And none of that means that the cost to the consumer will go down.


Since it is driven by the (so far) ever escalating content costs, that much is certain.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

A lot of choices for your video provider (such as Apple TV, SlingTV, and the many other online choices coming soon, plus the breakup of the cable bundle) will insure lower prices.

Other requirements from the FCC include AT&T offering discount fixed broadband services to low-income households, terms and conditions for its servic*e not favoring its own video programming* and submitting regular compliance reports to the FCC.

four-year deadline for a complete project, 

 the company will be able to reach about 25.7 million customer locations with download speeds of 45 megabytes per second or higher.

http://www.joplinglobe.com/news/local_news/at-t-directv-merger-to-bring-more-broadband-to-joplin/article_70d2de74-3705-11e5-9bc7-f3683d0845eb.html


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bedford11 said:


> A lot of choices for your video provider (such as Apple TV, SlingTV, and the many other online choices coming soon, plus the breakup of the cable bundle) *will insure lower prices.*


How so?


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Although nothing has been announced, AT&T (with its DirecTV acquisition) is predicted to roll out an OTT video service, and the company is uniquely positioned to tie that into a variety of nationwide bundles that could also include fixed or mobile broadband.

The CEO of Dish was quoted as saying there will be 50 to 60 competitors to enter the market.

More competition, break down of the cable bundle, cloud based (no or little hardware in the home) = lower prices for the consumer.

http://advanced-television.com/2015/08/20/north-american-pay-tv-subs-down-arpu-up/


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> They have "combined them to the point where the content holders will look at them the same" by buying Directv. When Directv's negotiators come knocking on the door next time they'll be negotiating for 26 million customers, instead of 20 million. Disney can hardly say "we want to negotiate Directv and Uverse separately" just because they feel like it, anymore than they could tell Comcast they want a little contract for each state Comcast does business in, versus a national contract that covers all of Comcast's customers.


This is not the case as they are separate services they will still negotiate them separately. Do you think Dish negotiates their sat service and sling service all together? Dish cannot say we have 1 million sling customer and 14 millions Dish customers so how much can we get ABC for? They have to negotiate it separate. The same with Uverse and Directv unless the customers are converted then they will negotiate it separate.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bedford11 said:


> More competition, break down of the cable bundle, cloud based (no or little hardware in the home) = lower prices for the consumer.


Keep believing that. As of now with Sling TV you get 23 channels fro $20 with *one stream at a time*. In order to get more streams (up to 3) you need to add HBO which brings your bill to $40.00 a month or add an international package.

When streaming gets to the point of where currently conventional TV is (channel wise) what would change is how yo get that content, the pricing will remain the same.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

west99999 said:


> This is not the case as they are separate services they will still negotiate them separately. Do you think Dish negotiates their sat service and sling service all together? Dish cannot say we have 1 million sling customer and 14 millions Dish customers so how much can we get ABC for? They have to negotiate it separate. The same with Uverse and Directv unless the customers are converted then they will negotiate it separate.


Prove it. If that's the case, why doesn't ESPN make Comcast negotiate separately for every city they operate in, so basically those are all separate cable systems.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

west99999 said:


> This is not the case as they are separate services they will still negotiate them separately. Do you think Dish negotiates their sat service and sling service all together? Dish cannot say we have 1 million sling customer and 14 millions Dish customers so how much can we get ABC for? They have to negotiate it separate. The same with Uverse and Directv unless the customers are converted then they will negotiate it separate.


 Actually they did flat out say that sling tv carriage was part of the deal for dish renewal earlier this year of all ABC owned channels including ESPN on dish....

And yeah, I think you could pretty much guarantee that any negotiating going on now be for both companies. Why would they do it any other way? That's what all the channels are doing now by trying to own so many channels.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Prove it. If that's the case, why doesn't ESPN make Comcast negotiate separately for every city they operate in, so basically those are all separate cable systems.


They are all the same delivery method. I can't prove it nor do I need to but the way I read it from company news emails that I get they need to combine all customers to save money on channel negotiations.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

west99999 said:


> They are all the same delivery method. I can't prove it nor do I need to but the way I read it from company news emails that I get they need to combine all customers to save money on channel negotiations.


And they did the day the merger went through. Within a year I bet all their video services from fiber to sat to mobile on their phones is branded under one name.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> And they did the day the merger went through. Within a year I bet all their video services from fiber to sat to mobile on their phones is branded under one name.


I have already said that Directv would be going away and everything would be ATT.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

west99999 said:


> I have already said that Directv would be going away and everything would be ATT.


I'm confused. Who was saying they can't negotiate one contract for both platforms then?

And I don't think the name is going away. But time will tell on that one.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

7.3 million rural homes set to get broadband, AT&T/Direct to get 2.5 Billion to bring me broadband so I can subscribe to some of the Internet TV services, hoping the soon to come ATT and AppleTV will be good. I can then loose the Internet Dish out front and the TV dish on the house. Anybody know if the 2.5 Billion will be used for Fixed Wireless?

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/257302/fcc-pays-carriers-9-billion-to-boost-rural-broadb.html


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

Bedford11 said:


> 7.3 million rural homes set to get broadband, AT&T/Direct to get 2.5 Billion to bring me broadband so I can subscribe to some of the Internet TV services, hoping the soon to come ATT and AppleTV will be good. I can then loose the Internet Dish out front and the TV dish on the house. Anybody know if the 2.5 Billion will be used for Fixed Wireless?
> 
> http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/257302/fcc-pays-carriers-9-billion-to-boost-rural-broadb.html


Nice consolidated is on their maybe they can upgrade are dsl so I don't have to go cable internet


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Yes, but just because the marketing material shows ethernet out for SAT-IP don't make the mistake of thinking that's how it must be. That's really not practical for outdoor installations, so I doubt you'll see any real-world SAT-IP installs that actually have ethernet over twisted pair coming out of the LNB. That's the difference between marketing fluff created by marketers and actual solutions created by engineers who have to deal with real world problems like rain and RJ45 connectors not getting along  (Yes, if they put a cover around it like the NID on the outside of your house they can get around that problem, but cat5 twisted pair being unshielded has other issues that make RG6 better suited for the outdoor part of the install)


Just a few facts...

CatX is available waterproof/burial/shielded (for example, http://www.primuscable.com/store/p/8342-CAT6-Ethernet-Cable-Direct-Burial-Outdoor-Shielded-Solid-23-AWG.aspx)
There are many waterproof RJ45 connectors
Power over ethernet is common
So I don't see any technical reason why it couldn't be done.

I agree it isn't likely anytime soon. As long as a single coax can do the job, that is.

_Installed base_ is a huge factor. *But* then again, when I was young working for my family tv & appliance business long ago, antennas were the norm and RG59 was the standard. RG6 could just as easily run out of road.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Time is also a factor. It's a lot more time consuming to deal with making cat cables than coax.


----------



## alnielsen (Dec 31, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Time is also a factor. It's a lot more time consuming to deal with making cat cables than coax.


Not really. You can add a RJ-45 to the end of a cat cable in very little time (as long as your not color blind).


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Personally, I can put 3 or 4 connectors on RG6 in the same amount of time I can put on one RJ45. It's a ***** keeping the twists tight, getting each conductor in the correct slot, etc., at least for me.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

alnielsen said:


> Not really. You can add a RJ-45 to the end of a cat cable in very little time (as long as your not color blind).


It may not be a long time in general but it's a lot longer no matter how good you are than a coax connection. And it's a lot longer to replace too if an end is bad vs coax.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

alnielsen said:


> Not really. You can add a RJ-45 to the end of a cat cable in very little time (as long as your not color blind).


Adding or installing connectors RJ-45 is so much unproductive that companies that deals with this cable usually recommends using pre-made patch cords instead of building you own. Used to work in a HUGE company installing their LAN infrastructure and making your own patch cords was a big no-no. Form the patch panel to the source equipment you had to use pre-made patch cables. Same goes from the jack to the WS or telephone.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AT&T says that it is no longer economically feasible to offer wired Internet service in 25 percent of its 22-state copper footprint. The company is promising to serve more customers if it is allowed to buy DirecTV, with a new, more reliable "fixed wireless local loop" service for 13 million residences in mostly rural areas that lack good broadband options today. But AT&T says about 85 percent of the 13 million wireless locations will be outside the copper footprint, meaning just two million locations inside the territory will get the service

Maybe they are going after the competition ?

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/06/internet-nightmare-att-sells-broadband-to-your-neighbors-but-not-to-you/


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

The reason DSL has become uneconomic to build out and operate is that its infrastructure needs were subsidized by the landlines almost everyone had in the past. With many dropping landlines in the past decade that income is no longer present to help share the cost, thus DSL becomes more expensive to deliver. Due to competition from cable internet, there isn't much room to raise pricing for DSL. That's why investment in DSL has stagnated.

The same will happen to cable internet over time if more and more people cut the cord and go to streaming as is anticipated. Cable TV subscriptions share a lot of the infrastructure cost for cable, as the percentage of homes subscribed to cable drops the share of infrastructure cost cable internet subscribers must cover will increase, increasing their price they will be charged for it.

Fixed wireless broadband will be relatively immune from this, since it is effectively a reverse subsidy. In order to cover as much of the country as possible the cellular companies can't just build towers where a lot of people live. When they cover rural areas where there are only a handful of homes per square mile, there is a ton of unused capacity in the towers serving those areas. Fixed wireless thus helps pay for the uneconomic towers in those rural areas that are required for carriers that wish to compete by how complete their coverage is, rather than subsidizing it.

Cellular companies will have their own subsidy problems to work through in the next few years as there will eventually be no distinction between voice and data services, so without the subsidy of voice/SMS plans the pricing for data plans for your phone is likely to rise. Fixed wireless broadband will help defray that by providing the cellular companies additional income from their data services which will hopefully make up for much of the loss of voice/SMS income.

AT&T believes it will be able to more effectively sell fixed wireless broadband plans if they can also offer traditional TV services. Fixed wireless isn't really going to work well for cord cutters wanting to go to full time streaming, and many rural customers may not have very many OTA choices so there should be a lot of demand for satellite TV in the areas served by fixed wireless broadband for years to come, even if urban/suburban people start cutting the cord at high rates over the next decade.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

The new internet TV services will make satellite TV obsolete. All of the channels/features of cable/satellite TV are soon to become standard on internet TV. Their will be 50 to 60 competitors such as Apple TV, AT&T ott TV, Sony TV, Sling TV and the list will grow and grow, When you have access to fast internet, you will have access to the whole world of these new internet TV services.

OTA or local channels will be offered on Apple TV, Sling TV and most of the others coming to market.

http://www.cutcabletoday.com/sling-tv-cable-tv-killer/


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Bedford11 said:


> The new internet TV services will make satellite TV obsolete. All of the channels/features of cable/satellite TV are soon to become standard on internet TV. Their will be 50 to 60 competitors such as Apple TV, AT&T ott TV, Sony TV, Sling TV and the list will grow and grow, When you have access to fast internet, you will have access to the whole world of these new internet TV services.
> 
> OTA or local channels will be offered on Apple TV, Sling TV and most of the others coming to market.
> 
> http://www.cutcabletoday.com/sling-tv-cable-tv-killer/


Tell me this when I can record 16+ channels at a time.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

New Directv vans coming to a neighborhood near you.


----------



## samrs (May 30, 2004)

west99999 said:


> New Directv vans coming to a neighborhood near you.


I heard that today. I was hoping it wasn't true.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Those vans are a good sign of convergence. AT&T can service Fixed Broadband, Fiber, Copper Lines, Sat all out of the same van. I like it.

Wondering what they are going to call their new internet TV service, anybody heard?

Mr. Stephenson said it was "inevitable" that the traditional "bundle" of cable television channels will crumble as more content travels "over the top" to customers via the Internet.
He said he wanted AT&T to be part of that transition and was fully prepared for erosion of the DirecTV customer base over time.
"We will go hard at 'over the top' and will invest in the tech platform and content," he said, adding that AT&T has weathered such transitions repeatedly during his time at the company. "We build this into our models. I've gone through these transitions more than I can count. They all look the same. The new stuff grows really fast, and margins get compressed. Once you have 30% penetration, you can get your cost structures in line and then ride the growth curve."
http://adage.com/article/media/t-ceo-directv-rebrand-commits-ott/296745/


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Bedford11 said:


> Those vans are a good sign of convergence. AT&T can service Fixed Broadband, Fiber, Copper Lines, Sat all out of the same van. I like it.
> 
> Wondering what they are going to call their new internet TV service, anybody heard?
> 
> ...


I think West99999 said its just going to AT&T and they aren't going to use the DirecTV or UVerse names anymore. So I guess it will be just AT&T TV, Internet, Phone and Wireless? That makes sense to me. People know the AT&T name and their logo just as well as DTV and UVerse so they could drop the DTV and UVerse names.


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

My Galaxy Note 4 they just updated software and now when you turn it on where the AT&T logo used to be it just says AT&T now the planet logo is now gone off of my screen


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

And also the new AT&T u-verse app that was added to Amazon fire TV just says AT&T - without the AT&T globe logo is not there


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Bedford11 said:


> The new internet TV services will make satellite TV obsolete. All of the channels/features of cable/satellite TV are soon to become standard on internet TV. Their will be 50 to 60 competitors such as Apple TV, AT&T ott TV, Sony TV, Sling TV and the list will grow and grow, When you have access to fast internet, you will have access to the whole world of these new internet TV services.
> 
> OTA or local channels will be offered on Apple TV, Sling TV and most of the others coming to market.
> 
> http://www.cutcabletoday.com/sling-tv-cable-tv-killer/


I keep hearing this but I can't see it happening in the forseeable future. First a significant number of people don't have internet speeds that will allow a household of people to all watch different programs at the same time - Not sure anyone has. A lot of people don't have "high" speed internet at all.
Second - at the moment cable/Sat is the only place that has most of the channels that people want. This vision people have is that we will all have Apple TV and Netflix, and , and, and. You will probably need all to actually get the channels you want - and then how will you get local stations - local owners and FCC will not let you get national versions of stations that exist locally to you.
Then you'll need some sort of guide that combines all the services you now will subscribe to. Try and remember which program you want is on which service and then figure out what setting on the remote gets you that, etc. 
It is a nice vision but I don't see it happening any time soon and it probably won't save you money either. Remember, if the infrastucture existed today UVERSE would exist in more places and AT&T wouldn't have needed to buy DirecTV


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

The demise of linear channels via sat and cable is overstated. Last I checked streaming music and iTunes etc hasn't killed am, fm, or even Sirius. And it hasn't stopped digital fm from coming along either. 

One of the big reasons I always tell people you can't point to what the Internet has done to music and say it will do the same to linear tv. It never hurt over the air radio like it did purchasing cds.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> > The new internet TV services will make satellite TV obsolete.
> 
> 
> Tell me this when I can record 16+ channels at a time.


When this happens I think the changes are going to be more invasive. "Channels" will be gone. Everything will be "On Demand". Even live sports/news.

Then what does "record" mean? As far as I can tell (I am only on the verge of adding a streaming box to my setup), anything that is streamed cannot be recorded. D, and I imagine Dish, will "download" On Demand and store it locally but nobody else does AFAIK.

Which, to me, is a big inhibitor. Internet infrastructure is just not there enough yet to support the kind of load that streaming replacing sat/cable would cause.

Another problem with streaming/on demand is that they can limit trick play.

The infrastructure will continue to improve. My bet is that further technology will be developed to cluster on demand requests in time to optimize data streams locally. This will require the in-home device to cache content. I've talked about this before in depth.

When that happens sat will be relegated to servicing rural areas not yet served by sufficient internet infrastructure.

How are we going to get full trick play capabilities back? Only when content can be purchased without ad supplied subsidies - in other words, reasonable pay-per-view costs per program.

We are in the middle of a big transition in lots of things. I fully expect to see in my lifetime (I'm 55), a totally converged communication and entertainment infrastructure in the home - voice & video communication, data, and all entertainment through one pipe. Ideally the pipe would be provided by independent local service providers (public utility - no content involvement). It will be a rocky transition.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> The demise of linear channels via sat and cable is overstated. Last I checked streaming music and iTunes etc hasn't killed am, fm, or even Sirius. And it hasn't stopped digital fm from coming along either.
> 
> One of the big reasons I always tell people you can't point to what the Internet has done to music and say it will do the same to linear tv. It never hurt over the air radio like it did purchasing cds.


Audio has a much larger mobile footprint.

People don't watch Tv while driving down the road.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

unixguru said:


> Then what does "record" mean? As far as I can tell (I am only on the verge of adding a streaming box to my setup), anything that is streamed cannot be recorded. D, and I imagine Dish, will "download" On Demand and store it locally but nobody else does AFAIK.
> 
> Which, to me, is a big inhibitor. Internet infrastructure is just not there enough yet to support the kind of load that streaming replacing sat/cable would cause.


As I've said before when this topic comes up, be careful what you wish for (I know you weren't saying you wished for this, but some people are)

If linear channels go away, broadcasters WILL use the opportunity to take away our ability to skip commercials that VCRs and DVRs gave us. Look at what happened when you used to rent videotapes and could skip through the crap at the beginning. With DVDs/Blu Ray you were forced to watch the FBI warning and previews, because they had the means to require it where they didn't with tapes.

This is the golden age of streaming - it has little market penetration compared to linear broadcast, so there isn't much revenue associated with it so it isn't in the crosshairs for advertising all that much. Some networks will want to minimize commercials today to make it attractive for people to stream, but once they have you hooked they'll start trying to monetize it and you'll end up with wall to wall commercials. When you watch to watch a whole season of some show on Netflix they'll insert commercials between the episodes, then during the episodes. The only way to escape will perhaps be a "premium" streaming service that charges you more in exchange for fewer or no commercials (sort of like HBO for for streaming of any non-live programming that doesn't have commercials already inserted) If such a thing is available at all in order to get it you'll end up paying more than you do for TV today.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Linear channels are toast, within 5 years, many ceo's of communication companies agree, it's coming and fast.

Looking out five years, Ergen predicted all TV programs will be stored "in the cloud" for on-demand viewing and delivered via the Internet, given the lower cost and ubiquity of connected devices.

The streaming TV project Sling is almost four months along. The Web-based multichannel video service puts Ergen and Dish out front in an emerging field as more Americans watch television over the Internet. It's expected to draw competition from Verizon Communications Inc.,* AT&T Inc.*, Sony Corp. and Apple Inc., all of which plan similar "over the top" online TV services, separate from conventional pay-television.

This is a biggie!

Being the biggest distributor in the business, with roughly a score and six million subscribers on the video side alone, puts the new AT&T-DirecTV-UVerse into a position where it will, presumably, negotiate the industry's best deals. It's almost as though this jungle creature took a weight-lifting class and gained twice, thrice, four times its mass (or more).

Being the biggest market force in this jungle means the best pricing, but as importantly, *AT&T will now have superior leverage over every other operator* to secure rights for the distribution of top shelf video content for *"Internet Television" distribution:* TV Everywhere (TVE) and OTT. Those are pending battles yet to be waged by the Dallas, Texas-based folks.

Particularly interesting here will be whether (or, more accurately, when) AT&T uses this leverage to negotiate expanded rights for mobile video distribution of channels that are currently restricted to "living room" TV-type viewing. Prior to the DirecTV acquisition, Comcast was the Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) with the "whip hand" to negotiate the most favorable prices and distribution rights. That advantage now shifts to AT&T. But unlike Comcast, AT&T has a huge mobile business and the distribution of video-to-mobile users is the fastest growing segment in media and entertainment today

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-12/dish-s-ergen-sees-fit-with-t-mobile-as-he-develops-sling-tv

http://www.multichannel.com/blog/mixed-signals/directv-att-new-jungle-new-gravitas/392879


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I do t think anyone thinks linear will be gone in five years. That's just not happening. Heck att is working on proof that they can broadcast via wireless! 

Our infrastructure couldn't handle all on demand. Not today anyway. And to many people would be left in the dark. 

What they all do seem to agree on is that over the top and mobile will be a single for everything just as linear is today. And that I agree with the issue is contracts and such to make that happen for a lot of things just aren't there yet. But we are getting there. 

If you don't believe me, see what Netflix has a single via streaming vs blu ray. It's eye popping...

Oh and DIRECTV has been getting a lot of stations out of home for mobile streaming. And almost all channels are no a single in home. In fact they are all now I believe.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

unixguru said:


> Audio has a much larger mobile footprint.
> 
> People don't watch Tv while driving down the road.


No but they do at night. Streaming is what's trying to replace blu rays and if they had their way I'd also guess radio for anyone not behind the wheel. It's a supplement to linear channels. It opens up new revenue that way. If it replaced linear it'd be a disaster for them. That's not what programmers want and won't go that route totally as so many seem to think.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

It will be interesting but I don't see today's model going away completely. I know lots of people who only get basic cable and some who still only do over the air. I can't see them all converting to something fancy and buying service from one or more vendors. One of the things that works today for most people (that doesn't include people who popluate boards like this) is that it is simple - you turn on a box and your TV and it works - billing is simple etc.
I know that streaming has changed the music business but I think, so far, buying digitally has changed it more that streaming. 
Personally, I like the current TV model -but I'm old... Are there improvements to be made - sure. A few years ago predicitions existed that movie theaters would go away and all would watch new movies from their home -sure the delivery model to theaters has changed but not going to theaters.


It is probably too early but it would be interesting to see what the standalone HBO,SHO, etc. subscriiptions are doing vs. people buying those as part of the rest of their tv service.
Time will tell.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

Going back to the original post, this is going to be great for those of us who cannot stream video or even have VOD with our DTV service. The local telcom who also has a tv service is supposed to run fiber by me next year. If they do, I can get 50/20 mbps plus 200 channel tv (comparable to my package with D) with WHDVR and a land line for 135. I am paying about 200 for all of that now. As soon as this is available and the price and cap look OK I am going to call the telcom and see when the dirt is going to start flying and if they can't give me a date I will probably go the ATT route.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I like watching live tv. I use the DVR when one or two shows are on it the same time I am watching the live show.


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

Bedford11 said:


> A local AT&T guy turned me on to these links and said it was coming a lot sooner than most think.
> 
> However, AT&T sees its new advantage in scale leading to far more than cross-promotional selling. As part of the company's product roadmap, it plans to "bring legacy U-verse and DirecTV customers to a new and common customer experience with personalization features, user controls and the ability to integrate managed and unmanaged content." This means converging its current CPE platform and transitioning "to a *more efficient software model* in the future."
> In a lot of ways, AT&T's strategy sounds similar to the one pursued by Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ), if approached in a much different way. The shift to a New IP model will allow AT&T to make its video portable and maximize the advantage of its broadband network assets for distribution. (See Verizon Builds Toward OTT Launch .)
> ...


----------



## swyman18 (Jan 12, 2009)

I really hope they don't end up taking away my dish and forcing us to go the OTT model using my existing internet connection. We have no ATT wireline services in my area, just wireless. I have a 300 / 20 internet connection through Time Warner Cable. Should be plenty fast to support ATT's IP TV model, right? No way. I guarantee Time Warner Cable will "prioritize" the traffic so that the ATT TV service will not work well at all. Obviously because Time Warner wants me to use their video services.

I know that sounds "conspiracy thoery-ish", but I just wouldn't trust their IP TV service unless I was running it over their own dedicated wireline network.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

swyman18 said:


> I really hope they don't end up taking away my dish and forcing us to go the OTT model using my existing internet connection. We have no ATT wireline services in my area, just wireless. I have a 300 / 20 internet connection through Time Warner Cable. Should be plenty fast to support ATT's IP TV model, right? No way. *I guarantee Time Warner Cable will "prioritize" the traffic so that the ATT TV service will not work well at all. Obviously because Time Warner wants me to use their video services.*
> 
> I know that sounds "conspiracy thoery-ish", but I just wouldn't trust their IP TV service unless I was running it over their own dedicated wireline network.


That would be illegal according to the new net neutrality rules.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

swyman18 said:


> I really hope they don't end up taking away my dish and forcing us to go the OTT model using my existing internet connection. We have no ATT wireline services in my area, just wireless. I have a 300 / 20 internet connection through Time Warner Cable. Should be plenty fast to support ATT's IP TV model, right? No way. I guarantee Time Warner Cable will "prioritize" the traffic so that the ATT TV service will not work well at all. Obviously because Time Warner wants me to use their video services.
> 
> I know that sounds "conspiracy thoery-ish", but I just wouldn't trust their IP TV service unless I was running it over their own dedicated wireline network.


That would be a waste of the billions of dollars worth of spectrum Directv has!


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bedford11 said:


> Guess who?
> 
> A new, direct-to-home, all-software head-end for satellite providers. Offering MPEG-2, H.264 or HEVC in superior quality with enhanced statistical multiplexing, Envivio Muse and its new all-software Envivio Spark Multiplexer have been selected by a major US satellite operator to move its operations to private cloud with software-based processing to optimize costs
> 
> ...


I guess I missed this when posted, but this is a showcase of multiple products by Envivio at an industry conference. The first is obviously Directv or Dish, but they're talking about the headend. The "private cloud" being referred to is within their internal network, and isn't something customers would be accessing.

The second bit you bolded may have (IMHO likely has) nothing to do with satellite. They make products for cable companies too, and cable companies are a far more likely target for a cloud DVR than satellite. Even with AT&T owning Directv, there are many satellite customers that do not have internet at all, and while AT&T may offer internet to some of them, they will never cover them all. People who are fantasizing about Directv going "cloud" and getting rid of the dish are crazy, that is not going to happen.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

It's coming!

Anybody with a report on how this is working?

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/att-testing-fixed-wireless-local-loop-services-speeds-15-25-mbps/2015-10-01

http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/wireless-local-loop-is-looking-faster-says-att/

https://bgr.com/2015/10/01/att-fixed-wireless-broadband-test/


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Ericsson acquires Envivio for $125M, partners with AT&T on DirecTV tech transition

And then there's this.

He said the platform will include "very thin hardware profiles," likely indicating a cloud-based approach to a set-top box.

He said the company will begin selling the platform across all its channels by the *beginning of next year.*

AT&T will likely spend the latter half of the year starting work on its new wireless local loop (WLL) network. The main thrust of WLL is that it will provide high-speed Internet access to an estimated 380,000 Florida households - many of them in rural areas that have few current options.

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/ericsson-acquires-envivio-125m-partners-att-directv-tech-transition/2015-09-10

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/att-stop-investing-u-verse-cpe-will-move-new-home-architecture-using-direct/2015-08-12

http://www.theledger.com/article/20150304/NEWS/150309700

http://www.fiercecable.com/press-releases/att-selects-ericsson-enhance-its-tv-platform


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

You can't do a "cloud based approach to a set-top box" with satellite. You're misunderstanding what they're claiming - the thin hardware profile means they're talking about having a single 'server' type box in the house and the rest are clients.

As for Envivio, they make head end equipment (the stuff that Directv would use in their broadcast center) so that acquisition doesn't affect what the customer will see.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

WLL will have a cloud based DVR

De la Vega was also asked about the possibility of offering an over-the-top video service using wireless broadband, a reference to Verizon Communications Inc.(NYSE: VZ)'s plans to launch an OTT video package. The AT&T chief didn't make any commitments, but he did allude to his company's joint venture with The Chernin Group to develop and support original web content. (See AT&T Joins OTT Video Parade, AT&T's OTT Venture Buys Creativebug, Calls Itself Otter Media and AT&T to Launch WiFi Calling in 2015.)
"And the beauty about having DirecTV as part of the portfolio," said de la Vega, "is we can take that unique content and spread the cost over a large customer base that allows us to *deliver content to wireless* in a unique way like it will be very difficult to do for others that don't have the scale.

http://www.envivio.com/our-solutions/video-delivery/

With Multi-Screen Cloud DVR from Envivio, consumers can stream or download their video recordings over any internet connection, wherever they are.

Approximately 498,000 Georgians in rural areas are expected to gain high-speed Internet coverage through Fixed Wireless Local Loop technology, according to AT&T Georgia president Beth Shiroishi.

http://www.times-herald.com/local/20150123-AT-T-President-22-inches-w-pic


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

"The traditional linear [TV] model is about to change in a significant way," he told an investor conference recently. Once AT&T has a nationwide TV, wireless and retail infrastructure "we're going to be in a unique position" to offer DirecTV's TV Everywhere streaming and other online services including Hulu. If all goes as planned, "we go from our video business being a money loser to being a money maker."

AT&T Chief Says DirecTV Deal Will Turn Telco Into A Streaming TV Power

https://deadline.com/2015/05/att-ceo-directv-deal-transform-streaming-video-power-1201428924/


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yeah I don't think they aren't talking about a cloud based DVR version of your current DVR. I think they are talking about being able to stream all their on demand to your mobile device and likely at a rate that is lower and optimized for small screens in phones.... And maybe an over the top service that's totally new, but I don't think you will see the ability to use a cloud based wireless system for DIRECTV programming you have today. I just don't see it, and it'd be a bad route to go anyway for the consumer so I really hope that doesn't happen.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Personally I like current model. Internet is too slow today for multiple simultaneous downloads which it will require. Then ISP's that don't today will put large price tags on the data limits you will need. 
Sure I want better and cheaper but don't see these new models doing that for most people


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bedford11 said:


> With Multi-Screen Cloud DVR from Envivio, consumers can stream or download their video recordings over any internet connection, wherever they are.


Why do you not understand that this is not something they can do for Directv, because they can't assume every Directv customer has high speed internet? It may be an option for those who do, or may be something only available to do those who get AT&T wired (Uverse) TV.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Texas to get 98 thousand rural homes linked to AT&T fixed wireless

In Texas, the Dallas-based AT&T will use its $42 million per year to expand service to 98,000 households or businesses by 2020. AT&T will be required to have reached 40 percent of those sites by 2017, and add another 20 percent each year until 2020.

The FCC estimates that by boosting the service to 98,000 sites, the new service could reach more than 200,000 Texans.
Michael Balmoris, an AT&T spokesman in Washington, said most of the new service will be provided by AT&T's new fixed wireless service. That involves setting up towers throughout the new service regions and installing antennas and routers for each home or building to be served.
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/technology/headlines/20150827-att-to-upgrade-its-rural-internet.ece


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

"This will be at speeds above or beyond 15 to 25 megabit download. We'll have packages where you can watch Netflix or Hulu without the data caps like you do with wireless," said Weirtz.

"Fixed wireless broadband will be another competitive product offered in rural Minnesota that will reach 500,000 people," said Weirtz.

http://elyecho.com/articles/2015/02/06/att-looking-provide-fixed-wireless-broadband-ely-area


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

peds48 said:


> Keep believing that. As of now with Sling TV you get 23 channels fro $20 with *one stream at a time*. In order to get more streams (up to 3) you need to add HBO which brings your bill to $40.00 a month or add an international package.
> 
> When streaming gets to the point of where currently conventional TV is (channel wise) what would change is how yo get that content, the pricing will remain the same.


Of course it will. Everyone thinking that "skinny bundles" or the magic of the Internet will somehow mean TV is cheaper are deluding themselves.

Personally, I am very anxious for the coming revolution in TV viewing, but in terms of the user experience, not pricing.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Yeah there are a lot of dumb people out there who think that if cable companies would just let them choose individual channels they'd save a bunch of money. The problem is the channels that cost the most are the ones they would all add. The only people who might save are those who never watch sports. They think "I only watch 5-10% of the channels they give me, think of how much I'd save" but most of those channels only add a few pennies a month to your cost. Some are even negative cost - the ones like QVC that pay for placement.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

There are a few smart people that know unbundeling will save consumers a lot of money if they desire to not subscribe to the everything bundle that is full of crap channels.

The only ones complaining are the TV industry insiders since Canada has forced the industry to offer channels a la carte.
This is coming to the U.S. soon.

Cable operators were quick to complain that the ruling would hurt business. Others quickly lamented that the ruling would only act to confuse customers and actually drive prices up. But Canadian law professor Michael Geist points out that many TV sector analysts actually expect consumers to* notably save money with the move*:*!!!!!*

https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Canada-Now-Requires-CableCos-to-Offer-Cheaper-A-La-Carte-TV-133056

*All most veiwers need or want is just 17 channels, the rest are just junk to them.*

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2014/changing-channels-americans-view-just-17-channels-despite-record-number-to-choose-from.html

With the AT&T/Direct TV fixed wireless headed for millions of rural customers that have not had a chance to get broadband speeds and a choice of TV providers this will be a money saver for a whole lot of subscribers.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Bedford11 said:


> There are a few smart people that know unbundeling will save consumers a lot of money if they desire to not subscribe to the everything bundle that is full of crap channels.


The "crap" channels you don't watch are usually the cheapest ones, heck a lot of the channels people complain about like infomercial, shopping and religious channels are either free or paying your provider to be on the lineup. Others are only that cheap because they have a larger sister channel bringing in all the revenue to fund the development of shows that while they are good, and many of them have been nominated for emmys, don't get high enough ratings for their main channel to be competitive.

People like to mention things like Netflix and Hulu, how much of the content would exist if other channels didn't commission the shows first? Heck even many of their "original" series were commissioned by other channels or already aired internationally first. For every successful new series, there's about 20 series that never made it past their pilot, all the people who worked on those failed pilots from the actors to craft services still get paid for their time. If those channels were to go away, will the Netflixes and Hulus be able to pick up the slack from the channels that no longer exist and handle the development of all of these shows from scratch on their own and still charge as low as they do per month?



> The only ones complaining are the TV industry insiders since Canada has forced the industry to offer channels a la carte.
> This is coming to the U.S. soon.


You want to know how well that is working in Canada? Several specialty channels shutdown entirely. A lot of local stations either shutdown entirely or ceased local programming and became straight up simulcasts of stations in bigger cities. Can you imagine how it would be if one "local" newscast served the entire northeast, but only focused on DC, NYC, Philly, and Boston and ignored everything in between like Baltimore, Hartford, Scranton, Albany and Portland, that's pretty much how it is in Northern Ontario and the Maritimes. CBC shutdown their entire analog repeater network so now only the major cities get CBC over the air, and then they lost the NHL rights to Rogers. (Very few people know that when you're watching Hockey Night in Canada on CBC, you're not actually watching the CBC, since Rogers controls all advertising and gets all the ad revenue, it's actually an unnamed CRTC licensed network owned by Rogers who's sole purpose is to air Hockey Night in Canada on Saturday nights)

Other specialty channels like MuchMusic, Comedy, Space, Action, BookTV, G4 Canada, YTV and Teletoon filed applications to remove their content clauses and plan to become general entertainment channels.

Also up in Canada the CRTC regulates everything, there's a class of channels that have guaranteed carriage by all providers. No such thing exists in the USA, so you might not even have an option to subscribe to your favorite niche channels if not enough people subscribe. (And there's no way their more popular sister station would pick up those lesser watched shows if they now have to fight to even have a place on a channel lineup) And good luck getting those cheap channels that are less than 50 cents per subscriber to continue to find ad support if they no longer have the benefit of being included in packages with other popular channels increasing the chance of someone stumbling upon the channel.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

The way Canada is doing it will never make it to the us. There is zero chance. 

And still people think unbundling will make things cheaper. It won't. Smaller bundles is the only chance. And even then it's debatable really.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AT&T/Direct TV fixed wireless along with other telecoms bringing on millions more rural subscribers to broadband will also add millions of streaming subscribers.

https://variety.com/2015/digital/news/a-la-carte-these-are-the-tv-channels-people-would-actually-pay-for-1201520900/

This is the type of new internet TV service that is going to disrupt the Large providers.
The new FCC regs soon to be passed will force the content providers to sell their channel/s at the same price they charge the big guys.

The average channel cost for the big providers is just .14 cents, yes just 14 cents per channel, just imagine what happens when the new reg. comes into play.
You are going to see some of the large providers disappear from the landscape, as Dish Network CEO has said "There will be carcasses on the side of the road"

http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/klowdtv-ott-bundles-1201546910/

https://www.klowdtv.com/

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/how-much-cable-subscribers-pay-per-channel-1626/

http://www.thewrap.com/cable-network-carriage-fees/

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-14-672A1.pdf


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Bedford11 said:


> The average channel cost for the big providers is just .14 cents, yes just 14 cents per channel, just imagine what happens when the new reg. comes into play.


Yes the average is that, and that's what an average is, you add the value of every thing and divide it by how many you have. Considering that about 70% of the channels out there are very cheap, including a bunch that are free, while others are negative because they pay the providers to be carried, it's HIGHLY misleading.

ESPN's operating costs are not the same as a religious channel or a channel that airs nothing but off network reruns and only produces one or two of their own series, if that. A group of networks with a lot of original content doesn't have the same operating costs as a network that airs mostly public domain content like YouToo America.

And the prices are that low with everyone paying, the operating costs don't go down because less people are subscribing. The tons of workers at the various stations are paid by the hour, not by the subscriber. The people maintaining the master controls and uplinks do the same job if you pick all of their channels, 5 of their channels or none of the channels. The cost to develop new shows and commission pilots are more based on how well known the actors, writers, producers and directors involved are and not based on your subscriber count. The NBA, MLB, MLS, NFL and NHL aren't going to give the networks a discount because they lost subscribers. (Just ask Time Warner Cable how well that Dodgers deal is going for them) What DOES change is how much you can charge advertisers if you're in less homes, and they need to recover that money somewhere else. (Hint: there's a reason why the most popular non-ad supported basic cable channel is one of the more expensive channels behind channels that have pro sports)


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

KyL416 said:


> The "crap" channels you don't watch are usually the cheapest ones, heck a lot of the channels people complain about like infomercial, shopping and religious channels are either free or paying your provider to be on the lineup. Others are only that cheap because they have a larger sister channel bringing in all the revenue to fund the development of shows that while they are good, and many of them have been nominated for emmys, don't get high enough ratings for their main channel to be competitive.


Not all channels that people want to drop are cheap. Disney channel at lest X2 the cost of nick.

The ESPN's high cost and forced on most of us to get basic non sports channels. At least under the law you can get limited basic + HBO.

Local RSN's are also forced on just about all plans in some markets that is like $10/mo or more.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

JoeTheDragon said:


> Not all channels that people want to drop are cheap. Disney channel at lest X2 the cost of nick.


That's because despite transitioning to a basic cable channel in the late 90s/early 00s, they're still not ad supported. Guess what happens to other channels if they lose potential ad revenue? Their prices go up. And Disney Channel wouldn't be in any danger considering how high of a rating they get for their original series and movies. They have content that people watch on a regular basis, and at least with the digital era there's a greater chance of their target audience having a settop box in the room they regularly watch TV, compared to the 80s and 90s where it was impossible to compete with Nickelodeon since many kids didn't have access to a TV with a cable box.



> Local RSN's are also forced on just about all plans in some markets that is like $10/mo or more.


And guess how much they would be if everyone wasn't spreading it around. Up until the early 00s Cablevision had the RSNs as premium, we had to pay $9.99 EACH for MSG and the then Fox Sports New York, the same price as HBO at the time. And that was before everyone and their mother decided to launch RSNs and create a bidding war driving up the sports rights. The sports leagues want the most eyeballs to sell more ads. If ESPN were to go premium, they'd turn to other channels that don't have sports and drive up the cost for those channels instead and the cycle will begin again, except this time it would be a popular channel amongst non-sports fans like USA, FX, AMC or even Discovery.


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

People that can't math use averages.

Do you want to work at my company? Average salary is $110,000 per year. Good deal you say?

As the owner I make 1,000,000 and the other ten employees make 10k each. Not so much of a bargain is it? 

Using an average for channel costs is misleading.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Anyone who looks at the average price of 14 cents and thinks oh, a la cart should be easy is not thinking about how that works out... No channel could ever survive with taking in just 14 cents a month for the few people that subscribe to it! The reason they are that much, the only reason they are that much is because one, half are a part of a giant group of channels that are negotiated and paid for by a massive amount of people and have very little actual overhead, and the other half are already way the heck more in the fist place....

That idea is so misleading and false its ridiculous.

And also, again, the government here will never force everyone to go a la cart. It just won't happen. I don't know why anyone thinks its going to happen, it just sin't, and definetly not as people think it would.

A channel that actually costs 14 cents a month probably gets ratings in the 10 of thousands at best. but they survive because millions pay the 14 cents a month. That same channel would have to charge so much more to be able to survive.


example...

a channel is paid for by say 60 million people at 14 cents a month.. but only gets 50k people to watch it a month....

if that is enough for it to survive, then they'd have to charge 2.80 or so to make the same amount of money. Now realize that assumes all their customers would actually pay for the channel in the first place...

And that is the math for a cheap station which very very few are that have the majority of all eye balls watching.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Yeah, channels like Palladia, MTV Hits, BET Jams, BET Gospel, BET Hip-Hop, CMT Pure Country, VH1 Classic and VH1 Soul wouldn't be so cheap if they had to fend for themselves, couldn't rely on having access to MTV's massive music video library and had to strike their own individual licensing deals with the various labels. Nicktoons, Nick Jr and TeenNick wouldn't be so cheap if they weren't able to fill their schedule with old Nickelodeon shows or pick up shows that wouldn't perform well on Nickelodeon. Not to mention needing to have their own master control, uplink facilities, offices, staff, ad sales, execs, and C-Band transponder slots


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

A lot of people are leaving the big bundle behind, AT&T/Direct TV will be releasing their very own skinny bundle soon, which is good news for the new fixed wireless product. AT&T is smart to catch these cord cutters/shavers.

The satellite-TV sector, led by Dish Network and DirecTV, bore the brunt of the cord-cutting trend over the last three months as consumers fled in droves.
http://www.ibtimes.com/directv-dish-network-hit-hard-cord-cutting-q2-2015-are-channel-blackouts-blame-2054824

*Looking very good for the fixed wireless technology. 50 meg downloads (nice)*
Fixed wireless - this is a fantastic service, our customers are falling over themselves to get this service, they love the way it works, they love the way we manage to activate it," Cross said.
Working in partnership with Ericsson, the company will soon boost its service from 25Mb/s / 5Mb/s to 50Mb/s / 20Mb/s using the same infrastructure. "We've found that the service is working so well that we can increase the speed."

http://www.mobileworldlive.com/featured-content/home-banner/nbn-exec-trumpets-fixed-wireless-for-fantastic-service-preps-speed-boost/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/08/11/bundled-cable-death-watch-q2-cord-cutting-soars-to-566000/

Satellite TV, Moffett believes, has finally entered an *era of recession*.
"We're bearish about satellite," he wrote. "AT&T will not doubt try to find ways to sustain DirecTV's subscriber growth, but its margins are likely to suffer. Dish network has been losing subscribers and margins for years, and we don't expect that to change." 
http://www.fiercecable.com/story/moffett-customers-drop-cable-tv-subscriptions-even-faster-rate-q2/2015-07-13


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

The thing about AT&T/DirecTV, though, is that they will roll all of their video stuff up together, including future OTT/internet/mobile video. Buying DirecTV wasn't about having a growing satellite platform, it was about buying a base of operations from which to launch future mobile/internet video.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

JosephB said:


> The thing about AT&T/DirecTV, though, is that they will roll all of their video stuff up together, including future OTT/internet/mobile video. Buying DirecTV wasn't about having a growing satellite platform, it was about buying a base of operations from which *to launch future mobile/internet video.*


SPOT ON! So they can charge up the wazoo for mobile data!


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bedford11 said:


> The satellite-TV sector, led by Dish Network and DirecTV, bore the brunt of the cord-cutting trend over the last three months as consumers fled in droves.
> http://www.ibtimes.com/directv-dish-network-hit-hard-cord-cutting-q2-2015-are-channel-blackouts-blame-2054824


That was Q2, when Directv is traditionally weak. They added subscribers in the most recent quarter.

You can wish all you want for being able to subscribe to whatever channel you want at 14 cents a month. No channel can support themselves for that, it is only when they are part of a large group where most of the fixed costs are paid for by a popular parent channel or two that they can survive on so little revenue.

When the Golf Channel was ala carte it was like $8/month, and broadcast rights for their only live contact (Thursday/Friday rounds of four day tournaments) cost them very little since there is no else bidding against them.

If AMC, for instance, went ala care it would probably cost $5-$10/month, and they'd make less money than they do today so they'd have to cut back on some of their original programming.


----------



## mrdobolina (Aug 28, 2006)

Would this require LOS to the transmitter? I ask because my Dad lives in rural Illinois and the town they live in supposedly has a broadband provider that has their transmitter on the water tower. However, since my Dad's house is surrounded by a lot tall trees, they were told they cannot get service from this provider because the antenna at the home can't see the transmitter. They have both Satellite internet (Hughes, I think) and they also use their Verizon MyFi for internet access.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

The frequencies used for LTE (700 - 2600 MHz, depending on band/carrier) are less affected by foliage than satellite, but not completely unaffected.

They may not want to deal with potential problems. One tree might not be a problem, but three or four could, and might be more of a problem when the leaves are wet, etc.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

mrdobolina said:


> Would this require LOS to the transmitter? I ask because my Dad lives in rural Illinois and the town they live in supposedly has a broadband provider that has their transmitter on the water tower. However, since my Dad's house is surrounded by a lot tall trees, they were told they cannot get service from this provider because the antenna at the home can't see the transmitter. They have both Satellite internet (Hughes, I think) and they also use their Verizon MyFi for internet access.


If your Verizon signal comes thru the trees, AT&T fixed wireless should also come thru if AT&T is in your area.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blogs-and-comment/why-pick-and-pay-will-lower-cable-costs/


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Just because your AT&T signal "should" or "does" come through the trees doesn't mean they will be willing to install it. They might require LOS to simplify installs. Certainly that's more likely at first, though maybe down the road when more of the 'easy' installs have been done and they have a couple years of experience with it, they might be willing to take on the more problematic ones that look through trees or hills.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

there's no way they will hit their homes served targets if they require true line of sight. they are targeting tens of millions of houses in rural areas with this technology. 

LTE in your phone works indoors. This will be a dedicated unidirectional antenna on both the tower and your house pointed at each other. while it's not going to work through a mountain, I'm sure it will work fine without direct line of sight due to trees.


----------



## mrdobolina (Aug 28, 2006)

I asked only because on the website of the company that provides this service in my Dad's town (Rise Broadband, which calls itself a fixed wireless provider) it says "Wireless Internet access requires a "line‐of‐site" connection from your house to one of our towers. This means that any large trees, buildings or other obstructions may cause a degraded level of service." Is there a different "fixed wireless internet" that is currently offered? Is that perhaps a 3G signal that requires LoS for fastest speeds? Perhaps it's not the trees but the topography of where their house is. But if that were the case, why does their Verizon service work? Well, better than their satellite internet, but still not with speeds to stream video reliably. 

My hope is that AT&T eventually upgrades the service in their area and my Dad and his wife are able to switch to DIRECTV from Dish, get AT&T's Fixed Wireless Internet at their house, switch their cell phones to AT&T from Verizon, and also totally eliminate their Hughesnet satellite internet which, in my opinion, sucks.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

You don't really want to put all of your eggs under the same company. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

AT&T's offering works very differently from what I've heard. They won't offer it to someone until they've upgraded the tower in their area. They may have a way of using terrain maps to determine which houses will be eligible to order it - like you can plug your address in with your telco and they can tell you whether you can get DSL, what speeds they can offer etc.

It is also going to be a professional install, the tech will site the antenna on your property like how Directv installers do with the dish, and like them will have the proper equipment to check the signal and verify SNR is within spec and so forth. I expect they'll be using 700 MHz band LTE for this, since it travels a longer distance but is also less affected by trees. Who knows what frequency that wireless broadband on the water tower is using? Probably not 700 MHz, those licenses went for billions.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

mrdobolina said:


> I asked only because on the website of the company that provides this service in my Dad's town (Rise Broadband, which calls itself a fixed wireless provider) it says "Wireless Internet access requires a "line‐of‐site" connection from your house to one of our towers. This means that any large trees, buildings or other obstructions may cause a degraded level of service." Is there a different "fixed wireless internet" that is currently offered? Is that perhaps a 3G signal that requires LoS for fastest speeds? Perhaps it's not the trees but the topography of where their house is. But if that were the case, why does their Verizon service work? Well, better than their satellite internet, but still not with speeds to stream video reliably.
> 
> My hope is that AT&T eventually upgrades the service in their area and my Dad and his wife are able to switch to DIRECTV from Dish, get AT&T's Fixed Wireless Internet at their house, switch their cell phones to AT&T from Verizon, and also totally eliminate their Hughesnet satellite internet which, in my opinion, sucks.


AT&T's Wireless Local Loop is a different technology. The company you're referring to is probably using unlicensed or licensed 2.4ghz band equipment which is highly susceptible to blockage by trees, etc.

AT&T's technology will be using LTE, in their lower frequency bands, which can penetrate trees and buildings.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Perfect timing for the Fixed Wireless rollout.

*but from Moonves' comments it sounds as if consumers will have a lot more options than just their local cable company as soon as next year*

Watch out, cable
A growing number of options for streaming video is bad news for traditional pay-TV companies. Moonves seems convinced that* streaming and a la carte are the future *of television. Both CBS and Showtime, which CBS owns, have a la carte streaming options, which include the archives of both networks. And he believes a deal with Apple is probable for the future, and all the major networks are reportedly in talks with Apple as well.
Cable operators may need to push for slimmer bundles -- as some already have -- and the rights to stream content over the Internet both in and out of the home to compete with live streaming from major tech companies or rogue networks like CBS.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/31/forget-cable-youll-be-streaming-live-tv-in-the-nea.aspx


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

A lot of streaming options doesn't necessarily hurt cable, except among people with narrow interests. Look at what CBS announced with the new Star Trek series that will only be available via streaming starting in 2017. They're trying to tie exclusive content to their streaming package. If other networks follow, then you'd have to subscribe to each of those, to Netflix, to Hulu, to YouTube, to HBO and so forth to replicate what you can get from a cable package. If it ends up costing the same, why would you want to deal with 8 different providers?

If you don't care about the exclusive content like the new Star Trek, Orange is the new Black and so forth you can just stick with one or two subscriptions or a cheap streaming bundle like Sling TV and watch what they offer and decide you don't care about missing what they don't have.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

I got a Roku a couple of weeks ago. Unimpressed would be the short initial opinion. I have not yet tried the trials for Netflix or Hulu.

The many "channels" are misleading at best. The vast majority are just like the many sat/cable channels - junk. I've looked at a few of the free "channels" like History, A&E, Smithsonian, etc. They can all be described as demos! A dozen or so old full shows and some clips. The subscription "channels" are just another form of bundling and I suspect, as slice1900 suggests, the price would quickly add up to sat/cable.

The CBS announcement is nothing new. Its just like the original programs on HBO, SHO, etc. A hook to slow down the abandonment of their *rerun* channels.

I'm a Star Trek devotee but I won't be buying yet another "channel" package. I suspect the series will be available separately and delayed just like the original series on the other channels. Then I will probably buy just the series.

My current interest in streaming, besides PPV movies, is to shift my HBO/SHO/Cinemax/... subscriptions to just buying the specific movies and series I want. I am hoping that will save money.

We have a very long way to go before a la carte means series, not "channels". Unfortunately.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

unixguru said:


> I got a Roku a couple of weeks ago. Unimpressed would be the short initial opinion. I have not yet tried the trials for Netflix or Hulu.
> 
> The many "channels" are misleading at best. The vast majority are just like the many sat/cable channels - junk. I've looked at a few of the free "channels" like History, A&E, Smithsonian, etc. They can all be described as demos! A dozen or so old full shows and some clips. The subscription "channels" are just another form of bundling and I suspect, as slice1900 suggests, the price would quickly add up to sat/cable.
> 
> ...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I don't think we'll be seeing an ala carte menu of shows anytime soon. The networks are going to do like Netflix has done, like CBS is doing, and create exclusives that require you to subscribe to their streaming service. If CBS sold Star Trek separately for less, fans would just buy that, whereas now they will pay a few dollars more to get the CBS streaming subscription, which CBS hopes will cause them to watch other shows of theirs. You can't leverage a popular show to help build an audience for other shows if you sell them individually.

What's the point of even having a network otherwise? A producer would have to find investors or self-fund a new show, produce a bunch of episodes at once at a cost of many millions of dollars, and hope it gets buzz and that block of episodes hooks people (and they don't lose interest waiting a year for the next block of episodes)


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

I agree for first run.

BUT, those exclusive series on other channels do become available for individual purchase. Granted, they are a season or two behind first run. For example, Game of Thrones (HBO) season 5 (last season) is available on Vudu for purchase. At first impression the price seems high at $39 (which is $3.90 per episode). However, how many series and movies does one need to watch on a given network to surpass the annual subscription? For my family, I'm pretty sure individual purchase would cost less than the subscription.

I think linear networks will eventually die. The PPV model predates them and is still very successful.

I hope CBS fails miserably in this Star Trek endeavor. They are trying to pump another pay "channel" with content that is 99+% the same as the "free" (at least OTA) channel. I suppose that's ok for those that cut the cord or never had a cord but I'm not ready to cut mine and I'm not paying for their stuff twice.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Some people will be satisfied watching a season or two behind "current", others will feel like they are missing out or unable to avoid spoilers if their friends are watching ahead of where they are.

It is just another way that will divide the "cord haves" from the "cord have nots". I agree linear TV will become less important for non-sports content. No particular reason why a season pass for Big Bang Theory should have to record a certain time/channel each week, versus having it automatically downloaded within a few hours of becoming available from your provider/CBS - whether it is downloaded via the internet or downloaded via hidden channels like how Directv delivers 4K VOD doesn't really matter so long it ends up on the customer's DVR or is ready at any time to stream over the internet.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I still think that figuring out where when how when everything is all split up isn't worth money if any I would save. I and I think most people want one guide and just select and you have tat show. Maybe that will come with all these sources but until it does I don't think this stuff will truly be universal. There are a lot of local channel ownership and revenue that also needs to be settled. Maybe some day but I don't think soon


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Consumers are going to try to use the changes in the landscape to save money, networks are going to try to use the changes to increase their revenue or at least minimize their losses. I think the big winners (eventually, this won't happen overnight) will be people who have narrow viewing interests that don't include sports, and the big losers will be the NFL, MLB, NBA and NCAA since the entire viewing public won't be subsidizing sports contracts. The peak salaries for pro athletes will probably be a few years from now, then they'll start dropping.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Competition with AT&T/Direct TV fixed wireless in these markets will get interesting. Lower Cost/Higher Caps war. Consumers win.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151104005067/en/Rise-Broadband-Begins-LTE-Upgrade-Fixed-Wireless

http://risebroadband.com/about-us/rise-broadband-coverage-map/

http://risebroadband.com/news-coverage/rise-awarded-16-9-million-by-fcc-to-offer-broadband-in-rural-areas-the-denver-post/


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Anybody here from the Joplin MO. area with the LTE Broadband turf war happening?

http://blogs.denverpost.com/tech/2015/11/04/rise-broadband-moving-to-lte-technology-to-offer-faster-wireless-internet/19519/

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151104005067/en/Rise-Broadband-Begins-LTE-Upgrade-Fixed-Wireless

http://risebroadband.com/about-us/rise-broadband-coverage-map/

http://risebroadband.com/news-coverage/rise-awarded-16-9-million-by-fcc-to-offer-broadband-in-rural-areas-the-denver-post/

http://www.joplinglobe.com/news/local_news/at-t-directv-merger-to-bring-more-broadband-to-joplin/article_70d2de74-3705-11e5-9bc7-f3683d0845eb.html

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/rise-broadband-begins-lte-upgrade-of-its-fixed-wireless-internet-network-2015-11-04


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Bedford11 said:


> Anybody here from the *Joplin MO.* area with the LTE Broadband turf war happening?


Yeah, it's not like a natural disaster basically leveled the town a few years ago, forcing the utilities to rebuild their networks from scratch or anything...oh wait

Verizon tried pulling the same thing on parts of Long Island after Sandy, instead of rebuilding their copper network or using the opportunity to bring FiOS to those areas since they have to replace most of the wiring and utility poles anyway, they tried to force everyone to Verizon Wireless's capped LTE service. The local governments wouldn't have any part of it (especially since these are resort beach towns so service would have slowed to a crawl every weekend and over the summer) and forced them to honor their franchise agreement.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

This is intended for more rural areas, not the densely populated and tourist areas like Long Island, New York, Jersey.

http://www.telecompetitor.com/rise-broadband-aims-for-50-mbps-broadband-with-lte-fixed-wireless/


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

I'd hate to break it to you, but it's not just rural areas that are suffering with bad connections. There's many urban and suburban areas where FiOS isn't an option, areas that are too far from the CO to get anything higher than 3mbps DSL, or areas where the cable company refuses to wire unless you pay over $1000+ up front depending on how far they have to wire the block to give you service.

Heck, Verizon refuses to wire Boston of all cities for FiOS, for them it's either an overcongested Comcast system, especially if you're in an apartment building where the entire building is connected to the same node, or DSL.

LTE Broadband may not be optimal for these areas, but like I said that's exactly what Verizon was trying to do in these areas after Sandy destroyed the landlines.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

KyL416 said:


> Verizon tried pulling the same thing on parts of Long Island after Sandy, instead of rebuilding their copper network or using the opportunity to bring FiOS to those areas since they have to replace most of the wiring and utility poles anyway, they tried to force everyone to Verizon Wireless's capped LTE service. The local governments wouldn't have any part of it (especially since these are resort beach towns so service would have slowed to a crawl every weekend and over the summer) and forced them to honor their franchise agreement.


Ahhhh, Fire Island...... Brings so many fond memories..... NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mrknowitall526 (Nov 19, 2014)

KyL416 said:


> areas that are too far from the CO to get anything higher than 3mbps DSL.


Or most of the time, even if you're a short distance from an RT Verizon will refuse to give anything faster than 3 mbps, especially in Pennsylvania. I got a brand new DSLAM and RT built that is fiber-Fed to serve my development of 18 houses as a result of the state broadband law, and they still only give us 3 Mbps, even though my line stats could easily support 7.1 Mbps.

Also in regards to Fire Island, they got Verizon to move to Fios as a result of the lack of reliable POTS, not necessarily because of LTE vs DSL.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

mrknowitall526 said:


> Also in regards to Fire Island, they got Verizon to move to Fios as a result of the lack of reliable POTS, not necessarily because of LTE vs DSL.


I can tell you for a fact that after the hurricane Verizon took a stand, if your DSL works fine, you can keep it until it breaks (if it does), if it did not work after the hurricane, they were not fixing it. For those who DSL did not work, they were offering the LTE option for "voice" and data. What happened after that, I have no clue since I never went back there ever since. hallelujah..........


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Competition will drive lower prices for the consumer, waiting for AT&T to counter, fixed wireless will really create a boon for the low cost TV market.

All content is going to the Internet, and I'm trying to get it mobile. 

Netflix, Hulu and more won't count against data on T-Mobile anymore

Legere's incentive-laden speech included several barbs at rival carriers Verizon Wireless, Sprint and *AT&T*. Among his jabs: Video streaming from Verizon's new Go90 app and *AT&T**'s DirecTV app *will be covered by Binge On. "Just because we can," Legere said.

AT&T will *not* be permitted to exclude affiliated video services and content from data caps on its fixed broadband connections."

While AT&T signaled in June that it would abide by the FCC's over-arching net neutrality rules when it came to DirecTV, a number of questions remained. These included the issue of "zero rating," whereby an Internet provider doesn't count certain types of data, such as videos or music, against a customer's monthly data plan. 

SAN DIEGO, Nov. 9, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Telletopia Foundation, a nonprofit online video service provider, today introduced its revolutionary over-the-top (OTT) business model that moves the local broadcast TV bundle to the Internet. Founded by former cable and telecommunications executives, the company is developing an Internet television service that will let consumers watch the most popular local channels live 24/7, including all news, sports and primetime programming carried by local TV stations.

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tmobile-binge-on-video-20151110-story.html

http://fortune.com/2015/07/21/att-directv-conditions/

http://www.telletopia.org/


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

What do you all think of this pricing model?? AT&T fixed wireless competing with this should help to lower these prices. All good for the consumer. Anybody here from Maine using this service?

 For $89 per month, the RedRocket Max plan offers 25 Mbps download speeds, 10 Mbps upload speeds and* unlimited *data usage

 Customer acquisition is not a great worry for us."

McKenna added that within 24 months, Redzone will cover all of its licensed service area, and provide coverage to more than 90 percent of Maine's residents.

*No equipment to buy or rent!!! NO Contracts!!!!*
*Bring the pricing down, AT&T must match this, good for the consumer.*

Today, we will cover 25 percent of Maine households and that's just this year alone," Redzone WirelessPresident and Chief Executive Officer Jim McKenna said. "We really just started our effort in May of this year."

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/redzone-wireless-leans-25-ghz-spectrum-deploy-lte-advanced-network-maine/2015-06-04


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bedford11 said:


> For $89 per month, the RedRocket Max plan offers 25 Mbps download speeds, 10 Mbps upload speeds and* unlimited *data usage


$89 a month seems rather expensive. I pay $55 for 100/35, although I must admit that I am on a promotional price, but still regular price is $75


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

I take it that you are NOT rural, Compare what rural folks are paying now for crappy internet satellite service.

When AT&T rolls out it's fixed wireless service what do you think will happen to those prices when competition arrives.

Current rural prices for crappy satellite internet service is approx 100 bucks, cannot get streaming TV on it (data caps), so another 80-100 bucks for satellite TV service. Probably 200 bucks a month, compared to unlimited/fast fixed broadband at 89 bucks a month, with a 40 buck TV package equals approx: 129 bucks, cannot be beat.

Most rural people will be jumping on those prices/services Big Time.

The fixed wireless ceo below knows all to well that the rural folks are begging for this.

* Customer acquisition is not a great worry for us."*

"We don't anticipate any difficulty in finding customers in Portland who are interested in an Internet-only solution that doesn't involve a landline or cable TV subscription to get it," Michael Forcillo, Redzone's vice president of sales and marketing, told the _Portland Press Herald_. "We've had an excellent response to our initial pilot and commercial effort. *Customer acquisition is not a great worry for us."*

McKenna added that within 24 months, Redzone will cover all of its licensed service area, and provide coverage to more than 90 percent of Maine's residents.

*No equipment to buy or rent!!! NO Contracts!!!!*
*Bring the pricing down, AT&T must match this, good for the consumer.*

*Can you guess the number of rural wanna be gamers that cannot play their games on satellite internet due to latency?*

A lot of customers could get by on the 59 dollar or even the 39 dollar plan.

On its website, the company currently offers three plans:

· For $39 per month, the RedRocket One plan offers 5 Mbps download speeds, 1 Mbps upload speeds and 100 GB of monthly data. Customers' unused monthly data balance carries over to the following month and accumulates, then resets annually on Jan. 1.

· For $59 per month, the RedRocket Plus plan offers 10 Mbps download speeds, 5 Mbps upload speeds and 250 GB of monthly data. Customers' unused monthly data balance carries over to the following month and accumulates, then resets annually on Jan. 1.

· For $89 per month, the RedRocket Max plan offers 25 Mbps download speeds, 10 Mbps upload speeds and unlimited data usage.


No contracts. No equipment fees.
Wi-Fi router included.*
No phone line or cable TV subscription required.
Convenient online billing.
https://www.redzonewireless.com/high-speed-internet


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)




----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bedford11 said:


> I take it that you are NOT rural, Compare what rural folks are paying now for crappy internet satellite service.


yep, I am rural and they are pricing themselves out of market. Way to expensive

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

peds48 said:


> $89 a month seems rather expensive. I pay $55 for 100/35, although I must admit that I am on a promotional price, but still regular price is $75


Compared to satellite or cell phone hotspots, that is not that bad of a price. Living out in the sticks has its costs.

Someone in NYC might be able to get 100mbps for $80 but their other costs of living are probably higher than the rural folks, too.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

I always have severe doubt when I read about wireless bandwidth.

When any provider sells service at a given rate what they are saying is that the max you have access to is approximately that rate. It never says how often you get that speed or when.

These are all *shared* services. You, and however many other customers on their network, share the capacity that they have deployed. The aggregation of all these demands is limited by another cap - the capabilities of their network hardware *and* the bridge(s) that connects them to upstream providers. It doesn't matter if its fixed or mobile wireless, sat, or hardwired.

I see this all the time. My cable internet is purchased as a 50 mbit service. During normal working hours on a weekday I consistently see ~55 mbit. Evenings and weekends are always substantially less - 15 happens often. (This is Mediacom [ATT upstream] in Minneapolis metro.)

For mobile we have H2O Wireless, an ATT MVNO, with LTE. Again, during normal working hours on a weekday I see ~10 mbit. Evening and weekends again much less - 2 isn't unusual. (I suspect that being on a MVNO that I am actually throttled more with priority given to high-$ paying ATT customers.)

A sparsely populated rural area would potentially not see that kind of degradation. BUT, I'm pretty sure that the pipes going from the cell tower back to Ma Bell are going to be a lot smaller simply because there isn't the revenue. So maybe degradation wouldn't be much different.

I would not dispute the possibility that fixed broadband would be faster than rural DSL. It isn't hard to compete with miles of old crusty copper wire.

Getting advertised/sold rates 24 hours a day 7 days a week is just not realistic. If I were in a bleak data void area the last thing I would want is my neighbors using precious bandwidth for streaming! Which means I would avoid it too. Hug your dish.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Bedford11 said:


> What do you all think of this pricing model?? AT&T fixed wireless competing with this should help to lower these prices. All good for the consumer. Anybody here from Maine using this service?
> 
> For $89 per month, the RedRocket Max plan offers 25 Mbps download speeds, 10 Mbps upload speeds and* unlimited *data usage
> 
> ...


I would be interested in this service, or at least probably one of their other lower packages. Right now I'm paying $50 month for 2Mbps down, 256kbps up WISP service.

Peds48, what kind of service is that? Nothing like that available here, its either my current WISP service, or satellite or LTE service from Verizon which has low caps and higher cost. Frontier keeps telling me that I can get 7Mbps DSL service from them, but every time they sign me up I fight with the service technicians for a month trying to get it set up before they finally tell me that I am too far away.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Beerstalker said:


> I would be interested in this service, or at least probably one of their other lower packages. Right now I'm paying $50 month for 2Mbps down, 256kbps up WISP service.
> 
> *Peds48, what kind of service is that? * Nothing like that available here, its either my current WISP service, or satellite or LTE service from Verizon which has low caps and higher cost. Frontier keeps telling me that I can get 7Mbps DSL service from them, but every time they sign me up I fight with the service technicians for a month trying to get it set up before they finally tell me that I am too far away.


Optimum Online.... I can get FiOS 100/100 for $39.00 for the first year and $55.00 the second year if I wanted to as well


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

unixguru said:


> I always have severe doubt when I read about wireless bandwidth.
> 
> When any provider sells service at a given rate what they are saying is that the max you have access to is approximately that rate. It never says how often you get that speed or when.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

This is going to change how a whole lot of rural residents get their TV/Broadband, can't wait till rollout.

AT&T to expand its broadband services footprint to 15 million customer locations, particularly in unserved* rural* areas where the telco does not provide service today, using a combination of fiber to the premises (FTTP) and *wireless local loop technologies.*

If you put a* profitable video product*, best in class, *on top of our broadband* build to another 15 million subscribers, we have a really exciting growth opportunity here."

Cable is available in some neighborhoods in the county with shared bandwidth and greater speeds than DSL, he said. It is expensive for providers to build out into the county.

*Satellite has a data cap and can be very expensive for families*, he said. Fiber provides the best available broadband, but Powhatan County is extremely limited on this, he added.
One of the options the county is considering is a *fixed wireless network*, which has a fiber backhaul that transmits to an antenna on a tower or high point in the county. Transmitters in individual houses then receive the signals.

Why?

Chief of Disney, TV powerhouse, makes a great case for why cable subscribers keep cutting the cord
It's all headed for the internet, you know when the Biggest out there makes these kind os statements, AT&T will be ready with their Fixed Wireless to capture these subs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/11/05/chief-of-disney-tv-powerhouse-makes-a-great-case-for-why-cable-subscribers-keep-cutting-the-cord/

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/atts-directv-deal-bolster-rural-broadband-reach-15m-locations/2014-05-19

http://www.richmond.com/news/local/central-virginia/powhatan/powhatan-today/article_9879edc2-830f-11e5-b623-7fa7514a5daa.html


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Bedford11 said:


> A lot of Dishes will get dumped if the AT&T/Direct TV fixed wireless service is as advertised.
> 
> AT&T has stated in one of the previous post that 250 connections per square mile was the max for their fixed wireless, that is very dense considering this is supposed to be a Rural service, most rural locations, even the small towns/hamlets come nowhere near that density, if AT&T does not over sell in the more populated/suburbia areas it should be a good service, other LTE services are actually boosting their speeds to 50 mbps.


*Connections* are not at any given bandwidth. Phone in pocket not doing anything is a connection!

I wish for magic too. I want to build a house further out than I can today due to lack of internet speed. Some areas have fixed wireless (not LTE) today but not good enough. A few areas have fiber and most of those are obscenely priced.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Keep Hope, maybe all of us can have real rural broadband in the near future with AT&T/DirectTV and others Fixed wireless services rolling out. Looks like the rest of the world has already figured it out. The vast majority of us real rural people will be very, very happy with a 25mbps, no caps, decent priced service like what is being rolled out to 15 million people via AT&T alone. These NGA services are able to be deployed at very rapid timelines.

Out of the 31 study countries, 19 countries had fixed broadband coverage levels at or above the EU average of 97 percent at the end of 2014, 27 countries had fixed broadband covering at least 90 percent of their households. Fixed broadband coverage was highest in Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom and lowest in Poland, Slovakia, Estonia and Romania, where it reached between 85 percent and 89 percent of households.

http://www.cellular-news.com/story/Reports/68204.php


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Rural residents got a good thing coming.

With Ericsson on board it looks good for the very robust fixed broadband service that AT&T is rolling out.

Ericsson also said it has been selected by AT&T to help it deliver its U-verse product across its newly acquired DirecTV footprint.

AT&T named Ericsson as the vendor that will integrate AT&T's pay-TV systems across its U-verse and DirecTV platforms. Ericsson's VP of Marketing for TV Platforms Ben Huang said that AT&T is still working on the details of exactly how it plans to integrate U-verse and DirecTV. Ericsson's Mediaroom initially developed AT&T's IPTV U-verse product.

Satellite broadcasting just can't do all the things an IPTV service can. The modernized service would provide two-way communications and on-demand video streams, tie into other online content and data providers, and be easy to upgrade when wireless data communications take their next evolutionary step. The first 4K video broadcasts, for example, didn't arrive in American homes via satellite dishes or cable TV networks. They came from streaming video services based on bog-standard Internet technologies.
Installing networking equipment in rented tower spaces can be expensive, sure, but the same is true for satellite launches. And when your data signal equipment in a land-based tower breaks or becomes obsolete, you can fix or replace it. Try doing that to a satellite in geostationary orbit, some 22,000 miles above ground.

http://www.pulseitmagazine.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2558:nbn-fixed-wireless-will-support-consistent-vc-and-cloud-services&catid=16:australian-ehealth&Itemid=328

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/ericsson-acquires-envivio-125m-partners-att-directv-tech-transition/2015-09-10

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/atts-stephens-company-ready-pay-tv-changes-u-verse-subs-may-migrate-cheaper/2015-09-16

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/06/04/the-changing-wireless-game-why-dish-network-corp-w.aspx


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Land based towers cover areas with population centers or willingness to allow building towers. Sat provides coverage everwhere. There are plenty of areas of this country that don't yet have cell coverage or real internet coverage. No one is going to buid towers everyone and there isn't the infrastructure to support them everywhere anyway.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

You can go cross country and very rarely lose service, most every little small town has cell service but no internet service other than crappy satellite internet or the other crappy DSL service. Both of which are priced very high due to NO competition.

Take a look at the cellular coverage maps for AT&T or others and you will see the towers are already in place. Just bolt on the new Fixed wireless parts and as AT&T has said, 15 million new customers will be clamoring for this never before high speed, affordable internet service.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Have you ever tried using cell phone data during peak hours for more than just basic browsing or low res video?

It's not as simple as slapping a fixed broadband antenna on the cell tower. The LTE signal is just one part of the equation, you still need a backbone connection supplying bandwidth to each individual tower. While most of those areas have cell coverage, very few of them have the backbone capacity to support people using them as their regular ISP 24/7, especially if you expect all those people to use them for things like 4K Netflix, HD Video on Demand, and cloud based DVRs.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Rural Towers do not have this problem, I get 12mbps 24/7 off of the towers in my rural area, very rural AT&T towers, since these rural towers were installed late in the game a lot of them are fitted with fiber back haul, AT&T is committed to retrofit towers that are not fiber fed. Remember just 250 houses per sq. mile max is what the Wireless Broadband rollout is calling for.

The LTE wireless in Europe and Australia are doing so good they are upgrading to 50 mbps according to ericsson who is now overseeing AT&T's rollout of LTE Wireless Broadband. (see link in above post)


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Hoping AT&T/Direct TV can match/beat the pricing for this LTE Fixed Wireless Broadband from Redzone Wireless
Really good pricing for Rural area's with nothing but satellite/DSL internet.
Wondering if AT&T will have self installs in high strength area's like Redzone
The 39 dollar plan with a 40 buck TV package is going to make me and many of the rural people very happy, 79 bucks would be amazing!

fast plan superfast plan
39 bucks 54 bucks

20mbps down 25 mbps down

2 mbps up 5 mbps up

unlimited data unlimited data

no contracts, no equipment fees, no early termination fees

You will self install your antenna/router in most cases, fringe area's the company will install an antenna

https://www.redzonewireless.com/


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

mrdobolina said:


> I asked only because on the website of the company that provides this service in my Dad's town (Rise Broadband, which calls itself a fixed wireless provider) it says "Wireless Internet access requires a "line‐of‐site" connection from your house to one of our towers. This means that any large trees, buildings or other obstructions may cause a degraded level of service." Is there a different "fixed wireless internet" that is currently offered? Is that perhaps a 3G signal that requires LoS for fastest speeds? Perhaps it's not the trees but the topography of where their house is. But if that were the case, why does their Verizon service work? Well, better than their satellite internet, but still not with speeds to stream video reliably.
> 
> My hope is that AT&T eventually upgrades the service in their area and my Dad and his wife are able to switch to DIRECTV from Dish, get AT&T's Fixed Wireless Internet at their house, switch their cell phones to AT&T from Verizon, and also totally eliminate their Hughesnet satellite internet which, in my opinion, sucks.


Rise Broadband is updating to LTE Fixed Wireless, this should fix your problem, have you spoken with Rise Broadband to see how soon they will update your area, 90 days to install LTE equipment and have the service up and going, is what most are quoting, very fast compared to laying cable.

AT&T/DirectTV has received money to install LTE Fixed Wireless in your state also. It will be so nice to have competition and speedy NO Cap service in rural area's. A lot of those satellite internet dishes will be getting removed when Fixed wireless gets going in the rural area's.

https://www.benton.org/headlines/rise-broadband-aims-50-mbps-broadband-lte-fixed-wireless

AT&T testing fixed wireless local loop services with speeds of 15-25 Mbps
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/att-testing-fixed-wireless-local-loop-services-speeds-15-25-mbps/2015-10-01


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Can't stop the march of technology. Video subs thru the 15 million NEW rural broadband subscribers should put AT&T in the catbird seat.

The traditional linear [TV] model is about to change in a significant way," he told an investor conference recently. Once AT&T has a nationwide TV, wireless and retail infrastructure "we're going to be in a unique position" to offer DirecTV's TV Everywhere* streaming* and other online services including Hulu. If all goes as planned, "we go from our video business being a money loser to being a* money maker.*"

Stephenson also talked about Otter Media -- AT&T's joint venture with the Chernin Group to acquire, invest in and launch online video services -- as a way to deliver online content.
"I expect customers to walk out the door with content on their mobile device," he said, noting that he's looking at multiple channels and channel lineups that could be delivered to tablet, smartphone and *broadband *customers. "Stay tuned."
http://www.cnet.com/news/at-t-ceo-hints-at-over-the-top-mobile-video-service/


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Again they won't be offering uverse tv over fixed loop. That'd be stupid. Those 15 million possible customers are adds of Internet with hopes any not already using DIRECTV switch to dtv for their tv needs. 

Fixed loop will be used for the on demand and other streaming services but not all the linear channels. There's no point.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Yeah why should AT&T want to burden their cellular bandwidth streaming TV to rural customers instead of giving them a dish? Rural customers generally have no issues having a dish on their property, nor any LOS issues. They'll sell them internet better than their current options, and offer to bundle Directv using a dish.

AT&T committed to following net neutrality, offering uncapped data when streaming their TV products would mean they'd have to uncap that wireless for all online video competition like Netflix and Sling TV. They won't have the puny data caps mobile customers get, but I very much doubt they'll be uncapped since wireless spectrum is a very expensive shared resource.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

This is the most bazaar aggregation bot I've ever seen :lol:


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

I talked to an AT&T customer service rep who helped me with some information of when they where going to roll out the WLL technology in my state (Michigan). He told me (after he had to research for about 3-4 minutes) that they were piloting it out west, SF I think and that the rest of the states would be rolled out in February.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

tadam said:


> I talked to an AT&T customer service rep who helped me with some information of when they where going to roll out the WLL technology in my state (Michigan). He told me (after he had to research for about 3-4 minutes) that they were piloting it out west, SF I think and that the rest of the states would be rolled out in February.


Being tested in Alabama....


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Coming Soon.

Fairfax Media understands that NetComm has signed a master purchase agreement with AT&T. The deal will see the Australian company work with Ericsson to deploy in rural and regional parts of the United States where it is too expensive to upgrade fixed-line networks, the same technology used by the NBN.

Australia's fixed-wireless customers on the NBN are currently getting 25 Mbps in download speeds with expectations that this will increase to 50 Mbps and above.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/report-att-using-netcomm-ericsson-fixed-wll-effort/2015-11-25

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/breaking-news/netcomm-wins-us-fixed-wireless-deal/news-story/dbda8661e3761065512e8021b78c1dce


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Is this the antenna for the U.S. market.

*Fast Rollout.*
"The NBN fixed-wireless network currently covers 270,000 premises. It will ultimately cover around 600,000. Today it has almost 50,000 active end-users and is now _*adding 1,000 end users per week.*_

http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2015/07/rural-nbn-becoming-a-reality/

http://www.netcommwireless.com/markets/rural-broadband


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

This dude sounds like a spoke person from ATT.... !rolling


----------



## cyfman (Nov 4, 2009)

This looks interesting to check into when/if it gets around to my neck of the woods. 75752 Zip South East of Dallas TX.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

*Coming in January,*
*Can't wait to see the pricing for TV/Fast internet service via fixed wireless for rural customers *

Stephenson said AT&T aims to deliver content to* homes,* without installing set-top boxes or satellite dishes, via AT&T's wireless network. Wireless data speeds would be sufficient for connections to one TV, not multiple ones, with standard video quality, not ultra high-definition.

If AT&T/DirectTV can get TV into Homes with Mobile wireless it should be a real nice TV service with the Fixed Wireless service that is rolling out.

In addition to operating its national 4G LTE wireless network, AT&T plans to expand *fixed wireless broadband *services in rural areas. Some analysts have speculated that AT&T could offer a triple-play bundle of wireless calling, mobile or fixed-wireless broadband and *TV* services.

http://news.investors.com/technology/120815-784295-att-ceo-randall-stephenson-plans-mobile-entertainment-services.htm


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I assume by "standard video quality" they mean HD, given the "not ultra high definition" that follows. Supporting only one TV - which I take to mean a single channel at a time - isn't all that great versus satellite service, but for a low end Sling TV type product targeted at cord cutters that would probably be fine.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Looks like the No equipment, cloud DVR based TV offering for fixed wireless customers, will be sooo cheap for AT&T to acquire these customers with no equipment to install.

"When customers buy DirecTV, they're buying a big bundle of content," Stephenson said. "And that big bundle of content we're delivering in one of* two ways*.* One is streaming that big bundle of content into the home with a high-quality, high-definition stream to five or six TVs in the home. That's a very known business model. But we'll also stream -- we are streaming -- to a mobile device.*

"This requires a fundamental shift in the capabilities of our workforce. This is probably one of the biggest logistical issues I've taken on in my career," he said. "Getting hundreds of thousands of people *reoriented from circuit switches to IP, from dedicated hardware/software combined to virtualized hardware in a network that's managed by software."*

Stephenson said AT&T aims to deliver content to homes, *without* installing set-top boxes or satellite dishes, via AT&T's wireless network.

Can we assemble enough rights of key content, that we can put together a bundle of content that could be delivered directly to consumers? 
*You bet they can.*

*Remember that the fixed wireless TV service and the Mobile wireless TVservices will be 2 different animals, the fixed TV service will be much more robust.*

http://news.investors.com/technology/120815-784295-att-ceo-randall-stephenson-plans-mobile-entertainment-services.htm

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/atts-stephenson-teases-carriers-plans-leverage-directv-content-upcoming-mob/2015-12-08

http://news.investors.com/technology/120815-784295-att-ceo-randall-stephenson-plans-mobile-entertainment-services.htm


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I must be missing something. How are there no boxes? What will they use to capture the signal?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

He's in his own world posting links and not understanding them. He'll see that what he's raving about isn't what AT&T is going to offer.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> He's in his own world posting links and not understanding them. He'll see that what he's raving about isn't what AT&T is going to offer.


No, is not "he" is a bot.


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

What I would be interested in obtaining a legitimate contact number from AT&T where their folks have concrete knowledge with the details of the roll out plan. The 2 times I talked with their tech support, they were very vague with the information and in both instances, the first line support knew nothing of the technology that AT&T is reporting to roll out. Somebody there has to know something.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

tadam said:


> What I would be interested in obtaining a legitimate contact number from AT&T where their folks have concrete knowledge with the details of the roll out plan. The 2 times I talked with their tech support, they were very vague with the information and in both instances, the first line support knew nothing of the technology that AT&T is reporting to roll out. Somebody there has to know something.


The details may not even be solid yet until it is rolled out in a few test markets. They have an idea of what their deployment costs are and the difficulties associated with delivering it, but until they've actually done in a few representative test markets they may not be able to finalize their exact offering/pricing.

Once it gets past that stage and they start rolling it out 'for real' I'm sure you'll be able to find plans/packages on their web site and get a better idea about stuff like caps.


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

Good advice. In the early on-set of this technology, the costing and bandwidth structure was supposed to compete with cable in terms of speed, bandwidth (Very high amounts/unlimited) and cost. If it is close to all of that, I cannot wait!


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Verizon tech once told me they halted FIOS deployments because they were devoting all they could to research and development of 5g wireless. He said by the time they roll out 5g, all of FIOS TV will be able to be sold in any 5g Verizon wireless footprint as the platform and delivery will move to IP by that time. Fast forward to today, I see Verozon made some 5g announcements and dslreports picked up on the story. So far they are looking at 1gbps, and when you figure with HECV encoding, an HD channel is only a tiny fraction of that. I can see where the local VZ tech was coming from.

Now how will AT&T compete with this and in terms of DirecTV, would you think TV broadcast over LTE or next generation 5g become a reality? If anything at least for instant playback of VOD, start over, rain-fade mitigation or cloud DVR services?


----------



## swyman18 (Jan 12, 2009)

tadam said:


> What I would be interested in obtaining a legitimate contact number from AT&T where their folks have concrete knowledge with the details of the roll out plan. The 2 times I talked with their tech support, they were very vague with the information and in both instances, the first line support knew nothing of the technology that AT&T is reporting to roll out. Somebody there has to know something.


No offense, but why would they provide you with direct access to those folks at AT&T that have the concrete knowledge? Those people can't be taking calls from thousands of random people that are just curious like the rest of us.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

cypherx said:


> Verizon tech once told me they halted FIOS deployments because they were devoting all they could to research and development of 5g wireless. He said by the time they roll out 5g, all of FIOS TV will be able to be sold in any 5g Verizon wireless footprint as the platform and delivery will move to IP by that time. Fast forward to today, I see Verozon made some 5g announcements and dslreports picked up on the story. So far they are looking at 1gbps, and when you figure with HECV encoding, an HD channel is only a tiny fraction of that. I can see where the local VZ tech was coming from.
> 
> Now how will AT&T compete with this and in terms of DirecTV, would you think TV broadcast over LTE or next generation 5g become a reality? If anything at least for instant playback of VOD, start over, rain-fade mitigation or cloud DVR services?


I'm skeptical of this idea, not because 5G doesn't have the bandwidth to handle this sort of thing but because you don't get anywhere near the theoretical max bandwidth if you had a whole suburban area surrounding and using a single tower. Sure, there's enough bandwidth for TV, but most people want FIOS for the internet, not the TV. If you can get a lot better bandwidth from your cable company (which DOCSIS 3.1 will allow long before 5G is a reality) then why would people subscribe to the wireless FIOS offering unless it is far less expensive?

IMHO the real reason they halted FIOS deployments is because they skimmed all the cream off the market. That is, they already had deployed it in affluent areas where the cost to run fiber was reasonable. The remaining areas either have less wealthy residents who won't spend as much (lower tier plans on internet and TV) or would cost a fortune to run fiber (like trying to dig up the streets in NYC) But since they had made commitments to deploy FIOS in many areas where they have halted (and are getting sued I believe by Pennsylvania and other places where they took incentives for this and then didn't deliver) they are holding up this carrot of 5G being the solution. Same strategy as Google Fiber, except Google isn't a regulated monopoly like the ILECs are so they can be even more picky.

Most people don't expect 5G to become a reality until after 2020, so it isn't like this is around the corner. We haven't even caught up to true 4G yet - which was defined by the ITU working committee to be 100 Mbps. Generally only those few places getting LTE-A deployments can achieve that rate, and only on a cell with little contention.

The main reason you hear talk about LTE broadcast is because it would solve some of the problems with today's TV broadcast - the towers are very expensive and thus pretty far apart. If TV stations instead made deals with carriers to use a slice of their LTE spectrum in broadcast only mode everyone who gets cell reception at home could receive OTA broadcast with a tiny antenna. The problem is that the carriers paid billions for this spectrum, so "renting" it won't come cheap. Its a nice idea in theory, but if the FCC wanted to make it actually happen they'd need to tie some conditions that set reasonable rates on next year's reverse auction of the 600 MHz spectrum that is being taken away from TV broadcast.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AT&T Testing 10-30 Mbps Fixed Wireless LTE in Alabama

AT&T conducting rural Internet access trial in west Walker County AL.

 

the trial uses a 20 MHz (10x10 MHz paired uplink and downlink) configuration

AT&T is also trialing this in my rural county in* Virginia*. I went to the kickoff meeting last night. It's going to be a 6ish month trial where participants will be paid $100.

They have installed new radios on the tower solely for this service. AT&T said it cost $150k/tower. DirecTV installers are going to be installing the devices on customers' homes.

The AT&T rep said they're aiming for the service to cost $60/month with usage caps set at 100GB when it is rolled out commercially. He said the 18 states where they are franchised will get it first (Virginia is not one of those states). I asked him if they'll be pulling the radios off the tower once the trial is over and he said no, so I'm guessing the real service will be coming soon after the trial.

The trial appears to be part of a larger plan by AT&T to transition away from legacy TDM services to *IP-based* telecommunications.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/att-testing-rural-wireless-broadband-alabama-3-free-months-service-plus-100/2015-12-16

https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Testing-1030-Mbps-Fixed-Wireless-LTE-in-Alabama-135900

http://www.corridormessenger.com/business/article_c2127d22-a2b1-11e5-804f-fb3c964ee53c.html


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

Did the AT&T rep tell you what were the 18 states they are franchised? And did they share their roll out plan for the rest of the U.S.?


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

tadam said:


> Did the AT&T rep tell you what were the 18 states they are franchised? And did they share their roll out plan for the rest of the U.S.?


The 18 states are the states that AT&T have landline service in


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> The 18 states are the states that AT&T have landline service in


Where can I find that out?


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

You might check AT&T website it might tell you there


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AT&T serves customers nationwide, with a concentration in 22 states.

https://www.att.com/Common/merger/files/pdf/22_state_map.pdf


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

That map is outdated, they have since sold Connecticut to Frontier.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

If it costs them $150K to outfit the tower and they will be charging $60/month, they need around 75 customers per tower to cover that cost with a three year payback. So including their other costs would likely only deploy in areas they believe they can get at least 100-150 paying customers within range of the tower - call it 3-5 km in average terrain, assuming they use 700 MHz bands.

The other question is the max capacity per tower, which will depend on how many frequency blocks they've allocated and how directional of antennas are. Capped at 100 GB/month, they won't have to worry about heavy streaming activity, so they should be able to achieve a pretty decent oversubscription ratio.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AT&T takes $427M in CAF II funding, sets plan to bring wireline, wireless broadband to 18 states

The service provider will meet the commitments of the CAF II program using a mix of traditional wireline and wireless technologies.* In the case of wireless, AT&T will construct new wireless towers in previously unserved areas.*

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/att-takes-427m-caf-ii-funding-sets-plan-bring-wireline-wireless-broadband-1/2015-08-27

http://news.investors.com/technology/120815-784295-att-ceo-randall-stephenson-plans-mobile-entertainment-services.htm


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Utopian, Atelum to trial 2.5 GHz fixed wireless broadband in Virginia

We plan to tap into that spirit and develop new service concepts that could be rolled out in other markets and on other LTE spectrum *throughout the country*," continued Muleta.

http://www.telecompaper.com/news/utopian-atelum-to-trial-25-ghz-fixed-wireless-broadband--1119266

http://www.utopianwireless.com/index.html


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

I notice at&t has been very vague on the caps. fast speeds are fine and all but it's useless if the caps are low


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

chances14 said:


> I notice at&t has been very vague on the caps. fast speeds are fine and all but it's useless if the caps are low


See above, from what Bedford11 says it will be a cap around 100GB. Much better than a typical mobile cap but not enough for people who are Netflix addicts. As you'd expect for wireless technology which has more inherent technological limits than wired.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

I have never had fast enough internet to stream. About what would one movie in 4K amount to Gig wise?


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> See above, from what Bedford11 says it will be a cap around 100GB. Much better than a typical mobile cap but not enough for people who are Netflix addicts. As you'd expect for wireless technology which has more inherent technological limits than wired.


the att rep said that's what they are "shooting" for. i would bet it will be lower than that when it goes public

even 100gb is not a big enough cap in today's internet


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inhd40 said:


> I have never had fast enough internet to stream. About what would one movie in 4K amount to Gig wise?


Depends on the quality and the length of the movie. Netflix is streaming 4K at around 15 Mbps (which is far less than what 4K Blu Ray will be and even is less than what Directv's live 4K channels will use, so not particular great quality) which would be around 2 MB/sec. So figure a 2 hour movie is around 14 GB.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

inhd40 said:


> I have never had fast enough internet to stream. About what would one movie in 4K amount to Gig wise?


from what i've read about 4k, 4k videos will be around 100gb in size. but with some good compression you may be able to get that size down somewhat. it's going to require a ton of data either way



slice1900 said:


> Depends on the quality and the length of the movie. Netflix is streaming 4K at around 15 Mbps (which is far less than what 4K Blu Ray will be and even is less than what Directv's live 4K channels will use, so not particular great quality) which would be around 2 MB/sec. So figure a 2 hour movie is around 14 GB.


netflix's 4k actually streams at 25mbps according to their site
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

chances14 said:


> from what i've read about 4k, 4k videos will be around 100gb in size. but with some good compression you may be able to get that size down somewhat. it's going to require a ton of data either way
> 
> netflix's 4k actually streams at 25mbps according to their site
> https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306


I can get 4k with a 20mbps thatt tests at 18.5mbps so their 25mbps is a bit higher than needed.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Higher than needed is a relative term. For really high quality you need a heck of a lot more than 25.....


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I thought HEVC brought 4K streams down to the size of a standard mpeg2 HD stream so 19.2 Mbps or 18.5 like Chris has seen should be possible.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

cypherx said:


> I thought HEVC brought 4K streams down to the size of a standard mpeg2 HD stream so 19.2 Mbps or 18.5 like Chris has seen should be possible.


Quality is relative. At its best HEVC compresses twice as well as MPEG4, though that's more the ultimate goal after the encoder technology is fully mature so they aren't quite there yet. Consider that Directv is averaging around 6.5 Mbps for its HD channels (where it is putting 6 into one transponder) and probably maxes out not much more than 10 Mbps for certain channels. Blu Rays are typically 25 Mbps, but some discs exceed 40 Mbps - and that's for 1080p24 which has a lower raw bit rate than either 720p or 1080i. That's why Blu Ray quality absolutely blows away any HD content you can watch on Netflix, Amazon, Directv, FIOS, or ATSC broadcast by a mile.

4K has a minimum of 4x the raw bit rate, with up to 9x more for sports (going from 720p60 to 2160p60) and that's before considering the greater number of bits per pixel required for HDR/WCG when that gets standardized. With some movies filming in 48 fps instead of 24 fps and HDR/WCG coming the 4K Blu Ray standard had to go bigger and allows for bit rates exceeding 120 Mbps. Pretty sure Directv won't be delivering ESPN4K to us at 120 Mbps - from what I've read it sounds like 30 Mbps per channel is Directv's target at least initially.

So while 19.2 Mbps might provide 4K quality a little better than Directv's HD, it isn't nearly as good as it could be - and isn't the whole point of 4K to get better quality, not just have more pixels there for bragging rights? Wait, don't answer that, we know what the real answer is. When 4K Blu Ray players become available, anyone playing movies on those will become very depressed about the visual quality of the content they can get from Netflix and Directv...


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Hmm your right, I just loaded up a 4k 60fps youtube video and under stats for nerds it was showing 60-70 mbps. Though I'm not sure how efficient the codec 'vp9' is compared to HEVC.

I can load up 4k 60fps youtube videos and while I don't have a 4k monitor, they surely look fantastic in 1080p on an iPhone 6S or a PC. When watching a regular HD music video there is a major difference in quality despite the "HD" branding.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

VP9 is a lot closer to MPEG4 than it is HEVC in compression efficiency.


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

I had a confirmation from AT&T that its WLL technology will be deployed in SW Michigan in 2-3 months.


----------



## swdude12 (Jun 18, 2010)

Any update on when WLL will be available in SE Michigan? I have not been able to get any answers from ATT. I am patiently waiting, as I am tired of 768kbps ATT DSL speed. I have read that Netcomm and Ericsson will outfit ATT with the services and gear, but other than that, nothing.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

They are only just starting deployment, it will take several years to roll it out to all the places they have planned - and there's no guarantee that includes the area you live. No one here will know, you will have to find out from AT&T. Once this is an 'official' product they will probably have something their web site to put in your address and find out if it is available in your area. That's probably the best you'll get.


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

I can't wait until the information on data caps comes out so I can laugh. Verizon and their home fusion data caps are deplorable. Luckily I have fixed wireless through a local company where they offer unlimited data.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

They were talking about 100 GB/month caps but that may change as it gets rolled out. So not ideal for more than occasional streaming but plenty for just about everything else.


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

slice1900 said:


> They were talking about 100 GB/month caps but that may change as it gets rolled out. So not ideal for more than occasional streaming but plenty for just about everything else.


I could probably squeeze by on 100gb a month but I'm glad my provider doesn't do that nonsense..


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

They are planning to use different spectrum and antennas for fixed wireless. There will be no overlap with their cellular customers other than the backhaul from the towers. So it is possible that in areas with lower subscription rates they don't really enforce the caps much unless you go way over. Just have to wait and see.


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

I currently pay $150 a month for 20mb down and 10mb up. Kind of high but I wonder what ATT will charge.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

slice1900 said:


> They were talking about 100 GB/month caps but that may change as it gets rolled out. So not ideal for more than occasional streaming but plenty for just about everything else.


Even sitting here with around 300 kbps dsl, I think I would pass on that unless it was around 40 or 50 per month. Even at 200 gb/month I would have to think about it long and hard if it was priced at 70 to 80 per month. 300 gb would make me jump even at 80 to 100 per month.


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

100 GB was a lot of data 10 years ago. Today not so much. If you want to do any kind of streaming or downloading large games on a console 100 isn't going to cut it these days.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

24,000 Wisconsin homes to get LTE fixed wireless

http://www.jsonline.com/business/fixed-wireless-internet-aimed-at-bridging-the-rural-digital-divide-b99672852z1-369530381.html


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

This sounds like it could fit in with AT&T plans to provide fixed wireless Internet to areas without good wired broadband.

The FCC is sitting on a mountain of cash for universal service, a good portion of which can be used to support high cost and price-capped carriers, and the Farm Bill contains rural broadband funds as well.
Once a few companies demonstrate that fixed LTE is a viable technology for rural broadband, the flood gates will open and the country folk will catch up the city-slickers, or at least get close enough that the remaining gap is not a big deal.

AT&T is testing an early version of its 5G network this year, saying it will be 10 to 100 times faster than LTE and might be used for home Internet service. "An early use of 5G's underlying technology could be delivering broadband to homes and businesses, and it's possible that we could have limited commercial availability this year depending on the trials," an AT&T spokesperson told Ars

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/att-trialling-5g-promises-speeds-10-to-100-times-faster-than-lte/

DirecTV was acquired by AT&T for $48.5 billion in 2015. It's now clear that AT&T had more in mind then just cable television. 5G wireless networks are going to have much larger capacity when compared to 4G LTE networks, in fact it's supposedly going to have around a thousand times the capacity. This means the networks will be able to connect to at least 100 billion devices, also download speeds are expected to reach around 10 Gigabits per second. That's a huge improvement, considering most heavily populated areas now see speeds of around 10 megabits per second - some more dense areas around 100Mbps.

http://www.androidheadlines.com/2016/02/buying-directv-has-given-att-an-edge-in-5g.html


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

5G won't become a reality until after 2020. These early tests that various companies are doing are just to learn what things work and don't work to inform the 5G standards process. It will take several years for that standards process to go through, and then companies to design chips etc. towards those standards.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

this could all be for nothing if data caps are still as restrictive as they are today


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

chances14 said:


> this could all be for nothing if data caps are still as restrictive as they are today


As I posted above they're talking about 100 GB data caps, though that may change when it is officially offered. Not nearly as restrictive as cellular data plans, and better than satellite, but not as good as wired broadband which has larger or no caps. But the places this is targeted at are where wired broadband is not offered.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> As I posted above they're talking about 100 GB data caps, though that may change when it is officially offered. Not nearly as restrictive as cellular data plans, and better than satellite, but not as good as wired broadband which has larger or no caps. But the places this is targeted at are where wired broadband is not offered.


yea i've seen 100gb cap mentioned but nothing is set in stone. I would be shocked if the cap doesn't end up being lower than that


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

Hasn't this been rolled out in a few places? Who are "they" that are talking 100gb cap? I have seen some conjecture from journalists but nothing from ATT.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

inhd40 said:


> Hasn't this been rolled out in a few places? Who are "they" that are talking 100gb cap? I have seen some conjecture from journalists but nothing from ATT.


there has been nothing stated from ATT about pricing or caps. just conjecture from outside sources


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

The frequencies/antennas being used for AT&T's fixed wireless are not shared with their cellular data (i.e. you won't be able to use the data on your phone) so the data plans will not bear any relationship to the low limits of cellular data. I have no idea whether it will really end up being 100 GB but it will definitely be way more than the caps on cellular data because it there is no overlap between the two products.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

In-home LAN with LiFi seems to be perfect for future DirecTV Wireless.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Data caps probably will not matter as the below develops.

, AT&T's Sponsored Data and Verizon's FreeBee charge business customers a fee so consumers don't have to worry about data caps when they watch content from those businesses. 

http://www.cnet.com/news/unlimited-video-net-neutrality-binge-on-zero-rating-data-caps/?google_editors_picks=true


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> The frequencies/antennas being used for AT&T's fixed wireless are not shared with their cellular data (i.e. you won't be able to use the data on your phone) so the data plans will not bear any relationship to the low limits of cellular data. I have no idea whether it will really end up being 100 GB but it will definitely be way more than the caps on cellular data because it there is no overlap between the two products.


I guess we'll see.

this is being targeted to areas with no other options so AT&T has all the leverage. This will be a good test to see if data caps are truly just a cash cow



Bedford11 said:


> Data caps probably will not matter as the below develops.
> 
> , AT&T's Sponsored Data and Verizon's FreeBee charge business customers a fee so consumers don't have to worry about data caps when they watch content from those businesses.
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/unlimited-video-net-neutrality-binge-on-zero-rating-data-caps/?google_editors_picks=true


I wouldn't want to have to rely on having to use zero rated services to ensure I don't go over my data cap.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

chances14 said:


> I guess we'll see.
> 
> this is being targeted to areas with no other options so AT&T has all the leverage. This will be a good test to see if data caps are truly just a cash cow
> 
> I wouldn't want to have to rely on having to use zero rated services to ensure I don't go over my data cap.


I wouldn't say there are no other options. DSL, while slow at least generally has no cap and is priced lower. Satellite is faster than DSL but generally has a low cap. If wireless broadband is capped in such a way that makes streaming what you want difficult and is priced higher then all three options are generally equal. It all hinges on price and cap. If they want to capture the market then they will have to have a high enough cap for most peoples streaming needs and low enough price to compete with the other options.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inhd40 said:


> I wouldn't say there are no other options. DSL, while slow at least generally has no cap and is priced lower. Satellite is faster than DSL but generally has a low cap. If wireless broadband is capped in such a way that makes streaming what you want difficult and is priced higher then all three options are generally equal. It all hinges on price and cap. If they want to capture the market then they will have to have a high enough cap for most peoples streaming needs and low enough price to compete with the other options.


They are targeting this at areas where there are no other options, not even DSL. This is for rural markets, you will only be able to get in places where you have well water and a septic tank, where the nearest town is several miles away and has a population measured in hundreds, etc. If you have a couple dozen neighbors within a mile of you, you aren't going to be able to get this.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

slice1900 said:


> They are targeting this at areas where there are no other options, not even DSL. This is for rural markets, you will only be able to get in places where you have well water and a septic tank, where the nearest town is several miles away and has a population measured in hundreds, etc. If you have a couple dozen neighbors within a mile of you, you aren't going to be able to get this.


I find that very hard to believe. No it is not going to be in heavily populated areas but in areas where they have excess data. Narrowing it down to a few people per square mile is not going to be worth the trouble. This will be in areas of several thousand people but maybe not tens of thousands. It will all depend on the number of towers in the area and how much usage they are getting. A large percentage of the populace has a chance at getting DSL even in less than densely populated areas and almost everyone can get satellite if they have line of sight.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inhd40 said:


> I find that very hard to believe. No it is not going to be in heavily populated areas but in areas where they have excess data. Narrowing it down to a few people per square mile is not going to be worth the trouble. This will be in areas of several thousand people but maybe not tens of thousands. It will all depend on the number of towers in the area and how much usage they are getting. A large percentage of the populace has a chance at getting DSL even in less than densely populated areas and almost everyone can get satellite if they have line of sight.


AT&T is using different frequencies for this product, there is no 'excess data' for them to use, it is totally independent of the LTE bands used by cell phones. The only overlap is in the backhaul from the tower, but with fiber it is pretty cheap to upgrade the data rate to whatever is required. Many rural towers don't have fiber backhaul yet, they are still using a T1 backhaul. This service provides AT&T the revenue to help pay for running a fiber backhaul to the tower which otherwise must be done at a loss.

I'm not sure how AT&T will manage the process of signing up for this product. If they do it be zip code or other geographic method, some people who have DSL or cable modem (mainly those in live in or near small towns in rural areas) will be able to sign up. If they do it by address, the townies might not have the option of signing up - i.e. they might deliberately focus on those whose only alternative is satellite internet.

The spectrum licenses cost money but they're cheap in rural areas - each MHz/sq mile costs a helluva lot more in Manhattan than it does in the middle of nowhere. They already have the towers, they are already planning to upgrade them to LTE for cellular to get nationwide LTE coverage, which will require upgrading the backhaul. The cost of the extra spectrum and antennas dedicated to fixed wireless is pretty small. They need a certain number of people to sign up to pay for that, but there isn't enough spectrum dedicated to this that they can have very many users per tower.

AT&T is also planning on experimenting with early 5G technologies to offer fixed wireless in urban settings - I think I read something about a trial in Austin, TX later this year. 5G is still years away 'for real' but it is cheaper for AT&T to come into a city and offer wireless broadband than it is to wire the city, even if it means adding more towers.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

inhd40 said:


> I wouldn't say there are no other options. DSL, while slow at least generally has no cap and is priced lower. Satellite is faster than DSL but generally has a low cap. If wireless broadband is capped in such a way that makes streaming what you want difficult and is priced higher then all three options are generally equal. It all hinges on price and cap. If they want to capture the market then they will have to have a high enough cap for most peoples streaming needs and low enough price to compete with the other options.


satellite should never be considered a viable internet connection until the caps are raised and the latency is similar to that of terrestrial internet. Both of which probably won't happen due to technological limitations. I mean the fact that people are still using satellite internet connections shows you how bad the state of broadband is in rural areas

Many DSL connections are nothing more than glorified dial up connections that most companies either don't have the money to maintain and upgrade or simply don't care to maintain and upgrade. it's a dying technology that isn't going to get any better and will probably get worse as the companies let the copper lines rot in the ground. Plus, there's a lot more people that don't have access to dsl than you may think


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

chances14 said:


> [Snip]
> 
> Many DSL connections are nothing more than glorified dial-up connections that most companies either don't have the money to maintain and upgrade or simply don't care to maintain and upgrade. it's a dying technology that isn't going to get any better and will probably get worse as the companies let the copper lines rot in the ground. Plus, there's a lot more people that don't have access to dsl than you may think


I'm 100% in agreement as my home in NYC suburbia is a prime example of Verizon letting all their wired infrastructure go to hell.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

chances14 said:


> satellite should never be considered a viable internet connection until the caps are raised and the latency is similar to that of terrestrial internet. Both of which probably won't happen due to technological limitations. I mean the fact that people are still using satellite internet connections shows you how bad the state of broadband is in rural areas
> 
> Many DSL connections are nothing more than glorified dial up connections that most companies either don't have the money to maintain and upgrade or simply don't care to maintain and upgrade. it's a dying technology that isn't going to get any better and will probably get worse as the companies let the copper lines rot in the ground. Plus, there's a lot more people that don't have access to dsl than you may think


Oh, I agree 100 %. I am sitting here with 300 kbps DSL so I know all too well the problems with that and satellite. The only good thing about my DSL is there is no cap. Of course I can't do to much with it but my point is If ATT sets the cap too low that I can't do much with it either I don't think I would jump off the DSL. My home phone is tied in with my DSL and while I don't have to have it, it's nice to have. I am very anxious to see what the caps and pricing structure are going to be.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

inhd40 said:


> Oh, I agree 100 %. I am sitting here with 300 kbps DSL so I know all too well the problems with that and satellite. The only good thing about my DSL is there is no cap. Of course I can't do to much with it but my point is If ATT sets the cap too low that I can't do much with it either I don't think I would jump off the DSL. My home phone is tied in with my DSL and while I don't have to have it, it's nice to have. I am very anxious to see what the caps and pricing structure are going to be.


yea with even basic webpages becoming even more graphically intense, 300kpbs isn't going to cut it for most people even with no cap. especially when you may have multiple people using the connection at the same time. To me, I wouldn't even consider that competition and I doubt At&t will either


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

This product as far as I can tell will not be offered in the state of Maryland because we didn't take any of these funds,that being said I have good Verizon Wireless signal at my house but they will not let me get the LTE installed service at my house. I would think that's how this service from AT&T will work it will be limited to a mile or so out from tower's. 5g will be the same a mile or so out from tower's using Millimeter wave's heat inversion will cause problem's. Tree's will stop it dead in it's track's( 5g ) that is.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AT&T will start selling you cable TV over the Internet

*"It is an Internet-delivered service,*" AT&T Entertainment Group CEO John Stankey said in a phone interview.

The new service, which will have DirecTV branding but *without the need for a satellite dish, *will create new competition in the television industry.

Will go very well with the Fixed wireless service.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/01/media/att-cable-tv-internet/


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

At no point in the article do they mention that the future fixed wireless service has any relation to this, just that you won't need an AT&T broadband connection or an AT&T wireless phone to subscribe.

Unless the fixed wireless thing comes with no caps or the DirecTV Now product bypasses the internet and is distributed locally when you're on AT&T's network (similar to what Comcast does with Xfinity's streaming content), it wouldn't go well with it at all if people intend to use this instead of cable or satellite as their primary TV provider. The only thing it would do is open up lawsuits from Sling TV, Netflix, Playstation Vue and others if AT&T's exempts their own OTT product from their data caps.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AT&T to give ad-supported *FREE* OTT TV service to customers.

Cannot get better than Free TV and 2 Paid internet TV services.

Rural Fixed broadband and a FREE TV service, I like!

packages, including* much of what is available from DirecTV today *-

Will be able to drop the OTA antenna as well with local channels being offered.

The service will not require *contracts, satellite dishes or set-top boxes.*

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/att-announces-three-directv-branded-video-services-all-devices-will-launch/2016-03-01

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/technology/att-take-directv-over-top/154237


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

You should probably read the articles before quoting segments out of context and hyping them...

The free option is just some small VOD selections of DirecTV exclusive content, like some things from the Audience Network and some previews of things you can only get with the paid options. It's called DirecTV PREVIEW for a reason, it's NOT going to give you things like TNT, USA, TBS and your locals for free.


And unless they have decent or no caps at all, any OTT option will not be viable for that "fixed broadband" service you keep on hyping, unless you want to start paying overages or have your connection throttled to the point where you can't even watch SD content towards the end of your billing cycle.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Read the article, Free is Free.

Another Big part of this is multi streams.

AT&T's unlimited data plan will be good for these new TV services.

but noted that it's setting up each service to support "simultaneous sessions." Notably, some of the programming offered by Dish Network's Sling TV is limited to a single stream per subscriber.

As a rural resident I am looking forward to Fixed Wireless and AT&T internet TV. Hoping AT&T prices this at 20 bucks with the same or more channels than Sling TV.

http://www.multichannel.com/news/content/att-take-directv-over-top/402950

http://www.phonedog.com/2016/01/11/att-launching-new-unlimited-data-plan-youll-need-tv-service-get-it


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

KyL416 said:


> You should probably read the articles before quoting segments of context and hyping them...


I think those who suggested Bedford11 is some sort of bot rather than a real person may be on to something. His posts are all hype with links to articles that don't match the bold lettered hype.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Bedford11 said:


> AT&T's unlimited data plan will be good for these new TV services.


AT&T's "unlimited" data plan throttles you to 128 kbps during peak hours after you pass 22 GB of data, and that 22 GB is shared with every other device on your plan. Good luck using it on that as the only thing "multiple streams" will do is make you reach that cap faster. And once you reach that cap...

Oh it's primetime and want to watch your favorite show? Sorry all your neighbors are busy tweeting and posting on facebook

Your parent wants to watch her stories? Sorry all the kids in the neighborhood just got home, time to throttle your connection right before the cliffhanger so they can watch the latest viral videos on YouTube.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

LTE Advanced Pro

Exclusive interview with AT&T SVP on 5G vision, *incremental benchmarks*

Will not have to wait for 5G, LTE Advanced Pro will bring improvements to 4G.

Keathley also said on the way to 5G, consumers would see improvement of services at the LTE-Advanced Pro standard makes its way to live networks. Watch the video in the link below.

*Already 50 Mbps being installed in U.S.*
The company says the LTE fixed wireless broadband technology will support speeds of up to 50 Mbps residentially and up to 100 Mbps for commercial customers.

AT&T in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission earlier this year said in areas where the fixed WLL will be deployed, it will "provide consumers with a robust broadband experience, with speeds and usage comparable, and typically superior to, the best wireline services available." The carrier added that the technology will even provide customers on the cell edge speeds faster than 10 Mbps more than 90 percent of the time.

*Fixed wireless working so good for ericsson they are boosting speeds.*
NBN doubles fixed-wireless speeds
NBN customers connected to the company's fixed-wireless network will see their download speeds doubled, from 25Mbps to 50Mbps.

http://www.rcrwireless.com/20160301/carriers/5g-exclusive-interview-att-tag17

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/report-att-using-netcomm-ericsson-fixed-wll-effort/2015-11-25

http://www.zdnet.com/article/nbn-doubles-fixed-wireless-speeds/

http://www.telecompetitor.com/rise-broadband-aims-for-50-mbps-broadband-with-lte-fixed-wireless/


----------



## BuffaloTF (Dec 21, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> That's kind of shocking to me. I would never have thought it was that big a difference negotiating with 6 million customers and negotiating with 20 million customers. Even if there is zero difference going from 20 to 26 million, _AT&T will be saving $1.2 billion a year _when they start paying the same price for Uverse customer content that Directv does! That's pretty nice, and that's before the savings they get from having a common hardware/software platform for both, integrate billing and other back office tasks to eliminate redundancy, etc.


I would imagine it's an incredible savings. Just to use round numbers, if ESPN/Disney charges $5 per user to the provider and wants to raise it to 7... It's a much bigger deal if that provider calls their bluff with more subscribers and suddenly pulls the channel family, and they dock 125 million from their revenue coffers *every month*... Whereas they were asking for a 50 million dollar raise per month previously.

To borrow a quote from a candidate on each of the sides. That's "yuge".

The only problem is as customers we get mad... And often find ourselves complaining to our provider for "taking away" our channel, rather than encouraging them to leverage it.

Edit: .... Boo me. I just realized this thread has over 200 posts. Sorry for bringing you back from the dead.

Sent from my iPhone 6s using Tapatalk


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I think those who suggested Bedford11 is some sort of bot rather than a real person may be on to something. His posts are all hype with links to articles that don't match the bold lettered hype.


that or he/she is an AT&T shareholder


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Fixed Wireless Broadband will get a significant increase in speed, and rural users won't have to pay a fortune

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/77499330/explained-45g-and-what-it-means-for-new-zealand


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

There's marketing hype and there is what gets to the market.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

And linking an article about fixed wireless in New Zealand is irrelevant for what AT&T is deploying.


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> And linking an article about fixed wireless in New Zealand is irrelevant for what AT&T is deploying.


Also just a tad smaller


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

As part of the program, AT&T is testing fixed wireless connections--essentially providing broadband to households through the cellular network--and could make such a service commercially available by year-end. Speeds of such a service would also be in gigabits per second, the company said.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/att-to-start-testing-5g-wireless-technology-this-year-20160212-00003

New towers are going up all over the US to cover the entire county, primarily for the counties public safety network, a real gravy train for AT&T to latch on to. This will speed up wireless broadband adoption greatly.

The towers the county builds will serve three users, David noted, the public safety system-as the primary tenant, wireless internet service providers and cell phone companies, who could rent space on the tower for their equipment-allowing fixed wireless access to reach all ends of the county.
Constructing dual-purpose towers will allow the county to provide public safety to its citizens, while also allowing wireless internet service providers (WISP) to offer broadband to underserved or un-served areas of Orange County, David explained.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/orangenews/news/broadband-bounty/article_d99b9afc-e5f8-11e5-a672-af4a76a9f355.html


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

3 people in every county per tower wow.Maybe i'm not getting what their saying.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

bcltoys said:


> 3 people in every county per tower wow.Maybe i'm not getting what their saying.


Not 3 people, 3 tenants/companies on the tower. The primary user public safety, wireless internet providers and cellular providers.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Getting a contract to put up towers for public safety would seem to be a pretty nice coup, because you'd have someone else paying most of the cost and since it is government they could more easily overcome NIMBY objections for tower locations. Once the tower is in place, then it could be used for cellular and fixed wireless.

I assume such bidding is county by county though maybe statewide in some states, and since it seems like such a coup I imagine there are a lot of interested parties. Not just cellular companies but also companies that own/operate towers and simply lease space to cellular companies.


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

Christopher Gould said:


> Not 3 people, 3 tenants/companies on the tower. The primary user public safety, wireless internet providers and cellular providers.


Thanks I was not picking up what they where putting down.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

25 up/5 down with unlimited data for 75 bucks. If AT&T/Direct TV can match this, it's off to the races.

https://ausbbs.com.au/residential/nbn-wireless/


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Packages with NO data caps, says AT&T spokesman.

This will be at speeds above or beyond 15 to 25 megabit download. We'll have packages where you can watch Netflix or Hulu without the data caps like you do with wireless," said Weirtz.

http://elyecho.com/a...adband-ely-area


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Bedford11 said:


> 25 up/5 down with unlimited data for 75 bucks. If AT&T/Direct TV can match this, it's off to the races.
> 
> https://ausbbs.com.au/residential/nbn-wireless/


why do you keep posting information on fixed wireless in other countries? The broadband landscape in the United States is so different than that from most other countries that it makes what other countries are doing completely irrelevant



Bedford11 said:


> Packages with NO data caps, says AT&T spokesman.
> 
> This will be at speeds above or beyond 15 to 25 megabit download. We'll have packages where you can watch Netflix or Hulu without the data caps like you do with wireless," said Weirtz.
> 
> http://elyecho.com/a...adband-ely-area


in other words, they are going to zero rate a few streaming services and you will still be stuck with a paltry low data cap for everything else.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Getting a contract to put up towers for public safety would seem to be a pretty nice coup, because you'd have someone else paying most of the cost and since it is government they could more easily overcome NIMBY objections for tower locations. Once the tower is in place, then it could be used for cellular and fixed wireless.
> 
> I assume such bidding is county by county though maybe statewide in some states, and since it seems like such a coup I imagine there are a lot of interested parties. Not just cellular companies but also companies that own/operate towers and simply lease space to cellular companies.


i wonder if this is going to be a part of firstnet http://www.firstnet.gov/about


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Another nice, cheap internet TV service that will make AT&T/Direct TV fixed wireless broadband product even sweeter.


Access Slim - 55+ channels, including live cable TV, movies and sports channels for $29.99/month.
Core Slim - 70+ channels, including all Access Slim channels and the addition of live national and regional sports networks for $34.99/month.
Elite Slim - 100+ channels, including all channels from Core Slim package, with the addition of movie and entertainment channels for $44.99/month.

PLAYSTATION VUE GOES NATIONWIDE WITH OVER 50 CHANNELS FOR JUST $30/MONTH

http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/playstation-vue-goes-national/278138

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/playstation-vue-adds-slim-packages-at-30-per-month/


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Unlimited Data for 39 bucks.

If AT&T matches these prices, their fixed wireless will be highly sought after from rural subs.


Unlimited Data • No Contracts • No Equipment Fees • 30-Day Money Back Guarantee
​
https://www.redzonewireless.com/special-offer


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Bedford11 said:


> Another nice, cheap internet TV service that will make AT&T/Direct TV fixed wireless broadband product even sweeter.
> 
> 
> Access Slim - 55+ channels, including live cable TV, movies and sports channels for $29.99/month.
> ...


it will be sweet until you hit your cap in one day. And I highly doubt att is going to zero rate a product that is directly competing with them


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

Does anyone have any idea what type of spectrum they plan on using 700mhz,AWS-1,PCS,WCS,or Cellular that is all find for the state of Maryland just curious.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

My understanding is that AT&T plans to use 700 MHz licenses for this. Since it is targeted in rural less dense areas they need the greater reach of lower frequencies to serve everyone from the more widely spaced towers in those areas.

They will be cellular licenses but it won't be shared with cell phones, i.e. you won't be sharing this data with cell phone users in your area it will dedicated to fixed wireless broadband only. You won't be able to get it on your RV and drive around the country, in fact it will probably be geolocked to your specific address.


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

Cool


----------



## Premt (Mar 16, 2016)

bcltoys said:


> Does anyone have any idea what type of spectrum they plan on using 700mhz,AWS-1,PCS,WCS,or Cellular that is all find for the state of Maryland just curious.


Current testing for WLL is on band 30


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

If that is what they use there will be no range similar to Sprint's spark a mile or so.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Premt said:


> Current testing for WLL is on band 30


I don't believe that's what they'll be using in the long run. Everything I've read said they are going to use a band that is for fixed wireless only. Band 30 is shared by cellphones (the iPhone 6S and I'm sure other phones have the ability to utilize band 30)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

bcltoys said:


> If that is what they use there will be no range similar to Sprint's spark a mile or so.


Why do you think that? Sprint Spark actually uses higher frequencies (at 800 MHz or higher) so its range would be (slightly) less than something based on 700 MHz.


----------



## Premt (Mar 16, 2016)

bcltoys said:


> If that is what they use there will be no range similar to Sprint's spark a mile or so.


In the trials they have gotten it out to the 4-6 mile range.


----------



## Premt (Mar 16, 2016)

slice1900 said:


> I don't believe that's what they'll be using in the long run. Everything I've read said they are going to use a band that is for fixed wireless only. Band 30 is shared by cellphones (the iPhone 6S and I'm sure other phones have the ability to utilize band 30)


They probably will band 30 isn't deployed in rural areas as of now and an iPhone 6s will not connect to WLL sector antennas.


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

I was thinking of the clearwire spectrum isn't it 2500 or 2600 MHz not carrying that far.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

There's also a 600 Mhz auction coming up.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Ericsson and Netcom (which are AT&T's partners in their U.S. Fixed Wireless product) are being used in the Australian NBN fixed wireless services.
Do the numbers/Distances below sound right to you all?

AT&T is planning on out-spending T-Mobile during the 600 mhz. auction, spending as much as $10 billion on a 2x10 MHz block of spectrum that offers nationwide capability. 

Fixed wireless LTE from Ericsson used in the Australian NBN works very well, however the big limitation is range (only 14km max) and requirement for clear line of sight to the tower. I guess due to the relatively high frequency spectrum used, at 2302 - 2400 MHz, and 20MHz channel width.
Unfortunately this excludes many of the potential customers on farms in rural fringe areas, for which it was intended!
Otherwise, it's a great service. 25 - 50Mbps down, 5 - 20Mbps up, low latency, and decent, affordable data plans, ranging from e.g. 50GB/mnth anytime, to 1000GB peak / 12000GB off peak.
How the speeds at peak times hold up over time, as usage increases, has yet to be determined, but so far it seems OK.
Else they end up with satellite as their only other option (garbage by comparison), or stick with their existing 3G/4G mobile broadband service. Both of these are inadequate, due to very small, expensive data plans, and additionally very high latency on satellite.
So, any service that has otherwise similar characteristics to fixed wireless, but with a decent range (30 - 40k like current 3G/4G mobile etc) would be a boon.
I can already get up to 36Mbps, 30km away from the nearest 4G mobile tower, so I don't see why this can't be achieved on fixed wireless with suitable equipment?

http://hightechforum.org/fixed-lte-for-rural-broadband-emerges/

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Wells-Fargo-AT-T-to-spend-10-billion-on-600MHz-FCC-auction-topping-T-Mobiles-8-billion_id76121


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

If AT&T uses a lower frequency than the below examples it should be a lot less complicated.

5. DISTANCE
The maximum distance from the tower to the customer premises is limited by nbn™ to 14 kilometres, however many towers appear to have a 5 - 6 kilometre radius and some even less. This will depend on the tower configuration and the local environment (see Obstructions). Most towers mount antennas point at the horizon to ensure maximum range. However in a few locations, where co-frequency interference may occur, the antennas may be down tilted, which affects the maximum range.

https://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/fixed_wireless_discussion_nbn-part_3


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NR4P said:


> There's also a 600 Mhz auction coming up.


Yes, but then there is a period of at least 39 months after the completion of the auction (which will take many months to complete after it starts) before the spectrum becomes available for use. I say 'at least' because many in the industry think that's way optimistic and it may take twice that long because a lot of new transmitters will need to be built and installed on towers, and since the HD cutover there is less capacity to build transmitters and there is a limited number of crews certified to work on the 1000-2000' foot TV towers.

Dielectric, which manufactured many of the transmitters in use by stations today, was in the processing of closing down due to lack of business (because so many stations had replaced antennas in the mid/late 2000s for the HD cutover) when Sinclair bought them. That's one reason Sinclair has been pushing so hard for this auction, and for ATSC 3.0 - they'll make tons of money off that $5 million investment


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Range depends on more that just frequency, but also tower (transmitter) height, terrain and power limits (which are different between the US and Australia) I don't think comparing to Australia is very useful, any more than you'd compare how far you'd expect to be able to receive an OTA station in California by looking at how far someone can receive one in North Dakota.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Will AT&T compete in area's that have fixed LTE wireless thus giving customers a choice of broadband services?
These small LTE fixed wireless companies are growing quickly.

Amarillo Wireless is proud to announce that in conjunction with Telrad we have deployed the first 4G LTE Fixed Wireless Internet service in the Texas Panhandle," said Matthew Carpenter, President and Co-Owner of Amarillo Wireless. "With the power and reliability that LTE provides, we can now service customers in Amarillo, Canyon, and Dumas with higher speeds. Also, trees, which once blocked wireless signals, are no longer an issue. The new Telrad 4G LTE equipment can *bust through trees *and get through to many more customers."
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2016/03/prweb13269916.htm

What are these articles saying?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-telecoms-mobileworld-at-t-idUSKCN0VV26K

http://www.telecomlead.com/5g/att-aims-beat-verizon-5g-thanks-fixed-line-network-67584


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Will this hybrid type set top box be the one used for the new AT&T/Direct TV internet service?
Service guy could install one box to work with satellite/internet.

"Hybrid STBs are a combination of satellite, cable, and IPTV STBs. These STBs support a satellite input, a regular cable input, and signals transmitted over the Internet. The technology is versatile as it allows Internet access, over-the-top (OTT) services, and also offers pay-on-demand (POD) content on the same device.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Why would AT&T have a box that supports cable input? That adds extra cost for no benefit.


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> Why would AT&T have a box that supports cable input? That adds extra cost for no benefit.


Does u-verse use coax.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

bcltoys said:


> Does u-verse use coax.


Uverse comes into the house via DSL on your phone line, not on coax.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Uverse inpu/output with coax


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

And given the rapid pace of change in the video industry right now, the idea of relying on a cable or satellite provider for your pay-TV package could seem quaint by the time the rules kick in.

http://www.techhive.com/article/3036829/streaming-hardware/the-fcc-wants-to-blow-up-the-cable-box-heres-what-its-proposal-will-and-wont-do.html


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Bedford11 said:


> Uverse inpu/output with coax


No that coax distribution is only done on the customer premises.

The feed from the U-verse network itself Slice is refering to is over 2-wire telephone pairs. To which it may then go to a balun at the traditional residential phone system SNI box for coax distribution inside the home.

See the images here for example ...

http://www.abdullahyahya.com/2014/11/att-u-verse-tvinternet-coaxial-cable-connections/

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Hurry up ATT/Direct TV with your internet TV service, Others services are coming online quickly, this new Umio internet TV looks good, 4k, 7 channel recording, hoping AT&T/DirectTV top internet TV service will be a close competitor.

https://umio.tv/coming-soon

https://variety.com/2016/digital/news/layer3-tv-umio-1201681141/

http://www.multichannel.com/news/content/layer3-tv-trials-next-gen-cable-service/396600

http://www.layer3tv.com/


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

This isn't an OTT service, it is only offered in limited areas. It isn't something you can sign up anywhere you have high speed internet, so is not competitive with Directv's upcoming OTT service, Sling TV, PS Vue, etc.


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

From all the fixed LTE internet trials that have happened in the past I/E Sprint,Dish and some others this product from AT&T might never see the light of day. Hope I'm wrong


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

bcltoys said:


> From all the fixed LTE internet trials that have happened in the past I/E Sprint,Dish and some others this product from AT&T might never see the light of day. Hope I'm wrong


That is what I have been thinking. Originally it was supposed to be up and running by the end of last year and then by February this year. Still nothing. There are supposed trials going on but no info at all or even any advertising of this new service that I can find. This could be another one of those deals where they make promises to get government approval and never gets done. Just drag your feet and soon everyone forgets all about it.


----------



## Premt (Mar 16, 2016)

inhd40 said:


> That is what I have been thinking. Originally it was supposed to be up and running by the end of last year and then by February this year. Still nothing. There are supposed trials going on but no info at all or even any advertising of this new service that I can find. This could be another one of those deals where they make promises to get government approval and never gets done. Just drag your feet and soon everyone forgets all about it.


AT&T is taking CAF II funding to build out the Fixed LTE network so they have to provide service. There are real trials going on and there will be a soft launch in the 3Q/4Q time frame.


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

There are companies out there that have taken these CAF fund's only to give it back because things did not work out. Also look at what these companies I/E Verizon and AT&T have done in the past in some state's was to promise high speed broadband to everybody in return for tax breaks but for all intents and purpose do nothing but cherry pick.This is not a done deal by far. And governments just look the other way. Yes I am pessimistic.


----------



## swdude12 (Jun 18, 2010)

Premt said:


> AT&T is taking CAF II funding to build out the Fixed LTE network so they have to provide service. There are real trials going on and there will be a soft launch in the 3Q/4Q time frame.


Where did you hear there is going to be a soft launch in 3Q/4Q time frame...originally it was supposed to be offered end of 2015 and 1st Q 2016. I have 768kbs DSL from ATT and that is all i can get...its awful. Comcast wanted over 100k to run a miles worth of overhead cable...so i literally have zero internet options.


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

swdude12 said:


> Where did you hear there is going to be a soft launch in 3Q/4Q time frame...originally it was supposed to be offered end of 2015 and 1st Q 2016. I have 768kbs DSL from ATT and that is all i can get...its awful. Comcast wanted over 100k to run a miles worth of overhead cable...so i literally have zero internet options.


I'm in the same situation with Charter, they won't bring the cable line down to my place. Luckily I have a 20 MB wireless connection from a local WISP which is very good. I think the only way the cable companies will bring service to rural areas is if they are forced to by the government like they did with the electric years ago.


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

My DSL is 1.5 megabyte and it sucks


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

swdude12 said:


> Where did you hear there is going to be a soft launch in 3Q/4Q time frame...originally it was supposed to be offered end of 2015 and 1st Q 2016. I have 768kbs DSL from ATT and that is all i can get...its awful. Comcast wanted over 100k to run a miles worth of overhead cable...so i literally have zero internet options.


 I'm right there with you no DSL what so ever,no wisp,no cable.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

While there have been some false starts in the past, I think this time it is "for real" because the technology is cheap enough that it can be a competitive product. The reason earlier attempts like Sprint's Wimax failed to launch is that they found it was way too expensive to deploy. Most people would rather get by with satellite internet or a tethered cellular connection if they were careful with data rather than pay 2-3x as much for service that while better than those options was still inferior to what wired customers in urban areas got.

The huge deployment of LTE over the past few years has pushed down the cost of the equipment to the point where it can be priced to where most customers will choose it where offered, compared to satellite or cellular. Many rural towers haven't got LTE yet because it was deemed too expensive to upgrade the backhaul from copper to fiber. The additional revenue from fixed wireless helps make the numbers work. They would probably do this even without CAF II and commitments made for the merger. In fact from what I've seen usually when companies commit "we'll do x" to get a merger or other deal approved, they were planning on doing it anyway. They just make it sound like they are making some big concessions because its good PR.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Running a mile worth of any type of cable has to be very, very expensive - even if they can get all the rights. I don't know how many people it would take in a neighbor hood to support that but I suspect it would be a lot. I'm sure there will be people in some places who will really never get real speed. Hey there are plenty of places where 1 or more of the big names don't have any real service.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I wouldn't say "never". 5G would support fixed wireless speeds of hundreds of megabits - which is really fast enough for almost any conceivable use, so even if city dwellers are getting multi-gigabit it would matter for bragging rights only.

Of course 5G is years away, and 5G fixed wireless probably a decade away, but that's better than "never"


----------



## Premt (Mar 16, 2016)

swdude12 said:


> Where did you hear there is going to be a soft launch in 3Q/4Q time frame...originally it was supposed to be offered end of 2015 and 1st Q 2016. I have 768kbs DSL from ATT and that is all i can get...its awful. Comcast wanted over 100k to run a miles worth of overhead cable...so i literally have zero internet options.


I'm an employee


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> My understanding is that AT&T plans to use 700 MHz licenses for this. Since it is targeted in *rural less dense* areas they need the greater reach of lower frequencies to serve everyone from the more widely spaced towers in those areas.
> 
> They will be cellular licenses but it won't be shared with cell phones, i.e. you won't be sharing this data with cell phone users in your area it will dedicated to fixed wireless broadband only. You won't be able to get it on your RV and drive around the country, in fact it will probably be geolocked to your specific address.


According to Verizon, there are many non-dense areas in suburbia, never mind rural.


----------



## mrknowitall526 (Nov 19, 2014)

CTJon said:


> Running a mile worth of any type of cable has to be very, very expensive - even if they can get all the rights. I don't know how many people it would take in a neighbor hood to support that but I suspect it would be a lot. I'm sure there will be people in some places who will really never get real speed. Hey there are plenty of places where 1 or more of the big names don't have any real service.


My cable co wanted $22,000 to extend plant 1/2 mile to cover my house and 8 others.

On the other hand, PA had legislation in place requiring telcos to offer DSL to customers - at no build out cost - if sufficient demand was demonstrated by filling out petitions. In my area, "sufficient demand" amounted to a mere 4 petitions. They put in a brand new fiber-fed remote terminal, DSLAM, about 17 new poles, and ran over a mile of new copper just to connect at max 17 homes. I think only 8-10 or so signed up.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Drucifer said:


> According to Verizon, there are many non-dense areas in suburbia, never mind rural.


Depends on the definition of 'dense'. If it is dense enough that cable internet is offered, it isn't likely to see fixed wireless.


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

Have the trial's even started yet for this tech.


----------



## Premt (Mar 16, 2016)

bcltoys said:


> Have the trial's even started yet for this tech.


There are trials in 4 states currently, Kansas, Alabama, Georgia and Virginia.


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

I asked because you would think some of the people in the trials would be talking,I'v not heard of any. Could be they are not aloud.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

bcltoys said:


> I asked because you would think some of the people in the trials would be talking,I'v not heard of any. Could be they are not aloud.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


yeah. it's possible that those participating in the trials had to sign non disclosure agreements that prevents them from publicly talking about it


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

I was on AT&T'S site and noticed that they are sold out of their home phone and internet,wonder if something new is coming.


----------



## paranoia (Jun 13, 2014)

http://www.techspot.com/news/64554-broadband-data-caps-having-their-intended-effect-punishing.html


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Cable companies don't even need caps to punish cord cutters, all they need to do is price internet services and TV such that you can get both for hardly any more than you pay for just one. That way if you cut the cord you might only save $10-$20/month, and once you pay for Netflix and Hulu the savings are gone so you might as well keep the cable subscription.

Obviously that won't work if you have good alternatives for your internet from a company that doesn't offer TV, but there are many people for whom that's not true. They don't need caps that way, the paltry savings from dropping cable TV is enough to keep you from cutting the cord (or switching to satellite)


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Inching ever closer. When Fixed Wireless arrives at your rural location there will be a lot of TV services to compete for your dollar.

Amazon, Sony's Crackle And AT&T/Fullscreen's Diverging OTT Video Roadmaps

http://www.forbes.com/sites/howardhomonoff/2016/05/02/amazon-sonys-crackle-and-attfullscreens-diverging-ott-video-roadmaps/#33e6280d62b4

https://www.fullscreen.com/

http://fortune.com/2016/04/27/att-fullscreen-millennials/

Now we are talking. AT&T uping Data Caps to allow customers to watch a lot of TV. Can you all get by on 1 terabyte a month?

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2016/may/02/net-data-caps-lifted-at-at-t-and-comcas/

http://www.knoxnews.com/business/comcast-att-raising-data-caps-for-knoxville-area-customers-31a29aba-f0a2-4381-e053-0100007fb430-377624031.html

Hulu Eyes Cable-Like Bundle - Report

http://www.lightreading.com/video/ott/hulu-eyes-cable-like-bundle---report-/d/d-id/723052?f_src=lightreading_editorspicks_rss_latest&google_editors_picks=true

https://www.fullscreen.com/


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Going to be a lot of Happy, Poor, Rural Folks when AT&T rolls out Fixed Wireless. Can you get by with 600 Gigs a month?

http://wgntv.com/2016/04/24/att-offering-5-internet-to-low-income-families/


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

*Starting next year*, AT&T Inc. plans to offer fixed-wireless Internet connections to roughly 24,000 homes in Wisconsin - mostly in rural areas where it's too expensive to install miles of fiber-optic cable or copper wire that carries an Internet signal.

http://www.jsonline.com/business/fixed-wireless-internet-aimed-at-bridging-the-rural-digital-divide-b99672852z1-369530381.html


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

How do we know how much data running all TV off the internet - including at times several streams?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CTJon said:


> How do we know how much data running all TV off the internet - including at times several streams?


Directv's MPEG4 HD is around 6-7 Mbps or 2.7 to 3.1 GB/hr. Add up the number of hours you watch per month and there you go. They might use HEVC for their streaming offerings...since they will require new hardware anyway, they could save a bit of bandwidth by streaming all channels with HEVC compression - maybe 2 GB/hr in that case.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Bedford11 said:


> Now we are talking. AT&T uping Data Caps to allow customers to watch a lot of TV. Can you all get by on 1 terabyte a month?
> 
> http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2016/may/02/net-data-caps-lifted-at-at-t-and-comcas/
> 
> http://www.knoxnews.com/business/comcast-att-raising-data-caps-for-knoxville-area-customers-31a29aba-f0a2-4381-e053-0100007fb430-377624031.html


once again, you are posting irrelevant links. these are for land based internet options. Completely different from wireless.

There is no way any wireless offering from att is going to be anywhere close to those caps


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

chances14 said:


> once again, you are posting irrelevant links. these are for land based internet options. Completely different from wireless.
> 
> There is no way any wireless offering from att is going to be anywhere close to those caps


 I'm glad somebody said it,I still think AT&T is blowing smoke with this whole product.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Unlimited Fixed Wireless/No Caps

http://www.dbstalk.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&fromMainBar=1


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Bedford11 said:


> Unlimited Fixed Wireless/No Caps
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&fromMainBar=1


your link is broken


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

chances14 said:


> once again, you are posting irrelevant links. these are for land based internet options. Completely different from wireless.
> 
> There is no way any wireless offering from att is going to be anywhere close to those caps


AT&T has said their fixed wireless loop product will have caps "in the range" of their DSL limits, so, in the range of hundreds of gigabytes.

This service is using dedicated spectrum, and is using directional antennas. They can squeeze a lot more capacity out of it than out of their general LTE for cellphones service.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

JosephB said:


> AT&T has said their fixed wireless loop product will have caps "in the range" of their DSL limits, so, in the range of hundreds of gigabytes.
> 
> This service is using dedicated spectrum, and is using directional antennas. They can squeeze a lot more capacity out of it than out of their general LTE for cellphones service.


could you post a link to an article or source that says the caps are going to be in the dsl range?

I have yet to see any article talk about caps other than "we don't know what the caps and pricing are yet"

No doubt they will have more capacity but I simply don't trust AT&T to implement fair and reasonable caps, especially when the market they are targeting are those who have no other options besides satellite


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

chances14 said:


> could you post a link to an article or source that says the caps are going to be in the dsl range?
> 
> I have yet to see any article talk about caps other than "we don't know what the caps and pricing are yet"
> 
> No doubt they will have more capacity but I simply don't trust AT&T to implement fair and reasonable caps, especially when the market they are targeting are those who have no other options besides satellite


I'm fairly certain it was in the FCC application for the DirecTV transaction. I'll give it a shot but may take a day or two


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Found a Consumerist article that refers to it, not sure of their source. I read it somewhere in an AT&T document, so I'll keep digging
https://consumerist.com/2015/03/03/what-we-know-about-attdirectvs-proposed-wireless-broadband-service/


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

JosephB said:


> Found a Consumerist article that refers to it, not sure of their source. I read it somewhere in an AT&T document, so I'll keep digging
> https://consumerist.com/2015/03/03/what-we-know-about-attdirectvs-proposed-wireless-broadband-service/


 that article seems to echo every other article I have seen



> All the filing says on the matter is that AT&T "expects the product to be offered with a usage allowance high enough to readily satisfy most customers' needs."
> 
> The questions is whether the company is basing that usage level based on wireless customers' usage (which typically ranges in 2-3GB/month range) or in the typical usage of a home with multiple connected devices that can rack up hundreds of gigabytes each month streaming and downloading movies, TV shows, music, books, and games.
> 
> • Data Caps: There is the slight hint mentioned above, but without even vague usage numbers, we have very little to go on.


----------



## Premt (Mar 16, 2016)

The cap will be 150GB at launch and could possibly be raised after capacity upgrades.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Premt said:


> The cap will be 150GB at launch and could possibly be raised after capacity upgrades.


nice. hopefully that is indeed what it ends up being but I will believe it when I see it

have you been told what the speeds and pricing are going to be yet?


----------



## Premt (Mar 16, 2016)

Normal speeds will be 15-25 Mbps, under heavy load it won't drop under 10 Mbps. I can't give out the exact price but it will be less than $70


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

When.


----------



## Premt (Mar 16, 2016)

It's a 3-4 year build so I can't say when a specific area will get it but it's launching in the 3Q/4Q this year.


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

2 weeks ago, I had a Directv tech come out for a service call. I did ask him if he has heard anything about AT&T's WLL technology and he said they just started to have some initial training on this. He mentioned that it was basically line of site but also said that AT&T is currently working to upgrade their infrastructure as it requires new physical devices on their current antennas. He said that it probably wouldn't be available until 2017 in my area (SW Michigan).


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

Line of site is bad news for me,if so 5g will do me no good either I live in a jungle.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

stumbled across this today. thought it was interesting

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/16/technology/gfast-internet-speeds/


----------



## dstout (Jul 19, 2005)

I read it, but I don't understand it.


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

dstout said:


> I read it, but I don't understand it.


Proly will not see the light of day here in the US.AT&T and Verizon wan't out of wire's they just want air.They would be the one's that would use it


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I agree Verizon and AT&T are unlikely to deploy G.fast since they've been busy selling off their copper, but the companies they are selling it to may be interested. Centurylink almost certainly would be interested, but probably only in areas where VDSL has already been deployed, to keep pace with cable internet as DOCSIS 3 rolls out over the next couple years.

The length limits for G.fast to get gigabit level speeds are shorter (on the order of 2-3 blocks) but adding new fiber nodes in VDSL neighborhoods is a fraction of the cost of running fiber to every single house.

Those who only have access to old school ADSL at single digit speeds probably shouldn't hold their breath - the economics that made your telco not want to upgrade to VDSL2 still apply for G.fast.


----------



## Premt (Mar 16, 2016)

G.fast will be deployed by AT&T but it will only be used in apartment buildings where they do not want to run fiber to every unit.


----------



## Thegavmeister (Jun 4, 2016)

I have a toshiba with a model code of 46l5200u1, and I can't seem to get the right code to make it work. I've tried a bunch of codes from the setup menu but just keep failing. I'm looking for one that will work with direct tv remote rc64.


----------



## Naveb (Jul 7, 2013)

My local Electric Coop is asking its members if they would be interested in broadband internet. I live in rural Kansas and currently use a WISP for internet, but my speed is only 2mbps and that’s my best option for internet. I doubt that they would be offering another Wisp or reselling satellite internet. I’m curious if any of you get rural broadband from your Electric company, or if anyone has any ideas on what they might offer.


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

My electric coop told me that there proly will never be wired internet on my road. And to move if I did not like it.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Only way to know for sure is to call your utility and ask to speak to whoever is in charge of it. There's no guarantee you can get any information but can't hurt to try. Ask them what sort of speeds they are targeting and tell them where you live to see if you would be eligible. Utilities often run fiber alongside their electric/gas runs for reading meters and managing the remote equipment, but it is probably some form of copper (phone line quality) once you leave the main roads (main roads probably equal paved roads where you live) There is new DSL technology that can offer some very good speeds over phone lines, up to a gigabit if you are close enough though they'd probably be aiming lower since they only have to beat the 2 Mbps you get now. If you are more than a mile from a paved road you are probably out of luck, but again call them first best to get it from the horse's mouth if you can. Don't bother asking about prices since they probably won't know and it'll depend on interest level - the more people who will sign up the better the pricing they can offer.

It is also possible your electric utility would do some form of wireless - they could use the fiber they have run along their electrical and put antennas on poles every now and then. The maximum speeds you could obtain would be lower than if they used a form of DSL but nearly everyone could be covered. Again, the more details you can learn the better you can determine if it is something you can take advantage of.

Though since you are interested enough to ask here, you should tell your COOP that are you interested whether or not you can find out anything. Unless they are asking for something beyond a yes/no (like a deposit or some other financial commitment to guarantee you will sign up) it can't hurt to tell them that at this point. It sounds like you would sign up if they are able to offer you something significantly better than you have today without costing a whole lot more, that's good enough to register "interest" in my book.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Things are going to start ramping up 3rd, 4th, qrt. and into 2017, Fixed wireless will be the "norm" in most rural locations soon enough. Perfect timing for the new AT&T internet TV packages.

The county has been researching services to design and deploy radio towers necessary to support the county's public safety communications network, as well as to support private wireless internet providers (WISP). Constructing dual-purpose towers will allow the county to provide reliable public safety to its citizens, while also allowing WISP to offer broadband to all areas of Orange County, David explained.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/orangenews/news/internet-options/article_00032546-443d-11e6-bd30-77cbb0bfe149.html


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I don't think fixed wireless will be the norm in many rural areas - I live in Maine and many, many rural areas have no wireless and no short term plans to get it.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

CTJon said:


> I don't think fixed wireless will be the norm in many rural areas - I live in Maine and many, many rural areas have no wireless and no short term plans to get it.


in the short term, I agree. However unless something drastic happens, like a nationwide fiber buildout, I don't see rural areas ever getting any form of wireline internet.

So I do think wireless is the future for rural areas. whether wireless will meet the needs of users in those areas is a whole other matter.


----------



## paranoia (Jun 13, 2014)

CTJon said:


> I don't think fixed wireless will be the norm in many rural areas - I live in Maine and many, many rural areas have no wireless and no short term plans to get it.


I also live in Maine ,and I agree with you.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Fairpoint Communications just accepted a whopping $80 million over the next six years from the federal government's "Connect America Fund," intended for upgrades to broadband in Maine's unserved and underserved areas.

For proof, all we need to do is look to Aroostook and Washington counties. Three years ago, many of those communities had a single broadband provider. Today, many residents and businesses can choose from among four Internet service providers competing for their business based on the speed, price and customer service they offer. We look forward to seeing that kind of progress continue across Maine in 2016 and beyond.

http://bangordailynews.com/2015/12/20/opinion/contributors/the-challenge-of-getting-maine-up-to-speed-with-high-speed-broadband/


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

We have big plans for 2016. We'll be giving you the ability to access and stream DIRECTV video services over a wired or wireless Internet connection from any provider and from virtually any device - smartphone, tablet, Smart TV, streaming media hardware or PC. We plan for each service to come with a set number of simultaneous sessions. These services *will not require annual contracts, satellite dishes or set-top boxes.*

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/att-invests-nearly-80-million-over-3-year-period-to-enhance-local-networks-in-maine-300273616.html

Starting in 2016, Maine Fiber Co. will offer deep discounts in rural communities to increase access to its "Three Ring Binder" fiber-optic Internet backbone, the company said Friday.

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/11/13/maine-fiber-to-offer-deep-discounts-on-rural-broadband/

Gates wants in.

That technology will allow the company to provide wireless Internet access to homes that are far from broadband wired connections. With the help of the Microsoft grant, the cost will be only $9.90 a month - about a quarter or less than the cost of a wired connection via a cable company - and users will also have access to a suite of cloud-based Microsoft programs, such as Excel and Word.

http://www.govtech.com/dc/articles/Maine-County-Receives-Microsoft-Grant-to-Provide-Internet-to-Rural-Homes.html

Nate knows what is coming

http://www.tvtechnology.com/opinions/0004/nate-on-the-front-lines-of-wireless-innovation/278963


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

AT&T/Directv's streaming offering that will not "*require annual contracts, satellite dishes or set-top boxes*" will require that you have high speed internet service of some type. They will surely offer bundles that include the streaming TV service and internet service, but only in places where they are offering internet service. If you aren't in an area they serve, you will be able to buy the streaming TV service, but you will need to have high speed internet service already.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Bedford11 said:


> Fairpoint Communications just accepted a whopping $80 million over the next six years from the federal government's "Connect America Fund," intended for upgrades to broadband in Maine's unserved and underserved areas.
> 
> For proof, all we need to do is look to Aroostook and Washington counties. Three years ago, many of those communities had a single broadband provider. Today, many residents and businesses can choose from among four Internet service providers competing for their business based on the speed, price and customer service they offer. We look forward to seeing that kind of progress continue across Maine in 2016 and beyond.
> 
> http://bangordailynews.com/2015/12/20/opinion/contributors/the-challenge-of-getting-maine-up-to-speed-with-high-speed-broadband/


I would be curious to know what these "four" internet providers are and the speeds and pricing they offer. Judging by the comments on that article, everything isn't as peachy as this article makes it appear to be



Bedford11 said:


> We have big plans for 2016. We'll be giving you the ability to access and stream DIRECTV video services over a wired or wireless Internet connection from any provider and from virtually any device - smartphone, tablet, Smart TV, streaming media hardware or PC. We plan for each service to come with a set number of simultaneous sessions. These services *will not require annual contracts, satellite dishes or set-top boxes.*


still need a fast and reliable internet connection that isn't heavily capped. Providing pay tv by streaming isn't anything groundbreaking.



> Gates wants in.
> 
> That technology will allow the company to provide wireless Internet access to homes that are far from broadband wired connections. With the help of the Microsoft grant, the cost will be only $9.90 a month - about a quarter or less than the cost of a wired connection via a cable company - and users will also have access to a suite of cloud-based Microsoftprograms, such as Excel and Word.
> 
> http://www.govtech.c...ural-Homes.html


_"Although the technology does not provide speeds comparable to the faster wired connections, TV white space offers a significant improvement over other ways of getting online, such as a dial-up connection using a telephone"_

i always chuckle when companies brag that the speeds will be faster than dial up. If the goal is to only be faster than dial up, then we are going to have issues

those companies motto's will probably be something along the lines of " Yes. our service sucks, But hey at least we are better than dial up!"

LOL


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

chances14 said:


> i always chuckle when companies brag that the speeds will be faster than dial up. If the goal is to only be faster than dial up, then we are going to have issues
> 
> those companies motto's will probably be something along the lines of " Yes. our service sucks, But hey at least we are better than dial up!"


In some rural areas the only options for internet are dial up and satellite. Something that's faster than dial up without the severe latency issues of satellite would be a big improvement, even if it isn't as fast as us city slickers can get.


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

I would be happy with 5mbps symmetrical wired or wireless connection maybe even 2 would work for me, but it has to be low latency and symmetrical and no cap's... But I will proly get nothing just like I have now


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> In some rural areas the only options for internet are dial up and satellite. Something that's faster than dial up without the severe latency issues of satellite would be a big improvement, even if it isn't as fast as us city slickers can get.


I agree it will be better than dial up. practically any other internet source is. my point is these companies should be aiming to be better than just " faster than dial up".

My concern is by the time these technologies get rolled out, they will already be insufficient for the average internet user, whether that be because of low caps or insufficient speeds


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Neat wireless service here, would work well for small rural villages/towns. No caps and 100/200 megs download for 49 bucks.
Hurry up AT&T, we are waiting for your LTE fixed wireless for rural areas.

http://www.sailinternet.com/now

http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/mimosa-delivers-fixed-wireless-micropop-urban-suburban-areas/2016-07-11


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Bedford11 said:


> Neat wireless service here, would work well for small rural villages/towns. No caps and 100/200 megs download for 49 bucks.
> Hurry up AT&T, we are waiting for your LTE fixed wireless for rural areas.
> 
> http://www.sailinternet.com/now
> ...


another line of sight service. so if you are surrounded by trees like a lot of rural areas are, you're out of luck


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

While Maine is known for its beautiful landscape and low population density, its dense evergreens and rocky mountainous terrain create adverse conditions for the deployment of wireless infrastructure. Wireless signals are heavily attenuated in this environment, particularly in rural areas where there is dense foliage, and hilly terrain.
Telrad Networks' LTE solutions, especially the high-powered BreezeCOMPACT 3000 base stations used by Redzone, use several advanced techniques, such as 4x4 radio with advanced MIMO, to overcome many such non-line-of-sight (NLOS) scenarios.


http://www.wirelessnetworksonline.com/doc/redzone-wireless-telrad-networks-pioneering-lte-network-maine-0001

 
 
 
_You need a "straight shot" with fixed wireless_: Long gone are the days when line-of-sight was an imperative for fixed wireless installations. Buildings, trees, mountains and water are no match for the technological strides made in ensuring that communities can count on the connectivity fixed wireless broadband equipment provides. This capability ensures additional cost savings for fixed wireless network operators, who don't need to cut down trees or otherwise remove obstructions to set up a high-quality network. 
http://www.rcrwireless.com/20150120/opinion/reality-check/reality-check-fixed-wireless-myth-busting


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

I will believe if I see it.For now I think it's all hog wash.Found this and according to it 5g will have a range of 200 yards with the high band spectrum they will be using,if so that will make this very expensive to deploy in rural areas. http://www.5gtf.org/


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

High band in the cities, lower bands rural.

12 times the coverage area of comparable mobile network for residential phone, TV and broadband connections using boosted LTE for the last mile to the home.

http://company.nokia.com/en/news/press-releases/2016/01/26/nokia-fastmile-connects-rural-areas-to-broadband-mwc16


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

another technology that is probably years, if not decades away from actually being implemented. If it ever is

nobody is denying that the technology is there for wireless. the issue is how practical is it going to be for companies to implement these technologies on a full scale and not just in trials


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

You can see how well it works by using data on your phone in the city. A lot of people are simultaneously using data on their phones via the same tower, it all works just fine (so long as you aren't at a football game / concert / etc. where the density is just too high) And that's with a tiny antenna in a battery operated device. Stick a fixed antenna on the side of your house and it'll work very well. Upgrading the towers to support LTE is comparatively cheap, and something they'd be doing anyway since they want to phase out 2G and reuse those 2G frequencies for more LTE in dense areas.

The only real stumbling block is towers that don't have fiber run to them. You can't do fixed wireless to a tower that's served by a pair of T1s (which is about 3 Mbps total) you gotta have fiber. So if you live out in the sticks and currently only have 2G service from your nearest towers but see someone trenching by roads with big spools of orange cable, it is just a matter of time...


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AT&T using Netcomm and Ericsson for Fixed Wireless rollout

Netcomm to supply Nokia for its FastMile wireless deployment

AT&T said it would target *13 million* primarily rural locations outside of its broadband footprint with a technology called wireless local loop (WLL). Local loop is the telco term for the circuit a copper line completes going from a telephone company's switching office to the customer's home. But in this case of WLL, the circuit is made via wireless, not copper.

http://www.telecompaper.com/news/netcomm-to-provide-fixed-wireless-devices-for-nokia-fastmile--1152961

http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/telecoms-and-nbn/71193-video-nokia-can-connect-rural-areas-to-boosted-lte-with-%E2%80%98fastmile%E2%80%99

https://www.rcrwireless.com/20160711/opinion/reader-forum-evolving-shape-last-mile-wireless-infrastructure-us-cities-tag10

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/09/nokia_kicks_off_pre_mwc_race_jostling_ericsson_in_c_ran_and_lte_a_pro/

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/report-att-using-netcomm-ericsson-fixed-wll-effort/2015-11-25

https://gigaom.com/2014/06/13/atts-hard-sell-on-directv-a-new-type-of-broadband-network/


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Here it comes



slice1900 said:


> You can see how well it works by using data on your phone in the city. A lot of people are simultaneously using data on their phones via the same tower, it all works just fine (so long as you aren't at a football game / concert / etc. where the density is just too high) And that's with a tiny antenna in a battery operated device. Stick a fixed antenna on the side of your house and it'll work very well. Upgrading the towers to support LTE is comparatively cheap, and something they'd be doing anyway since they want to phase out 2G and reuse those 2G frequencies for more LTE in dense areas.
> 
> The only real stumbling block is towers that don't have fiber run to them. You can't do fixed wireless to a tower that's served by a pair of T1s (which is about 3 Mbps total) you gotta have fiber. So if you live out in the sticks and currently only have 2G service from your nearest towers but see someone trenching by roads with big spools of orange cable, it is just a matter of time...


AT&T has the big events covered.

http://bgr.com/2016/07/13/att-drones-lte-connectivity/

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Testing-1030-Mbps-Fixed-Wireless-LTE-in-Alabama-135900

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/fcc-votes-streamline-process-operators-transition-tdm-ip-services/2016-07-14

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/att-wants-end-private-line-voice-service-alabama-and-florida/2016-07-05

What are you going to do with you AT&T kit?

https://starterkit.att.com/#kits


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Can't wait to see what AT&T does with their TV service via their upcoming Fixed Wireless service.
Hurry up AT&T! Rise Broadband just bought out the local Fixed Wireless company for our small town and will have Fast Fixed LTE Wireless in 3 months.

C Spire last week became the first company to successfully demonstrate a 5G fixed wireless solution in Mississippi using Nokia equipment with a direct connection to its fiber-based commercial television service

The test delivered C Spire Fiber consumer television content, including ultra-high definition resolution video, with speeds up to 2.2 Gigabits per second (Gbps) and ultra-low latency below 1.4 milliseconds over the 5G wireless link. * "This is the kind of real-world application that will help change forever how we live, work and play," *said C Spire CTO Stephen Bye.

300 to 400 ft.? typical city lot 50 ft. wide? should be able to link 16 typical houses per drop, this will save a whole lot of time and money, could build out small cities very rapidly.

But Bye said that C Spire, which is building out a fiber network, could use its own 28 GHz holdings to transmit high-speed Internet signals *300-400 feet*, thereby allowing the carrier to offer fiber-style Internet services to residents in its fiber network footprint without actually connecting that fiber network to a user's house.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/c-spire-ramps-up-5g-testing-to-develop-next-generation-network-300300664.html

http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/c-spire-may-use-28-ghz-spectrum-extend-fiber-services-users-homes/2016-04-13


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

If they are only getting 3 to 4 hundred feet this will be a none player out in the sticks.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

We're about ready to take the wraps off some exciting new streaming opportunities that will expand our customer base and extend our video position.

John Stephens, CFO AT&T

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3990478-t-t-q2-2016-results-earnings-call-transcript


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Verizon Eyes 'Wireless Fiber' Launch in 2017

http://www.multichannel.com/news/distribution/verizon-eyes-fixed-wireless-fiber-launch-2017/406624

if the caps and pricing are anything like their homefusion service, this will be probably be pretty useless for those looking to use it as a home internet option


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

All signs point to massive cherry picking with 5g just like all other forms of broadband. Most roads with underground infrastructure will be bypassed,unless they already have installed fiber lines.


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

Look's like google is going to start testing now.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

bcltoys said:


> Look's like google is going to start testing now.


and it looks like they are bailing out on their google fiber program in the process. another project that google abandons. Go figure.

i'm sure a wireless project will go the same route


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

None of these wireless projects will benefit me so I will stuck with dial-up as my main internet.


----------



## paranoia (Jun 13, 2014)

I was considering may going back to my cable for internet but when I checked I discovered this about there service.

*Excessive Bandwidth Consumption*
High-speed bandwidth and network resources are not unlimited. Managing MetroCast's network is essential as MetroCast works to promote the use and enjoyment of the Internet by our customers. As explained above, the Service is for recreational, residential and personal use. MetroCast has established a monthly bandwidth usage limit per Service account. Service usage may not exceed the following limits for each type of subscriber account:
*MetroCast Subscriber Account:*
MetroCast Access
MetroCast High Speed Express
MetroCast High Speed Turbo
MetroCast High Speed Ultra *Monthly Bandwidth Usage Limit:*
25 GB
100 GB
250 GB
350 GB
Use of the Service in violation of the limits above is a violation of this Policy. Note that the retail names of the services (Access, Express, Turbo and Ultra) may be subject to change.

PS These are the speeds : INTERNET OPTIONS

DOWNLOAD SPEED*

High Speed Ultra

up to 105 Mbps*

High Speed Turbo

up to 35 Mbps**

High Speed Express

up to 5 Mbps

Internet Access

up to 1.5 Mbps


----------



## tegelad (Nov 16, 2006)

Soo ... I just read this thread ... have seen the press releases from ATT and nearly a year from the initial post for ATT in Texas .... what do we have from them? Nothing. Q3 is almost over ...

4K expansion ... lots of announcements for 2015 .... now we are nearing the end of 2016 ... what do we have ... (4K crickets?)

If this is point to point activities, setting up the additional wireless gear 15 months is an eternity in the wireless space.

Underdeliver, over promise, overcharge ... this is the new ATT.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

This isn't something they will be able to get up and running quickly, since it is a new product they'll have to do a lot of testing before it really starts. When it does they have to install the equipment on the towers in the areas they offer it, and it may take years (or never) for it to be offered where you live. The good news is that AT&T is not the only one who is working on this, and so if AT&T doesn't go where you are, maybe someone else even. It sounds like Google is abandoning their fiber to the home product (that would have taken about 10,000 years to cover the country at the rate they were going) and refocusing on using fixed wireless to deliver to end customers.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

And there has to be 4K broadcasts for DirecTV to carry. In the US other some special sports broadcasts there aren't 4K and thus nothing for DirectV to actually carry. For the older networks - CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS (non "cable networks") not only will the network have to produce 4K but your local station will have to broadcast in 4K since that is what DirecTV is sending to you - it can't send, legally, a network broadcast -only what your local station carries.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Saw this on dslreports a couple weeks ago.



> AT&T labs is asking the FCC for an experimental license to test new fixed, non-line-of-sight wireless broadband service in the 3.5 GHz band. The application, spotted by Fierce Wireless, notes that AT&T will be conducting tests on a variety of wireless hardware solutions with integrated adaptive antennas in the 3.5 GHz range. According to the filing, the tests are slated to take place in Cumming, Georgia, just outside Atlanta. The trial will be conducted for a period of about twelve months.


https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-to-Test-35-GHz-Fixed-Wireless-Outside-of-Atlanta-137800


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

No more satellites and in home hookups,

 As proof, he said the AT&T-owned DirecTV will soon launch a $35-per-month streaming service called DirecTV Now.

DirecTV Now: More than 100 channels, *no junk*

DirecTV Now, set to be introduced by the end of this year

This is no set-top box; this is no truck roll; this is a customer pulling down an app, getting a very robust platform."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-22/at-t-said-to-plan-web-streaming-as-primary-tv-platform-by-2020


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

100 premium channels for 35 bucks, sounds good.

AT&T Inc.'s online streaming TV service, DirecTV Now, *will become the company's primary video platform in three to five years, according to people familiar with the plans.*

Overall, DirecTV Now will have more than 100 "premium" channels, Stephenson said. "This isn't the junk nobody wants," he said.

AT&T could expand the service to include as many as 10 streams offering the kind of full-package that could replace conventional pay-TV.

 Such a platform would eliminate the need for a cable hookup or satellite dish in five years or less

AT&T made it clear that it believes that the controversial practice of zero rating -- or exempting its own or a partner's content from usage caps -- will give AT&T an advantage.

Stephenson nodded to the practice of zero rating, proclaiming that "there should be advantages of using DirecTV Now on AT&T's network; and there will be

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/10/att-ceo-opponents-of-time-warner-merger-are-uninformed/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-22/at-t-said-to-plan-web-streaming-as-primary-tv-platform-by-2020

http://www.telecompetitor.com/exec-att-fixed-wireless-planned-for-caf-funded-rural-areas/


----------



## Skyboss (Jan 22, 2004)

Bedford11 said:


> 100 premium channels for 35 bucks, sounds good.
> 
> AT&T Inc.'s online streaming TV service, DirecTV Now, *will become the company's primary video platform in three to five years, according to people familiar with the plans.*
> 
> ...


Yeah, the concept of getting DIRECTV off my AppleTV is pretty spectacular provided the channel package contains the channels we watch. That will be the rub. Right now there doesn't appear to be CBS, but that can be had through their app. There has also been mention of a DVR unit for recording live programs that streams to the device. They'll get money there if everything isn't fully cloud based. Even at say $15 a month for that there's a long way to the $140 a month we are paying now. They just jacked up our bandwidth here too so there is no doubt we can handle it. I'm watching this pretty closely.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

For $35/month, I'll bet it doesn't include ESPN and other sports channels. Which is perfect for those who don't want to pay for that, but no way I'd give up sports or a DVR, so this won't do anything to help me ditch Mediacom.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> For $35/month, I'll bet it doesn't include ESPN and other sports channels. Which is perfect for those who don't want to pay for that, but no way I'd give up sports or a DVR, so this won't do anything to help me ditch Mediacom.


sony's playsation vue includes all the live sports channels and even regional sports channels in some markets on their $35 plan. so it's certainly possible they are included in att's plan as well. The key is going to be how many simultaneous streams you can have as well what they are going to do about cloud based dvr

but again this streaming stuff is completely useless for anyone who can't get cable or fiber. anyone know what the percentage of directv's customers are considered rural?


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

FIXED WIRELESS INTERNET
By participating in the CAF II program, we're working to bring Internet access to more hard-to-reach rural areas to allow residents there to better connect with their world and bring them more access to the innovative, Internet-based tools and resources they need for education, healthcare, civic engagement and business.

To connect these mostly rural areas located in 18 states within our traditional service areas, we plan to broadly deploy a technology called Fixed Wireless Internet.
Many of these communities will see a tremendous leap in terms of speed in the move from dial-up connections to Fixed Wireless Internet.


CAF II
To help meet the needs of customers in rural and/or unserved areas and expand the opportunities enabled by Internet access, AT&T has decided to participate in the FCC's Connect America Fund Phase II (CAF II) program. In August 2015, AT&T accepted about $427 million per year in CAF II support to be used for the next 6 years. These funds are being used for deploying, maintaining and offering Internet access and voice service to 1.1 million mostly rural homes and businesses in 18 states located within our traditional exchange areas. AT&T is now building the network to provide this service to homes and small businesses, with availability growing throughout 2017 to about 440,000 locations by year end.

 http://about.att.com/content/csr/home/issue-brief-builder/people/deployment-to-rural-and-underserved-areas.html


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AT&T copper network replacement presentation video posted

15 September 2016



http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/tag/att/


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Skyboss said:


> Yeah, the concept of getting DIRECTV off my AppleTV is pretty spectacular provided the channel package contains the channels we watch. That will be the rub. Right now there doesn't appear to be CBS, but that can be had through their app. There has also been mention of a DVR unit for recording live programs that streams to the device. They'll get money there if everything isn't fully cloud based. Even at say $15 a month for that there's a long way to the $140 a month we are paying now. They just jacked up our bandwidth here too so there is no doubt we can handle it. I'm watching this pretty closely.


Are you seeing/hearing anything on the LTE fixed wireless rollout in Wisconsin link below?

Starting next year, AT&T Inc. plans to offer fixed-wireless Internet connections to roughly 24,000 homes in Wisconsin - mostly in rural areas where it's too expensive to install miles of fiber-optic cable or copper wire that carries an Internet signal.

http://archive.jsonline.com/business/fixed-wireless-internet-aimed-at-bridging-the-rural-digital-divide-b99672852z1-369530381.html


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

yawn... we've been hearing about this fixed wireless service from at&t for almost 2 years now. last check they are still in trial testing phases. probably won't see any widespread deployment (if at all) for another couple years at least around the time 5g starts being deployed

and by the sounds of it, they will cherry pick the markets

sugar coat it all you want but the bottom line wireless will never be superior to cable or fiber


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I guess google just shut down fiber expansion everywhere including Los Angeles. I bet they decided it's to expensive and fixed wireless is the cheaper route.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> I guess google just shut down fiber expansion everywhere including Los Angeles. I bet they decided it's to expensive and fixed wireless is the cheaper route.


no doubt laying fiber is more expensive. but in the long run it would pay off. too bad all these companies only care about short term gain at the expense of long term loss. we can thank the shareholders for that

It's unfortunate because a national fiber buildout would resolve our internet issues for the next 100 years. similar to what the copper buildout did for the telephone systems in the 20th century


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

chances14 said:


> no doubt laying fiber is more expensive. but in the long run it would pay off. too bad all these companies only care about short term gain at the expense of long term loss. we can thank the shareholders for that
> 
> It's unfortunate because a national fiber buildout would resolve our internet issues for the next 100 years. similar to what the copper buildout did for the telephone systems in the 20th century


There's no reason to run fiber all the way into people's homes. Zero. With G.fast it is possible to deliver up to 1 Gbps over the existing phone line run into everyone's house from up a hundred meters. With DOCSIS 3.1 it is possible to deliver up to 10 Gbps over the existing coax run into everyone's house. We haven't even begun to see what's possible using 60-80 GHz wireless, but putting a tiny antenna on top of the existing telephone poles or street lights in your neighborhood would cost a lot less than trenching everyone's yard to bring in fiber.

Google was spending almost $600 per home to install it, and that's with cherry picking the easiest places to do it. The real average would probably be over $1000, and that doesn't even get into rural areas where the cost can quickly hit tens of thousands - and you'd have to do all those expensive remote places if you wanted to a nationwide mandatory build out like what happened with rural telephone and electrification. Are you OK with subsidizing that via higher internet bills, and with forcing everyone else to do the same? If fiber was truly the only way then maybe it would be worth discussing, but fiber is a luxury we do not need when the copper we already have can provide gigabit speeds for a fraction of the investment.

Both 1 Gbps and 10 Gbps are much higher speeds than were possible a decade ago, and it is reasonable to assume we haven't yet reached the ultimate limit of what is possible in case someday those speeds aren't enough. However, I think you're going to be really hard pressed to come up with an argument why anyone needs more than a gigabit to their home. The growth in bandwidth demand has been all about providing richer sensory data. When we used dialup modems, it was basically about text. Then we moved on to audio in the form of MP3s, and people needed more speed. Then visual data in the form of static web pages, then low quality video, and more recently high quality HD video. Today we talk about perhaps doing a lot of streaming of 4K video the quality of which is about at the limit for most people - the gap between quality HD and 4K is pretty hard to see for most people, and it only gets harder to see if you go up from there. Let's say eventually we settle on high frame rate 8K video at 100 Mbps - you'll have a lot of simultaneous streams before 1 Gbps starts to limit you.

So where does the need for more than a gigabit, let alone more than 10 Gbps come from? Some will claim that just because they can't name the technology that there's no way to know that something won't come along someday that will require tens of gigabits. You still don't spend all that money today to build an infrastructure to handle something one imagines might _possibly_ happen decades from now, especially since technology advances in those intervening decades will more than likely squeeze a lot more out of that existing copper.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Besides by the time we need even more there will be an even better way than fiber. And wireless is easier to upgrade than fiber is. 

Add in that I think the biggest bottleneck will not be the last mile but the middle infrastructure over the next couple decades as all these content providers start cross crossing the internet to all corners of the country.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

ESPN in all DirecTV Now packages

AT&T DirecTV, the largest distributor in the country, will feature* ESPN, ESPN2*, ABC, Freeform, Disney Channel, Disney XD, and Disney Junior in all subscription packages offered in its upcoming DirecTV Now OTT [over-the-top] service.

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/21/disney-ceo-bob-iger-talks-cord-cutting-streaming-e.aspx


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> There's no reason to run fiber all the way into people's homes. Zero. With G.fast it is possible to deliver up to 1 Gbps over the existing phone line run into everyone's house from up a hundred meters. With DOCSIS 3.1 it is possible to deliver up to 10 Gbps over the existing coax run into everyone's house. We haven't even begun to see what's possible using 60-80 GHz wireless, but putting a tiny antenna on top of the existing telephone poles or street lights in your neighborhood would cost a lot less than trenching everyone's yard to bring in fiber.
> 
> Google was spending almost $600 per home to install it, and that's with cherry picking the easiest places to do it. The real average would probably be over $1000, and that doesn't even get into rural areas where the cost can quickly hit tens of thousands - and you'd have to do all those expensive remote places if you wanted to a nationwide mandatory build out like what happened with rural telephone and electrification. Are you OK with subsidizing that via higher internet bills, and with forcing everyone else to do the same? If fiber was truly the only way then maybe it would be worth discussing, but fiber is a luxury we do not need when the copper we already have can provide gigabit speeds for a fraction of the investment.
> 
> ...


I think G fast would be one step forward and two steps back since it still requires using our decaying copper network.

it's about future proofing our connectivity. we do not need all that bandwidth right now but we will eventually. look at how much data consumption has gone up in just the last 10 years. with the "internet of things" and streaming becoming the norm, bandwidth demands are going to continue to rapidly increase. we have to think ahead, not just in the present.

when the copper network was being built out, most people had no use for it. Eventually that changed and almost everyone started using it. Now even in 2016 a lot of are still relying on it. Our national highway systems are another great example of this. they were built for the future and not necessarily for the present. I have no doubt fiber would be the same way


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Rural people will be very happy with LTE fixed wireless being installed in 2017, otherwise we would have to wait years for fiber to reach out into the sticks. 25 meg. will be very welcome and with the new online TV packages at cheap subscription prices, you will see huge uptake.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Our copper is only "decaying" because there's a lack of investment today. People dropping landlines means there's not nearly as much revenue as there used to be to go towards maintenance. G.fast only uses the last 50-100 meters, which is about 2-5% of the average copper run from CO to home. It would be far cheaper to maintain just that "last mile" if regulators allowed telcos to drop traditional analog telephone service.

When G.fast is deployed you'd run fiber alongside the existing copper to a small box on a corner serving two to four blocks surrounding it. This is easy to do - every cable company did that years ago when they deployed HFC networks to allow them to sell cable internet. G.fast would work even better because unlike cable service there is separate copper to every house - so assuming the fiber pathway is big enough they could guarantee everyone the full 1 Gbps, whereas with cable there is some sharing between all the houses on the same node.

When we built out copper the future use of it was obvious - someday everyone would have a phone. Ditto with highways, it was obvious that we were on a path where everyone would have a car and the existing highway network would be too congested and much less safe - though it was also built with military use in mind during emergencies which is what got Congress to fund it. You may have "no doubt" fiber would be the same way but there's nothing you can point to where there's an obvious future need for it like there was with building out a nationwide telephone network, a nationwide electrical network, and a nationwide interstate highway system.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

DirecTV Now Free for 7 days

DirecTV Now to Offer ABC, NBC Live Streams in 'Select Markets'
OTT-TV service to feature 10,000-plus VOD titles, support Apple TV, Fire TV, Web browsers out of the chute (Update)

http://www.tvpredictions.com/directv102716.htm

https://directvnow.com/

http://www.multichannel.com/news/content/directv-now-offer-abc-nbc-live-streams-select-markets/408704


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Bedford11 said:


> Rural people will be very happy with LTE fixed wireless being installed in 2017, otherwise we would have to wait years for fiber to reach out into the sticks. 25 meg. will be very welcome and with the new online TV packages at cheap subscription prices, you will see huge uptake.


it will be a nice upgrade for sure but I don't think 25mbps is enough bandwidth for the average household that would rely on streaming for all their tv consumption. I think AT&T is targeting those who have already cut the cord with their streaming options.



slice1900 said:


> Our copper is only "decaying" because there's a lack of investment today. People dropping landlines means there's not nearly as much revenue as there used to be to go towards maintenance. G.fast only uses the last 50-100 meters, which is about 2-5% of the average copper run from CO to home. It would be far cheaper to maintain just that "last mile" if regulators allowed telcos to drop traditional analog telephone service.
> 
> When G.fast is deployed you'd run fiber alongside the existing copper to a small box on a corner serving two to four blocks surrounding it. This is easy to do - every cable company did that years ago when they deployed HFC networks to allow them to sell cable internet. G.fast would work even better because unlike cable service there is separate copper to every house - so assuming the fiber pathway is big enough they could guarantee everyone the full 1 Gbps, whereas with cable there is some sharing between all the houses on the same node.
> 
> When we built out copper the future use of it was obvious - someday everyone would have a phone. Ditto with highways, it was obvious that we were on a path where everyone would have a car and the existing highway network would be too congested and much less safe - though it was also built with military use in mind during emergencies which is what got Congress to fund it. You may have "no doubt" fiber would be the same way but there's nothing you can point to where there's an obvious future need for it like there was with building out a nationwide telephone network, a nationwide electrical network, and a nationwide interstate highway system.


iptv by itself is going to require massive increase bandwidth demands, especially with 4k and then 8k becoming the norm eventually. I know households that have cut the cord and are barely getting by with 100mbps connections. now of course the average household doesn't need that much bandwidth yet. but the point is bandwidth consumption demands are only going to increase.

Guess we will see how it plays out but i think we are making a big mistake in not investing in a national fiber buildout


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

I am sure it relies on your provider but we were testing a friends internet connection, we were getting 5 streams of HD video off of a 15 meg connection with no buffering. It really suprised the both of us.

I think the 25 meg LTE fixed wireless that AT&T and many others are starting to install will serve rural customers very well for the time being, all the while fiber will inch closer and closer.

Who knows where the wireless speeds will go from here?

Below are recommendations from Netflix and Sling, AT&T will be the same.

Internet Connection Speed Recommendations

Below are the Internet download speed recommendations per stream for playing movies and TV shows through Netflix.

0.5 Megabits per second - Required broadband connection speed
1.5 Megabits per second - Recommended broadband connection speed
3.0 Megabits per second - Recommended for SD quality
5.0 Megabits per second - Recommended for HD quality
25 Megabits per second - Recommended for Ultra HD quality

SlingTV advises 5-25 meg speeds for their TV service, I am sure AT&T will be the same.

What internet speed is necessary to stream Sling TV?

The quality of streaming video is directly impacted by Internet speeds. When streaming content over the Internet, your connection speed is constantly changing based on the number of connected devices, as well as, the rate of communication from your Internet service provider.

Check out our list below to see what we recommend for a constant speed by device:

Constant speed of 3.0 Megabits per second or more - Streaming non-HD video content on portable devices such as, tablets and phones. 
Constant speed of 5.0 Megabits per second or more - Single stream of video content on a TV, PC, or Mac. 
Constant speed of 25 Megabits per second or more - Recommended for households who maintain Internet use on multiple devices. 
http://help.sling.com/articles/en_US/FAQ/What-internet-speed-is-necessary-to-stream-Sling-TV


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Bedford11 said:


> I am sure it relies on your provider but we were testing a friends internet connection, we were getting 5 streams of HD video off of a 15 meg connection with no buffering. It really suprised the both of us.
> 
> I think the 25 meg LTE fixed wireless that AT&T and many others are starting to install will serve rural customers very well for the time being, all the while fiber will inch closer and closer.
> 
> ...


keep in mind that most people will be using the internet for other things at the same time they are streaming tv. need to make sure there's enough bandwidth so that these other activities aren't impacted. people are not gonna want have to limit their other internet activities just so they can stream tv.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

chances14 said:


> it will be a nice upgrade for sure but I don't think 25mbps is enough bandwidth for the average household that would rely on streaming for all their tv consumption. I think AT&T is targeting those who have already cut the cord with their streaming options.
> 
> iptv by itself is going to require massive increase bandwidth demands, especially with 4k and then 8k becoming the norm eventually. I know households that have cut the cord and are barely getting by with 100mbps connections. now of course the average household doesn't need that much bandwidth yet. but the point is bandwidth consumption demands are only going to increase.
> 
> Guess we will see how it plays out but i think we are making a big mistake in not investing in a national fiber buildout


People who think they need 100 Mbps for streaming are mistaken. The typical HD stream is about 5-6 Mbps, unless they have a family of 20 the bandwidth going into their house isn't a problem. What can be is that just because you're paying for 100 Mbps doesn't mean you actually can get that all the time. Especially with cable internet, during peak times you will often get less than that.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

How /Why will mobile phones/ devices use LTE fixed wireless?

HONG KONG - Qualcomm on Tuesday unveiled a new 5G modem for smartphones and other devices that it said will support both multi-mode 4G/5G mobile broadband and* fixed wireless* applications.

https://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2016/10/qualcomm-5g-modem-smartphones-support-fixed-wireless-cellular


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bedford11 said:


> How /Why will mobile phones/ devices use LTE fixed wireless?
> 
> HONG KONG - Qualcomm on Tuesday unveiled a new 5G modem for smartphones and other devices that it said will support both multi-mode 4G/5G mobile broadband and* fixed wireless* applications.
> 
> https://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2016/10/qualcomm-5g-modem-smartphones-support-fixed-wireless-cellular


Mobile phones won't use fixed wireless. Qualcomm is a chip supplier, they are announcing a chip that will work for either a mobile phone or fixed wireless antenna.


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

The people that have nothing but dial-up,and on the edge of cell service will continue to only have them choices 5g will never reach..


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AT&T in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission earlier this year said in areas where the fixed WLL will be deployed, it will "provide consumers with a robust broadband experience, with speeds and usage comparable, and typically superior to, the best wireline services available." The carrier added that the technology will even provide customers on the cell edge speeds faster than 10 Mbps more than 90 percent of the time.


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

The wireless option is really the only option because of the monopolistic nature of the local markets and all the red tape / stone walling of competition entering.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Will drones replace cell towers in hilly rural areas?


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Bedford11 said:


> provide customers on the cell edge speeds faster than 10 Mbps more than 90 percent of the time.


funny how you left out the part right before that 

*"our best estimate based upon the lab simulations to date is"* that even customers on the cell edge will experience speeds faster than 10 Mbps more than 90 percent of the time.

So in other words we don't know how well it will actually work on the cell edge.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

And costs, yet I think.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

There are many small fixed wireless players that are moving to LTE.

There will be choices for people that live on the AT&T cell edges.

Here is just one that plans to cover 90% of the state.

Look at these prices, you can have high speed internet, unlimited data combined with DirecTV Now (100 premium channels and ESPN) for less than 80 bucks, rural people are celebrating.

https://www.redzonewireless.com/special-offer

http://blogs.denverpost.com/tech/2015/11/04/rise-broadband-moving-to-lte-technology-to-offer-faster-wireless-internet/19519/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-22/at-t-said-to-plan-web-streaming-as-primary-tv-platform-by-2020

The fixed wireless industry today is comprised of more than 2,000 mostly small- and medium-sized businesses, serving more than 4 million customers across the United States in mostly rural and under-served areas. Most of the wireless internet service providers, or WISPs, are led by entrepreneurs who grew up and live in the communities they serve.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Bedford11 said:


> There are many small fixed wireless players that are moving to LTE.
> 
> There will be choices for people that live on the AT&T cell edges.
> 
> ...


for every good WISP, there's an equally crappy one. the local wisp in my area hasn't upgraded anything in the last 6 years. 40 bucks a month for 1mbps lol

until the government mandates the internet a utility, rural america will continue to lag far behind everyone else. the digital divide is getting worse by the day


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

I had a super crappy WISP that was bought out by a good WISP. I paid about $40 for 1mbps and now pay $150 for 20mbps down and 10mbps up. I love it for the most part with only a small problem every so often.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

SParker said:


> I had a super crappy WISP that was bought out by a good WISP. I paid about $40 for 1mbps and now pay $150 for 20mbps down and 10mbps up. I love it for the most part with only a small problem every so often.


unfortunately it was the exact opposite here. the crappy wisp bought out all the good ones.


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

chances14 said:


> unfortunately it was the exact opposite here. the crappy wisp bought out all the good ones.


Man that sucks


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

if directv now only allows one simultaneous stream as has been suggested, then it's going to be a no go for most people. this appears to be targeted towards people who have already cut the cord

I doubt directv now will put much of a dent in their regular pay tv subscriber count for the foreseable future


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

With Google's new TV service called Goggle Unplugged, Dish's Sling TV, Sony's TV service Hulu's live tv , Amazons coming TV service, Apple TV, even Walmart is looking at adding live TV channels to its VUDU platform, there is a lot of competition that will be offering TV over the internet, a lot of features will be coming forth, niche packages, zero rating, multi streams, DVR's etc.. All good for the consumer.

 the company may experiment with "a la carte" programming, giving customers choice on what channels they pay to watch.

http://www.techhive.com/article/3135844/streaming-services/streaming-tv-bundle-roundup-everything-we-know-so-far.html

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/technology/sd-fi-ott-news-20161021-story.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-25/at-t-to-offer-online-tv-service-for-35-a-month-test-a-la-carte


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Several posts have been removed. Please do not post complete articles, large sections of articles or posts filled with links. A paragraph or two of one article with a link to the source is the appropriate way to post a quote (with your own commentary separated from the quoted article).

Staying on the topic of this thread (DirecTV Fixed Wireless) would be appreciated.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

chances14 said:


> if directv now only allows one simultaneous stream as has been suggested, then it's going to be a no go for most people. this appears to be targeted towards people who have already cut the cord
> 
> I doubt directv now will put much of a dent in their regular pay tv subscriber count for the foreseable future


Why would you think they'd ever want to just move their current customers. This has always been about getting other people's customers or ones who have no service at all.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Bedford11 said:


> With Google's new TV service called Goggle Unplugged, Dish's Sling TV, Sony's TV service Hulu's live tv , Amazons coming TV service, Apple TV, even Walmart is looking at adding live TV channels to its VUDU platform, there is a lot of competition that will be offering TV over the internet, a lot of features will be coming forth, niche packages, zero rating, multi streams, DVR's etc.. All good for the consumer.
> 
> the company may experiment with "a la carte" programming, giving customers choice on what channels they pay to watch.
> 
> ...


I disagree to a certain extent. To much fragmentation will increase the price for the same product exponentially. A la cart in any form will never be cheaper u less you only watch literally a couple channels. They need to find a happy medium.


----------



## mcl77 (Nov 25, 2008)

my town just upgraded to a wireless 4gen system. We've had it since July.
Speeds fluxuate from 4 mbps to 25 mbps download and upload.
I am paying for a 8mbps down 2 mbps up package. Its $79.95 per month. No data caps. Best by far available where I live, as no cable provider in my town.

We are able to stream multiple devices. I use playstation Vue and firesticks instead of Directv now


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> Why would you think they'd ever want to just move their current customers. This has always been about getting other people's customers or ones who have no service at all.


i was responding to bedford's post where he was suggesting that directv now would cut into their pay tv subscribers


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Depending on how the pricing of Directv Now works out to comparable package(s) it may cut into their satellite subscribers. I'm sure Directv has worked out all the particulars with dollar figures to account for the differences in the marginal cost of delivery (i.e. equipment/install costs for satellite but not for Directv Now, small ongoing infrastructure cost for Now but none for satellite) and if they will lose money on satellite customers converting to Directv Now they're prepared to accept it.

Some of the customers who leave Directv for a streaming option would have done so anyway, so keeping them with Directv even if they are less profitable is better than losing them entirely.

Directv used to report customer acquisition cost of around $800, that would include equipment/install costs, promo discounts, advertising, etc. Hopefully sometime next year one of the analysts will ask what the customer acquisition costs are for Directv Now vs satellite, it would be interesting to see how much impact the lack of equipment (and probably reduced new customer discounts) has.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

If AT&T can match the 39 bucks a month for 25 mbps up and down with it's own Unlimited download plan it will be a big hit with customers.

Hard to bielive you can now get Fast, Unlimited Rural internet and TV service (DirecTV Now, 35 bucks) for under 75 bucks for both.

http://rsfiber.coop/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/101416-rs-fiber-rate-guide-residential.pdf

http://www.rsfiber.coop/


----------



## mcl77 (Nov 25, 2008)

Bedford11 said:


> If AT&T can match the 39 bucks a month for 25 mbps up and down with it's own Unlimited download plan it will be a big hit with customers.
> 
> Hard to bielive you can now get Fast, Unlimited Rural internet and TV service (DirecTV Now, 35 bucks) for under 75 bucks for both.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

mcl77 said:


> > If AT&T can match the 39 bucks a month for 25 mbps up and down with it's own Unlimited download plan it will be a big hit with customers.
> >
> > Hard to bielive you can now get Fast, Unlimited Rural internet and TV service (DirecTV Now, 35 bucks) for under 75 bucks for both.
> >
> > ...


How do you like your Fixed Wireless service? How many streams of video can you get at 8 mbps? Is your service LTE?
Prices should come down with AT&T and others entering the market.


----------



## mcl77 (Nov 25, 2008)

Bedford11 said:


> How do you like your Fixed Wireless service? How many streams of video can you get at 8 mbps? Is your service LTE?
> Prices should come down with AT&T and others entering the market.


Its been great so far.
Im able to stream at least 3 devices so far.
With the playstation vue it gives you the option to see the speed youre downloading each couple seconds. My speeds usually go from 2 mbps to 14 mbps

Only issues I had with it was when I had directv I used this wireless netgear thing for the cable box so I could get the on demand channels. Occassionally that device would get hung up, and cause all my devices in the house to stop picking up wifi.

Don't think its LTE
I think it just says in Nextgen 4g?? not sure.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Looks like 2017 will be a booming year for AT&T fixed wireless services, seeing reports of many install plans.



> The guidelines for the Connect America Fund money requires AT&T to build 40 percent of the infrastructure by the end of 2017, 60 percent by 2018, 80 percent by 2019 and reach 100 percent build out by 2020 or 2021, Perez said.





> AT&T accepted $427 million a year in federal funding to build infrastructure capable of providing 10/1 Mbps broadband service in census blocks where high-speed internet services did not exist. Of that, $60 million will be used in California to provide internet access to more than *141,500* homes and small businesses.


http://www.techwire.net/news/att-plans-to-boost-internet-service-in-rural-areas-of-yuba-sutter.html


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

2017 to be the year Fixed Wireless explodes across the country.



> To provide the wireless Internet service in Arkansas, AT&T will receive $21.2 million a year from the federal government for the next six years to connect more than 51,400 homes and businesses.


http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2016/nov/27/state-in-national-test-of-wireless-inte/?f=news-arkansas


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

I wouldn't call that "across the country".

Last time I checked the country is a lot more than Arkansas, and Arkansas itself has a lot more than 51,400 homes and businesses...


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

KyL416 said:


> I wouldn't call that "across the country".Last time I checked the country is a lot more than Arkansas, and Arkansas itself has a lot more than 51,400 homes and businesses...


Not with power.....


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

> With sufficient grant funding, Mr. Beekhoo said his company should be able to effectively blanket Lewis County with internet service using 12 towers and 25 repeater sites


Does 12 towers and repeater sites seem like the correct amount to cover the typical county to you guys/girls?

If so, this is going to go very swiftly in 2017 over the country, go back and look at previous post in this thread, there are State after state that will be installing fixed wireless in 2017, combine that with the new DirecTV Now online TV service, there will be people losing the crappy internet satellite dish all over the country.

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/news04/wireless-internet-provider-nearing-completion-of-harrisville-area-expansion-20161120

*58 bucks a month for* *unlimited 25 meg. service, not too shabby.*
https://mynorthcountrybroadband.com/canigetservice/


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

We will just have to wait and see.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Bedford11 said:


> Does 12 towers and repeater sites seem like the correct amount to cover the typical county to you guys/girls?
> 
> If so, this is going to go very swiftly in 2017 over the country, go back and look at previous post in this thread, there are State after state that will be installing fixed wireless in 2017, combine that with the new DirecTV Now online TV service, there will be people losing the crappy internet satellite dish all over the country.
> 
> ...


what's a typical county? counties vary widely by size and geography. that's like saying you want standard tires for your car 

we'll see what happens in 2017 but just because there is fixed wireless being installed in these states doesn't mean a large portion of that state will be covered. most fixed wireless providers are very localized only covering a small region of a particular state.

and like i said before, just because a wisp comes in doesn't mean your internet issues are gone. a key to a good wisp is how they handle network upgrades down the road when they inevitably max out their bandwidth


----------



## skoolpsyk (May 24, 2007)

Bedford11 said:


> *58 bucks a month for* *unlimited 25 meg. service, not too shabby.*
> https://mynorthcountrybroadband.com/canigetservice/


lol, I recently emailed our provider to see how much it would cost to increase our speed and here was the reply:

Services are:
1 Mb $35.00 a month $350.00 a year
2 Mb $50.00 a month $500.00 a year
3 Mb $80.00 a month $800.00 a year
5 Mb $135.00 a month $1350.00 a year


----------



## mcl77 (Nov 25, 2008)

Bedford11 said:


> Does 12 towers and repeater sites seem like the correct amount to cover the typical county to you guys/girls?
> 
> If so, this is going to go very swiftly in 2017 over the country, go back and look at previous post in this thread, there are State after state that will be installing fixed wireless in 2017, combine that with the new DirecTV Now online TV service, there will be people losing the crappy internet satellite dish all over the country.
> 
> ...


that's great.
My town has 20 poles scattered around the town I think.
They are planning on upgrading to this type of speed by March.
Currently the fastest they offer is 8mbps.
But have said the current system is capable of 52 mbps.

They want to get the system working correctly to every home first I guess


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

pieces are coming together
Link
Synacor pushes back launch of new AT&T portal - The Buffalo News


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Just as we suspected

"Skinny bundles are the future because "there are too many ****ty networks that have to go away," and pared-down packages of streaming cable channels would wipe them out"
"Over time, it may be strategic for Time Warner to own the "end-to-end user experience"
Link
Turner CEO: It's Time For '****ty Networks' To Die


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

skinny bundles may be the future, but that doesn't mean you will end up paying less than you do now


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Heard the promise of skinny bundles and get only what you want before - when Sirius and XM wanted to merge that was the promise along with lower costs. I think they ended up with 2 bundles and costs were lower for maybe a year but then went up and fees added.
We will really never pay less for stuff we really want


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Seems money is pouring in from a lot of sources

USDA to Issue $12 Million In Grants For Rural Broadband | CivSource


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

money has been pouring in for decades. If the USF was used properly and not just pocketed by the big coporations, most rural areas would already be connected


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

The rush is on to bring high speed internet to rural homes via Fixed Wireless were services like streaming DirectTV Now and the below are going to be in big big demand.
Amazon and Apple have theirs, AT&T will have to match. These digital assistants are really turning into amazing devices, control your media/TV and everything else around the home.

Google Home launches support for WebMD, Quora, Domino's, and dozens more


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Another 8500 rural locations to get fast internet where none has been available before.
Wonder if these guys would use wireless fiber if they had spectrum to use?
59 bucks for 30mbps down. / 10 up, unlimited, rural folk there must be elated.
$3.5 Million in Rural Broadband Experiment Support Authorized for Minnesota Project - Telecompetitor

Lake County Fiber Network - Lake Connections


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

Pretty quiet around this thread.


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

Just another hope of getting a good rural internet down the tubes. I was told a year ago that AT&T would be advertising this last winter in SW Michigan for this service but it appears that it is just another pipe dream. On top of that, I just learned that Hughes Net lastest offering for the new bird (Gen 5) will only be 50 GB/mo with 25 MB download speeds ($120). Looks like I will be able to watch a total of 5 HD movies and my allotment will be shot.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

bedford has gone silent


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

I think all these companies will proly find out in the real world 5g is only practical for 100 or 200 feet if that. People out in the sticks will never see this.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Where do you get that crazy idea? You think you know more about it than all the companies sinking billions into 5G? How exactly do you figure satellite is fine sending signals from over 22,000 miles away, but 5G will be limited to 200 feet?


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

Wild ass guess. Will see how close I am.Most trials so far are only getting line of site or near line of site ,that in its self is pretty limiting.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

looks like at&t is starting to roll out their fixed wireless to the public in Georgia



> The carrier on Monday announced the completion of its first wave rollout of fixed wireless internet in the southern U.S. state, and said it is working to bring fixed wireless access to 17 more states this year. Those states include Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.
> 
> AT&T's service - dubbed AT&T Fixed Wireless Internet - offers customer speeds of at least 10 Mbps and 160 GB of internet usage per month via a professionally installed outdoor antenna. Additional data can be purchased in 50 GB increments for $10 each, up to a maximum of $200. WiFi is included in the service, as well as wired Ethernet connections for up to four devices.


AT&T's First Wave of Fixed Wireless Debuts in Georgia

can't find pricing for it anywhere though other than price to buy more data if you go over your cap


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I couldn't find pricing either. Weird that all the articles mention the $10 to get another 50 GB but not what the monthly cost for the initial 160 GB bucket. Given the price for additional data, it is probably in the $50-$70 range.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

another interesting tidbit

AT&T launches fixed wireless internet in Georgia | FierceWireless



> The products and services are provided by subsidies and affiliates of AT&T under the carrier's brand, but not directly by the carrier itself.


wonder whom the affiliates and subsidies are? local wisp's?


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

AT&T Unveils New 10 Mbps Fixed Wireless Service in Georgia



> AT&T tells us standalone service will cost $60 per month with a one-year contract, or $70 per month without a contract (and after the contract period expires). Users that sign a contract and bundle the service with AT&T wireless or DirecTV will pay $50 per month, or $60 per month without a contract.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

I wish they would have skipped out on data caps, or at least made it a bit higher like 250GB. Maybe they won't count DirecTV On Demand against your cap, if they did that it could be very compelling.

That said it isn't horrible, and if it was available to me I would be considering it. Right now I pay $40/month for 5Mbps from my WISP, which is better than the $50/month for 2Mbps I was paying my old WISP.

I believe 10Mbps puts them in the speed range as the newer satellite based internet provider setups (HughesNet/WildBlue). Those tend to be more expensive and have much lower data caps like 10 or 20GB/month. It's been a while since I've looked at them.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

10 Mbps is the low end that they'll guarantee. Most will get faster speeds.


----------



## flhxi (Sep 2, 2007)

I just signed up for a fixed wireless plan with AT&T it is $60.00 for 250GB a month they also have a plan for 500GB for $100.00
The device also has unlimited wireless home phone. So far the speeds are excellent.








The device has its own wireless with a limit of 10 devices. It also has one Ethernet port that I hooked to my own router. This is working OK for me but for those who do online gaming it will probably not work. The device can not be put in bridge mode. This concerned be because I wasn't sure if it would work with the HR54 for out of home watching of programs on my DVR. But right now it is working. I should mention that I am in central Indiana I do not know were else this is being offered.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

flhxi said:


> I just signed up for a fixed wireless plan with AT&T it is $60.00 for 250GB a month they also have a plan for 500GB for $100.00
> The device also has unlimited wireless home phone. So far the speeds are excellent.
> 
> 
> ...


Just wondering, not criticizing. Is that the best option you have available? The reason I ask is because I pay $69 for unlimited data for 100Mb/s which I constantly get 120Mb/s. So it doesn't look like a bargain to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mgmrick (Oct 19, 2004)

peds48 said:


> Just wondering, not criticizing. Is that the best option you have available? The reason I ask is because I pay $69 for unlimited data for 100Mb/s which I constantly get 120Mb/s. So it doesn't look like a bargain to me.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have the same service through att but added to my cell phone plan for an extra 20 dollars a month. And yes the very best option I have. My other options are super slow dsl or sat internet


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

mgmrick said:


> I have the same service through att but added to my cell phone plan for an extra 20 dollars a month. And yes the very best option I have. My other options are super slow dsl or sat internet


Thanks. Then in that case this appears to be a very good deal.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

flhxi said:


> I just signed up for a fixed wireless plan with AT&T it is $60.00 for 250GB a month they also have a plan for 500GB for $100.00
> The device also has unlimited wireless home phone. So far the speeds are excellent.
> 
> 
> ...


If that speed is consent might just have to think about it as I only have a measly 1.5MB down because centurylink is to lazy to upgrade their lines where I live or am moving to in a few months. Only upside is that we have unlimited data

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

flhxi said:


> I just signed up for a fixed wireless plan with AT&T it is $60.00 for 250GB a month they also have a plan for 500GB for $100.00
> The device also has unlimited wireless home phone. So far the speeds are excellent.
> 
> 
> ...


Verizon spent as much as 2,000 dollars in capx per home for Fios.

Assuming that your speeds are consistent, and let's say you can deploy fixed broadband at 500 dollars per subscriber, this is a HUGE gamechanger for the broadband industry


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Approximately how long did it take to install? How many technicians required?


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

the plan that flxhi is referring to has been around for a while. contrary to what that user said, it is NOT a fixed wireless plan. it is a mobile hotspot plan

AT&T's Wireless Home Phone & Internet Rural Plan - 250GB for $60/month!

att even notes the difference on their fixed wireless page



> Both AT&T Fixed Wireless Internet and AT&T Wireless Home Phone & Internet provide Internet access. AT&T Fixed Wireless Internet includes an outdoor antenna that is professionally mounted on or near the exterior of your home or business to provide a strong signal for better connectivity, while Wireless Home Phone & Internet uses a small desktop device that you can install yourself since there is no outdoor antenna. Stated another way, Wireless Home Phone & Internet is a mobile service, whereas AT&T Fixed Wireless Internet is not. AT&T Fixed Wireless Internet is only available in select (typically rural) areas, while Wireless Home Phone & Internet is available throughout the AT&T wireless footprint. AT&T Fixed Wireless Internet provides Internet download speeds of 10Mbps or over, while Wireless Home Phone & Internet provides the highest speed available to it, typically in the range of 5-12Mbps.


AT&T Fixed Wireless Internet - Rural Internet Without a Satellite


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

chances14 said:


> the plan that flxhi is referring to has been around for a while. contrary to what that user said, it is NOT a fixed wireless plan. it is a mobile hotspot plan
> 
> AT&T's Wireless Home Phone & Internet Rural Plan - 250GB for $60/month!
> 
> ...


About one year ago, the "Home Phone and Internet" plan cost 100 a month for 100GB. So this is an improvement.
Also, ATT continues to buy more spectrum which makes expansion of the project possible.
And if you get too much congestion in the evening, you can just install another antenna in the neighborhood to expand capacity.

I'm hoping that this is successful, as it will lead to lower broadband prices for everyone.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> About one year ago, the "Home Phone and Internet" plan cost 100 a month for 100GB. So this is an improvement.
> Also, ATT continues to buy more spectrum which makes expansion of the project possible.
> And if you get too much congestion in the evening, you can just install another antenna in the neighborhood to expand capacity.
> 
> I'm hoping that this is successful, as it will lead to lower broadband prices for everyone.


i'm not putting the plan the down. it is a great deal for those who don't have cable or fiber.

mobile hotspot plans are a great alternative for those that can't get cable or fiber but have good cell service. I have a unlimited mobile hotspot plan with sprint, (through 4gcommunity) that works great at my location. it equals out to $14.00 a month after the initial upfront device payment

I was just pointing that these mobile hotspot plans are different than the fixed wireless service that at&t is rolling out, which is the main subject of this thread


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Man, that seems pretty confusing. Why on earth would they offer a mobile service with 250GB/month, and a fixed service with only 160GB a month.

The overages are goofy too, $10 for 10GB on the mobile service, but the fixed service is $10 for 50GB.

Seems like they have different departments setting this stuff up and not talking to each other.

Not to mention the fact that these plans aren't available everywhere. If I look up mobile plans here it is $50 for 5GB, which is pretty close to Verizon's $60 for 10GB.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Beerstalker said:


> Man, that seems pretty confusing. Why on earth would they offer a mobile service with 250GB/month, and a fixed service with only 160GB a month.
> 
> The overages are goofy too, $10 for 10GB on the mobile service, but the fixed service is $10 for 50GB.
> 
> ...


from what I understand, the fixed wireless service runs on a separate network from their lte network. So I think that's why you see the differences.

the whole point of the fixed wireless service is to provide internet for those that don't have lte coverage


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

chances14 said:


> from what I understand, the fixed wireless service runs on a separate network from their lte network. So I think that's why you see the differences.
> 
> the whole point of the fixed wireless service is to provide internet for those that don't have lte coverage


No, the whole point of fixed wireless service is to provide internet to people in rural areas who can't get cable/telco internet. It won't be offered in areas where LTE doesn't exist, because one of AT&T's business reasons for doing this is to subsidize upgrading rural towers to LTE.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Exactly, it is using the same towers as their cell phone service.

I think you are getting confused because they sometimes throw in stuff about the new bandwidth or channels. Those new channels are being used here, but eventually you will probably see phones using them too.

Cell towers can only cover so much area. Putting up enough towers in rural locations to cover all of the area ends up having a lot of extra bandwidth available because there aren't very many people connected to each tower. If there aren't many people with cell phones in that area to cover the cost of putting up a tower it doesn't make a lot of sense.

However, since that tower will have bandwidth not being used, then opening it up for people in that area to use for internet service could get them a lot more customers hooked up to that tower. That makes the cost of putting up the tower much more reasonable.

Also, like the one article mentions, AT&T is doing this to avoid having to upgrade or run new landlines to people in rural areas. If they can put up a tower that covers 25 square miles and switch all landline phone/DSL customers over to LTE service on that tower, it saves a whole lot of wiring, substations, nodes, etc that they no longer need to upgrade.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> No, the whole point of fixed wireless service is to provide internet to people in rural areas who can't get cable/telco internet. It won't be offered in areas where LTE doesn't exist, because one of AT&T's business reasons for doing this is to subsidize upgrading rural towers to LTE.


Yes you are correct. I meant to type dsl coverage


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Beerstalker said:


> Exactly, it is using the same towers as their cell phone service.
> 
> I think you are getting confused because they sometimes throw in stuff about the new bandwidth or channels. Those new channels are being used here, but eventually you will probably see phones using them too.


No, they intend to use bands that will remain separate from cell service. They wouldn't be able to plan usage and overprovisioning properly for each tower if there are non-fixed users of the band.


----------



## mgmrick (Oct 19, 2004)

I don't under stand the need for two competing plans/ideas from the same company. I live rural about 4 1/2 miles from nearest att cell tower. My phones can not pickup a signal from att. I do have att's homebase that picks up and holds a signal without issue. Now compared to city users it may not be great but I get 10 up 10 down internet without any cap for 20 addon to my att cell phone plan.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

How many technicians and how long did the installation take? Curious about the economics of the plan.
Question meant for mgmrick


----------



## mgmrick (Oct 19, 2004)

Zero techs. All you do is plug in power cord and it can pick of even the weakest of cell signal. I am sure lots of places it will not work but on the other hand it can pull in a cell signal where your phone does not

Here is a forum where att's homebase is discussed in detail. Alot has changed (for the better since 1st post)

Check out this AT&T Home Phone and Rural Internet offer

(if we are not allowed to post links to other forums feel free to delete....thanks)


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

mgmrick said:


> I don't under stand the need for two competing plans/ideas from the same company. I live rural about 4 1/2 miles from nearest att cell tower. My phones can not pickup a signal from att. I do have att's homebase that picks up and holds a signal without issue. Now compared to city users it may not be great but I get 10 up 10 down internet without any cap for 20 addon to my att cell phone plan.


to add to that, some areas are only being offered 25/50 gb plans for the "wireless Home Phone with Internet" plan and can't get the 250/500gb plans.

at&t loves to cherry pick


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

chances14 said:


> to add to that, some areas are only being offered 25/50 gb plans for the "wireless Home Phone with Internet" plan and can't get the 250/500gb plans.
> 
> at&t loves to cherry pick


Not cherrypick. Probably experimentation.

How does the radiospectrum behave in varying geographies?

How much are customers willing to pay?

How do we (ATT) weigh (i) No installation needed wireless internet vs (ii) Installation (outdoor home antenna) needed wireless internet.

I imagine that rural/suburban customers are much more satisfied with the ATT home internet offerings than with satellite internet.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Not cherry picking or experimentation. The article clearly states that AT&T is doing it where they feel they have "sufficient capacity" (which we can read as 'overcapacity')

So it makes sense in those places to sell better plans and get more customers. Probably they would only sell a limited number - at some point they wouldn't feel there is "sufficient capacity" any longer so they'd stop selling the 250/500 packages and go back to the standard 25/50.


----------



## mgmrick (Oct 19, 2004)

chances14 said:


> to add to that, some areas are only being offered 25/50 gb plans for the "wireless Home Phone with Internet" plan and can't get the 250/500gb plans.
> 
> at&t loves to cherry pick


Yes but all att cell phone users with the newest unlimited plans can add this device to their plan for the normal 20 dollar add on charge. I started with the 50 gb plan then switched to 250 gb plan when offered and now the device is added to my cell phone plan for an extra 20 dollars. Yes a soft cap on overloaded towers but I am not seeing any decrease in speeds and the same for other posters in another forum


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Given how cheap the GoPhone plans are (I switched off their postpaid plans to a 6GB GoPhone plan for $40/month and there's an 'unlimited' plan for $60 that slows you only after 22 GB) you'd have to really use a lot of data to want to pay $20 to put your phone onto that 250GB plan. Personally I've never used even a gigabyte of cell data in a month, but there's always wifi wherever I go...


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

chances14 said:


> to add to that, some areas are only being offered 25/50 gb plans for the "wireless Home Phone with Internet" plan and can't get the 250/500gb plans.
> 
> at&t loves to cherry pick


I have the Homebase and live in Maryland 25/50 gig plan is all I can get 10 per gig overage's.


----------



## mgmrick (Oct 19, 2004)

bcltoys said:


> I have the Homebase and live in Maryland 25/50 gig plan is all I can get 10 per gig overage's.


If you have att cell service unlimited plan you can add homebase for 20 dollars.... not all att reps know that may take work on your end


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

bcltoys said:


> I have the Homebase and live in Maryland 25/50 gig plan is all I can get 10 per gig overage's.


yup. that's all I can get at my location according to their website.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

mgmrick said:


> If you have att cell service unlimited plan you can add homebase for 20 dollars.... not all att reps know that may take work on your end


true. but not everyone has their service through At&t.


----------



## mgmrick (Oct 19, 2004)

chances14 said:


> yup. that's all I can get at my location according to their website.


It might be worth a phone call to att they might be able to setup you up on 250 or 500 gb plan


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

mgmrick said:


> It might be worth a phone call to att they might be able to setup you up on 250 or 500 gb plan


nah.
i'm on a much cheaper and better (for my location) mobile hotspot plan through sprint via 4gcommunity.org. $14.00 a month for unlimited data with no caps or overages


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Given how cheap the GoPhone plans are (I switched off their postpaid plans to a 6GB GoPhone plan for $40/month and there's an 'unlimited' plan for $60 that slows you only after 22 GB) you'd have to really use a lot of data to want to pay $20 to put your phone onto that 250GB plan. Personally I've never used even a gigabyte of cell data in a month, but there's always wifi wherever I go...


Hmmm, I used almost 15gigs so far this month with a week to go before a new cycle.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Hmmm, I used almost 15gigs so far this month with a week to go before a new cycle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Aside from different phone usage you are on the road all the time therefore using data constantly. 90% of my data usage is at home or work where I am on WiFi. I am on a 2GB plan and rarely use half of it.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

mgmrick said:


> If you have att cell service unlimited plan you can add homebase for 20 dollars.... not all att reps know that may take work on your end


I would be very careful with this. That is what Verizon customers were told at first too (22GB soft cap), but now all of the sudden Verizon says that home bases added to the Unlimited cell phone plans have a hard cap at 10GB, and after that they are lowered to 3G speeds. And the 3G speeds people are getting are slower than dialup. Verizon has a lot of people ticked off about this right now if you read up on different boards.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Millions will be going to Fixed Wireless in 2017 and beyond, AT&T hoping to pick up customers with Fixed Wireless. Streaming TV market to expand greatly.

"CBRS finally allows the preponderance of small rural operators and private entities to build private LTE networks with protected spectrum,"

Fixed LTE in CBRS Band Not Expected to Require Line of Sight for Fixed Wireless - Telecompetitor

Furiously fast, wireless Internet access at home? It's coming.

Low Costs, Dense Markets Critical to Starry's Success: Analyst | Multichannel


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

Beerstalker said:


> I would be very careful with this. That is what Verizon customers were told at first too (22GB soft cap), but now all of the sudden Verizon says that home bases added to the Unlimited cell phone plans have a hard cap at 10GB


Someone may be able to add more to this. But I don't think Verizon ever distinguished between mobile hotspot (i.e. tethering off of a phone) and hotspot devices (like a ZTE Velocity or ZTE Z700a WHPI device on AT&T or a MiFi device on Verizon).

AT&T explicitly says that hotspot devices are exempt from the 10GB tethering limit. Verizon - to my knowledge - never said this.

Now, you can definitely argue does AT&T know what they mean when they differentiate between *hotspot* and *mobile hotspot*? That's certainly a valid question.

You can also argue that just because AT&T says one thing, it doesn't mean that they won't do another.

So the concerns are valid. But I think in the case of Verizon, people got away with something that wasn't being enforced and then it started getting enforced.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Bedford11 said:


> Millions will be going to Fixed Wireless in 2017 and beyond, AT&T hoping to pick up customers with Fixed Wireless. Streaming TV market to expand greatly.
> 
> "CBRS finally allows the preponderance of small rural operators and private entities to build private LTE networks with protected spectrum,"
> 
> ...


Market is rapidly changing.....

***************************************
AT&T, Verizon's 5G Will Be a Cable Killer First, Say Cowen

Impending 5G wireless service will be initially used to compete with cable service, opines Cowen & Co. analyst Colby Synesael. It'll take till about 2020 or so before 5G really leads to much faster speeds on your smartphone, he opines. Also, Verizon and AT&T are going to need a lot of fiber optics to make it all work.

AT&T, Verizon's 5G Will Be a Cable Killer First, Say Cowen

Cowen & Co.'s telecom analyst Colby Synesael today offers up some thoughts on what the impending arrival of so-called 5G wireless services means for AT&T (T), Verizon Communications (VZ), in the form of a 25-minute video.

I thought I'd bring you the highlights, though you're welcome to watch the entire 25-minute video at Cowen's Web site if you like.

One of the first uses of 5G, opines Synesael, will be to try and surpass cable networks for broadband into the home -- watch out Comcast (CMCSA):
***************************************


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

The only problem could be low data caps. While my dsl speed is Pathetic I have never hit a data cap even in a month where I downloaded close to 1TB of data. I currently using about 5GB of data on my AT&T data plan because I tether my phone to my PS4 to watch monthly wrestling events


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

The only problem could be low data caps. While my dsl speed is Pathetic I have never hit a data cap even in a month where I downloaded close to 1TB of data. I currently using about 5GB of data on my AT&T data plan because I tether my phone to my PS4 to watch monthly wrestling events

Not to worry there are so many competitors entering the fray, where in most rural area's there is just one provider and in a lot of Suburban area's just one or two providers, all of that is changing before your eyes. From the little guys with their new ability to provide internet services using the above mentioned CBRS Band to SpaceX coming at you from above. Capacity and Competition will insure fairly cheap (50-60 bucks, unlimited?, 20-30 bucks 400 Gig Caps?) service once all competitors are in place in your area. Cheaper TV will follow with all of the new streaming TV services such as AT&T's DirectTV Now, Dish Sling TV, Google/YouTube, Hulu TV, FaceBook TV, and the many, many others that will be competing for your TV dollars.

SpaceX plans to begin testing its high-speed satellite broadband later this year

Look for AT&T and others to leapfrog this soon. Most in the know say that android based streaming will be the winner.

Dish unveils a 4K Android TV streaming box with Netflix, Sling TV, and local channels


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

evotz said:


> Someone may be able to add more to this. But I don't think Verizon ever distinguished between mobile hotspot (i.e. tethering off of a phone) and hotspot devices (like a ZTE Velocity or ZTE Z700a WHPI device on AT&T or a MiFi device on Verizon).
> 
> AT&T explicitly says that hotspot devices are exempt from the 10GB tethering limit. Verizon - to my knowledge - never said this.
> 
> ...


When Verizon came out with their unlimited plan they specifically said that Phones got 22GB before prioritization, and that tethering to your phone, or using a *MOBILE HOTSPOT/JETPACK* would be capped at 10GB and be slowed to 3G after that. Their documentation never said anything about the 4G LTE Home Internet/phone or their fixed wireless devices. These devices are completely different then mobile hotspots/Jetpacks. A lot of people questioned them on this and there was no clear answer from Verizon on their website. Many people talked to salesman, store managers, online help, etc. and were assured that the Home Internet/fixed wireless devices would get the 22GB and then prioritization. People bought then and signed 2 year agreements etc and that was how the service worked for the first few months. People were going way over 22GB and not getting slowed down because they were on antennas that were not heavily burdened. Then all of a sudden last month I believe Verizon suddenly started enforcing a hard cap of 10GB on them. People were past their return period so they were stuck with the device and possibly a 2 year contract. People are very upset, taking them to small claims court, threatening class action suits, going to their state's Attourney General, etc.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

I'm just really not sure if Verizon users have much of a leg to stand on. I really haven't followed the Verizon side of things on this, so I'm definitely no expert on this.

But as you say, nothing was ever included in any terms of service that users of hotspots/jetpacks/mifi/lte home internet/etc would be included in the 22GB limit. I'm not even sure if their TOS mentioned Jetpacks. I thought Mobile Hotspot was the only text that was included. I think you can definitely make an argument for what defines a Mobile Hotspot. Is tethering on a phone a mobile hotspot? What about a Jetpack or Mifi or other battery powered cellular data distributing device? Where does a device become a "hotspot" as opposed to a "mobile hotspot"?

At least with AT&T's language

Unlimited Data Plans - AT&T









They explicitly mention "Mobile Hotspot" and "Hotspot" as being two different things. They don't exactly define what those different things are. But if a generic battery powered cellular data distributing device is a "Mobile Hotspot" then it's limited to 10GB. If it's a "Hotspot" then it is not limited to 10GB and falls under the realm of the 22GB limit. Wireless Home Phone and Internet devices are explicitly mentioned and fall out of categorization as a "Mobile Hotspot" device and thus would be subjected to the the 22GB limit realm.

Now, one thing I have learned. You really can't trust AT&T, Verizon, or any other cellular service provider. They can say one thing and mean something else entirely. Even if it's written in their TOS, their TOS is subject to their own interpretation of those terms. But at the very least if someone has a WHPI device on an AT&T unlimited plan and AT&T starts limiting them after 10GB without changing their TOS, then that person would have a legitimate legal stance based on these TOS. AT&T could just as easily change their TOS to reflect a 10GB limit on WHPI, but they would have to release those users from their contract.

I'm not saying that AT&T is great by any means. But they do appear to be a bit more consumer friendly on this than Verizon. I'm surprised, given Verizon recent struggles in customer retention, that they have not relaxed their TOS verbage a bit.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Lake Park gets AT&Ts Fixed Wireless

High-speed Internet comes to rural Lowndes


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

At this point, 160GB is more than adequate for almost everyone.

Data consumption by decile:

top 10%: 553GB per month,
next 10%: 141GB,
next 10%: 87GB,
next 10%: 52GB,
next 10%: 32GB

last 10%: less than 1GB

source: small private cable operator

Comcast Versus AT&T: Wireless Won't Replace Cable, For Now, Says Moffett-Nathanson


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

The Neilson article is almost ten years old. The Multichannel link is invalid. 

OT: Gloria: I asked for information regarding your statement on "uncompressed OTA" as well as the basis for saying OTA picture is better than DIRECTV's.. Another thread, of course. Could you kindly reply there?


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Laxguy, removed my outdated signature. Thanks for the heads-up.

With respect to OTA picture quality, I have the following....

************************
Direct TV have the best picture quality...? - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews

OTA has always looked better than cable or satellite, and whenever i install a TV for someone (i'm the resident TV Guy) i often use OTA as a reference on familiar news broadcasts when demonstrating the picture quality they're getting from their TV provider.

FIOS is a very close 2nd behind antenna, and DirecTV is a somewhat close 3rd. TWC is a mixed bag; some areas (like my town and Torrance) get a great picture (better than DirecTV here in El Segundo, ironically where DirecTV is headquartered) but most other TWC areas (like several of their networks in various areas of LA) were formerly Comcast and they have considerably worse picture quality that's actually so poor that it's unacceptable to me. AT&T U-Verse here has mostly crappy HD picture quality and i rate them last. I haven't seen Dish anywhere in the past few years but i seem to remember it not being as good as DirecTV. 
************************

Has anyone ever claimed the DTV picture to be better than OTA?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

OTA depends on your locals. If you have just the main HD channel and no subchannels, it is very high quality. Unfortunately many local stations have been adding subchannels, or even carrying two HD channels, which causes a big drop in quality.

I used to have two locals with no subchannels and they were far superior to the locals Directv delivers via satellite. Now they each have three subchannels, and you can't really tell the difference between what you get via antenna and what you get via Directv or cable.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AT&T's announced speed of 10mbps for their fixed wireless has plenty of room to go, speeds will be increasing as they learn. I know the below towers are just a mile or so from the end user. Should be fairly easy to get 25 mbps full time at 8 or so miles.

Fixed Wireless pushed to the limit | Southgate Amateur Radio News

With thousands of On Demand shows and movies on DIRECTV NOW, combined with at least 10Mbps Internet, you can enjoy the ultimate entertainment experience, wherever you call home.

AT&T Fixed Wireless Internet - Rural Internet and TV Without a Satellite


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

The 10 Mbps is the minimum speed they will guarantee - i.e. they won't sell you the service if you are too far away or behind a big hill or whatever and can't get at least that much. They've said most customers could expect around 25 Mbps, but I'm not sure what the speed maxes out at and don't think they've announced that.

All the radios they'll be using will be new so probably capable of hundreds of megabits, the limitation will be in the backhaul from the tower to AT&T's network. Who knows, if they don't cap the speeds maybe at 4am you'll be able to hit 500 Mb if you are reasonably close to the tower.


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> The 10 Mbps is the minimum speed they will guarantee - i.e. they won't sell you the service if you are too far away or behind a big hill or whatever and can't get at least that much. They've said most customers could expect around 25 Mbps, but I'm not sure what the speed maxes out at and don't think they've announced that.
> 
> All the radios they'll be using will be new so probably capable of hundreds of megabits, the limitation will be in the backhaul from the tower to AT&T's network. Who knows, if they don't cap the speeds maybe at 4am you'll be able to hit 500 Mb if you are reasonably close to the tower.


That last part will be nice for people who like to download movies and video games if it does go that fast at night but it's also through people who will hit the 160GB cap as well considering now a days a disc based game is 40GB plus

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

boukengreen said:


> That last part will be nice for people who like to download movies and video games if it does go that fast at night but it's also through people who will hit the 160GB cap as well considering now a days a disc based game is 40GB plus


For downloading stuff though it doesn't really matter, because you can wait. Even at 25 Mbps, if you start a 40GB download when you go to bed, it'll be done by the time you wake up.

As for the caps, with such large downloads you could hit the 160 GB easily, but it is still way better than satellite or a standard cellular plan!


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> For downloading stuff though it doesn't really matter, because you can wait. Even at 25 Mbps, if you start a 40GB download when you go to bed, it'll be done by the time you wake up.
> 
> As for the caps, with such large downloads you could hit the 160 GB easily, but it is still way better than satellite or a standard cellular plan!


I agree it takes me forever to get things now with my 1.5MB down dal so I only stream the monthly WWE events because I can get enough speed with my phone ad tether it to my PS4 to get enough speed to stream Thor with my data plan

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

[OT] Thank you, Gloria. But as slice points out, it's all where you are. And subject to change as locals add more junk- er, sub channels. And I was asking your direct experience. What was the date of the AVS post?


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Will not be long before you can stream DirecTV NOW without it counting against the 160 gig. data bucket. Competition will make this possible.

With Trump loosening the Net Regs., AT&T/DirectTV NOW, Verizon with their soon to be TV/Fixed Wireless Service, Google Wireless with their TV package, Dish/SlingTV and their soon to be wireless service and all the others coming will not count their TV service data against your data bucket limit. With that said, Can you all live with 160 gigs?

Video and wireless are becoming the new double play battleground.

AT&T + DIRECTV NOW - Unlimited Data Usage | FAQ

Verizon Joins AT&T in Flexing Wireless Muscle: Fios TV Streaming is Now Wireless Data Free - Telecompetitor


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

Bedford11 said:


> Will not be long before you can stream DirecTV NOW without it counting against the 160 gig. data bucket. Competition will make this possible.
> 
> With Trump loosening the Net Regs., AT&T/DirectTV NOW, Verizon with their soon to be TV/Fixed Wireless Service, Google Wireless with their TV package, Dish/SlingTV and their soon to be wireless service and all the others coming will not count their TV service data against your data bucket limit. With that said, Can you all live with 160 gigs?
> 
> ...


Depends on what good free video games I get from PlayStation Plus that month or any movies I buy or otherwise acquire that month lol but fine unless I go on a huge DL spree in refilling my HD that crashed on me which I might just go to my uncles to download because he gets around 300 down

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Anybody really happy that AT&T Fixed Wireless is coming to their state this year?

AT&T Fixed Wireless is expanding to 17 more states this year. Those additional 17 states are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin.

The products and services are provided by subsidies and affiliates of AT&T under the carrier's brand, but not directly by the carrier itself. (Is this DirectTV Now Installers?)

Interesting where/how all this is heading.
As at most telecommunications companies, AT&T's wireless business is growing faster and is more profitable than its wireline side. One of its rivals, T-Mobile, is strictly wireless, which some analysts say gives it an advantage in a rapidly approaching future in which many customers will receive phone, internet and video service over wireless networks alone.

AT&T Launches First Wave of Fixed Wireless Internet Availability to Rural and Underserved Areas

AT&T launches fixed wireless internet in Georgia | FierceWireless

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/business/att-wireless-strike-union.html

att.com/internet/fixed-wireless.html.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Don't look now, cause America's favorite (lol) cable co. is entering the streaming market to compete with DirectTV Now and the myriad of others coming online.

Looking for all the cable cos. to enter the streaming market.
This should insure some decent cheap packages without all the junk channels.

DirectTV Now better have a very slick and intuitive portal (soon to be released) to fend off the competition.

Comcast Rolls the Dice With Xfinity Instant TV | Service Providers | TechNewsWorld

C Spire's Place Among Cable TV Challengers | Service Providers | TechNewsWorld

Is This the Beginning of the End for the Set-Top Box? | Entertainment | TechNewsWorld


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

Bedford11 said:


> Anybody really happy that AT&T Fixed Wireless is coming to their state this year?
> 
> AT&T Fixed Wireless is expanding to 17 more states this year. Those additional 17 states are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin.
> 
> ...


Interesting I think this will definitely up the competition if Verizon and T-Mobile also start this. Might cause more towers to be built as well and if they have to build more might get to the point that even people in rural areas have a full signal on their phones. if I understand the technology correctly the fixed wireless will be getting service off of cell phone towers.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AT&T's and all the others entering the field, really stands to grow big time with their fixed wireless offerings.

More Users Contemplating Cutting the Cord Than Ever Before


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

Bedford11 said:


> AT&T's and all the others entering the field, really stands to grow big time with their fixed wireless offerings.
> 
> More Users Contemplating Cutting the Cord Than Ever Before


If that is true AT&T will have to up the 160GB limit using the 1 hour of HD video is 1GB. Not sure if there is any difference between 720P streaming and 1080P in data usage I just now that streaming with WWE network I use a GB for every hour I stream and my PS4 output is 1080P


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Rise Broadband, Redzone, Google and many others offer unlimited data for around 50-60 bucks, will be interesting when these fixed wireless providers as well as Verizon, Sprint, and the many others entering the market began to offer services on each others turf, I think AT&T will have to offer unlimited or Zero Rating for DirectTV Now in order to compete.

There has been a distinct shift in FCC policy in favor of wireless broadband

4G LTE leveraged for fixed wireless broadband in rural communities - RCR Wireless News


----------



## paranoia (Jun 13, 2014)

Rural Northern New England sure could use some more no data limits high speed broadband options, all this new tech seems to be out west or down south.
The cable high speed that is around has caps, and DSL if available is only 10 to 15 megs. If you are really rural you can't get any of those. 
For Hughes net internet the caps are so low for such a high price. IMHO.


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

paranoia said:


> Rural Northern New England sure could use some more no data limits high speed broadband options, all this new tech seems to be out west or down south.
> The cable high speed that is around has caps, and DSL if available is only 10 to 15 megs. If you are really rural you can't get any of those.
> For Hughes net internet the caps are so low for such a high price. IMHO.


Those low caps are the main reason I've never considered Hughes net


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

boukengreen said:


> Those low caps are the main reason I've never considered Hughes net


The sat based internet services suffer from significant latency issues. They try to do some caching and other things to reduce the impact but since the geosync sat orbits are so far away their is really no way they can fix it.


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

mjwagner said:


> The sat based internet services suffer from significant latency issues. They try to do some caching and other things to reduce the impact but since the geosync sat orbits are so far away their is really no way they can fix it.


The only time that would bother me is playing games like World of Warcraft or Diablo I guess the lag wouldn't bother me and really didn't when I friend of mine had because the fastest I've ever had is the 1.5 I'm on now


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

paranoia said:


> Rural Northern New England sure could use some more no data limits high speed broadband options, all this new tech seems to be out west or down south.
> The cable high speed that is around has caps, and DSL if available is only 10 to 15 megs. If you are really rural you can't get any of those.
> For Hughes net internet the caps are so low for such a high price. IMHO.


Many avenues for DirectTV Now to really take off.

Lots of Fixed Wireless going into Northern New England
Unlimited Fixed Wireless for 41 bucks a month, hard to beat that.
Redzone Wireless - High-Speed Internet for Homes and Businesses in Maine

Another one going nationwide.
News, Press, and Media - Redzone Wireless - High-Speed Internet for Homes and Businesses in Maine

AT&T Fixed Wireless will be in Connecticut soon, easy/quick to set up Fixed Wireless networks, look for them to compete nationwide

The combined AT&T and DIRECTV will use fixed wireless local loop (WLL) technology to bring coverage for new or enhanced high-speed Internet access to approximately 13 million customer locations nationwide in largely underserved, rural areas.

https://www.att.com/Common/merger/files/pdf/22_state_map.pdf

AT&T in Vermont
http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2016/WorkGroups/House Commerce/Bills/H.117/Witness Testimony, Comments/W~Chuck Storrow~ATandT - Fixed Wireless Local Loop - State One-Pager Template~2-12-2015.pdf

Vermont unlimited for 39-59 bucks a month.
Cloud Alliance » Home Broadband Plans

Vermont, 40 bucks a month, all volunteers, really neat, little guys and the big guys are all hustling to provide Fixed Wireless service.
svtbbc
currentnetworkmaps - svtbbc

New Hampshire, 40 bucks a month
FAQs

Growing leaps and bounds, check your local
List of Fixed Wireless Broadband Providers

Click your state
Internet & TV Service Areas | WireSeek

Enter your zip, although this site is missing many Fixed Wireless providers, it may help some.
Fixed Wireless Internet In the United States at a Glance


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Live in Maine - Redzone, according to their maps, doesn't cover much of Maine which again is the problem. I think their internet costs are more than I pay today for a different vendor. Plus based upon their model you need a view of their towers and I'm sure will be store sensitive.

I'm sure it will come but not very soon.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

CTJon said:


> Live in Maine - Redzone, according to their maps, doesn't cover much of Maine which again is the problem. I think their internet costs are more than I pay today for a different vendor. Plus based upon their model you need a view of their towers and I'm sure will be store sensitive.
> 
> I'm sure it will come but not very soon.


Wow, cheaper than 41 bucks for unlimited? Are you rural or city?

With the Fixed Wireless operators switching over to LTE it seems to have diminished the line of sight requirements. AT&T is starting out with LTE service.

Telrad Networks' LTE solutions, especially the high-powered BreezeCOMPACT 3000 base stations used by Redzone, use several advanced techniques, such as 4×4 radio with advanced MIMO, to overcome many such non-line-of-sight (NLOS) scenarios.

Redzone Wireless Selects Telrad Networks for Pioneering LTE Network Across Maine - Telrad Networks
Do you live in any of the shaded area's of this map?
Broadband Map - Technology - National Broadband Map

AT&T says 13 million new fixed wireless customers by 2020.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Anybody getting the expanded AT&T fixed wireless, 70,000 new potential customers.

_Rural Mississippi is among the areas where AT&T is expanding its fixed wireless internet service._
_
AT&T Targets More Rural, Underserved Areas With Fixed Wireless | Multichannel_

AT&T Launches Fixed Wireless Internet in Rural and Underserved Areas in 8 More States


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Get ready for 5G DirectTV.
DirecTV Now on a fixed wireless 5 G signal
This trial helps show that the new reality is coming fast,"

AT&T Kicks Off 5G-Powered DirecTV Now Trial | Multichannel

AT&T Kicks Off 5G-Powered DirecTV Now Trial | Broadcasting & Cable

Anybody think the below will happen?

With more targeted and efficient messaging, the Credit Suisse analyst believes networks could reduce ad loads from their current 15 minutes per hour to as little as two to five minutes per hour - putting networks on closer footing with ad-free subscription video-on-demand services such as Netflix and Amazon Video.

Targeting a Path Forward for TV Ads, Data Could Create a $100B Upside | Broadcasting & Cable


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Yeah right. When have networks ever reduced ads?


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> Yeah right. When have networks ever reduced ads?


I think we will, things are changing fast.

What Comes After Networks? Neo-Studios | Multichannel


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

if you want a better idea of where AT&T might be rolling this out, below is a link of map that shows the areas that are eligible for caf II funding, which is the main funds AT&T is using to deploy this service.

if your area isn't eligible, you most likely won't be getting this fixed wireless service anytime soon

Federal Communications Commission GIS Program

also, the wording on the map seems to confirm that the funding is based on census blocks. this means that if there is just a single household in your block that has an isp that provides advertised speeds of at least 10/1, your block won't be eligible for funding.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Wireless Rules and Regs are fluid on Capitol Hill right now. We are seeing many different demands for rural broadband which the current admin are favorable with. We will see a revolution in broadband access, no doubt about that, and with that an explosion of Internet tv services like DirectTV Now and the myriad of others entering the space.

Many plans, similar to the below, from all over the U.S. are being submitted to Washington.

Manchin, along with Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., penned a letter urging the Federal Communications Commission to move forward with the Remote Areas Fund by structuring it so that it expands broadband access to tens of thousands of West Virginians and Kansans living in rural and remote areas.

Expanding high-speed internet access to rural areas has been one of the few issues that's drawn bipartisan support in a sharply divided Congress. And while nothing's assured, backing by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai may help push those congressional efforts across the finish line.

Pai this week talked up a Senate bill, S. 1013, that would effectively legislate his proposal for spurring broadband investment in remote areas, where internet access is available through 1990s-era dial-up services.

Rural Broadband Efforts Gain Bipartisan Momentum - Morning Consult

Says it all, Seated next to Trump, Stephenson, AT&T CEO

Wireless and drone execs praised President Trump as he pledged to cut down regulations

Initiatives to expand broadband are crucial for West Virginia economy


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Why would networks provide fewer ad minutes? And I'm sure content providers wouldn't want it - they'd have to produce more content which would cost money etc.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

CTJon said:


> Why would networks provide fewer ad minutes? And I'm sure content providers wouldn't want it - they'd have to produce more content which would cost money etc.


Targeted advertising is where we are heading.

They have your digital address.
They have your purchasing data thru your credit/debit card.

They see that CTJon is a, let's say, a hobbiest sausage maker, from your credit/debit data they see you have been buying sausage making equipment, bulk meats, etc. etc..

They hit you with a 2 minute targeted
ad for special Pork Butt spice infused, deluxe crusted, smoked, hand wrapped, wax dipped, overnight shipped roast, which you will certainly watch because it will peak your sausage making interest, this ad is worth many times what a generic ad is worth to the sellers.

The programming guys can charge several times over for this kind of targeted advertising, thus they are able to reduce the amount of BS generic advertising time because the targeted ad results in many more sales than generic advertising.

Don't you just love sitting thru a Tampon commercial, lol, all that goes away.

The content providers will be glad to produce an extra 10 minutes of content because they will not be loosing viewers to walk-a-ways during BS generic advertising.
Thus their ratings go up.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

Bedford11 said:


> Wireless Rules and Regs are fluid on Capitol Hill right now. We are seeing many different demands for rural broadband which the current admin are favorable with. We will see a revolution in broadband access, no doubt about that, and with that an explosion of Internet tv services like DirectTV Now and the myriad of others entering the space.
> 
> Many plans, similar to the below, from all over the U.S. are being submitted to Washington.
> 
> ...


They may want it.....I do not see how in the world with this FCC, and have and the political oposition thats exists now!
Sounds dead before it even starts.....
For some reason this once great country, is more about greed and money thats it......sad


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AZ. said:


> They may want it.....I do not see how in the world with this FCC, and have and the political oposition thats exists now!
> Sounds dead before it even starts.....
> For some reason this once great country, is more about greed and money thats it......sad


Political Opposition?

Rural Broadband Efforts Gain Bipartisan Momentum - Morning Consult

The FCC granted New York's petition in its first major action under Chairman Ajit Pai, who had pledged to close the country's "digital divide."

New York gets $170M in broadband funding that Verizon turned down

Laws/Regs going better than ever, people are starting to see that it has been the past political infighting/greed from all sides that has kept Broadband from the rural areas, all that is about to change.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

*Trump FCC Chair's Promise to Expand America's Broadband Is Empty*
http://gizmodo.com/fcc-chairman-ajit-pais-digital-divide-rhetoric-is-empty-1792217504

*FCC To Halt Expansion of Broadband Subsidies For Poor People*
FCC To Halt Expansion of Broadband Subsidies For Poor People - Slashdot


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AZ. said:


> *Trump FCC Chair's Promise to Expand America's Broadband Is Empty*
> http://gizmodo.com/fcc-chairman-ajit-pais-digital-divide-rhetoric-is-empty-1792217504
> 
> *FCC To Halt Expansion of Broadband Subsidies For Poor People*
> FCC To Halt Expansion of Broadband Subsidies For Poor People - Slashdot


1st news is old, things are fluid with the broadband regs now.

2nd news, Hurray! Hurray!

People are learning about fake news. Rural Broadband Revolution is coming. Watch and see.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

So you think the ads on TV will be different depending upon who is watching the show? I find it hard to believe but then again probably would have felt the same about ads on internet a few years ago. Hope they have fun with that - that is why many of us these days avoid ads entirely with DVR, run site blockers, use products like ApplePay which doesn't give vendors your credit card info etc. 
What I think is that they will continue the amount of ads or increase and make them targeted when they can.


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

I would suggest we get back to the subject matter. 

I would be very interested in getting feedback from those folks who currently have Direct TV's fixed wireless broadband service. i.e. actual speeds, total bill charges, actual speeds during peak hours, etc. Anyone out there?


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

D.C. is open for business again, many groups looking for ways to bring fast internet to rural areas. happening at a fast pace now. DirectTV Now, once polished, will be one of the video providers that survive the new technology onslaught.

It will be used to hit areas with only two to 200 people living in each square mile. In areas with less than two people per square mile, satellite coverage will be used, and areas with over 200 people in this range will rely on fixed wireless and limited fiber connections.

The lofty goal is to help bring broadband access to the 23.4 million rural Americans currently living without high-speed internet by July 4, 2020. It's an aggressive target, but at least somewhat admirable

Microsoft wants all of rural America to get high-speed broadband

Microsoft commits $10 billion to bring broadband internet to rural America

Broadband Coalition Proposes New Fixed Wireless Service | Multichannel

Lookout Cable Cos. DirectTV Now and AT&T's fixed wireless internet will be a major player in urban areas soon.
AT&T Delivers DirecTV Now as Part of Fixed Wireless 5G Trial


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Moving right along

DirecTV Now Set to Add More Local Feeds From ABC, NBC, Fox | Multichannel

DirecTV Now to Test Cloud DVR This Summer | Multichannel

Carolina's loving it.
Statehouse Report - NEWS: High-speed Internet in rural areas becoming a reality

Statehouse Report - LACKEY: Actions speak for AT&T in connecting South Carolinians
Will all services be boxless in the future? I think so.
C Spire Launches Boxless TV Service | Light Reading

5G mobile already kicking it. Fixed is coming on fast
AT&T Launches Ultra-Fast Wireless Network in Indianapolis

Alabama going Fixed Wireless
Fixed Wireless Internet now active in rural portions of Greene and Hale Counties


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Where the gold is.

Forget about wireless, satellite, wired etc.

The real money is in advertising (look at giant Google). At&T is working feverishly to get their internet portal polished up and glitch free for the soon to be revealing.

Just one of the vendors for AT&T's new portal is expecting 100 Million a year revenues alone.

How will DirectTV satellite service rout their targeted advertising to sat. subscribers? Is there enough data capacity to address each subscriber with specific targeted advertising?

AT&T AdWorks is a nationwide leader in addressable TV advertising. We combine unparalleled scale in addressable TV advertising with the best targeting capability in the TV business to deliver a better ROI for advertisers. And we can extend addressable TV campaigns across screens. The AT&T AdWorks product suite includes: Addressable TV Advertising, Data-Driven Linear, Interactive TV and Premium Digital Video Advertising (including DIRECTV NOW and Otter Media properties).

As for other uses for the data, Rodriquez was a bit more coy. "Our ability to personalize and to target the advertising to* every device-not just every consumer*-is significantly higher than it has been in the past," he conceded.

I see a limited free AT&T online TV service coming for those that just refuse to buy tv programming.

For his part, Rodriquez conceded that the inclusion of targeted advertising represented "an entirely new cost structure for AT&T."

A new att.net is on its way

Synacor Wins AT&T Portal Services | Synacor Inc.

Cross-Screen Addressable Advertising Is Here

DirecTV Now to gather customer data to improve user experience, build targeted ad revenue | FierceCable


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Directv has been pushing ads to satellite subscribers for years (if they have a DVR) so there's nothing special about pushing targeted ads.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> Directv has been pushing ads to satellite subscribers for years (if they have a DVR) so there's nothing special about pushing targeted ads.


Generic ads yes, The highly coveted individual targeted ad is coming soon. Going to use a lot more network data.

Now advertisers, MVPDs, and broadcasters have the power to simultaneously deliver multiple and distinct messages to *individual households* during a single commercial break. For the first time you can send targeted television media exactly where it needs to go - to the right household, the right consumer, at the right time - and measure the direct result of your investment.

Tag Team
AT&T Inc., Dish Network Corp. and WPP PLC are teaming up to buy Invidi Technologies Corp., which focuses on targeted television advertisements, the companies said Monday.

Powerful Stuff
It's been said, that an executive of VISA - the credit card company - is able to predict somebody's divorce one year ahead of the people concerned. "we tell Google first, we always tell Google first."

Got to understand, At&T is becoming a competitor to Google, Portals, targeted advertising, the whole works. It is all about eyeballs seeing ads. It's no longer AT&T versus Dish, Verizon, etc.. One reason AT&T is going all out to get rural customers with Fixed wireless. Let the games begin.

Google now tracks and collects your OFFLINE credit card purchases

INVIDI Technologies - INVIDI Technologies


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Bedford11 said:


> .....DirectTV Now, once polished, will be one of the video providers that survive the new technology onslaught....


They best get to work, they have a long way to go before they are competitive, IMHO, and their competitors in that space are not going to stand still.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

So to do targeted ads I would think they'd have to store ads on my DVR and then insert them as needed. I wonder how much space that would take.
Gives me more reason to watch only recorded so I can skip ads and if they try and prevent we just will move to another solution. I make it a practice to never click on an ad and if I see something I actually like I wait a day or so and go on the site directly. I'm almost at the point where I'd pay companies not to advertise which would be OK with them I assume. I wonder how much of our medical costs are due to drug ads and then lawyer ads to sue the medical companies - I'll bet not insignificant.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

If they stored a full hour's worth of ads that would be a small fraction of your DVR's capacity, and allow insertion into about 50 hours worth of programming you watch. That assumes they insert two minutes' worth per hour which is about all the room there is for insertion AFAIK. Which only applies if you watch 50 hours worth and _never FF through the commercials_.

They may download some of that over the internet, but there's no reason they couldn't continue delivering targeted ads via satellite. It isn't like they could or would target so finely there would be a million different ads for all their customers. There might not be all that many more different ads than they show today, just targeted better. I mean, they might be able to target a hunting enthusiast with a hunting/outdoor related ad, but even if they knew you were say a bow hunting fisherman that would be a pretty tiny segment to produce an ad targeted for.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

This could upset the apple cart or be a great thing for AT&T and other Fixed Wireless providers, watching this closely. Would like to see .gov finally do something for rural access, we have a chance here, billions have been wasted thus far.

This free market solution can bring internet access to millions in rural America - no taxes needed


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Bedford11 said:


> This could upset the apple cart or be a great thing for AT&T and other Fixed Wireless providers, watching this closely. Would like to see .gov finally do something for rural access, we have a chance here, billions have been wasted thus far.
> 
> This free market solution can bring internet access to millions in rural America - no taxes needed


Others agree with you. I don't think it'll ever be as reliable as fiber/cable due to propagation challenges. But if it's 70% as reliable at 20% of the capx, it's a HUGE winner not only for Verizon and ATT, but for the consumer as well.

AT&T, Verizon's 5G Will Be a Cable Killer First, Say Cowen

AT&T, Verizon's 5G Will Be a Cable Killer First, Say Cowen

Impending 5G wireless service will be initially used to compete with cable service, opines Cowen & Co. analyst Colby Synesael. It'll take till about 2020 or so before 5G really leads to much faster speeds on your smartphone, he opines. Also, Verizon and AT&T are going to need a lot of fiber optics to make it all work.

By Tiernan Ray
Updated May 16, 2017 6:16 p.m. ET


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Of course 5G will be used for fixed access first. No one needs more faster downloads on their phone, they just need less congestion when everyone else is using their phone.


----------



## PokerJoker (Apr 12, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> If they stored a full hour's worth of ads that would be a small fraction of your DVR's capacity, and allow insertion into about 50 hours worth of programming you watch. That assumes they insert two minutes' worth per hour which is about all the room there is for insertion AFAIK. Which only applies if you watch 50 hours worth and _never FF through the commercials_.


You really think they will allow the viewer to FF through the personalized ads? I expect it will be just like many on-demand shows are now, FF will be disabled.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I would hope there would be an option to pay more and avoid the ads. If not, I'd stay the hell away from any cloud DVR scheme!


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

If they didn't allow FF through ads then I wouldn't be a customer. I pay too much for service to have to be forced into that. Certainly a big down from today.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Never seen this market segment moving so fast.

AT&T Rural Fixed Wireless Deployment Expands to Mississippi - Telecompetitor

Skinny Bundles Boom: Charter, CenturyLink Latest to Target Cord Cutters With Streaming Services

the agency expects to greenlight more projects, said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.

We're one step closer to getting fast, cheap internet from space

FCC greenlights OneWeb to deliver satellite internet in the US

50 mbps, rural subs would be glad to get this if .gov approves.
This powerful bandwidth is in the 600-MHz frequency range and enables wireless signals to travel* over hills *and* through buildings and trees*."

What Does Microsoft's Broadband Initiative Mean For Agriculture?

TV White Space Broadband Speeds Set to Double with 802.22b - Telecompetitor

TV Apps Are Driving Growth for Internet Connected TVs, with 260 Million Installed by 2020 - Finley Engineering


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Exceptional economics.....

********************************
Editor's Corner-The economics of fixed wireless, from LTE to 5G, and what it means for Verizon

Editor's Corner-The economics of fixed wireless, from LTE to 5G, and what it means for Verizon | FierceWireless

Closer to home, Rise Broadband offers an even clearer look at the economics of LTE-powered fixed wireless services. Specifically, the company's co-founder and chief development officer, Jeff Kohler, said recently that fixed deployments typically cost a fifth to a tenth what it would cost to build a comparable wired service. Rise operates fixed wireless services in rural locations in Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and elsewhere in the West. The company's data allotments range from 250 GB per month to 500 GB per month.
********************************


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Well sure, obviously it costs much less in rural areas because running 10 miles of wire that goes by a couple dozen houses costs a lot more than adding an antenna to a cell tower that already exists.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Well sure, obviously it costs much less in rural areas because running 10 miles of wire that goes by a couple dozen houses costs a lot more than adding an antenna to a cell tower that already exists.


True. But look at these numbers. Compare the 10 dollar a home number to the 2.5k that Google Fiber laid out in capx per subscriber. Compelling economics in urban areas (Boston cited blow). It won't be as reliable as fiber, but if you could conceivably pay 20% of current monthly broadband prices for 80% reliability, then you have a gamechanger

******************************************************
"The key to Starry's technology, which uses beamforming to deliver symmetrical broadband speeds as high as 1 Gbps using millimeter wave spectrum over distances as far as 1.5 kilometers, is cost," wrote the Wall Street analysts at MoffettNathanson in a detailed report on Starry issued in April. "With all-in costs for a base station of perhaps $25K, they have already driven their total cost to 'pass' a home to as low as $10 in a dense city like Boston. Their next target is lowering the costs of their CPE equipment, which is currently more than $1,000, to perhaps $200 per home."

Continued MoffettNathanson: "With costs that low, they could offer competitive broadband speeds for a fraction of the current price of wired broadband."
******************************************************


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> It won't be as reliable as fiber, but if you could conceivably pay 20% of current monthly broadband prices for 80% reliability, then you have a gamechanger


reliability should be a top concern. the internet is useless if you can't count on it to work when you need it most.

wireless will never be as reliable as wired. If i was living in an urban area and my provider started neglecting their wired cable or fiber connection in favor of wireless, I would be concerned


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> True. But look at these numbers. Compare the 10 dollar a home number to the 2.5k that Google Fiber laid out in capx per subscriber. Compelling economics in urban areas (Boston cited blow). It won't be as reliable as fiber, but if you could conceivably pay 20% of current monthly broadband prices for 80% reliability, then you have a gamechanger
> 
> ******************************************************
> "The key to Starry's technology, which uses beamforming to deliver symmetrical broadband speeds as high as 1 Gbps using millimeter wave spectrum over distances as far as 1.5 kilometers, is cost," wrote the Wall Street analysts at MoffettNathanson in a detailed report on Starry issued in April. "With all-in costs for a base station of perhaps $25K, they have already driven their total cost to 'pass' a home to as low as $10 in a dense city like Boston. Their next target is lowering the costs of their CPE equipment, which is currently more than $1,000, to perhaps $200 per home."
> ...


There's no need to run fiber to every house. There's a reason why Google gave up on it and Verizon has all but stopped adding new FIOS areas except where it is built in to new developments.

DOCSIS 3 supports gigabit service, as does G.fast. DOCSIS 3 is a relatively cheap upgrade for an existing cable plant, and while G.fast is more involved it is a fraction of the cost of running fiber to every house.

I don't see how anyone is going to be able to do fixed wireless to a dense urban area like Boston. They don't have enough spectrum. If they use the 30 or 60 GHz frequencies they're talking about for 5G they could, but then they will need WAY more base stations because those frequencies require line of sight to the homes being served.

I don't see why wireless can't be as reliable as wired. It isn't like wired internet never goes out - especially if you have cable internet!


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> There's no need to run fiber to every house. There's a reason why Google gave up on it and Verizon has all but stopped adding new FIOS areas except where it is built in to new developments.
> 
> DOCSIS 3 supports gigabit service, as does G.fast. DOCSIS 3 is a relatively cheap upgrade for an existing cable plant, and while G.fast is more involved it is a fraction of the cost of running fiber to every house.
> 
> ...


Here is a good analogy of how Fixed Wireless will be used in the core areas of large cities. AT&T has competitors breathing down their necks, this could get interesting, there is a very high probability that some of the current big names in the industry will not be around 10 years from now.

I used microwave (fixed wireless) 17 years ago, it was just as reliable as wired.

Jump Fiber Bringing High-Speed Internet to Downtown SA


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

I don't see fixed wireless as a solution in urban areas either. Not enough spectrum.

The problem is AT&T and all the big telcos they want to focus on the large urban areas. They will bend over backwards to be the first to bring 100gbps speeds to an urban area. Meanwhile their rural counterparts rot in 26.4kbps dialup speeds.

Fixed wireless (4G frequencies) would work great for sparsely populated rural areas. And while AT&T has released press releases stating their intentions in this area, I'm not really seeing a lot of physical movement with this.

5G at the millimeter wavelength is not going to be an answer for this. The signal just does not go far enough. You would have to build towers 200 feet apart and run fiber to each of those towers for backhaul. That won't work in urban areas and it won't work in rural areas.

AT&T and the big telcos need to address this need for their rural areas or sell off those rural areas to smaller regional telcos that might actually care. And like wise, people living in rural areas, they have to understand that they are never going to reap the full benefits of broadband in an urban area. People living in rural areas will likely never be able to cut the cord and rely solely on streaming services, its part of the cost you pay in living in the rural areas.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

He who controls the utility poles is king.

The new small cells are being placed on utility poles and other installed infrastructure, no towers needed

Battle Begins for Small Cells, Smart Cities | Light Reading

Why Utility Poles Are So Important to the Future of the Internet

Google Fiber gains support from Level 3 in utility pole attachment battle in Nashville | FierceTelecom

Google Fiber battles AT&T, Comcast for utility pole access in Silicon Valley | FierceTelecom

5G can go thru rain/foliage at short distances, 1 small cell on a utility pole can reach approx 40 homes reliably in the compact city/suburban environment. With just 1 fiber hookup.

Khan says even without a clear line of sight, and surrounded by lots of foilage, their base station has delivered hundreds of megabits per second to devices 300 to 400 meters away

C Spire and Phazr Complete 5G Trial With Millimeter Waves in Mississippi

Lightower is no longer.
Due to Lightower's network in the largest northeastern metro markets, it will make Crown Castle the company to beat for small cell deployments in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia.

Industry Voices-Entner: From Dish/Amazon to Crown Castle/Lightower, it's merger mayhem | FierceWireless


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

So, how many small cell utility poles are you going to need to provide access to say a 90 square mile city? Or a 200 square mile city?

At what point does it become unfeasible to run fiber to X number of small cell utility poles and becomes more feasible to just run fiber to the premises in those situations? Why limit yourself to spectrum assets if you're going to be running fiber all over the city to backhaul those small cells?

And in rural areas, who is going to run fiber to a utility pole so that 5 households can get access to the spectrum it will provide? Big telcos have already proven that they aren't going to run fiber into sparsely populated rural areas (which, I'm not saying is the wrong decision). What makes you think they'd do it for 5G small cell antennas on utility poles in rural areas?

I just have a hard time getting excited about 5G on millimeter wavelengths. If they want to run 5G in larger cities like a wider public wifi, I might see that as a possible application. But as a replacement for any type of home broadband connection? I just don't see it.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Click to EXPAND


evotz said:


> So, how many small cell utility poles are you going to need to provide access to say a 90 square mile city? Or a 200 square mile city?
> 
> Millions is the plan, with the IOT being 40 times larger than the human internet, it will require millions of small cells, Tesla to release its affordable electric self driving car this Friday, just think how many internet connections are going to be needed to support the new IOT, human internet connections although many, will seem small compared to the IOT small cells. Take a look at the stock of small cell producers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AT&T has reason to speed up their fixed wireless rollout, competitors are coming at them from all directions.

Hammer Fiber, Go Long Deal to Support National Pre-5G Fixed Wireless Expansion Plan - Telecompetitor


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Tennessee gets AT&T Fixed Wireless, AT&T is really lighting a fire with their Fixed wireless rollout.

AT&T offers Fixed Wireless Internet to McMinn & Meigs

2 million wireless hookups coming from Microsoft

Another bid to close the rural digital divide -- GCN

A new $3 dollar TV bundle coming, you can bet somebody is going to do it.

Discovery Interest in Scripps Driven by Visions of $3 TV Bundle

Lookout AT&T, 15 buck TV package being introduced here.

OTT Wars Just Got More Interesting, Xfinity Instant TV Now on Deck - Telecompetitor

Are these subs switching to Internet TV?
The company said nearly half of DirecTV Now customers are coming from competitor pay-TV providers, rather than cannibalizing AT&T's base.
Where is the other half coming from?

DirecTV is proving good for AT&T's wireless business, bad for TV

Interesting numbers

Online TV Is Growing Too Slowly to Stop the Bleeding in Cable

Some important market developments over the past year could also potentially move the needle on FWA viability. First, more spectrum is becoming available, with new bands, carrier aggregation techniques and new capacity becoming available from LAA, CBRS and so on. In the mmWave bands, the wide 200 MHz to 1 GHz channel swaths support, at least in theory, game-changing speed and capacity improvements. There is a gap in mid-band spectrum options-something the FCC is looking at-which could open up new opportunities for FWA in ex-urban type areas.

Industry Voices-Lowenstein's View: The next year is critical for fixed wireless access | FierceWireless


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

That $3 TV bundle is just for Discovery's (and presumably Scripps) channels. If things go the way CBS and Discovery are moving, there will be a lot of $3-$7 packages for a groups of channels, and you can be sure networks will buy channels from each other to try to insure each package has something the typical person wants so you'll have to buy a dozen of them, plus each of the four networks, and you'll be paying as much as today but billing will be a lot more of a pain and exclusives will probably mean a single streaming box doesn't even work for all of them!


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

I do not think the 100 dollar plus cable bill will be the norm in the future. I am thinking 35 dollars and south will be the norm. With the real, targeted advertising model, no truck rolls, no customer equipment, etc.. People are discovering they do not watch all the junk channels in the monster size cable package. Say, four, 3 dollar packages with 12-15 of your favorite channels, plus all the thousands of free stuff out there, could very well be the norm. Sure, there will be the TV nuts and the wealthy that will subscribe to the old mega everything pack but it will not be the norm. Going to be interesting, we shall see.
Really don't know who will be paying the bills, automation is hitting every sector.
The Hidden (Human) Cost of Automation | Light Reading

Grocery-Stocking Robots Will Soon Take over St. Louis Area Supermarkets - Breitbart


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Just the four locals cost me over $9/month on my cable bill (Mediacom breaks them out separately and passes through 100% of what they're paying) so good luck if you think you'll be able to get $3 packages with anything but crap channels filled with stuff like Storage Wars and Gold Rush.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Just the four locals cost me over $9/month on my cable bill (Mediacom breaks them out separately and passes through 100% of what they're paying) so good luck if you think you'll be able to get $3 packages with anything but crap channels filled with stuff like Storage Wars and Gold Rush.


Frankly, if you live in a metropolitan area, the OTA HD signal is better than the corresponding PayTv one for all major networks.

And unless you are a sports fan, you can do without PayTv.

But if you are a sports fan, expect to continue to weather annual price hikes of 6% or more, per year. ESPN recently announced that as their current carriage agreements lapse, it will be seeking a 6% annual hike per sub, up from today's 5%.

Meanwhile, the TIPS Treasury Market indicator is forecasting an annual inflation rate of 1.8% over the next decade


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Frankly, if you live in a metropolitan area, the OTA HD signal is better than the corresponding PayTv one for all major networks.


That may be true in a very few metropolitan areas, but often the reverse is true.



> And unless you are a sports fan, you can do without PayTv.


You can. I could, but choose to not do without.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Antenna sales are going up, kinda proves the point, the old model of TV is new again.
All is good for DirectTV Now.

TV Antennas Make a Comeback

TV antenna sales on the rise

Optimistic Outlook On Multicast's Prospects | TVNewsCheck.com

AT&T DirectTV Now will have to be compatible with android soon, everything going android.

How Dish is Winning by Cannibalizing Itself: AirTV, Dish-on-a-Stick, Native Alexa Voice

Industry Survey: Android TV To Become Market Leader By 2025 | Androidheadlines.com

Android TV: Here's A New Android TV Device From CenturyLink & LG | Androidheadlines.com


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Everything is not "going Android", nor are antenna manufacturers riding a boom of any magnitude.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Perfect scenario for AT&T's fixed wireless and DirectTV Now skinny (cheap)pack.

Pay TV loses ground to antenna-only households

But wait, there's more, when the new standard hits there will be more defections to OTA.

The other major feature - called conditional access - will let viewers have access to over-the-top subscriptions such as Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Video through over-the-air 6MHz transmissions rather than having to use their data plans, resulting in a dramatic increase in the capacity to deliver mobile video content over the new few years.

ATSC 3.0 will change watching TV on mobiles


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I think ATSC 3.0 on mobile is all hype no substance. No phones have a TV tuner built in, not in the US and not for other standards elsewhere like DVB-T or ISDB-T. Why would that change with ATSC 3.0?

The idea of subscription services delivered over ATSC to avoid using cellular data is silly, when people get bigger and bigger buckets of data every year. Especially in a thread about fixed wireless that will feature broadband level data allotments. Using ATSC 3.0 for mobile services to avoid using mobile data solves a problem that existed 5-10 years ago, but not really today and definitely not in a few years when ATSC 3.0 stations actually appear.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bedford11 said:


> Here is a good analogy of how Fixed Wireless will be used in the core areas of large cities. AT&T has competitors breathing down their necks, this could get interesting, there is a very high probability that some of the current big names in the industry will not be around 10 years from now.
> 
> I used microwave (fixed wireless) 17 years ago, it was just as reliable as wired.


What you used 17 years ago is not the same as the fixed wireless AT&T and others are working on.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

I laughed when I saw the comment from Rise Broadband. Available here in Allen TX $50 for 5Mbps, although most people get 2Mpbs or less in practice. Pathetic.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> No phones have a TV tuner built in, not in the US and not for other standards elsewhere like DVB-T or ISDB-T.


Please stop repeating this false claim. Nearly every phone sold in Japan supports 1seg (the mobile segment of a station's ISDB-T signal), even non-smartphones. (That's actually how most people got information following the earthquake and Tsunami since 1seg is more than just live TV, it can be watched in portrait mode with the video on the top half of the screen and the bottom half of the screen displaying interactive text broadcasted by the station)

DVB-H also got some traction starting in the mid-00s on phones sold in the western european countries that offered a DVB-H service. In DVB-H's case though, it didn't help that in many countries it was treated as a seperate service, and in some countires they were subscription only services similar to the old MediaFLO service we had, and right when it started getting traction, the app explosion happened and they were just offering things people can get for free with apps from the individual networks.

As for not in the US, that's because for ATSC we chose a standard that didn't support in motion reception and still required a large external antenna in most areas outside of the immediate suburbs (so unlike countries where 1seg/ISDB-T and DVB-H are the standard, there was no point in including an ATSC tuner). Even the early standalone battery powered portable ATSC TVs failed because of it (compared to pocket analog TVs which remained popular up until the transition). And when ATSC M/H came around, only very few markets got it, only one or two stations broadcasted it in those markets, and it still required an external antenna. Some mobile chipsets like Qualcomm's Snapdragon series included support where ATSC M/H could be integrated, but since the coverage was only in limited areas, as well as stubborn carriers who rather have you subscribe to a higher data plan to stream the content instead, none of the US carriers included it on the phones manufacturers customized for their bands.

As for claims about not wanting to watch TV on the go, if no one wanted to watch TV on the phone, things like WatchESPN, WatchABC, WatchDisney, Fox Now, Fox Sports Go and provider apps wouldn't be some of the most popular mobile phone apps... (Not to mention the annual complaints when people with AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile find out that they can't watch their in-market NFL games on their phones)

What ATSC 3.0 is proposing is a mobile system similar to what 1seg or ATSC M/H offers. Mobile specific streams using codecs and resolutions that most phones can handle natively, with the possibility of interactive services similar to 1seg that can be used for content like emergency information. (As opposed to our current mobile alert system that just gives a vague text of what the alert is, when it expires and telling you to check local media for details) i.e. during a hurricane, instead of everyone going on the mobile networks to get the latest information, local stations can broadcast interactive radar images, evacuation maps, routes and locations of shelters.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AT&T will not have a monopoly with its fixed wireless and DirecTV Now service, So, So much is happening/changing in the industry. Who knows who will survive. With the promise of much better antenna reception and the new features the new standard could be a net plus for fixed wireless and DirectTV Now.
Local broadcasters want and will get their share with ATSC 3.0, local broadcasting is so important to citizens, Cell phones with tv tuners in 2019/20.
it's unlikely that 3.0 broadcasts will be widespread until later in* 2018 *and early *2019.* And it could take far longer than that before the transition from ATSC 1.0 to ATSC 3.0 is completed.

ATSC 3.0 is not only going to be a cord cutter's dream come true, it's likely to give wireless network providers a taste of added competition.

the signal strength of upcoming ATSC 3.0 broadcast promises to be stronger than today's digital broadcast. Those of us who switched from analog to digital over-air broadcast TV learned quickly that our present digital signal strength is weaker than analog. But the new digital standard will make up for this with the inclusion of an adaptable frequency feature that the ATSC says will specialize in, allowing signals to travel further and to penetrate deeper into buildings and basements within range.

That means broadcast TV promises to be relevant again, even as you travel the subway. In the near future you'll be able to pull out your tablet, run your network TV app and start watching a local sporting event.

ATSC 3.0: Cord Cutter's Dream or Tiered Internet Nightmare?

Free Over-the-Air TV Is Going to Get Better

Sinclair, Nexstar Team on ATSC 3.0 Launch in 97 Markets

ATSC 3.0 chips in the iPhone and other smartphones? Don't hold your breath | FierceCable

"The real competitors these days are not the local newspaper and not iHeartRadio or Entercom - they're Google and Facebook,
"We're playing in the land of the giants."

Inside Sinclair: CEO Nixes Fox News Rival Rumors, Talks Tribune and Big Ambition for Broadcast Biz

DirecTV Now Carries More Than 100 Live Local TV Channels | Multichannel

Television is smack in the midst of a technological rebirth on the order of a Mars mission,

Q&A: Renu Thomas on Disney|ABC's Technology Future

The transition is already underway. Disney/ABC Television is moving its TV channels to a cloud-based virtual master control.

Virtualization Will Turn Broadcasters into Orchestrators

Optimistic Outlook On Multicast's Prospects | TVNewsCheck.com

He did not commit to a vote on the ATSC 3.0 proposal before the end of the year but said that was the goal depending on where the facts led them, as was improving the standard.

Ajit Pai Promises Action on Smaller Spectrum Winners | Broadcasting & Cable


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Anyone know the patent licensing story on ATSC 3.0? Any hope for getting it into cellular chipsets hinges on it being free or almost free to do so. I recall reading that a decade ago ATSC 1.0 patent licensing costs were $10-$20 per device. ATSC 3.0 needs to be pennies before it would be considered in phones. FM has no traction in phones despite zero patent licensing costs.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> FM has no traction in phones despite zero patent licensing costs.


Wrong again, all of these devices have their FM chip enabled:
Supported Devices - NextRadio


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

atsc 3.0 has the ability for broadcasters to encrypt their their programming. Meaning they could require you to pay them for access to it. Seems like a cord cutter's nightmare to me


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

They can already encrypt their programming with ATSC 1.0, many Ion stations have a bunch of encrypted streams for the airbox service on their signal. Although the rules state that they have to offer at least one stream in the clear.

There's just no money in it because then you have to establish an infrastructure to handle authorizations and sales, most likely design and distribute your own set top boxes, as well as lower your advertising rates if you're no longer free to air, so it's mostly limited to 3rd party services like Airbox leasing space from other stations to offer existing channels like Showtime and Starz. Outside of Airbox, which is still barely a blip on the radar, most of the other attempts at having a subscription OTA service quickly folded.

Encryption of OTA isn't anything new either, they were able to do it during the analog era with services like SelecTV, ONTV, Preview, WHT, Z Channel and others, but once cable was seen as more than just "Community Antenna TV" and reached the big cities with a wider selection of programming, they too eventually folded. (i.e. while Long Island got cable in the 60s and 70s, and most of Manhattan got it in the 70s as a way to deal with multipath, many portions of the outer boroughs of NYC didn't get cable until the 80s, once that happened WHT quickly folded)


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

KyL416 said:


> They can already encrypt their programming with ATSC 1.0, many Ion stations have a bunch of encrypted streams for the airbox service on their signal. Although the rules state that they have to offer at least one stream in the clear.
> 
> There's just no money in it because then you have to establish an infrastructure to handle authorizations and sales, most likely design and distribute your own set top boxes, as well as lower your advertising rates if you're no longer free to air, so it's mostly limited to 3rd party services like Airbox leasing space from other stations to offer existing channels like Showtime and Starz. Outside of Airbox, which is still barely a blip on the radar, most of the other attempts at having a subscription OTA service quickly folded.
> 
> Encryption of OTA isn't anything new either, they were able to do it during the analog era with services like SelecTV, ONTV, Preview, WHT, Z Channel and others, but once cable was seen as more than just "Community Antenna TV" and reached the big cities with a wider selection of programming, they too eventually folded. (i.e. while Long Island got cable in the 60s and 70s, and most of Manhattan got it in the 70s as a way to deal with multipath, many portions of the outer boroughs of NYC didn't get cable until the 80s, once that happened WHT quickly folded)


You were not kidding about ION stations, your comment got me curious so I took a look:


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

KyL416 said:


> Wrong again, all of these devices have their FM chip enabled:
> Supported Devices - NextRadio


By "no traction" I mean few people use it. I don't know anyone who listens to FM radio on their phone. Or at all for that matter, except in their car. If it was a big deal you wouldn't see the chips disabled in so many phones or on certain carriers, the people would be choosing to buy phones or select carriers that have it enabled. But no one cares.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> If it was a big deal you wouldn't see the chips disabled in so many phones or on certain carriers.


Did you even read the list? No carrier is opting out of it anymore, models from AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, US Cellular as well as virtual carriers likes Virgin, Cricket and Boost are on it. And this isn't just some random niche phones, it's mainstream models like every Samsung Galaxy since the S5, the HTC One line, LG, among others. If you go down some of the lines you see the list of carriers grow as newer models cameout, some of it took longer due to stubborness, others were more technical because until recently some of the chipsets they needed for their specific bands and technologies didn't support FM at all.

This list is just what devices support Next Radio though, there's other models that support FM but for various reasons not Next Radio. Either due to using a non-standard implementation of FM that doesn't expose the tuner to 3rd party apps, or because official updates for the model ended. (i.e. the original Galaxy SII supports FM, but updates for it ended after 4.1.2, while NextRadio requires 4.2)

The big odd one out is the iPhone, which for obvious reasons couldn't even enable the chip anymore if they wanted to, unless you only want to receive a station while you're standing in front of their tower.

As for why to use it. Here's a big example, since more and more teams are now on FM instead of AM, going to a MLB or NFL game. Due to rights, these games are not available on their web streams, the only way to get them in real time is with an actual radio, since even if you subscribed to the league's streaming audio services, you would be hearing the commentary on a minute or more delay because of buffering and latency.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Love all this "cord cutter" discussion - what people are suggesting is cutting 1 cord and replacing it with 1 or many more cords. I wonder, and time will tell, how many who leave the cable / sat world come back after a while due to inconvenience of many or too technical solution. The only thing that is really wrong with the current world is cost. In my family people have trouble figuring out how to switch from DTV to Blue Ray player. I'd hate to see what would happen if I added a couple of other sources.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I think there are two classes of people who will benefit most from cord cutting:

1. people who have relatively narrow interests
2. people who have a ton of TVs

The former because they could get by with really skinny packages and not care that they don't have sports, cable news, or kids programming for example. The latter because the monthly equipment/TV fees will really add up if you have a dozen TVs whereas putting a set top or even two set tops on each is a lot cheaper in the long run.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

What is the point of having "a ton" of TVs if one doesn't watch them? Disconnected TV sets (used for gaming, DVD/Blurays, etc) don't count against a traditional subscription so one could trim unused sets and keep a traditional subscription in key locations where subscriptions are needed. But that is cord trimming, not cord cutting.

And going from a traditional subscription to SlingTV, DIRECTV Now or other package services is just cord swapping ... trading off the long commitments for reduced content.

As far as "narrow interests" go, I see a lot of compromise in getting a "skinny" package. For me it would be the easiest way of subscribing to channels I do not watch. I only watch one sport (NASCAR) so I have no need for RSNs. But the channels I do watch require more than one bundle.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Anybody receive an invite?
DirecTV Now Seeking Cloud DVR Testers | Multichannel

Bipartisan effort, wow!
Congress Pushes FCC to Use White Spaces for Rural Broadband


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Another one and another one, seeing one,two sometimes three announcements for AT&T fixed wireless every week. I now see how they are getting to 400,000 locations by the end of the year.
VIDEO: Wireless Internet Becomes Available in Rural Mississippi


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

13,000 locations coming for North Carolina.

AT&T fixed wireless Internet service launches in parts of rural Triangle :: Editor's Blog at WRAL TechWire


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

It's happening, 66 thousand locations for rural Alabama.

3 towers to reach 700 customers.

Approx: 285 towers needed to reach the 66 thousand locations.

Chilton County wireless accessibility expanding | The Clanton Advertiser


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

!0 mb/sec? 160Gb per month? Hardly earth shattering. And in any case, the wheels are rapidly coming off the streaming business. 
I agree with ctjon's post. So how many services do I need to get the channels I want? All the program providers think they can make more money by distributing the programs themselves, cutting out the middle man. Cord cutting is turning into multiple cords....


Bedford11 said:


> It's happening, 66 thousand locations for rural Alabama.
> 
> 3 towers to reach 700 customers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

The real breakthrough here is choice.

Rural customers have new options. Antenna, DSL, and now Fixed Wireless, soon there will be other fixed wireless providers vying for their dollars, speed and data buckets will go up, pricing down.

Disney streaming venture could make bloated pay-TV bundles obsolete


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I'm not sure why anyone thought it would be different. Networks were getting paid by the 80% or whatever of households who had cable or satellite, and aren't going to accept less without a lot of kicking and screaming. So long as streaming was only to people who already paid for cable/satellite, or never were going to anyway, it made a network look like they were on the cutting edge of technology and expanded their viewership.

Now that cable/satellite subscriptions have begun to fall due to streaming, networks are having to revisit how it affects their bottom line. The streaming providers are not going to be able to make the great deals that let them undercut traditional cable/satellite providers any longer they're going to charge the same rates no matter the deliver method. The networks will also move towards offering their own content direct to consumers for those who want to pick and choose instead of getting a traditional package - at a higher price than they charge third party providers because they have to compensate for the fact that previously almost everyone was paying them. Now only those who want their content will pay them.

These last few years will be looked back on as the golden age of streaming, when you still could save a bunch of money by cutting the cord without having to give up programming.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

CTJon said:


> Love all this "cord cutter" discussion - what people are suggesting is cutting 1 cord and replacing it with 1 or many more cords. I wonder, and time will tell, how many who leave the cable / sat world come back after a while due to inconvenience of many or too technical solution. The only thing that is really wrong with the current world is cost. In my family people have trouble figuring out how to switch from DTV to Blue Ray player. I'd hate to see what would happen if I added a couple of other sources.


No cord-cutter has reported higher bills relative to PayTv. Concessions made? Of course, such as no sports programming. But cord-cutting isn't really an option for sports fanatics, including those that want to watch the local baseball team


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> The networks will also move towards offering their own content direct to consumers for those who want to pick and choose instead of getting a traditional package - at a higher price than they charge third party providers because they have to compensate for the fact that previously almost everyone was paying them. Now only those who want their content will pay them.
> 
> These last few years will be looked back on as the golden age of streaming, when you still could save a bunch of money by cutting the cord without having to give up programming.


Or they'll simply have to absorb the costs. And if they can't, declare bankruptcy.

Look at SportsNetLa. It thought it could get all PayTv providers to charge every PayTv subscriber 5 dollars a month (increasing every year at a rate well above inflation) for the Dodgers. DTV and other distributors balked. And SportsNetLa will have to write off hundreds of millions of dollars it has promised the Dodgers thru 2037.

And 70% of the LA area is content with not having access to Dodgers baseball


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Not going back.
80% of the younger TV viewers now stream some or all of their content. This requires an internet connection of say 50 bucks per month. No way they are going to pay for an 80 dollar TV package on top of that 50 bucks. The new typical TV package will be 35 dollars and south. Look at how both DirectTV Now and Dish Sling have priced their packages, (they know something). No need for truck rolls, giant call centers, large employee pools, etc.,etc., will, and is making this possible. Automation in every sector is here and growing, we have to adapt.

We have new spectrum opening up such as T-mobiles 600mhz. that will be spreading very rapidly, opening up more and more fixed wireless coverage. Rural residents need to start salivating now, things are rapidly progressing.

T-Mobile just took a huge step towards beating Verizon once and for all

T-Mobile boosts coverage with the first 600MHz LTE network


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

The railroads of the 21st century

Get ready. The entire communications landscape is about to change.

Just as long-distance telephony, once a thriving business separate from local telephone service, was obliterated by technology advances, 5G is likely to make the current separation of broadband into fixed and mobile services obsolete.

Industry Voices-Rysavy: Why 5G will be a game changer | FierceWireless


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Or they'll simply have to absorb the costs. And if they can't, declare bankruptcy.
> 
> Look at SportsNetLa. It thought it could get all PayTv providers to charge every PayTv subscriber 5 dollars a month (increasing every year at a rate well above inflation) for the Dodgers. DTV and other distributors balked. And SportsNetLa will have to write off hundreds of millions of dollars it has promised the Dodgers thru 2037.
> 
> And 70% of the LA area is content with not having access to Dodgers baseball


Sports is a different story. They aren't going to be able to make a bunch of people who don't watch pay for them as is happening today. However, most of that money goes to the teams - players and owners. They'll get less.

It isn't like non-sports networks are rolling in cash. They do all right, but there isn't a lot of room for them to make major concessions. If they do, it'll be in the form of producing fewer / lower quality shows. People point to Netflix as an example of streaming's "success". They've racked up over $20 billion in losses so far, and are on target to lose another $2.5 billion this year. That's obviously not sustainable, at some point the share price will collapse if they don't show profits, and that means either they raise prices, get more customers, or cut back on original shows.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I'd love to count the number of articles saying the old cable / sat world is dead. Sure there are people for whom doing without sports or some other part of the entertainment world is fine. Whatever Disney does will not be cheap - that isn't their thing. I'd bet that 5 years from now most people are still on cable/sat and more and more companies are offering their own thing. No alternatives will offer the convenience and ease of the old way. Forgetting about ESPN which maybe separate - how many things does Disney come out with that would make you want to subscribe monthly? How many companies can produce their own series that would be worth monthly subscriptions? How many people can keep track of what service has what shows and what DVR has which things they recorded.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AT&T pursues 13,000 locations in North Carolina to receive Fixed Wireless service.

Rural Rutherford Co. getting fixed wireless internet


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

AT&T completes install of Fixed Wireless Service in MS., 1st. for the planned one hundred and thirty three thousand locations in MS.

New DeSoto County service is latest shot in war to bring internet access to rural areas

AT&T brings high-speed internet to rural DeSoto County

Kentucky begins to roll out AT&T Fixed Wireless service. 84,000 locations for Kentucky.

High speed internet available in Harlan

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...announces-internet-project-in-kentucky-county


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

32 thousand locations in Tenn. to get AT&T fixed wireless by the end of the year.
Fixed wireless can be installed at lightning speeds.

Fayetteville, Breaking News, Newspaper, Lincoln County, Park City, Flintville, Petersburg, Redstone, Huntsville, Hazel Green, Goodman, Frito-Lay, Stonebridge, Elk River, Distillery, Motlow, Fair in Tennessee,TN, Sign Dept.

Rural N.C. to get AT&T fixed wireless

AT&T announces high-speed wireless internet in North Iredell


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

Is there a reason that Verizon does not do something like this.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

bcltoys said:


> Is there a reason that Verizon does not do something like this.


They are, but their plans appear to involve major cities, not the rural areas that AT&T is targeting.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Verizon is too busy trying to recover after their "number 1 network" was exposed when they went to unlimited data and their network slowed considerably. Easy to have the fastest network when nobody is allowed to use it


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

Will this service ever come to states/areas that do not have AT&T wireline services. Or is this AT&T areas only.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

bcltoys said:


> Will this service ever come to states/areas that do not have AT&T wireline services. Or is this AT&T areas only.


It won't be limited to just AT&T's wireline footprint, because it is based on cellular technology - where they're already in 50 states. They might have some additional regulatory hurdles in some states they don't already sell internet services though.


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> It won't be limited to just AT&T's wireline footprint, because it is based on cellular technology - where they're already in 50 states. They might have some additional regulatory hurdles in some states they don't already sell internet services though.


Got it.


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

What about range how far from the tower's is this useful.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

bcltoys said:


> What about range how far from the tower's is this useful.


Editor's Corner-The economics of fixed wireless, from LTE to 5G, and what it means for Verizon | FierceWireless

Kohler cautioned that actual, real-world speeds are often determined by receivers' distance from Rise towers. He said most Rise customers live 3 to 4 miles away from the company's towers. As for customers' receivers, often called customer premises equipment (CPE) Kohler said that an LTE receiver typically costs $100 to $200, or around half the cost of most nonstandard receivers.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

so has anyone come across someone that is actually using At&t's fixed wireless service yet?


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

Bump.


----------



## mgmrick (Oct 19, 2004)

Yes not much going on... real slow roll out,

I do use att's home base 4g lte home internet. A twenty dollar addon to my phone plan. It puts to shame my other options


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

where's our AT&T spokesperson bedford at?

I thought at&t was suppose to have revolutionized rural broadband internet by this point 

anyways... i have yet to find a single person that actually has the at&t fixed wireless plan


----------



## bcltoys (Feb 11, 2009)

I my area Cecil County Md only 206 people have AT&T local service so I don't think I will ever see this service anyway. I saw that AT&T has raised there wireless home phone and internet from 50 to 100 GB for the same 100.00 a month.


----------



## skoolpsyk (May 24, 2007)

they are trying to put a tower up in our rural community but where I thought people would be happy to finally get decent internet, I find out they're fighting it because of the aesthetics...

currently we pay $30/mo. for less than 1M download...


----------

