# AT&T To Launch Full DTV Using The Internet This Fall



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

AT&T to Introduce Broadband-Delivered OTT DirecTV Product

In the article it says it will cost $80 to $90 a month vs. $120 to $200 a month for the SatelliteTV product.

In addition to this announcement the DTV Now cloud DVR is being released but the DTV NOW prices will be going up.

AT&T CEO: "Radical" Upgrades to DIRECTV NOW Will Increase Price; OTT Alternative to DIRECTV DBS on Tap as Well - Telecompetitor


----------



## c_l_phillips72 (Jul 16, 2017)

That’s a high starting price, IMO. If I were to pay that much, I’d stick with regular cable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

I just bought an Apple TV 4K. No mention of a cloud DVR.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

The cloud DVR was only for select invites on the Beta app but now they are opening it up to everyone but you still have to use the Beta app to get the Cloud DVR.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

CraigerM said:


> The cloud DVR was only for select invites on the Beta app but now they are opening it up to everyone but you still have to use the Beta app to get the Cloud DVR.


That's not correct. All you need to do is update the Apple TV DIRECTV Now app to the latest version and the DVR function is there, don't need to be part of the beta anymore.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

The article states........'The offering is also expected to allow the company to provide service in locations where customers could not receive a satellite signal or in apartment complexes that do not allow satellite dish installation.' Isn't that what DirecTV Now already does? What am I missing? Why would anybody choose the new offering over DirecTV Now and pay more money for it?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Looks like we need open a new forum here - "ATT OTT"


----------



## VaJim (Jul 27, 2006)

This sounds interesting. Now they need to do away with the contract concept and reduce the cost of the NFL ST and I 'may' come back. Perhaps the NFL ST will never be available for streaming..??

Where did they come up with the term OTT (over-the-top)?

Where is the Smithsonian Channel?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I wonder what this "thinner lighter CPE" entails? I can only assume this means it'll use 'cloud DVR' so it will be clients only, no server? Apparently sometime recently Directv deleted all the cloud DVR recordings for local stations that were dropped in a dispute. Stuff like that (and the fact your recordings expire after x days, at least on Directv Now) makes me VERY leery about the idea!

They claim customer acquisition costs will be a quarter of what they are with satellite, but I think they're fibbing a bit here. They've long claimed CAG of around $800 for satellite. Clearly it doesn't cost them anywhere near $800 to send an installer to your house, but they've never been clear what all that $800 includes. Obviously it includes marketing costs, and it may also include the cost of equipment - though if so that's a fallacy because customers MORE than pay that back with the $7/month fees. They make a ton of profit off those equipment fees, and accounting for it as a lease confers tax benefits as well! If the IPTV CAG is only $200 maybe they think IPTV will be easier to sell than satellite so will need less marketing, or if it includes equipment cost means there's no Genie and you're stuck with cloud DVR.

He says advertising will go from $7-$8 per thousand impressions today to $30-$35 per thousand impressions by using targeted advertising. But this isn't specific to IPTV, they can do this with satellite. Most Directv customers have an internet connected DVR, so there is no difference in the targeted advertising that is possible with Directv IPTV vs Directv satellite for those DVR/internet customers. This seems like a line targeted at Wall Street analysts who want to hear a good story and lack critical thinking skills.

The $80-$90 vs current pricing is easily explained - that's the price people get today with Directv if they are good at getting discounts. They can build those discounts into the price structure for IPTV, making it more competitive with alternatives. If the CAG is that much lower (regardless of how they are calculating it) then they will care less if people leave, and won't give people $50 off per month for a year to keep them around. The lower monthly price won't be as profitable per customer, but if the lower price helps them get enough additional customers they'll be more profitable overall.

They might not have a choice but to charge less if they want to use the same package prices they use for standard Directv, because they'll lose some of the add-on fees. I mean, it would be kind of hard to charge an "advanced receiver fee" if there's no advanced receiver, HD is taken for granted in a product offered in 2018, and charging for 'whole home' when using the customer's network would be rather hard to justify 

A couple years ago Deutsche Bank estimated that Directv was paying about $65/customer on average for content, and the APRU was just under $120. The APRU is a little higher now, and that content cost is probably pushing $70 these days.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I wonder what this "thinner lighter CPE" entails? I can only assume this means it'll use 'cloud DVR' so it will be clients only, no server? Apparently sometime recently Directv deleted all the cloud DVR recordings for local stations that were dropped in a dispute. Stuff like that (and the fact your recordings expire after x days, at least on Directv Now) makes me VERY leery about the idea!
> 
> They claim customer acquisition costs will be a quarter of what they are with satellite, but I think they're fibbing a bit here. They've long claimed CAG of around $800 for satellite. Clearly it doesn't cost them anywhere near $800 to send an installer to your house, but they've never been clear what all that $800 includes. Obviously it includes marketing costs, and it may also include the cost of equipment - though if so that's a fallacy because customers MORE than pay that back with the $7/month fees. They make a ton of profit off those equipment fees, and accounting for it as a lease confers tax benefits as well! If the IPTV CAG is only $200 maybe they think IPTV will be easier to sell than satellite so will need less marketing, or if it includes equipment cost means there's no Genie and you're stuck with cloud DVR.
> 
> ...


Aren't they supposed to use this box for this new service?

ATTC71KW Wireless STB User Manual Wistron NeWeb Corporation


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

machavez00 said:


> I just bought an Apple TV 4K. No mention of a cloud DVR.


Cable Replacement Services such as D*Now have cloud DVRs. Streaming devices like the ATVs don't have cloud DVRs.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TDK1044 said:


> The article states........'The offering is also expected to allow the company to provide service in locations where customers could not receive a satellite signal or in apartment complexes that do not allow satellite dish installation.' Isn't that what DirecTV Now already does? What am I missing? Why would anybody choose the new offering over DirecTV Now and pay more money for it?


You do make a good point. Seems like another panic attack...

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DIRECTV NOW raising the price to $40-$60 per month.
A new offering with "all DBS channels" for $80-$90 per month.
DIRECTV Premier is currently $115 per month.

IF (big if) the new "all DBS channels" offering truly is all channels (330+ in Premier according to the DIRECTV website) and the $90 price point sticks it will be a competitive deal. But if it is not a 330+ channel offering or the price drifts up it is not an incredible savings. And the new service will likely be limited in ways that the current satellite service is not limited. Perhaps lower equipment fees will sweeten the deal ... perhaps the offer will be $90 plus equipment fees. Until the actual offer is available to subscribers (not "forward looking statements" that may be altered) I'll read the comments with caution.

The $15 "advertiser supported" skinny bundle seems optimistic. The article notes that the $30-$35 CPM (cost per thousand impressions) is lower than last year's estimate ($35-$40). Last years estimate for non-targeted ads was also higher ($12-$13 instead of $7-$8 per thousand impressions). AT&T needs to make more money on advertising to have an advertiser supported system - not less. And the introduction of non-skipable ads is a negative. (Perhaps they will have a $30 tier with skipable ads?) Waiting for reality to see what actually is available to subscribers.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

James Long said:


> DIRECTV NOW raising the price to $40-$60 per month.
> A new offering with "all DBS channels" for $80-$90 per month.
> DIRECTV Premier is currently $115 per month.
> 
> ...


That will be the interesting thing to see if its the same DirecTV SatelliteTV packages offered using OTT because they don't even have all the locals for DTV NOW yet.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Customer SAC (subscriber acquisition cost) of $800 includes not only the installer, the equipment used, but any and all marketing/advertising to get that customer. Even credit checks as part of activation fees. Essentially just about any cost to get the customers account live is in SAC. Yes even the boxes. They capitalize them over xx years and also depreciate them. The $7/month is income that pays for the SAC, among other things.

Also the new service does have 20 hours of DVR free. If you want 100 hours, that's $10 extra per month.

I wonder for anyone that cut the cord 100%, relies on only streaming to their big TV's and mobile devices, what is a typical 1 month internet usage look like. How many TB to cover it with a family of 4? That's the other cost to consider for in home use.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Similar to other offerings I think the real details will make the difference. I believe the new NOW allows 3 simultaneous usage vs 2 for previous - is that enough for many people - probably not. Also, how many people can live with the cloud dvr limitations even with the up charge. I'm a record, watch and delete person but I'm not sure I could live with that - go away for a few days vacation and ??? I don't like the cloud DVR where I don't have control but that seems to be where the world is heading.
With all this cloud stuff I wonder when the ISP's will limit or greatly increase costs for Internet. Today many make money on the cable TV service along with the Internet but when they lose the cable and that revenue will internet go way up. Remember, when cell phone service started the data was "free" or unlimited and you were charged a lot for more than 100 calls and 200 text a month - then that all changed and changed again. 
Although I don't like the costs I like the DTV model and presentation.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NR4P said:


> Customer SAC (subscriber acquisition cost) of $800 includes not only the installer, the equipment used, but any and all marketing/advertising to get that customer. Even credit checks as part of activation fees. Essentially just about any cost to get the customers account live is in SAC. Yes even the boxes. They capitalize them over xx years and also depreciate them. The $7/month is income that pays for the SAC, among other things.
> 
> Also the new service does have 20 hours of DVR free. If you want 100 hours, that's $10 extra per month.
> 
> I wonder for anyone that cut the cord 100%, relies on only streaming to their big TV's and mobile devices, what is a typical 1 month internet usage look like. How many TB to cover it with a family of 4? That's the other cost to consider for in home use.


I actually just shook my head and laughed when I read the article. An extra fee for this, an extra fee for that...typical AT&T. It always makes me think that they either think their customers are math challenged or that is their target audience. They like to keep the price they can advertise as low as possible but they make sure that they construct the offering and addons in such a way that almost no one ever pays that price. That sort of nonsense with all the extra fees is one of the reasons people are looking at these OTT offerings as alternatives. Thankfully for me PSVue has all my locals and the other channels I need/want. So my target currently is unlimited DVR storage and 5 simultaneous streams for $40 per month. Clearly DirecTV Now is still missing the mark for me. All that said I do appreciate D being in the OTT space. The more competitors the better. One of the huge benefits of these OTT offerings is the near zero switching friction for the consumer. That will help ensure continued downward pressure on prices. That is obviously tough on the providers as it puts much more pressure on margins but good for consumers.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Aren't they supposed to use this box for this new service?
> 
> ATTC71KW Wireless STB User Manual Wistron NeWeb Corporation


Presumably, but the manual for that talks about it working with the HS27. Maybe the HS27 is only used with it for satellite - i.e. the C71KW can be standalone for the IPTV product if it uses cloud DVR. That's what isn't clear yet, but in order to save a big wad on CAG they almost have to drop the server from the IPTV product.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> That will be the interesting thing to see if its the same DirecTV SatelliteTV packages offered using OTT because they don't even have all the locals for DTV NOW yet.


Maybe they're able to use the Directv satellite contracts for locals due to the way their IPTV product is delivered (i.e. to Directv owned equipment) rather than the OTT product which is delivered to customer owned equipment? Or maybe they anticipate having all the locals signed for OTT by then? Hard to tell.

One of the many things about this new service that isn't clear yet.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I wonder what this "thinner lighter CPE" entails? I can only assume this means it'll use 'cloud DVR' so it will be clients only, no server? Apparently sometime recently Directv deleted all the cloud DVR recordings for local stations that were dropped in a dispute. Stuff like that (and the fact your recordings expire after x days, at least on Directv Now) makes me VERY leery about the idea!


Good heavens, man, how many times have I been over this? It's going to be a small 4K HDR-capable box with no hard drive running a custom version of Android TV. It will be similar to, or quite possibly actually be, the C71 box that will be the next-gen version of the Genie Mini. For the OTT service, it will use cloud DVR, without the need for an in-home server.



slice1900 said:


> He says advertising will go from $7-$8 per thousand impressions today to $30-$35 per thousand impressions by using targeted advertising. But this isn't specific to IPTV, they can do this with satellite. Most Directv customers have an internet connected DVR, so there is no difference in the targeted advertising that is possible with Directv IPTV vs Directv satellite for those DVR/internet customers. This seems like a line targeted at Wall Street analysts who want to hear a good story and lack critical thinking skills.


No, I doubt they'll ever be able to fully integrate internet-delivered targeted ads with DBS-delivered programming. Maybe they could replace the original ads with targeted ads in local DVR recordings but I don't ever see it happening (and working well) with live TV, in which case the box would have to switch on the fly between the live DBS steam and internet-delivered ads.


----------



## je4755 (Dec 11, 2006)

I'm trying to interpret the following comment from Randall Stephenson:

". . . if you're today's DIRECTV customer and you're paying anywhere -- or $110 to $200 a month, there's a very important market of people who want that big bundle of content. They want access to that kind of bundle of content. It's everything from Sunday ticket to HBO and all the premium content, multiple streams into a household and so forth. That will be there, and it will be there for a long time, but the *streaming development is going to give us the opportunity then to step down from there,* and we will be launching in the fourth quarter off the DIRECTV NOW platform a premium streaming product."

Does the phrase "step down from there" suggest the new streaming service will incorporate many, but not all, of the channels/options available via satellite?


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I saw this in the Seeking Alpha transcript and I am not sure what this means.

AT&T's (T) Presents at JPMorgan Global Technology, Media and Communications Broker Conference - (Transcript) | Seeking Alpha

And then on DIRECTV NOW, *U-verse*, DIRECTV NOW, WatchTV, this low-end product, all of these are going to have significant advertising inventories.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

je4755 said:


> I'm trying to interpret the following comment from Randall Stephenson:
> 
> ". . . if you're today's DIRECTV customer and you're paying anywhere -- or $110 to $200 a month, there's a very important market of people who want that big bundle of content. They want access to that kind of bundle of content. It's everything from Sunday ticket to HBO and all the premium content, multiple streams into a household and so forth. That will be there, and it will be there for a long time, but the *streaming development is going to give us the opportunity then to step down from there,* and we will be launching in the fourth quarter off the DIRECTV NOW platform a premium streaming product."
> 
> Does the phrase "step down from there" suggest the new streaming service will incorporate many, but not all, of the channels/options available via satellite?


I am going to guess it may have a stream limitation like directv now


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Good heavens, man, how many times have I been over this? It's going to be a small 4K HDR-capable box with no hard drive running a custom version of Android TV. It will be similar to, or quite possibly actually be, the C71 box that will be the next-gen version of the Genie Mini. For the OTT service, it will use cloud DVR, without the need for an in-home server.


So is the idea to try to somehow increase customer switching friction and in that way try to lock-in customers? If not then why have your own piece of hardware which you have to support? Perhaps I'm just missing something...me and the rest of the OTT providers, none of which have their own hardware.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> No, I doubt they'll ever be able to fully integrate internet-delivered targeted ads with DBS-delivered programming. Maybe they could replace the original ads with targeted ads in local DVR recordings but I don't ever see it happening (and working well) with live TV, in which case the box would have to switch on the fly between the live DBS steam and internet-delivered ads.


It is already being done on DIRECTV and DISH. The boxes switch on the fly between live DBS streams and ads predownloaded on the DVR. The program one is watching does not need to be DVRd to have targeted ads inserted. The current incarnation uses targeted ads delivered (in advance) via satellite but delivering ads (in advance) via the Internet would not be hard.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

> They want access to that kind of bundle of content. It's everything from Sunday ticket to HBO and all the premium content, multiple streams into a household and so forth. That will be there, and it will be there for a long time ...


So satellite is NOT going away any time soon. And the new IPTV service will be a step down.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mjwagner said:


> So is the idea to try to somehow increase customer switching friction and in that way try to lock-in customers? If not then why have your own piece of hardware which you have to support? Perhaps I'm just missing something...me and the rest of the OTT providers, none of which have their own hardware.


The two issues keeping people with the traditional providers are content ("all" the content ... not selected channels from separate subscriptions) and customer experience. The younger generation growing up device centric instead of channel centric is more willing to adopt a "buy multiple subscriptions" plan ... but there are still a lot of people who need a gateway to bridge between old school and new school. DBS level subscriptions via IPTV would be a good bridge.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

I predict this will suck. The price is misleading. Take your current viewing habits, guesstimate the amount of data that represents per month, then look at your internet service. Almost certain you're going to have to get a much larger internet service package just to get the cap raised. Care to venture how much that is going to cost? At least as much as this mythical savings. And I'm not even considering 4K. Looking deeper you might find it interesting that there is a good possibility that your internet providers backbone provider is... AT&T! I have Mediacom and that is/was certainly the case.

Secondly, if this takes off it will further accelerate the need for internet (and backbone providers) - to increase capacity. Most of us see drops in speed depending on the time of day/week. That's the joy of shared - and limited - capacity technology. Cable/coax has its limits. Sure, they can do gigabit speeds now but that doesn't indicate how many users get that at the same time. 10s of thousands of streamers in a community in the evening will certainly crush that. As a side, what happens to non-video throughput? Who gets throttled? Combine this with the loss of net neutrality and the various highway speeds and costs will be profit nirvana.

I fully expect that "cloud DVR" will suck. I tried the first DTV client and I thought it sucked for responsiveness. Just wait til your button press is lagging over the internet. The only way to relieve that is to put local storage at your home and buffer the hell out of it. Something I doubt they have in mind as the purpose of cloud anything is to remove the resources (and cost) from your home.

Is it technically possible to make this all work well? Sure. Maybe someday every neighborhood will have terabit capacity. A good hardware design for the home is possible. The question is when and how much is it going to cost?

No dispute that DTV should be worried. If/when 4K takes off they are going to be in serious pain trying to deliver 100's of channels of garbage at 4K via sat.

That's all technical stuff. The other side of this is that its still likely to be the same kind of packages made up of mostly fly-over channels that most people could care less about. Maybe they should wake up and realize that their root problem is not the cost and convenience (lack thereof) of their delivery service but the quality of the content and the way its structured.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> The two issues keeping people with the traditional providers are content ("all" the content ... not selected channels from separate subscriptions) and customer experience. The younger generation growing up device centric instead of channel centric is more willing to adopt a "buy multiple subscriptions" plan ... but there are still a lot of people who need a gateway to bridge between old school and new school. DBS level subscriptions via IPTV would be a good bridge.


I get what you are saying but their is no technical reason that I can think of that they couldn't deliver both the content and customer experience they need to without having their own hardware. Why incur the trouble and expense of developing and supporting your own streaming device? Why not just concentrate on writing a top notch app. It is already the approach they have been taking with DTV Now. What does having their own hardware get them other than some attempt at customer lock in or at least trying to increase switching friction. And if that is the case it just makes me think they don't really understand some of what is driving people to move to the OTT providers in the first place....people no longer want to get locked in by either contracts or hardware.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

unixguru said:


> I predict this will suck. The price is misleading. Take your current viewing habits, guesstimate the amount of data that represents per month, then look at your internet service. Almost certain you're going to have to get a much larger internet service package just to get the cap raised. Care to venture how much that is going to cost? At least as much as this mythical savings. And I'm not even considering 4K. Looking deeper you might find it interesting that there is a good possibility that your internet providers backbone provider is... AT&T! I have Mediacom and that is/was certainly the case.
> 
> Secondly, if this takes off it will further accelerate the need for internet (and backbone providers) - to increase capacity. Most of us see drops in speed depending on the time of day/week. That's the joy of shared - and limited - capacity technology. Cable/coax has its limits. Sure, they can do gigabit speeds now but that doesn't indicate how many users get that at the same time. 10s of thousands of streamers in a community in the evening will certainly crush that. As a side, what happens to non-video throughput? Who gets throttled? Combine this with the loss of net neutrality and the various highway speeds and costs will be profit nirvana.
> 
> ...


Maybe D's cloud DVR will suck...I don't know. But what I can tell you is I have been using PSVue's cloud DVR for over a year now and it is actually a better experience for me than I was getting with my D in house DVR. No conflicts to worry about, no space to manage (basically unlimited recording capacity), no hardware to manage (failures, upgrades, etc), and smooth FF/REW with full screen view of what you are FF/REW thru. I live out in the middle of no where but thankfully I have an excellent ISP with 50 mb service with no data caps for $64/month. I realize that currently not everyone has an internet connection that will effectively support OTT service but I think as technology progresses that situation is going to improve. Quality high speed wireless net access is closer than people realize. Once/if that happens it will be a game changer.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

One thing I hope gets thought about more in the evolution towards streaming based solutions, is the remote control. When I tested DirecTV Now out on my Roku a while back, other than the lack of a cloud based DVR, my main gripe was the remote. When you're used to the kind of remote associated with satellite television, the kind of remote you get with the streaming options are pretty frustrating in my view. I know that you can use your smart phone to drive the app, but it's still not great.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> No, I doubt they'll ever be able to fully integrate internet-delivered targeted ads with DBS-delivered programming. Maybe they could replace the original ads with targeted ads in local DVR recordings but I don't ever see it happening (and working well) with live TV, in which case the box would have to switch on the fly between the live DBS steam and internet-delivered ads.


As James Long said they're already doing live ad insertion, so again how is this new product going to get better ad revenue than satellite? You seem to take everything AT&T's CEO says at face value, but you gotta understand he's not talking to customers he's talking to analysts. He's telling them what they want to hear to help increase the stock price.

He wants to make IP delivery sound like it will somehow be more profitable than satellite, even though he knows it won't, so he can't tell analysts "we're going to get the same targeted advertising rates for our new product that we've been getting for DVR customers of our satellite product for years". He's trying to make it sound like they are tapping a new revenue stream.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> *I actually just shook my head and laughed when I read the article. An extra fee for this, an extra fee for that...typical AT&T.* It always makes me think that they either think their customers are math challenged or that is their target audience. They like to keep the price they can advertise as low as possible but they make sure that they construct the offering and addons in such a way that almost no one ever pays that price. That sort of nonsense with all the extra fees is one of the reasons people are looking at these OTT offerings as alternatives. Thankfully for me PSVue has all my locals and the other channels I need/want. So my target currently is unlimited DVR storage and 5 simultaneous streams for $40 per month. Clearly DirecTV Now is still missing the mark for me. All that said I do appreciate D being in the OTT space. The more competitors the better. One of the huge benefits of these OTT offerings is the near zero switching friction for the consumer. That will help ensure continued downward pressure on prices. That is obviously tough on the providers as it puts much more pressure on margins but good for consumers.


After all the lying ads we've seen over the years how can we expect anything else? Yeah, they'll nickel and dime us as usual. I don't see the need for a massive amount of recording space but some folks might.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TDK1044 said:


> One thing I hope gets thought about more in the evolution towards streaming based solutions, is the remote control. When I tested DirecTV Now out on my Roku a while back, other than the lack of a cloud based DVR, my main gripe was the remote. When you're used to the kind of remote associated with satellite television, the kind of remote you get with the streaming options are pretty frustrating in my view. I know that you can use your smart phone to drive the app, but it's still not great.


The remotes the streaming devices such as the Fire boxes and ATVs use should not be compared to D*'s remotes. It's a different experience. You simply don't need a complicated remote. You don't have to sit with the remote in your hand. You don't have to use the remote at all if you don't want to once you begin streaming. The episodes in a series don't have to be deleted, they're always available. And they play automatically, one episode ends and the next one starts in few seconds. No real need to even pick up the remote. Yeah, it takes a little time to get used to the remotes but they are in no way anything like a D* remote. There are no channel changes, no number buttons. Streaming is so easy, give it a chance.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> As James Long said they're already doing live ad insertion, so again how is this new product going to get better ad revenue than satellite? You seem to take everything AT&T's CEO says at face value, but you gotta understand he's not talking to customers he's talking to analysts. He's telling them what they want to hear to help increase the stock price.
> 
> He wants to make IP delivery sound like it will somehow be more profitable than satellite, even though he knows it won't, so he can't tell analysts "we're going to get the same targeted advertising rates for our new product that we've been getting for DVR customers of our satellite product for years". He's trying to make it sound like they are tapping a new revenue stream.


So, basically, he's trying to baffle everyone listening to him with BS? The CEO of a company that has a track record of deceptive advertising? Is anyone shocked?

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mjwagner said:


> I get what you are saying but their is no technical reason that I can think of that they couldn't deliver both the content and customer experience they need to without having their own hardware.


The needs to be some way of getting the content to the screen. A "smart TV" that can download an app and access the Internet is one way. But everyone else (and there are a lot of everyone elses) will need "a" box. It might as well be one that AT&T|DIRECTV controls and can manage than tell your customers that they have to buy a box from someone else (or worse yet, put money in their competitors pockets by selling or giving away boxes that can access other providers).

It is cheap to launch a service on other people's equipment and other people's connections. But if you want to reach the same level of customer experience on the majority of your customer's devices having a dedicated box is the best option. No question of if what a developer writes as a GUI will look the same on several different platforms. No multiple code sets because of quirks in one IPTV box vs another.

There may also be some contractual benefits (as mentioned earlier in this thread) where AT&T|DIRECTV is allowed to deliver content end to end (where they control both ends of the connection) that they cannot get the rights to carry over other people's equipment. In any case ... there are plenty of benefits to having AT&T|DIRECTV developed equipment.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

Rich said:


> The remotes the streaming devices such as the Fire boxes and ATVs use should not be compared to D*'s remotes. It's a different experience. You simply don't need a complicated remote. You don't have to sit with the remote in your hand. You don't have to use the remote at all if you don't want to once you begin streaming. The episodes in a series don't have to be deleted, they're always available. And they play automatically, one episode ends and the next one starts in few seconds. No real need to even pick up the remote. Yeah, it takes a little time to get used to the remotes but they are in no way anything like a D* remote. There are no channel changes, no number buttons. Streaming is so easy, give it a chance.
> 
> Rich


My experience was different. I won't be going the streaming route for a year or two yet though, there's still a lot of polishing to do, so we'll see where we are then.


----------



## Richard (Apr 24, 2002)

for me, at least, live TV is dead. First, I never ever want to see another Advertisement again. I am paying for content, I shouldn't have to watch Ads also. Second, even with a DVR, there were too many instances of missed shows, or shows where the local affiliate broke in with what they thought was "breaking news". I NEVER watch "news" on TV, never have, never will. So for them to interrupt the shows I am trying to record is completely unacceptable.

For me, what I get from Hulu's no commercial plan and CBS All Access No Commercial plan works great. I use the TV app on an Apple TV 4k and all the shows I want to watch are all available in once place. In my opinion, this is what TV should be.

I do still have a DirecTV subscription, but I really don't know why anymore, mostly because I don't want to go through the hassle of calling to cancel (something we should be able to do on their website).


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> The needs to be some way of getting the content to the screen. A "smart TV" that can download an app and access the Internet is one way. But everyone else (and there are a lot of everyone elses) will need "a" box. It might as well be one that AT&T|DIRECTV controls and can manage than tell your customers that they have to buy a box from someone else (or worse yet, put money in their competitors pockets by selling or giving away boxes that can access other providers).
> 
> It is cheap to launch a service on other people's equipment and other people's connections. But if you want to reach the same level of customer experience on the majority of your customer's devices having a dedicated box is the best option. No question of if what a developer writes as a GUI will look the same on several different platforms. No multiple code sets because of quirks in one IPTV box vs another.
> 
> There may also be some contractual benefits (as mentioned earlier in this thread) where AT&T|DIRECTV is allowed to deliver content end to end (where they control both ends of the connection) that they cannot get the rights to carry over other people's equipment. In any case ... there are plenty of benefits to having AT&T|DIRECTV developed equipment.


I just don't see people going back to having to have a unique box tied to a service. I know I certainly won't. I'm not talking about smart tv's. The technology is moving too fast and the tv manufacturers unfortunately have not standardized. But devices like Roku, ATV, Nvidia Shield, and some of the other Android based streaming boxes are moving toward becoming "universal" streaming devices. It's much easier and cheaper to have an app that you can port to the various OS requirements than to develop, distribute, and support your own hardware streaming box. I already have a streaming box of some flavor on all my tv's. The last thing I wan to do, or will do for that matter, is install a dedicated hardware device just to use someone's OTT offering. To play in this space D is already going to have to develop and support an app that runs on the streaming devices people already have. So to have their own box they will have to do both. And again, I just can't see the need. But hey, maybe the geniuses at AT&T see something I don't.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mjwagner said:


> I just don't see people going back to having to have a unique box tied to a service.


While AT&T|DIRECTV would certainly accept a subscriber "going back" to their service you are completely missing the point of the "full DTV" service that we are discussing. The point of AT&T|DIRECTV's full DTV via IPTV service is to be a gateway for SATELLITE and cable subscribers who wish to keep the customer experience they are accustomed to (all the channels, one box) but use an Internet connection instead of a dish or paying their cable company for channels.

If you are thinking that this proposed service is not for you you would be right. It is not for you and other people who don't mind having a mix of interfaces, boxes and services to juggle. This service is for people who simply want to pay ONE PROVIDER for content and watch TV. Lesser offerings will remain available for people like you (such as DIRECTV NOW).


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> While AT&T|DIRECTV would certainly accept a subscriber "going back" to their service you are completely missing the point of the "full DTV" service that we are discussing. The point of AT&T|DIRECTV's full DTV via IPTV service is to be a gateway for SATELLITE and cable subscribers who wish to keep the customer experience they are accustomed to (all the channels, one box) but use an Internet connection instead of a dish or paying their cable company for channels.
> 
> If you are thinking that this proposed service is not for you you would be right. It is not for you and other people who don't mind having a mix of interfaces, boxes and services to juggle. This service is for people who simply want to pay ONE PROVIDER for content and watch TV. Lesser offerings will remain available for people like you (such as DIRECTV NOW).


You are right, I was completely missing the point of this offering. So then will the box have the ability to run other apps, like NetFlix, YouTube, DisneyNow, PBS, etc?


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

I’m wondering if AT&T’s future plan is to offer TV over their future 5G service to cut back on satellite installs?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mjwagner said:


> You are right, I was completely missing the point of this offering. So then will the box have the ability to run other apps, like NetFlix, YouTube, DisneyNow, PBS, etc?


The C71KW runs Android TV, and while Directv can control the boot screen so the main interface you see when you turn it on is Directv's, you should also be able to install apps for Netflix etc.

The nice thing for Directv is that they don't have to be responsible for those apps anymore like they are for the e.g. ESPN app on current boxes. I'm sure that Netflix, ESPN et al that develop those apps don't want to support APIs not only from Apple, Roku, Android and other set top families but also Directv, Comcast, Dish etc. Using Android makes sense because its free, they can give it Directv/AT&T branding, and it has most of the apps people will want.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

TheRatPatrol said:


> I'm wondering if AT&T's future plan is to offer TV over their future 5G service to cut back on satellite installs?


Well yes and no. I'm sure TV over 5G is in their plans - probably as an internet/TV bundle like the cable companies offer. Otherwise they could only offer bundles in their existing region.

They can leave the "install" of the 5G antenna/router to the customer, but it won't be nearly as simple as setting one up for LTE is today. The frequencies are a lot higher, so placement will matter a LOT more. Depending on the frequencies being used, and where the 5G base station is, it might be tricky to find a good spot - and might have to be outside. Many 5G frequencies are _higher_ than those used by satellite, so the problems of those frequencies remain. While the power levels will be far higher since it won't be coming from 22,000 miles away, its still gonna have potential trouble with stuff like low-e glass, heavy foliage, heavy rain, and so on. Rain fade might not be a thing of the past, and it would take out your internet along with your TV 

I'm sure AT&T will try to make it as easy as possible, and encourage people to move things around until they get four green bars on the box or some other "idiot proof" method. But some will just ignore that, plug it in wherever and find it works on a clear day in November, then get upset that it goes out when it rains or once the leaves return in the spring...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> I just don't see people going back to having to have a unique box tied to a service. I know I certainly won't. I'm not talking about smart tv's. The technology is moving too fast and the tv manufacturers unfortunately have not standardized. But devices like Roku, ATV, Nvidia Shield, and some of the other Android based streaming boxes are moving toward becoming "universal" streaming devices. It's much easier and cheaper to have an app that you can port to the various OS requirements than to develop, distribute, and support your own hardware streaming box. I already have a streaming box of some flavor on all my tv's. The last thing I wan to do, or will do for that matter, is install a dedicated hardware device just to use someone's OTT offering. To play in this space D is already going to have to develop and support an app that runs on the streaming devices people already have. So to have their own box they will have to do both. And again, I just can't see the need. But hey, maybe the geniuses at AT&T see something I don't.


I don't understand why they're releasing that box. I think it will be like Optimum's (Altice) Altice 1 box, which baffles me too. I think these companies don't understand what folks like you and I are doing when it comes to streaming. I will never spring for a dedicated box from any provider unless something drastic happens.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> You are right, I was completely missing the point of this offering. So then will the box have the ability to run other apps, like NetFlix, YouTube, DisneyNow, PBS, etc?


Ah, yes. We should get the new box for the experience of paying for another set top box...forever. Like that's an upgrade. Let's see, I have 7 TV sets in the house, I'd need 7 boxes. Will I have to pay a monthly fee for each one? Why not, I've been dopey enough to pay for all these STBs (that I own!!!) for years. Will that box work as well as the boxes out there now? I doubt that. Is what we do a "lesser offering"? I doubt that too.

Rich


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

First to all blaming AT&T for nickel and dime - that is what all the world is doing - fee's for everything. Airlines are making billions on fees that didn't exist a while ago. Everyone is doing fees.

The other is really a question - DirecTV and others make money selling shopping channels and similar = what will happen with these when people are only selecting certain channels for their package.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I would not get wound too tightly over fees for a service that has not yet been introduced. There is too much that we do not know.

But as a direct replacement for DTV via satellite I would expect a client at each TV.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> As James Long said they're already doing live ad insertion, so again how is this new product going to get better ad revenue than satellite? You seem to take everything AT&T's CEO says at face value, but you gotta understand he's not talking to customers he's talking to analysts. He's telling them what they want to hear to help increase the stock price.
> 
> He wants to make IP delivery sound like it will somehow be more profitable than satellite, even though he knows it won't, so he can't tell analysts "we're going to get the same targeted advertising rates for our new product that we've been getting for DVR customers of our satellite product for years". He's trying to make it sound like they are tapping a new revenue stream.


I've worked for a major Wall Street investment bank. Those stock analysts are pretty smart and understand the economics of this business far better than you, I'd bet.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> Ah, yes. We should get the new box for the experience of paying for another set top box...forever. Like that's an upgrade. Let's see, I have 7 TV sets in the house, I'd need 7 boxes. Will I have to pay a monthly fee for each one? Why not, I've been dopey enough to pay for all these STBs (that I own!!!) for years. Will that box work as well as the boxes out there now? I doubt that. Is what we do a "lesser offering"? I doubt that too.
> 
> Rich


Yeah, I really do think that the demographic they are apparently targeting is a declining one for sure. And if the box they are developing is running Android or some variant anyway so that people can run other apps on it like NetFlix then I still come back to why. Paying a monthly fee for a knockoff Android streaming device seems like a non starter to me.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Maybe D's cloud DVR will suck...I don't know. But what I can tell you is I have been using PSVue's cloud DVR for over a year now and it is actually a better experience for me than I was getting with my D in house DVR. No conflicts to worry about, no space to manage (basically unlimited recording capacity), no hardware to manage (failures, upgrades, etc), and smooth FF/REW with full screen view of what you are FF/REW thru. I live out in the middle of no where but thankfully I have an excellent ISP with 50 mb service with no data caps for $64/month. I realize that currently not everyone has an internet connection that will effectively support OTT service but I think as technology progresses that situation is going to improve. Quality high speed wireless net access is closer than people realize. Once/if that happens it will be a game changer.


I have a Roku 4 that I rarely use. 100mb service (1TB/mo cap). Its fine for straight streaming but any trick play is unsatisfying in comparison. No doubt due to both hardware and software limitations both in the device *and* at the server end as well as the pipe between.

What is going to happen when a large percentage of homes are IPTV and 4K Super Bowl is on? The technology to enable that to work just doesn't exist in current internet infrastructure. There needs to be a "single" stream of data - yes, even called a "broadcast" in IP technology. IP has broadcast; its just not used for this. The way it works today if there are 1M viewers there are 1M streams (ie 1M times the bandwidth required). Even IF they upgraded everything to deal with it (as I'm sure they will eventually), as soon as someone trick plays out of their buffer window then they have to go back to a dedicated stream.

One could assume that this is the kind of technology investment that providers are talking about when they want the end of net neutrality. The bytes coming into your home will then have variable cost depending on the class of service and who the "server" is at the other end. As a general rule I support net neutrality but might be willing to bend enough to allow several major classes of service (ie still neutral within a class like non-video data) as long as video doesn't exceed its allotment of the overall bandwidth available.

I'm in favor of the nirvana scenario where a thread of fiber brings the world into my home for any purpose. Including any video programming with full transparent trick play. The two gigantic issues are uniform availability and cost. Its going to be a very long time before sat capability can fully be transitioned.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Yeah, I really do think that the demographic they are apparently targeting is a declining one for sure. And if the box they are developing is running Android or some variant anyway so that people can run other apps on it like NetFlix then I still come back to why. Paying a monthly fee for a knockoff Android streaming device seems like a non starter to me.


Yup, buy an ATV or Fire box or The Shield. If money is a problem you can't beat a Fire TV box when it comes to bang for your buck. Price at purchase is all you have to worry about and there are no monthly charges. I am getting ready to start up PS Vue again, I could not think of anything I wanted to record last winter and I really want to give the cloud DVR a good look. I also want to compare the PQ on the Yankee games and see how it compares to what D* puts out. My commitment on D* runs out in January and then I hope to make the cut then.

Rich


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Rich said:


> My commitment on D* runs out in January and then I hope to make the cut then.


What.........what will happen to all of your HR24's?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TheRatPatrol said:


> What.........what will happen to all of your HR24's?


I still have them, only 7 are activated. If this works out I'll be selling them. I have at least a dozen owned HRs. Most with 2TB drives in them.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Here's what scares me about dropping D* and going all streaming: A couple days ago, Friday, I noticed a drop in speed on our Net connection. Called Optimum and they couldn't find any equipment issues. Not the first time this has happened, usually means the drop from the pole to the house has to be replaced. Could not get anyone out over the weekend and the drop will be replaced tomorrow. How do I cope with the Internet going out during the MLB or NFL seasons? Yeah, it's really rare that it happens here but it just happened and it bothers me. Might have to keep D* and cut back to just the 44. 

BTW, I know this has been brought up several times. Without a cable or sat hookup we are screwed if the Net goes out. I get it. I got it. This weekend made it abundantly clear. 

Rich


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Rich said:


> Here's what scares me about dropping D* and going all streaming: A couple days ago, Friday, I noticed a drop in speed on our Net connection. Called Optimum and they couldn't find any equipment issues. Not the first time this has happened, usually means the drop from the pole to the house has to be replaced. Could not get anyone out over the weekend and the drop will be replaced tomorrow. How do I cope with the Internet going out during the MLB or NFL seasons? Yeah, it's really rare that it happens here but it just happened and it bothers me. Might have to keep D* and cut back to just the 44.
> 
> BTW, I know this has been brought up several times. Without a cable or sat hookup we are screwed if the Net goes out. I get it. I got it. This weekend made it abundantly clear.
> 
> Rich


Go to a local bar that has the game on TVs in their place.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

One advantage I think with AT&T introducing this new OTT service is AT&T wanting to have all their video on one set of servers and DTV eventually getting the DTV NOW interface. It will take a long to get all their customers on OTT and AT&T said they will still use DTV in the rural areas. This I think is the start of AT&T wanting the same look and feel across their whole TV footprint, except with UVerseTV, since this new DTV OTT service could replace UVerseTV. Unless AT&T would also want to have the full DTV on managed IPTV and that would also have the DTV NOW interface? Then have the HS-27 and above be a hybrid server doing both SatelliteTV and IPTV? However, I think in order to get the DTV NOW interface on DTV it will start with the HS-27, I think that is why in the C71KW manual it says it will only work with the HS-27 and above.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

It doesn't sound like the new service will use the HS27 - the only reason you'd need that is if you were going to save recordings locally instead of using cloud DVR.

The HS27 will only be used for satellite.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

slice1900 said:


> The HS27 will only be used for satellite.


who knows what inside of it ...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jimmie57 said:


> Go to a local bar that has the game on TVs in their place.


Guess what happens if I go to a bar...

Rich


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Based upon the latest DirecTV GUI - do we really want AT&T to develop anything new


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> It doesn't sound like the new service will use the HS27 - the only reason you'd need that is if you were going to save recordings locally instead of using cloud DVR.
> 
> The HS27 will only be used for satellite.


Sorry, before I meant the HS-27 doing DTV over SatelliteTV and managed IPTV, not OTT using the DTV NOW interface.

Another way of looking at it is AT&T just wanting the same look and feel across their streaming services since it looks like they want streaming as the primary TV service and maybe just leaving SatelliteTV alone using the new interface that the HR-44, HR-54 and HS-17 are getting now and just using that for the HS-27 and above?

Maybe they could still use the C71KW as a dual purpose wireless client for SatelliteTV and internet streaming but when its used with SatelliteTV it wouldn't do Android TV. Or maybe they would have two separate C71KW's one for SatelliteTV and one just for internet streaming?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Sorry, before I meant the HS-27 doing DTV over SatelliteTV and managed IPTV, not OTT using the DTV NOW interface.
> 
> Another way of looking at it is AT&T just wanting the same look and feel across their streaming services since it looks like they want streaming as the primary TV service and maybe just leaving SatelliteTV alone using the new interface that the HR-44, HR-54 and HS-17 are getting now and just using that for the HS-27 and above?
> 
> Maybe they could still use the C71KW as a dual purpose wireless client for SatelliteTV and internet streaming but when its used with SatelliteTV it wouldn't do Android TV. Or maybe they would have two separate C71KW's one for SatelliteTV and one just for internet streaming?


The hints AT&T has been dropping about their managed IPTV "full Directv" coming the end of the year all point to there being no server, so your recordings would all be cloud DVR. Gotta have some compromises in exchange for lower prices, I guess. That's why they're shifting to having the client run the apps - if there is no server for IPTV installs then the client must run the apps.

I wouldn't be surprised if the HS27 had less CPU and less RAM than the HS17 - it is just a box of tuners with a hard drive with multiple networks (ethernet, wifi, MoCA) and additional RAM/CPU resources will do nothing for performance. Heck, they could get rid of the server for satellite entirely if they built demodulators into the LNB, and let you connect a hard drive to a client's USB port...though that may not be worth the R&D, depending on their projections for future new customers choosing satellite vs IPTV.

I'm not sure why you think the C71KW couldn't run Android TV for satellite. They'll have it boot in Directv mode, it isn't going to start up with a bunch of app icons putting Directv on even footing with e.g. Amazon Video. If you're a satellite customer who doesn't have it connected to internet then it wouldn't be able to install/run apps, obviously. If they want to maintain UI/usability consistency between products, _especially_ for the two flavors of "full Directv", running a different OS on the different flavors makes no sense.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CTJon said:


> Based upon the latest DirecTV GUI - do we really want AT&T to develop anything new


Not sure if you can lay that at the feet of AT&T. As Stuart Sweet points out, the "new" GUI bears a strong resemblance to the Directv iPad app GUI from 2011... small fonts and low contrast gray and gray make more sense on a 10" 300 dpi high quality IPS display you are holding 18" away than on the lower quality LCDs TVs use that are much further away (though I think people have said the fonts are hard to read even on an LG OLED, which I'd think you'd have to really work hard to manage)


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> The hints AT&T has been dropping about their managed IPTV "full Directv" coming the end of the year all point to there being no server, so your recordings would all be cloud DVR. Gotta have some compromises in exchange for lower prices, I guess. That's why they're shifting to having the client run the apps - if there is no server for IPTV installs then the client must run the apps.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if the HS27 had less CPU and less RAM than the HS17 - it is just a box of tuners with a hard drive with multiple networks (ethernet, wifi, MoCA) and additional RAM/CPU resources will do nothing for performance. Heck, they could get rid of the server for satellite entirely if they built demodulators into the LNB, and let you connect a hard drive to a client's USB port...though that may not be worth the R&D, depending on their projections for future new customers choosing satellite vs IPTV.
> 
> I'm not sure why you think the C71KW couldn't run Android TV for satellite. They'll have it boot in Directv mode, it isn't going to start up with a bunch of app icons putting Directv on even footing with e.g. Amazon Video. If you're a satellite customer who doesn't have it connected to internet then it wouldn't be able to install/run apps, obviously. If they want to maintain UI/usability consistency between products, _especially_ for the two flavors of "full Directv", running a different OS on the different flavors makes no sense.


Isn't the new service coming this Fall is unmanaged IPTV and not managed IPTV? I just thought maybe they could have both unmanaged and managed IPTV since AT&T said they want the same look and feel across all their systems. Unless they meant same look and feel for only their streaming products? I know the C71KW can run Android TV I just remembered their being three different model numbers the C71KW, C71KW-400 and the C71KWBP-400. I thought maybe the BP-400 would be the Android TV one? I also found this interesting article that said "Has AT&T Inked A Deal With Google TV?" She thinks AT&T will choose option 2 in the article.

Has AT&T Inked a Deal With Google for TV? | Light Reading


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> I don't understand why they're releasing that box. I think it will be like Optimum's (Altice) Altice 1 box, which baffles me too. I think these companies don't understand what folks like you and I are doing when it comes to streaming. I will never spring for a dedicated box from any provider unless something drastic happens.
> 
> Rich


Well, first off, when it comes to the forthcoming "full DirecTV" OTT service (or Optimum cable TV, for that matter), you shouldn't think of it as "streaming". You should think of it as full-scale, full-service traditional pay TV. It's just that, in the case of the forthcoming service from AT&T, it's going to be delivered through an OTT internet pipe, as opposed to a satellite, QAM cable, or managed IPTV pipe.

There are a lot of folks out there (e.g. my parents) who don't want to use something like a Roku, Fire TV or Apple TV for their main TV device. They want something that, when it turns on, automatically shows them "regular TV". And they want the remote control to turn the TV on and off, and control the TV volume. They also want the remote to have channel up and down buttons, plus number buttons so that they can input channel numbers. The box that comes with the forthcoming OTT DirecTV service will have all that. Yes, it's essentially just a streaming box running Google's Android TV operating system, but it will be a customized version of it, basically using the DirecTV "app" as the home/start-up UI. Check out this video for a look at Arris-manufactured set-top boxes for pay TV operators running customized versions of Android TV:





And, in addition, it will also offer access to a lot of popular apps through the Google Play store. So users won't have to switch to a different box/TV input to use Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, HBO Go, Showtime Anytime, YouTube, Spotify, Pandora, etc. In that way, this new AT&T box will be competitive with boxes from Comcast, Altice, TiVo, etc., which are also aggregating multiple apps/sources for their users' convenience.

The cost of the box will be included in the monthly cost of the service, I imagine. For those folks like you, who prefer a less expensive service running on their own retail device like Roku, Apple TV, etc. (and maybe with fewer channels and a less powerful cloud DVR), then there's DirecTV Now.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> Well, first off, when it comes to the forthcoming "full DirecTV" OTT service (or Optimum cable TV, for that matter), you shouldn't think of it as "streaming". You should think of it as full-scale, full-service traditional pay TV. It's just that, in the case of the forthcoming service from AT&T, it's going to be delivered through an OTT internet pipe, as opposed to a satellite, QAM cable, or managed IPTV pipe.
> 
> There are a lot of folks out there (e.g. my parents) who don't want to use something like a Roku, Fire TV or Apple TV for their main TV device. They want something that, when it turns on, automatically shows them "regular TV". And they want the remote control to turn the TV on and off, and control the TV volume. They also want the remote to have channel up and down buttons, plus number buttons so that they can input channel numbers. The box that comes with the forthcoming OTT DirecTV service will have all that. Yes, it's essentially just a streaming box running Google's Android TV operating system, but it will be a customized version of it, basically using the DirecTV "app" as the home/start-up UI. Check out this video for a look at Arris-manufactured set-top boxes for pay TV operators running customized versions of Android TV:
> 
> ...


I totally get this. In our house, it's just my wife and I. We're both approaching retirement. I can certainly see how my wife would prefer this option to 'DirecTV Now', because we're both creatures of habit, and having had the DirecTV satellite service for 20 years, this option gives us that feel without having to have a dish. We have a Roku stick, and she hates it. She doesn't want that. She wants to turn on the TV and have everything there in one place like it is now. I guess it comes down to demographics.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CTJon said:


> Based upon the latest DirecTV GUI - do we really want AT&T to develop anything new


Yup, that worries me.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Well, first off, when it comes to the forthcoming "full DirecTV" OTT service (or Optimum cable TV, for that matter), you shouldn't think of it as "streaming". You should think of it as full-scale, full-service traditional pay TV. It's just that, in the case of the forthcoming service from AT&T, it's going to be delivered through an OTT internet pipe, as opposed to a satellite, QAM cable, or managed IPTV pipe.
> 
> There are a lot of folks out there (e.g. my parents) who don't want to use something like a Roku, Fire TV or Apple TV for their main TV device. They want something that, when it turns on, automatically shows them "regular TV". And they want the remote control to turn the TV on and off, and control the TV volume. They also want the remote to have channel up and down buttons, plus number buttons so that they can input channel numbers. The box that comes with the forthcoming OTT DirecTV service will have all that. Yes, it's essentially just a streaming box running Google's Android TV operating system, but it will be a customized version of it, basically using the DirecTV "app" as the home/start-up UI. Check out this video for a look at Arris-manufactured set-top boxes for pay TV operators running customized versions of Android TV:
> 
> ...


Don't lump me in with folks that worry about what it costs to get what they want. I have a full suite of streaming video services and still have a full subscription to D*. Cost is not the issue. A better TV experience is what's driving me.

Good post, but I think the Atice 1 acts as a modem too. Not sure, not really interested in it enough to explore, but I did read something about not needing a router or modem if you use the Altice box. I'd need 7 boxes...how much would that cost monthly?

On another note, it appears the recent acquisition of Optimum by Altice is having repercussions. I had to call to reschedule a service call yesterday and got two women who I could not understand. I've been with what has become Optimum/Altice for over 30 years, I've called them many times and never had a language issue. Yesterday I did what I was advised to do by Capital One, asked to speak to an "American". The bank assured me I would be hurting no feelings doing this. Didn't work well with the scheduling CSRs. They were highly offended and told me in pretty clear language that I would get a ten hour window from whomever I spoke to. Like the D* CSRs, they lied. I called the tech folks and got a 3 hour window Thursday. I gotta look at Verizon Fios again for a new net provider, I guess...mergers suck.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TDK1044 said:


> I totally get this. In our house, it's just my wife and I. We're both approaching retirement. I can certainly see how my wife would prefer this option to 'DirecTV Now', because we're both creatures of habit, and having had the DirecTV satellite service for 20 years, this option gives us that feel without having to have a dish. We have a Roku stick, and she hates it. She doesn't want that. She wants to turn on the TV and have everything there in one place like it is now. I guess it comes down to demographics.


I went thru that for two years with my wife. She gets it now. She's ready for PS Vue. She understands the remotes we use. How D* deals with this will be interesting...to read about. I'm sick and tired of D* but I know it's the best provider out there...or was.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Isn't the new service coming this Fall is unmanaged IPTV and not managed IPTV? I just thought maybe they could have both unmanaged and managed IPTV since AT&T said they want the same look and feel across all their systems. Unless they meant same look and feel for only their streaming products? I know the C71KW can run Android TV I just remembered their being three different model numbers the C71KW, C71KW-400 and the C71KWBP-400. I thought maybe the BP-400 would be the Android TV one? I also found this interesting article that said "Has AT&T Inked A Deal With Google TV?" She thinks AT&T will choose option 2 in the article.
> 
> Has AT&T Inked a Deal With Google for TV? | Light Reading


There's a lot of terminology thrown around with all this so maybe we're talking about different things. The upcoming IPTV product from Directv is one where Directv will supply you with equipment, but you aren't (necessarily) using their network. For people on AT&T's network (in their region or when fixed wireless at high enough speed is available) they may offer the same product at a bundling discount, or have yet another variation of IP/streaming if there are contractual reasons to keep the two offerings separate.

It isn't clear to me (or probably anyone outside of AT&T) whether the contracts they have with networks and local stations differ in what they can offer based on whether Directv/AT&T owned equipment is used by customers, or based on whether it travels over the open internet or only through AT&T's private network. The answer to that will impact whether the upcoming IPTV product will be able to offer the locals that are missing on Directv Now and so forth for those who have internet providers other than AT&T.

I don't think anyone is really going to understand what we're getting until the end of the year when these products are officially introduced, and we can see all pricing and channel information and compare it to what is offered on Directv Now and Directv satellite at that time.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

So do I understand this as, I will basically have Directv boxes like I have now, but all content is internet based instead of coming from the satellite, and the "DVR" won't actually record to its physical hard drive, but everything would be in the cloud?

If so, sign me up. My fiber is super reliable, solves my rain issues (Live in one of the most rainiest cities in the country), plus we generally stay 3-4 months behind on DVR's, so I need a cloud dvr with more than 100 hours or 30 days...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

I stopped in an ATT store today. Thought I'd get the ATV and D*Now for $105. That thought was crushed immediately. The $35 package does not include YES and MLB Network. I would have had to get the next package for $50 a month or $150 for the ATV. Since I have 6 ATVs I gave up the idea. Don't need another ATV. Not sure I want to get tangled up with D* yet again. 

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> Don't lump me in with folks that worry about what it costs to get what they want. I have a full suite of streaming video services and still have a full subscription to D*. Cost is not the issue. A better TV experience is what's driving me.


Sorry, I should have simply stated "For folks like you, who prefer a service running on their own retail device like Roku, Apple TV, etc., then there's DirecTV Now." Because your earlier posts definitely seem to indicate that you prefer to use such devices rather than a box issued to you by your MVPD (even if that box would be similar to Roku, Apple TV, etc., and come with a remote control that's more customized to traditional linear channel pay TV usage). And while cost isn't necessarily an issue for you, you can always expect to pay a little more for a service in which the STB is included relative to one like DTV Now where it isn't.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Jason Whiddon said:


> So do I understand this as, I will basically have Directv boxes like I have now, but all content is internet based instead of coming from the satellite, and the "DVR" won't actually record to its physical hard drive, but everything would be in the cloud?
> 
> If so, sign me up. My fiber is super reliable, solves my rain issues (Live in one of the most rainiest cities in the country), plus we generally stay 3-4 months behind on DVR's, so I need a cloud dvr with more than 100 hours or 30 days...


Yep, you've pretty much got it. Now, as slice1900 states above, we don't really know yet exactly what the channel line-up and packages will look like for this forthcoming streaming version of DTV. Based on the way AT&T has described it lately, it will _basically_ be equivalent to their satellite product. But, depending on the specifics of the contracts they put in place with cable network owners and local stations, maybe it will be a little different.

In some ways, you can expect it to be better than your current DTV boxes, because it will allow you to install and use popular apps like Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc. on the same box. And the remote control will allow for voice-powered commands and Google searches if you like. The new box (like some current DTV boxes) will also support 4K HDR. Given that it won't rely on a local hard drive for DVR (but instead use remote cloud DVR service), it may also be a bit more eco-friendly and use less power to operate. No telling yet what sort of cloud DVR capacity the new service will offer but I would expect it to be roughly equivalent to the current Genie DVRs, e.g. the HR54, which is advertised as storing "up to 200 hours" of HD programming. I expect there will be an additional charge per box/TV served. Perhaps each additional box will bring with it some additional hours of cloud DVR storage. Of course, all boxes on the same account will be able to access the same pool of recordings and available cloud storage space. AT&T has also stated that the underlying platform that will power this forthcoming service will gain an individual user profile feature in 2018, so you should be able to log in separately from other family members (like you can on Netflix) and see a different set of recordings, favorite channels, bookmarked on-demand content, etc.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I wonder if it will have the exact same channel packages that DTV has but it wont have all those infomercial and shopping channels like GETIT, SALE ect, except for the QVC ones? Maybe that's how they could offer it for the lower prices?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> I wonder if it will have the exact same channel packages that DTV has but it wont have all those infomercial and shopping channels like GETIT, SALE ect, except for the QVC ones? Maybe that's how they could offer it for the lower prices?


I think those channels may actually pay DTV to be in their line-up, not the other way around.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> Good post, but I think the Atice 1 acts as a modem too. Not sure, not really interested in it enough to explore, but I did read something about not needing a router or modem if you use the Altice box. I'd need 7 boxes...how much would that cost monthly?


Yeah, the Altice One box, as the name suggests, is an all-in-one box. It's a hybrid QAM/IPTV DVR for TV, plus a DOCSIS modem, plus a wifi router. Secondary TVs can use a smaller box (Altice One Mini, I think it's called?). I think it can act as a wifi extender.

The funny thing is, almost immediately after they began deploying the One box, Altice announced that they were going to convert pretty much their whole footprint from HFC (hybrid fiber/coax, the typical type of cable network) over to FTTH (fiber to the home, like AT&T Fiber and Google Fiber). Based on hardware they've submitted to the FCC, it's clear that their new FTTH network is, as one would expect, a passive optical network and does not use DOCSIS modems. It also looks like it won't use QAM at all for TV, but instead be pure IPTV. Perhaps post-switchover from HFC to FTTH, they will only issue the One Mini box (which definitely does not contain a DOCSIS modem or a DVR hard drive and maybe doesn't even have a QAM tuner), which would rely on cloud DVR for storage.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> I think those channels may actually pay DTV to be in their line-up, not the other way around.


If that's the case I guess they will also want to pay to be on the new DTV OTT service so we will never be rid of them, unless you get DTV NOW?


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

Isn’t this basically how uverse is delivered (over internet)? I’d hope they would just allow more cloud storage for extra fees, kinda like extra gigs on your cell plan. 

When I got this ATT gigabit service installed I had the option of Directv or uverse, I opted for Directv.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Jason Whiddon said:


> Isn't this basically how uverse is delivered (over internet)? I'd hope they would just allow more cloud storage for extra fees, kinda like extra gigs on your cell plan.
> 
> When I got this ATT gigabit service installed I had the option of Directv or uverse, I opted for Directv.


Their are two types of IPTV, managed which UVerseTV is run on and AT&T runs that on their internet. Then their is unmanaged IPTV or OTT which is what this new service will be run on and it can be run on any internet connection.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

Cool. Wonder what PQ will be like...


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Jason Whiddon said:


> Cool. Wonder what PQ will be like...


This upcoming streaming version of DirecTV will run on the exact same underlying cloud-based video platform that DirecTV Now currently runs on. The consumer-facing stuff (channel line-ups, UI, cost, features, pricing) may differ somewhat from DirecTV Now but the underlying technology will be the same. And since that's the case, I would expect the picture quality for the forthcoming service to be the same as it is for DirecTV Now, which is quite good. Lots of folks, including myself, think DirecTV Now's average HD picture quality is at least a little bit better than DTV satellite. Some even say it's a lot better.

AT&T has also stated that this new video platform will gain the ability to support 4K HDR later in 2018, so I would expect that sort of content (at least on-demand, and possibly live) will be available in the forthcoming service when it debuts late this year.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

Great to know.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Jason Whiddon said:


> If so, sign me up. My fiber is super reliable, solves my rain issues (Live in one of the most rainiest cities in the country), plus we generally stay 3-4 months behind on DVR's, so I need a cloud dvr with more than 100 hours or 30 days...


That's one unknown you'll have to keep an eye on - there's no guarantee they won't have a time limit on the cloud DVR even if you can get more hours easily. I guess they don't want people essentially "archiving" programs permanently?

I tend to record movies I want to see knowing that I don't have time to watch them, so I will have always have something to watch. Until a few months ago I had some recordings that will several _years_ old!

Since I got a Bolt last fall which makes the Amazon app work MUCH better than on my old Premiere, streaming is a good option for such times so I decided to make a concerted effort to watch or delete all those old recordings so now I'm caught up. A cloud DVR with a 30 day limit would be OK with me from that standpoint, but I'm still leery about the whole thing and still haven't see any streaming GUI that isn't a steaming pile of GUI compared to Tivo in terms of usability. Tivo is basically the main thing that will keep me with cable for the time being.


----------



## drpjr (Nov 23, 2007)

CTJon said:


> Based upon the latest DirecTV GUI - do we really want AT&T to develop anything new


Nope, don't want them coming up with anything like the transistor again.

.....I see your sarcasm and raise you facetious.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, the Altice One box, as the name suggests, is an all-in-one box. It's a hybrid QAM/IPTV DVR for TV, plus a DOCSIS modem, plus a wifi router. Secondary TVs can use a smaller box (Altice One Mini, I think it's called?). I think it can act as a wifi extender.
> 
> The funny thing is, almost immediately after they began deploying the One box, Altice announced that they were going to convert pretty much their whole footprint from HFC (hybrid fiber/coax, the typical type of cable network) over to FTTH (fiber to the home, like AT&T Fiber and Google Fiber). Based on hardware they've submitted to the FCC, it's clear that their new FTTH network is, as one would expect, a passive optical network and does not use DOCSIS modems. It also looks like it won't use QAM at all for TV, but instead be pure IPTV. Perhaps post-switchover from HFC to FTTH, they will only issue the One Mini box (which definitely does not contain a DOCSIS modem or a DVR hard drive and maybe doesn't even have a QAM tuner), which would rely on cloud DVR for storage.


Altice is upgrading our system to fiber, been going on for a couple months. No idea what happens when they implement it. I'm guessing there will be a charge for every Altice 1 box, that's one of the biggest beefs I have with D*. All my DVRs are legitimately owned and I have to keep paying for them every month. Bothers me, always has. I spent all that money because D* puts HDDs that are too small in their DVRs. That causes slowness and other problems. Yet I keep paying...my obsession with baseball demands I do that.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> If that's the case I guess they will also want to pay to be on the new DTV OTT service so we will never be rid of them, unless you get DTV NOW?


I have the D*Now channel lineup in front of me. I see no shopping channels. I see a lot of channels I wouldn't watch tho.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> This upcoming streaming version of DirecTV will run on the exact same underlying cloud-based video platform that DirecTV Now currently runs on. The consumer-facing stuff (channel line-ups, UI, cost, features, pricing) may differ somewhat from DirecTV Now but the underlying technology will be the same. And since that's the case, I would expect the picture quality for the forthcoming service to be the same as it is for DirecTV Now, which is quite good. Lots of folks, including myself, think DirecTV Now's average HD picture quality is at least a little bit better than DTV satellite. Some even say it's a lot better.
> 
> AT&T has also stated that this new video platform will gain the ability to support 4K HDR later in 2018, so I would expect that sort of content (at least on-demand, and possibly live) will be available in the forthcoming service when it debuts late this year.


I was in an ATT store the other day and was told D*Now puts out 1080p. Don't know if the guy knew what he was talking about.

Rich


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

DVR storage will drive it for me more than anything. We record a lot of shows, and now I dont start watching new shows till renewal. I do get my premiums thru Amazon (HBO, Starz, Etc...) now so that helps on space, but we will regularly run 4 months behind because of life. I might knock 2-3 hours of DVR out during a weeknight, and we record a lot more than that during the week LOL. It is the reason my HR54 now has a 4gb drive supporting it and the HR24 has a 2TB drive


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

drpjr said:


> Nope, don't want them coming up with anything like the transistor again.


Today's AT&T didn't invent the transistor. Today's AT&T was a spinoff of the original AT&T that purchased the remnants of AT&T and then changed their name.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> I was in an ATT store the other day and was told D*Now puts out 1080p. Don't know if the guy knew what he was talking about.
> 
> Rich


Yep, it's true. Pretty much none of the retail TV-connected or mobile devices that we use can handle interlaced video, which is why everything streamed over the internet is progressive video. So DTV Now takes 1080i channels (pretty much everything that isn't owned by Disney or Fox) and streams them out at 1080p. However, channels which originate in 720p (e.g. Disney and Fox channels) are streamed out at 720p.

HD picture quality is quite good for DTV Now. On average, I'd say it's a little better than I recall DTV satellite being, and that opinion is backed up by lots of folks at AVS Forum who have both services simultaneously (or who had DTV satellite very recently).


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Today's AT&T didn't invent the transistor. Today's AT&T was a spinoff of the original AT&T that purchased the remnants of AT&T and then changed their name.


Yep. Today's AT&T = BellSouth + Southwestern Bell + Pacific Telesis + Ameritech.

Verizon = Bell Atlantic + NYNEX + GTE.

CenturyLink = US West (subsequently named Qwest).


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> Altice is upgrading our system to fiber, been going on for a couple months. No idea what happens when they implement it. I'm guessing there will be a charge for every Altice 1 box, that's one of the biggest beefs I have with D*. All my DVRs are legitimately owned and I have to keep paying for them every month. Bothers me, always has. I spent all that money because D* puts HDDs that are too small in their DVRs. That causes slowness and other problems. Yet I keep paying...my obsession with baseball demands I do that.
> 
> Rich


How do you own your DVRs? Are they TiVos? Either way, I've got bad news for you. At some point in the future (maybe as soon as your local area/neighborhood is transitioned over by Altice to fiber), they're going to do away with traditional cable TV transmitted via QAM. Which means that TiVos, other CableCARD devices, and any pre-Altice One box from Cablevision/Optimum will no longer work.

Here's a link to the user manual for the Altice "FiberGateway" device that will be given to customers after the switchover. This device will serve as your home wifi/ethernet router and will also provision IPTV and internet-based home telephone service for connected TVs and landline phones throughout the home.

FGW-GR240BG Fiber Gateway 4x4 User Manual Altice Labs, S.A.

I would guess that every TV in the home will need an Altice One Mini box (or some new version of the Altice One box without built-in DOCSIS modem and QAM tuners). And yes, I expect that they'll charge you per TV that accesses the service.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> How do you own your DVRs? Are they TiVos? Either way, I've got bad news for you. At some point in the future (maybe as soon as your local area/neighborhood is transitioned over by Altice to fiber), they're going to do away with traditional cable TV transmitted via QAM. Which means that TiVos, other CableCARD devices, and any pre-Altice One box from Cablevision/Optimum will no longer work.
> 
> Here's a link to the user manual for the Altice "FiberGateway" device that will be given to customers after the switchover. This device will serve as your home wifi/ethernet router and will also provision IPTV and internet-based home telephone service for connected TVs and landline phones throughout the home.
> 
> ...


and they may even force you to rent the gateway even for internet only subs.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Cable companies that transition to fiber, or stay coax but do away with QAM and go all IP (essentially all DOCSIS 3.1) will take back control over the experience since they won't have to worry about people using cable card based devices.

The question is, what will they do with that control? I wouldn't be surprised to see networks paying them to prevent commercial skipping during some/all of their programming. Right now that's not feasible because of competition - it would just cause a lot of people to dump cableco equipment and buy a Tivo, or switch to satellite. But if Tivo is no longer an option, and the satellite companies are pushing IP/streaming services and vulnerable to the same "we'll give you this big pile of cash if you prevent your customers from skipping commecials" pitch...


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

The end of net neutrality will kill this plan. Do they really think that Comcast will allow their internet customers to get workable download speeds for this service? I don't think so.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yep, it's true. Pretty much none of the retail TV-connected or mobile devices that we use can handle interlaced video, which is why everything streamed over the internet is progressive video. So DTV Now takes 1080i channels (pretty much everything that isn't owned by Disney or Fox) and streams them out at 1080p. However, channels which originate in 720p (e.g. Disney and Fox channels) are streamed out at 720p.
> 
> HD picture quality is quite good for DTV Now. On average, I'd say it's a little better than I recall DTV satellite being, and that opinion is backed up by lots of folks at AVS Forum who have both services simultaneously (or who had DTV satellite very recently).


So he was right. Interesting. What about the cloud DVR? Could you tell us in detail what's wrong with it? YES also is 720p so I guess I'm not gonna get a much better picture than I do now but what I get now is really good. On closeups. I would like to see what the Stadium looks like in an upscaled from 1080p picture.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> How do you own your DVRs? Are they TiVos? Either way, I've got bad news for you. At some point in the future (maybe as soon as your local area/neighborhood is transitioned over by Altice to fiber), they're going to do away with traditional cable TV transmitted via QAM. Which means that TiVos, other CableCARD devices, and any pre-Altice One box from Cablevision/Optimum will no longer work.
> 
> Here's a link to the user manual for the Altice "FiberGateway" device that will be given to customers after the switchover. This device will serve as your home wifi/ethernet router and will also provision IPTV and internet-based home telephone service for connected TVs and landline phones throughout the home.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I should have been clearer. I still have a subscription to D* and I do own all my DVRs. Altice/Optimum is my Internet provider. I gave up on cable DVRs years ago. Never had one that worked well, D*'s DVRs are so much better.

Will this change adversely affect my Netgear routers? That just occurred to me.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> ... the same "we'll give you this big pile of cash if you prevent your customers from skipping commecials" pitch...


Or "we will not let you have our content if you do not prevent customers from skipping our commercials".


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

JoeTheDragon said:


> and they may even force you to rent the gateway even for internet only subs.


Oh, you will absolutely be required to use their gateway if you're an Altice Fiber customer. That's just the way that fiber internet service works. Same thing with AT&T Fiber and Google Fiber. Unlike cable modems, there's not a retail market for fiber (or, for that matter, DSL) gateways, so you can't buy your own and take it from one provider to another. You have to use theirs. But since that's the case, the cost of the gateway is typically just included in the monthly service price. I don't pay any extra per month to "rent" my gateway from AT&T. It's just free with the service.

Those gateways are a like a combo modem and router. If you don't like the router features/functionality of the gateway, you can typically connect your own retail router to the gateway, which takes a bit of configuration. My AT&T gateway offers enough customization that it works fine for me, so I don't need to use a separate router. But some folks do.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> So he was right. Interesting. What about the cloud DVR? Could you tell us in detail what's wrong with it? YES also is 720p so I guess I'm not gonna get a much better picture than I do now but what I get now is really good. On closeups. I would like to see what the Stadium looks like in an upscaled from 1080p picture.
> 
> Rich


What's wrong with cloud DVR? There's nothing inherently wrong with cloud DVRs, in general. I assume you're asking specifically about the cloud DVR for DTV Now, which is still in beta. While I was using/test it, it was pretty flaky (weird audio and video glitches, occasional missing recordings, etc.), although I assume that AT&T will get that straightened out, as other vMVPDs have with their cloud DVRs. It did get better toward the end. Beyond that, you probably wouldn't like that the cloud DVR only provides 20 hours of storage and recordings auto-delete after 30 days! They will reportedly offer an upgraded cloud DVR for an extra $10, though, that will offer 100 hours and 90 days. The cloud DVR always allows you to FF/skip through commercials and *I think* it allows recordings on all channels/shows except the premium channels (e.g. HBO), but then all their stuff is available on-demand, so who cares. Playback/FF/rewind/skip controls were pretty good, although not as good as TiVo. On my Apple TV, each click would skip forward or back 15 seconds. You could stack multiple clicks, although sometimes it would take a few seconds to resume playing if you stacked, say, 10 clicks. But the system was quite responsive with just a few clicks. Otherwise, you could scrub the playhead backward or forward on the video timeline but, right now, there's no thumbnail preview, so you're scrubbing "blind". I think that will change, though, so that timeline scrubbing works the same as it does in Netflix (with a thumbnail preview).

That said, I don't expect that the cloud DVR that comes with the forthcoming "streaming DirecTV" (or "AT&T TV" or whatever they end up branding the new thing that's supposed to launch in 4Q18) will be so stingy. I expect that its feature set will be pretty comparable to DTV satellite and/or Uverse TV, since those are the services which this new service will ultimately replace.

Lastly, if YES originates in 720p, then DTV Now would carry it in 720p. It might very well look a bit better than it does on DTV satellite but I doubt it would be a LOT better.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

James Long said:


> Or "we will not let you have our content if you do not prevent customers from skipping our commercials".


Or "if your customers want the ability to skip commercials they need to pay us an additional $4.99-$9.99 a month".


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

My issue with cloud dvr - I have more internet outages than DirecTV outages (due to weather etc). This winter internet was out 3 days but I had power and DirecTV. I also suspect that ISP's will end, if they haven't, unlimited data and if you are streaming several recorded shows at once will they allow you to? Or will they limit data / hour etc.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CTJon said:


> My issue with cloud dvr - I have more internet outages than DirecTV outages (due to weather etc). This winter internet was out 3 days but I had power and DirecTV. I also suspect that ISP's will end, if they haven't, unlimited data and if you are streaming several recorded shows at once will they allow you to? Or will they limit data / hour etc.


My experience is the opposite: broadband service from both Comcast and AT&T have been far more reliable over the years than either Dish or DTV satellite service ever were, due to weather.

There's a lot of hand-writing and doom-predicting on message boards like this one about the future of internet service, streaming video and data caps but honestly, I don't worry about it too much. Although it isn't true (yet) that there are multiple viable broadband providers at every address in the nation, there are enough players nationally, and enough homes who do have multiple providers, that I think competition between ISPs will help us avoid a really bad scenario. (And remember, wireless home internet via 4G, 5G and low-earth-orbit satellite will force greater competition.) Also, there's quite a bit of popular support for net neutrality (or at least most aspects of it) and it's widely supported among Democrats and some moderate Republicans in Congress and many state legislatures. So between pressure from the market and pressure from regulators, I think things will generally be OK.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Or "if your customers want the ability to skip commercials they need to pay us an additional $4.99-$9.99 a month".


Something like that could happen, although it would seem like all the competing MVPDs would have to implement it at the same time, otherwise whoever did it first would be at a big competitive disadvantage. (And remember, it's illegal for competitors to collude on such plans.)

But ultimately, linear TV channels and DVRs (whether local or cloud) are going to go away. Everything will just be on-demand, except stuff that's actually live (e.g. sports, news, etc.). With the on-demand stuff, it will either come without ads (like Netflix, HBO, Showtime, etc.) and cost more because of it, or it will come with forced ads and cost less or be free (e.g. Hulu, CBS All Access, Tubi, Roku Channel). Hulu and CBS All Access, of course, give you the option to pay less with forced ads or pay more without ads. At any rate, it's pretty simple: you want to avoid ads, you'll pay more. Which is fair.

I imagine OTA linear broadcast channels will continue to exist for a long time (at least until the public decides that they're a waste of precious spectrum and their licenses get yanked and the spectrum is refarmed for wireless internet). But I can imagine a future in which either the national "networks" -- ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox -- either exist only via online distribution (e.g. CBS All Access, Disney's future streaming service, etc.) or make very little content available to their OTA broadcast affiliates, saving everything else for their direct-to-consumer online services. OTA channels, then, would be filled up just with local news and other content produced and owned by their ownership groups (Sinclair, Nexstar, etc.) for airing on their own stations. In other words, OTA TV may eventually be a shell of its current self, existing mainly as a free conduit for local news and emergency broadcast alerts. Perhaps broadly popular live sporting events (e.g. NFL football) which could draw sufficient ad revenue, will continue to be offered to local OTA stations by national providers, although I'm sure those same sports will also be available in the direct-to-consumer subscription streaming services too.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

With ISP’s it depends on whether or not you are in the cities or a close suburb. In far suburbs, cities/towns not close to a larger city it is almost a rule that only one really good high speed internet will be available. And rural really doesn’t even have that.

I’m in a town about 100 miles from St. Louis. In some parts of town we have both Mediacom for truly high speed, and Frontier for high speed up to a max of 24Mbps. On the edges, like my subdivision, we have Mediacom for up to 200Mbps, Wisper for up to 20Mbps or Frontier for up to 1.3Mbps. And that situation exists in many towns here, but some don’t have those choices.

So OTT isn’t of much use in many places around here.

And in addition, Sony has said that the future of PSVue is ‘uncertain’ as analysts have noted quite loudly that they haven’t hit 1 million subscribers yet. And IMO, PSVue is one of the very best OTT services though far from being the cheapest.

OTT will not be taking over the TV world anytime soon because of that situation IMO. It will grow and cable/sat will decline, but I suspect both will be around for a lot of years going forward though we might see only one SAT provider.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> OTT will not be taking over the TV world anytime soon because of that situation IMO. It will grow and cable/sat will decline, but I suspect both will be around for a lot of years going forward though we might see only one SAT provider.


Um, OTT is *already* taking over the world. To wit:
Netflix is now worth more than Disney and Comcast

I think what you meant when you said that is that OTT vMPVDs (Over-the-Top Virtual Multi-Platform Video Distributors, i.e. traditional linear channel cable bundles distributed over the open internet, such as DTV Now, PS Vue, etc.) won't end up amounting to more subscribers than traditional MPVDs (Comcast cable, Charter cable, DTV sat, Dish sat, etc.) And you're probably right there (although we'll have to see how successful AT&T is in shifting their TV subscriber base away from sat and telco IPTV over to OTT).

But my point is that those vMVPD services are really just a streaming rehash of the old traditional cable TV model which is already fading away and getting replaced with an on-demand streaming future from Netflix, Hulu, etc. These lower-priced skinnier vMVPDs are, as I see it, the last-ditch effort of traditional cable TV to stave off its inevitable demise. Keep your eye on sports, because that's really the final lynchpin holding the _ancien regime_ in place. Once Disney makes all of their ESPN content available direct-to-consumer via OTT live streaming (or if and when the various sports leagues finally cut out the ESPN middleman and just sell their own content direct-to-consumer via OTT live streaming), that's when the dam will finally break. We've got awhile yet, I imagine...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Um, OTT is *already* taking over the world. To wit:
> Netflix is now worth more than Disney and Comcast


Netflix being wildly overvalued by clueless investors doesn't mean OTT is "taking over the world". At one time AOL and Yahoo were equally overvalued, where are they now?

Disney owns decades of content and produces new content worth an order of magnitude more than Netflix's every year despite all the hype about Netflix's original content. Netflix having a higher market cap is just a temporary market aberration, they can't possibly grow enough to justify their ridiculous P/E. They're in over half of internet using US households, so there's not a lot of room for growth in the US and not a lot of reason to believe they will be able to get the kind of market share internationally they have in the US.

OTT is definitely the trend but it will probably be mid 2020s if not later before linear drops below 50% of US households unless cord cutting seriously accelerates. There are a lot of potential landmines that could be hit along the way, like if they get too aggressive in trying to monetize the eyeballs watching on-demand by forcing too many ads, ISPs freed from the shackles of net neutrality start forcing OTT providers to pay up for access to ISP networks, cable companies decide to prevent customers dropping TV by putting restrictive caps in place for internet only customers, etc. Not saying all those will happen but it is overly optimistic to believe that none of them are likely to happen.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

Rich said:


> Sorry, I should have been clearer. I still have a subscription to D* and I do own all my DVRs. Altice/Optimum is my Internet provider. I gave up on cable DVRs years ago. Never had one that worked well, D*'s DVRs are so much better.
> 
> Will this change adversely affect my Netgear routers? That just occurred to me.
> 
> Rich


I tried using a Netgear router with CenturyLink's FTTH. It was the R6400 and the best it would do is 400MB. You need the higher end Netgear routers to pull 1GB. Asus has one that is around $240 that will work. You might check the DSL reports Altice/optimum forum and see what works.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

machavez00 said:


> I tried using a Netgear router with CenturyLink's FTTH. It was the R6400 and the best it would do is 400MB. You need the higher end Netgear routers to pull 1GB. Asus has one that is around $240 that will work. You might check the DSL reports Altice/optimum forum and see what works.


I do have the high end Nighthawks. I talked to a cable guy that was at the house yesterday and he said he has a similar Nighthawk running on the Altice 1 system. I have seen speeds approaching 1GB when I used Netgear's server as my choice of servers when running speed tests. I know they can do it.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Disney owns decades of content and produces new content worth an order of magnitude more than Netflix's every year despite all the hype about Netflix's original content. Netflix having a higher market cap is just a temporary market aberration, they can't possibly grow enough to justify their ridiculous P/E. They're in over half of internet using US households, so there's not a lot of room for growth in the US and not a lot of reason to believe they will be able to get the kind of market share internationally they have in the US.


Maybe Netflix stock is overvalued. My point is that OTT/streaming video isn't just "the future," it's already a HUGE and growing part of the US (and global) video landscape NOW.

I'd love to see figures on what percentage of the total hours of video viewed by Americans (across ALL screens) are in the form of traditional TV (live linear cable/OTA channels, DVR-recorded linear content, on-demand content provided directly through an MVPD-supplied STB or MVPD-authenticated CableCARD device) vs. streaming video (all app-based or web-based content -- such as Netflix, YouTube, iTunes, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, clips in web pages, etc. -- but excluding vMVPD-delivered linear or on-demand content that merely replicates traditional TV sources).

As for Disney, you realize that their future is direct-to-consumer OTT streaming too, right? If their proposed deal with Fox goes through, in a year or so from now, Disney will be the sole or majority owner of three major OTT services: Hulu; the forthcoming new Disney-branded competitor to Netflix ("Disneyflix" as some in the media have dubbed it); and ESPN+ (which, for now, is positioned as merely a complement to their major cable-distributed ESPN channels but could eventually cannibalize those channels when the economics are right).


----------



## justin may (May 20, 2018)

ESPN+ puts the traditional cable bundle in severe danger. Once enough of the high-value sports content moves off cable, the bundle becomes less compelling for the core audience that allows for cable to exist - people watching sports. Sooner or later, they will realize that they can get the content they care about the most (the NFL) over OTA and will be able to get the rest through a cheap, $5-10 OTT subscription. Without high value sports content, the cable bundle cannot survive on a raw economic level.

ESPN+ moves the death date closer and closer. They are moving the UFC off of cable, they are moving a lot of college football off of cable. More sports to come, of course. Turner is moving the Champions League off of cable. NBC is moving the Premier League off of cable. You can expect NBC to begin to move the NHL off of cable once they renew their rights. Sooner or later, there will be nothing left. And unlike most international markets, the most popular sports product is largely available for free, no cable required.

Even in a world where a handful of top-notch properties (MNF and the like) are still trapped on cable, people will not be paying the typical $80 a month to access it. They'll be watching on Sling or the like.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

What do you mean by “moving off of cable?” Do you mean moving to OTA or OTT?


----------



## justin may (May 20, 2018)

TheRatPatrol said:


> What do you mean by "moving off of cable?" Do you mean moving to OTA or OTT?


OTT. Not just available on OTT too, exclusively available.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> As for Disney, you realize that their future is direct-to-consumer OTT streaming too, right? If their proposed deal with Fox goes through, in a year or so from now, Disney will be the sole or majority owner of three major OTT services: Hulu; the forthcoming new Disney-branded competitor to Netflix ("Disneyflix" as some in the media have dubbed it); and ESPN+ (which, for now, is positioned as merely a complement to their major cable-distributed ESPN channels but could eventually cannibalize those channels when the economics are right).


Yes, and that severely devalues competitors like Netflix who would lose access to Disney content like Star Wars and Marvel, and potentially to 20th Century Fox movies as well. They are still going to be offering linear, and Disney's content is already available for streaming from other sources so them stepping in just moves the deck chairs about, the Titantic of linear TV doesn't sink any faster as a result.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

justin may said:


> ESPN+ puts the traditional cable bundle in severe danger. Once enough of the high-value sports content moves off cable, the bundle becomes less compelling for the core audience that allows for cable to exist - people watching sports. Sooner or later, they will realize that they can get the content they care about the most (the NFL) over OTA and will be able to get the rest through a cheap, $5-10 OTT subscription. Without high value sports content, the cable bundle cannot survive on a raw economic level.
> 
> ESPN+ moves the death date closer and closer. They are moving the UFC off of cable, they are moving a lot of college football off of cable. More sports to come, of course. Turner is moving the Champions League off of cable. NBC is moving the Premier League off of cable. You can expect NBC to begin to move the NHL off of cable once they renew their rights. Sooner or later, there will be nothing left. And unlike most international markets, the most popular sports product is largely available for free, no cable required.
> 
> Even in a world where a handful of top-notch properties (MNF and the like) are still trapped on cable, people will not be paying the typical $80 a month to access it. They'll be watching on Sling or the like.


ESPN+ is only moving third tier content that lived on ESPN3, whatever that college football add on that Directv used to sell is called, etc. All the major conference college football and basketball, the NFL, the NBA and MLB that ESPN shows today will remain on ESPN and be unavailable for streaming.

It will take a long time for that to change, because there is no way ESPN can possibly make anywhere near as much money selling direct as they can with the current model. They want the status quo to remain in place for as long as possible, as they are currently getting something like $8/month per subscriber to any cable/satellite/OTT package that includes ESPN, despite the fact that only about 25% of people watch ESPN a lot.

That means they'd have to charge $32/month just to break even by selling directly to the people who watch ESPN a lot, but they'd never get all those 25% to pony up that much so they will definitely lose revenue once the linear model collapses. I expect we are near the high water mark for the value of sports rights, if not already just past the peak, so change is coming but it will not happen nearly as quickly as some people want to think (like the people who somehow believe Directv will drop satellite by 2020)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Yes, and that severely devalues competitors like Netflix who would lose access to Disney content like Star Wars and Marvel, and potentially to 20th Century Fox movies as well. They are still going to be offering linear, and Disney's content is already available for streaming from other sources so them stepping in just moves the deck chairs about, the Titantic of linear TV doesn't sink any faster as a result.


Ha, of course it does! Yes, Disney will still be offering linear but a lot of their original content going forward will be exclusive to their OTT services. Have you even read anything about Disney's future plans or do you simply default to your usual "the way TV is now is going to last until I die" viewpoint? Here's an interesting article to get you started:
Disneyflix Is Coming. And Netflix Should Be Scared.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> ESPN+ is only moving third tier content that lived on ESPN3, whatever that college football add on that Directv used to sell is called, etc


ESPN3 still has most of the college sports content and many other things like Formula 1 practices, Formula 2, CFL and other things, most of which is not available with ESPN+. So the core ESPN+ content is one tier below that, while the out of market MLS, NHL and MLB games require a seperate addon subscription and are not part of the $4.99 subscription. The upcoming ESPN/UFC deal is something similar, it's basically stuff that's currently on UFC Fight Pass, the PPVs are a seperate purchase, while ESPN's linear channels are getting the stuff that used to be on Fox and FS1. ESPN College Extra also still exists with tons of Football, Basketball, Lacrosse, Baseball and Softball that isn't available on ESPN+.

Someone else mentioned NBC Sports and the Premier League being available on NBC Sports Gold. The only thing on NBC Sports Gold is the games that used to be on the Premier Leage Extra channels, you still need an actual cable package to stream the more high profile games that air on NBCSN, USA and CNBC (and other channels on some weekends), as well as provider authentication if you want to stream the NBC games.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Ha, of course it does! Yes, Disney will still be offering linear but a lot of their original content going forward will be exclusive to their OTT services. Have you even read anything about Disney's future plans or do you simply default to your usual "the way TV is now is going to last until I die" viewpoint? Here's an interesting article to get you started:
> Disneyflix Is Coming. And Netflix Should Be Scared.


Where I am saying "the way TV is now is going to last until I die"? Just because I don't think streaming is going to displace linear in 2-3 years like you seem to doesn't mean I think linear will last forever. I just think the transition is going to take a lot longer than the people bidding up Netflix to crazy prices or those reading too much into the AT&T CEO's statements and thinking they mean satellite is going away in a few years.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

KyL416 said:


> ESPN3 still has most of the college sports content and many other things like Formula 1 practices, Formula 2, CFL and other things, most of which is not available with ESPN+. So the core ESPN+ content is one tier below that, while the out of market MLS, NHL and MLB games require a seperate addon subscription and are not part of the $4.99 subscription.


So ESPN+ is like 'tier 4' content? It is almost like SNL's ESPN 'the Ocho' parodies


----------



## justin may (May 20, 2018)

KyL416 said:


> ESPN3 still has most of the college sports content and many other things like Formula 1 practices, Formula 2, CFL and other things, most of which is not available with ESPN+. So the core ESPN+ content is one tier below that, while the out of market MLS, NHL and MLB games require a seperate addon subscription and are not part of the $4.99 subscription. The upcoming ESPN/UFC deal is something similar, it's basically stuff that's currently on UFC Fight Pass, the PPVs are a seperate purchase, while ESPN's linear channels are getting the stuff that used to be on Fox and FS1. ESPN College Extra also still exists with tons of Football, Basketball, Lacrosse, Baseball and Softball that isn't available on ESPN+.
> 
> Someone else mentioned NBC Sports and the Premier League being available on NBC Sports Gold. The only thing on NBC Sports Gold is the games that used to be on the Premier Leage Extra channels, you still need an actual cable package to stream the more high profile games that air on NBCSN, USA and CNBC (and other channels on some weekends), as well as provider authentication if you want to stream the NBC games.


That is changing quickly. They are moving that content to ESPN+ on an almost weekly basis, with ESPN+ coverage to begin in 2019.

That is a very temporary situation, as ESPN has made clear in statements to the public and to investors. Everything of value is moving from ESPN3 (and from the ESPN cable product itself) to ESPN+. Portions of your post are outright incorrect - i have no interest in pointing out each instance of nonsense. Suffice to say that your understanding of the subject matter is weak at best.

Nothing happens all at once. First you see little experiments like what the MLB is doing, then full blown product offerings that offer a limited amount of coverage for the given league, then full coverage, then nothing on cable and that is that.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Absolutely NONE of their statements have ever said that.

You're new here, so you don't know who you're talking to right now. Others here can vouch for the reliability of my information and what I have access to when it comes to statements, future programming and schedules, launches, etc.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

Rich said:


> Yup, buy an ATV or Fire box or The Shield. If money is a problem you can't beat a Fire TV box when it comes to bang for your buck. Price at purchase is all you have to worry about and there are no monthly charges. I am getting ready to start up PS Vue again, I could not think of anything I wanted to record last winter and I really want to give the cloud DVR a good look. I also want to compare the PQ on the Yankee games and see how it compares to what D* puts out. My commitment on D* runs out in January and then I hope to make the cut then.
> 
> Rich


Doesn't the cloud DVR have a limit on how long you can keep a recording?


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

The basic Cloud includes 20 hours and a recording is retained for 30 days. There will be a fee based service, which for $10 will provide you with 100 hours, the recordings are retained for 90 days.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

the2130 said:


> Doesn't the cloud DVR have a limit on how long you can keep a recording?


The current PSVue cloud DVR, included at no extra charge, provides unlimited recording and retains DVRed shows for up to 28 days. I know that some folks have an issue with the 28 day restriction but if I haven't watched something I've DVRed within 28 days I'll probably never watch it. And after 28 days many shows are replaced by an on demand version of the show.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I just think the transition is going to take a lot longer than the people bidding up Netflix to crazy prices or those reading too much into the AT&T CEO's statements and thinking they mean satellite is going away in a few years.


i agree. these things always seem to take more time than what people anticipate. Just take a look at the old 2015 "directv fixed wireless" thread on here. According to some in that thread, the digital divide was suppose to be a thing of the past by now LOL


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

the2130 said:


> Doesn't the cloud DVR have a limit on how long you can keep a recording?


Yes, but I don't need a DVR for anything but sports which I watch immediately, well after I have enough of a buffer to click thru commercials and BS anyhow. Doesn't matter, no WPIX on PS Vue, no Rich.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

chances14 said:


> i agree. these things always seem to take more time than what people anticipate. Just take a look at the old 2015 "directv fixed wireless" thread on here. According to some in that thread, the digital divide was suppose to be a thing of the past by now LOL


It will definitely take awhile but AT&T is being very clear from repeated public statements (and internal leaks from before that) that they plan to deprecate satellite TV service and work to shift their TV subscribers over from satellite (and, I would imagine, from Uverse IPTV) to various forms of OTT streaming. That shift will really begin in earnest when they launch their new OTT service (late this year if it doesn't slip to 2019) that will be positioned as a direct replacement for DTV satellite.

Will their strategy work? Depends on how good the new service is, I guess. But if it works well, is priced less than satellite (which they've repeatedly stated it will be), and has a roughly equivalent channel line-up and feature set, I can definitely imagine that the majority (not all) of AT&T's TV subs will be on some form of OTT TV in 4 years. (What percentage of current DTV satellite subs don't have home broadband, I wonder? Not a whole lot, I'd bet.)

AT&T has indicated that satellite TV will mainly play a role for them in serving rural customers going forward (presumably because fewer of that demographic have home broadband). And I'm sure it will continue to have a niche in serving restaurants and bars too. I've never been one to say that satellite TV is going away in just a few years but I do think it's reasonable to imagine it being gone in a decade. And it's reasonable to imagine AT&T spinning off their satellite TV business well before that, after they've shifted the bulk of those subscribers to OTT.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I don't believe for a minute they will actually try to shift existing satellite customers to IP - certainly not if they charge a lot less for it since that would mean they'd make less money. The install costs have already been paid for existing customers, so the "customer acquisition" cost argument doesn't fly there. Why should a satellite customer want to switch, what's in it for them? What is Directv going to offer them to make them want to do it, and why would Directv want to essentially pay customers to switch?

By "transition" I think they mean the IP service is what they'll primarily sell, similar to how today they'll primarily sell Directv satellite even to people eligible to get Uverse TV though of course you'll be able to get whichever one you want. Given that Directv has historically had a churn rate of around 18% - implying they lose 3-4 million subscribers a year and gain a similar number (or slightly less now that they've started to shed satellite subscribers) if they for example added 3 million IP customers and only a half million satellite customers each year it would only take a few years before they had more IP subscribers than satellite.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I don't believe for a minute they will actually try to shift existing satellite customers to IP - certainly not if they charge a lot less for it since that would mean they'd make less money. The install costs have already been paid for existing customers, so the "customer acquisition" cost argument doesn't fly there. Why should a satellite customer want to switch, what's in it for them? What is Directv going to offer them to make them want to do it, and why would Directv want to essentially pay customers to switch?
> 
> By "transition" I think they mean the IP service is what they'll primarily sell, similar to how today they'll primarily sell Directv satellite even to people eligible to get Uverse TV though of course you'll be able to get whichever one you want. Given that Directv has historically had a churn rate of around 18% - implying they lose 3-4 million subscribers a year and gain a similar number (or slightly less now that they've started to shed satellite subscribers) if they for example added 3 million IP customers and only a half million satellite customers each year it would only take a few years before they had more IP subscribers than satellite.


Eh, I almost inserted a sentence in my post above about my uncertainty over just how they will shift users from DBS to OTT, whether it will be simply through attrition (as you posit) or through a combination of attrition and active conversion of the existing user base.

AT&T has already stated that the margins will be the same for the forthcoming "streaming DTV" as for their DBS service (whether you believe that or not), so it's not a matter of making less money if a customer switches. But if AT&T has reason to believe that customers will be happier with the new OTT service than with their current DBS service -- because the OTT service is more reliable (no rain fade), because it costs less, because it offers a better STB UX, etc. -- then I could imagine AT&T actively trying to shift customers over to it. Happier customers are stickier customers who are less likely to defect to Comcast, Charter, Hulu with Live TV, YouTube TV, etc.

Another reason to actively encourage DBS customers to switch over to the new OTT service would be "Let's just hurry up and get on with this transition so that we can be done with DBS." I do imagine that the lifespan of DBS will have a long tail, i.e. a greatly diminished user base that hangs around for a few more years even after the bulk of users have transitioned to OTT. But whether or not AT&T wants to babysit that long decline in the 2020s, who knows. So perhaps AT&T wants to shift as much of the user base over to OTT as quickly as possible over the next few years and then dump the DBS business onto someone else. I still think a combined DISH/DirecTV DBS business would make sense eventually as there will become too few subscribers to sustain two separate businesses. Of course who knows what will become of DISH by three years from now...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

AT&T did not buy DIRECTV to shut it down.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

James Long said:


> AT&T did not buy DIRECTV to shut it down.


They mainly bought it because they saw UVerseTV sucked and only got 6 million customers and couldn't have great channel negotiation power. What if they can get most of their 25 million customers on OTT using AT&T's and others broadband connections and still have great channel negotiation power? They said they would still use DTV for rural areas that can't get good broadband speeds. What if with the full DTV over the internet you can get the exact same experience that you have with DTV using Satellite and get that with DTV using the internet? Maybe even having the DTV and UVerseTV channel lineups combined since OTT would have more channel capacity.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Still a lot of "ifs" and no reason for AT&T to force subscribers off of satellite.

OTT bandwidth is not infinite. The issue keeping the DTV and UVerseTV lineups from being identical is carriage contracts ... not bandwidth. DIRECTV has enough bandwidth on their Ka satellites to add every channel in the UVerseTV lineup that they are not already carrying.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

James Long said:


> Still a lot of "ifs" and no reason for AT&T to force subscribers off of satellite.
> 
> OTT bandwidth is not infinite. The issue keeping the DTV and UVerseTV lineups from being identical is carriage contracts ... not bandwidth. DIRECTV has enough bandwidth on their Ka satellites to add every channel in the UVerseTV lineup that they are not already carrying.


Learn something new everyday.  I though IPTV had more bandwidth than SatelliteTV.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> AT&T did not buy DIRECTV to shut it down.


They bought it for the massive subscriber base, not for the DBS technology which they knew was already getting outdated when they made the transaction. No matter how much you guys keeping wanting to "Make Satellite TV Great Again!" the truth is that it's on it's way out. When AT&T, Sky and DISH all concede that point by shifting their efforts to internet-based distribution, the writing is on the wall...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Throwing around "three years" and "five years" (in previous posts) makes it sound like the death of satellite is imminent. It is not. When there are still 10-15 million subscribers on DIRECTV satellite in 10 years will you claim that satellite has died?

The satellite companies are wise to invest in systems that are gaining customers ... although at some point their IPTV systems will need to be profitable. They are making too much money off of satellite distribution to abandon that distribution method and push people away to less profitable systems. If one acknowledges that satellite needs to be there for some AT&T|DIRECTV customers (sports bars and rural customers, for example) then one must acknowledge that the infrastructure is there for as many customers that they can keep on satellite.

OTT IPTV isn't free. Someone has to pay bandwidth for both ends of the connection. A customer paying for their own ISP (with potential data caps and bandwidth limits that may limit the number of channels that can be watched simultaneously). The content provider paying for their bandwidth for each stream being viewed. And in the absence of net neutrality add special fees to allow that content to pass at a watchable rate. Pie in the sky predictions of infinite bandwidth from 5G (at a reasonable rate) just add to the wishful thinking. Expecting streams to remain at the highest quality once streaming takes off is wishful thinking.

When the whippersnappers start seeing the bills for OTT perhaps they too will see satellite as a viable option. High bandwidth to everyone's home and business as long as one can see the satellites. The other 30+ million satellite subscribers are not hurting my satellite bandwidth one bit (or gigabyte). We all get the same high quality unbuffered signals and can receive as many simultaneous channels as we have tuners. Broadcast (one to many - in this case tens of millions simultaneously) rules. Certainly better that hundreds of millions of IPTV feeds.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

also with sport betting be legal lot of shops will want to have all the game packs and walls of tv's. Unless att is willing to let them have u-verse even if they 2 lines / 16 feeds. And they can't bill for the full internet cost + full TV cost. Some places may not want to just have to pay say $600-$1000/mo for an 100/100 or more internet line upload not needed but the SLA and guaranteed download is needed + the cost of tv.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> AT&T has already stated that the margins will be the same for the forthcoming "streaming DTV" as for their DBS service (whether you believe that or not), so it's not a matter of making less money if a customer switches.


If the price is lower there's no way they can make the same margins unless they include amortization of the installation costs. That's fair when calculating margins, but not when determining if it makes sense to convert existing customers from satellite to IP - because those are sunk costs for existing satellite customers.

Of course we don't know what the pricing structure for the IP product will be until it is announced, but if it comes down to a question of paying say $150/month for a given package and x TVs for satellite but they'll only charge you $120/month for the same thing on IP, there's no way the math works for them to replace existing customers. They'll pay the same for content either way, the only difference is the Genie 2 can be taken back from them (costing in the ballpark of $170 to build and amortized over five years so we're talking $3/month)


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

It's clear that there will be a transition from satellite to other forms of distribution in the coming years. These things never happen as fast as some people expect them to, but I do think that satellite tv will be a lame duck within a decade.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

James Long said:


> We all get the same high quality unbuffered signals and can receive as many simultaneous channels as we have tuners.


And hopefully be able to continue to record on our own in-house DVR hard drive.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> If the price is lower there's no way they can make the same margins unless they include amortization of the installation costs. That's fair when calculating margins, but not when determining if it makes sense to convert existing customers from satellite to IP - because those are sunk costs for existing satellite customers.
> 
> Of course we don't know what the pricing structure for the IP product will be until it is announced, but if it comes down to a question of paying say $150/month for a given package and x TVs for satellite but they'll only charge you $120/month for the same thing on IP, there's no way the math works for them to replace existing customers. They'll pay the same for content either way, the only difference is the Genie 2 can be taken back from them (costing in the ballpark of $170 to build and amortized over five years so we're talking $3/month)





TDK1044 said:


> It's clear that there will be a transition from satellite to other forms of distribution in the coming years. These things never happen as fast as some people expect them to, but I do think that satellite tv will be a lame duck within a decade.


What about the att-uverse network? will that be used? Used to make IPTV better for subs on the ATT network?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> They bought it for the massive subscriber base, not for the DBS technology which they knew was already getting outdated when they made the transaction. No matter how much you guys keeping wanting to "Make Satellite TV Great Again!" the truth is that it's on it's way out. When AT&T, Sky and DISH all concede that point by shifting their efforts to internet-based distribution, the writing is on the wall...


I like the way you think...probably because I think the same thoughts. I have a vision of red ball caps with a MSTVGA logo and the death star on the bill...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Throwing around "three years" and "five years" (in previous posts) makes it sound like the death of satellite is imminent. It is not. When there are still 10-15 million subscribers on DIRECTV satellite in 10 years will you claim that satellite has died?
> 
> The satellite companies are wise to invest in systems that are gaining customers ... although at some point their IPTV systems will need to be profitable. They are making too much money off of satellite distribution to abandon that distribution method and push people away to less profitable systems. If one acknowledges that satellite needs to be there for some AT&T|DIRECTV customers (sports bars and rural customers, for example) then one must acknowledge that the infrastructure is there for as many customers that they can keep on satellite.
> 
> ...


I have a large monthly bill for both D* and OTT offerings. Just about what I used to pay for D* with the premier movie package. This way is just better, I think.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TDK1044 said:


> It's clear that there will be a transition from satellite to other forms of distribution in the coming years. These things never happen as fast as some people expect them to, but I do think that satellite tv will be a lame duck within a decade.


A lame duck now, perhaps? Not gonna get better.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Of course we don't know what the pricing structure for the IP product will be until it is announced, but if it comes down to a question of paying say $150/month for a given package and x TVs for satellite but they'll only charge you $120/month for the same thing on IP, there's no way the math works for them to replace existing customers. They'll pay the same for content either way, the only difference is the Genie 2 can be taken back from them (costing in the ballpark of $170 to build and amortized over five years so we're talking $3/month)


I wonder if AT&T|DIRECTV will end up paying more for the rights to OTT distribution? Traditional satellite/cable subscriptions typically include commitments and tiers that keep people subscribed to channels that they do not want. Part of the promise of OTT/IPTV is a la carte paying only for what one wants. If AT&T|DIRECTV releases a product that doesn't require the same commitment to the service or a tier perhaps programmers will want more for their channels to make up for the losses.

I was reading a Verizon blog last night that quoted IPTV industry churn at 50%. With that level of turnover I would be worried if AT&T|DIRECTV could maintain their subscriber counts over time.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

As been stated before - Net Neutrality will have a big piece here. I can't imagine a local cable / internet provider allowing AT&T or any other provider steal their customer base without some cost - whether directly or nor. We'll pay for that.
Back years ago we talked about the last mile - whomever owned that connection from anywhere into your house or business really owned the business. Satellite is really the only exception to that rule. No one is going to go around and run new a line from the poll (or underground) into your building. 
Time will tell


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CTJon said:


> Back years ago we talked about the last mile - whomever owned that connection from anywhere into your house or business really owned the business. Satellite is really the only exception to that rule.


Satellite is the ultimate work around. Other than the satellite providers I expect whomever one chooses as their ISP to be the primary choice as a TV/content provider. IPTV has an advantage over OTT ... they own the network serving their customer (and without Net Neutrality can take an unfair advantage). Satellite may be the only way to keep other providers in line.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Solid Signal Blog had a new article about the new DTV OTT service.

All of DIRECTV's content going to streaming? - The Solid Signal Blog


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Net Neutrality is far from dead. The states, especially the densely populated ones, are going to stick it to the FCC and farce that was the Net Neutrality reversal process, and enact their own Net Neutrality laws, that may be even more stringent that what was in place before.

Just another example of providers being clueless about how fed up people are with their nonsense.



CTJon said:


> As been stated before - Net Neutrality will have a big piece here. I can't imagine a local cable / internet provider allowing AT&T or any other provider steal their customer base without some cost - whether directly or nor. We'll pay for that.
> Back years ago we talked about the last mile - whomever owned that connection from anywhere into your house or business really owned the business. Satellite is really the only exception to that rule. No one is going to go around and run new a line from the poll (or underground) into your building.
> Time will tell


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

raott said:


> Net Neutrality is far from dead. The states, especially the densely populated ones, are going to stick it to the FCC and farce that was the Net Neutrality reversal process, and enact their own Net Neutrality laws, that may be even more stringent that what was in place before.


That would only work on utilities regulated by the states, within the scope permitted by federal law. It would not take long to put federal laws in place to block states from attempting to regulate the internet.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Throwing around "three years" and "five years" (in previous posts) makes it sound like the death of satellite is imminent. It is not. When there are still 10-15 million subscribers on DIRECTV satellite in 10 years will you claim that satellite has died?


Feel free to go back and examine my earlier posts, but I don't think I've ever said that satellite TV would be "dead" in 3-5 years. (Or if I did say that, it was quite awhile ago, and has been repeatedly contradicted by my subsequent posts.) When I've referred to something in a 3-5 year timeframe, I've typically said that AT&T would aggressively work to have the "bulk" or "majority" of their satellite TV subscribers transitioned over to some form of AT&T OTT TV by then. And perhaps I said that AT&T might sell off their satellite TV business within that timeframe. But I definitely DO NOT believe that satellite TV will be dead -- as in, completely out of business, has zero current subscribers -- in 5 years. 10 years? I see that as quite possible, although I still wouldn't say it's a sure thing. But if it's not actually dead a decade from now, it will be a ghost of its former self. DBS is a dying transmission technology within a broader business (traditional linear-channel cable TV) that is itself in secular long-term decline.

Here's a question for you: What do you think AT&T will do if the judge comes back next week and says that, in order to complete their proposed acquisition of Time Warner, AT&T must divest itself of their DirecTV satellite business? Which business would AT&T choose?

Do they choose to just retain the status quo, keeping DirecTV satellite and foregoing the acquisition of Time Warner? Satellite TV is a not-insignificant contributor to AT&T's bottom line. Best I can glean doing some quick and dirty math, it looks like it contributed about 11% of the company's overall net income in 2017. But the satellite TV customer base continues to shrink and AT&T clearly sees OTT video as their future emphasis.

Or do they choose to sell or spin-off DirecTV and go through with the Time Warner acquisition? Network providers do not want to simply become "dumb pipes" carrying other company's bits back and forth to consumers. That's why they want to marry content ownership with network ownership (something that our government should forbid, IMO). Comcast has obviously already done this with their acquisition of NBCUniversal. Owning those Time Warner cable channels, and the ability to serve up lucrative targeted ads through internet-based OTT systems within those channels, as well HBO, are key parts of AT&T's future strategy.

So do they stick with an important, but shrinking, current business or do they bet on a new future direction? I'm honestly not sure what I think they'd do. But if I had to guess, I'd say they would agree to divest their satellite TV business (although not Uverse IPTV or any OTT service like DTV Now). But they would negotiate with the DOJ for some favorable stipulations, such as: AT&T would have one year to find a suitable buyer and an agreeable price. Failing that, they would spin it off as a separate independent business/separate stock with different directors, etc. Additionally, AT&T might try to stipulate that they can retain all customer data that they have gleaned from the satellite TV business through the years (including customer contact lists for future marketing efforts to lure them over to their OTT TV services) and that AT&T will have shared access to whatever NFL Sunday Ticket contracts that the DTV satellite business has, so that they can offer Sunday Ticket through their OTT services.

AT&T registered the brand name "AT&T TV" a few months ago. When I read that news, I assumed that would be the name of the forthcoming more expensive, fully-featured OTT TV service that they have said will debut late this year. But then recently, AT&T referred to that service as a streaming version of their original DirecTV service and seemed to indicate that it would share the DirecTV brand (as DirecTV Now also does). So perhaps registering "AT&T TV" was simply a back-up option, in case they lost the trial and were, in fact, forced to spin off or sell DirecTV. In that case, maybe they'd just use AT&T TV as the brand name for their upcoming flagship TV service. Perhaps DirecTV Now would be rebranded to AT&T Watch (which will be the name of the $15 skinny bundle OTT service if they win the trial).


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Nothing technical here. My gut is telling me that the satellites will not go away. I can see AT&T taking over Dish and gaining more customers. I believe they want the wired version of DirecTV so that they can get into Townhomes and high rise apartments where the people are not supposed to have a dish and depending on which side of the building they are on would not have a line of sight. All of this maneuvering is about getting more eyeballs paying them every month.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Ok. I wonder if the dozens of states know that what they are doing is doomed to fail.



James Long said:


> That would only work on utilities regulated by the states, within the scope permitted by federal law. It would not take long to put federal laws in place to block states from attempting to regulate the internet.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

raott said:


> Ok. I wonder if the dozens of states know that what they are doing is doomed to fail.


Lots of things regarding net neutrality are still very much in play over the next few years. Which party will be in control of the House, the Senate and the White House in 2019 and 2021? Supporting net neutrality is a pretty crowd-pleasing issue and a gimme for Democrats. Some Republicans would likely support it too.

Here in TN, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (a right-wing Trump butt-licker) is bought and paid for by Comcast and AT&T and is an opponent of net neutrality. She's running for the Senate and is opposed by moderate Democrat (and popular former TN governor) Phil Bredesen. There have already been billboards up around here calling Blackburn out on her anti-net neutrality pandering to the big telecom corporations. I expect Bredesen to exploit that issue this fall in what should be a close election (with polls currently showing Bredesen slightly ahead).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Given the choice of purchasing Time Warner or keeping DIRECTV I believe AT&T would keep DIRECTV. It would be a huge mess to try to separate the contracts that they are signing that cover all of their distribution methods and they don't get to sell the satellite business without selling the customer base (#1 reason for buying DIRECTV) and NFL Sunday Ticket (another big reason for buying DIRECTV). A pillage and plunder strategy will not work.

Then again if AT&T did divest DIRECTV they would prove to the haters that AT&T is as stupid as those people say they are. I don't believe AT&T is stupid.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

raott said:


> Ok. I wonder if the dozens of states know that what they are doing is doomed to fail.


When what they have done makes any impact expect a response via Federal control.

Right now net neutrality vs no net neutrality is an academic argument.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Then again if AT&T did divest DIRECTV they would prove to the haters that AT&T is as stupid as those people say they are. I don't believe AT&T is stupid.


I'll be surprised if the court forces that choice on AT&T. Based on what knowledgable legal observers are saying, I'm betting that the deal will get approved with only minimal concessions required. But it sure would be interesting if the court made AT&T choose between satellite TV service and Time Warner content.

In that case, should they choose Time Warner and divest DTV, I would think the haters would actually be pretty happy. Lots of folks here seem to think service was better before AT&T bought DTV (and I don't doubt them). Frankly, in the long run, having a single company that really cares about DBS own and run both DTV and DISH together would probably be the best outcome for DBS customers. And having that increased scale for negotiating carriage contracts would of course help in the fight to keep content costs down.

I wonder if the DOJ would agree to AT&T selling DTV to DISH (if DISH was interested) as a condition to acquire TW? That would vault DISH to the biggest MVPD in the nation by far, with around 31 million subs, compared to Comcast and Charter at 22 and 17 million, respectively. My guess is that they would not allow it, as DTV and DISH are the only truly nationwide MVPDs. One or both would probably need to lose quite a few more subs over the next few years before the DOJ would agree to a SiriumXM-type merger.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

James Long said:


> Or "we will not let you have our content if you do not prevent customers from skipping our commercials".


They might have been able to get away with that a few years ago, but today it would probably just accelerate the cord-cutting trend that is already cutting into traditional pay-TV. There are so many ad-free ways to watch TV today that many people would just dump their cable and satellite subscriptions if they couldn't skip commercials.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

jimmie57 said:


> Nothing technical here. My gut is telling me that the satellites will not go away. I can see AT&T taking over Dish and gaining more customers. I believe they want the wired version of DirecTV so that they can get into Townhomes and high rise apartments where the people are not supposed to have a dish and depending on which side of the building they are on would not have a line of sight. All of this maneuvering is about getting more eyeballs paying them every month.


Why would AT&T want Dish when they already have Directv? There are no synergies between the two companies aside from both being satellite, but it would take many years to swap dishes on everyone's roof and decommission Dish's satellites - until then your satellite operating costs are doubled with the same shrinking pool of potential satellite customers. Neither is there anything complementary between them like there was with AT&T/Directv. Doesn't matter, would never be allowed because today satellite is the only option for millions of customers, they aren't going to hand those people over to a monopoly and let the largest MVPD get 50% bigger.

Someday there will only be room for one satellite provider, but AT&T is in a far better position. Dish has fewer customers, has two arcs meaning 2x the satellites to maintain, and can't offer cellular or internet (at least not without spending many billions to develop their spectrum) so they can't compete on the same level as AT&T and cable companies on double/triple play packages. They are easily the weaker satellite competitor. They can't possibly survive on their own long term, so why should AT&T want to be the one that throws them the lifeline?


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> Why would AT&T want Dish when they already have Directv? There are no synergies between the two companies aside from both being satellite, but it would take many years to swap dishes on everyone's roof and decommission Dish's satellites - until then your satellite operating costs are doubled with the same shrinking pool of potential satellite customers. Neither is there anything complementary between them like there was with AT&T/Directv. Doesn't matter, would never be allowed because today satellite is the only option for millions of customers, they aren't going to hand those people over to a monopoly and let the largest MVPD get 50% bigger.
> 
> Someday there will only be room for one satellite provider, but AT&T is in a far better position. Dish has fewer customers, has two arcs meaning 2x the satellites to maintain, and can't offer cellular or internet (at least not without spending many billions to develop their spectrum) so they can't compete on the same level as AT&T and cable companies on double/triple play packages. They are easily the weaker satellite competitor. They can't possibly survive on their own long term, so why should AT&T want to be the one that throws them the lifeline?


To get the customers. It is all about adding customers. When each of thse types of companies announce their quarterly earning most of what everyone wants to know is "how many customers did you add or lose this quarter and the forecast for next quarter".


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Getting customers is one thing, paying billions to get them is another. They bought Directv to get scale to compete with the big boys, I doubt there's much benefit to being even bigger - if they already had Dish the chances of them being allowed to buy Time Warner as an MVPD 50% larger than the rest would be zero.

I doubt regulators would allow any of the top three largest MVPDs (AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum) to acquire the fourth largest (Dish) but between those three especially not AT&T because then satellite would be a monopoly for the millions of rural consumers who currently have no other option. No different than why they'd never allow AT&T or Verizon to buy Tmobile or Sprint, but Tmobile and Sprint merging would easily be approved.

If AT&T wants to get bigger they'd have to do it by buying smaller cable operators that mostly don't operate where AT&T does. Cable customers would be far easier / cheaper to integrate into AT&T's future product direction than more satellite customers, because all of them are already wired for streaming.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> Getting customers is one thing, paying billions to get them is another. They bought Directv to get scale to compete with the big boys, I doubt there's much benefit to being even bigger - if they already had Dish the chances of them being allowed to buy Time Warner as an MVPD 50% larger than the rest would be zero.
> 
> I doubt regulators would allow any of the top three largest MVPDs (AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum) to acquire the fourth largest (Dish) but between those three especially not AT&T because then satellite would be a monopoly for the millions of rural consumers who currently have no other option. No different than why they'd never allow AT&T or Verizon to buy Tmobile or Sprint, but Tmobile and Sprint merging would easily be approved.
> 
> If AT&T wants to get bigger they'd have to do it by buying smaller cable operators that mostly don't operate where AT&T does. Cable customers would be far easier / cheaper to integrate into AT&T's future product direction than more satellite customers, because all of them are already wired for streaming.


They spend the billions all the time.
This is current for Comcast buying / trying to buy.
British Government OKs Comcast Bid for Sky and Fox Bid With Conditions, Setting Up Showdown


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I can see there being a sale in 10-15 years if satellite subscription drops off significantly but I expect that it will be more of an asset sale ... DIRECTV's DBS assets being sold to DISH with AT&T|DIRECTV becoming a Ka only system and keeping their then remaining customers (rural and businesses who rely on unbuffered live streams). Technically still two satellite providers. I am not confident that everything that can be done via satellite (currently 30 million subscribers with as many simultaneous streams as the customer wants) can be done via OTT/IPTV.

Satellite is not going away.

(As for who is buying whom I am reminded that of the two current companies one has been bought and sold several times - the other has never been owned by another company. That does not mean that a merger will never happen but I am also reminded that DISH has attempted to buy DIRECTV once and discussed the possibility more than once. DIRECTV has not made any moves or feelers to buy DISH.)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Feel free to go back and examine my earlier posts, but I don't think I've ever said that satellite TV would be "dead" in 3-5 years. (Or if I did say that, it was quite awhile ago, and has been repeatedly contradicted by my subsequent posts.) When I've referred to something in a 3-5 year timeframe, I've typically said that AT&T would aggressively work to have the "bulk" or "majority" of their satellite TV subscribers transitioned over to some form of AT&T OTT TV by then. And perhaps I said that AT&T might sell off their satellite TV business within that timeframe. But I definitely DO NOT believe that satellite TV will be dead -- as in, completely out of business, has zero current subscribers -- in 5 years. 10 years? I see that as quite possible, although I still wouldn't say it's a sure thing. But if it's not actually dead a decade from now, it will be a ghost of its former self. DBS is a dying transmission technology within a broader business (traditional linear-channel cable TV) that is itself in secular long-term decline.
> 
> Here's a question for you: What do you think AT&T will do if the judge comes back next week and says that, in order to complete their proposed acquisition of Time Warner, AT&T must divest itself of their DirecTV satellite business? Which business would AT&T choose?
> 
> ...


I've said it before and ill say it again. Att is a company that sees great value in broadcasting channels. They have even tested it with wireless. I think they plan on keeping satelites in parallel and having the same interface as all the rest of the offerings. I don't think it'll ever be a shell of it's former self.

They want to be able to offer you service several ways so that they can offer service to everyone. And have the same experience for everyone. The only question is which method is best to get the signal to you.

And therefore they will market which ever way is cheaper for them to install in each market. Big cities will be streaming. Rural will be satelites. Our skirt urban sprawl (say south jordon Utah for example that is in a big city but offers super slow dsl only for Internet) will be wireless...

But you will be able to get satelites anywhere. It will be their trump card over all the other providers over the top services because over the top won't be able to get everywhere.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Yep, I agree 100% with everything inkahauts said. AT&T bought Directv for a reason, they aren't going to sell them off a few years later. It makes no sense, and they'd lose billions doing so and have to untangle all the billing/support they've been tying together between AT&T and Directv and the hardware/software they've been integrating between the satellite and OTT lines.

Everything I've said about how little sense it makes for AT&T to buy Dish (even if it were allowed) goes the same for it making little sense for Dish and Directv to merge should they be spun off. Integrating the two would take a long time, and in the meantime you are supporting THREE satellite fleets in a declining business!


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Satellite is not going away.


Yes, just like those Roman aqueducts that still to this day supply water to every European home, DBS will continue to deliver quality, reliable pay television to the human race for centuries, nay millennia, to come. </sarcasm>

Of course satellite TV is eventually going away. Everything and everyone dies at some point. The question is when. (Nothing like a brief contemplation of one's own mortality to kick off the weekend, eh?)



James Long said:


> I can see there being a sale in 10-15 years if satellite subscription drops off significantly but I expect that it will be more of an asset sale ... DIRECTV's DBS assets being sold to DISH with AT&T|DIRECTV becoming a Ka only system and keeping their then remaining customers (rural and businesses who rely on unbuffered live streams). Technically still two satellite providers.


Maybe. Interesting thought that AT&T might want to keep a truncated DBS system in place for certain types of users. Although, in 10 to 15 years, I frankly do not believe that there would be enough of a rural market remaining without access to quality broadband internet to justify AT&T holding onto a tiny DBS operation.

The following scenario makes more sense to me: DISH (or whoever owns what's left of the DISH DBS business at that point) eventually buys the total DIRECTV satellite TV business from AT&T and combines it with DISH into a single brand with unified channel packages and pricing, providing increased scale for negotiating content contracts with networks. But they would have to keep using the two different sets of existing satellites to work with the two different sets of deployed dishes and STBs. All new subs going forward would just be set up to use whichever set of satellites had the longest remaining lifespan. At that point, the game plan would likely be to wring out the last bits of value from those birds before sunsetting the entire operation because sinking new capital into new DBS satellites (when the sky will already be filled with lots of low-earth orbit broadband satellites from SpaceX or whoever wins that race) just wouldn't make financial sense.



inkahauts said:


> I've said it before and ill say it again. Att is a company that sees great value in broadcasting channels. They have even tested it with wireless. I think they plan on keeping satelites in parallel and having the same interface as all the rest of the offerings. I don't think it'll ever be a shell of it's former self.
> 
> They want to be able to offer you service several ways so that they can offer service to everyone. And have the same experience for everyone. The only question is which method is best to get the signal to you.
> 
> But you will be able to get satelites anywhere. It will be their trump card over all the other providers over the top services because over the top won't be able to get everywhere.


But here's the thing: DBS is a one-way one-to-many broadcast technology. It will never be able to offer the same set of capabilities (and business opportunities) as two-way IP-based delivery, which can support both one-to-many and one-to-one delivery. Yes, you can get around this to an extent if you marry DBS with an internet connection (as Genie STBs already do) but if I've got home broadband, and DirecTV can deliver an equivalent or better user experience to me via that connection without the need for an ugly rain-fade-prone rooftop dish (and do it at a lower price point, to boot), then why am I using DBS at all?

As far as the geographical ubiquity of DBS access being its trump card, yes, you're right about that, at least until there are so few US homes without broadband that they no longer matter (from a business perspective). Broadband internet is to the 21st century what electricity was the 20th. Sure, even in the 1960s, there were still shacks in the Mississippi delta, the West Virginia mountains, and the wilds of Idaho that didn't have electricity. But those exceptions to the rule didn't matter in terms of mass American culture, technology and business. Likewise, having a large-scale business in 2028 predicated on serving Americans without access to broadband just isn't going to be sustainable.



slice1900 said:


> Everything I've said about how little sense it makes for AT&T to buy Dish (even if it were allowed) goes the same for it making little sense for Dish to buy Directv should they be spun off. Integrating the two would take a long time, and in the meantime you are supporting THREE satellite fleets in a declining business!


Well, supporting the costs of the existing satellite fleets is a given and it will be whatever it will be, whether those fleets are operated by two different owners or a single owner. But there are always efficiencies of scale to be had when two essentially similar competing businesses merge. There would be layoffs of overlapping staff. More importantly, there would be a far larger customer base for negotiating network carriage contracts for a newly unified channel line-up across all customers. There would be efficiencies in terms of orders for hardware, such as STBs. There would be a single fleet of installers. And of course removing the only direct competitor would reduce pricing pressure on the sole surviving company.

And at some point, as I said above, it's just not going to make economic sense to launch new replacement DBS satellites. A combined DISH/DirecTV company would have a bigger fleet of satellites and, as this or that bird was retired, they could shift their load among the remaining sats. That may mean having to dispatch installers to some customers to replace or reposition dishes and other in-home hardware, although that would likely still be cheaper than launching new sats. (Also, I anticipate that there will be fewer linear cable channels in the future, which would obviously help matters for the operator as older sats are retired.)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Of course satellite TV is eventually going away. Everything and everyone dies at some point. The question is when.


Fire has not gone away. The wheel is still gong strong. And while most tools have improved hammers and knives are still a major part of daily life in our society.
"Everything dies?" Always avoid absolute statements. 



NashGuy said:


> But here's the thing: DBS is a one-way one-to-many broadcast technology.


That is the best part of satellite (and broadcast in general). They can serve millions with one feed per channel - no buffering. Satellite could serve billions if one put a billion receivers within the footprint. Or trillions. Having quadrillions of receivers tuned to a satellite or other broadcast does not degrade the signal.

Try that with IPTV. I'll wait for your answer to buffer. 

As long as there is a market for live TV satellite will have a place in the market.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Fire has not gone away. The wheel is still gong strong. And while most tools have improved hammers and knives are still a major part of daily life in our society.


If you honestly put DBS TV technology in the same category as _*fire*_ and _*the wheel,*_ then I honestly don't know what to say to you, sir.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> If you honestly put DBS TV technology in the same category as _*fire*_ and _*the wheel,*_ then I honestly don't know what to say to you, sir.


I respect revolutionary technologies.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Try that with IPTV. I'll wait for your answer to buffer.


You're apparently not familiar with multicast IPTV (which serves millions of simultaneous users on Uverse TV without any buffering at all).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"Live TV, Pay Per View, U-verse Movies, On Demand, and other applications are delivered to your U-verse receivers as streams of content. U-verse TV can deliver a maximum of four simultaneous streams. Internet with AT&T Fiber customers get six HD streams with the ITB PACE DVR providing storage of up to 900 hours of SD programming or 330 hours of HD programming."
https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/u-verse-tv/KM1042519

How many simultaneous HD feeds can be received in a home or business served by satellite?

Perhaps broadcast IP will work in closed networks. Satellite TV is basically broadcast packets on a closed network. Just not with the same limits.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

I think that there will be an inevitable and significant reduction in the number of satellite customers over the coming years. When you offer people the same, or very similar, channel line ups for a significantly reduced cost, you will eventually get to a point when continuing to supply satellite television is no longer viable. The only question for me is how long it will take to get to that point. My guess would be 10 to 12 years.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I agree that there will be significant reductions in cable/sat subscriptions going forward. But the costs of streaming isn’t as significant as some would want to believe.

The only current way to see a significant reduction in subscription cost when going to streaming is to accept less. Less channel selection, less TV outlets and so forth. No current streaming service has it all even available.

Some have no locals or are missing some but not others. Some have missing providers, ie; Disney, Viacom and so forth. All have restrictions on number of streams which means in multi-TV homes you might need multiple subscriptions.

Of the two sat providers, Dish comes closest with their Flex Pack product which starts out cheaper and lets you add/subtract additions at varying costs. Of course, not all channels are available with that package and add-ons, similar to what streamers offer now.

And for many some ISPs have data caps so they might need a higher service level to support the streaming TV services without data overage charges.

It is interesting to note that in nearly every post about switching, mention is also made of the channels they chose to decide they really didn’t need after all. I see that as rationalization, which is fine, but still says to pay less, you get less.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, just like those Roman aqueducts that still to this day supply water to every European home, DBS will continue to deliver quality, reliable pay television to the human race for centuries, nay millennia, to come. </sarcasm>


Almost fell off my chair laughing...Thanx!

Rich


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Not paying for something you do not use, is hardly a rationalization. It's good monetary sense. DirectvNow is almost close to my tipping point. I suspect when the new IP service comes out, I will be jumping ship for the savings.



lparsons21 said:


> I agree that there will be significant reductions in cable/sat subscriptions going forward. But the costs of streaming isn't as significant as some would want to believe.
> 
> The only current way to see a significant reduction in subscription cost when going to streaming is to accept less. Less channel selection, less TV outlets and so forth. No current streaming service has it all even available.
> 
> ...


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

raott said:


> Not paying for something you do not use, is hardly a rationalization. It's good monetary sense. DirectvNow is almost close to my tipping point. I suspect when the new IP service comes out, I will be jumping ship for the savings.


If you quit using something because it isnt available, it is a rationalization. I'm fine with that.

As to the upcoming 'full' DTV streaming service, it remains to be seen just how much it actually costs and how many simultaneous streams it will support.

I'm not much interested in it as my current, and for at least a couple more years, cable service is cheaper than anything else for my use case by quite a bit

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

raott said:


> Not paying for something you do not use, is hardly a rationalization.


The rationalization comes in when a subscriber decides that they do not need something because they cannot get it.
(See cognitive dissonance theory or "sour grapes".)

It isn't a decision to not pay for what one does not want ... it is a decision to not want what one is not getting.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, just like those Roman aqueducts that still to this day supply water to every European home


Some still are in use - mostly for irrigation. The Trevi fountain in Rome is supplied by a Roman aqueduct built twenty centuries ago.

No, I don't think we'll still have satellite TV in the year 4018


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> The rationalization comes in when a subscriber decides that they do not need something because they cannot get it.
> (See cognitive dissonance theory or "sour grapes".)
> 
> It isn't a decision to not pay for what one does not want ... it is a decision to not want what one is not getting.


So in your world if I choose to subscribe to a service or package tier that doesn't have a channel or channels that I never watched and never wanted to watch, which is what "not paying for something you don't use" is referring to, that is somehow "rationalization"...um ok.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Uh no. It's simply not paying for something I'll never use. I guess I'll not make a great syncophant or cuck like some of those over at edgecutter.



James Long said:


> The rationalization comes in when a subscriber decides that they do not need something because they cannot get it.
> (See cognitive dissonance theory or "sour grapes".)
> 
> It isn't a decision to not pay for what one does not want ... it is a decision to not want what one is not getting.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> So in your world if I choose to subscribe to a service or package tier that doesn't have a channel or channels that I never watched and never wanted to watch, which is what "not paying for something you don't use" is referring to, that is somehow "rationalization"...um ok.


Not what is being said at all. It is the rationalization of picking a service that doesn't have a channel you do watch to save some money. Of course there's nothing wrong with that, but it is rationalizing nevertheless

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

lparsons21 said:


> Not what is being said at all. It is the rationalization of picking a service that doesn't have a channel you do watch to save some money. Of course there's nothing wrong with that, but it is rationalizing nevertheless
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


That is the general discussion that was happening. However, that is not the specific post he was responding to and quoted. Go back and read it. 
Some people do exactly what you describe and yes, that is rationalization. That is not what everyone is doing. Some people have decided to find a service or package tier that does not include a bunch of channels that they have never watched and have no desire to watch. That is certainly not rationalization. That is being a smart consumer....at least in my world.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mjwagner said:


> So in your world if I choose to subscribe to a service or package tier that doesn't have a channel or channels that I never watched and never wanted to watch, which is what "not paying for something you don't use" is referring to, that is somehow "rationalization"...um ok.


No. What I am referring to are the people who decide they don't want a channel after they find out that it isn't available. They rationalize the loss of content.

The post that I quoted corrupted the idea put forth by lparsons21. The idea that people make a compromise then downplay the importance of what they have lost.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> No. What I am referring to are the people who decide they don't want a channel after they find out that it isn't available. They rationalize the loss of content.
> 
> The post that I quoted corrupted the idea put forth by lparsons21. The idea that people make a compromise then downplay the importance of what they have lost.


Thanks for the clarification. IMHO that is not what many folks are doing. They are moving to a service and/or package tier that does not include a bunch of channels that they have never watched and have no desire to watch. Are their some who are giving up some channels they have watched or maybe even might want to watch and "rationalizing" that decision..sure. But it would not be accurate to lump all of them into that category. We could certainly argue over the percentage in each category though...;-)


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I would argue that most that cut the cord had to do some rationalization since there really isn't a single source to get all the channels. Not a big deal, and we all rationalize over different things at different times. In the past, BBCA has been a bone of contention because overall, I don't watch much on it, but it has two shows that I love to watch. Unfortunately BBCA is oft times in a higher sub level with a bunch of channels I really don't watch and darned sure don't want to pay for.
So my thinking goes, stay at a lower level and buy the series when they come out a year or so later. Since I'm retired and live alone and usually associate with those also retired, talk around the water cooler isn't a thing anymore. But I'd prefer to watch them when broadcast, hence the start of rationalizing.

Currently no OTT service offers it all, so if you want a channel the OTT service you sub to doesn't have you can either buy series later on or pick an additional source just for that or those channels, but then the cost savings starts to go away. The most convenient way to watch/record at home is still cable/sat, there is a cost involved in having that convenience. And cable/sat is still just about the only way to get one-stop shopping.

But then there is the reality that the only thing that is critical to watch in realtime or nearly so is sports for the fans, and the news. All the rest is optional! Even though Netflix/Amazon and some OTT service combined could give me more than enough interesting things to watch, it just isn't the same, nor is it as convenient by a huge margin. And if I chose to go all streaming I most likely would need to up my sub level with my ISP because of data caps. Every time I go looking at OTT/streaming to see if I would save money I find that I won't, or at least not enough to make putting up with the awkwardness of all the OTT/streaming services compared to my TIVOs or Hopper 3s when I was with Dish.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

You don't have to 'rationalize' to cut the cord or accept less than the highest possible package. Sure, that means giving up stuff but the question is "do you have more programs to watch than there is time to watch it?" If the answer is yes, then getting MORE programming doesn't really benefit you. All you get is more programming to reject.

This is why I don't have the highest tier package that would add a bunch more channels, why I don't have HBO or Showtime, why I don't subscribe to Netflix. What's the point, there's already more to watch than I have time (or more to the point choose to allocate time) to watch?

OK, if I had HBO maybe I'd decide Game of Thrones is better than something I'm watching now, but so what? Game of Thrones will still be around for me to watch next year, or 10 years from now. Sports, news, and other topical shows go stale quickly, others stand the test of time are are still as entertaining decades later. Besides, if I die never having watched GoT it isn't like I missed out on Shakespeare


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> That is the general discussion that was happening. However, that is not the specific post he was responding to and quoted. Go back and read it.
> Some people do exactly what you describe and yes, that is rationalization. That is not what everyone is doing. Some people have decided to find a service or package tier that does not include a bunch of channels that they have never watched and have no desire to watch. That is certainly not rationalization. That is being a smart consumer....at least in my world.


Next thing folks are gonna realize is that cable replacement services like D* Now and PS Vue aren't necessary, I don't see a need for such a service except for sports. Only time I have to worry about channels is when I need to see sports. Sadly, that's a big deal and the way D*Now looks I'll be better off keeping my sat service. I can see D* Now costing nearly as much as I pay for D*. PSV is gonna be the better choice as far as pricing goes but there are drawbacks there too. If PSV just carried WPIX in NYC...if PSV put out 1080p...if, if, if...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> I would argue that most that cut the cord had to do some rationalization since there really isn't a single source to get all the channels. Not a big deal, and we all rationalize over different things at different times. In the past, BBCA has been a bone of contention because overall, I don't watch much on it, but it has two shows that I love to watch. Unfortunately BBCA is oft times in a higher sub level with a bunch of channels I really don't watch and darned sure don't want to pay for.
> So my thinking goes, stay at a lower level and buy the series when they come out a year or so later. Since I'm retired and live alone and usually associate with those also retired, talk around the water cooler isn't a thing anymore. But I'd prefer to watch them when broadcast, hence the start of rationalizing.
> 
> *Currently no OTT service offers it all*, so if you want a channel the OTT service you sub to doesn't have you can either buy series later on or pick an additional source just for that or those channels, but then the cost savings starts to go away. The most convenient way to watch/record at home is still cable/sat, there is a cost involved in having that convenience. And cable/sat is still just about the only way to get one-stop shopping.
> ...


Then become your own "service". You can find just about anything online, you just have to get past needing a "replacement" for your service provider. I rarely use my service provider. You don't like sports all that much, IIRC, right? You really don't need a provider.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> You don't have to 'rationalize' to cut the cord or accept less than the highest possible package. Sure, that means giving up stuff but the question is "do you have more programs to watch than there is time to watch it?" If the answer is yes, then getting MORE programming doesn't really benefit you. All you get is more programming to reject.
> 
> This is why I don't have the highest tier package that would add a bunch more channels, why I don't have HBO or Showtime, why I don't subscribe to Netflix. What's the point, there's already more to watch than I have time (or more to the point choose to allocate time) to watch?
> 
> OK, if I had HBO maybe I'd decide Game of Thrones is better than something I'm watching now, but so what? Game of Thrones will still be around for me to watch next year, or 10 years from now. Sports, news, and other topical shows go stale quickly, others stand the test of time are are still as entertaining decades later. Besides, if I die never having watched GoT it isn't like I missed out on Shakespeare


Always interesting to see someone rationalize missing GoT...Might be the best series ever made, easily one of the top 10.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Then become your own "service". You can find just about anything online, you just have to get past needing a "replacement" for your service provider. I rarely use my service provider. You don't like sports all that much, IIRC, right? You really don't need a provider.
> 
> Rich


But then I would be dealing with the lack of convenience, which to me, has value. And of course every streaming service has their own idea of what the interface should look like and also everything is certainly not available without a subscription of some sort legally. 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Interesting back and forth. As I see it, there are trade-offs any which way you go right now, in terms of type and amount of content, in terms of convenience (e.g. unified UI/UX), in terms of ads, and (importantly) in terms of the amount of money paid. But whatever choice you personally make, I think we can all agree that it's a good thing that consumers have more choices available to them in terms of video entertainment, at a range of price points, than was the case a decade ago. A lot sure can change in a decade.

As Rich points out, sports is really the main thing still propping up the traditional bundled linear-channel cable TV system -- TV 2.0, as I call it. If you want to watch a lot of sports on your TV at home, there's just no getting around it -- you still need TV 2.0 (whether that's actual cable TV, or satellite TV, or telco TV, or one of the new cut-rate streaming copycat services like DirecTV Now, YouTube TV, etc.). (BTW, for the record, I would refer to the original OTA TV distribution system, predating the rise of cable TV and the VCR in the 70s, as TV 1.0.)

But as more and more viewing shifts from TV 2.0 to TV 3.0 -- which I define as over-the-top streaming video that exists outside the traditional bundled linear-channel cable TV system (e.g. Netflix, Hulu on-demand, YouTube, Prime Video, Apple, Tubi, Crackle, etc.) -- will sports be able to hold out? All businesses want to maximize profits and that generally means reaching customers where they are. How long until ESPN (and Fox Sports, NBC Sports, etc.) follows the trail already blazed by HBO, Showtime and Starz in 2015 to become hybrid services that distribute via both TV 2.0 and TV 3.0? I noticed just today that two of Canada's largest cable sports networks, TSN (English language) and RDS (French language), are now doing just that. You can subscribe to both together as a standalone OTT service for about US$19/mo. (BTW, ESPN holds a 20% stake in both.) Already we see some cracks in the dam here in the USA with services such as MLB At Bat, a direct-to-consumer OTT service offering out-of-market games, and ESPN+, which is a direct-to-consumer OTT complement to ESPN's cable channels (basically a streaming-only ESPN 3).

Meanwhile, that other stuff that tends to demand live viewing, news, is already shifting to TV 3.0. CBS News has a 24/7 news channel, CBSN, that is exclusively available OTT. NBC News is reportedly going to launch its own (free, ad-supported?) streaming news service later this year that will offer different content than MSNBC. (BTW, all the popular shows from MSNBC tend to be available for free, without ads, in the existing NBC News app about 2-3 hours after airing on cable.) And of course there are various free apps and platforms, such as Haystack, that aggregate current news videos from a variety of sources. Beyond that, so many Americans, especially those under 50, are now conditioned to mainly consuming news via online print with embedded video clips; I'm not sure that I foresee today's 24/7 news channels being as popular in the future. Keep in mind that the average age of the primetime Fox News viewer is 68.

How far along are we in the transition from TV 2.0 to 3.0? A new study just came out claiming that, across all US homes, the mean number of TV connected devices (e.g. smart TV, Roku, Apple TV, Chromecast, Fire TV, smart BD player, etc.) is 2.8 while the mean number of pay TV set-top boxes is just 1.7. (Of course, the vast majority of homes with traditional pay TV also have a TV connected device.) Among Americans age 18-34, _43% now watch OTT TV on an actual TV every day_. That figure does not include young adults' OTT video viewership on phone, tablet and computer screens. Among those age 35-54 (my group), it's 33%. Among those age 55 and over, it's only 12%.

Here's a study that I'd love to see. What percentage of total US video viewership -- across all screens -- is now TV 2.0 vs. TV 3.0? (For the most part, the distinctions are pretty clear cut, although some sources are debatable. While HBO Now clearly is TV 3.0, and watching HBO live, on-demand or DVRed via your cable STB is clearly TV 2.0, which category does HBO Go count as?) Furthermore, what does that breakdown of person-minutes viewed look like in different broad age categories?


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

I thought the OTT services had all the major sports networks nowadays, no? If not, which ones are they missing?


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> You don't have to 'rationalize' to cut the cord or accept less than the highest possible package. Sure, that means giving up stuff but the question is "do you have more programs to watch than there is time to watch it?" If the answer is yes, then getting MORE programming doesn't really benefit you. All you get is more programming to reject.
> 
> This is why I don't have the highest tier package that would add a bunch more channels, why I don't have HBO or Showtime, why I don't subscribe to Netflix. What's the point, there's already more to watch than I have time (or more to the point choose to allocate time) to watch?
> 
> OK, if I had HBO maybe I'd decide Game of Thrones is better than something I'm watching now, but so what? Game of Thrones will still be around for me to watch next year, or 10 years from now. Sports, news, and other topical shows go stale quickly, others stand the test of time are are still as entertaining decades later. Besides, if I die never having watched GoT it isn't like I missed out on Shakespeare


https://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones...pID=51L1HHy6CmL&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Sure, that means giving up stuff but the question is "do you have more programs to watch than there is time to watch it?"


That is your rationalization. 

If the content I currently watch is not on the service I move to I am losing content. It does not matter if I am trading one hour of watching (now unavailable) for hundreds of hours of newly available content that I may watch an hour of (or may not). I have lost that hour of programming that I cared about.

That is where the promise (yet to be fulfilled) of a "full DTV" satellite lineup via OTT comes in. The promise of "no compromise" when moving from satellite to streaming. No rationalization needed if all the satellite channels end up being available on the new "full DTV" service. But if the new service ends up being less than "full DTV" the rationalization will begin.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Could it really be AT&T is really killing two birds with one stone creating streaming services and also using them to try and get the remaining 3.6 million UVerseTV customers to switch to DTV?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> Always interesting to see someone rationalize missing GoT...Might be the best series ever made, easily one of the top 10.


I recognize the existence of Game of Thrones. I have never watched it and have no interest in watching it. The same goes for The Walking Dead which, as I understand it, is another very popular show. Those shows simply do not appeal to me.

Sadly most of my favorite programs are available OTA ... which means for the most part I am paying a satellite provider for convenient delivery and presentation of the content I want. Perhaps I should buy or build an in home TV server that uses OTA feeds ... but there is content I watch that is not available OTA. The easiest way to get all of that content is via satellite. Getting it OTT would require searching for the right providers for each piece of content, multiple subscriptions and the loss of some content that isn't legally available OTT.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> Always interesting to see someone rationalize missing GoT...Might be the best series ever made, easily one of the top 10.
> 
> Rich


If it is, won't that still be true five years from now? What's my hurry to watch it now? It doesn't go stale like last week's football game.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> But then I would be dealing with the lack of convenience, which to me, has value. And of course every streaming service has their own idea of what the interface should look like and also everything is certainly not available without a subscription of some sort legally.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


I hear you. Yes, "most" everything IS available. Yes, the video streaming services have a bit of a learning curve, once you master that you will find you have so much to watch...well, look at me, I don't watch any series on D* anymore. I never saw this coming, I thought D* was simply the best way to utilize a TV set...but it's not.

What's not available? No shopping channels. I haven't seen any religious channels. You can get weather info easily, there are several apps for that. News apps too (streaming apps work, not like D*'s apps). Yes, you can't watch brand new episodes but I rarely did that. Not a big deal since I'd much rather binge on a whole season or better yet a whole series. As I've said before what I/we do now is much like what I/we was doing in the late 80s, binging. I like binging. Just me. Just my opinion.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> If it is, won't that still be true five years from now? What's my hurry to watch it now? It doesn't go stale like last week's football game.


I've alway lived as if I was going to expire soon, I would hate to miss a great series like GoT because I ignored mortality. YMMV.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> I've alway lived as if I was going to expire soon, I would hate to miss a great series like GoT because I ignored mortality. YMMV.


At the end of my life all of the TV shows I have watched will be irrelevant. Even the shows I enjoyed. The only permanent benefit is if it has brought us closer to the people in our lives.

When my mother died we did not discuss TV on her death bed ... we discussed stuff that really mattered. Memories of her life, her late husband and the family she raised. Everything else was irrelevant. The conversation was similar when my sister died ... she talked about family, not the WWE programming she enjoyed. (My father and my wife died suddenly, there was no time to reminisce. But their favorite TV shows were irrelevant at their funerals.)


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Rich said:


> What's not available? No shopping channels. I haven't seen any religious channels.


That's for multiple reasons:
1. Most shopping and religious channels already stream online for free, so they have no reason to be carried on all OTT providers.
2. The subscriber base for streaming isn't stable enough for infomercial channels to pay millions of dollars a year to buy their way onto every OTT provider's lineup, like it is for a regular providers with millions of subscribers each. It also doesn't help that with the layout of some OTT providers, they can't pay to be placed next to the highest rated channels like USA, Comedy Central, AMC, History and HGTV.
3. There's no P/I requirement when it comes to religious channels like there is for satellite. Even on cable which religious channels are carried and where they are placed really varies regionally. Some providers have them in the lowest package that has the locals, others only carry the major players like EWTN, Daystar and TBN in a digital tier. It's the same thing with non-religious P/I channels like NASA.

Now if in a few years, one or more of the OTT providers emerge as the dominant one, and gets a stable subscriber base of a million+ indivdual subscribers that remain with them for several years, that could change and they would see it to be worth it to pay to be in the lineup for the OTT providers with millions of subscribers.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

TheRatPatrol said:


> I thought the OTT services had all the major sports networks nowadays, no? If not, which ones are they missing?


By "OTT services," I assume you're referring to vMPVDs such as DirecTV Now, PS Vue, Hulu with Live TV, YouTube TV and Fubo. And yes, those services do make pretty much all of the various national and regional sports channels available. (Perhaps none of them offers every single one but I think just about every single one is available on one vMVPD or another.) What we don't have yet is a way to watch the bulk of sports outside of that cable channel bundle system. Sure, Prime Video, Twitter and Yahoo now stream some NFL games here and there. But if you subscribe to ESPN+, their new standalone OTT app/service, you only get some odds-and-ends sports, not all the main stuff carried on the ESPN and ESPN 2 channels. You still need some kind of cable channel bundle for that.

As I mentioned in my long post above, I don't consider vMVPDs to be part of TV 3.0. Yes, it's true that they're delivered OTT, meaning that they can be subscribed to and watched regardless of who owns the physical connection to your device over which they're delivered. But, as a business proposition, they're really just an extension of the old TV 2.0 regime. It's still a bundle of linear channels which you either watch live or via some kind of DVR that you manage for time-shifting purposes. (IMO, the term "cord-cutter" has basically lost all meaning when it applies to someone who subscribes to a vMVPD service, although I don't really care much about that term one way or the other.)

I don't foresee the total number of vMVPD subscribers ever overtaking the number who subscribe to traditional MVPD services that only run over the provider's own network (whether that's cable, fiber or satellite). I could be wrong, especially if AT&T's forthcoming "no compromise" OTT version of DTV is wildly successful. Perhaps at that point we see Comcast respond by offering X1 STBs to folks nationwide and delivering their fat-bundle TV service OTT to subs off of the Comcast network (but still via QAM/managed IPTV to those on the Comcast network). My guess is that the share of TV 2.0 viewers who use vMVPDs will continue to rise but will always make up a modest portion of the overall TV 2.0 pie. But that pie is going to continue to shrink as more content, subscribers and viewer-hours shift to the many apps of TV 3.0.

It seems to me that vMVPDs are really just a way to try to stave off the eventual inevitable collapse of TV 2.0. Sure, DISH is bleeding satellite subs but maybe they can point to the fact that more than half of those lost subs are being replaced by Sling TV subscribers. (Never mind that they make far less per sub on Sling TV.)

Increasingly, being an MVPD (or vMVPD) is just a sucky business to be in. The margins are so thin that you need lots of subscribers to make it worthwhile. Most (all?) of these new vMPVDs are probably actually losing a bit of money per sub. But they're trying to grow into a dominant player and then, I suppose, raise prices and/or use their subscriber base to make money some other way. Increasingly, offering an MVPD or vMVPD service is just a means to somehow enhance your core business (such as offering broadband and/or mobile service) and make it more appealing/sticky for consumers. AT&T understands this. To make the MVPD business worthwhile for them, they're seeking to marry it to not only their mobile and broadband services but also to content ownership and ad sales, which is why they desperately want Time Warner.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Here's another new DTV NOW commercial.

DIRECTV NOW TV Commercial, 'All the Good Stuff'


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> If it is, won't that still be true five years from now? What's my hurry to watch it now? It doesn't go stale like last week's football game.


Got is better than any Shakespeare I've ever read or watched by far. Lol

I would actually suggest at this point starting to binge watch the show so that you where basically caught up right as the final season began and then watch the final season as it airs. Would be perfect way to watch it..


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Got is better than any Shakespeare I've ever read or watched by far. Lol
> 
> I would actually suggest at this point starting to binge watch the show so that you where basically caught up right as the final season began and then watch the final season as it airs. Would be perfect way to watch it..


_GoT_ is easily the most complex series I've ever experienced. So many story lines, huge cast. I can see why folks don't want to get involved with it. But with all its complexity it's an extremely interesting series, just grabs you and makes you want more. Never been a fan of Shakespeare. I've tried to read the books by George R. R. Martin that _GoT_ is based on and haven't been able to get interested in them. Odd.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> I've alway lived as if I was going to expire soon, I would hate to miss a great series like GoT because I ignored mortality. YMMV.
> 
> Rich


I've never heard anyone seriously suggest that "not having watched a certain TV show" would have a deathbed regret for someone!


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

So, any bets on what the judge is going to announce in the AT&T/Time Warner ruling tomorrow afternoon? I'll be surprised if the outcome is any worse for AT&T than a requirement to use arbitration to settle pricing disputes with rival MVPDs on the distribution of Turner and HBO channels.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

That might even be to far...


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> So, any bets on what the judge is going to announce in the AT&T/Time Warner ruling tomorrow afternoon? I'll be surprised if the outcome is any worse for AT&T than a requirement to use arbitration to settle pricing disputes with rival MVPDs on the distribution of Turner and HBO channels.


if it happens then I want Disney fox and not comcast fox


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

JoeTheDragon said:


> if it happens then I want Disney fox and not comcast fox


Me too. Comcast is one of the most hated companies in the nation and they're already plenty big enough as the nation's largest broadband provider and owner of a popular broadcast network, a clutch of cable networks, and major film and television studios. I don't want to see them become the majority owner of Hulu, plus even more cable channels and film and tv studios (along with major European media operations with Sky).


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Me too. Comcast is one of the most hated companies in the nation and they're already plenty big enough as the nation's largest broadband provider and owner of a popular broadcast network, a clutch of cable networks, and major film and television studios. I don't want to see them become the majority owner of Hulu, plus even more cable channels and film and tv studios (along with major European media operations with Sky).


as well 80+% of the RSN's


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> I've never heard anyone seriously suggest that "not having watched a certain TV show" would have a deathbed regret for someone!


Did I ever say anything about a "deathbed regret"? Did you not understand what I wrote...again? I've been close to death a few times and regrets never crossed my mind.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Wow, the judge approved the AT&T/TW merger with NO conditions! Ha. The DOJ would have been better off accepting the minor concessions offered up-front by AT&T for baseball-style arbitration (with MVPDs for Turner net distribution).

Well, it's now off to the races on AT&T's plans to marry content with distribution. We should see that $15 AT&T Watch skinny bundle OTT vMVPD service launch soon. And it's full-speed ahead for their larger plans to roll out streaming DTV and transition as much of their sub base as possible in the coming years to OTT.

Meanwhile, we should be seeing a lot more consolidation in the media/tech landscape this year. I'm looking specifically at CBS, Sony, MGM, Viacom, Microsoft and Apple. But before all that, there's the drama of who's going to end up winning the battle for Fox: Disney or Comcast?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Hopefully Disney gets it, Comcast is already what AT&T just got permission to become and doesn't need to become even bigger.


----------



## Mdog73 (Aug 25, 2017)

Disney will probably break up Fox for the parts while Comcast will most likely keep them together. I like what Fox produces and don't want to see all of their content disneyfied. Disney is by far the most restrictive IMO.


----------



## AngryManMLS (Jan 30, 2014)

KyL416 said:


> So the core ESPN+ content is one tier below that, while the out of market MLS, NHL and MLB games require a seperate addon subscription and are not part of the $4.99 subscription.


Incorrect on the MLS part. Out of market MLS games are part of ESPN+ no need to buy anything else outside of the ESPN+ subscription for that. And also ESPN+ now has the MLS Rewind show hosted by Taylor Twellman on there as well which is well worth watching for his analysis on games and league news.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Mdog73 said:


> Disney will probably break up Fox for the parts while Comcast will most likely keep them together. I like what Fox produces and don't want to see all of their content disneyfied. Disney is by far the most restrictive IMO.


well ESPN will do sports better then the nbc olympics experience


----------



## daniloni (Jul 31, 2013)

AngryManMLS said:


> Incorrect on the MLS part. Out of market MLS games are part of ESPN+ no need to buy anything else outside of the ESPN+ subscription for that. And also ESPN+ now has the MLS Rewind show hosted by Taylor Twellman on there as well which is well worth watching for his analysis on games and league news.


ESPNFC an ESPN+ exclusive as well, although it looks like they've brought it back on TV just for the World Cup.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Mdog73 said:


> Disney will probably break up Fox for the parts while Comcast will most likely keep them together. I like what Fox produces and don't want to see all of their content disneyfied. Disney is by far the most restrictive IMO.


They won't be breaking it up at all. They want the content. That's huge these days and everyone wants to be owning more content.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

So, how is this broadband-delivered over-the-top DirecTV-branded product going to differ significantly from DirecTV Now? I get that they are supplying a small, dedicated box with it, but in essence, isn't it the same streaming service as D* Now, but with a different look.......or am I missing something?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

It isn't quite clear. The new product is supposed to be "full Directv" but over IP. It could be the only difference between it and Directv Now is that the packages match what you get on satellite and it comes with equipment instead of you providing your own. But it is possible that by using equipment they own the contracts work differently so they are able to provide some stuff (certain locals? NFLST?) they don't have the rights to distribute on Directv Now.

I don't think we'll know for sure until it is officially announced and we can go to Directv's web site and see how the pricing/packages compare to satellite and DTV Now.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> It isn't quite clear. The new product is supposed to be "full Directv" but over IP. It could be the only difference between it and Directv Now is that the packages match what you get on satellite and it comes with equipment instead of you providing your own. But it is possible that by using equipment they own the contracts work differently so they are able to provide some stuff (certain locals? NFLST?) they don't have the rights to distribute on Directv Now.
> 
> I don't think we'll know for sure until it is officially announced and we can go to Directv's web site and see how the pricing/packages compare to satellite and DTV Now.


will this have real locals? and not the watch feeds? that have some blackouts?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JoeTheDragon said:


> will this have real locals? and not the watch feeds? that have some blackouts?


Real DIRECTV has real locals (where available). If the new service really is "full DIRECTV" it should have all channels.

Slice has the best answer:
"I don't think we'll know for sure until it is officially announced and we can go to Directv's web site and see how the pricing/packages compare to satellite and DTV Now."


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

James Long said:


> Real DIRECTV has real locals (where available). If the new service really is "full DIRECTV" it should have all channels.
> 
> Slice has the best answer:
> "I don't think we'll know for sure until it is officially announced and we can go to Directv's web site and see how the pricing/packages compare to satellite and DTV Now."


but what about the rules / laws / rights? that made so that streaming can't get some stuff on locals? 
also will this fall under cable rules like att uverse?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JoeTheDragon said:


> but what about the rules / laws / rights? that made so that streaming can't get some stuff on locals?
> also will this fall under cable rules like att uverse?


"I don't think we'll know for sure until it is officially announced and we can go to Directv's web site and see how the pricing/packages compare to satellite and DTV Now."


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> but what about the rules / laws / rights? that made so that streaming can't get some stuff on locals?
> also will this fall under cable rules like att uverse?


I don't think we should assume _anything_ about how the contracts work, because none of us (except maybe for Kyl416) know anything about how they work, and they could be different for different networks.

We know DTV Now doesn't have some locals that Directv does, but it is because it is using streaming, because it isn't delivering to customer owned equipment, because it isn't traversing entirely over a private "network" like Uverse TV and satellite? We don't know. Which is why I think we will just have to see what happens when this new offering comes out, because we have no baseline to even begin speculating on the limitations since we're 100% in the dark about the contracts.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I don't think we should assume _anything_ about how the contracts work, because none of us (except maybe for Kyl416) know anything about how they work, and they could be different for different networks.
> 
> We know DTV Now doesn't have some locals that Directv does, but it is because it is using streaming, because it isn't delivering to customer owned equipment, because it isn't traversing entirely over a private "network" like Uverse TV and satellite? We don't know. Which is why I think we will just have to see what happens when this new offering comes out, because we have no baseline to even begin speculating on the limitations since we're 100% in the dark about the contracts.


You bring up a good point about AT&T using its own equipment for DTV over IP. What if they found a way to have best of both worlds and have DTV over IP using both a managed and unmanaged network? They use their own box vs customer owned equipment. Maybe that is how they would be able to get the streaming rights to all the DTV channels including all the locals more easily than on DTV NOW?


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I am not sure if this sounds like any new information on this but does this look like their will be a different interface for DTV over the internet and it wont use the current ones for DTV and DTV NOW?

AT&T Inc. (T) CEO Randall Stephenson on Q2 2018 Results - Earnings Call Transcript | Seeking Alpha

And later this year, we will begin testing a premium product extension, which is a streaming product that will give the full DIRECTV experience over any broadband, ours or competitors'.

It will have additional benefits of an improved search and discovery feature and an enhanced user interface. We're excited that this will complement our top-end product for those who don't want or can't have a satellite dish.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

"Enhanced user interface" could mean almost anything. It could mean the interface that's been rolling out to satellite customers lately, it could be pretty much the same thing but with the new six months of tweaking they'll be doing, or it could be something very different.

If its the latter they better hope it doesn't get as poor of a reception as the new interface on the Genies/clients got that still has them scrambling to try to fix it!


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> "Enhanced user interface" could mean almost anything. It could mean the interface that's been rolling out to satellite customers lately, it could be pretty much the same thing but with the new six months of tweaking they'll be doing, or it could be something very different.
> 
> If its the latter they better hope it doesn't get as poor of a reception as the new interface on the Genies/clients got that still has them scrambling to try to fix it!


I saw in another quote he said that DTV over the internet would be in beta in the 4th quarter. The beta part made me think could it be an all new interface.

AT&T Inc. (T) CEO Randall Stephenson on Q2 2018 Results - Earnings Call Transcript | Seeking Alpha

One of the things that is -- it's not well published as you think about these ad stream count differentials, so you fit in the different viewing patterns. So WatchTV has a single stream product; the DIRECTV NOW having two with a pay up to three, obviously, the linear TV products, the satellite delivered and what we are going to be coming out with here in beta next quarter in the early stages, which is a broadband delivered version of it.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

It will be beta because it is a new delivery method, and will be using new hardware (C71* clients)

They would have to beta test it even if the interface was 100% identical to that of the satellite product.


----------



## reubenray (Jun 27, 2002)

Wasn't the main reason for Directv back when they first started was to get cable capabilities for people that did not have cable options in the country. This was the main reason I had the "BUD" before getting Directv. Having the option of high speed internet was also and still is an issue in the "country". I guess AT&T will abandon the "country" users of their dishes for streaming options instead. This will only push us country folks to Dish.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

reubenray said:


> Wasn't the main reason for Directv back when they first started was to get cable capabilities for people that did not have cable options in the country. This was the main reason I had the "BUD" before getting Directv. Having the option of high speed internet was also and still is an issue in the "country". I guess AT&T will abandon the "country" users of their dishes for streaming options instead. This will only push us country folks to Dish.


and lose the nfl sunday ticket exclusivity?? Or will they give rule sports bars fixed 5G with no caps and same rates that they pay now with no added internet fees?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

reubenray said:


> Wasn't the main reason for Directv back when they first started was to get cable capabilities for people that did not have cable options in the country. This was the main reason I had the "BUD" before getting Directv. Having the option of high speed internet was also and still is an issue in the "country". I guess AT&T will abandon the "country" users of their dishes for streaming options instead. This will only push us country folks to Dish.


Don't believe the idiots who think Directv satellite will be going away in just a few years. There are over 20 million subscribers to Directv's satellite service today and that number will have to decrease by something like 90% before it begins to make sense dropping satellite. Even when they drop by 90% down to only 2 million subscribers the cost of maintaining the satellites and replacing as needed would amount to only about $5 per customer per month. That's a cost that could be easily passed along - or even marked up - to remaining customers who don't have other options.

Of course by the time there are that few satellite subscribers it will be years from now and 5G internet service should be available everywhere that gets a cell signal today, and probably even some areas that are currently outside the reach of cellular. I also wouldn't assume that whenever Directv satellite service is discontinued that Dish will still be around to be an option. Dish has only half as many satellite subscribers as Directv does today, has been losing satellite subscribers at a faster clip than Directv, and has two arcs making it more expensive to maintain. If I had to bet on which satellite service is discontinued first, I'd bet Dish throws in the towel before Directv/AT&T.

When the satellite currently under construction is launched, Directv should not have to worry about replacing any satellites until around 2030 or so. That's the date I'm betting they drop it - think how much internet service has changed in the past 10-12 years and think about what will happen in the next 10-12 years. I'm sure satellite will still be the only option for some, but I think we'll be talking a few hundred thousand people who today live where they have absolutely no cellular signal and are so remote it won't make sense to ever cover that area. It is too bad they'll be left without an option when Directv and Dish are gone, but at some point there won't be enough people to support a DBS option.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

reubenray said:


> Wasn't the main reason for Directv back when they first started was to get cable capabilities for people that did not have cable options in the country.


That was one selling point. Another was getting a digital TV signal with DIRECTV rather than the old analog signal that was used.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

If the new offering gives me what I have now on my satellite service, but without occasional rain fade and cheaper, I'll be a customer about a year from now when they've got the bugs out of it.


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

reubenray said:


> Wasn't the main reason for Directv back when they first started was to get cable capabilities for people that did not have cable options in the country. This was the main reason I had the "BUD" before getting Directv. Having the option of high speed internet was also and still is an issue in the "country". I guess AT&T will abandon the "country" users of their dishes for streaming options instead. This will only push us country folks to Dish.


More likely, you will see the streaming option appealing to a much more limited audience. First of all, it will require a fairly robust internet service with high or unlimited caps. If they price it at a similar level to the satellite service, it will encourage those who are happy with satellite service, to stay on it. It will draw mainly from those like myself that can't or won't switch to HD service when MPEG 2 service is discontinued. In my case, I can't receive HD service due to line of sight issues and streaming would be a valid alternative to keep the DirecTV service.


----------



## Clemsole (Sep 8, 2005)

TDK1044 said:


> If the new offering gives me what I have now on my satellite service, but without occasional rain fade and cheaper, I'll be a customer about a year from now when they've got the bugs out of it.


It will take ATT a hole lot more than a year to get the bugs out. More like 10 years if then, they are to dumb to do it faster than that.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

Well, a year may be optimistic........maybe 2 to 3 years.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

reubenray said:


> Wasn't the main reason for Directv back when they first started was to get cable capabilities for people that did not have cable options in the country. This was the main reason I had the "BUD" before getting Directv. Having the option of high speed internet was also and still is an issue in the "country". I guess AT&T will abandon the "country" users of their dishes for streaming options instead. This will only push us country folks to Dish.


It was certainly one of the reasons. I was an early adopter, back before it was even called DirecTV and you had to buy your equipment (including the dish) at the local "hifi" store and install it all yourself. My location at the time was served by two different cable cos. I switched because the picture quality was much better (it was digital) and it was less expensive per month. Unfortunately for my usage they are now too expensive and are no longer at the cutting edge (yeah I was part of that too) of technology, IMHO. I left over 19 months ago and am glad I did. Luckily I have excellent internet service with no data caps.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

reubenray said:


> Wasn't the main reason for Directv back when they first started was to get cable capabilities for people that did not have cable options in the country. This was the main reason I had the "BUD" before getting Directv. Having the option of high speed internet was also and still is an issue in the "country". I guess AT&T will abandon the "country" users of their dishes for streaming options instead. This will only push us country folks to Dish.


Somewhere else on this site I've quoted where AT&T's CEO (or another head guy) said that the emphasis for their satellite TV service will shift to more rural areas after they launch the streaming version of DTV in late 2018. Presumably that's because it's rural areas that are least likely to have an option for decent home broadband service. (That said, the US government concluded that, at the end of 2016, 92.3% of Americans had access to wired internet at 25 Mbps or faster. I would presume the figure is slightly higher now.) So we should understand that comment from AT&T as them saying that they are NOT going to abandon the country folks, at least for a good while.

My personal speculation is that DBS satellite TV service will continue to be an option for any consumer throughout the continental US (so long as you can mount a dish pointed at the right spot in the sky) until some time in the 2025-30 range (more specifically, I've predicted 2028 in earlier posts), when the whole thing (both DTV and Dish, or whatever they're branded by then) shuts down because it's no longer a sustainable business.



crkeehn said:


> More likely, you will see the streaming option appealing to a much more limited audience. First of all, it will require a fairly robust internet service with high or unlimited caps. If they price it at a similar level to the satellite service, it will encourage those who are happy with satellite service, to stay on it. It will draw mainly from those like myself that can't or won't switch to HD service when MPEG 2 service is discontinued. In my case, I can't receive HD service due to line of sight issues and streaming would be a valid alternative to keep the DirecTV service.


Well, AT&T honchos have gone on the record repeatedly saying that the upcoming "streaming DTV" premium OTT service will, in fact, cost consumers LESS than their traditional DBS service. This is because it will cost AT&T less money up-front to acquire subscribers given that lower-cost equipment will be shipped to the consumer to self-install. Now, I suppose it's possible that AT&T could reflect that cost differential by no longer offering free pro installs of satellite TV ("a $200 value") vs. free self-installs of the premium streaming service, with the actual ongoing monthly service costs being the same. But that isn't how AT&T has talked about pricing so far. It sounds like the ongoing monthly price of the streaming service will actually be less than for the DBS service. (I suppose charging up-front for DBS installation, as opposed to amortizing it over the length of a 2-year contract, can't happen so long as Dish is offering free pro installs.) At any rate, AT&T is telling Wall Street that they expect similar per-sub profits from the upcoming streaming service, which will be marketed as essentially a replacement for DTV DBS, as what they get now from DTV DBS.

So while AT&T may not specifically target their existing DBS customers to convert over to the new streaming service (a scenario that slice1900 insists is simply unthinkable), a significant discount in regular ongoing monthly pricing between the two services would absolutely have that effect. If I already have home broadband service and I can save, say, $30 per month, with no significant downsides, by switching to streaming DTV -- which comes with a shiny new box with a voice remote that lets me also access Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Prime Video, HBO Go, Showtime Anytime, etc. all on the same TV input with the same remote -- well, I think a lot of their DBS customers will take AT&T up on that, even if they're never directly asked to do so.

However, broadband data caps will be a fly in the ointment for some customers. Some ISPs don't have them but Comcast does. And it costs $50 to waive that cap. So for households that watch a lot of DTV, the cost savings of moving to the streaming service may be completely offset (or more) by data cap fees. (Download speeds, though, shouldn't be an issue. If you have a minimum level of broadband service -- defined by the US government as 25 Mbps -- I think that's sufficient to stream the existing DTV Now service at full-quality 1080p60 to two screens concurrently.)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> (more specifically, I've predicted 2028 in earlier posts)


Yes, I've been predicting 2028-2030 because D11 & D12 turn 19 and 20 years old in 2028, and they have a design life of 15 years but typically last at least 50% longer than that. There might not be enough satellite subscribers left to amortize the cost of building/launching replacements. Theoretically they could continue without them (by then they could orphan all MPEG4 gear and go HEVC only) if locals are much less important a decade from now, or thanks to SFNs they can be picked up almost everywhere. That would only buy them five extra years though.

I expect Dish to discontinue satellite service before Directv, simply as a matter of economics. Dish has more satellites to maintain because they have two arcs, but only half the satellite subscribers Directv does. I don't know the age of their satellites, but probably have some that will need replacement before Directv will. But the biggest factor is that Charlie Ergen is 65 years old, he's going to want to slow down and retire. Unfortunately the window for selling the number two satellite company in the US (unless you are forced to take it to get the cellular licenses) is rapidly closing.

Some people talk about Directv and Dish merging, but I don't see how. AT&T won't have any interest in buying Dish, and won't have any interest in selling Directv's satellite business. Well maybe years from now when it is a fraction of its current size they might sell it, but then it would be pointless because the owner couldn't operate them together long enough to see any savings from the combination. Even if it was done today and could somehow get past regulators I question whether a merger would be economically viable.



NashGuy said:


> Well, AT&T honchos have gone on the record repeatedly saying that the upcoming "streaming DTV" premium OTT service will, in fact, cost consumers LESS than their traditional DBS service. This is because it will cost AT&T less money up-front to acquire subscribers given that lower-cost equipment will be shipped to the consumer to self-install. Now, I suppose it's possible that AT&T could reflect that cost differential by no longer offering free pro installs of satellite TV ("a $200 value") vs. free self-installs of the premium streaming service, with the actual ongoing monthly service costs being the same. But that isn't how AT&T has talked about pricing so far. It sounds like the ongoing monthly price of the streaming service will actually be less than for the DBS service. (I suppose charging up-front for DBS installation, as opposed to amortizing it over the length of a 2-year contract, can't happen so long as Dish is offering free pro installs.) At any rate, AT&T is telling Wall Street that they expect similar per-sub profits from the upcoming streaming service, which will be marketed as essentially a replacement for DTV DBS, as what they get now from DTV DBS.
> 
> So while AT&T may not specifically target their existing DBS customers to convert over to the new streaming service (a scenario that slice1900 insists is simply unthinkable), a significant discount in regular ongoing monthly pricing between the two services would absolutely have that effect. If I already have home broadband service and I can save, say, $30 per month, with no significant downsides, by switching to streaming DTV -- which comes with a shiny new box with a voice remote that lets me also access Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Prime Video, HBO Go, Showtime Anytime, etc. all on the same TV input with the same remote -- well, I think a lot of their DBS customers will take AT&T up on that, even if they're never directly asked to do so.


Look at how Directv prices things now. They have high prices but if you are out of commitment you can call in and get significant discounts - some customers with big packages report getting up to $50-$60/month off over a year. Probably most customers don't know about calling for discounts, and only get offered them when they call to cancel because they are getting offered a deal by their cable company or see a promotion for Dish.

An IP product with a lower base price probably has a nice discount "built in" leaving a lot less room for people to call in and get additional discounts. They might not get offered free NFLST, free HBO or other perks either. That would make it cheaper for the typical customer who never calls in for discounts and just pays what is on the bill, but not the ones who are aggressive about calling in for discounts every year - it might be more expensive for them!

So what happens if a customer with satellite service calls in and says "I want to switch to the IP version because it costs less". Directv probably offers to permanently price match their satellite service (since those install costs are sunk at that point) to the IP service and the customer is happy. If the customer just wants the IP service because they think it is better (i.e. no rain fade or whatever) I'm sure they'll do it, but I doubt Directv gives them new customer promos/discounts.


----------



## Eva (Nov 8, 2013)

A neighbour called to get their rates lower their bill and the CSR kept trying to push her to do the streaming thing.

Edit: Typo - put "build" instead of "bill".


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Eva said:


> A neighbour called to get their rates lower their build and the CSR kept trying to push her to do the streaming thing.


They were pushing Directv Now as an alternative to Directv's satellite service? That's probably going to lead to a lot of unhappy customers, especially in all the areas DTV Now is missing at least one of their locals.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

I've been with D* satellite for over 20 years, and I'll be interested to see exactly what this new OTT service is. If it offers me what I get now, including my locals, I'd certainly consider it. I currently have 45 meg internet speed, with 1 Gig speed coming within 12 months, so I have enough juice to run this new offering, and if it's cheaper, all the better. I would wait a while to see how technically reliable the service is......I may wait a year or two before jumping, but it's certainly an interesting option for me.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> (That said, the US government concluded that, at the end of 2016, 92.3% of Americans had access to wired internet at 25 Mbps or faster. I would presume the figure is slightly higher now.) So we should understand that comment from AT&T as them saying that they are NOT going to abandon the country folks, at least for a good while.


Considering how awfully inaccurate the national broadband map was, I don't believe those numbers for a second. I think it's much lower than that


----------



## Ken984 (Jan 1, 2006)

92.3% is an Ajit Pai fantasy number. I would be surprised if 60% of households have 25Mbps WIRED available to them.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> I expect Dish to discontinue satellite service before Directv, simply as a matter of economics.


At this point neither are going away. If the satellite market shrinks to the point where only one company is needed I'd bet the other way ... but the market isn't shrinking fast enough to worry about either company shutting down. You do make a good point about Mr Ergen's age. By the time either company is no longer viable I expect Mr Ergen will not be in control of his company. The new owners may not have the same zeal to keep DISH alive that Mr Ergen has.



slice1900 said:


> If the customer just wants the IP service because they think it is better (i.e. no rain fade or whatever) I'm sure they'll do it, but I doubt Directv gives them new customer promos/discounts.


I am not expecting extreme discounts and promos on the future IP service. Especially if it is a "no commitment" service similar to DIRECTV NOW. The lower the commitment, the lower the discounts available.



slice1900 said:


> They were pushing Directv Now as an alternative to Directv's satellite service? That's probably going to lead to a lot of unhappy customers, especially in all the areas DTV Now is missing at least one of their locals.


I wonder if that is an unintended consequence of some retention policy. Encourage the CSRs to convert a cancelling customer to DIRECTV NOW instead of losing them completely. The CSR may be missing the encouragement to keep the customer on the highest profit system.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Ken984 said:


> 92.3% is an Ajit Pai fantasy number. I would be surprised if 60% of households have 25Mbps WIRED available to them.


Ha! 60%? Um, no. The US census data shows that only 19.3% of Americans live in rural areas. And a decent portion of rural residents (such as here in TN) are served by cable broadband from the likes of Comcast, Charter, etc. And virtually all urban and suburban residences in the US have at least one wired broadband provider. (Many have two.)

So I think that the 92.3% figure is credible. If the reported number was as low as, say, 85%, that would pass the sniff test too. But lower than that? As low as 60%? Nope.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

This may be seen by some as a silly point to make, but when I gave 'DirecTV Now' a trial for a week, the thing I hated was that I had to use the remote that came with my Roku stick. I really missed my D* Genie remote. If the OTT offering comes with a decent remote for the box, that would be enough for me to choose it over 'DirecTV Now'. Both options would be cheaper, and both options would give me my locals, so I would choose the OTT version as it's closer to what I'm used to.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

The global streaming record in 2018 is still only peaking at 5.5 million simultaneous viewers. Hotstar and Akamai Set Global Streaming Record During IPL 2018 | Akamai

So far we haven't seen anyone build an infrastructure capable of simultaneously serving even 1 live stream to each of the 20 million ATT/DTV satellite subscribers, yet alone address how the sports bar problem is going to be solved.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Unfortunately the window for selling the number two satellite company in the US (unless you are forced to take it to get the cellular licenses) is rapidly closing.


Charlie's hoping those cellular licenses will save him/Dish but I think it will prove to be a losing gamble. Frankly, the US government should call his bluff, squatting on all that spectrum while belatedly building only a narrowband IoT network. It's like getting a whole block of empty Manhattan real estate and only putting up a tiny storage unit on it.



slice1900 said:


> Some people talk about Directv and Dish merging, but I don't see how. AT&T won't have any interest in buying Dish, and won't have any interest in selling Directv's satellite business. Well maybe years from now when it is a fraction of its current size they might sell it, but then it would be pointless because the owner couldn't operate them together long enough to see any savings from the combination. Even if it was done today and could somehow get past regulators I question whether a merger would be economically viable.


Yeah, good points. I do think AT&T would like to dump DBS at some point but not until they've transitioned about as many of those subs over to their OTT services as possible. And that will take a few years. But by then, as you point out, would there be a buyer willing to buy both it and Dish to combine them? As for Dish as the potential buyer, will they even still be around in five years? Maybe AT&T is looking at a situation where they either need to sell off DBS in the next 2-3 years, when it could still be sold, or otherwise simply hold onto it and milk it until that platform no longer make financial sense to operate in the latter half of the 2020s.



slice1900 said:


> An IP product with a lower base price probably has a nice discount "built in" leaving a lot less room for people to call in and get additional discounts. They might not get offered free NFLST, free HBO or other perks either. That would make it cheaper for the typical customer who never calls in for discounts and just pays what is on the bill, but not the ones who are aggressive about calling in for discounts every year - it might be more expensive for them!
> 
> So what happens if a customer with satellite service calls in and says "I want to switch to the IP version because it costs less". Directv probably offers to permanently price match their satellite service (since those install costs are sunk at that point) to the IP service and the customer is happy. If the customer just wants the IP service because they think it is better (i.e. no rain fade or whatever) I'm sure they'll do it, but I doubt Directv gives them new customer promos/discounts.


Yeah. But there are a lot of folks -- like my parents on Dish -- who hate the thought of calling in periodically to threaten and/or beg to get another temporary discount. I'll be looking closely as the new OTT service from DTV because they would be happy to have it if it works well, offers them the channels they care about, and would offer a regular monthly price that's, say, 25% less than what they pay now.



Eva said:


> A neighbour called to get their rates lower their build and the CSR kept trying to push her to do the streaming thing.


Yeah, and this is what I think slice1900 fails to realize. AT&T is already showing that they are actively cannibalizing their own traditional pay TV services with their OTT services, even if that means a lower average ARPU. Because they know that if they don't cannibalize themselves, other services will.

Go visit the main directv.com homepage. Scroll down just slightly and you see a big blue banner asking "Looking for DirecTV Now? Packages start at $35/mo." That kind of marketing activity is absolutely consistent with what Eva reports, about their CSRs steering customers away from DBS toward streaming. And if they're already doing that, with the much lower profit-margin DTV Now product, how much harder will they be steering folks toward the upcoming premium DTV OTT service that reportedly offers equal or better profit margins compared to DBS?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

TDK1044 said:


> This may be seen by some as a silly point to make, but when I gave 'DirecTV Now' a trial for a week, the thing I hated was that I had to use the remote that came with my Roku stick. I really missed my D* Genie remote. If the OTT offering comes with a decent remote for the box, that would be enough for me to choose it over 'DirecTV Now'. Both options would be cheaper, and both options would give me my locals, so I would choose the OTT version as it's closer to what I'm used to.


Yep, I agree. If I were to switch back to paying a decent amount each month for traditional channel-based pay TV, I think I would prefer that the hardware I use be designed for that kind of service. But Rokus, Apple TVs and Fire TVs are not. I'd want a remote with channel up/down buttons as well as volume up/down buttons. And, for me, it would also mean having the pay TV service be the "main" UI on the box rather than being segregated away in its own app apart from everything else.

Those are issues that the forthcoming DTV OTT service should solve. You can get a pretty good look at an as-yet-unreleased DTV box and voice remote here. We don't have confirmation yet one way or the other but everything that AT&T's CEO has publicly stated about the hardware to be used with the forthcoming service is consistent with this kind of box. My guess is that this unit (the C71) will be deployed for use with both the OTT service (as a standalone unit simply connected to wifi or ethernet) and the DBS service (as a thin client connected to the next-generation home server, the HS-27).


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> Yep, I agree. If I were to switch back to paying a decent amount each month for traditional channel-based pay TV, I think I would prefer that the hardware I use be designed for that kind of service. But Rokus, Apple TVs and Fire TVs are not. I'd want a remote with channel up/down buttons as well as volume up/down buttons. And, for me, it would also mean having the pay TV service be the "main" UI on the box rather than being segregated away in its own app apart from everything else.
> 
> Those are issues that the forthcoming DTV OTT service should solve. You can get a pretty good look at an as-yet-unreleased DTV box and voice remote here. We don't have confirmation yet one way or the other but everything that AT&T's CEO has publicly stated about the hardware to be used with the forthcoming service is consistent with this kind of box. My guess is that this unit (the C71) will be deployed for use with both the OTT service (as a standalone unit simply connected to wifi or ethernet) and the DBS service (as a thin client connected to the next-generation home server, the HS-27).


That picture of the remote is much more in line with what I'd want.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I live in Maine and a great deal of it hasn't got high speed internet (physically - not from a population standpoint) - as a matter of fact the utility commission has to "force" companies to keep land line service to some of those places. Sat internet is popular up there.
As much as the % of people who have high speed internet would be how many have that will unlimited service or services that don't slow it down after certain usage. If you have very limited data then Sat is still the best solution. 
Time will tell


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> The US census data shows that only 19.3% of Americans live in rural areas.


The broadband problem is NOT limited to rural areas only. There's countless articles online about this, like Comcast refusing to expand their network to new developments in a bunch of suburbs, numerous areas where providers got to cherry pick where they wired so entire neighborhoods were skipped, among other things. Google is your friend.



> And a decent portion of rural residents (such as here in TN) are served by cable broadband from the likes of Comcast, Charter, etc.


Charter, Comcast, etc are not some giant thing that offer the same services nationwide. It's a bunch of individual systems acquired over time, including a bunch of which haven't seen major upgrades in decades. i.e. the Charter system in Columbia county, NY, is still running on 450 MHz network, hasn't expanded beyond their original 1988 footprint, and doesn't offer high speed internet at ALL. They only got barebones HD service 2 years ago after they converted the system to all digital, still running on that 450 MHz network, and that was only because NY State mandated it as a condition of the merger being approved. (A merger approval that was recinded on Friday because Charter failed to meet the requirement to expand their network to unserved areas in New York State) And this isn't a system they aquired with TWC, it's a system that Charter has had since the early 2000s. Heck, even Optimum still has a system on Long Island that only offers a 59 channel analog lineup.



> And virtually all urban and suburban residences in the US have at least one wired broadband provider. (Many have two.)


Yeah, but the problem is when it's one, the lack of competition results in pricing that is out of reach for many people, any many times comes with a cap. i.e. for the price to get 100 Mbps+ speeds in an area with FiOS competition like in NJ and NYC, here where Verizon flat out refuses to expand their FiOS network and insists on a long debunked 3 Mbps limit for remote terminals, Blue Ridge only offers 30 Mbps service with a low cap. If I want those 100 Mbps+ speeds or a cap high enough so a family of 4 can use internet streaming for primary viewing, it's over $125 a month.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Ken984 said:


> 92.3% is an Ajit Pai fantasy number. I would be surprised if 60% of households have 25Mbps WIRED available to them.


The 92.3% is population, the 60% is households. Two different bases for the numbers. It is a lot easier to be available to "90%" of US population than households.

Per the FCC:
"As of year-end 2016, 92.3% of all Americans have access to fixed terrestrial broadband at speeds of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, up from 89.4% in 2014 and 81.2% in 2012. Nonetheless, over 24 million Americans still lack fixed terrestrial broadband at speeds of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps."
"Approximately 92% of the population has access to both fixed terrestrial services at 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and mobile LTE at speeds of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps. In rural areas, 68.6% of Americans have access to both services, as opposed to 97.9% of Americans in urban areas. With respect to fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and 10 Mbps/3 Mbps LTE services, 85.3% of all Americans have access to such services, including 61% in evaluated rural areas and 89.8% in evaluated urban areas."
"Approximately 98.1% of the country has access to either fixed terrestrial service at 25 Mbps/3 Mbps or mobile LTE at 10 Mbps/3 Mbps, with that number dropping to 89.7% in rural areas."
[source]

(And yes, availability does not mean affordability.)


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

The problem with those FCC numbers though is the broadband maps are full of false information, from cable companies claiming their entire franchise area, including blocks that aren't actually wired for service, fiber providers going by places "passed", to DSL providers blanket claiming the highest speed they offer even though only people less than 1000 feet from the central office can get those speeds.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> The 92.3% is population, the 60% is households. Two different bases for the numbers. It is a lot easier to be available to "90%" of US population than households.


I think you have it backwards. I would bet that the average number of persons per household in rural areas is higher than in non-rural areas. Lots of single people live in cities. (This chart from the Census Bureau shows that 14.3% of urbanites live alone vs. just 11.6% of rural dwellers.) If wired broadband is available to 92.3% of the US population, it's almost certainly available to MORE than 92.3% of all US households given the generally greater presence of broadband in metropolitan areas than rural areas.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

KyL416 said:


> The broadband problem is NOT limited to rural areas only. There's countless articles online about this, like Comcast refusing to expand their network to new developments in a bunch of suburbs, numerous areas where providers got to cherry pick where they wired so entire neighborhoods were skipped, among other things. Google is your friend.
> 
> Charter, Comcast, etc are not some giant thing that offer the same services nationwide. It's a bunch of individual systems acquired over time, including a bunch of which haven't seen major upgrades in decades. i.e. the Charter system in Columbia county, NY, is still running on 450 MHz network, hasn't expanded beyond their original 1988 footprint, and doesn't offer high speed internet at ALL. They only got barebones HD service 2 years ago after they converted the system to all digital, still running on that 450 MHz network, and that was only because NY State mandated it as a condition of the merger being approved. (A merger approval that was recinded on Friday because Charter failed to meet the requirement to expand their network to unserved areas in New York State) And this isn't a system they aquired with TWC, it's a system that Charter has had since the early 2000s. Heck, even Optimum still has a system on Long Island that only offers a 59 channel analog lineup.
> 
> Yeah, but the problem is when it's one, the lack of competition results in pricing that is out of reach for many people, any many times comes with a cap. i.e. for the price to get 100 Mbps+ speeds in an area with FiOS competition like in NJ and NYC, here where Verizon flat out refuses to expand their FiOS network and insists on a long debunked 3 Mbps limit for remote terminals, Blue Ridge only offers 30 Mbps service with a low cap. If I want those 100 Mbps+ speeds or a cap high enough so a family of 4 can use internet streaming for primary viewing, it's over $125 a month.


So many words, yet not a shred of hard data to support your argument. Try again.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> So many words, yet not a shred of hard data to support your argument. Try again.


You should be talking to yourself, you constantly come here making bogus claims that have zero basis in reality and ignore the numerous replies debunking them or blow them off with even more false claims. While, as others here can vouch, my track record for information speaks for itself.

I provided actual real world examples there, and other stuff, like Verizon's bogus 3 Mbps policy for DSL on Remote terminals and halting expansion of FiOS is common knowledge for those who actually pay attention to this stuff. The same with stories of cable providers not providing service to their entire franchise area (and not just rural areas like you falsely claimed). If you want to see pricing examples in places without competition, go to the various providers websites and compare them to the prices in areas with real competition from a telco providing fiber or places lucky enough to have an overbuilder like RCN or WOW. The flaws in the broadband map data has been covered nonstop for years since the day they were first published.

The whole NY State booting Charter thing is currently a major story that broke last Friday and has been covered all over the place, yet you refuse to believe that without "hard data"? If you would take the time to read the detailed coverage about it and the decisions leading to it, you would see that, contrary to what you just claimed, just because Charter owns a cable system, it does NOT mean that cable system offers broadband internet.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

It’s funny how different things are in different areas... around me spectrum bump d their basic internet from 60 to 100 about three years ago. In two months it’s going to bump to 200. For the same price it’s always been. 

And zero caps on data. Just fantastic. 

I have a relative that lives in south Jordan. It’s a suburb of Salt Lake City and is highly and densely populated and no where near the edge of any two. They can’t even get 5 speed from dsl and they have no cable internet option at all. That’s thousands in his area who have sucky internet unless they go wireless. Which he won’t do...

I don’t think satelites tv will ever go away. I expect it will evolve around 2030 to just one service provider but I don’t see it ever going away.


----------



## bjdotson (Feb 20, 2007)

And I live in Layton, Utah. Luckily my neighborhood has glass fiber installed and I get 250 up and 250 down for $67 a month


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> So many words, yet not a shred of hard data to support your argument. Try again.


I was thinking the same thing when I read your post:


NashGuy said:


> I think you have it backwards. I would bet that the average number of persons per household in rural areas is higher than in non-rural areas.


Seems more like a feeling you have than a fact.


NashGuy said:


> 14.3% of urbanites live alone vs. just 11.6% of rural dwellers


That difference would need to be MUCH larger in order to tip the scales in your favor.

The fact is covering 90% of US Population is much easier than covering 90% of US households.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

It's the people that live in the townships in these rural areas that will ultimately suffer the most. I live in a smallish farm town in what the government would deem rural. There's 3 wired options for internet in the downtown area. As soon as you leave the city limits, it's an internet dark zone with literally nothing available except highly expensive and capped wireless that makes streaming virtually impossible. However, because the city and township have the same zip code, the government broadband map shows Att and charter as serving everyone in the township.


----------



## reubenray (Jun 27, 2002)

chances14 said:


> It's the people that live in the townships in these rural areas that will ultimately suffer the most. I live in a smallish farm town in what the government would deem rural. There's 3 wired options for internet in the downtown area. As soon as you leave the city limits, it's an internet dark zone with literally nothing available except highly expensive and capped wireless that makes streaming virtually impossible. However, because the city and township have the same zip code, the government broadband map shows Att and charter as serving everyone in the township.


I live in a similar area and there are a lot of these areas.


----------



## sean8102 (Aug 3, 2018)

They talked about this product again in their recent second quarter earnings call. They said it's going to be the "full" directv experience as a streaming service for those that can't have or don't want a satellite dish, and will work with any broadband provider. Also said they will begin testing it later this year.

They talk about it at 31:25 for those that wanna listen.
https://edge.media-server.com/m6/p/n2khna2q

What's interesting is they pointed out it's DirecTV that's loosing customers the worst and U-verse TV is doing well for them. Their words were "We had 80,000 video net adds with gains in DTV Now and U-verse TV more than offsetting losses in DirecTV."

My guess is a decent part for that happening is they also added 246,000 AT&T Fiber customers and its no shock that people that can get AT&T fiber are gonna choose to bundle the U-verse IPTV service instead of bothering with satellite and DTV. But that's just a guess.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

sean8102 said:


> They talked about this product again in their recent second quarter earnings call. They said it's going to be the "full" directv experience as a streaming service for those that can't have or don't want a satellite dish, and will work with any broadband provider. Also said they will begin testing it later this year.
> 
> They talk about it at 31:25 for those that wanna listen.
> https://edge.media-server.com/m6/p/n2khna2q
> ...


what is happen with U-verse IPTV?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> what is happen with U-verse IPTV?


Seems likely it will eventually be replaced by Directv Now and the upcoming "full DTV over IP" service (depending on how much a customer is looking to spend) but I imagine it would be a few years before they reach the point where they force people to migrate.


----------



## sean8102 (Aug 3, 2018)

JoeTheDragon said:


> what is happen with U-verse IPTV?





slice1900 said:


> Seems likely it will eventually be replaced by Directv Now and the upcoming "full DTV over IP" service (depending on how much a customer is looking to spend) but I imagine it would be a few years before they reach the point where they force people to migrate.


The new service of full DTV service as a OTT internet streaming service dose sound quite cool. Hopefully they price it well since it wont need a install by a tech, no truck roll, no dish, no expensive specialized boxes (believe the one we've seen so far was as standard Android TV box) etc. And what I really hope for since we have AT&T Internet as well is that they give you unlimited data for free if you bundle this streaming version of "full" DTV with your AT&T internet on one bill. Just like they give you for bundling DTV or UTV with AT&T internet. Otherwise you have a 1 TB data cap, or you pay a extra 30 bucks a month to add unlimited data. Unless you have AT&T Fiber available to you and you get the 1 Gbps plan, that service includes unl data.

However I would be very sad to ever see U-verse TV be killed off (explained why next paragraph). It's been rumored for a while but its still heavily promoted on the AT&T site and has new customer promos running all the time. And like I said AT&T reported that U-verse TV is doing quite a bit better than DTV in terms of actually adding customers and not losing them every quarter so its a successful product.

We had U-verse TV for two years and loved it, we only switched to DTV because of the price hike after the new customer discounts expired (which of course will happen with our DTV eventually). But due to the architecture of IPTV the number of channels that can be offered is basically unlimited. So literally every channel is available in both SD and HD, hell there is 473 HD channels! One reason there is so many is you get both the east and west coast feeds of almost every channel as well. I specifically miss having every one of the premium movie channels in HD of both the east and west coast feed.

There was only one complaint we had with U-verse TV. The 4 HD stream limit, however this is because we have VDSL2 based AT&T internet. Which we've been extremely happy with for the ~3 or 4 years now we've had it (100Mbps down 20 Mbps up, and crazy reliable) bets the hell out of the terrible locally owned cable co. But On fiber AT&T allows 6 HD streams. Because With 300 or 1,000 Mbps of bandwidth you aren't going to notice even on a speed test ~32 Mbps being reserved if all 6 streams on the TV service are in use (it about 5.6 Mbps per HD stream). Hell since they over provision and my internet is actually set at 110 Mbps if they let us have 6 streams the worst cause scenario would be ~80 Mbps internet when all 6 streams are in use. Anyways here is what my hope is for the future of AT&T's IPTV service. That AT&T keeps the IPTV based TV service but re brands it under the DirecTV name. They already killed the U-verse brand name a while ago, hence "AT&T Internet" and "AT&T Fiber" and no more U-verse internet, or U-verse voice. It's only the IPTV service that's still called U-verse.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I would not be surprised if att pushes all its uverese customers to DIRECTV IPTV offering that’s forthcoming over the next couple years so they can have only one brand for that specific offering... I fully expect it to be the bundle with the giga internet offerings...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> I would not be surprised if att pushes all its uverese customers to DIRECTV IPTV offering that's forthcoming over the next couple years so they can have only one brand for that specific offering... I fully expect it to be the bundle with the giga internet offerings...


I agree but I doubt it'll happen that quickly. First they have to be very that the service replacing it is at least as stable, then they'll reach a time when they stop doing new installs of Uverse TV but continue supporting existing customers. It probably takes at least a year to reach that point, and given that they have several million Uverse TV customers it wouldn't be a quick process to migrate them.

For a while Uverse TV was shedding subscribers in huge numbers and Directv was adding - they were probably doing everything they could to push new customers to Directv since it cost AT&T $14/month/subscriber less for the content. As deals have been renewed over the last couple years I'm sure the difference is much smaller. That's reflected in the subscriber figures for the past few quarters were Uverse TV has actually started gaining subscribers at a decent clip and now Directv (satellite) is losing them. I'm willing to bet the difference in those two scenarios is mostly about what potential customers in Uverse areas are getting sold to them.

They aren't making new Uverse hardware so it should be really cheap to install. Even Directv's new IP service will be more expensive since it will use shiny new client boxes instead of refurbished old Uverse boxes.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Wouldn’t surprise me if they set up a way to flip a switch without changing hardware to move unverse tv to DIRECTV IP. 

And this is att now. They will flip the switch before it should be.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> Wouldn't surprise me if they set up a way to flip a switch without changing hardware to move unverse tv to DIRECTV IP.
> 
> And this is att now. They will flip the switch before it should be.


I _highly_ doubt that. The Uverse CPEs are all pretty old, and they are using new Android TV clients for the IP product so they can run apps locally.


----------

