# AT&T CFO says new DirecTV service will be self-installed box instead of truck roll



## VARTV (Dec 14, 2006)

AT&T offered some more details about its new set-top box and streaming DirecTV product while also spelling out how it will eventually end its satellite service and cut costs.

AT&T CFO John Stephens spoke Wednesday morning at the Morgan Stanley's European Technology, Media and Telecom Conference and discussed DirecTV's new premium streaming TV process.

(read more - Fierce Video)


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Have no problem with as long as they put no limit on bandwidth.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Now, if only broadband was well deployed... and sometimes requiring a TV subscription....


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

VARTV said:


> AT&T offered some more details about its new set-top box and streaming DirecTV product while also spelling out how it will eventually end its satellite service and cut costs.
> 
> AT&T CFO John Stephens spoke Wednesday morning at the Morgan Stanley's European Technology, Media and Telecom Conference and discussed DirecTV's new premium streaming TV process.
> 
> (read more - Fierce Video)


An easy way for them to stop losing subscribers would be to simply lower the prices and stop gouging it's customers.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

yosoyellobo said:


> Have no problem with as long as they put no limit on bandwidth.


and upgrade att internet from fiber to the node to fiber to the home


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Mark Holtz said:


> Now, if only broadband was well deployed... and sometimes requiring a TV subscription....


comcast will give them a hard time


----------



## Microphone (Jan 30, 2007)

Does this mean I exceed my data cap with Comcast being my internet provider?


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Sounds cool but only issue is some providers like cox and comcast have 1TB limit 

And a lot of ppl are stuck with cable broadband no FTTH  

Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

jimmie57 said:


> An easy way for them to stop losing subscribers would be to simply lower the prices and stop gouging it's customers.


Now, now... D isn't "gouging" it's customers, they are just earning a reasonable profit...several folks will post here shortly to straighten you out...LOL


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Geez, Apple TV and Amazon Fire TV devices have been doing this since they came out. Now D* actually has to tell us the new box will be "self installed"? Like that's news? What idiots they must think we are.

Rich


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

mjwagner said:


> Now, now... D isn't "gouging" it's customers, they are just earning a reasonable profit...several folks will post here shortly to straighten you out...LOL


Back in the late 70s and early 80s things were going up in increments of about 3 months at a time. Changing our labor rate to the customer and increasing the workers pay at the same time. If we did not do this the workers would leave for someone that paid them more money.
Well, we decided that we would just get ahead of this and raise our shop rate for 2 increments at a time and avoid the next one.
That did go well with the workers but not with our customers. 3 of our large customers refused and said we had priced ourselves out of a job. I reminded them how long we had worked together and that there were things we did for them that the smaller companies like us could not do. They said we would still get that business.
I reminded them of how good our people were and that nobody in the area compared to us. The reply was, "I am sorry, I believe you but second place works as well as first and it is cheaper. Come back next year with a better price."

AT&T has been raising rates about 7% per year when the economies inflation rate was less than 2%. Still at it when the national inflation is just over 3%.
They need to wake up.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> Geez, Apple TV and Amazon Fire TV devices have been doing this since they came out. Now D* actually has to tell us the new box will be "self installed"? Like that's news? What idiots they must think we are.
> 
> Rich


I'm pretty anxious to see the reviews of their new box. It must have some special wizz bang functionality for them to want to have their own box...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> I'm pretty anxious to see the reviews of their new box. It must have some special wizz bang functionality for them to want to have their own box...


Or utter desperation like the rest of the cable/sat folks.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

There was nothing in that article where AT&T was "spelling out how they'll eventually end its satellite service". Its this sort of poor journalism that causes people to keep thinking Directv is going to end its satellite service in a few years. They wouldn't be in the process of launching a new satellite in the next few months if they were going to end it in under a decade.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I saw article recently that 30% of people don't/can't really get high speed internet. Sat dishes is only real solution for many people.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CTJon said:


> I saw article recently that 30% of people don't/can't really get high speed internet. Sat dishes is only real solution for many people.


Yes. As I just posted in another thread, AT&T's CFO noted on a quarterly call back in Feb. that they will continue to rely on satellite to serve rural customers "for the foreseeable future".

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

But, as the years go by, those rural customers will all have broadband access one way or another. Keep your eye on what T-Mobile does with 5G over long-range 600 MHz signals starting in 2019. They're saying they'll use it to offer fixed wireless home service in underserved areas (along with mobile service everywhere).


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

CTJon said:


> I saw article recently that 30% of people don't/can't really get high speed internet. Sat dishes is only real solution for many people.


That's why satellite service will continue for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> That's why satellite service will continue for the foreseeable future.


But eventually it's going to die, or become niche. Much like "broadband" via satellite which really is only feasible for folks with no other choice. The vast majority of their customer will end up porting over the the new service eventually. It's just a new way to deliver the same product, but at a cheaper cost to them and "hopefully" to us too. I'm not defending AT&T, in fact, the service has done downhill since they've bought DirecTV, but I'm a realist.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

JoeTheDragon said:


> and upgrade att internet from fiber to the node to fiber to the home


Of course what ever it takes.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Yes. As I just posted in another thread, AT&T's CFO noted on a quarterly call back in Feb. that they will continue to rely on satellite to serve rural customers "for the foreseeable future".
> 
> Execs on AT&T Video Transition Strategy: More OTT with Directv Shifted to Rural Areas - Telecompetitor
> 
> But, as the years go by, those rural customers will all have broadband access one way or another. Keep your eye on what T-Mobile does with 5G over long-range 600 MHz signals starting in 2019. They're saying they'll use it to offer fixed wireless home service in underserved areas (along with mobile service everywhere).


and T-Mobile has there own OTT TV and they can say that T-Mobile tv does not count as part of your cap or will not be slowed down at all.


----------



## Microphone (Jan 30, 2007)

CTJon said:


> I saw article recently that 30% of people don't/can't really get high speed internet. Sat dishes is only real solution for many people.


Then those Directv customers can become the 2020's version of Hughesnet.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

That will be great for all AT&T Broadband customers - As they will be the only customers NOT to have their internet capped. Everyone else on another Provider -is SOL


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

WestDC said:


> That will be great for all AT&T Broadband customers - As they will be the only customers NOT to have their internet capped. Everyone else on another Provider -is SOL


will they auto boost tv subs to max vdsl sync rate if they don't move to them to fiber?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

JoeTheDragon said:


> and T-Mobile has there own OTT TV and they can say that T-Mobile tv does not count as part of your cap or will not be slowed down at all.


Yup. Unless net neutrality gets reinstated.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

I was about to ask about rural. Customers. 
I feel they should keep sat service for rural areas and areas where folks suffer with POS cable broadband with data caps !!!

Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

I do agree with going an IP route for those that have access 2 FTTH . Better PQ and better opportunity for more 4k content ! 

I beta tested bell atlantic IPTV it was good really sharp PQ

Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk


----------



## reubenray (Jun 27, 2002)

CTJon said:


> I saw article recently that 30% of people don't/can't really get high speed internet. Sat dishes is only real solution for many people.


I am one of those people and I guess I will switch to Dish when this happens.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

reubenray said:


> I am one of those people and I guess I will switch to Dish when this happens.


That sucks as I wrote above I hope they keep the sat service

I do get the idea but they over look the folks with data caps and rural etc

Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk


----------



## reubenray (Jun 27, 2002)

dtv757 said:


> That sucks as I wrote above I hope they keep the sat service
> 
> I do get the idea but they over look the folks with data caps and rural etc
> 
> Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk


I knew AT&T would screw thing up. Wasn't it the rural customers that used Directv when they first started? I had a BUD and went with Directv when I moved. It is hard to take a bud with you.


----------



## sangs (Apr 2, 2008)

WestDC said:


> That will be great for all AT&T Broadband customers - As they will be the only customers NOT to have their internet capped. Everyone else on another Provider -is SOL


No cap on FiOS.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

sangs said:


> No cap on FiOS.


well then they can just rate shape non fios tv / video to make there own video service better then others.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

dtv757 said:


> I do agree with going an IP route for those that have access 2 FTTH . Better PQ and better opportunity for more 4k content !
> 
> I beta tested bell atlantic IPTV it was good really sharp PQ
> 
> Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk


It will only be better PQ if Directv uses higher quality with its IP product than it does with satellite. A private network IPTV offering like Bell Atlantic's is not the same as one that will go over the public internet.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JoeTheDragon said:


> well then they can just rate shape non fios tv / video to make there own video service better then others.


Or introduce a cap. "Unlimited" today does not guarantee "unlimited" forever.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

James Long said:


> Or introduce a cap. "Unlimited" today does not guarantee "unlimited" forever.


Correct -or When fishing you must first set the hook- to land the fish


----------



## sangs (Apr 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> Or introduce a cap. "Unlimited" today does not guarantee "unlimited" forever.


Satellite today doesn't mean satellite forever either, but nobody is allowed to suggest that here.  For now, it's Unlimited, no cap. And that's all I can go with. IF it happens in the future, will deal with it. But today, living in the present, the here and now, immediacy, no cap. We can play the IF game with pretty much everything. It's stupid.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

For now satellite is more profitable than streaming. But some people get bent out of shape when that is mentioned. So is it ok to act as if the uncertain future has already come to pass when it comes to promoting streaming but not ok to be concerned that affordable Internet will not be as pervasive as some predict and there will be no negative changes to Internet service plans as usage increases?

If you want to limit the conversation to today, November 16th, 2018, that is fine. Traditional delivery such as satellite and cable is still winning today. OTT barely has a toe in the door (today). Major Internet providers are beginning to see the impact of streaming ... from both cord cutters and from subscribers who either have Internet on demand as part of their traditional television subscription or supplement their traditional subscription with streamed content.

Bandwidth is not unlimited. At some point each provider is going to reach critical mass (if they have not reached that point now) and manage their networks in a way that allows all of their customers to have some access without some of their customers disrupting service for the rest (or, more importantly for the ISPs, making the service less profitable).


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

I agree with most of the comments. There are going to be caps on usage. As soon as AT&T gets millions of customers using their new set tops. Unlimited watching of those channels is going to burn a hole in internet providers pockets. Imagine leaving that set top on all night burning through bandwidth. How do these internet streaming companies deal with bandwidth consumption now? AT&T has a large channel selection. I guess we have to wait and see how this works out. Some internet providers are not going to be happy about this. To be fair it is happening now. But, the channel selection is smaller not the whole system like DIRECTV plans to offer. If I'm correct. 

Sent from my XT1609 using Tapatalk


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Wont burn a hole for FTTH providers but def POS cable providers and there fake "gig" speeds . 

Imo sat is more reliable than POS cable that goes out randomly at random times during the week, w/ no heads up or in random conditions , rain excessive heat, extreme cold etc... I have better reliability with DirecTV then my neighbors do w/ POS cable which is currently out BTW due to cold temps smfh

Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk


----------



## reubenray (Jun 27, 2002)

What type of internet speed will be required for DirectvNow to stream HD and 4K? I am able to stream 4k on Vudu and Amazon Prime, but I can't HD on Google.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I'm in a rural area, but I'm fortunate to live at the edge of town and have cable available. The way the price things out it is cheaper to have their internet and TV services than it is to have internet only and get various streaming services. And the service has been very good, as good as anything D* or E* is providing for less money. I have 200/20 internet service with a 2TB data cap, other levels are available.

But if I lived across the street I would only be able to get 20Mb service because only a WISP and satellite internet is available there. And just a few miles down the road it is sat internet or nothing. The bulk of the counties down here don't have good internet service, only some of the towns. For them, satellite service is the only real TV around.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

reubenray said:


> What type of internet speed will be required for DirectvNow to stream HD and 4K? I am able to stream 4k on Vudu and Amazon Prime, but I can't HD on Google.


Netflix claims 25Mbps minimum for their 4K, don't know what the others require. For HD 5-8Mbps is fine for a single stream.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I'll also bet there are areas that sat reception if more reliable than cable/internet. I've had 5 day internet outages in the last year. 
Locally Spectrum is pushing to install fiber access to this area of Maine so I'm sure they think they can handle the high speeds and high capacity. Of course as long as they run lines between tree branches we will always see outages. Ironically, probably because of the high latitude here the Sat dishes are almost vertical which means snow doesn't tend to stick as much on them as the do more south in the US.


----------



## mario64 (May 25, 2009)

I’m new to this discussion. Am I understanding correctly that DTV is ending satellite service? If so, why on earth would they do that after having invested in the massive infrastructure? Have they set a date for this? I’d go back to cable before going streaming only. My cable modem speeds aren’t stable enough for 100 percent streaming on multiple TVs.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mario64 said:


> I'm new to this discussion. Am I understanding correctly that DTV is ending satellite service? If so, why on earth would they do that after having invested in the massive infrastructure? Have they set a date for this? I'd go back to cable before going streaming only. My cable modem speeds aren't stable enough for 100 percent streaming on multiple TVs.


NO they are not ending satellite service. In fact they are launching a new satellite early next year. That is probably the last new one they will launch, but they shouldn't need any more replacements until around 2030.


----------



## sangs (Apr 2, 2008)

dtv757 said:


> Wont burn a hole for FTTH providers but def POS cable providers and there fake "gig" speeds .
> 
> Imo sat is more reliable than POS cable that goes out randomly at random times during the week, w/ no heads up or in random conditions , rain excessive heat, extreme cold etc... I have better reliability with DirecTV then my neighbors do w/ POS cable which is currently out BTW due to cold temps smfh
> 
> Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk


When you say "cable" I'll assume you don't mean Verizon FiOS, which has easily been the most reliable service I've ever had, and that includes DTV, Dish, Comcast, RCN, TWC and streaming. Reliability is unmatched with FiOS.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

sangs said:


> When you say "cable" I'll assume you don't mean Verizon FiOS, which has easily been the most reliable service I've ever had, and that includes DTV, Dish, Comcast, RCN, TWC and streaming. Reliability is unmatched with FiOS.


Correct talking about garbage POS cable companies
Not amazing FTTH telco providers 

Me  RBOC /telco.
cable

Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk


----------



## mario64 (May 25, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> NO they are not ending satellite service. In fact they are launching a new satellite early next year. That is probably the last new one they will launch, but they shouldn't need any more replacements until around 2030.


Great thank you for the clarification


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

sangs said:


> When you say "cable" I'll assume you don't mean Verizon FiOS, which has easily been the most reliable service I've ever had, and that includes DTV, Dish, Comcast, RCN, TWC and streaming. Reliability is unmatched with FiOS.


Without Net Neutrality laws preventing ISP's from throttling/capping content from a direct competitor, I don't see why companies who provide both Internet and TV services wouldn't begin to impose limits on DirecTV traffic if DirecTV were to primarily become a streaming service.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Yawn. Typical corporate marketing BS. So they will eventually get to the point of many other providers?

I'm sure there are many younger types who they must be targeting but I'm not interested in their streaming junk. I've got a Roku 4 that I use only when I absolutely must - a few series on Amazon Prime. ONLY because that is the only way to get those programs. The picture quality is fine BUT everything else SUCKS. They can't even lip sync correctly. Trick play beyond pause is a joke (I realize that is partly due to the quality of the Amazon Prime Video app BUT streaming will ALWAYS have limitations with trick play).

Of course IP delivered video CAN work well. DirecTV does it right with DVRs; download the entire program! Will this new stuff they are moving to have the same capability? I doubt it.

Given that I'm moving from a metro area where I have 100mbit to a rural area with 10mbit I have even less interest in streaming. Due to recent FCC moves I might get 25mbit in the next decade. Its going to be a very long time before sat is going away - if ever.

Now I fully appreciate the investment cost necessary to upgrade sat delivery to 4K across the board. 4K is nice. And 8K will be better. And then... The simple truth is that the marketing BS/hype is so far beyond the infrastructure capability for the foreseeable future that those will remain a niche for a very long time. I don't "need" them. This is very different from the transition from SD to HD.


----------



## Eva (Nov 8, 2013)

I'm not a fan of streaming, but they're catering to the younger generation now. Like trying to order CDs on Amazon and sometimes you're only given a streaming option for some CDs - a few don't have an option for a MP3 version either.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I saw this new article from FierceVideo.com and it had an interesting statement.

Deeper Dive-DirecTV soldiering on despite drastic subscriber losses | FierceVideo

"We have no plans to discontinue satellite service. Our video strategy involves offering our customers choices in how they want to receive their video service, including via satellite, our wireline service or streaming over home broadband, regardless of their provider," AT&T said in a statement.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> I saw this new article from FierceVideo.com and it had an interesting statement.
> 
> Deeper Dive-DirecTV soldiering on despite drastic subscriber losses | FierceVideo
> 
> "We have no plans to discontinue satellite service. Our video strategy involves offering our customers choices in how they want to receive their video service, including via satellite, our wireline service or streaming over home broadband, regardless of their provider," AT&T said in a statement.


I wonder if there have been so many false claims in the press that they were getting rid of satellite service in favor of streaming that they felt they needed to set the record straight.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I wonder if there have been so many false claims in the press that they were getting rid of satellite service in favor of streaming that they felt they needed to set the record straight.


It also said keeping their wireline business could that mean also doing DTV over managed IPTV in addition to unmanaged IPTV? I don't see how much longer they could keep UVerseTV when they stopped ordering the boxes from Arris?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"*We have no plans to discontinue satellite service.* Our video strategy involves offering our customers choices in how they want to receive their video service, including via satellite, our wireline service or streaming over home broadband, regardless of their provider," AT&T said in a statement.

I wonder how long it will take for people to ignore such a clear statement. 10 minutes? 
Emphasis added to the quote just in case someone missed it.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

What? They’re going to end satellite? No way! 

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I saw that DTV Now went down today. I wonder if DTV over IP will be more reliable than DTV Now? Now I can see using the internet for TV you could have the streaming service go down in addition to the internet and the modem. I can now see what some of you were saying, with internet streaming it would be just like cable. If it went down you wouldn't know when it would come back up. With SatelliteTV you would. We got 6" of snow last Thursday and SatelliteTV didn't go out. However, would you want to get DTV over IP if it costs less than DTV over SatelliteTV?

DIRECTV NOW is Down for Many Users - Cord Cutters News


----------



## YOLOdactyl (Sep 17, 2017)

I for one will never _reduce _the bandwidth into my home. Why anyone would want to get rid of a linear stream of reliable data, and instead rely on this Spectrum gods to hopefully give them enough bandwidth is crazy.

But obviously on the other side of the coin... think of the cities with many apartments/condos that won't/can't allow sat dishes. These places often have the best internet available (even with caps) and it would be so easy to get a OTT DirecTV box and have the service, channels, etc that you are used to. And if you move... easy. I wonder if ATT will look to consolidate the two DirecTV offerings into the future. Basically a seamless option, weather it comes from a Sat, or through your internet.

The average customer probably won't care, and probably actually find it convenient. How many people sit 15 feet from their 40" 4k TV? Imagine how much money the will save on a truck roll, vs Fedexing someone a box.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Obviously they will want it to be "seamless" as far as the viewer goes. You will use the same clients, same remote, same GUI etc. The only difference will be in where the bits come from - satellite or your DVR's hard drive for one, via your internet connection and Directv's "cloud DVR" for the other. Other than however they may bill them differently, I'm sure their intent will be that the end user can't tell the difference 99% of the time.


----------



## Robert L (Dec 13, 2005)

I been kind of watching for news on their IPTV thing, kind of interested if they would actually try to improve picture quality. But if its no better than Uverse they can keep it. Frontier which purchased a lot of Verizon older mess also got some of the FIOS areas. Frontier copied the Uverse system from AT&T when they started their Vantage TV, which is IPTV also. It runs a constant bitrate of 3.4 using HVEC on HD. They have so many on DSL I assume that is why and way too cheap to build any kind of adapted system. I believe Uverse uses H.264 at 5.5-6M bitrate. 

So using Vantage TV on a Fios 1 gig down connection its the same as someone on DSL. I can say the system itself works well, really fast response on anything you do. Almost no delay on anything. But, the picture sucks unless on a small screen. No detail really, and people have clay faces. Cable channels like AMC or FX showing dark shows the video falls apart. Even HBO wasn't very good except on bright scenes. Regular cable for the most part isn't very good either handling the same thing but at least had more detail. Frontier using an Arris DVR 4k box. 

Directv is some better but simply not all that close compared to some types of streaming. I get HBO through Amazon and its just a lot better on a projector. Shows like Mr. Robot is way better. I rather buy the series that watch some of that on cable. So if At&t has something that is higher quality I might be somewhat interested but it would really have to be good. But I assume it will be more like their Uverse.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I would bet almost anything it is better than Uverse. The poor quality of Uverse's PQ is due to having to live within the limitations of DSL. Even though fiber customers don't have such bandwidth limitations they wouldn't want to have a separate headend just for them so they can saddled with that issue.

Since Directv's new product will be starting from scratch, it will undoubtedly use HEVC compression which is very efficient. If they wanted to, they could easily exceed their satellite product's PQ. That would cost a little more, but if they think it would give them a competitive advantage they'd do it. The question is, how many people care? I doubt many do - look at how much Comcast has degraded their PQ recently, and while there is some squawking, it is from a tiny minority of customers and hasn't impacted their subscriber totals.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> I wonder if there have been so many false claims in the press that they were getting rid of satellite service in favor of streaming that they felt they needed to set the record straight.


It's the beginning of the end of satellite TV in the US

"We've launched our last satellite," John Donovan, CEO of AT&T Communications, said in a meeting with analysts on Nov. 29.

It's true that they're not getting rid of satellite service today but the end is in sight. The current satellites have a life span and won't be replaced. The service will just gradually fade away. If the cost savings from streaming, plus loss of satellite subs, gets too large then I could see them ending satellite service sooner rather than later.

I see it much like AT&T's landline service. My elderly mom had it but then switched to cable landline. After problems with the cable landline I tried to switch it back for her. AT&T said they no longer install POT landlines, even if the house is wired for it and had it previously. If you still have it you're grandfathered but no new subs. It could end up the same with satellite service.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Bob Coxner said:


> We've launched our last satellite


Except for that pesky little fact of that they didn't. The latest satellite launched was the one for DirecTV Latin America, while they just filed for their next satellite D16/T16.

TV "News" sites and a certain predictor of TV really need to stop taking off the cuff remarks protected by forward looking statements from execs barely involved in the more technical aspects of the day to day operations of the company and probably never set foot into their control rooms for anything but a photo op as gospel. It's the kind of remarks that gave us bogus statements like "all HD by 2016 using LIL spotbeams"


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

I would expect the CEO of a subsidiary company that launches satellites to be aware of whether he's authorized new multi-million dollar satellites to be built or not. Keeping track of the money is kind of his main job. Control rooms don't authorize capital spending.

The CEO of the parent AT&T said the same thing:

“He’s not going to launch more satellites,” AT&T’s top boss, chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson, said of Donovan, during the meeting. “We’re kind of done.”


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Bob Coxner said:


> I would expect the CEO of a subsidiary company that launches satellites to be aware of whether he's authorized new multi-million dollar satellites to be built or not.


Obviously he doesn't then since like I've said they JUST filed for their next satellite T16/D16.

If for whatever reason you still refuse to believe that and rather stick to off the cuff remarks protected by the forward looking statements disclaimer that are frequently proven to be wrong, you can see the proof for yourself in the filing linked in this post and the follow up replies.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

What it really amounts to is AT&T is choosing to place their bets on the prospects that 5G and streaming will become their new "business model". They're slowly killing DirecTV off with their decisions if nothing else. Long time customers use to be able to call in and get discounts- even if it was only a few hundred dollars a year but now those have gone away. In the past if I wanted to make a change in programming I logged onto the website and could easily see what my options were and in may cases just do it myself. If I needed a new receiver I stopped by my local retailer and either upgraded/bought what I wanted, he pushed a few buttons to activate it and I went home to plug it in. Right now I need to add an H25 for a nursery but there is no way to easily do it without a "truck roll". They've gone way backwards to the point that you can't even accurately log into their website to see what programming you have now. I've been a long time fan of DirecTV and have stuck with them because the picture quality was better and I enjoyed access to some of the programming they offered. 

We're seriously starting to give Dish a look at my house though. My in-laws recently started a Dish account for their camper. It's pay as you go with a Hopper 3. They have 16 tuners at their disposal (my Genie has 5). Sure they had to buy it but they're not under any kind of contract. If they don't want to continue service next month they simply don't pay and it cuts off. If they decide they want it again they simply log into MyDish, click on Restart service, pay the bill and they're off again. They can change local channels on their phones simply by going into the app and clicking a button. Dish's picture quality isn't quite as good as DirecTV's I would agree, but if DirecTV is going to start streaming all their programming that is going to be a moot point anyway. 

It appears in a few years Dish is going to be the satellite solution for rural America and DirecTV will be the streaming product for those who live in the bigger cities. If you listen to Dish's new promos and ads on Sirius XM it seems clear they're figuring this out too and have made their focus on rural America a bigger part of their marketing now.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

All this sounds suspect to me since Comcast is in the process of buying SKY in Europe so that they can add Satellite service to their portfolio.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Bob Coxner said:


> I would expect the CEO of a subsidiary company that launches satellites to be aware of whether he's authorized new multi-million dollar satellites to be built or not. Keeping track of the money is kind of his main job. Control rooms don't authorize capital spending.
> 
> The CEO of the parent AT&T said the same thing:
> 
> "He's not going to launch more satellites," AT&T's top boss, chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson, said of Donovan, during the meeting. "We're kind of done."





KyL416 said:


> Obviously he doesn't then since like I've said they JUST filed for their next satellite T16/D16.
> 
> If for whatever reason you still refuse to believe that and rather stick to off the cuff remarks protected by the forward looking statements disclaimer that are frequently proven to be wrong, you can see the proof for yourself in the filing linked in this post and the follow up replies.


It's just not credible that both Donovan and Stephenson wouldn't be aware of the proposed launch of the T16. Launching new DirecTV satellites is a big deal and not something that happens very often. The last one, the T15, launched back in 2015. The T16 would presumably launch next year, given that AT&T submitted an application with the FCC back in Sept. for a public notice of the launch. (However, not even a vague launch window for T16 is posted over at Spaceflight Now, although that doesn't necessary mean anything, I guess.)

Maybe they think of T16 as a "done deal" and therefore when Donovan said "We've launched our last satellite," he actually meant that they'll have done so _after_ the pending launch of the T16. These guys and the analysts they were speaking to tend to be very forward-looking with their statements. So perhaps Donovan and Stephenson assume that T16 is "old news" that their audience had already priced in. (Actually, I honestly don't know if AT&T has ever talked about T16 or future satellite plans in past investor calls or other public statements.)

OTOH, I suppose it's also possible that their statements yesterday were literally true -- zero future satellite launches -- meaning that AT&T has decided not to go forward with the launch of T16. But that seems unlikely to me given that the process had gotten far enough along to file plans with the FCC over two months ago.

At any rate, I think we can safely say that there definitely won't be any more sats launched after T16. But then I don't think anyone has really been expecting that lately anyhow.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

jimmie57 said:


> All this sounds suspect to me since Comcast is in the process of buying SKY in Europe so that they can add Satellite service to their portfolio.


SKY is a major pay TV provider (and content owner/provider) in the UK and other European countries, so it's a natural fit for Comcast. And they're actually a step ahead of DirecTV in transitioning from satellite to streaming.

Sky signals the end of the satellite dish


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

All these movements / shifts in delivery might get the OK for Dish and DirecTV to merge ?


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> SKY is a major pay TV provider (and content owner/provider) in the UK and other European countries, so it's a natural fit for Comcast. And they're actually a step ahead of DirecTV in transitioning from satellite to streaming.
> 
> Sky signals the end of the satellite dish


Thanks for the link. The following is from the 5th ? paragraph of the article.

Sky is not proposing to stop broadcasting by satellite. The move will allow customers who cannot have a dish or do not want one to get Sky, a spokesperson said. A Sky box will still be required.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

jimmie57 said:


> Thanks for the link. The following is from the 5th ? paragraph of the article.
> 
> Sky is not proposing to stop broadcasting by satellite. The move will allow customers who cannot have a dish or do not want one to get Sky, a spokesperson said. A Sky box will still be required.


Right. Basically, Sky is doing with their pay TV service the same things that DirecTV is doing: they're not ceasing to offer TV via satellite anytime soon but both are moving to provide their full-scale service via streaming as an alternative to satellite, and both are also offering new skinnier, less expensive bundles via streaming (Sky has NOW TV and DirecTV has DirecTV Now).

I don't think Comcast is buying Sky because they're currently primarily a satellite TV operator any more than AT&T bought DirecTV to get into the "satellite TV" business. In both cases, the acquirers saw major pay TV distributors with lots of current subscribers. Both realize that that they will eventually transition those subscribers from satellite over to streaming, although that process will take years.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> It's just not credible that both Donovan and Stephenson wouldn't be aware of the proposed launch of the T16. Launching new DirecTV satellites is a big deal and not something that happens very often. The last one, the T15, launched back in 2015. The T16 would presumably launch next year, given that AT&T submitted an application with the FCC back in Sept. for a public notice of the launch. (However, not even a vague launch window for T16 is posted over at Spaceflight Now, although that doesn't necessary mean anything, I guess.)
> 
> Maybe they think of T16 as a "done deal" and therefore when Donovan said "We've launched our last satellite," he actually meant that they'll have done so _after_ the pending launch of the T16. These guys and the analysts they were speaking to tend to be very forward-looking with their statements. So perhaps Donovan and Stephenson assume that T16 is "old news" that their audience had already priced in. (Actually, I honestly don't know if AT&T has ever talked about T16 or future satellite plans in past investor calls or other public statements.)
> 
> ...


He could easily be talking about not launching any more satelites that will increase how much bandwidth they have to use as well... that's realistic in any scenario.

And they won't need to launch another satellite for about a decade or more after t16 goes up, and the current people probably won't even be with the company when the decision has to be made about building any more new satelites so yeah, there's more to what he said than we are done with sat. DIRECTV will not just start shutting down satellite within the next decade.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

jimmie57 said:


> All these movements / shifts in delivery might get the OK for Dish and DirecTV to merge ?


Why do people suggest this? There's zero benefit for AT&T to want to either buy Dish or sell Directv's satellite business. It will never happen.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jimmie57 said:


> Sky is not proposing to stop broadcasting by satellite. The move will allow customers who cannot have a dish or do not want one to get Sky, a spokesperson said. A Sky box will still be required.


I'm sorry, but the truth that you have quoted does not fit the "the sky is falling" narrative. 



slice1900 said:


> Why do people suggest this? There's zero benefit for AT&T to want to either buy Dish or sell Directv's satellite business. It will never happen.


Not soon ... but ten years from now we'll see where the industry is. I hope it is still strong enough to support both satellite systems.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

James Long said:


> I'm sorry, but the truth that you have quoted does not fit the "the sky is falling" narrative.
> 
> Not soon ... but ten years from now we'll see where the industry is. I hope it is still strong enough to support both satellite systems.


I just took a few lines from the article the other guy posted.
Where do you get that I am telling the Truth about anything.
Don't you see the correlation between DirecTV shutting down satellite in favor of internet to the fact that comcast is internet and they just bought satellite service ?
Speaks to me like neither one of them are going anywhere.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I was agreeing with what you posted. Both Sky and DIRECTV have clearly stated that they are NOT in the process of shutting down their satellite systems.

Some people (not referring to you) seem to see any investment other than satellite as the imminent demise of the satellite system. Those people are wrong.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Looks like the streaming box is out in beta now.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Been stated before but I think recent survey showed almost 30% of US doesn't have high speed internet. I live in Maine and there are portions of the state that are required by the state to maintain land line telephone service because nothing else is available to those parts of the state. Sat service is perfect for all those areas of the country where high speed of anything doesn't exist.
I love the self install part - i know people who need a vendor to connect a laptop to Wifi.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CTJon said:


> Been stated before but I think recent survey showed almost 30% of US doesn't have high speed internet. I live in Maine and there are portions of the state that are required by the state to maintain land line telephone service because nothing else is available to those parts of the state. Sat service is perfect for all those areas of the country where high speed of anything doesn't exist.
> I love the self install part - i know people who need a vendor to connect a laptop to Wifi.


Yup, as affirmed by AT&T's CFO in this article:

_Also on this week's call, however, AT&T Senior Executive Vice President and CFO John Stephens noted that the company will continue to rely on satellite video delivery for rural areas for the foreseeable future. He did not detail the reasons behind this, but the likely explanation is that some rural areas are less likely to have quality broadband at high enough speeds to support video streams, particularly multiple video streams, while also supporting email, social media, telecommuting and other applications.
_​So, as has been stated many times on this forum, there's no need for rural dwellers or anyone else who likes their satellite TV service to freak out. DirecTV via satellite isn't going away any time in the next few/several years. If you like your service, you can keep your service.

What will change -- and I think this may already be happening -- is a shift in AT&T's focus and marketing efforts away from satellite TV toward their various streaming services, which will be what AT&T advertises and the default option that they seek to bundle with their other services. Satellite TV will still be there for those who seek it out but you won't hear much about it (kind of like how I haven't heard any marketing messaging about Uverse TV in well over a year now, even though it continues to exist). AT&T will be less aggressive in trying to attract and retain customers to satellite TV, so expect fewer deals. (And from various posts on this forum, it sounds like DirecTV is already moving away from offering significant discounts to keep longtime satellite subscribers from leaving.)

AT&T knows that DirecTV satellite service, like all full-scale cable TV services, will continue to bleed subscribers in the years to come. Some will switch to a cable TV package bundled in with their broadband service from Comcast, Charter, etc. (a trend that has been hurting satellite TV for awhile now). Some will just jump over to the forthcoming streaming version of full DirecTV to save a few bucks while keeping essentially the same channels and features. Some will switch to a skinnier bundle with DirecTV Now (or Hulu Live or YouTube TV or PS Vue) to save even more. Some will become cord-cutters who use only on-demand apps (Netflix, etc.) and OTA antennas to save the most. But there will still be some folks, especially rural dwellers who don't have home broadband, who stick with DirecTV satellite for years to come.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Looks like the streaming box is out in beta now.


LOL...The 1990's called and they want their remote, power "brick"...and the rest of their equipment back...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> Not soon ... but ten years from now we'll see where the industry is. I hope it is still strong enough to support both satellite systems.


At some point the market won't be strong enough to support both, because there won't be enough customers to go around. Why would the stronger one want to buy the weaker one, and incur the expense of trying to transition them? If they have no other option than satellite they will come to you anyway, and you can treat them like any other new customer, instead of having them expect deals and special treatment because they have been customers of OldSatCo for 20 years.

Like I've said before, I expect Dish to become non-viable before Directv. They have half the satellite customers and have higher costs due to supporting two arcs, meaning a satellite replacement costs _four times as much per customer_! While Directv isn't expected to have any satellites in need of replacement before 2030 or so, I'm pretty sure the same is not true of Dish (if you or someone else has info on their current fleet that shows when they were launched I'd be curious to see) If Dish needed a new satellite in 2025, for example, would it be worth it to them to replace it, or would they determine they are better off simply shutting down that arc?

The one thing that could alter that prediction is Directv's IP service. Assuming a significant number of new customers get the IP service instead of the satellite service, they will lose satellite subscribers at an accelerated rate. Maybe instead of losing a million a year they start losing two million a year. AT&T will be fine with that because they'll still have the customers, but it might bring Directv's satellite subscriber numbers down fast enough to go below Dish eventually, and leave Dish the last one standing.

If Dish is able to hang on until Directv starts needing to replace satellites around 2030, AT&T will have to start dropping markets when spot beam satellites like D11 or D12 fail. I think it is likely we'll have a lot fewer channels in 2030 (why would you have so many HBO and Showtime when most people are using on-demand, and why so many 'trash' channels like TLC that have no real identity and show the same stuff over and over?) so they can probably keep going a few years longer on fewer satellites and just lose some DMAs they don't have spots for. Then Dish would be able to pick up people in those DMAs and might outlast Directv.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mjwagner said:


> LOL...The 1990's called and they want their remote, power "brick"...and the rest of their equipment back...


The power 'brick' is either built into the device, is along the cord, or in the plug. They all have their downsides (in the device means a PS failure kills the device, in the plug means it is a pain in the ass to plug into an outlet/power strip) so why the hate on power bricks?

As for a remote, I suppose you are one of those who uses their phone as a remote, and because you prefer it you think everyone else should too?


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> The power 'brick' is either built into the device, is along the cord, or in the plug. They all have their downsides (in the device means a PS failure kills the device, in the plug means it is a pain in the ass to plug into an outlet/power strip) so why the hate on power bricks?
> 
> As for a remote, I suppose you are one of those who uses their phone as a remote, and because you prefer it you think everyone else should too?


As far as I can tell this thing doesn't have a spinning drive or anything in it so why does it need a power brick that size? Literally no modern streaming devices come with a brick or wart that big anymore...and none of them that I can think of have the brick built in...the whole concept is out of the '90s which is why I find it hilarious.
No I don't use my phones as remotes, I prefer hard buttons. But look at the size of that thing. Nobody even sells a universal remote that big anymore and certainly no current streaming devices come with a remote even remotely that big, even the ones that have ir control (for tvs and such) and voice built in. Just take a look at the remote for the new Amazon FireTV Stick 4k that just came out. It has voice and ir to control tvs and is literally a quarter the size of that remote. And the device itself is cartoonishly huge.
It makes me LOL again...the '90s called and they want all their equipment back...


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

mjwagner said:


> As far as I can tell this thing doesn't have a spinning drive or anything in it so why does it need a power brick that size? Literally no modern streaming devices come with a brick or wart that big anymore...and none of them that I can think of have the brick built in...the whole concept is out of the '90s which is why I find it hilarious.
> No I don't use my phones as remotes, I prefer hard buttons. But look at the size of that thing. Nobody even sells a universal remote that big anymore and certainly no current streaming devices come with a remote even remotely that big, even the ones that have ir control (for tvs and such) and voice built in. Just take a look at the remote for the new Amazon FireTV Stick 4k that just came out. It has voice and ir to control tvs and is literally a quarter the size of that remote. And the device itself is cartoonishly huge.
> It makes me LOL again...the '90s called and they want all their equipment back...


I can actually think of one reason why it comes with that brick...it looks like the same brick D uses for its current sat equipment. They probably have a couple of warehouses full of them...


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> No I don't use my phones as remotes, I prefer hard buttons. But look at the size of that thing. Nobody even sells a universal remote that big anymore and certainly no current streaming devices come with a remote even remotely that big, even the ones that have ir control (for tvs and such) and voice built in. Just take a look at the remote for the new Amazon FireTV Stick 4k that just came out. It has voice and ir to control tvs and is literally a quarter the size of that remote. And the device itself is cartoonishly huge.
> It makes me LOL again...the '90s called and they want all their equipment back...


Keep in mind that the upcoming streaming DirecTV service (like DirecTV satellite) will not be aimed at the cord-cutter set (that's what DirecTV Now is for) but rather folks who want a traditional pay TV experience, which includes a dedicated STB with a full-sized remote with 0-9 buttons and other buttons dedicated to specific tasks (mute, record, etc.). Yes, this remote is much larger than those that come with Rokus, Apple TVs, etc. but a some folks complain that those remotes are easily lost between cushions and aren't particularly ergonomic. Beyond that, I don't recall any remotes from the '90s featuring Google Assistant voice input like this remote has.

Even though AT&T is referring to this box as a "streaming" device during the beta test, I'd say it's more appropriate to think of it as their competitor to the Comcast X1 or the Altice One, both of which come with remotes about this size (and actually have even more buttons).


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Keep in mind that the upcoming streaming DirecTV service (like DirecTV satellite) will not be aimed at the cord-cutter set (that's what DirecTV Now is for) but rather folks who want a traditional pay TV experience, which includes a dedicated STB with a full-sized remote with 0-9 buttons and other buttons dedicated to specific tasks (mute, record, etc.). Yes, this remote is much larger than those that come with Rokus, Apple TVs, etc. but a some folks complain that those remotes are easily lost between cushions and aren't particularly ergonomic. Beyond that, I don't recall any remotes from the '90s featuring Google Assistant voice input like this remote has.
> 
> Even though AT&T is referring to this box as a "streaming" device during the beta test, I'd say it's more appropriate to think of it as their competitor to the Comcast X1 or the Altice One, both of which come with remotes about this size (and actually have even more buttons).


Your right, this certainly is aimed at a clearly defined market segment....obviously just kidding with the '90s reference...


----------



## Soccernut (Jan 20, 2004)

mjwagner said:


> LOL...The 1990's called and they want their remote, power "brick"...and the rest of their equipment back...


Hey the year 3000 called and wish they could create something this elegant and beautiful


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> At some point the market won't be strong enough to support both, ...


I have already expressed my opinion on the issue. We obviously disagree on who will leave satellite first. Since neither of us will be right or wrong for at least a decade there is no point in continuing that part of the discussion. Neither company will be leaving satellite as long as they are making money.


----------



## Richard (Apr 24, 2002)

There are still a large number of underserved / unserved households in this country. The very reason why DBS licenses were granted to DirecTV, USSB & Echostar was to provide services for these households.

This is still a big problem today, and I don't see it ever going away completely. At one of my residences, the only viable option for Internet is still dial-up (and not 56K either, only 28.8k - sometimes 33.6k). No cable, no DSL, no 3G/LTE (not that it should ever be considered viable anyway), etc.

The people on this forum (and everywhere else), who have access to cable (copper or fiber), or some other service besides DirecTV/DISH, wishing for the demise of DBS is absolutely unacceptable. If you have problems with satellite based service, go use one of those other services you have available to you. There are people who have no other choice.

The idea that AT&T could abandon the DBS market is pretty idiotic also. The government would require them to sell it, before they would allow them to abandon it.


----------



## Soccernut (Jan 20, 2004)

Well, Japan seems like they can continue making Satellite a profitable business model by evolving it:
The first 8K satellite TV broadcasts launched today in Japan


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Richard said:


> The idea that AT&T could abandon the DBS market is pretty idiotic also. The government would require them to sell it, before they would allow them to abandon it.


Why would they government "require them to sell it"? DBS licenses come with a mandate that they be used to provide TV (as opposed to using them for other purposes like phone calls or internet) but are not a mandate that they must stay in business. The reason Directv bought DBS licenses from others is because they wanted more capacity, not because those companies were forced to do so by the FCC.

If AT&T decides to discontinue Directv satellite (which would be at least a decade away if not longer) then I'm sure AT&T would happily sell it rather than shut it down if someone is willing to buy it. However, if it is a money losing proposition at that time (due to having too few customers) then it would be shut down. The government isn't going to force them to keep operating.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Neither company will be leaving satellite as long as they are making money.


I'm not saying it's a likely scenario but I wonder if several years down the road either AT&T or Dish, while still earning a diminished level of profits from US satellite TV service, find that they could make more money by selling the remaining useful lifespans of some or all their satellites to third parties (perhaps foreign-based companies or governments) as opposed to continuing to operate them themselves for TV. That could perhaps be a third future scenario under which satellite TV shuts down, as opposed to the two already mentioned (that TV service shuts down when the satellites stop working; or shuts down when running the TV service ceases to turn a profit). I've read that, back in 2012, DirecTV leased the last couple years of useful life of one of their older satellites to a Russian company rather than continue to use it for their own TV service. Different circumstances, obviously, but perhaps something similar could happen in the future.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Yup, as affirmed by AT&T's CFO in this article:
> 
> _Also on this week's call, however, AT&T Senior Executive Vice President and CFO John Stephens noted that the company will continue to rely on satellite video delivery for rural areas for the foreseeable future. He did not detail the reasons behind this, but the likely explanation is that some rural areas are less likely to have quality broadband at high enough speeds to support video streams, particularly multiple video streams, while also supporting email, social media, telecommuting and other applications.
> _​So, as has been stated many times on this forum, there's no need for rural dwellers or anyone else who likes their satellite TV service to freak out. DirecTV via satellite isn't going away any time in the next few/several years. If you like your service, you can keep your service.
> ...


This exactly. Satellite won't die, but it will become a niche product as they push new subs to their new streaming serve and try to persuade those of us currently using Satellite to switch. I think the key here is that the new service will offer a "like Sat or cable" experience, with bundled live TV (OTA and "cable") in a format that most of us old timers understand, channels, scheduled air times, DVR service etc), along with streaming services, like OD, Netflix etc.). First they will entice us with a reduced price to get us on the service and once we are there, if the service is good, they will gradually raise prices. But we won't need or care about how our TV is delivered to us. I'll keep saying it but AT&T's focus is on whatever they can delvier via their internet infrastructure, not via Satellite. That's always been their focus. That's where they want to go, it's easier for the consumer and cheaper in the long run. It's their core business. They wanted DirecTV because they had a large subsciber base, that's shrinking but easily portable to their other services. Get on any call with their CSRs and they try and sell you their mobile services. I think a lot of folks here, who have and love Satellite, want and hope it remains viable. i'm sure those people who love to shop at Sears want the same thing, but you have to move on as technology changes. That's what's happening here. The MODEL can still work (OTA and cable live TV in the way we've always had), but the delivery can change. Why the reluctance to move on to what could prove to be better technology that could prove to be cheaper to the consumer for the short run? No more rain fade, for example. I hate change, I don't like the modern model of streaming channels only, I like my TV/DVR model, but if there's a cheaper and better way to deliver that? I'm all ears.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

James Long said:


> I have already expressed my opinion on the issue. We obviously disagree on who will leave satellite first. Since neither of us will be right or wrong for at least a decade there is no point in continuing that part of the discussion. Neither company will be leaving satellite as long as they are making money.


Plenty of companies leave money making market to go to a market that potentially makes them MORE money, plus involves less cost to maintain. Would you rather sell a device that you can make a 10% profit on or one that you can make a 50% market on? (arbitrary numbers used as an example). You might keep the 10% profit around because, it does make SOME money, and has a niche market, but you are certainly going to focus your energy on the 50% profit, especially if the potential is there to have more customers at the 50% market.


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

One aspect of all this that I don't think I've seen mentioned is whether the current traditional cable/satellite programming providers will stick with their live linear model in coming years. It's not inconceivable that they might make all of their offerings available on demand and do away with linear live programming altogether.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

AT&T has 183 billion in debt and have said they intend to reduce it significantly.

They will do it by selling the least profitable assets and if needed leasing back services.

When the satellite business shrinks enough, they will spin off directv and use the cash to retire debt.

So don't expect directv satellite service to disappear. It's not going to happen.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> ... make more money by selling the remaining useful lifespans of some or all their satellites to third parties (perhaps foreign-based companies or governments) ...


Not going to happen. Sure, they could ship their satellites off to someplace else around the globe IF the footprint of the satellite was useful elsewhere and the buyer could get a license for the frequency in some slot for their country. But the DISH and DIRECTV satellites serving the US were purpose built with footprints and spotbeams covering the US. It might be better than no satellite for the buyer, but not much better.

Use in place serving the US would require FCC permission. Not something that the FCC is going to give to a foreign company. Perhaps to a new satellite company who thinks they can do a better job of running DIRECTV satellite or DISH satellite than AT&T and DISH. Read the forums, there are plenty of people who think that they could do a better job than AT&T and/or DISH. They just don't have the money or business smarts to actually start such a business.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Would you rather sell a device that you can make a 10% profit on or one that you can make a 50% market on? (arbitrary numbers used as an example). You might keep the 10% profit around because, it does make SOME money, and has a niche market, but you are certainly going to focus your energy on the 50% profit, especially if the potential is there to have more customers at the 50% market.


10% profit would be good. It is going to take a long time for streaming to beat the profits of satellite.

And yes, if it were my decision and I was making 10% on a product I'd continue to support it. Even if I could make more on another product. There is NO guarantee that AT&T can keep every DIRECTV satellite customer as a DIRECTV OTT customer. Turning off or turning customers away from the satellite product would be (in my opinion) absolutely stupid. And while there are people here who do not hold AT&T in high regard, I don't believe that their leadership is absolutely stupid.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Not going to happen. Sure, they could ship their satellites off to someplace else around the globe IF the footprint of the satellite was useful elsewhere and the buyer could get a license for the frequency in some slot for their country. But the DISH and DIRECTV satellites serving the US were purpose built with footprints and spotbeams covering the US. It might be better than no satellite for the buyer, but not much better.


Existing satellites can be repositioned and used for different purposes. I'll simply quote from Wikipedia about the satellite I referenced before:

_In early 2012, DirecTV-1R was briefly repositioned to 109.8° W as a spare for DirecTV-5, however, in mid-2012, it was announced that DirecTV-1R would be leased to the Russian Satellite Communications Company, and was repositioned to its current location at 55.8° E in late 2012 as a stopgap supplement to the RSCC's aging Bonum 1 satellite due to delays of the RSCC's Express-AT1 satellite. Express-AT1 was launched on March 15, 2014 and both DirecTV-1R and Bonum 1 have since been deorbited.
_​It's probably unlikely that the entire fleet of sats would be sold off in the future, but perhaps one or two might be if the money was right, leading to DirecTV or Dish's deprecation or even complete shut-down a little sooner than would otherwise have been the case. But again, such a move could only make economic sense if the pool of paying TV subscribers had already dwindled to a relatively small number (which I expect will be the case by the latter half of the 2020s).

At any rate, this is all speculation about what will happen way down the road. Interesting to think about a bit but it very much feels like beating a dead horse now. As I've said before, I expect satellite TV service to continue to be offered until some time in the 2025-30 timeframe. Others around here believe it will last a bit longer. I've seen no credible analysis/predictions from anyone suggesting that it will completely go away in the next few years, only that the number of subscribers will substantially decline.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> _In early 2012, DirecTV-1R was briefly repositioned to 109.8° W as a spare for DirecTV-5, however, in mid-2012, it was announced that DirecTV-1R would be leased to the Russian Satellite Communications Company, and was repositioned to its current location at 55.8° E in late 2012 as a stopgap supplement to the RSCC's aging Bonum 1 satellite due to delays of the RSCC's Express-AT1 satellite. Express-AT1 was launched on March 15, 2014 and both DirecTV-1R and Bonum 1 have since been deorbited._


A 1999 satellite that was already out of service moved for temporary emergency use. As I mentioned in my post, possible but not going to happen with modern satellites. They are more purpose designed for US use.


----------



## energyx (Aug 8, 2011)

KyL416 said:


> Obviously he doesn't then since like I've said they JUST filed for their next satellite T16/D16.
> 
> If for whatever reason you still refuse to believe that and rather stick to off the cuff remarks protected by the forward looking statements disclaimer that are frequently proven to be wrong, you can see the proof for yourself in the filing linked in this post and the follow up replies.


It's dying, get over it... orders, no orders, filings, if they decide to stop they will. The traditional pay TV model is starting to lose money and there is no indication that will stop. Why not cut it off now and ride out what's already in orbit? Once they roll out 5G, they can provide the back end data connection (and home internet) for the streaming. No need for costly satellites.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Directv & Dish's satellites have a beam footprint configured for the US - so it isn't going to fit anywhere else in the world unless 1) the area where they need the beam to hit is smaller than the US and 2) they are able to "spill over" signal well outside the area where they want to hit. They also are set up for spot beams on some transponders, which would definitely not be useful elsewhere. And Directv's satellites are mostly Ka, which is used less than Ku.

When that old Directv satellite went to Russia and consider that Russia is WAY bigger than the US, so they didn't have to worry about the signal spilling over into places where it shouldn't. They obviously didn't need it to hit all of Russia since it was "a stopgap supplement" so probably just had to hit a certain part of Russia.

There wouldn't be much of a market for Directv and Dish's satellites outside the US, because they are too specific for their role. The only truly flexible ones were Spaceway-1 & Spaceway-2, but that's because they weren't originally designed for Directv. AT&T found another role for one, and will probably find another role for the other when it is done serving Puerto Rico next year.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I wonder if they could eliminate AT&T having a streaming box at all and just have a DTV over IP APP? You could then get the same PQ and audio quality using the APP. Would it be cool just having the TV mounted on a wall then all you would need is an A/C outlet on the wall behind the TV and that's it. However, I wonder if you would always need to have the TV's latest OS to have the latest DTV APP update?

One bad thing about that way is if you wanted to video game and you would have to get the game console out all the time to play a game. Unless the consoles would go all streaming also and they would just be a streaming APP.


----------



## dminches (Oct 1, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> I wonder if they could eliminate AT&T having a streaming box at all and just have a DTV over IP APP? You could then get the same PQ and audio quality using the APP. Would it be cool just having the TV mounted on a wall then all you would need is an A/C outlet on the wall behind the TV and that's it. However, I wonder if you would always need to have the TV's latest OS to have the latest DTV APP update?
> 
> One bad thing about that way is if you wanted to video game and you would have to get the game console out all the time to play a game. Unless the consoles would go all streaming also and they would just be a streaming APP.


How would you record if you just had an app?


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

dminches said:


> How would you record if you just had an app?


Cloud DVR


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dminches said:


> How would you record if you just had an app?


Theoretically, the end user would not record. They would stream the content at the time they wanted to view it either from a shared source (such as viewing a movie or TV show on Netflix or Amazon storage) or via a "cloud DVR" where a more personal copy of live source content is recorded for a specific end user. I expect streaming to become more of the former (watching from common storage) than the latter, but the latter scheme may help with some distribution rights and copyright issues.

For example, "The Voice" just began a live broadcast on the NBC Television network to the Eastern and Central time zones. Traditional TV viewers (including satellite and cable viewers) have either tuned in to watch or set their home DVRs to record the program so they can watch later. When the viewer decides to watch the content they tell their DVR to play the content. Via streaming that content would be stored on a streaming server. When the viewer decides to watch the content they would connect to the streaming server and watch the content. No local storage (beyond the normal live stream buffering) required.

Honoring the rights sold to local affiliates complicate the issue. If I stream "The Voice" my local affiliate wants me to get the version of the program as they aired it ... including local commercials and promos for other local content. This could be done via localized inserts in a national copy of the program or serving a market based copy of the program (with ads) or by using the "cloud DVR" technology where the individual end user has to request a recording in advance or wait until the affiliate's right to first air expires before seeing a national version. All part of the issues that need to be worked out as people start streaming content.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Honoring the rights sold to local affiliates complicate the issue.


Yep. I expect that a lot of aspects in the relationships between the huge national network owners and their local affiliates will change in the next several years as TV viewing continually shifts toward on-demand streaming, a system in which the networks/content owners really have no use for the local affiliates they don't own. The national network/local affiliate system made sense in the 20th century but it makes less and less sense as technology, viewer habits and business realities evolve.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Stephenson outlines video strategy.

AT&T's Video Strategy Is Extremely Complex: Can They Pull It Off? - Telecompetitor

Its also up at SeekingAlpha.com.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4226186-t-inc-t-presents-ubs-conference-transcript?part=single


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

energyx said:


> It's dying, get over it... orders, no orders, filings, if they decide to stop they will. The traditional pay TV model is starting to lose money and there is no indication that will stop. Why not cut it off now and ride out what's already in orbit? Once they roll out 5G, they can provide the back end data connection (and home internet) for the streaming. No need for costly satellites.


It's not at all dying. Not yet. Today it's just slowed down. But why on earth do you think its loosing money? It's not even close to the realm of losing money. It may not be making as much as it once was but it's still making tons of money.

And the satelites cost less than the infrastructure for streaming at this point! A lot less for some areas! Especially for anywhere they are upgrading to 5g. Billions less than that in fact.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

It would be nice to believe Directv when they say they are keeping satellite TV but it’s hard to ignore their upcoming roll out of Directv full sat streaming. The review I watched today of the Beta box was able to work with Directv now but the reviewer mentions that it’s real purpose is regular Directv over IP.

I am not sure but it probably means a lot of current sat users will be whined and dined with incentives to move to IP DTV. It’s not just a question of satellite costs with the old system but also the thousands of truck crews used to install and maintain installations


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

dreadlk said:


> It would be nice to believe Directv when they say they are keeping satellite TV but it's hard to ignore their upcoming roll out of Directv full sat streaming. The review I watched today of the Beta box was able to work with Directv now but the reviewer mentions that it's real purpose is regular Directv over IP.
> 
> I am not sure but it probably means a lot of current sat users will be whined and dined with incentives to move to IP DTV. It's not just a question of satellite costs with the old system but also the thousands of truck crews used to install and maintain installations


I hope they add more profiles for vdsl2 profiles or maybe give Directv IP subs an line max upgrade for free


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

dreadlk said:


> It would be nice to believe Directv when they say they are keeping satellite TV but it's hard to ignore their upcoming roll out of Directv full sat streaming. The review I watched today of the Beta box was able to work with Directv now but the reviewer mentions that it's real purpose is regular Directv over IP.
> 
> I am not sure but it probably means a lot of current sat users will be whined and dined with incentives to move to IP DTV. It's not just a question of satellite costs with the old system but also the thousands of truck crews used to install and maintain installations


Directv will have ZERO incentive to switch satellite customers to streaming. The only place where streaming has a cost advantage is in the initial install. Once the dish is up and a customer has Directv satellite installed, it would cost Directv money to convert them to streaming. Why would they do that? There's no financial incentive for Directv to convert existing customers, because they won't save any money this way.

The conversion will happen for new customers only - there we will likely see financial incentives to push customers towards streaming, since Directv will save money not having to send an installer out or provide a Genie.

And that reviewer is wrong, there is every indication the new client will ALSO be used for Directv satellite, not just the IP product.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Directv will have ZERO incentive to switch satellite customers to streaming. The only place where streaming has a cost advantage is in the initial install. Once the dish is up and a customer has Directv satellite installed, it would cost Directv money to convert them to streaming. Why would they do that? There's no financial incentive for Directv to convert existing customers, because they won't save any money this way.
> 
> The conversion will happen for new customers only - there we will likely see financial incentives to push customers towards streaming, since Directv will save money not having to send an installer out or provide a Genie.
> 
> And that reviewer is wrong, there is every indication the new client will ALSO be used for Directv satellite, not just the IP product.


It has advantages at every stage!
If your having a problem with the service they will have two courses of action. They will either say it's your ISP that is at fault or if they have eliminated that they will just ship you another box.
They can by attrition slowly start to eliminate the truck teams. With satellite the truck teams are the only solution for most problems.

Secondly they need 5G as a future investment for their mobile devices, so dedicating some bandwidth to Directv kills three birds with one stone, Fast cell phone data, Directv home service plus it gives them the best cell phone / vehicle TV service on the planet.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

dreadlk said:


> It has advantages at every stage!
> If your having a problem with the service they will have two courses of action. They will either say it's your ISP that is at fault or if they have eliminated that they will just ship you another box.
> They can by attrition slowly start to eliminate the truck teams. With satellite the truck teams are the only solution for most problems.
> 
> Secondly they need 5G as a future investment for their mobile devices, so dedicating some bandwidth to Directv kills three birds with one stone, Fast cell phone data, Directv home service plus it gives them the best cell phone / vehicle TV service on the planet.


Most people don't have problems very often, and they charge for an installer visit unless you have the protection plan. They contract a lot of their install stuff out to third parties, if they want to get rid of the dedicated employees they just need to farm all of it out to third parties.

The 5G bands they are going to used for fixed wireless service to the home are NOT the same bands they are going to use for mobile data.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Reading negative posts here it is amazing that DIRECTV has managed to stay in business! Their profits are now buried in a division with other products (including less profitable products) but even with all the gloom and doom about how expensive it is to operate a satellite company, they have been and remain very profitable.

As far as "5G" goes ... wouldn't it make more sense to keep as much bandwidth open as possible to serve the data customers? Wasting 5G bandwidth for customers who do and could use satellite is crazy.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Saw this article and it had info on the T-14 and its T-15 and T-16.

"No more satellites" says DirecTV owners

The most recent launches of DirecTV satellites for US viewers were DirecTV 14 on Dec 6th 2014. DirecTV-14 has a 15-year planned mission lifetime, or until 2029, and operating from 99 degrees West. On May 27th last year DirecTV-15 was launched to 103 deg West, and in theory, good until 2032.

DirecTV-16 is reportedly being built by Airbus Defence & Space, but - as yet - the contract has not been announced.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> Stephenson outlines video strategy.
> 
> AT&T's Video Strategy Is Extremely Complex: Can They Pull It Off? - Telecompetitor
> 
> ...


Here are the relevant bits. I have bolded certain parts to emphasize what I think is most important.

_So, the days of media companies accumulating massive amounts of content and creating different channels for this content, and they'll have some really great content and they'll tell distributors if you want that content, you've got to take this other stuff, and shoving what I call oversized bundles of content down on to consumer, those days are gone. The ability to force that kind of oversize bundling of content on to the consumer - the consumer's willingness to pay has just evaporated.

And we think every media company and every distributor is going to have to have a much different portfolio of video products to meet this customer need. And so, this is one of the things we've been working very, very hard on. And by the time we get to mid-year 2019, this portfolio will be largely in place.

And it starts, as you might guess, with - look, there is a segment of the market that wants a *big package of content that is sport-centric*, that is 4K, multi-room configurations for their home, that's a sizable market and that market is going to be there for a long time. *DIRECTV meets that end of the market better than anybody*. We love our Sunday ticket. We love our sports programming in there. We love how it's a 4K-friendly technology. That technology will be there for quite some time. *But there are a large number of customers who are just saying we're not paying those kind of prices.*

And so, we have developed what we call - it's an *over-the-top thin client service that we're trialing in the market right now*. We'll be in the market, I think, late first quarter is the current timing. Late first quarter with this product. So, a thin client. You just plug it into USB port in your TV and it's run over anybody's broadband. It doesn't matter whose broadband it is. *It is a DIRECTV offering with a thinner package of content at a lower price point.* It doesn't have a lot of installation costs. You don't have to send somebody out to the home. It can be self-installed. The user interface and the guide are very easy to navigate. That will be in the marketplace, again, first quarter. *Much lower price point.*

*Our current product, DIRECTV NOW, thin the content out*. Get the content that's really relevant to a particular *customer segment that wants a lower price offering*. We're talking $50 to $60 price offering here.

We've learned this product. We think we know this market really, really well. We had a lot of success. We built a 2 million sub base. But we're asking that DIRECTV product - DIRECTV NOW product to do too much work. So, *we're thinning out the content, getting the price point right and getting it to where it's profitable. And that'll be in a different segment of the market.
*_​His comments about the forthcoming DirecTV-branded streaming service seem to contradict earlier comments and speculation that it would offer the same channel packages -- or at least comparable full-scale service -- as their flagship satellite service. We always knew that it would be priced lower than satellite, due to the lower install and hardware costs, but Stephenson is now describing it as also having a lower price due to offering "a thinner package of content" than satellite. (For one thing, it looks like this new service will not include Sunday Ticket, as Stephenson had said it might several months ago.)

At this point, it's hard to say how the new service will differ from DirecTV Now in terms of content and features, other than the fact that the new service will apparently be tied to the AT&T-supplied box (the C71 "Osprey" powered by a customized version of Android TV). Furthermore, DirecTV Now looks like it's going to be substantially revised in terms of packaging and pricing next year. And, who knows, maybe satellite will too. So the whole strategy is in flux to some degree.

It definitely sounds like Stephenson sees the TV marketplace moving toward smaller bundles of linear channels which, alongside various on-demand OTT services, compose the typical video diet. So they're getting more aggressive with network owners about stripping out extraneous channels and trying to offer slimmer bundles at lower prices but where AT&T can still turn a profit. And those efforts will mainly show up in the new service and in DirecTV Now, with satellite as the option for those who want fat, expensive bundles (or those who have no other choice where they live).


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

James Long said:


> Theoretically, the end user would not record. They would stream the content at the time they wanted to view it either from a shared source (such as viewing a movie or TV show on Netflix or Amazon storage) or via a "cloud DVR" where a more personal copy of live source content is recorded for a specific end user. I expect streaming to become more of the former (watching from common storage) than the latter, but the latter scheme may help with some distribution rights and copyright issues.
> 
> For example, "The Voice" just began a live broadcast on the NBC Television network to the Eastern and Central time zones. Traditional TV viewers (including satellite and cable viewers) have either tuned in to watch or set their home DVRs to record the program so they can watch later. When the viewer decides to watch the content they tell their DVR to play the content. Via streaming that content would be stored on a streaming server. When the viewer decides to watch the content they would connect to the streaming server and watch the content. No local storage (beyond the normal live stream buffering) required.
> 
> Honoring the rights sold to local affiliates complicate the issue. If I stream "The Voice" my local affiliate wants me to get the version of the program as they aired it ... including local commercials and promos for other local content. This could be done via localized inserts in a national copy of the program or serving a market based copy of the program (with ads) or by using the "cloud DVR" technology where the individual end user has to request a recording in advance or wait until the affiliate's right to first air expires before seeing a national version. All part of the issues that need to be worked out as people start streaming content.


With your suggested model, comes what we all dread (and what is one of the selling points of the non-cloud DVR), and that's ads on recorded material. We see it now using On-Demand, and with cloud based DVR and streaming, as it's new tech, I am positive that they will disable any way to NOT see commercials (even FF past them), unless we pay for the privilege (such as what we see on Hulu)


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> It's not at all dying. Not yet. Today it's just slowed down. But why on earth do you think its loosing money? It's not even close to the realm of losing money. It may not be making as much as it once was but it's still making tons of money.
> 
> And the satelites cost less than the infrastructure for streaming at this point! A lot less for some areas! Especially for anywhere they are upgrading to 5g. Billions less than that in fact.


Less? How so? I'd like to see those numbers. The AT&T CEO says differently, I would think he knows a thing or two. I'd say, if you compare Satellite to human age, I'd say it's in it's late 60s. Sure, it's technically not dying, but it's in it's latter years. I think of it as where desktop computers were 10 years ago and where they are today. Laptops have superseded desktops. Why? it's just more convenient, and much more popular. Yet desktops exist because they still have some usefulness. Eventually a new technology, smartphones have even started to supersede laptops as a more viable option for most of our day to day internet consumption. I will still bet, that in 5 years or less, streaming over IP in a model similar to satellite will have MANY more subscribers than Satellite, and eventually cable as well. It's not there yet. Remember when we all thought that our VCRs were the greatest thing since sliced bread? Do most of us even OWN a VCR anymore? We either have some sort of disc player, streaming service or DVRs. I think DVRs as we know them will ALSO eventually go the way of tube TVs. Tech changes, something better comes along and renders the older stuff less useful or downright obsolete.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> It would be nice to believe Directv when they say they are keeping satellite TV but it's hard to ignore their upcoming roll out of Directv full sat streaming. The review I watched today of the Beta box was able to work with Directv now but the reviewer mentions that it's real purpose is regular Directv over IP.
> 
> I am not sure but it probably means a lot of current sat users will be whined and dined with incentives to move to IP DTV. It's not just a question of satellite costs with the old system but also the thousands of truck crews used to install and maintain installations


This is what I'm thinking too. We'll get incentives to switch, even if it's just at first to supplement what we have now. NEW users will all go to IP as well. I doubt they will even try and SELL a new user SAT unless there's a circumstance that makes SAT better for them (lack of broadband for example). It might not happen this year, until the complete infrastructure is in place, but it will happen.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Saw this article and it had info on the T-14 and its T-15 and T-16.
> 
> "No more satellites" says DirecTV owners
> 
> ...




Airbus mentioned the contract a couple years ago, which is how we knew about it long before there was an FCC filing, but there was never an official press release about it. Because it isn't Airbus that makes those press releases, it is Directv. They used to make them because they had something to brag about - it would bring locals to more markets, or more HD channels, or capability for 4K in the future. T16 just replaces existing capacity, it doesn't add anything new. So not really worthy of a press release.

There was a filing for permission to launch and begin operations, which they said they'd be ready for in Q1 next year (being ready to launch and having someone with space on a rocket big enough for one of Directv's heavy satellites isn't the same thing, so it may not launch until later next year)

Oh, and those 15 year mission lifetimes are ALWAYS exceeded, sometimes by a lot. The T8 satellite was launched in 2005, and Directv estimates it will have sufficient fuel to last it until 2034! Most of them don't last that long (it was launched differently than most which saved fuel used for boosting into orbit) but they almost always last over 20 years these days.​


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Here are the relevant bits. I have bolded certain parts to emphasize what I think is most important.
> 
> _And so, we have developed what we call - it's an *over-the-top thin client service that we're trialing in the market right now*. We'll be in the market, I think, late first quarter is the current timing. Late first quarter with this product. So, a thin client. You just plug it into USB port in your TV and it's run over anybody's broadband. It doesn't matter whose broadband it is. _​




Here's a perfect example (underlining mine) of why people who read statements like "AT&T has launched its last satellite" and believe that the CEO knows what the hell he's talking about when it comes to technical stuff and should be taken as gospel are foolish.​


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steveknj said:


> This is what I'm thinking too. We'll get incentives to switch, even if it's just at first to supplement what we have now. NEW users will all go to IP as well. I doubt they will even try and SELL a new user SAT unless there's a circumstance that makes SAT better for them (lack of broadband for example). It might not happen this year, until the complete infrastructure is in place, but it will happen.



There's zero reason for AT&T to offer incentives to switch, it doesn't save them any money! The install is where the cost difference is, not in the delivery. It isn't like it saves money having the satellite deliver to fewer customers. It only saves them money when they get to zero.​


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

And now it gets even more confusing.

DIRECTV's Streaming Service Will Be Cheaper Than DIRECTV NOW - Cord Cutters News

We have a few scraps of news that say Directv is staying with satellite and a Tsunami of statements that says they are dumping it.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Here's a perfect example (underlining mine) of why people who read statements like "AT&T has launched its last satellite" and believe that the CEO knows what the hell he's talking about when it comes to technical stuff and should be taken as gospel are foolish.​


Plus as we saw in the actual demo video, it's not even being powered by the USB port.



dreadlk said:


> We have a few scraps of news that say Directv is staying with satellite and a Tsunami of statements that says they are dumping it.


Not really, most of those "tsunamis" of articles all trace back to the same quote, while the "scraps" of news are from things more credible like FCC filings, the makers of the satellites, and a clarifying statement after the initial wave of "AT&T moving to streaming only" articles came out a month ago, all of which have mostly been ignored by the people who wrote the recent set of articles.

Like one of the better articles mentioned, the current fleet has at least a decade before they get near end of life. Who knows what management team will be in place by then, or if further loosening of ownership rules results in some merger/takeover higher up in the chain and DirecTV has another owner or is spunoff into its own company yet again. Plus at some point in the future, Charlie Ergen won't be the sole majority stakeholder of Dish anymore, which could change things drastically in the satellite industry if Dish gets new ownership or even merges if a future policy change allows it.

Also, no one knows how bad or how good the internet situation will be by then, especially with so many variables up in the air that change every few years like net neutrality policies, which could cripple the 3rd party OTT delivery of content, or an OTT bubble burst from everyone and their mother pulling their studio libraries from the bigger players like Netflix and attempting to launch dedicated streaming services, jacking up prices for limited content from multiple services and people stick to satellite and cable for the all you can eat buffet of varied content without worrying about the availability of unlimited broadband internet locally. AT&T also only has a 20 state footprint, so what AT&T plans to do with their fiber rollout is meaningless to the other 30 states and DC served by Verizon, Frontier, CenturyLink, Consolidated and others, and their fixed mobile broadband rollout has exceptions which would prevent universal coverage. (i.e. communities switching to underground utilities putting a wrench into plans to deploy 5G microcells on utility poles for fixed mobile broadband)


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> The 5G bands they are going to used for fixed wireless service to the home are NOT the same bands they are going to use for mobile data.


Ok since I do a lot of RF work for a living please explain what bands they are going to be using?
They will of course use certain frequency ranges for Phone and other parts of the nearby frequency range for data and DirecTV. The fact is that phones have been able to lock onto a multitude of bands for years now. AT&T will use the same towers and the same fiber-optic feed lines for all the services. Your phone will easily be able to tap into the Directv signal.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dreadlk said:


> We have a few scraps of news that say Directv is staying with satellite and a Tsunami of statements that says they are dumping it.


Selective reading helps.

If your read the more detailed report on the future of streaming you will see that the new "satellite replacement service" that has been hyped since it was mentioned is going to be "skinny" ... skinnier than DIRECTV NOW. Certainly not the same service people receive via satellite moved over to streaming. Which explains why it will be so much cheaper ... it will have much less content.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Here's a perfect example (underlining mine) of why people who read statements like "AT&T has launched its last satellite" and believe that the CEO knows what the hell he's talking about when it comes to technical stuff and should be taken as gospel are foolish.​


Eh, I agree that he's often a bit fuzzy in the language he uses. Although saying "USB" when you mean "HDMI" isn't quite the same thing as not knowing about future satellite plans. My guess on that is that he was thinking of T-16 as a done deal since it's so far along and really meant no further launches after it. At any rate, yes, you do have to do a bit of reading between the lines at times to figure out what he means.

As for the Cord Cutters News article linked above, I think the author misinterpreted Stephenson's comments, which I quoted extensively above. Stephenson was saying that the forthcoming thin-client streaming service will be skinnier and lower cost than DTV satellite (not DTV Now). I don't think he gave us any indication as to where it will rank in terms of content and pricing relative to DTV Now. But if I had to guess, I'd say the average monthly price for the upcoming service will either be a bit higher than for DTV Now, or possibly the same (as they may end up offering the exact same channel packages).

I don't think having the thin-client service offer somewhat skinnier and cheaper packages would keep it from attracting a substantial portion of folks who might otherwise choose DTV satellite -- or from causing a lot of current DTV satellite customers from switching over to it. Everyone likes saving money and the trend in consumer tastes is away from bloated channel packages (although folks who still want every channel, including Sunday Ticket, would still choose DTV satellite). But if it really is to cater to a lot of the same traditional cable/satellite TV customer base, then it will need to offer a more generous cloud DVR than DTV Now has. And, of course, it's going to need to be more reliable than DTV Now has been so far too -- that may be its true achilles heel.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> Less? How so? I'd like to see those numbers. The AT&T CEO says differently, I would think he knows a thing or two. I'd say, if you compare Satellite to human age, I'd say it's in it's late 60s. Sure, it's technically not dying, but it's in it's latter years. I think of it as where desktop computers were 10 years ago and where they are today. Laptops have superseded desktops. Why? it's just more convenient, and much more popular. Yet desktops exist because they still have some usefulness. Eventually a new technology, smartphones have even started to supersede laptops as a more viable option for most of our day to day internet consumption. I will still bet, that in 5 years or less, streaming over IP in a model similar to satellite will have MANY more subscribers than Satellite, and eventually cable as well. It's not there yet. Remember when we all thought that our VCRs were the greatest thing since sliced bread? Do most of us even OWN a VCR anymore? We either have some sort of disc player, streaming service or DVRs. I think DVRs as we know them will ALSO eventually go the way of tube TVs. Tech changes, something better comes along and renders the older stuff less useful or downright obsolete.


They both need a broadcast center. But satellite only needs one. Streaming requires a lot of servers and massive infrastructure all over the company to support it at scale. It has a lot more redundancy of equipment because of how it has to relay around the entire country. Same issue cable companies have. Satellite is by far the most efficient at that. And someone once did the math and it cost less than a dollar a month to build the satelites. You think it costs that for all the server farm buildings? On a per person basis? I don't think so, especially not without having major scale.

The parallel being drawn with vcrs vs DVRs doesn't work here. You can get the same result with either sat or streaming for the majority of people. It's about access and cost. In fact I believe you'll have less versatility with streaming forever, as is the case today. Many will choose it today because it seems to cost less today. Let's see what happened when it costs just as much and it's so fragmented it's aggravating to find what you want. DIRECTV ip will be about the same price, and I suspect in time they will have it and satellite have the same price if and programming packages.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

KyL416 said:


> Plus as we saw in the actual demo video, it's not even being powered by the USB port.
> 
> Not really, most of those "tsunamis" of articles all trace back to the same quote, while the "scraps" of news are from things more credible like FCC filings, the makers of the satellites, and a clarifying statement after the initial wave of "AT&T moving to streaming only" articles came out a month ago, all of which have mostly been ignored by the people who wrote the recent set of articles.
> 
> ...


I agree with most of what you have said but from a business stand point regardless of what we might wish to be true there is a whole bunch of grey area as to what ATT really plans on doing. My business sense says to me that they will follow the market trend, which is streaming and try to convert over as many customers as they can to the new streaming service coming out in 2019. I am not sure where this Skinny channel lineup came from? Everything I have read and seen on YouTube channels indicate that they plan on duplicating the complete satellite package via streaming. This makes sense as you don't want to be haggling with customers that you are trying to convert over to streaming about lost channels. You just want to offer a different delivery system that feels seamless.

As for everything else you said I agree. I think even AT&T has no clue as to what exactly they want to do. They are probably thinking it's best to keep one foot in each market and see what happens in the future. Things like Net neutrality and possible other legal challenges plus people who decide they want or need satellite delivery and flip over to Dish will all be a numbers game that will probably decide what AT&T does.

We also have the "Musk" factor at work. If Space-X keeps on driving down the costs to deliver satellites it might make satellite Bandwidth so cheap that AT&T has no option but to stay with satellite.

I really really hope that the DTV satellite delivery system is not killed off in 5-10 years, I hope it expands and gets even more content and better equipment. I love my DTV system and I have already played around with streaming long enough to know that it is just not for me.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

They will follow the money. The money is in the satellite service, especially the commercial side. When you find a commercial streaming solution to replace multiple tuner satellite setups for the "every game is on" type sports bar or a hospitality system where a hotel or hospital has to source dozens of different content streams to deliver to various rooms we can talk about satellite being replaced. Until then, the commercial market will keep the uplinks hot and residential customers will continue to be able to get full service subscriptions without the limitations of the Internet.

Fun fact: DISH offers an in house IPTV solution that delivers IPTV to end users in MDU/hospitality setups. The source of the signals is their satellite system with signals received at the site via satellite then delivered via IPTV. Think of it as a Genie/Client situation on steroids.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

James Long said:


> They will follow the money. The money is in the satellite service, especially the commercial side. When you find a commercial streaming solution to replace multiple tuner satellite setups for the "every game is on" type sports bar or a hospitality system where a hotel or hospital has to source dozens of different content streams to deliver to various rooms we can talk about satellite being replaced. Until then, the commercial market will keep the uplinks hot and residential customers will continue to be able to get full service subscriptions without the limitations of the Internet.
> 
> Fun fact: DISH offers an in house IPTV solution that delivers IPTV to end users in MDU/hospitality setups. The source of the signals is their satellite system with signals received at the site via satellite then delivered via IPTV. Think of it as a Genie/Client situation on steroids.


DIRECTV COM3000 can do iptv as well.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

dreadlk said:


> Ok since I do a lot of RF work for a living please explain what bands they are going to be using?
> They will of course use certain frequency ranges for Phone and other parts of the nearby frequency range for data and DirecTV. The fact is that phones have been able to lock onto a multitude of bands for years now. AT&T will use the same towers and the same fiber-optic feed lines for all the services. Your phone will easily be able to tap into the Directv signal.


If you do RF work you know that modern phones already have a TON of components to let them handle all the bands - and many lower/mid range phones only support bands in the country they are sold to minimize those components. And this is across a pretty narrow range of hundreds of MHz.

5G will be using multiple GHz of bands ranging from use of existing cellular frequencies in the 2600 MHz and under range, plus C band frequencies in the 4 GHz and 6 GHz range, Ka band in the 24 and 28 GHz (currently being auctioned by the FCC) and eventually even 60 to 70 GHz. There's no way phones are going to handle all those ranges.

Anyway I didn't say the phones "couldn't tap into the Directv signal", just that if you have fixed wireless 5G at home it will be using different frequencies than your cell phone will.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> As for the Cord Cutters News article linked above, I think the author misinterpreted Stephenson's comments, which I quoted extensively above. Stephenson was saying that the forthcoming thin-client streaming service will be skinnier and lower cost than DTV satellite (not DTV Now). I don't think he gave us any indication as to where it will rank in terms of content and pricing relative to DTV Now. But if I had to guess, I'd say the average monthly price for the upcoming service will either be a bit higher than for DTV Now, or possibly the same (as they may end up offering the exact same channel packages).


He has been pretty clear in multiple previous statements that the new IP service will basically be "Directv over IP". So it is far more likely it will offer the exact same packages as satellite does, and have nothing to do with Directv Now other than the fact that both use the internet.

As for pricing, who knows where it will fall, but assuming those previous statements are correct and it has the same packages as satellite, I'd expect the pricing to be closer to satellite than to Directv Now. They've said before they are LOSING MONEY on Directv Now, so doubling down on Directv Now like pricing for the product that is going to replace their very profitable satellite product would not be a very good business decision.

The people who think Directv is going to try to entice or force existing satellite customers to IP totally miss out on this price differential. Even if they want to claim that somehow it is cheaper to have streaming customers than satellite customers because of the "what if they have to send an installer every 3-4 years when the LNB goes bad" factor are ignoring that they will be charging less money when they have the SAME programming cost. Heck, if they just had the same pricing for everything except dropping the $15 "advanced receiver fee" since you won't get a Genie with the IP product they will make less money. That $15 adds up to $360 over two years, which more than covers the cost of a brand new Genie (probably $150 or so) and the install.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> He has been pretty clear in multiple previous statements that the new IP service will basically be "Directv over IP". So it is far more likely it will offer the exact same packages as satellite does, and have nothing to do with Directv Now other than the fact that both use the internet.


There were one or two statements earlier this year that seemed to indicate that the forthcoming service would essentially be "full DirecTV" OTT and then that line of thinking got picked up and repeated by various online reports. I don't think he ever specifically said it would offer the same channel packages as satellite, although there was a lot of speculation online, including by me, that that _may_ be the case.

But then his latest remarks, on the call earlier this week, definitely contradicted that idea. With regard to the forthcoming service, he said, "It is a DIRECTV offering with a thinner package of content at a lower price point." That was in contrast to the description he had just laid out of the flagship satellite service, describing it basically as content-rich, feature-rich, and expensive.

We'll have to wait and see. AT&T's whole video strategy increasingly looks like a convoluted mess.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Could it be that the thinner content for DTV over IP wont have any of the shopping and infomercial channels except they would still have QVC and HSN. Plus they wont allow for networks that have trouble getting on cable and satelliteTV to pay to be on it? Also what if a way to look at DTV Now vs DTV over IP is DTV Now would be a contract free TV service but with limited channels. DTV over IP would be contract TV service.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> AT&T's whole video strategy increasingly looks like a convoluted mess.


That is definitely a true statement!


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Check this out.

AT&T Will Soon Own Over Nine Streaming Services Including Crunchyroll, DIRECTV NOW, & VRV - Cord Cutters News


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

And this:

AT&T's Video Strategy Is Extremely Complex: Can They Pull It Off? - Telecompetitor


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> There's zero reason for AT&T to offer incentives to switch, it doesn't save them any money! The install is where the cost difference is, not in the delivery. It isn't like it saves money having the satellite deliver to fewer customers. It only saves them money when they get to zero.​


No, not right off it doesn't, but, having them switch means, they don't have to EVER offer them upgrades for older equipment, or make a home visit, either when new SAT tech comes along, or for dish repairs and so forth. I've been with DirecTV for probably around 15 years and I'd say I've had at least 7-8 house visits, either for repair or new equipment, That costs them money. By switching users to the new tech, where they own their equipment and do not have to make a house visit, that saves them money in the long run. Lets say they break even on every user that switches. But they might save $500 per user by not having to do any of the above. That's significant when you are talking about millions of subscribers. And if their ultimate goal is to sunset or at least limit the number of users on SAT, then the sooner they move people the better.

Obviously NOBODY knows the future. I'm basing what I believe on:

1) The landscape out there
2) That new Tech often replaces old mature tech over time
3) That they are bleeding customers
4) The TV model is changing....cord cutting is popular, but it's also possible to keep the traditional infrastructure AND cut the cord. That's what they are hoping for, as the popularity of LIVE streaming increases.
5) it's also possible that by coming out with a new service they can restructure a lot of things that they don't like about the current model (rights fees, a new system of tiers etc)

There's just a lot of good reasons for them to go in this direction, from both a user and cost standpoint. I just think a lot of us on here don't want anything to change or are very skeptical of what this might do to their beloved SAT setup. Always remember what AT&T is, first and foremost a wireless company. They aren't stupid, they understand what is happening.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> They both need a broadcast center. But satellite only needs one. Streaming requires a lot of servers and massive infrastructure all over the company to support it at scale. It has a lot more redundancy of equipment because of how it has to relay around the entire country. Same issue cable companies have. Satellite is by far the most efficient at that. And someone once did the math and it cost less than a dollar a month to build the satelites. You think it costs that for all the server farm buildings? On a per person basis? I don't think so, especially not without having major scale.
> 
> The parallel being drawn with vcrs vs DVRs doesn't work here. You can get the same result with either sat or streaming for the majority of people. It's about access and cost. In fact I believe you'll have less versatility with streaming forever, as is the case today. Many will choose it today because it seems to cost less today. Let's see what happened when it costs just as much and it's so fragmented it's aggravating to find what you want. DIRECTV ip will be about the same price, and I suspect in time they will have it and satellite have the same price if and programming packages.


Oh I definitely think over time, the cost to the consumer will be negligible, but I think the cost to DirecTV/ AT&T will come down eventually, when they have a stable 5G network. I'm sure they considered all costs involved, and I'm sure they just aren't pulling this out of their butts. If they weren't why even risk it if, as you say, it's cheaper to do SAT.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> I agree with most of what you have said but from a business stand point regardless of what we might wish to be true there is a whole bunch of grey area as to what ATT really plans on doing. My business sense says to me that they will follow the market trend, which is streaming and try to convert over as many customers as they can to the new streaming service coming out in 2019. I am not sure where this Skinny channel lineup came from? Everything I have read and seen on YouTube channels indicate that they plan on duplicating the complete satellite package via streaming. This makes sense as you don't want to be haggling with customers that you are trying to convert over to streaming about lost channels. You just want to offer a different delivery system that feels seamless.
> 
> As for everything else you said I agree. I think even AT&T has no clue as to what exactly they want to do. They are probably thinking it's best to keep one foot in each market and see what happens in the future. Things like Net neutrality and possible other legal challenges plus people who decide they want or need satellite delivery and flip over to Dish will all be a numbers game that will probably decide what AT&T does.
> 
> ...


Can't argue with this. If it proves out to be as you say, then yeah, they will go that way. Maybe with a new business model. But that's a big if. People are trending away from SAT and cable in droves especially the 18-35 generation that advertisers look for and who are (at least that's what's still believed) the drivers of new tech and the ones who influence decisions in tech. Personally I think that's less so than in previous generations, but I don't analyse the data the way they do. I was really happy with DirecTV and hadn't had any desire to switch until AT&T and their lack of customer service became an issue. Although, I would have looked into FIOS if it ever made it to my neighborhood. But anyway, it always comes down to bang for the buck for me and convenience. I get that with SAT, but much less so then I used to.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steveknj said:


> No, not right off it doesn't, but, having them switch means, they don't have to EVER offer them upgrades for older equipment, or make a home visit, either when new SAT tech comes along, or for dish repairs and so forth. I've been with DirecTV for probably around 15 years and I'd say I've had at least 7-8 house visits, either for repair or new equipment, That costs them money. By switching users to the new tech, where they own their equipment and do not have to make a house visit, that saves them money in the long run. Lets say they break even on every user that switches. But they might save $500 per user by not having to do any of the above. That's significant when you are talking about millions of subscribers. And if their ultimate goal is to sunset or at least limit the number of users on SAT, then the sooner they move people the better.


So if they have save $500 per user for someone who has been a customer for 15 years, that's $33/year. If they price the IP version a mere $5 lower than the satellite option, that's $60/year of increased revenue, or a total of $400 more they make.

What you suggest only makes sense if the IP version is priced EXACTLY THE SAME as the satellite version. I don't think anyone believes that will be the case. If nothing else, it will be $15/month lower because they can hardly charge the "advanced receiver fee" when there is no Genie. There's no way the numbers work out to where they can make more money from a customer they are charging $15/month less for while paying the exact same to networks for the content.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

AT&T is taking away channels and increasing the price on Directv Now:

https://www.multichannel.com/news/att-looks-to-reposition-directv-now

Their competition in the streaming MVPD space is probably in a worse profitability situation, since they aren't as large and would be paying more per channel on average than Directv.

Back when AT&T bought Directv, the CEO said that Directv was paying $14/month less for the same content than AT&T was for Uverse TV. That was the difference between a company with 6 million customers and a company with a 20 million customers.

So how does Sling TV look, with about 12 million customers including Dish's? Or tiny players like PSVue, who have barely a million? They can't keep their low prices forever, at some point Dish & Sony will expect them to become profitable.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> So if they have save $500 per user for someone who has been a customer for 15 years, that's $33/year. If they price the IP version a mere $5 lower than the satellite option, that's $60/year of increased revenue, or a total of $400 more they make.
> 
> What you suggest only makes sense if the IP version is priced EXACTLY THE SAME as the satellite version. I don't think anyone believes that will be the case. If nothing else, it will be $15/month lower because they can hardly charge the "advanced receiver fee" when there is no Genie. There's no way the numbers work out to where they can make more money from a customer they are charging $15/month less for while paying the exact same to networks for the content.


They could charge a cloud DVR fee and still charge per stream, unless they let you box the box? That would be another advantage of DTV over IP instead of DTV NOW is maybe it will have the same number of streams that DTV over SatelliteTV has.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> They could charge a cloud DVR fee and still charge per stream, unless they let you box the box? That would be another advantage of DTV over IP instead of DTV NOW is maybe it will have the same number of streams that DTV over SatelliteTV has.


Since they require you to use their clients, the "number of streams" you can have will likely be equal to the number of clients you have. And you'll probably pay monthly in some fashion, though what they call the fee who knows.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

CraigerM said:


> AT&T Will Soon Own Over Nine Streaming Services Including Crunchyroll, DIRECTV NOW, & VRV - Cord Cutters News


...until they shut them down, as they've already decided to do with FilmStruck and a couple of others (the article does point this out, but I don't think it gives enough emphasis to it).


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Stuart at Solid Signal Blog posted an article about could you even do the full DTV experience over internet.

https://blog.solidsignal.com/news/e...-entire-directv-experience-over-the-internet/


----------



## Microphone (Jan 30, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> Stuart at Solid Signal Blog posted an article about could you even do the full DTV experience over internet.
> 
> Could you even do the entire DIRECTV experience over the internet? - The Solid Signal Blog


This might be the best of the articles yet.


----------



## sstv (Jul 30, 2006)

HI ALL
From what I read, the Streaming box will be out before the end of the year and the LCC will be used for locals, sounds good to me
SSTV


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

sstv said:


> HI ALL
> From what I read, the Streaming box will be out before the end of the year and the LCC will be used for locals, sounds good to me
> SSTV


Stop reading then. The box will not be released to the public until next year. It is in beta


----------



## sstv (Jul 30, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Stop reading then. The box will not be released to the public until next year. It is in beta


The box has been in Beta for a while. If the Beta was a good one, they could release it at any time.
SSTV


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

sstv said:


> The box has been in Beta for a while. If the Beta was a good one, they could release it at any time.
> SSTV


They have already stated within the last 2 weeks the box will be in Beta for the next 6 months


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> They have already stated within the last 2 weeks the box will be in Beta for the next 6 months


On the conference call just a few days ago, AT&T's CEO stated that they are currently targeting late Q1 2019 to roll out the new service tied to this new box that is currently in beta testing. So maybe March. Although it wouldn't surprise me if the timeframe didn't slip again, to later in the spring...


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

The other unknown is if anything happens with removal of net neutrality.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Yep, there would be nothing stopping Comcast or Verizon from trying to get AT&T to pay them, "or else" they throttle Directv streaming traffic. If they do that, then AT&T has to pass that cost along.

Sure, as a Comcast or Verizon customer you could be angry at such behavior, but that only matters if you have a second broadband choice available to you that's fast enough for streaming, has high enough caps, and doesn't ALSO do a similar shakedown. They won't care if you are angry, so long as you keep paying them each month.

Without net neutrality, there's nothing stopping them from doing this. Why wouldn't Comcast or Verizon do it, as a way to make their own TV cheaper than streaming alternatives or collect more revenue? This will be a real problem due to the lack of broadband competition in much of the US.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Not sure if this belongs in this thread but Verizon just announced this. Would this be a good way for AT&T to do fixed wireless 5g for DTV over IP?

Verizon to double 5G Home speeds in 6 months | FierceWireless


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> Stuart at Solid Signal Blog posted an article about could you even do the full DTV experience over internet.
> 
> Could you even do the entire DIRECTV experience over the internet? - The Solid Signal Blog


Meh I came away with very little from his article.
Of course Directv can stream the whole satellite service and DVRs would be a thing of the past. ATT would be sucking in cloud space money from customers like it was water. What will ultimately prove to be the biggest challenge will be if 5G can be successfully deployed.

I was reading up on some of the challenges of 5g especially at the 26GHZ range that they plan on using. This is not going to be an easy feat to pull off. At that frequency they will need swarms of repeaters for every square mile of residential area. Almost all of the signal will be absorbed by anything in its path, so whatever kind of 5G modem they are going to come up with will almost certainly need a coax going out to a very small antenna. From an engineering stand point this system will probably be so costly that it might never become widely adopted. I am hearing that phones will have to have four Qualcomm 5G antennas in each unit (one in each corner) because your hand alone will completely wipe out the signal on any antenna it covers, even a person walking near you can block the signal and worst yet a rain shower can easily kill the signal. The solutions proposed is a 4G fallback system will always be needed to accompany any 5G system.

I am not sure how practical that will be for DTV as 4G would certainly create a bottle neck in most houses with more than one receiver. LOL it's funny that one of the major benefits, namely no rain fade may still be an issue if you use their 5G system.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Not sure if this belongs in this thread but Verizon just announced this. Would this be a good way for AT&T to do fixed wireless 5g for DTV over IP?
> 
> Verizon to double 5G Home speeds in 6 months | FierceWireless


Fixed wireless 5G is totally independent of the upcoming DTV over IP product. That product will work over anyone's internet connection, so long as it is fast enough. The only overlap is that they will undoubtedly offer bundling discounts, just like everyone else does when you get your internet and TV from the same provider.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

dreadlk said:


> I was reading up on some of the challenges of 5g especially at the 26GHZ range that they plan on using. This is not going to be an easy feat to pull off. At that frequency they will need swarms of repeaters for every square mile of residential area.


5G will use all sorts of frequencies, as low as 600 MHz in some (mostly rural) places along with other traditional cellular frequencies, as well as new frequencies in the C band, Ka band and higher ranges.

Rural areas will use low frequencies for greater range because they won't have a lot of users per tower. As areas get denser they will need to use higher frequencies for fixed wireless 5G (cellular 5G will eventually end up using lower frequencies even in urban/suburban areas in some cases, though it will offer no advantage over LTE except for latency)

Higher frequencies aren't a problem in areas with overhead utilities, because they can put small cells on top of the pole. If you have buried utilities it will be trickier, though if the underground utilities have breakouts available near streetlights they could use those. But it will be more expensive to deploy in buried utility areas no matter what they do, so that isn't where I'd expect to see many early fixed wireless 5G trials or availability.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It seems ironic that TV stations are losing their bandwidth (broadcast channels) and combining signals to make way for 600 MHz data networks that will carry (mixed in with other Internet traffic) OTT TV.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> Oh I definitely think over time, the cost to the consumer will be negligible, but I think the cost to DirecTV/ AT&T will come down eventually, when they have a stable 5G network. I'm sure they considered all costs involved, and I'm sure they just aren't pulling this out of their butts. If they weren't why even risk it if, as you say, it's cheaper to do SAT.


Because in places like Los Angeles half the people can't get satelites cause they are in apartments and buildings that can have satellite. The smart solution is to offer the service via IP and sat. That allows them to offer service to just about everyone in the country one way or the other.


----------



## Claude A Greiner (Dec 8, 2018)

I think the first step will be getting Directv Now, U-verse, and Directv all using the same channel numbering system, and look and feel. 

The second step will be coming out with 1 box for all 3 services that has both an eithernet connection and a satellite connection. 

So depending on the area, you can hook it up to satellite, any providers internet and the U-verse intranet. 

Once they got everyone on the same platform it will be a matter of time when AT&T Finishes tolling fiber out to their entire foot print and 5G to the areas that are not served in foot print. 

The transition will happen, but I say we have another 15 years on satellite. 

I can’t see AT&T Just dropping millions of customers. They paid too much money to Directv to loose the customer base. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Claude A Greiner said:


> I think the first step will be getting Directv Now, U-verse, and Directv all using the same channel numbering system, and look and feel.
> 
> The second step will be coming out with 1 box for all 3 services that has both an eithernet connection and a satellite connection.
> 
> ...


I don't think it will really be UVerseTV anymore anyway. Get DTV over SatelliteTV running on that DTV Now/Android platform but only on the HS-27. If they kept managed IPTV it would probably be DTV over managed IPTV with that new DTV Now/Android TV platform. You could then have a HS-27 running DTV over SatelliteTV and managed IPTV. However, if you have DTV over unmanaged IPTV would you need DVT managed IPTV?


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

600 MHZ from what I understand is a fall back frequency and not the frequency range that 5G will be delivering content. You simply cannot get enough bandwidth in the 600 MHZ range to make super fast Internet connections.

The FCC is going to be allocating 26GHz and 28GHz for 5G and yes it is critical for the success of AT&T and DirecTV over IP. Every indication moving forward is that Net Neutrality is probably dead and if it is not dead it sure will be when loads of big name competitors start using each others networks to supply TV stations.

How bad is the future for 5G? IMHO pretty bad! I think this is a case were the managers let the engineers loose to play and as an Electronic engineer myself I can tell you that it can be dangerous when a bunch of guys that love to dream are not kept under some form of reality check control.

You decide:





IMO it's just not possible to get this out to a wide audience given the HUGE range limitations. The new satellite launch space race will make this look like a really bad idea very soon if not already.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

dreadlk said:


> 600 MHZ from what I understand is a fall back frequency and not the frequency range that 5G will be delivering content. You simply cannot get enough bandwidth in the 600 MHZ range to make super fast Internet connections.


You're falling into the hype of assuming 5G's only purpose is "super fast connections". 5G is also an improved LTE (improved by lower latency, not by greater bandwidth) and as older 2G/3G bands are retired today they are replaced by LTE. Tomorrow they will be replaced by 5G.

Yes, 5G can be used at high frequencies to provide "super fast internet connections" but it can also be used at lower frequencies to do exactly what LTE does. Provide connectivity for cell phones for voice (using 'VoLTE' which is better termed packet switched voice) as well as for data.

Besides, today there is no use case for even a gigabit to the home. If you doubt me, name one thing you can do with a gigabit that you can't do with say 250 Mbps. The main reason people upgrade today is to get a higher cap, not because they need the speed. Maybe someone will come up with a 'killer app' that demands that kind of speed, but there's nothing on the horizon.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

dreadlk said:


> IMO it's just not possible to get this out to a wide audience given the HUGE range limitations. The new satellite launch space race will make this look like a really bad idea very soon if not already.


The "satellite launch space race" has been happening since the 90s. Google Iridium and Teledesic. There's no reason to believe it will be any more successful this time around than it has in the past, other than one of the efforts has a guy who is an expert at hyping himself at the helm.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> You're falling into the hype of assuming 5G's only purpose is "super fast connections". 5G is also an improved LTE (improved by lower latency, not by greater bandwidth) and as older 2G/3G bands are retired today they are replaced by LTE. Tomorrow they will be replaced by 5G.
> 
> Yes, 5G can be used at high frequencies to provide "super fast internet connections" but it can also be used at lower frequencies to do exactly what LTE does. Provide connectivity for cell phones for voice (using 'VoLTE' which is better termed packet switched voice) as well as for data.


For this discussion the only thing of importance is the high speed data portion of it. How it handles calls etc is irrelevant and 4G will be the backup system for as long as 5G exists. One cannot work reliably without the other in place.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> You're falling into the hype of assuming 5G's only purpose is "super fast connections". 5G is also an improved LTE (improved by lower latency, not by greater bandwidth) and as older 2G/3G bands are retired today they are replaced by LTE. Tomorrow they will be replaced by 5G.
> 
> Yes, 5G can be used at high frequencies to provide "super fast internet connections" but it can also be used at lower frequencies to do exactly what LTE does. Provide connectivity for cell phones for voice (using 'VoLTE' which is better termed packet switched voice) as well as for data.
> 
> Besides, today there is no use case for even a gigabit to the home. If you doubt me, name one thing you can do with a gigabit that you can't do with say 250 Mbps. The main reason people upgrade today is to get a higher cap, not because they need the speed. Maybe someone will come up with a 'killer app' that demands that kind of speed, but there's nothing on the horizon.


I think many people over estimate the internet speed required for streaming at least with the current state of streaming content. We went 100% streaming a bit over two years ago. We have 50mbps internet service, thankfully with no data cap. We have never run into any issues caused by our internet speed. We use PSVue which allows up to 5 simultaneous streams. I ran all 5 a few times just as a test and experienced no problems. We stream 4k HDR movies with ATMOS on VUDU with no issues.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

At what point will they offer 8K over 5G lines?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

dreadlk said:


> For this discussion the only thing of importance is the high speed data portion of it. How it handles calls etc is irrelevant and 4G will be the backup system for as long as 5G exists. One cannot work reliably without the other in place.


For what discussion is the high speed data portion the only relevant thing? You claimed 5G will never use low bands like 600 MHz. That's how it is going to be implemented in rural areas, you don't think they are going to be putting towers up every 500 ft so they can use millimeter wave, do you?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

yosoyellobo said:


> At what point will they offer 8K over 5G lines?


Never. Just because 8K TVs get sold doesn't mean there will be a demand for 8K content. The niche will be too small. Just like SACD and DVD-A failed, because the market for better than CD quality audio was too small to sustain them.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> For what discussion is the high speed data portion the only relevant thing? You claimed 5G will never use low bands like 600 MHz. That's how it is going to be implemented in rural areas, you don't think they are going to be putting towers up every 500 ft so they can use millimeter wave, do you?


We are talking about 5G in the context of if being the future internet delivery system for Directv over IP which is coming out in 2019.

As for the 600Mhz range their is just not enough bandwidth available to support the needs of Directv.
They need to work in a the 28 GHz range because that's where plenty of Bandwidth is available from the FCC and other countries.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

OK but the whole idea of 5G being "the future internet delivery system for Directv over IP" is completely ridiculous. They will offer it over whatever internet you have, whatever the type or whoever provides it. They have no reason to encourage people to use it over 5G, other than that they will undoubtedly offer discounts for those who have both Directv service and AT&T provided internet. Just like the double play offers every cable provider already has. If 5G is your only AT&T option, and it is cheaper with the bundle than getting someone else's, you'll use AT&T's 5G. And you won't know or care what frequency it is on - that's AT&T's problem. They aren't going to offer fixed wireless 5G at low frequencies in urban/suburban areas, only in rural areas.

The low band ranges offer plenty of bandwidth for Directv - it will probably need something like 3-4 Mbps per HD channel. You can get that from 3G, let alone 5G. Some people will use 5G offered at low frequency ranges - either from AT&T or another cellular provider - for Directv. Some people will use 5G at high frequency ranges. But by far the most the people will use some sort of wired broadband for it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dreadlk said:


> We are talking about 5G in the context of if being the future internet delivery system for Directv over IP which is coming out in 2019.


"The" is too limiting. As slice notes, DIRECTV's planned OTT service will be delivered OTT of any Internet service. That is the point (and arguably the definition) of OTT. Their video service over the top of any Internet provider's connection. With the customer responsible for obtaining and maintaining an Internet service that can handle the bandwidth demands of the service.

DIRECTV over IP is an OTT service. Bring your own Internet. If you buy some form of Internet AT&T offers then more money for AT&T (and perhaps a bundle discount if AT&T is feeling generous or trying to persuade people to buy their OTT service instead of one of the many competing OTT services). The bottom line is "5G" will not be the exclusive delivery system for DIRECTV over IP.



dreadlk said:


> As for the 600Mhz range their is just not enough bandwidth available to support the needs of Directv.
> They need to work in a the 28 GHz range because that's where plenty of Bandwidth is available from the FCC and other countries.


Other countries? AT&T|DIRECTV can only sell their video services in countries where they have the rights to deliver the content they have licensed. AT&T|DIRECTV would need to obtain permission for each country they serve. Setting up a 5G system is a separate issue that would require permission from each country they wish to enter.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Net neutrality is dead! That not only means that other ISPs can charge for data and speed from any company that they please but they can also completely and legally block data from any source they choose. 

As it stands the big providers have Pinky pledged not to abuse this power but that will of course be broken as soon as companies like ATT start to stream over to comcast customers and probably rightfully so.
ATT is looking at long term solutions that will allow them to do a swift and easy transition for customers to jump to their IP service and 5G is one of the ones that delivers on multiple fronts.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

dreadlk said:


> Net neutrality is dead! That not only means that other ISPs can charge for data and speed from any company that they please but they can also completely and legally block data from any source they choose.
> 
> As it stands the big providers have Pinky pledged not to abuse this power but that will of course be broken as soon as companies like ATT start to stream over to comcast customers and probably rightfully so.
> ATT is looking at long term solutions that will allow them to do a swift and easy transition for customers to jump to their IP service and 5G is one of the ones that delivers on multiple fronts.


Comcast can play hardball can cut off channels


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

If companies like Comcast abuse the freedom having no net neutrality gives them to the extent they simply blocked Directv IP traffic to avoid competition, public pressure would force changes to the law. Politicians have successful made net neutrality a partisan issue, but that can only be sustained so long as people whose party tells them to be against net neutrality aren't personally affected by it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dreadlk said:


> Net neutrality is dead! That not only means that other ISPs can charge for data and speed from any company that they please but they can also completely and legally block data from any source they choose.
> 
> As it stands the big providers have Pinky pledged not to abuse this power but that will of course be broken as soon as companies like ATT start to stream over to comcast customers and probably rightfully so.
> ATT is looking at long term solutions that will allow them to do a swift and easy transition for customers to jump to their IP service and 5G is one of the ones that delivers on multiple fronts.


So are you claiming that DIRECTV will refuse to deliver their channels via any ISP except AT&T 5G?
Or are you claiming that all ISPs except AT&T will refuse to deliver the DIRECTV service to their customers?

Neither would be a sound business decision.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I think the minute one ISP slows down, refuses, changes costs for carrying someone else's streaming, they will all jump in and do it - no one wants to be first but someone will.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

But they are going to try and charge the suppliers not the customers so the price increase won’t be to the front facing customer from the internet provider. So people won’t necessarily blame them...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I believe the biggest impact will be zero rating their own content. Identifying and billing a multitude of external CDNs would be difficult. Especially when the same CDN delivers content via different subscription vendors. Identifying their own CDN or a preferred partner for "zero rating" would be easier.

The "preferred partner" method does allow for ISPs to charge certain providers for better access. Netflix has done this for years placing CDNs inside of an ISP's network (and paying for that access). Providers need to place their CDNs somewhere on the network - they might as well place them as close to the customer as possible.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

CTJon said:


> I think the minute one ISP slows down, refuses, changes costs for carrying someone else's streaming, they will all jump in and do it - no one wants to be first but someone will.


They jump in while I will jump out.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

yosoyellobo said:


> They jump in while I will jump out.


That's on a feasible strategy if you have broadband alternatives where you live. Most people don't.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> That's on a feasible strategy if you have broadband alternatives where you live. Most people don't.


att 5G will have an 15gb cap at $70/mo


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> att 5G will have an 15gb cap at $70/mo


Don't forget about the $500 initial layout for the router, and it will hardly be available everywhere - not even everywhere in the cities they've announced they're launching.


----------

