# FCC Grants Approval of AT&T-DIRECTV Transaction - Acquisition Completed



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

@ http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-grants-approval-att-directv-transactionhttps://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-grants-approval-att-directv-transaction

WASHINGTON, July 24, 2015 - Today, the Federal Communications Commission grants - with
conditions - approval of the transfer of control of licenses and authorizations from DIRECTV to
AT&T Inc. (AT&T). The approval will allow AT&T to acquire DIRECTV and merge the two
companies into one combined entity. An Order detailing the Commission's reasoning and the
conditions will be issued shortly.

&#8230;


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Now the business of stirring DIRECTV into the AT&T soup can begin in earnest.


----------



## Oli74 (Nov 19, 2014)

It's done. Now what's next?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/24/fcc-approves-ts-acquisition-directv/30626421/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Oli74 said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/24/fcc-approves-ts-acquisition-directv/30626421/


It is notable that this story says that AT&T must share its interconnect agreement terms with the FCC. I could have sworn that this wasn't going to be necessary as these were secret trade terms between AT&T and Netflix for example.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

The game's afoot!


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

peds48 said:


> ain't happening, but if it did, I would drop them like a hot potato and find me another job along the way!


See ya!


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Based on AT&T past Experience- They will bleed D* dry and move on


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

> Today, the Federal Communications Commission grants - with
> conditions - approval of the transfer of control of licenses and authorizations from DIRECTV to
> AT&T Inc. (AT&T). The approval will allow AT&T to acquire DIRECTV and merge the two
> companies into one combined entity. An Order detailing the Commission's reasoning and the
> conditions will be issued shortly.


Full press release at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-grants-approval-att-directv-transaction

Commentary at DSLReports: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/FCC-Formally-Approves-ATT-DirecTV-Merger-With-Weak-Conditions-134611


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Oli74 said:


> It's done. Now what's next? http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/24/fcc-approves-ts-acquisition-directv/30626421/
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They will stop send me invatations to switch.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

WestDC said:


> Based on AT&T past Experience- They will bleed D* dry and move on


Make my day. I am looking for an excuse to quit TV.

Ps see thread on TV and Alzheimer's.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> It is notable that this story says that AT&T must share its interconnect agreement terms with the FCC. I could have sworn that this wasn't going to be necessary as these were secret trade terms between AT&T and Netflix for example.


All of the conditions, including this one (which is rendered nearly moot by the new Net Neutrality push), are effectively toothless. For example, ATT doesn't impose caps on Uverse and DSL accounts are being tossed overboard at a frantic rate (like most ILECs), so "non-competitive use of caps" is sort of pointless. The rest of the "conditions" are things ATT already promised to do, so it isn't like the FCC was being tough. This was the FCC throwing the industry a bone after a couple of quarters of tension.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Good luck DirecTv. Fastest U-verse speed here in the city limits of North Little Rock, is 756kb/s down, and 128kb/s up. U-verse TV where available in town, is abysmal. Hope they dont let DirecTv fall into the same pit. AT&T is the most incopetent company I have ever dealt with, and will never deal with them again for any reason.


----------



## southsider (Mar 16, 2013)

Have had both U-Verse TV and DirecTV. U-Verse is a good product in that there's an excellent channel selection, with several channels that DirecTV doesn't carry (NHKWorld, MeTV national feed, more regional sports channels, at least in my area, EPIX, To name a few), and what seemed like even more in HD. Because it's internet-based, channels change instantly, and the picture in the guide changes instantly to any other channel to which you scroll so you can see whether it's on a commercial or if it's showing something you want to turn to at that moment. The DirecTV Genie is far superior to the U-verse DVR, though, and the onscreen graphics for DirecTV just look more professional and eye-appealing. And customer service for DirecTV is stellar, but not so much for U-Verse. Not to mention DirecTV's web site is far more user-friendly. ATT's is a confusing quagmire of pages as you try to sort through and separate the wireless from the internet to the TV portion of the service. 

My biggest question here is what the end TV product will look like when the dust from this acquisition settles. I love my DirecTV, and I hope that AT&T doesn't make a mess of a beloved American company with millions of loyal customers.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

AT&T posted a FAQ about the merger. Looks like not much will change right now.

http://about.att.com/newsroom/att_dtv_faq.html#general


----------



## Fish_Stick (Apr 8, 2015)

Looks like I'll be watching my bill like a hawk and working on cancelling my service. They're going to mess this one up big time just like every other merger they've had.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Wonder how the PAC 12 takes this:



> *Will my TV channel lineup change?*
> No, we will not make changes to your TV channel lineup as a result of this acquisition.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

peds48 said:


> ain't happening, but if it did, I would drop them like a hot potato and find me another job along the way!


Well... it did happen...


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

New video about the about the new company.


----------



## Oli74 (Nov 19, 2014)

I am currently on TWC for my phone/internet service I wonder what kind of bundle the new merger will have 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Diana C said:


> All of the conditions, including this one (which is rendered nearly moot by the new Net Neutrality push), are effectively toothless.


This particular condition was something that someone threatened to go to court over and I thought that was why it wouldn't be part of the conditions but it seems to be back.

I'm not convinced that this aspect of streaming services would be covered by Net Neutrality because it is more about inbound bandwidth as opposed to download speed or QoS impacts.

The issue may be less about toothless legislation and a whole lot more about _thoughtless_ legislation.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Oli74 said:


> I am currently on TWC for my phone/internet service I wonder what kind of bundle the new merger will have


Similar deals they currently offer I would imagine.

http://www.att.com/shop/bundles/directv-internet-phone.html

They can't afford to knock off a lot as they're looking to boost their profit margin with this merger, not give it away.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Oli74 said:


> I am currently on TWC for my phone/internet service I wonder what kind of bundle the new merger will have
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So are we here for internet. Sister use to have their digital phone service too, but got too expensive.

She now shares my Ooma Telo unit on a second number.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

yosoyellobo said:


> Make my day. I am looking for an excuse to quit TV.


I quit DirecTV 3 years ago when they tried to force me to rent one of thier crappy boxs!!!! (They kept de-activating my acct cause I was still using my RCA box which was 1000000% better)


----------



## tzphotos.com (Jul 12, 2006)

This makes me very nervous. I hope DirecTV's picture quality doesn't go down the tubes. My brother has U-Verse and it's picture quality is terrible compared to DirecTV's HD channels.

Very Scared... IMHO, DirecTV's PQ can't be beat.


----------



## jeret (Apr 22, 2007)

Wonder if the CWA (the union) will try and wiggle its way into D*? Then watch the your bill go up. Those benefits aint cheap.


----------



## camo (Apr 15, 2010)

There goes the neighborhood. :nono2:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

PRESS RELEASE
http://www.directvpresscenter.com/press/?p=d1807a80-8f69-4aa8-828a-bb32d8e331f8

*AT&T Completes Acquisition of DIRECTV*

DALLAS, July 24, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- AT&T Inc. T, +2.15% has completed its acquisition of DIRECTV. The newly combined company - the largest pay TV provider in the United States and the world - will offer millions of people more choices for video entertainment on any screen from almost anywhere, any time.

"Combining DIRECTV with AT&T is all about giving customers more choices for great video entertainment integrated with mobile and high-speed Internet service," said Randall Stephenson, AT&T chairman and CEO. "We'll now be able to meet consumers' future entertainment preferences, whether they want traditional TV service with premier programming, their favorite content on a mobile device, or video streamed over the Internet to any screen."

"This transaction allows us to significantly expand our high-speed Internet service to reach millions more households, which is a perfect complement to our coast-to-coast TV and mobile coverage," Stephenson said. "We're now a fundamentally different company with a diversified set of capabilities and businesses that set us apart from the competition."

*AT&T now is the largest pay TV provider in the U.S. and the world, providing service to more than 26 million customers in the United States and more than 191 million customers in Latin America, including Mexico and the Caribbean. Additionally, AT&T has more than 132 million wireless subscribers and connections in the U.S. and Mexico; offers 4G LTE mobile coverage to nearly 310 million people in the U.S.; covers 57 million U.S. customer locations with high-speed Internet; and has nearly 16 million subscribers to its high-speed Internet service.*

Current customers of AT&T and DIRECTV do not need to do anything as a result of the merger. They'll continue to receive their same services, channel lineups, and customer care. Customer account information, online access and billing arrangements remain the same. The integration of AT&T and DIRECTV will occur over the coming months. In the coming weeks, AT&T will launch new integrated TV, mobile and high-speed Internet offers that give customers greater value and convenience.

With the completion of its DIRECTV acquisition, AT&T will continue to deploy its all-fiber GigaPower Internet access service - the company's highest-speed Internet service, which allows you to download a TV show in as little as three seconds. When the expansion is complete, AT&T's all-fiber broadband footprint will reach more than 14 million customer locations.

AT&T announced that John Stankey will be CEO of AT&T Entertainment & Internet Services, responsible for leading its combined DIRECTV and AT&T Home Solutions operations. Stankey will report to Stephenson. DIRECTV President, Chairman and CEO Mike White announced his plans to retire.

"Mike is one of the world's top CEOs and a great leader who built DIRECTV into a premier TV and video entertainment company spanning the U.S. and Latin America," Stephenson said. "He has been a terrific partner and friend, and his legacy will be an important part of our combined company."

As a result of this transaction, AT&T leads the industry in offering consumers premier content, particularly live sports programming, such as the exclusive rights to NFL SUNDAY TICKET, which gives customers every out-of-market NFL game, every Sunday afternoon, on any screen - TV, mobile devices or PCs. Additionally, the company owns ROOT SPORTS, one of the nation's premier regional sports networks, and has stakes in The Tennis Channel, MLB Network, NHL Network, and GSN (Game Show Network).

AT&T is also developing unique video offerings for consumers through, among other initiatives, its Otter Media joint venture with The Chernin Group. The joint venture was established to invest in, acquire and launch over-the-top (OTT) video services. This includes its purchase of a majority stake in Fullscreen, a global online media company that works with more than 50,000 content creators who engage 450 million subscribers and generate 4 billion monthly views.

Under the terms of the merger, DIRECTV shareholders received 1.892 shares of AT&T common stock, in addition to $28.50 in cash, per share of DIRECTV. AT&T will provide complete updated 2015 financial guidance at a conference the company will host for financial analysts in the coming weeks. The conference will be webcast to the public.

The DIRECTV acquisition significantly diversifies AT&T's revenue mix, products, geographies and customer bases. As a result of this acquisition, as well as AT&T's acquisition of Iusacell and Nextel Mexico, AT&T expects that, by the end of 2015, its largest revenue streams will be, in descending order: Business Solutions (both wireless and wireline); Entertainment & Internet; Consumer Mobility; and International Mobility and Video.

As part of the Federal Communications Commission's approval of the transaction, AT&T has agreed to the following conditions for the next four years:

*Within 4 years, AT&T will offer its all-fiber Internet access service to at least 12.5 million customer locations, such as residences, home offices and very small businesses. Combined with AT&T's existing high-speed broadband network, at least 25.7 million customer locations will have access to broadband speeds of 45Mbps or higher.*

*Within its wireline footprint, the company will offer 1Gbps service to any eligible school or library requesting E-rate services, pursuant to applicable rules, within the company's all-fiber footprint.*

*Within AT&T's 21-state wireline footprint, it will offer discounted fixed broadband service to low-income households that qualify for the government's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In locations where it's available, service with speeds of at least 10Mbps will be offered for $10 per month. Elsewhere, 5Mbps service will be offered for $10 per month or, in some locations, 3Mbps service will be offered for $5 per month.*

*AT&T's retail terms and conditions for its fixed broadband Internet services will not favor its own online video programming services. AT&T can and will, however, continue to offer discounted integrated bundles of its video and high-speed Internet services.*

*AT&T must submit to the FCC new interconnection agreements it enters into with peering networks and on-net customers for the exchange of Internet traffic. The company will develop, in conjunction with an independent expert, a methodology for measuring the performance of its Internet traffic exchange and regularly report these metrics to the FCC.*

*AT&T will appoint a Company Compliance Officer to develop and implement a plan to ensure compliance with these merger conditions. Also, the company will engage an independent, third-party compliance officer to evaluate the plan and its implementation, and submit periodic reports to the FCC.*

AT&T products and services are provided or offered by subsidiaries and affiliates of AT&T Inc. under the AT&T brand and not by AT&T Inc.

1 Includes DIRECTV Latin America pay TV subscribers as of March 31, 2015, including subscribers of Sky Mexico, in which DIRECTV holds a minority stake.

*About AT&T*

AT&T Inc. T, +2.15% helps millions around the globe connect with leading entertainment, mobile, high speed Internet and voice services. We're the world's largest provider of pay TV. We have TV customers in the U.S. and 11 Latin American countries. In the U.S., our wireless network offers the nation's strongest LTE signal and the most reliable 4G LTE network. We offer the best global wireless coverage*. And we help businesses worldwide serve their customers better with our mobility and secure cloud solutions.

Additional information about AT&T products and services is available at http://about.att.com. Follow our news on Twitter at @ATT, on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/att and YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/att.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

191 million customers in Latin America? They must have a very large cable presence there. Maybe this deal was as much or more about Latin America as it was the US.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> It is notable that this story says that AT&T must share its interconnect agreement terms with the FCC. I could have sworn that this wasn't going to be necessary as these were secret trade terms between AT&T and Netflix for example.


I don't think this will really do much for looking at the deal they cut with Netflix, i see this as asking for the deals between the carriers across areas. (carriers being the companies that supply the bandwidth in areas they don't own, and to other areas that severs are connected, etc..


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> 191 million customers in Latin America? They must have a very large cable presence there. Maybe this deal was as much or more about Latin America as it was the US.


I think its always been as much about that as it is about the US. That is a much larger growth area, where as here is a more a cash cow area.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Fish_Stick said:


> Looks like I'll be watching my bill like a hawk and working on cancelling my service. They're going to mess this one up big time just like every other merger they've had.


Why? I don't get this at all, talking about getting out of contracts and such. Unless something actually happens that is truly bad and consistently bad, and there is an actual better solution, why would you even worry about it right now? It'll take months before they could really begin doing to much anyway.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> Wonder how the PAC 12 takes this:


Like they should have expected it all along...


----------



## john18 (Nov 21, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> Wonder how the PAC 12 takes this:


I live well within Pac-12 country and I will leave if I am forced to pay their rates as part of my subscription. I am unhappy enough with the constant rate increases due to channel padding by distributors & by AT&T now having the keys to the door. It won't take much to send me to cord-cutting land.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Link to the FAQ about AT&T buying us out and what is next for DTV customers.

http://about.att.com/newsroom/att_dtv_faq.html


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

More merger information.

http://about.att.com/newsroom/2015_dtv.html?cmp=emc-rescus-cus-trans-en-attwelcome


----------



## MrDad0330 (Jun 16, 2007)

I just don't have a good feeling about this.. I have been with Directv since 1995; bought it at Sears, installed it on my roof. Got standard TV from D and the paid channels from USB. I have always loved the picture quality and for the most part, their CSR's were great to work with. I feel like an old friend just was gobbled up like a small hardware store swallowed up by Waymart. 
Will there still be Cutting Edge testing or will that become none of the customers business? I just cant see one positive coming out of this but I hope I'm wrong. A great American company that pioneered small dish affordable satellite to our homes and cut us free from the cable monster has now itself been gobbled up by a not always friendly monster.. :-(


----------



## mexican-bum (Feb 26, 2006)

MrDad0330 said:


> I just don't have a good feeling about this.. I have been with Directv since 1995; bought it at Sears, installed it on my roof. Got standard TV from D and the paid channels from USB. I have always loved the picture quality and for the most part, their CSR's were great to work with. I feel like an old friend just was gobbled up like a small hardware store swallowed up by Waymart.
> Will there still be Cutting Edge testing or will that become none of the customers business? I just cant see one positive coming out of this but I hope I'm wrong. A great American company that pioneered small dish affordable satellite to our homes and cut us free from the cable monster has now itself been gobbled up by a not always friendly monster.. :-(


I was a longtime cingular customer, basically since I was in high school, I felt the same way when AT&T took that totally over 9 or so years ago, honestly nothing really changed for the worse, at&t really spent money improving the network and got a lot of good handset exclusives like the iphone exclusively for years etc.. Hopefully directv will be similar but only time will tell.

I new someone that was in mid management of a directv and later an AT&T call center(both companies have large company owned one's here in tulsa), while this was around 8 years ago at that time they had very different philosophies on how to handle customers.

Again this is just what she told me:

Directv was all about speed and correcting the problem quickly and painlessly then ending the call politely but quickly and on to the next customer(asking is there anything else I can help you with was a no no), they also use scripts extensively which required less training of reps as they are just following scripts . (she preferred this philosophy as she felt overall was better for the customer, even though customer call back was slightly higher)

AT&T was all about no repeat calls, one call resolution, get everything fixed and corrected etc on a single call. This meant asking customer after the issue they called about was fixed if they needed assistance with anything else, then try to sell them additional services, etc etc., they also don't use many or any scripts so you are at the mercy of the Reps knowledge and training to figure out what steps to take to fix your issue(she felt this was worse, longer customer waits, average call was much longer, customers would get different answers from different reps, only positive was reduce customer call backs)


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> AT&T posted a FAQ about the merger. Looks like not much will change right now.
> 
> http://about.att.com/newsroom/att_dtv_faq.html#general


One good thing is a discount for combining my ATT Wireless and Directv bills. Every little bit helps.


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

Diana C said:


> All of the conditions, including this one (which is rendered nearly moot by the new Net Neutrality push), are effectively toothless. For example, ATT doesn't impose caps on Uverse and DSL accounts are being tossed overboard at a frantic rate (like most ILECs), so "non-competitive use of caps" is sort of pointless. The rest of the "conditions" are things ATT already promised to do, so it isn't like the FCC was being tough. This was the FCC throwing the industry a bone after a couple of quarters of tension.


I'm not surprised by this. The handwriting in regards to any of the mergers was on the wall long before the FCC handed anything down.


----------



## Fish_Stick (Apr 8, 2015)

inkahauts said:


> Why? I don't get this at all, talking about getting out of contracts and such. Unless something actually happens that is truly bad and consistently bad, and there is an actual better solution, why would you even worry about it right now? It'll take months before they could really begin doing to much anyway.


I've been through an AT&T merger before and it was not pretty. Billing and service was screwed up and no one could help because they were too busy with the merger. Not sticking with AT&T.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

DirecAT&TV

I don't know that much about AT&T, but from what some of you are saying it may not be something to look forward to. I guess only time will tell.

*sigh*


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> DirecAT&TV
> 
> I don't know that much about AT&T, but from what some of you are saying it may not be something to look forward to. I guess only time will tell.
> 
> *sigh*


It's not. I remember when we were with TCI and AT&T came along. They did with it as they pleased and then sold the wasteland off to Comcast.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Acquisition - "*AT&T* now is the largest pay TV provider in the U.S. and the world ..."

I do not expect DirecTV to die a quick death ... or even a death of 10,000 cuts. It will be interesting to see what becomes of the satellite service now that it is a part of a bigger brand name company. DirecTV has had many owners ... but this one seems different.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

mexican-bum said:


> I was a longtime cingular customer, basically since I was in high school, I felt the same way when AT&T took that totally over 9 or so years ago, honestly nothing really changed for the worse, at&t really spent money improving the network and got a lot of good handset exclusives like the iphone exclusively for years etc.. Hopefully directv will be similar but only time will tell.


Same here. We were Bell South Mobility customers, then they were bought out by by Cingular, and Cingular was bought out by AT&T. Haven't had any issues with any of the 3 companies.Just looking forward to some package discounts that might come our way, with the merger.


----------



## grover517 (Sep 29, 2007)

I also have a bad feeling about this solely based on my past experiences with ATT. From dialup, to DSL, to landline service, to mobile service they have provided subpar services at a premium price and sadly I suspect that this merger is more about sucking the pond dry vs leveraging their position in the market to up their game. I have refused to even consider Uverse because of this history plus everytime I get a sales person at my door touting ATT's "benefits", I catch then in lie after lie.

Think I will stay out of contract a while and see how things shake out over the next few months.


----------



## markfp (Mar 9, 2010)

Oli74 said:


> I am currently on TWC for my phone/internet service I wonder what kind of bundle the new merger will have


Likely we'll be getting a bundling offer within a couple of months. I'm in the same situation. We've had DirecTV for 16 year but had to stick with T-W for internet and phone. Give us a good deal and and I'll switch in the blink of an eye. I HATE T-W!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Fish_Stick said:


> I've been through an AT&T merger before and it was not pretty. Billing and service was screwed up and no one could help because they were too busy with the merger. Not sticking with AT&T.


This is not like any merger they have ever had before. Not at all. They can't fold multiple call centers into one at this time. It'll be years. They do not have the infrastructure at all in place, much less the manpower.

I bet if you just sit back and wait till something actually happens you'll be better off. And frankly, unless you call all the time anyway, nothing is really going to change. It's csr roulette and always has been with any company. DIRECTV is usually better at it than others though... But they won't be changing what DIRECTV offers. If anything uveres will head towards DIRECTV, based on Filings and also logic. Uveres doesn't exists in Mexico etc, DIRECTV does, it's so much more massive, and they use the same equipment down there.... This is something att is going to want to screw with. What they want it to add all the mobile and such devices. Not to destroy what is already there.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

How soon before we see the ATT logo on guide?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Maybe never... 





Couldn't resist. I think it depends on how they decide to brand everything going forward. I am guessing we will hear about this within two months...


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> This is not like any merger they have ever had before. Not at all. They can't fold multiple call centers into one at this time. It'll be years. They do not have the infrastructure at all in place, much less the manpower.
> 
> I bet if you just sit back and wait till something actually happens you'll be better off. And frankly, unless you call all the time anyway, nothing is really going to change. It's csr roulette and always has been with any company. DIRECTV is usually better at it than others though... But they won't be changing what DIRECTV offers. If anything uveres will head towards DIRECTV, based on Filings and also logic. Uveres doesn't exists in Mexico etc, DIRECTV does, it's so much more massive, and they use the same equipment down there.... This is something att is going to want to screw with. What they want it to add all the mobile and such devices. Not to destroy what is already there.


I think the first change will be billing, its listed in AT&T's FAQ. One question was about when bundling discounts would happen if a person already has DTV and AT&T products. They said stay tuned that they would have more info in the coming weeks on that.


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

TheRatPatrol said:


> DirecAT&TV
> 
> I don't know that much about AT&T, but from what some of you are saying it may not be something to look forward to. I guess only time will tell.
> 
> *sigh*


As a long time Directv subscriber I'm not excited about this merger at all!
Hope it's for the best, but not holding my breath on that!

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## Fish_Stick (Apr 8, 2015)

inkahauts said:


> This is not like any merger they have ever had before. Not at all. They can't fold multiple call centers into one at this time. It'll be years. They do not have the infrastructure at all in place, much less the manpower.
> 
> I bet if you just sit back and wait till something actually happens you'll be better off. And frankly, unless you call all the time anyway, nothing is really going to change. It's csr roulette and always has been with any company. DIRECTV is usually better at it than others though... But they won't be changing what DIRECTV offers. If anything uveres will head towards DIRECTV, based on Filings and also logic. Uveres doesn't exists in Mexico etc, DIRECTV does, it's so much more massive, and they use the same equipment down there.... This is something att is going to want to screw with. What they want it to add all the mobile and such devices. Not to destroy what is already there.


Exactly, that's why they are going to mess this up so bad. What's going to change right away though is AT&T is going to get my money which I said a long time ago they weren't going to anymore.


----------



## meldar_b (May 16, 2006)

I think I'm going to be sick now! 

I dislike ATT time to switch to another provider.

I got screwed on the Sirius XM merger.

Now going to get it again :-(

Its a sad sad day


----------



## daniloni (Jul 31, 2013)

mexican-bum said:


> I was a longtime cingular customer, basically since I was in high school, I felt the same way when AT&T took that totally over 9 or so years ago, honestly nothing really changed for the worse, at&t really spent money improving the network and got a lot of good handset exclusives like the iphone exclusively for years etc.. Hopefully directv will be similar but only time will tell


Perhaps the reason that Cingular didn't change is because Cingular bought AT&T Wireless, not the other way around, despite the fact that it went by AT&T Wireless after the acquisition.


----------



## mrro82 (Sep 12, 2012)

First day of the death of DirecTV. AT&T will run it into the ground and ditch it.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Fish_Stick said:


> Exactly, that's why they are going to mess this up so bad. What's going to change right away though is AT&T is going to get my money which I said a long time ago they weren't going to anymore.


!rolling

But I pointed out why the things you are afraid of are not going to happen, at least not anytime soon. Not sure how you think I said anything different...

The second part, well sounds like you had an individual beef with att in particular and will scorch the earth to avoid them. That's up to you, but is it worth losing Directv? I think that depends on you other options and such...


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

AT&T as an ISP was terrible. I haven't heard of any turn-a-round, so expect it will be bottomline first and customer service dead last.


----------



## Fish_Stick (Apr 8, 2015)

inkahauts said:


> !rolling
> 
> But I pointed out why the things you are afraid of are not going to happen, at least not anytime soon. Not sure how you think I said anything different...
> 
> The second part, well sounds like you had an individual beef with att in particular and will scorch the earth to avoid them. That's up to you, but is it worth losing Directv? I think that depends on you other options and such...


From my experience with AT&T they can't leave things along that are working. That's my biggest fear with the merger is that in their "improvements" they are going to destroy everything that we enjoy at DTV.

I will certainly admit the second part and even though I enjoy DTV, yeah I'll cancel just so AT&T doesn't get my money.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Well, everything that has been said, they will move their control of uverse tv to directv people.. Albeit the top guy will be form att, but since dtv is far more successful (I believe) than ATT on the tv side (money, which is what Directv wants), they will likely defer to their people and let them show them how to make it more like DIrectv, and less like ATT.

At least that's kinda what I am hoping anyway.


----------



## lipcrkr (Apr 27, 2012)

I think it won't be too bad. I love DTV but i also have TW Internet for $14.99. I get the same speed at $14.99 as a was when i was paying $34.99. I believe the cheapest with AT&T is $29.
So if you have a combo of DTV and TWC Internet, all is well, at least for me.

I wonder if the PAC-12 and Dodgers will have a fair agreement with DTV/AT&T/TWC now involved?


----------



## mexican-bum (Feb 26, 2006)

daniloni said:


> Perhaps the reason that Cingular didn't change is because Cingular bought AT&T Wireless, not the other way around, despite the fact that it went by AT&T Wireless after the acquisition.


100% correct, I guess my point wasn't clear.

My point is AT&T is just a name for a bunch of different companies that have been bought out, if you get right down to it the company probably is Southwestern Bell I suppose, since SBC bought out, bell south, cellular one, AT&T wireless etc etc.

Many people hate on AT&T but really that is just a name, service is highly unlikely to change.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Drucifer said:


> AT&T as an ISP was terrible. I haven't heard of any turn-a-round, so expect it will be bottomline first and customer service dead last


UVerse Internet has been pretty reliable for me hasn't gone down.


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> AT&T as an ISP was terrible. I haven't heard of any turn-a-round, so expect it will be bottomline first and customer service dead last.


All companies are bottom line first. The whole point of good customer service is to somehow translate that into a better bottom line. If you think AT&T will hurt customer service so much it will hurt the bottom line, that doesn't make them more or less greedy than other business, it just means they have a bad business model.


----------



## mexican-bum (Feb 26, 2006)

As you can see from this diagram of AT&T, AT&T today is really no more the original at&t then verizon.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

It will be also interesting to see how installs go now that they said their will be one truck roll, not sure how soon that will be? Or will that be right away? I guess once the integration is all in place they will just carry DTV's boxes and AT&T's Wireless gateway's and not carry DTV's CKK's? Then everything in the home will connect to AT&T wireless gateway?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Billzebub said:


> All companies are bottom line first. The whole point of good customer service is to somehow translate that into a better bottom line. If you think AT&T will hurt customer service so much it will hurt the bottom line, that doesn't make them more or less greedy than other business, it just means they have a bad business model.


If someone at AT&T came up with an initiative to improve customer service that would cost the company $100 million there would need to be a benefit of at least $100 million from that customer service improvement to make the improvement worthwhile. That is bottom line decision making.

With customer service already at high levels the decision to continue would come in the form of an audit ... looking at how much they are spending to perform certain aspects of customer service and how much benefit they get from that service. For example, AT&T could look at tech support hours ... calculate how much they are paying to have people available during a block of hours and how much the service they are providing affects the bottom line.

If the bean counters believe cutting back tech support by a few hours per day would not hurt the bottom line more than they are saving by not paying techs hours could be reduced. Or they could do as AT&T has done with their MPLS (business data services) and hire overseas call centers to handle technical calls. What is best for the bottom line?

I expect that most decisions DirecTV made went through the filter of "does it help the bottom line". Package pricing and fees are set to what the market will bear (high enough to cover costs and make a decent profit) not the minimum to cover their cost of providing service. Maintaining DirecTV's high profit level is part of keeping the bottom line profitable.


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

What worries me is programming. They say they will run two separate companies but others have too and before long, they start merging everything to one. We have relatives with Uverse and when I've seen it I'm not impressed. No Extra Innings, no Center Ice, no NHL Network, as a local TV provider they don't even offer the local subchannels there. I'd this going to be the type of programming decisions going forward for Directv eventually also? That's my biggest concern.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

James Long said:


> If someone at AT&T came up with an initiative to improve customer service that would cost the company $100 million there would need to be a benefit of at least $100 million from that customer service improvement to make the improvement worthwhile. That is bottom line decision making.
> 
> With customer service already at high levels the decision to continue would come in the form of an audit ... looking at how much they are spending to perform certain aspects of customer service and how much benefit they get from that service. For example, AT&T could look at tech support hours ... calculate how much they are paying to have people available during a block of hours and how much the service they are providing affects the bottom line.
> 
> If the bean counters believe cutting back tech support by a few hours per day would not hurt the bottom line more than they are saving by not paying techs hours could be reduced. Or they could do as AT&T has done with their MPLS (business data services) and hire overseas call centers to handle technical calls. What is best for the bottom line?


I searched through their FCC filing again and found this:

"The combined entity will also save costs by consolidating network operations facilities, including redundant broadcast centers and super hub offices. Lastly, the combined entity will also realize efficiencies by consolidating customer call center operations, in addition to combining IT systems and operations, and other general and administrative functions of the two firms."


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FYI:

*DIRECTV Subscriber Privacy Policy*-Joining the AT&T Family and New AT&T Privacy Policy
"DIRECTV is now a part of the AT&T family. This means that for customers who joined the DIRECTV satellite platform before July 24th, 2015, the existing DIRECTV Subscriber Privacy Policy will soon be replaced with the AT&T Privacy Policy. If you become a DIRECTV satellite customer on or after this date, the AT&T Privacy Policy already applies to you."

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/support/agreements_policies


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

zimm7778 said:


> What worries me is programming. They say they will run two separate companies but others have too and before long, they start merging everything to one. We have relatives with Uverse and when I've seen it I'm not impressed. No Extra Innings, no Center Ice, no NHL Network, as a local TV provider they don't even offer the local subchannels there. I'd this going to be the type of programming decisions going forward for Directv eventually also? That's my biggest concern.


With programing delivery becoming available via the Internet, in ways other than satellite and cable, I am sure they will not be looking to cut any of the packages or networks you mentioned above. If they were to do so, it would be shooting themselves in the foot.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

zimm7778 said:


> What worries me is programming. They say they will run two separate companies but others have too and before long, they start merging everything to one. We have relatives with Uverse and when I've seen it I'm not impressed. No Extra Innings, no Center Ice, no NHL Network, as a local TV provider they don't even offer the local subchannels there. I'd this going to be the type of programming decisions going forward for Directv eventually also? That's my biggest concern.


As long as Directv carries NFLST, they will be the first choice for bars and restaurants nationwide. Since they're installed in those places, they'll always carry those other sports packages because it is profitable for them to do so.

Because of serious limitations in the way Uverse TV is delivered, it is not going to be any commercial establishment's primary provider since they'd only be able to watch a few different channels at once throughout the whole place. With only residential customers to sell it to, and only six million subscribers which gave them reduced negotiation leverage, it probably wouldn't have been profitable for AT&T to offer those packages to Uverse customers.

Since Directv runs a successful and profitable TV business - which is why AT&T bought them after all - it would be a smart business decision to leave Directv people in charge even after all the operations are merged. You can spend all day coming up with reasons to be worried about how AT&T can screw up Directv, but that's as pointless as worrying about when the next major hurricane is going hit. If you see a forecast indicating one is bearing down, then you can worry. If you see an announcement that Directv is dropping Center Ice, then you can worry.

For every person with a terrible experience with AT&T that says they'll never do business with them again, there's someone else who says the same thing about Verizon, Comcast, TWC, Directv, Dish and so forth.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> It will be also interesting to see how installs go now that they said their will be one truck roll, not sure how soon that will be? Or will that be right away? I guess once the integration is all in place they will just carry DTV's boxes and AT&T's Wireless gateway's and not carry DTV's CKK's? Then everything in the home will connect to AT&T wireless gateway?


The only people getting AT&T's wireless gateway will be customers who sign up for that service. They are not going to set up ordinary Directv customers who get their internet from Comcast or whatever with AT&T wireless for their Directv receivers. Why would they want to overload their urban and suburban cell network with a bunch of Directv customers PPV?

I think "one truck roll" means that if you sign up for AT&T to get Uverse internet and Directv TV, or AT&T fixed wireless and Directv TV, they will send out one guy who can take care of both.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

lipcrkr said:


> I wonder if the PAC-12 and Dodgers will have a fair agreement with DTV/AT&T/TWC now involved?


I wouldn't hold my breath for Dodgers. Until TWC comes down on price - which means they'll have to take a massive loss - they will not get anyone to sign up for it. Pac 12 is possible, especially if AT&T has some deals with Pac 12 schools (naming rights, advertising, cellular exclusives, etc.) and gets it added to Directv to keep the Pac 12 happy. But the most likely time you'd see it added to Directv would be around the time AT&T's deal to carry it expires. Of course it is also possible Uverse drops it at that time, who knows.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> As long as Directv carries NFLST, they will be the first choice for bars and restaurants nationwide.


They're the also-ran around here. Weekends include Saturdays where NFLST isn't in play. Comcast offers three RSNs (CSN NW, Pac-12 and ROOT) and DIRECTV offers one not-so-great one (ROOT Sports NW). I know of a few that only subscribe to DIRECTV during NFL season.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

One thing you have to remember, Uverse Internet is only available in 21 of the 50 states.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

zimm7778 said:


> What worries me is programming. They say they will run two separate companies but others have too and before long, they start merging everything to one. We have relatives with Uverse and when I've seen it I'm not impressed. No Extra Innings, no Center Ice, no NHL Network, as a local TV provider they don't even offer the local subchannels there. I'd this going to be the type of programming decisions going forward for Directv eventually also? That's my biggest concern.


ATT may have to suck it up and keep NHL network / NHL CI / MLB EI. unless they want to lose a lot of sports bars.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> ATT may have to suck it up and keep NHL network / NHL CI / MLB EI. unless they want to lose a lot of sports bars.


Suck it up? Directv wouldn't offer it if it wasn't profitable for them to do so, and if it was just sports bars where it was profitable for them they wouldn't offer those packages to their residential customers.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> As long as Directv carries NFLST, they will be the first choice for bars and restaurants nationwide. Since they're installed in those places, they'll always carry those other sports packages because it is profitable for them to do so.
> 
> Because of serious limitations in the way Uverse TV is delivered, it is not going to be any commercial establishment's primary provider since they'd only be able to watch a few different channels at once throughout the whole place. With only residential customers to sell it to, and only six million subscribers which gave them reduced negotiation leverage, it probably wouldn't have been profitable for AT&T to offer those packages to Uverse customers.
> 
> ...


gigapower can do more HD channels and they can even work a way to have more then master box / per site it has a 5 HD limit that may more on a hardware limit of the master DRV box.

Even for non NFL ST packs. Most cable systems suck most don't even have all the BTN over flows in HD even on systems with all the in demand feeds don't show all games in HD and even some games in SD are JIP.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Suck it up? Directv wouldn't offer it if it wasn't profitable for them to do so, and if it was just sports bars where it was profitable for them they wouldn't offer those packages to their residential customers.


well I think they have to offer it to home users to be able to offer it to sports bar's and it that is not trun it's on the system any ways so why not?

NFLST is sold as an loss leader on the home site.

Most big cable systems have NBA LP / MLB EI / NHL CI.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

JoeTheDragon said:


> well I think they have to offer it to home users to be able to offer it to sports bar's and it that is not trun it's on the system any ways so why not?
> 
> NFLST is sold as an loss leader on the home site.
> 
> Most big cable systems have NBA LP / MLB EI / NHL CI.


As for NHL--yeah if they have it on the system for any group, adding it to another group won't cost anything (except perhaps some subscriber fees--which would be high margin.) 

As for NFLST, yes for any one group it isn't profitable. Typically the whole of customer sales, bar sales, ad sales, and typical revenue streams is what makes it viable and profitable. Then the add on customers make it truly profitable. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Oli74 (Nov 19, 2014)

I wonder how long will it take to get gigapower in NYC? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Yeah I think NFLST's value is in its exclusivity. If you want it you have to subscribe to Directv. Some portion of NFLST subscribers are only with Directv because that's the only way to get NFLST.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Oli74 said:


> I wonder how long will it take to get gigapower in NYC?


My question is how long of ever will it take to have Uverse in the 29 states that don't currently have it. Wish we had it here, instead of TWC.


----------



## txfeinbergs (Nov 16, 2005)

loudo said:


> My question is how long of ever will it take to have Uverse in the 29 states that don't currently have it. Wish we had it here, instead of TWC.


I am not sure you really want what you are asking for. TWC gives me up to 300 Mbps down, and 20 up. Uverse can barely reach 18 Mbps down, and 1 Mbps up in the Allen, TX area. It is a complete joke.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

loudo said:


> My question is how long of ever will it take to have Uverse in the 29 states that don't currently have it. Wish we had it here, instead of TWC.


Forever ... unless AT&T goes on a buying binge that is not blocked by the FCC. (And while AT&T UVerse is in 21 states they are not statewide in those states.)


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

The only way for now that AT&T can mess up my directv for now is changing the dvr to what uverse uses now.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

loudo said:


> My question is how long of ever will it take to have Uverse in the 29 states that don't currently have it. Wish we had it here, instead of TWC.


Never, just like the states outside the Verizon footprint will never get offered FIOS. Each might choose to expand in limited areas outside their footprint, but if they do they'd skim the cream off the top like Google. Just like you aren't going to see Google announce it is running Google Fiber in Detroit or to ranches in western Nebraska, because it isn't profitable.

What many of those 29 states will get from AT&T, at least in more rural areas, is some sort of fixed wireless broadband offering. Once they begin deploying LTE into all those rural areas, they'll have a lot of unused bandwidth. Makes sense to do something with it, so they can sell it to all those customers who currently only have dial up or satellite. Verizon will probably do likewise, which is why having Directv will be an advantage for AT&T since LTE will allow better bandwidth, but not so good you want to offer people full time TV streaming packages over it.


----------



## Oli74 (Nov 19, 2014)

txfeinbergs said:


> I am not sure you really want what you are asking for. TWC gives me up to 300 Mbps down, and 20 up. Uverse can barely reach 18 Mbps down, and 1 Mbps up in the Allen, TX area. It is a complete joke.












Getting about 80Mbps and 12up with TWC how can I get 300??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

txfeinbergs said:


> I am not sure you really want what you are asking for. TWC gives me up to 300 Mbps down, and 20 up. Uverse can barely reach 18 Mbps down, and 1 Mbps up in the Allen, TX area. It is a complete joke.


I am not referring to the speed as much as dependability. We have constant loss of Internet around here.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Oli74 said:


> Getting about 80Mbps and 12up with TWC how can I get 300??
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think he meant 30Mbps. That is what they offer here in their Extreme Package.


----------



## ssandhoops (Dec 2, 2007)

loudo said:


> Same here. We were Bell South Mobility customers, then they were bought out by by Cingular, and Cingular was bought out by AT&T. Haven't had any issues with any of the 3 companies.Just looking forward to some package discounts that might come our way, with the merger.


Not quite accurate. Bell South and Southwestern Bell jointly owned Cingular. Southwestern Bell acquired both Bell South and ATT and opted to keep the name ATT.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## mexican-bum (Feb 26, 2006)

ssandhoops said:


> Not quite accurate. Bell South and Southwestern Bell jointly owned Cingular. Southwestern Bell acquired both Bell South and ATT and opted to keep the name ATT.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


Correct, SBC(southwestern bell) felt at&t had better name recognition so they decided to use that name instead even though at&t was much smaller than SBC that bought them out.


----------



## BlueSnake (Oct 6, 2006)

I may be completely wrong, but from everything I had read about the merger, one of the biggest reason AT&T wanted Directv was so they could get out of the Uverse TV business and use all those resources for fast internet.

I too am one of the people worried about this merger. I have never had one positive business dealing with AT&T which is the reason I have avoided them at all cost for over 15 years. I won't jump ship immediately as I've always been happy with Directv. But at the first sign of any negative effects I will not hesitate to find another TV solution.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

James Long said:


> Acquisition - "*AT&T* now is the largest pay TV provider in the U.S. and the world ..."
> 
> I do not expect DirecTV to die a quick death ... or even a death of 10,000 cuts. It will be interesting to see what becomes of the satellite service now that it is a part of a bigger brand name company. DirecTV has had many owners ... but this one seems different.


This one is definitely different, and for lack of a better term, this one is the last one and represents the "death" of DirecTV. All of the other sales and changes in ownership of the company from the spin-off from General Motors to the purchase by News Corp to the purchase by Liberty left DirecTV as a separately operating company, and still separately trading on the stock market. You never saw Liberty integrate XM and DirecTV, even though Liberty owned both, for example. This time, though, DirecTV is no longer a separate corporate entity. It no longer has it's own stock. All DirecTV shares on the stock market were replaced with AT&T shares. AT&T has already said they plan to fully integrate DirecTV into their corporate structure and business. The name DirecTV and satellite delivered television services may stick around, but DirecTV the corporate entity is gone and is never coming back.



Oli74 said:


> I wonder how long will it take to get gigapower in NYC?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Never. New York is not in AT&T's wireline service area, it's served by Verizon.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlueSnake said:


> I may be completely wrong, but from everything I had read about the merger, one of the biggest reason AT&T wanted Directv was so they could get out of the Uverse TV business and use all those resources for fast internet.
> 
> I too am one of the people worried about this merger. I have never had one positive business dealing with AT&T which is the reason I have avoided them at all cost for over 15 years. I won't jump ship immediately as I've always been happy with Directv. But at the first sign of any negative effects I will not hesitate to find another TV solution.


They can't just dump their TV. Some wouldn't be able to get DIRECTV. It'll stay.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

I do not understand all the hate for AT&T. Most of you must be too young to remember how bad GTE was. Verizon is only slightly better than GTE, and Sprint is just as bad. AT&T is not perfect, and it might not be as good as DirecTV, but AT&T is still far better than Dish or TWC, which are the only other options available to me.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

inkahauts said:


> They can't just dump their TV. Some wouldn't be able to get DIRECTV. It'll stay.


They were after the Cash flow that DTV generates and another way to get you as a customer. Dropping their existing TV system would zero out the other way to get a customer.
Unifying the program packages for uniformity makes sense.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> They can't just dump their TV. Some wouldn't be able to get DIRECTV. It'll stay.


According to the article linked here, they're going to create all new hardware/software in 24-36 months that integrates both platforms. They wouldn't need to do that if they were going to dump Uverse.

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/218725-att-exec-and-new-directv-chief-talks-branding-rates-integration-wu-verse/


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Yeah I think NFLST's value is in its exclusivity. If you want it you have to subscribe to Directv. Some portion of NFLST subscribers are only with Directv because that's the only way to get NFLST.


That's something Directv NFL ST fans only believe .
But I'm not going to get into another NFL ST battle.
IMO the contract cost is well beyond justification. 
IMO it's a a tool and an advertising tool more than it is a profitable programming offer to customers.
New customers get it free, because they know the price they are paying for their base pack is where the money comes in.

Bars and restaurants, you make it sound like millions subscribe.
Totally exaggerated. 
I don't know about your town, but anywhere around my area, you don't dare go to a bar drink and watch football all afternoon, and then get in your car an drive home.

Most local bars don't give a crap about ST.
I've had my Bar Restaurant for over 2 years now, and not one person requested NFL ST.

Damon


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BlueSnake said:


> I may be completely wrong, but from everything I had read about the merger, one of the biggest reason AT&T wanted Directv was so they could get out of the Uverse TV business and use all those resources for fast internet.


AT&T has stated that they wanted to develop OTT programming but felt that they could not do so with only 5 million subscribers (negotiating contracts is easier when the company has 26 million subscribers). DISH was able to start their OTT with around 14 million customers on their traditional system but 5 million was too small.

OTT is "over the top" on data networks provided by the customer. The business is closer to what AT&T is doing with UVerse (streamed content to individual receivers) than it is to DirecTV (broadcast content via a shared channel). The difference is that OTT uses any network and not just AT&T's.

I do not see AT&T shutting down streamed video over their own data network while expanding to delivering data over other networks. UVerse is basically AT&T's first five million OTT subscribers. AT&T will not be abandoning the platform. AT&T wants to deliver TV over their fiber network, their cell network, their newly purchased satellite network, and any other network that they can find a customer.


----------



## Skyboss (Jan 22, 2004)

I think this will actually be a good thing. U-Verse TV is a bandwidth hog, switching everyone on U-Verse TV to DirecTV would unleash a ridiculous amount of bandwidth in the medium term. I can see them transitioning to an all in one product. If you have a land line, you get U-Verse Internet and Phone to the premise at least in the medium term. If you don't have it or want wireless, you can go wireless (cellular) with a 4G receiver either in the DirecTV box or on the side of the house that provides your internet and phone. Long Term AT&T wants to dump land based communications anyway, and this makes sense for a world that will become increasingly connected at all times.

The only thing that concerns me is the absurd pricing schemes associated with wireless data which is bound to change. Sorry cell providers, but data delivery doesn't cost that much and you're ripping us off.



fleckrj said:


> I do not understand all the hate for AT&T. Most of you must be too young to remember how bad GTE was. Verizon is only slightly better than GTE, and Sprint is just as bad. AT&T is not perfect, and it might not be as good as DirecTV, but AT&T is still far better than Dish or TWC, which are the only other options available to me.


I don't get this either. We've had great service with AT&T for 25 years. We've been DirecTV subs for as long as I can remember and use U-Verse for Phone and Internet. The Internet speed is more than enough at 45mbps.

As for the future, imagine you're DirecTV box integrated with this:

http://www.cnet.com/news/how-5g-will-push-a-supercharged-network-to-your-phone-home-and-car/


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Skyboss said:


> I think this will actually be a good thing. U-Verse TV is a bandwidth hog, switching everyone on U-Verse TV to DirecTV would unleash a ridiculous amount of bandwidth in the medium term. I can see them transitioning to an all in one product. If you have a land line, you get U-Verse Internet and Phone to the premise at least in the medium term. If you don't have it or want wireless, you can go wireless (cellular) with a 4G receiver either in the DirecTV box or on the side of the house that provides your internet and phone. Long Term AT&T wants to dump land based communications anyway, and this makes sense for a world that will become increasingly connected at all times.
> 
> The only thing that concerns me is the absurd pricing schemes associated with wireless data which is bound to change. Sorry cell providers, but data delivery doesn't cost that much and you're ripping us off.
> 
> ...


AT&T has already said that they will continue to offer TV via VDSL (meaning U-Verse). There are plenty of situations where a dish is either not desired or not possible, and with their push of fiber the bandwidth concerns will be negated.

I'm sure they'll try to get linear TV subscribers on a satellite dish first, and only fall back to IP distribution as a last resort or if specifically requested, but they won't drop both. And AT&T is big and slow moving, but they're not so slow moving that they don't see the train headed down the track, a train that is about to demolish linear television. The next big thing is Netflix-style VOD for first-run and live events, and buying DirecTV was as much about buying relationships and clout with programmers as it was buying 500 gigabits* of space-based bandwidth.

*number made up by me as an example


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Skyboss said:


> Long Term AT&T wants to dump land based communications anyway, and this makes sense for a world that will become increasingly connected at all times.


They want to drop their copper based network, because it is expensive to maintain especially due to the voice service requirements for reliability and coverage despite declining revenue due to fewer and fewer people who want traditional POTS service. If it were possible to keep their copper network without having to provide POTS they might not want to get rid of it. AT&T has no plans to drop fiber - they're still expanding it with plans to expand it more in the future. Wireless will NEVER be a substitute for wired internet access.

The only reason you can get 80Mb downloads on LTE sometimes is because only a few people are hitting the cell tower hard at once. If all the Netflix, torrent and other bulk traffic that runs over cable, DSL and fiber internet moved to wireless, you'd be lucky to get 80Kb out of it. They'd need a tower every few blocks to make it work, and there are too many NIMBYs who cite disproven cancer risks, made up conditions like electrosensitivity, or are honest and say they don't like the aesthetics of a tower in their neighborhood.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

I can't help but laugh every time I see these kind of graphics. 4g 100mbps? Yeah right. Most I have ever got was 40mbps.

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

peds48 said:


> ImageUploadedByTapatalk1438022612.284607.jpgI can't help but laugh every time I see these kind of graphics. 4g 100mbps? Yeah right. Most I have ever got was 40mbps.


Those are what the ITU standards/targets were, for what the ITU considers 3G, 4G and 5G. LTE is not 4G, in order to qualify as 4G under the ITU's target, you need LTE Advanced, which is just rolling out in a few places so far. LTE Advanced is capable of hitting and exceeding 100 Mb/s, of course that depends on a lightly loaded cell...


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Those are what the ITU standards/targets were, for what the ITU considers 3G, 4G and 5G. LTE is not 4G, in order to qualify as 4G under the ITU's target, you need LTE Advanced, which is just rolling out in a few places so far. LTE Advanced is capable of hitting and exceeding 100 Mb/s, of course that depends on a lightly loaded cell...


But I get better speeds on LTE than 4G.... This is all a marketing scheme....


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

They moved fast in one area, the screensaver on my DVR has already been updated.


----------



## BarkingGhost (Dec 29, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> !rolling
> 
> But I pointed out why the things you are afraid of are not going to happen, at least not anytime soon. Not sure how you think I said anything different...
> 
> The second part, well sounds like you had an individual beef with att in particular and will scorch the earth to avoid them. That's up to you, but is it worth losing Directv? I think that depends on you other options and such...


When i bought my home 15 years ago it was on a BellSouth platform called IFITL, Integrated Fiber In The Loop. BellSouth Entertainment sold landline voice, cable TV and 1.5x256 Internet as a pseudo-DSL offering. That was fine in 1999. Since then SBC acquired the last remnent of AT&T in the form of AT&T LD. They took the AT&T name back because it had better brand recognition globally. They then acquired BellSouth and converted the 40/60 (BST/SBC) split ownership of Cingular to AT&T Wireless since the original AT&T Wireless was consumed by Cingular.

During these several years neither BellSouth, SBC or the newly reinvented AT&T bothered to upgrade the IFITL network. not once. Classic DSL passed it with 3Meg, then 6Meg services, then U-verse with its 11-12 and 24 Meg service. But the customers on IFITl--a platform passed +2 million households with 760K customers on it in 2003--were ignored, and when the company attempted to sell the platform and customers with startling failure they left them to flee. There is less than 220K customers on IFITL and zero hopes of network upgrades.

Did I continue to use this IFITL platform? Heck no. I went first to Adelphia, which bought out the legacy Benchmark Communications in my area (Atlanta), upgraded the network to 4Meg service, then 6Meg service before going finanically bust and becoming an inherited Comcast customer. During all of this AT&T did nothing for IFITl or its IFITL households. A half million former customers went to the competition--including me.

Now under Comcast's reign the network has been upgraded two or three times and I get their slowest standalone consumer broadband offering that is 20 times faster than the fastest AT&T offering. I cannot get U-verse (re: AT&T refuses to upgrade the single-mode fiber in my lawn) and during these years I have been a long-term DirecTV customer. I can say without a doubt I feel sick over this as I do not want AT&T in my personal life--especially when they expect me to live on pre-2000AD technologies.

So, should others be scared? I would. Now i get to go seriously consider canceling my DirecTV service and find another solution. BTW, as a point of levity I use to be a BellSouth mobility customer, which was converted to Cingular. I left that horror and went to T-Mobile. I've been fortunate with this so far so lets keep the TMo fingers crossed. Maybe TMo should buy Dish. LOL


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

dpeters11 said:


> They moved fast in one area, the screensaver on my DVR has already been updated.


Just noticed that also. Box had to reboot due to power flickering and a thunderstorm.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

loudo said:


> > Getting about 80Mbps and 12up with TWC how can I get 300??
> 
> 
> I think he meant 30Mbps. That is what they offer here in their Extreme Package.


Time Warner Cable does offer up to 300Mbps down in some areas. Here in Los Angeles they upgraded within the past couple years -- I'd been on their 20Mbps plan, and after the upgrade, got 100Mbps for no additional cost.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> They moved fast in one area, the screensaver on my DVR has already been updated.


Wonder how they accomplished that. don't recall seeing any new software update


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

They also dropped the DirecTV logo on some channels....specifically when I checked for my Brewers game on 668-1 (about 2 hours before pregame), It just says DIRECTV in the center of the screen (all capital letters), no longer showing the logo like we see still exists in the channel banner.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

peds48 said:


> But I get better speeds on LTE than 4G.... This is all a marketing scheme....


When your phone says "4G" that is AT&T lying because they didn't have LTE ready but they did have HSPA+ which was faster than anyone else's 3G at the time. On a less loaded HSPA+ cell you may well get better speeds than a more loaded LTE cell.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

peds48 said:


> Wonder how they accomplished that. don't recall seeing any new software update


I would guess they had something in the firmware ready for this months ago. Have it check a specific URL each day, and get one of two values "no merger" and "merger OK". When it sees "merger OK" it switches the screensaver.

This is why you don't have as many series links as you might want on your DVRs, because Directv's engineers wasted their time coding this


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> I would guess they had something in the firmware ready for this months ago. Have it check a specific URL each day, and get one of two values "no merger" and "merger OK". When it sees "merger OK" it switches the screensaver.


Not a URL as non-internet connected systems are seeing the new screen.


----------



## SuperZ06 (Aug 20, 2008)

CraigerM said:


> How soon before we see the ATT logo on guide?


Already there


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SuperZ06 said:


> Already there


The guide as well as the screen saver?


----------



## SuperZ06 (Aug 20, 2008)

James Long said:


> The guide as well as the screen saver?


Well no not on the actual guide but I just had the power go down and its on the startup and screen saver.
Sorry about that.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> That's something Directv NFL ST fans only believe .
> But I'm not going to get into another NFL ST battle.
> IMO the contract cost is well beyond justification.
> IMO it's a a tool and an advertising tool more than it is a profitable programming offer to customers.
> ...


You definelty don't live in my area.

And there is a reason bars keep suing to get it cheaper calling it an illegal monopoly.

And directv is in bars and restaurants all over the place in Los Angeles Not all areas are the same. I imagine it's biggest in the biggest cities, and much less so in the smaller ones in general.

Don't forget just all the national chains that have it at all locations like outback steak house, yard house, and many many others.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> You definelty don't live in my area.
> 
> And there is a reason bars keep suing to get it cheaper calling it an illegal monopoly.
> 
> ...


Your right, they keep suing because they don't want to subscribe to Directv to get it.

That's why I'll still maintain that NFL st would do alot better if it wasn't exclusive to directv.

I wonder what ATT plans to do with this?
http://deadline.com/2015/07/nfl-sunday-ticket-lawsuit-sports-bar-prices-directv-1201475755/

Damon


----------



## Joe166 (Jan 6, 2007)

Why is that any different from the NFL giving a network exclusive rights to the super bowl? Or the NCAA giving the bowl games to ESPN? 

And I bet if the NFL could do better by not giving an exclusive to DTV, you can bet a lot of money that the NFL would do just that, The NFL is all about profits, period!


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

damondlt said:


> Your right, they keep suing because they don't want to subscribe to Directv to get it.
> 
> That's why I'll still maintain that NFL st would do alot better if it wasn't exclusive to directv.
> 
> ...


Agree, it is definitely overpriced, compared to the other sports packages. For 6 hours of programing, 1 day a week, for 17 weeks it is way overpriced.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Your right, they keep suing because they don't want to subscribe to Directv to get it.
> 
> That's why I'll still maintain that NFL st would do alot better if it wasn't exclusive to directv.
> 
> ...


They are suing because they want it cheaper! It's the same argument people make about a la cart really. They won't win. Not if their goal is cheaper prices which it is.

Their is so much math involved. I doubt they could make much more if any more by opening it up. And it sure as heck wouldn't be cheaper to the customer though. I don't know why anyone thinks they'd drop the price.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> That's why I'll still maintain that NFL st would do alot better if it wasn't exclusive to directv.


It depends on what one's definition of "better" is. If "better" is "make more money" the NFL is doing just fine.
They make a lot of money selling the package as an exclusive.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

James Long said:


> It depends on what one's definition of "better" is. If "better" is "make more money" the NFL is doing just fine.
> They make a lot of money selling the package as an exclusive.


They will make even more now. As soon as the contract is signed again or maybe even now, they will gain all the possible subs from AT&T that could not get it before.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jimmie57 said:


> They will make even more now. As soon as the contract is signed again or maybe even now, they will gain all the possible subs from AT&T that could not get it before.


IIRC the price paid by DirecTV is not per sub ... it is a flat rate. The NFL may be able to negotiate a higher rate out of the now larger AT&T. AT&T wants to get the ability to stream Sunday Ticket (both to UVerse and OTT) and I cannot imagine that coming without some increase in payment to the NFL.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Some NFL ST thoughts:

The NFL and AT&T won't renegotiate unless a court finding requires them to. Either the existing lawsuit or some other court case. The deal was arranged to be merger-ready. 
James is right, it is a set priced contract, with elevators and annual increases. 
The bars "claim" they'd rather deal with individual teams, hoping to get a lower price. And some venues might--by picking only some teams. My question is, how much would they really save? A bar that only showed the local team doesn't need NFL ST at all...
And facing 32 teams would not be cheaper...
And the teams would do their best to price things such that a bar looking for only 4 regional or otherwise important teams would cost as much as NFL ST.

The bigger question is who has the rights to the games? Can the NFL sell a branded collection of the product because all the teams agree to such? If the NFL can collectively bargain with players, why can't they collectively market and bargain their product itself?

Let's face it--content is king, sports is the king genre, and NFL is the grand emperor of sports right now in the US. They ask for money, it is given.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Fish_Stick (Apr 8, 2015)

James Long said:


> It depends on what one's definition of "better" is. If "better" is "make more money" the NFL is doing just fine.
> They make a lot of money selling the package as an exclusive.


Correct on that part for sure! NFL ST as an exclusive means someone has to pay to make it exclusive so they make more money that way. If they open it up they'd get more subs to it but I'm willing to bet all DTV customers pay for NFLST in the monthly bill. Just some quick figures I found is that the NFL costs $1.5 billion for DTV and is only getting 2+ million subs to the ST. Even at the top price of $354, that's a loss of 438 million to 792 million per year. Based on a cost ranging from $500 for 3 million subs or $750 if 2 million subs. I didn't even factor in how many people receive reduced rates on ST either. So obviously they are making some serious money off the regular subs to justify exclusive rights. Imagine how much cheaper your bill could be if sports were completely billed separate.

Check out why so many places advertise the big game and not the super bowl, it's because to use the name super bowl you have to pay some ridiculous amount of money to the NFL.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Suck it up? Directv wouldn't offer it if it wasn't profitable for them to do so, and if it was just sports bars where it was profitable for them they wouldn't offer those packages to their residential customers.


Deals are made based on eyeballs and if you're going to make a deal, it will surely include as many eyeballs as possible.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

yosoyellobo said:


> The only way for now that AT&T can mess up my directv for now is changing the dvr to what uverse uses now.


The recent FAQ suggests that the future combined platform will be a combination of the two that is different than either one of the existing platforms.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> When your phone says "4G" that is AT&T lying because they didn't have LTE ready but they did have HSPA+ which was faster than anyone else's 3G at the time. On a less loaded HSPA+ cell you may well get better speeds than a more loaded LTE cell.


sorry. No ATT here. T-Mobile

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Never, just like the states outside the Verizon footprint will never get offered FIOS.


Frontier offers FIOS in many places that aren't in the Verizon footprint so your statement is false. It seems unlikely that Frontier will be spending a lot of resources on building out, but who knows.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> They are suing because they want it cheaper! It's the same argument people make about a la cart really. They won't win. Not if their goal is cheaper prices which it is.
> 
> Their is so much math involved. I doubt they could make much more if any more by opening it up. And it sure as heck wouldn't be cheaper to the customer though. I don't know why anyone thinks they'd drop the price.


Yes , but it's also about having an option to get it cheaper with competition. 









Damon


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BlueSnake said:


> I may be completely wrong, but from everything I had read about the merger, one of the biggest reason AT&T wanted Directv was so they could get out of the Uverse TV business and use all those resources for fast internet.


There were two recognized reasons:

1. AT&T wanted to buy something that had a proven 20% profit margin.
2. AT&T wanted access to NFL ST.

Any other reasons were probably not all that earth shattering. Clearly it wasn't an attempt to grab Mike White.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

damondlt said:


> Yes , but it's also about having an option to get it cheaper with competition.
> 
> Damon


They foolishly think they could get a better deal by dealing with 32 teams instead of one entity? When has that ever worked?

Do they think they can save $10 a month by skipping the doormat team of the week and not get gouged by the top dog?

There is no competition here. Only other possible ways to spend even more money, not less.  (look at the LA sports teams and the costs to carry their games...) 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

damondlt said:


> Your right, they keep suing because they don't want to subscribe to Directv to get it.
> 
> That's why I'll still maintain that NFL st would do alot better if it wasn't exclusive to directv.
> 
> ...


Why in the world would the NFL make an exclusive deal with Directv if they could make more money to selling it to everyone? Do you think the NFL is run by idiots, or that they are deliberately trying to lose money? I think the people running the NFL know a lot more about their business and about business in general than either you or I.

As for the lawsuit, AT&T will do the same thing Directv would have if they hadn't been bought, and what the NFL will do. Ask for dismissal, and when the judge says "no" they'll fight it court. And likely win, because as others have said if exclusives are made illegal then why not make Monday Night Football on ESPN illegal, and require the NFL to sell those games to any network that wants them? That would lower the total price they get, because why should ESPN want it if it will also be on TV on CBS, NBC and Fox?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Because Directv was the only one to bid on their huge cash demand for the package.
Why? Because they have done so every time.

NFL would be screwed, you are absolutely right.!
Because no other provider is dumb enough to spend billions on an 8 hour block one time a week for 17 weeks.
You will never know what Directv makes off of NFL ST because it's so pathetic they don't want you to know that 20 million are helping foot the bill.

Oh and ESPN is not excluse to one provider.
Don't compare networks with providers. It's not even close to the same thing.

DIRECTV having excluse rights to NFL ST, would be like 
ATT paying Apple to be exclusive to only ATT.

Do you think that would fly?

If ST was that demanded directv and NFL would have been through the courts long ago, By Comcast,Dish,Verizon, and many other cable providers. 

Damon


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

harsh said:


> Frontier offers FIOS in many places that aren't in the Verizon footprint so your statement is false. It seems unlikely that Frontier will be spending a lot of resources on building out, but who knows.


That's different, Frontier bought those markets from Verizon. AT&T will never be building out U-Verse or GigaPower in markets where Verizon is or was the incumbent phone company. AT&T has a 22-state footprint, and those will be the only 22 states to ever, in a thousand years, possibly get GigaPower.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> IIRC the price paid by DirecTV is not per sub ... it is a flat rate. The NFL may be able to negotiate a higher rate out of the now larger AT&T. AT&T wants to get the ability to stream Sunday Ticket (both to UVerse and OTT) and I cannot imagine that coming withou some increase in payment to the NFL.


I would bet this was planned for in the contract. Both sides knew the merger was approved by the shareholders and under review by the feds when they were negotiating this. Either there are terms that kick in once the merger is completed that up the price, or the price is fixed and Directv took a risk paying more than they would have otherwise if the merger didn't go through.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

It was definitely known as part of the renewal of the NFL/DirecTV negotiations because the AT&T/DirecTV merger was conditional upon the NFL and DirecTV coming to an agreement (and if you don't think AT&T was in the room during those negotiations, even though they were still separate companies, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Fish_Stick said:


> Correct on that part for sure! NFL ST as an exclusive means someone has to pay to make it exclusive so they make more money that way. If they open it up they'd get more subs to it but I'm willing to bet all DTV customers pay for NFLST in the monthly bill. Just some quick figures I found is that the NFL costs $1.5 billion for DTV and is only getting 2+ million subs to the ST. Even at the top price of $354, that's a loss of 438 million to 792 million per year. Based on a cost ranging from $500 for 3 million subs or $750 if 2 million subs. I didn't even factor in how many people receive reduced rates on ST either. So obviously they are making some serious money off the regular subs to justify exclusive rights. Imagine how much cheaper your bill could be if sports were completely billed separate.


You are leaving out the bars/restaurants, which pay far more. That adds a few hundred million more. The other subscribers don't have to foot the remaining cost, it is covered by the extra subscribers that Directv only has due to NFLST. A lot of the bars/restaurants fall into that category - they wouldn't have Directv if it wasn't for NFLST.

Let's make up some numbers for an example. Let's say they pay $1.5 billion a year and earn $1 billion a year from NFLST subscriptions. That means they have to cover $500 million elsewhere. If they earn $1 billion in profit off subscribers (both residential and commercial) who have Directv only because of NFLST, that covers the $500 million and earns them $500 million more than they wouldn't have had without NFLST. Obviously I don't know the true numbers, but Directv's bean counters do. If they didn't make a profit from having NFLST they wouldn't keep bidding on it. You can argue the rest of the subscribers are the ones who really end up footing that $500 million bill, but why would Directv want them to do that, when by not having NFLST they could charge those subscribers the same amount and simply make more money?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> You are leaving out the bars/restaurants, which pay far more. That adds a few hundred million more. The other subscribers don't have to foot the remaining cost, it is covered by the extra subscribers that Directv only has due to NFLST. A lot of the bars/restaurants fall into that category - they wouldn't have Directv if it wasn't for NFLST.
> 
> Let's make up some numbers for an example. Let's say they pay $1.5 billion a year and earn $1 billion a year from NFLST subscriptions. That means they have to cover $500 million elsewhere. If they earn $1 billion in profit off subscribers (both residential and commercial) who have Directv only because of NFLST, that covers the $500 million and earns them $500 million more than they wouldn't have had without NFLST. Obviously I don't know the true numbers, but Directv's bean counters do. If they didn't make a profit from having NFLST they wouldn't keep bidding on it. You can argue the rest of the subscribers are the ones who really end up footing that $500 million bill, but why would Directv want them to do that, when by not having NFLST they could charge those subscribers the same amount and simply make more money?


Don't agree.

Damon


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> You are leaving out the bars/restaurants, which pay far more. That adds a few hundred million more. The other subscribers don't have to foot the remaining cost, it is covered by the extra subscribers that Directv only has due to NFLST. A lot of the bars/restaurants fall into that category - they wouldn't have Directv if it wasn't for NFLST.
> 
> Let's make up some numbers for an example. Let's say they pay $1.5 billion a year and earn $1 billion a year from NFLST subscriptions. That means they have to cover $500 million elsewhere. If they earn $1 billion in profit off subscribers (both residential and commercial) who have Directv only because of NFLST, that covers the $500 million and earns them $500 million more than they wouldn't have had without NFLST. Obviously I don't know the true numbers, but Directv's bean counters do. If they didn't make a profit from having NFLST they wouldn't keep bidding on it. You can argue the rest of the subscribers are the ones who really end up footing that $500 million bill, but why would Directv want them to do that, when by not having NFLST they could charge those subscribers the same amount and simply make more money?


I'm sure NFLST isn't a pure money maker for them. There is definitely some amount of cost attributed to marketing that they "make up" for by just generally having more subscribers overall, which technically means "all" subs are paying, even if it's just a few pennies a month, some of NFLST's cost. That's why they give it away free to new subs, or if you call in and complain, or otherwise just hand it out free so much. I'm actually surprised the NFL lets them give it away free, since it devalues the product in the mind of the end consumer.


----------



## Fish_Stick (Apr 8, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> You are leaving out the bars/restaurants, which pay far more. That adds a few hundred million more. The other subscribers don't have to foot the remaining cost, it is covered by the extra subscribers that Directv only has due to NFLST. A lot of the bars/restaurants fall into that category - they wouldn't have Directv if it wasn't for NFLST.
> 
> Let's make up some numbers for an example. Let's say they pay $1.5 billion a year and earn $1 billion a year from NFLST subscriptions. That means they have to cover $500 million elsewhere. If they earn $1 billion in profit off subscribers (both residential and commercial) who have Directv only because of NFLST, that covers the $500 million and earns them $500 million more than they wouldn't have had without NFLST. Obviously I don't know the true numbers, but Directv's bean counters do. If they didn't make a profit from having NFLST they wouldn't keep bidding on it. You can argue the rest of the subscribers are the ones who really end up footing that $500 million bill, but why would Directv want them to do that, when by not having NFLST they could charge those subscribers the same amount and simply make more money?


My bad on that one, I missed a set of zeroes on one of my calcs. What can I say, never will see that much money so a million to billion...
Yeah, once I corrected my figures it adds up to a pretty hefty chunk they still make off of it, but the big thing is how much ST went up during the most recent negotiations which probably means a competitor was showing interest or NFL realizes how much money they can milk out of DTV.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

There are many revenue streams for DIRECTV, now AT&T, in the NFL Sunday Ticket economy. Don't forget ad sales for instance. And all the NFL Sunday Ticket gear worn at every game... 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Fish_Stick said:


> the big thing is how much ST went up during the most recent negotiations which probably means a competitor was showing interest or NFL realizes how much money they can milk out of DTV.


Every time sports rights are renegotiated prices go up. That will continue until the providers start seeing subscribers leave due to the cost. Since they peak in subscriber numbers in 2011 that process has already started, but it is only off a few percent so it isn't hurting yet. When you start reading about Comcast or Dish or Directv losing 5-10% of their subscribers in a single year, that's when you'll start reading about contracts being signed for LESS money than they were before, or some changes in the way sports are distributed (splitting things out like NFLST, MLBEI etc. do, or breaking ESPN channels out of the main packages)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> There were two recognized reasons:
> 
> 1. AT&T wanted to buy something that had a proven 20% profit margin.
> 2. AT&T wanted access to NFL ST.
> ...


3. AT&T wanted a lot more subscribers to increase their negotiating leverage with providers
4. AT&T wanted a video product to bundle with phone and fixed wireless internet when they start a big expansion of that offering in rural areas as those towers are upgraded to LTE.

If AT&T wanted access to NFLST, it would have been a lot cheaper to outbid Directv than to buy them


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

A few of my thoughts on this "acquisition:"

While I'll gladly accept any _real_ improvements to the interface or operating system, all I can say is they ("AT&T") better not *mess it up* in any significant negative fashion, or try to stick us D* customers with major price increases too soon. I don't really care one way or the other about logos, graphics, etc...

At any rate (the way I figure it) my "contract" was "signed" with DirecTV(R) and *not* "AT&T" when I activated the latest receiver on my account earlier this month. Therefore it makes sense to me (if I'm reading correctly) they aren't really planning anything too "wild" SW/FW/HW-wise to take place within the next 24 months, at least not to us D* customers.

I can't speak to programming, however. I can only hope we might still get a few more HD channels without any decrease in PQ.

I'm not too "afraid" of ETF should I decide to leave, but at the moment, there's no better available here anyway. The future will be different, either way. We've got "gigabit fiber to the house" expected within 2 years (already available nearby). I've heard great things about it, and will be happy to "weigh my options" at that time.

Let's all hope is for the better...


----------



## ep1974 (May 22, 2010)

zimm7778 said:


> What worries me is programming. They say they will run two separate companies but others have too and before long, they start merging everything to one. We have relatives with Uverse and when I've seen it I'm not impressed. No Extra Innings, no Center Ice, no NHL Network, as a local TV provider they don't even offer the local subchannels there. I'd this going to be the type of programming decisions going forward for Directv eventually also? That's my biggest concern.


Back to future HD additions. From an earlier post, is Esquire HD coming soon in and when?? Any other channels in test??


----------



## Skyboss (Jan 22, 2004)

codespy said:


> They also dropped the DirecTV logo on some channels....specifically when I checked for my Brewers game on 668-1 (about 2 hours before pregame), It just says DIRECTV in the center of the screen (all capital letters), no longer showing the logo like we see still exists in the channel banner.





dpeters11 said:


> They moved fast in one area, the screensaver on my DVR has already been updated.


Its a new logo. It has a blue reflective hue below "DirecTV".


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> The bigger question is who has the rights to the games?


Just like the other major sports (NBA, NHL, MLB, NASCAR) the NFL retains rights to all the games.



Fish_Stick said:


> Even at the top price of $354, that's a loss of 438 million to 792 million per year.


Sports bars are paying much more that that for permission to display the games. Residential subscriptions are just part of the money DirecTV makes from having NFL ST.



damondlt said:


> Yes , but it's also about having an option to get it cheaper with competition.


That is their desire ... but not an outcome to be expected. It would be as if you and I sued each other for a billion dollars. Neither of us is going to win that level of settlement because neither of us have a billion dollar net worth.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

James Long said:


> ..................Sports bars are paying much more that that for permission to display the games. Residential subscriptions are just part of the money DirecTV makes from having NFL ST.................


That is a fact......and it is not a flat rate across the board. DirecTV requests detailed occupancy numbers/limits from commercial accounts in my areas when I do building/occupancy inspections. I always have to provide the business with an "max occupancy limit" written on the occupancy permit when they sign up for DirecTV. The higher the number allowed in a bar/restaurant, etc., the more they have to pay....according to the establishments.

Just a thought....I've been inspecting since 2001, and have never run across a DishNetwork install at a commercial occupancy (bar/restaurant/etc.) to date in my areas. It is always DirecTV, or once/twice a year it may be a CATV install.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> A few of my thoughts on this "acquisition:"
> 
> While I'll gladly accept any _real_ improvements to the interface or operating system, all I can say is they ("AT&T") better not *mess it up* in any significant negative fashion, or try to stick us D* customers with major price increases too soon. I don't really care one way or the other about logos, graphics, etc...
> 
> ...


Actually I expect a new gui within a year.


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

damondlt said:


> DIRECTV having excluse rights to NFL ST, would be like
> *ATT paying Apple to be exclusive to only ATT.*


Damon,

Didn't that happen with AT&T and Apple in the past? When the iPhone initially launched in the US, AT&T was the "exclusive" carrier for I believe 5 years? I'm pretty sure AT&T and Apple exchanged $$ as part of that deal.
Granted it is in the past now.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I fairly confident it did , And notice it is no longer the case.

Damon


----------



## mexican-bum (Feb 26, 2006)

damondlt said:


> I fairly confident it did , And notice it is no longer the case.
> 
> Damon


In the US the iPhone was an AT&T exclusive all the way up to the iphone 4. Apple probably partially agreed to this as to save cost by just building one device for the whole world, when they launched the iPhone 4 it was a totally separate version for Verizon due to their CDMA network. Now they just include CDMA in all of them, even though most of the world doesn't use it.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Why in the world would the NFL make an exclusive deal with Directv if they could make more money to selling it to everyone?


For the same reason that most manufacturers don't sell direct to end users or even retail outlets.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

damondlt said:


> I fairly confident it did , And notice it is no longer the case.


So because the deal between Apple and AT&T ended, which was in their best interests at the time they made it but was no longer in their best interests a few years later, you conclude that the deal between the NFL and Directv must no longer be in their best interests? The cellular market and the TV market are completely different. You're arguing a logical fallacy, and still expecting us to believe that the NFL is being run by people who don't know their own business and are losing money by making NFLST an exclusive.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Actually I expect a new gui within a year.


The statement was that the transition would be a gradual migration of both platforms to an all new and different platform. That wording would seem to speak to more piecemeal changes over time as opposed to a splashy introduction. I would anticipate that an HTML GUI would emulate the existing GUI and go from there.

It either case, it absolutely calls into question the value of RVU.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> For the same reason that most manufacturers don't sell direct to end users or even retail outlets.


Neither does ESPN or AMC. Only a fool would suggest the only alternative to an exclusive deal with Directv is to sell to individuals. Networks like ESPN sell to all cable/satellite providers willing to pay their asking price, which is what the NFL would do if they could make more money that way.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> The statement was that the transition would be a gradual migration of both platforms to an all new and different platform. That wording would seem to speak to more piecemeal changes over time as opposed to a splashy introduction. I would anticipate that an HTML GUI would emulate the existing GUI and go from there.
> 
> It either case, it absolutely calls into question the value of RVU.


In what possible way does an HTML GUI call in question the value of RVU? The point of RVU is to allow devices without tuners to display programming. It doesn't matter how the GUI is implemented.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Thinking this transition means anything one way or another for RVU is just making stuff up. A receiver running an HTML 5 based (or Flash based or custom written C++ or COBOL for that matter) can send a remote UI just as easily as a current DirecTV receiver running whatever they use.

Personally, I would expect a new platform to emerge, with a new UI (not emulating the current UI), that is compatible with both U-Verse and DirecTV distribution methods. It'll roll out slowly, and the old platforms will still work (meaning they won't have to swap everyone out). If I were a betting man I'd say it would run on current DirecTV hardware (at least, the newest DirecTV hardware like the Genies and newer) to prevent as many box swaps as possible. Of course, a new hardware platform is probably on the horizon given BSS, 4K, and AT&T's wish to integrate LTE connectivity into the boxes.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JosephB said:


> and AT&T's wish to integrate LTE connectivity into the boxes.


Where do you get this idea? Building LTE in every box is going to waste money and wouldn't work well (i.e. if you don't have LTE reception in the basement) You'd build the equivalent of a wireless CCK that does LTE, or better yet put an antenna on the dish and use DECA to get it inside using the same coax.

Or, as I've suggested before, include demodulators in the LNB and have all dish to receiver communication use DECA; no more SWM. By the time they have the common equipment in 24-36 months this would probably be the cheapest delivery method. No tuners are required for Uverse STBs, this way no tuners would be required in Directv STBs.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> So because the deal between Apple and AT&T ended, which was in their best interests at the time they made it but was no longer in their best interests a few years later, you conclude that the deal between the NFL and Directv must no longer be in their best interests? The cellular market and the TV market are completely different. You're arguing a logical fallacy, and still expecting us to believe that the NFL is being run by people who don't know their own business and are losing money by making NFLST an exclusive.


And you think you know everything just because you post it. So we'll leave it at that.

Damon


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Where do you get this idea? Building LTE in every box is going to waste money and wouldn't work well (i.e. if you don't have LTE reception in the basement) You'd build the equivalent of a wireless CCK that does LTE, or better yet put an antenna on the dish and use DECA to get it inside using the same coax.
> 
> Or, as I've suggested before, include demodulators in the LNB and have all dish to receiver communication use DECA; no more SWM. By the time they have the common equipment in 24-36 months this would probably be the cheapest delivery method. No tuners are required for Uverse STBs, this way no tuners would be required in Directv STBs.


Whether it's in the box or in some receiver on the network is not that important. Either way their goal is to have two-way connectivity on every single set top for every single customer, regardless of how it's physically implemented.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Whether it's in the box or in some receiver on the network is not that important. Either way their goal is to have two-way connectivity on every single set top for every single customer, regardless of how it's physically implemented.


I agree, I just think it is unlikely they'd add LTE to their STBs.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

damondlt said:


> And you think you know everything just because you post it. So we'll leave it at that.


And you think you know more about business than the people running the NFL. So we'll leave it at that.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

inkahauts said:


> Actually I expect a new gui within a year.


I'm ok with this, as long as it doesn't make things any _worse_ than D* already has since messing it up before the HDGUI rollout. I'm not sure if you're referring to a whole or part difference in the way the UI "behaves," or just minor cosmetic changes. I'd fully expect the cosmetic (completely replacing the "cyclone" logo, for example).


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> I'm ok with this, as long as it doesn't make things any _worse_ than D* already has since messing it up before the HDGUI rollout. I'm not sure if you're referring to a whole or part difference in the way the UI "behaves," or just minor cosmetic changes. I'd fully expect the cosmetic (completely replacing the "cyclone" logo, for example).


I expect a move to html 5 assuming they decide that it is something they can run on some or all of atts hardware as well. I expect it to be similar, although I think they will add a bit to it, maybe a few different ways to alter the guide look, like more hours. Better options for sorting searching your playlist... It's time they do this, no matter how much they want to believe in focus groups.

It was said they had been working in it a year ago or so. I think they probably have kind of sat back on it because they wanted to wait till after the merger to make sure it'd fit seemlessly with both companies machines. No need to roll out multiple GUIs soon if needed. Plus then it can be branded as a new guy for the combined company, and not rebranded latter after its installed.

And if anything, in disagreement with someone else, I think RVU will now be more important than ever... Because it could help att meet the cable companies requirements for all vid or whatever it's called these days.... I have wondered how that will play into all this, since I believe DIRECTV doesn't have the same requirements as uverse does for that whole ridiculousness...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> And if anything, in disagreement with someone else, I think RVU will now be more important than ever... Because it could help att meet the cable companies requirements for all vid or whatever it's called these days.... I have wondered how that will play into all this, since I believe DIRECTV doesn't have the same requirements as uverse does for that whole ridiculousness...


If you look at the FCC's approval order, they mention in places that any regulations AT&T is subject to as a common carrier, Directv is also now subject to as a wholly owned subsidiary. So any AllVid type regulations that the FCC imposes on cable companies will apply to Directv as well.

RVU probably won't meet those requirements as it stands today, but it is built from all the right building blocks so it would be simple to make the necessary changes to bring it into compliance with whatever the FCC orders.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

damondlt said:


> I fairly confident it did , And notice it is no longer the case.
> 
> Damon


It would still be the case if Apple decided they would make more money that way. However Apple knew that they would get more money out of the other carriers offering the phone. When the iPhone started it was a big gamble on ATT. The debate on how good it turned out to be is very opinionated but from a money aspect it was a good one.

With that said comparing the two aren't the same at all. If ATT was going to change the NFLST portion it wouldn't have been a clause in the merger for them to be able to back out if DIRECTV lost it.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Shades228 said:


> It would still be the case if Apple decided they would make more money that way. However Apple knew that they would get more money out of the other carriers offering the phone. When the iPhone started it was a big gamble on ATT. The debate on how good it turned out to be is very opinionated but from a money aspect it was a good one.


Apple needed an exclusive partner at first for two reasons. It was the first phone where the carrier had zero control over the software, and made real use of data so Apple insisted it include unlimited data. They also needed AT&T to commit to building the carrier-side infrastructure for visual voicemail. The only way AT&T would agree to those conditions was if they got an exclusive. For AT&T there was no downside risk if the iPhone was a flop, and the potential for a lot of upside if it was popular and drove customers to them to get it, which as it turned out was the case. It wasn't just AT&T, Apple had similar exclusive deals in multiple countries at first for similar reasons.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Apple needed an exclusive partner at first for two reasons. It was the first phone where the carrier had zero control over the software, and made real use of data so Apple insisted it include unlimited data. They also needed AT&T to commit to building the carrier-side infrastructure for visual voicemail. The only way AT&T would agree to those conditions was if they got an exclusive. For AT&T there was no downside risk if the iPhone was a flop, and the potential for a lot of upside if it was popular and drove customers to them to get it, which as it turned out was the case. It wasn't just AT&T, Apple had similar exclusive deals in multiple countries at first for similar reasons.


cingular just before the merger gave in to apple demands verizon did not like apples terms. Now outside the USA the laws did not really let apple lock it down to one carrier. Also there where people even with out iphones who wanted to unlock phones just to get out high roaming fees / let them put in a local sim / pre paid sim.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

There is a big difference for apple vs DIRECTV. Apple new in the long run they could go to everyone after their system was formidable and other carriers would bend to their will. Also they don't mess with price. They don't compete with anyone on price for their phones. They mark then where they want. 

Nfl goes away from exclusive they lose all that stuff Apple didn't need to worry about because they still controlled it. And nfl wouldn't be able to control price. Heck they can't even control it with DIRECTV!

And don't forget no matter what we suggest the broadcasters won't go for st being available to all carriers. They just won't do it. They are stuck in the past that way so it's not happening anytime soon.


----------



## PA GIANTS FAN (Mar 28, 2009)

This is just how i see the merger going !


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlawibQ_QKI&index=3&list=PLZbXA4lyCtqqs0VS5t-L6kECvlbR8Tim2


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> In what possible way does an HTML GUI call in question the value of RVU? The point of RVU is to allow devices without tuners to display programming. It doesn't matter how the GUI is implemented.


RVU describes sending server-generated bitmaps to the client. HTML can allow clients to generate their own displays based on collected data.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

JosephB said:


> Whether it's in the box or in some receiver on the network is not that important.


With each network connected box, the network load increases. This is a bigger issue with RF protocols like DECA where everything is broadcast as there can be only one active broadcast at any instant.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> And nfl wouldn't be able to control price. Heck they can't even control it with DIRECTV!


If they didn't want Directv giving away NFLST as a freebie they could put it in the contract that this is not allowed. If they did that, Directv would offer less for it, because they couldn't use it as a teaser to help bring in new subscribers.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

harsh said:


> With each network connected box, the network load increases. This is a bigger issue with RF protocols like DECA where everything is broadcast as there can be only one active broadcast at any instant.


What if AT&T replaced RVU with an APP and let the user use the TV's. PC's or Game Console guide? The APP would also look like the HTML 5 guide?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> With each network connected box, the network load increases. This is a bigger issue with RF protocols like DECA where everything is broadcast as there can be only one active broadcast at any instant.


Only you see RVU as a problem. No one else does because it isn't.


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Some NFL ST thoughts:
> 
> The bigger question is who has the rights to the games? Can the NFL sell a branded collection of the product because all the teams agree to such? If the NFL can collectively bargain with players, why can't they collectively market and bargain their product itself


There are specific labor relations exemptions to the anti-trust laws. That is why at 1 time the NFLPA's biggest threat in negotiations was to disband the union.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> What if AT&T replaced RVU with an APP and let the user use the TV's. PC's or Game Console guide? The APP would also look like the HTML 5 guide?


They wouldn't want to maintain an app on all the different TV brands, for PC/Mac, for two kinds of game console, and so forth. That's a lot of work to maintain all that; there are no common standards for those devices so it isn't like building an Android and iOS app and that's it.

Better to hope that Vidipath is made a standard for cable and just use that. Vidipath is built from the same software components as RVU, it just has extra options - i.e. it can serve a "remote UI" so you get the same UI on all devices, or the device can generate its own UI (like Tivo would do) and just receive streams. Hopefully that's the direction things move, I think the FCC is supposed to make an initial decision in September with the requirements.


----------



## Oli74 (Nov 19, 2014)

Don't know if all have seen this yet the new screen saver

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Oli74 said:


> Don't know if all have seen this yet the new screen saver
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Still seeing the old one here.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

loudo said:


> Still seeing the old one here.


What is the model of your receiver?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Oli74 said:


> Don't know if all have seen this yet the new screen saver
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeap, been there since sometime Monday. The boot up screen has also change


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

peds48 said:


> What is the model of your receiver?


Forget my last, it is there today. The other night while in pause it was still the old one. HR44-200.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

peds48 said:


> Wonder how they accomplished that. don't recall seeing any new software update


Maybe it is part of the mystery logo downloads that just seem to update.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Strange that they haven't put the AT&T logo next to DTV's on the guide yet. Didn't AT&T they really want to let DTV customers know that DTV is part of the AT&T family anyway they can?


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

CraigerM said:


> Also this may be a dumb question but with DTV now part of the AT&T we will be able to bundle any Internet speed now? I think before you could just bundle up to 6 MBPS right? I wonder when they will let DTV's customers know that they can merge their bills into one?


If you haven't already seen this it may help in understanding a little about the merger and answer some of your questions. 
https://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4259


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

loudo said:


> If you haven't already seen this it may help in understanding a little about the merger and answer some of your questions.
> https://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4259


Thanks, I forgot about what was in those merger FAQ's. That's why edited my previous post.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

New bundle announced this morning.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/t-introduces-first-ever-nationwide-040900450.html


----------



## Oli74 (Nov 19, 2014)

jimmie57 said:


> New bundle announced this morning.
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/t-introduces-first-ever-nationwide-040900450.html


Only 10GB Share data? That's it? I my self use about 10 a month

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

It's not a bad price, But what Directv package is it, and I would still need to add Home internet for $67 a month since I don't live in Att territory.

Okay, nevermind it's the Directv select pack.

Wow what a deal.

Damon


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Sounds like it is for new customers only, with discounts for the first year. Didn't notice anything for existing customers that have both services. Maybe it will come down the road.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Oli74 said:


> Only 10GB Share data? That's it? I my self use about 10 a month


Just like with the TV part which has a Genie and four rooms total it is designed for the average/typical user, not outlier families who have 8 TVs or who use a couple dozen GB per month.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

I would want to know about the mobile wireless pricing for DirecTV customers. (I won't be getting AT&T U-verse for Internet.)

Side question: Can anyone recommend any good phone apps which will give accurate speed reports, from one’s specific area, by all mobile carriers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

I would want to know about the mobile wireless pricing for DirecTV customers. (I won't be getting AT&T U-verse for Internet.)

Side question: Can anyone recommend any good phone apps which will give accurate speed reports, from one’s specific area, by all mobile carriers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

I would want to know about the mobile wireless pricing for DirecTV customers. (I won't be getting AT&T U-verse for Internet.)

Side question: Can anyone recommend any good phone apps which will give accurate speed reports, from one’s specific area, by all mobile carriers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fish_Stick (Apr 8, 2015)

APB101 said:


> I would want to know about the mobile wireless pricing for DirecTV customers. (I won't be getting AT&T U-verse for Internet.)
> 
> Side question: Can anyone recommend any good phone apps which will give accurate speed reports, from one's specific area, by all mobile carriers?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's hit and miss since it's user submitted but try Root Metrics.


----------



## Incompetent (Mar 26, 2008)

Cyclone going away, also I have heard that lots of the installer network is going away once ATT trains its techs. Anyone have info on that?


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

APB101 said:


> I would want to know about the mobile wireless pricing for DirecTV customers. (I won't be getting AT&T U-verse for Internet.)
> 
> Side question: Can anyone recommend any good phone apps which will give accurate speed reports, from one's specific area, by all mobile carriers?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Because of the frequency that AT&T wireless uses, I cannot get a signal in my house. The only carriers that I can use are Sprint and Verizon. If I go outside, I can get four bars with AT&T, but only Sprint and Verizon use a frequency that will penetrate the walls of my house.


----------



## Oli74 (Nov 19, 2014)

For Internet and home phone I have TWC and wireless I have Sprint. I don't know yet if if I will bundle with ATT and ATT Wireless. I will wait for about 6 months and look at the reviews 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

fleckrj said:


> Because of the frequency that AT&T wireless uses, I cannot get a signal in my house. The only carriers that I can use are Sprint and Verizon. If I go outside, I can get four bars with AT&T, but only Sprint and Verizon use a frequency that will penetrate the walls of my house.


My daughter had that problem with her ATT phones also. She went to the store and complained. They gave her a device that hooks up in the house and it boosted her signals . She now has a strong signal in the house and does not drop calls anymore.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Incompetent said:


> Cyclone going away, also I have heard that lots of the installer network is going away once ATT trains its techs. Anyone have info on that?


They have installers to handle their Uverse areas today, and the installers who handle Directv. It still takes the same amount of time to install each as it did before the merger. They can save some time by having one installer do both Directv and Uverse internet in a single visit when one customer is getting both, which allows them to cut back some but isn't likely to be a huge savings. Just the normal attrition of Directv installers leaving while the Uverse guys are trained may take care of it. If they do have to cut back on Directv installers most likely they'd cut the contractors, since that doesn't cost them anything while laying off the Directv employed installers would.

Outside the Uverse areas they'll need exactly as many Directv installers as before, and eventually more when they start getting LTE to the rural areas and offered fixed wireless broadband and there's more work to do installing that.

Of course they could decide they want their installers to all be employees, and get rid of all the contractors at some point, but if they did that they'd probably end up hiring a bunch of them on as full time employees.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Incompetent said:


> Cyclone going away, also I have heard that lots of the installer network is going away once ATT trains its techs. Anyone have info on that?


AT&T only has landline service in 22 states, and even in those states it's not the entire area. DirecTV is rare among TV and internet and other in-home providers in that they have a 100% geographic coverage.

Where there is overlap, yeah, eventually the two networks of installers will merge. Will that mean they're entirely U-Verse installers or old DirecTV installers? Who knows, probably a mix of both. Biggest danger is if you are a contractor in those areas. If they keep DirecTV installers, direct employees will probably have priority (of course this is all speculation, I have zero knowledge nor have they made any statements or hints)

Where AT&T doesn't offer U-Verse or any other landline service, then it probably won't change that much, other than maybe they'd go all in-house, but in that case the contractors would likely get hired up by AT&T. As a matter of fact AT&T is going to roll out LTE based home internet outside of their 22-state wireline footprint, so there is likely to be an increase in the need for installers, not less.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> If they do have to cut back on Directv installers most likely they'd cut the contractors, since that doesn't cost them anything while laying off the Directv employed installers would.


Most companies would disagree with you on that front. It seems as thus most HSPs love contractors since they don't have all the overhead W-2 employees have.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Most companies would disagree with you on that front. It seems as thus most HSPs love contractors since they don't have all the overhead W-2 employees have.


The employees would be the first to go for sure.

It cost far more for an employee then a sub contractor.

Damon


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

damondlt said:


> The employees would be the first to go for sure.
> 
> It cost far more for an employee then a sub contractor.


If that's the case, why didn't AT&T dump the Uverse installer employees years ago and just use contractors? Contractors are cheaper if you have to hire/fire often due to changing demand, but the much higher rate of contractor turnover adds cost in terms of poor installs, lost consumers, etc.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> If that's the case, why didn't AT&T dump the Uverse installer employees years ago and just use contractors? Contractors are cheaper if you have to hire/fire often due to changing demand, but the much higher rate of contractor turnover adds cost in terms of poor installs, lost consumers, etc.


they have to keep a few employees to clean up the mess left by subs. Most jobs by Directv in certain markets are done by subs. NYC is one of those markets. It will be ridiculous expensive to have employees in NYC.

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

peds48 said:


> Most companies would disagree with you on that front. It seems as thus most HSPs love contractors since they don't have all the overhead W-2 employees have.


But the courts say you can control them like employees. So it can be better to make them all W2.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> If that's the case, why didn't AT&T dump the Uverse installer employees years ago and just use contractors? Contractors are cheaper if you have to hire/fire often due to changing demand, but the much higher rate of contractor turnover adds cost in terms of poor installs, lost consumers, etc.


I know in a couple of states, at least, there are union issues and politicians who need the unions votes who won't let AT&T and other similar companies dump employees for contractors.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> If that's the case, why didn't AT&T dump the Uverse installer employees years ago and just use contractors?....


Two words: Union contracts


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

JoeTheDragon said:


> But the courts say you can control them like employees. So it can be better to make them all W2.


just because you can control them like employees it does not necessarily means that you get all the baggage that comes with employees.

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

There are philosophies either way. For example Charter has been drastically reducing its contractor count and going in-house with both their call centers and their installers, and they are a non-union company.

AT&T has the added complication of union contracts, but that is probably not the only thing they consider. I would expect the trend to be towards in-house employees for the combined AT&T/DirecTV, that's just the way they've operated for a long time.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

peds48 said:


> just because you can control them like employees it does not necessarily means that you get all the baggage that comes with employees.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


Read some of the court cases filed against Uber by various states, cities and the Department of Labor...the term "contractor" is being redefined. The government is taking the position that if you control how a "contractor" gets business, how they service that business, and what the standards of operation are, then you don't have a contractor, you have an employee (and incur all the costs and responsibilities of being the individual's employer).


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

JosephB said:


> .
> 
> AT&T has the added complication of union contracts, but that is probably not the only thing they consider. I would expect the trend to be towards in-house employees for the combined AT&T/DirecTV, that's just the way they've operated for a long time.


Keep in mind that ATT has decided to keep the HSP network (for now at least) and what the HSP does, ATT has no say, as long as the HSP meet ATT metrics. Some HSPs have recently increased their (sub)contractor count.


----------



## Soccernut (Jan 20, 2004)

jimmie57 said:


> My daughter had that problem with her ATT phones also. She went to the store and complained. They gave her a device that hooks up in the house and it boosted her signals . She now has a strong signal in the house and does not drop calls anymore.


The device is called Microcell, the latest model is about 4x4 inches and gets connected to your internet router so calls go thru the internet. Before installing it the best signal I had in the house was 2 bars in a sweet spot, now its 5 bars in the whole house. Don't ask me how it works, it just does.


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

I will tell you how it works it is called voice over Internet Protocol


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Soccernut said:


> The device is called Microcell, the latest model is about 4x4 inches and gets connected to your internet router so calls go thru the internet. Before installing it the best signal I had in the house was 2 bars in a sweet spot, now its 5 bars in the whole house. Don't ask me how it works, it just does.


T-Mobile fixed this a long time ago by enabling WiFi calling! I heard ATT is getting on that bandwagon pretty soon.


----------



## Oli74 (Nov 19, 2014)

peds48 said:


> T-Mobile fixed this a long time ago by enabling WiFi calling! I heard ATT is getting on that bandwagon pretty soon.


I have WiFi calling with Sprint and ATT will be getting it with the new IOS 9 coming out next month

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

I also have a AT&T Microcell. I always had bad reception-missed calls with AT&T, Sprint and Verizon. The Microcell has been great with 5 bars everywhere in the house. They gave it to me for free after looking at their maps and seeing that I am in-between towers and how many other Microcells are used in the neighborhood.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Oli74 said:


> I have WiFi calling with Sprint and ATT will be getting it with the new IOS 9 coming out next month
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


WiFi calling is the shoot! No more not being able to make calls in rural places. Use someone else's WiFi or a public hotspot! Basically I have signal everywhere....


----------



## lacubs (Sep 12, 2010)

rumors says AT&T has decided to retire the DIRECTV Cyclone Logo.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

lacubs said:


> rumors says AT&T has decided to retire the DIRECTV Cyclone Logo.


It's more than a rumor. That is what they've told their marketing partners. The current new logo is replacing the cyclone everywhere.

What is uncertain is if this is an interim logo? Will businesses who've used the cyclone on their signs in the past have yet a different logo fairly soon?

Peace,
Tom


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> It's more than a rumor. That is what they've told their marketing partners. The current new logo is replacing the cyclone everywhere.
> 
> What is uncertain is if this is an interim logo? Will businesses who've used the cyclone on their signs in the past have yet a different logo fairly soon?
> 
> ...


Obviously, long-term the logo will be the AT&T globe. Whether or not the DirecTV name will be attached to it is still not clear, but whether the TV product is called DirecTV, U-Verse, or something else it will be a secondary product name attached to the AT&T name and globe.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

According to West99999 he said its just going to be called AT&T and nothing after it. Do you really need a secondary name? For example Charter has Spectrum after their name but does a person say they have Charter Spectrum or just they just have Charter?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> According to West99999 he said its just going to be called AT&T and nothing after it. Do you really need a secondary name? For example Charter has Spectrum after their name but does a person say they have Charter Spectrum or just they just have Charter?


It is easier to assume Spectrum when someone says Charter. When someone says they have AT&T the first question that comes to my mind is "you have AT&T what?". There are too many products sharing the AT&T brand to assume that it is any one of them unless the context is absolutely clear (such as if I said I have Verizon Wireless and you said you had AT&T I could assume you meant ATTWS).

The qualifier is more important with AT&T where the brand covers multiple services. I do not believe the service will ever be just "AT&T".


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

CraigerM said:


> According to West99999 he said its just going to be called AT&T and nothing after it. Do you really need a secondary name? For example Charter has Spectrum after their name but does a person say they have Charter Spectrum or just they just have Charter?


The cable companies came up with "sub brands" like Spectrum and Xfinity to try to distance themselves from their old services and differentiate their all digital and higher tier products. I don't think AT&T will go down that road, they seem pretty proud of their main brand, but of course there will have to be *some* name for their video product. Whether it's just "AT&T video" or "AT&T DirecTV" there will be some kind of sub-brand or product name besides just "AT&T"


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Hope I am not repeating myself since this is a new thread but do you think it also come down to AT&T wanting the names to flow well together? Would AT&T DirecTV, AT&T UVerse Internet and AT&T UVerse Phone work well together instead of UVerseTV , UVerse Internet and UVerse Phone? Unless they use something like AT&T UVerseTV Satellite TV? Or maybe they would come up with an all new name?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

CraigerM said:


> Hope I am not repeating myself since this is a new thread but do you think it also come down to AT&T wanting the names to flow well together? Would AT&T DirecTV, AT&T UVerse Internet and AT&T UVerse Phone work well together instead of UVerseTV , UVerse Internet and UVerse Phone? Unless they use something like AT&T UVerseTV Satellite TV? Or maybe they would come up with an all new name?


There will not be a distinction between DSL-delivered TV and satellite TV. They will share the same product, brand name, and pricing structure.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Tom Robertson said:


> [SNIP]
> 
> What is uncertain is if this is an interim logo? Will businesses who've used the cyclone on their signs in the past have yet a different logo fairly soon?
> 
> ...


I expect to see 'DIRECTV' text with the AT&T 'Globe' on the same logo rather quickly.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Drucifer said:


> I expect to see 'DIRECTV' text with the AT&T 'Globe' on the same logo rather quickly.


DIRECTV is a powerful brand, so AT&T would likely be wise to continue it in some fashion. Your expectation could work, methinks.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

It makes sense just having one logo for uniformity. AT&T's logo is just as recognizable than DTVs and that could be why they don't need DTV's anymore. Unless it would have made since having the AT&T globe inside the DTV logo? I wonder what it will be like on DTV's guide? Will it just have the AT&T Globe and the DirecTV name underneath it? Or will it have the AT&T Globe with both AT&T and DirecTV names underneath it?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

CraigerM said:


> It makes sense just having one logo for uniformity. AT&T's logo is just as recognizable than DTVs and that could be why they don't need DTV's anymore. Unless it would have made since having the AT&T globe inside the DTV logo? I wonder what it will be like on DTV's guide? Will it just have the AT&T Globe and the DirecTV name underneath it? Or will it have the AT&T Globe with both AT&T and DirecTV names underneath it?


I think you're getting bogged down in too small of a detail. AT&T is planning on a major overhaul of the entire way DirecTV and U-Verse work, the hardware they use, and the software running on the set top boxes. The way the logo looks is going to be the most minor change among what is going to happen.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

JosephB said:


> I think you're getting bogged down in too small of a detail. AT&T is planning on a major overhaul of the entire way DirecTV and U-Verse work, the hardware they use, and the software running on the set top boxes. The way the logo looks is going to be the most minor change among what is going to happen.


Logos are not a small detail... 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Oli74 (Nov 19, 2014)

A little light reading

http://www.lightreading.com/video/multi-screen-video/atandt-has-its-mobile-video-moment/d/d-id/717607?_mc=RSS_LR_EDT#590558

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

Perhaps the AT&T U-verse/DirecTV final product could be rebranded as … AT&T TV.

This could go well with AT&T Mobile, AT&T Phone, and AT&T Internet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> Logos are not a small detail...
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


In the grand scheme of things, it will be. The changes are going to be so drastic you won't be talking about how the logo fits into the guide.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

APB101 said:


> Perhaps the AT&T U-verse/DirecTV final product could be rebranded as &#8230; AT&T TV.
> This could go well with AT&T Mobile, AT&T Phone, and AT&T Internet.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No, DirecAT&Tv


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

TheRatPatrol said:


> No, DirecAT&Tv


Now, that r-o-l-l-s off the tongue!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

JosephB said:


> In the grand scheme of things, it will be. The changes are going to be so drastic you won't be talking about how the logo fits into the guide.


Actually, logos are massively important. Brand recognition will be a major point for this entire en devour.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Actually, logos are massively important. Brand recognition will be a major point for this entire en devour.


That is why I question the theory that the AT&T globe would be used next to the word DirecTV without the word AT&T. Mixing the mothership logo with a subcompany brand name without the mothership brand name does not seem right.

AT&T considers the globe and the letters to be the AT&T signature. One item that should not be separated. Using the globe without the letters breaks the signature logo.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> That is why I question the theory that the AT&T globe would be used next to the word DirecTV without the word AT&T. Mixing the mothership logo with a subcompany brand name without the mothership brand name does not seem right.
> 
> AT&T considers the globe and the letters to be the AT&T signature. One item that should not be separated. Using the globe without the letters breaks the signature logo.


Not quite always, they've used it without the AT&T name when used with trademark phrases before:


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

It is hardly a surprise they dropped the Directv logo. While the Directv name is highly recognizable, the logo not so much.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Not quite always, they've used it without the AT&T name when used with trademark phrases before:


I was careful not to use the word "always" ... so please try not to read it where it was not written. 

I have not seen the globe with UVerse without the AT&T letters. But that does not mean that AT&T has never used it on their site or material. I would not expect to see the globe next to DIRECTV without the AT&T letters.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

James Long said:


> AT&T considers the globe and the letters to be the AT&T signature. One item that should not be separated. Using the globe without the letters breaks the signature logo.


I happen to be watching a baseball game broadcast from Globe Life Park in Arlington, Texas right now -- behind the plate is an advertising sign for AT&T that is the globe only.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Don't forget about this logo:
http://backtothepredictions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/IMG_7505.png


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

trainman said:


> I happen to be watching a baseball game broadcast from Globe Life Park in Arlington, Texas right now -- behind the plate is an advertising sign for AT&T that is the globe only.


I see the globe without any wordmark all the time. They are far from "inseparable". However, if *any* wordmark accompanies the globe logo, it will be at minimum AT&T, and then might also include the product name (DirecTV, U-Verse, U-Verse with Gigapower, etc) if space allows.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JosephB said:


> However, if *any* wordmark accompanies the globe logo, it will be at minimum AT&T, and then might also include the product name (DirecTV, U-Verse, U-Verse with Gigapower, etc) if space allows.


And that is the point. Don't expect to see the globe next to DirecTV without the AT&T lettering.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Can AT&T, the Globe and DirecTV all fit into the small corner on the guide and you would be able to see all of them? That makes me think it could just be the Globe and DirecTV in the corner.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Can AT&T, the Globe and DirecTV all fit into the small corner on the guide and you would be able to see all of them? That makes me think it could just be the Globe and DirecTV in the corner.


If they need more room to get the branding they want, they'll reduce the useful space in the guide as necessary. That's always been the way when cable/satellite companies want to add ads to the guide they have no qualms about making it less functional by taking away space from guide information to devote to their own petty needs.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

So far "lose the cyclone" seems to be the big change. I agree with slice that AT&T will find room for the branding they desire ... and whatever cost to the rest of the UI needed. But for now they are keeping the DIRECTV word mark.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

James Long said:


> So far "lose the cyclone" seems to be the big change. I agree with slice that AT&T will find room for the branding they desire ... and whatever cost to the rest of the UI needed. But for now they are keeping the DIRECTV word mark.


Maybe that logo you posted is the temporary way they will have it in the right corner at the top of the guide until they come up with a new one?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There are bigger issues than the logos.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> There are bigger issues than the logos.


I find it fascinating how many people care about the logo. I had to google Directv's old logo when it was mentioned to refresh my memory of what it looked like, it is no loss that it is gone.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I wonder if the thing about the logo is mainly because of how AT&T is going to integrate everything?


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

CraigerM said:


> I wonder if the thing about the logo is mainly because of how AT&T is going to integrate everything?


I think that's part of it. It mainly has to do with what will come of the brand we have known as 'DirecTV.' The logo, for any company, says something about its identity. And this change in the DirecTV logo signals, to some, as 'DirecTV' being no more.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

APB101 said:


> And this change in the DirecTV logo signals, to some, as 'DirecTV' being no more.


That is one of the "bigger issues" to worry about. 

Personally I like the new "wordmark only logo" and I see it as a positive that the DIRECTV wordmark is prominent.
There are a couple of directions the logo can go (without losing DIRECTV) ...














At this point I expect "*AT&T* DIRECTV" to be the next wordmark.

The logo should not affect the service (other than if something else is removed from the UI it make room for the logo). But I can see where people see a logo change as the beginning of the end of DirecTV. When something works people do not want change.


----------



## reubenray (Jun 27, 2002)

James Long said:


> There are bigger issues than the logos.


I just hope this setup does not push me to dish. I have to much $$ invested into Directv for that to happen.

I dropped everything related to AT&T a few years ago and loved it.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

slice1900 said:


> I find it fascinating how many people care about the logo. I had to google Directv's old logo when it was mentioned to refresh my memory of what it looked like, it is no loss that it is gone.


And I had no idea it was a cyclone, if it really is. lol


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Trying to figure out if the AT&T logo will fit in existing space on the current DirecTV software is a fool's errand. AT&T is about to completely overhaul the entire software interface, it will be a total revamp, so they will fit whatever they want wherever they want. 

I think the fact that the DirecTV branding is standing alone, without a logo at all, and just "now part of the AT&T family" stuck in the bottom points towards them dropping the DirecTV brand entirely.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I remember many years ago (actually decades) someone from AT&T showed me the manual for LOGO use - it was a massive book. I'm sure there are teams of artists, lawyers, marketing people etc. working on this or have.Companies with world wide name and logo recognition do not take these items lightly


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

JosephB said:


> Trying to figure out if the AT&T logo will fit in existing space on the current DirecTV software is a fool's errand. AT&T is about to completely overhaul the entire software interface, it will be a total revamp, so they will fit whatever they want wherever they want.
> 
> I think the fact that the DirecTV branding is standing alone, without a logo at all, and just "now part of the AT&T family" stuck in the bottom points towards them dropping the DirecTV brand entirely.


And see I think the opposite. I think it signifies it'll be how they brand all their tv offerings on all platforms.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

With AT&T at their recent analyst meeting now confirming merging the DTV and UVerseTV platforms into one and it being a derivative of the DTV system, also not using the UVerseTV boxes, does that mean they confirmed they aren't going to do a hybrid IPTV and satellite system anymore? Does this now mean it will just be a satellite tuner system in both FTTN and FTTP areas?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> And see I think the opposite. I think it signifies it'll be how they brand all their tv offerings on all platforms.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see what happens.


Maybe, but if they were planning on sticking with DirecTV branding, they would have rolled that out immediately. The interim solution of just removing all logo/branding from DirecTV and having plain text instead of a logo does not bode well for the DirecTV name long term. Maybe they haven't decided, and maybe they have and they could change their minds, but they have had over a year to plan what they were going to do, and they have huge ambitions and are essentially going to re-build the DirecTV and U-Verse services into something that will not really resemble what either one looks like today.



CraigerM said:


> With AT&T at their recent analyst meeting now confirming merging the DTV and UVerseTV platforms into one and it being a derivative of the DTV system, also not using the UVerseTV boxes, does that mean they confirmed they aren't going to do a hybrid IPTV and satellite system anymore? Does this now mean it will just be a satellite tuner system in both FTTN and FTTP areas?


The set top box will be "based on" DirecTV's current platform, but the delivery will be abstracted out of the set-top into a "gateway" that will accept U-Verse broadband (meaning VDSL or Gigapower FTTH), AT&T LTE, 3rd party broadband (such as FiOS or your cable company), and finally a satellite connection. Then, the gateway will acquire the bits in whatever way is best, translate them into a standard "format" and pass them on to the set top via the internal network.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

JosephB said:


> Maybe, but if they were planning on sticking with DirecTV branding, they would have rolled that out immediately. The interim solution of just removing all logo/branding from DirecTV and having plain text instead of a logo does not bode well for the DirecTV name long term. Maybe they haven't decided, and maybe they have and they could change their minds, but they have had over a year to plan what they were going to do, and they have huge ambitions and are essentially going to re-build the DirecTV and U-Verse services into something that will not really resemble what either one looks like today.
> 
> The set top box will be "based on" DirecTV's current platform, but the delivery will be abstracted out of the set-top into a "gateway" that will accept U-Verse broadband (meaning VDSL or Gigapower FTTH), AT&T LTE, 3rd party broadband (such as FiOS or your cable company), and finally a satellite connection. Then, the gateway will acquire the bits in whatever way is best, translate them into a standard "format" and pass them on to the set top via the internal network.


So it will still be DTV Genie's box but AT&T will have to revamp their RG to accept other broadband connections in addition to theirs? In the slide during the power point presentation it looked like an all in one box with AT&T's RG built into it?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

CraigerM said:


> So you think it will be still be two separate units and not an all in box that would have AT&T's RG with the four port router built into it? In the slide during their power point presentation it looked like it was an all in one box.


That image was just an abstract drawing, but I would expect a "home gateway" along the lines of their current U-Verse gateways that can handle multicast video streams, but that adds on a satellite tuner. So, yeah, you'll end up with two devices: the "gateway" (that would also be your router) and your set top box(es)


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

CraigerM said:


> So you think it will be still be two separate units and not an all in box that would have AT&T's RG with the four port router built into it? In the slide during their power point presentation it looked like it was an all in one box.


Part of what you're asking somewhat depends on how AT&T are required to meet the new FCC requirements for IP based, standardized video services. The FCC wants TV providers to serve TV within households via IP technologies, allowing competition and innovation in the hardware and services areas. Much like how VCRs and TVs could be manufactured by anyone, able to connect to any TV source. Cablecard was hoped to provide similar competition--cable companies frustrated the FCC's efforts.

So, to meet the new requirements AT&T, comcast, etc. will likely need split configurations anyway. A gateway and then clients--which in theory will be built into TVs, video recorders, Roku's, etc.

What does that mean for AT&T/DIRECTV? Immediately, perhaps something like a genie that not only can connect via satellite, but also via IP. Who knows, might not be too hard to add in a cable coax tuner. Then the current clients would use the DIRECTV user interface fairly transparently.

Based on the investors/media days, the next step might be closer to the FCC plan--gateway devices that receive TV programming from any source and forwards to clients. Perhaps with limited services like recording. Or recording could be an add-on feature of the gateway.

So this will be an interesting transition for all TV services. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

but that would leave out people who have centuryLink Internet because they don't no longer support outside internet modems anymore


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> but that would leave out people who have centuryLink Internet because they don't no longer support outside internet modems anymore


I have one. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

Tom Robertson said:


> I have one.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


Where I live CenturyLink will not allow outside internet modems anymore that's why they came out and took the one that I had and gave me a CenturyLink One


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> Where I live CenturyLink will not allow outside internet modems anymore that's why they came out and took the one that I had and gave me a CenturyLink One


They did specify it must be compatible to the current standards--not many of them. When they changed to the latest VDSL2 and GPON standards, they had to replace many modems. So I purchased the same modem they sent (cuz they sent one regardless) at Bestbuy. Since that time, a few more models have come out that I think they will let me use. Didn't try.

As for DIRECTV as a gateway in a centurylink system without satellite, I'm sure the gateway will simply use IP where required. So yeah, there would be modem, routers, gateways, clients, oh my. 

And various combinations as needed.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

I don't know if my internet would be fast enough for their system though


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Sorry, I forgot that UVerseTV passes their video from their RG over to their DVR by Ethernet. So would the new system go something like this after the two platforms merge. Since AT&T confirmed they are getting rid of the UVerseTV boxes, AT&T's RG would handle the IPTV connection that would get passed to the DTV Genie box through Ethernet, if a customer didn't want a dish on the roof or couldn't get it through LOS. 

In the FCC filing they said the DTV equipment would be for new customers only but now since they are getting rid of the UVerse boxes, if a customers UVerseTV DVR breaks would now they would get a Genie DVR? Or would they all get replaced by the Genie DVR after the two platforms merge? The Genie box would still have the satellite tuners for satellite customers. Then you would also not need the CCK or wireless video bridge anymore and AT&T's RG would handle all that.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> Where I live CenturyLink will not allow outside internet modems anymore that's why they came out and took the one that I had and gave me a CenturyLink One


When they say it will support "third party broadband" it's highly unlikely that it would replace your modem from CenturyLink (or from Comcast or Charter). I would expect it to be a gateway that has a modem, and if you're a U-Verse internet customer, you'll use the modem functionality, but otherwise it would just serve as a router--just like you might buy a router from Apple or Asus.



CraigerM said:


> Sorry, I forgot that UVerseTV passes their video from their RG over to their DVR by Ethernet. So would the new system go something like this after the two platforms merge. Since AT&T confirmed they are getting rid of the UVerseTV boxes, AT&T's RG would handle the IPTV connection that would get passed to the DTV Genie box through Ethernet, if a customer didn't want a dish on the roof or couldn't get it through LOS.
> 
> In the FCC filing they said the DTV equipment would be for new customers only but now since they are getting rid of the UVerse boxes, if a customers UVerseTV DVR breaks would now they would get a Genie DVR? Or would they all get replaced by the Genie DVR after the two platforms merge? The Genie box would still have the satellite tuners for satellite customers. Then you would also not need the CCK or wireless video bridge anymore and AT&T's RG would handle all that.


I'm sure there will be a transition period, and those with the newest DirecTV receivers (like the Genie) would probably be the last to be forced to upgrade, but eventually the equipment from top to bottom will be new, even the Genies.


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

But how will that help when your internet speed is only 1.5 megabytes


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

JosephB said:


> When they say it will support "third party broadband" it's highly unlikely that it would replace your modem from CenturyLink (or from Comcast or Charter). I would expect it to be a gateway that has a modem, and if you're a U-Verse internet customer, you'll use the modem functionality, but otherwise it would just serve as a router--just like you might buy a router from Apple or Asus.


Good point. I don't know why I didn't think of that when looking at the diagram? AT&T just meant you can still use another companies broadband connection with that companies gateway with AT&T's new video platform.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> But how will that help when your internet speed is only 1.5 megabytes


Maybe it won't. The AT&T gateway will have LTE, satellite, and broadband connections. I'm sure they're looking to get streams into your house however they can. If your internet connection won't support it, then they can fall back to LTE or satellite.

And before anyone jumps on the LTE data caps argument, they could do many different things that might mitigate that. One, your video streams might not count towards any LTE cap. The LTE part of it may just be transparent to you (especially if you aren't an AT&T wireless subscriber). Or, the LTE might just be used for a return channel, and they could dedicated some bandwidth on the satellite to burst downloads to individual gateways. Lots and lots of possibilities when they own the whole stack, and have many different pipes into your house.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Maybe it won't. The AT&T gateway will have LTE, satellite, and broadband connections. I'm sure they're looking to get streams into your house however they can. If your internet connection won't support it, then they can fall back to LTE or satellite.
> 
> And before anyone jumps on the LTE data caps argument, they could do many different things that might mitigate that. One, your video streams might not count towards any LTE cap. The LTE part of it may just be transparent to you (especially if you aren't an AT&T wireless subscriber). Or, the LTE might just be used for a return channel, and they could dedicated some bandwidth on the satellite to burst downloads to individual gateways. Lots and lots of possibilities when they own the whole stack, and have many different pipes into your house.


They can't "not count" video streams toward the cap, at least not unless they do it for everyone (i.e. for Netflix et al) because that would violate net neutrality as well as the conditions of the merger (which said they'd accept net neutrality even if it was struck down as well as specifically agreeing to not do exactly this)

Based on the plan AT&T submitted to the FCC last year, I think the idea is to offer fixed wireless broadband to millions of people in more rural areas - the kind of places where you can't get DSL or even in many cases cable TV. In these areas the density of cellular devices per tower is far lower and once the towers are upgraded to LTE could easily support the 10-20 Mbps they're talking about providing for full time in-home internet connections. They'd probably have some sort of cap, but it would still allow for a reasonable amount of video streaming.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

As a consumer and not technical expert, splitting out the source from what I see and do with the source is less important that what I see and do. I assume (a big question with regulators and utilities) is that I will have a choice down the line. I can use a DirecTV sat. signal or someone else's TV signals. Then it will go into my connected home network and my boxes and get recorded, viewed etc. Sort of like the TIVO model was/is. 
I have a 50 meg net connection but that doesn't download 1 program very quickly - can't imaging if you are downloading more than one at the same time - obviously done in cable systems.

Oh well it will be fun.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> They can't "not count" video streams toward the cap, at least not unless they do it for everyone (i.e. for Netflix et al) because that would violate net neutrality as well as the conditions of the merger (which said they'd accept net neutrality even if it was struck down as well as specifically agreeing to not do exactly this)
> 
> Based on the plan AT&T submitted to the FCC last year, I think the idea is to offer fixed wireless broadband to millions of people in more rural areas - the kind of places where you can't get DSL or even in many cases cable TV. In these areas the density of cellular devices per tower is far lower and once the towers are upgraded to LTE could easily support the 10-20 Mbps they're talking about providing for full time in-home internet connections. They'd probably have some sort of cap, but it would still allow for a reasonable amount of video streaming.


There's a lot of wiggle room in that, though. For example, if you weren't an AT&T LTE customer, or if they didn't consider your gateway as being on your LTE account, then there wouldn't be any cap in the first place. It would just be a dedicated pipe for only their video content directly to your receiver. Also, I am curious how the agreement would apply if the video was entirely inside their network, and therefore not coming in from the "internet".

If the move is heavily towards VOD-style interfaces and linear channels start dropping, I also definitely see a path where they use LTE as a return path (meaning, LTE as a way to get requests from your house to their datacenter) and then use the really, really big satellite path to send downloads directly to set top boxes. By pre-loading the most popular content to drives in set tops, along with queuing and building in slight 10-30 second delays, they could eke out a lot of capacity using satellite for video downloads.



CTJon said:


> As a consumer and not technical expert, splitting out the source from what I see and do with the source is less important that what I see and do. I assume (a big question with regulators and utilities) is that I will have a choice down the line. I can use a DirecTV sat. signal or someone else's TV signals. Then it will go into my connected home network and my boxes and get recorded, viewed etc. Sort of like the TIVO model was/is.
> I have a 50 meg net connection but that doesn't download 1 program very quickly - can't imaging if you are downloading more than one at the same time - obviously done in cable systems.
> 
> Oh well it will be fun.


I would not expect it to be compatible with any other video provider's signal. That kind of defeats the whole purpose. The money isn't in the equipment, the money is in the service. The set tops and the gateway are just one in a range of ways you'll access AT&T-provided video. There will be a huge focus on apps, meaning access to the service on your phone, tablet, Roku, Apple TV, etc.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I would not expect it to be compatible with any other video provider's signal. That kind of defeats the whole purpose. The money isn't in the equipment, the money is in the service. The set tops and the gateway are just one in a range of ways you'll access AT&T-provided video. There will be a huge focus on apps, meaning access to the service on your phone, tablet, Roku, Apple TV, etc.


I agree. More likely the box (at least on the client end, if not the "server" end) becomes compatible with other gear (i.e. some sort of standard like CVP-2) because as you say the money is in the service. The equipment is a necessary evil, if they can work to a standard in a customer's TV or Roku or whatever and don't have to supply a box all the better for them!


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Would AT&T move to this type of system? Would that be an Ethernet cable going down from the dish or coax?

http://www.satip.info/


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

JosephB said:


> Maybe it won't. The AT&T gateway will have LTE, satellite, and broadband connections. I'm sure they're looking to get streams into your house however they can. If your internet connection won't support it, then they can fall back to LTE or satellite.
> 
> And before anyone jumps on the LTE data caps argument, they could do many different things that might mitigate that. One, your video streams might not count towards any LTE cap. The LTE part of it may just be transparent to you (especially if you aren't an AT&T wireless subscriber). Or, the LTE might just be used for a return channel, and they could dedicated some bandwidth on the satellite to burst downloads to individual gateways. Lots and lots of possibilities when they own the whole stack, and have many different pipes into your house.


We don't get cell service out where I live so the LTE would not work


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> We don't get cell service out where I live so the LTE would not work


So you'll be a satellite customer. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

And what I hate about CenturyLink why I left is that about a quarter of a mile up the road they get 10 megabytes and we only get 1.5


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> And what I hate about CenturyLink why I left is that about a quarter of a mile up the road they get 10 megabytes and we only get 1.5


Distance matters--a lot. What is the cable distance from the neighbor's house? Does it go straight from the neighbors house to yours or does it serpentine around a neighborhood (which is the typical arrangement)? I've been on the long end of a phone company drop. Very much limited what could be done for a long time. Finally VDSL2 came out, which supports longer distances and higher rates.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

Our DSL comes through copper the main state highway which is about a quarter of a mile up has fiber


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> Our DSL comes through copper the main state highway which is about a quarter of a mile up has fiber


Distance, distance, distance. Cable run distance is everything, how it is routed from the nearest central office or neighborhood box.

I'm a couple hundred feet from the nearest box as the crow flies. And a couple thousand feet as the cable lies. It does down one block, back up another, up the block, then into my backyard to get to me. Not directly up block I would walk to get there from here. They want to hit as many houses as possible in a cable run.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

I would say it's probably about a quarter of a mile up at the intersection of the road and the main highway


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Would AT&T move to this type of system? Would that be an Ethernet cable going down from the dish or coax?
> 
> http://www.satip.info/


I think they will - basically that's what I was talking about when I suggested that Directv would have a LNB that outputs DECA in the next year or two. AFAIK there is no such thing as an outdoor grade RJ45 connector, so you couldn't easily run ethernet cable from the dish, and the shielding in RG6 eliminates potential interference from overhead power lines. That means it would be DECA over RG6 from the dish to the indoor gateway, and from there could be distributed within the house via whatever means (DECA over coax, ethernet, wireless)

That would simplify and cost reduce the indoor gateway as it wouldn't need to have satellite tuners, since that would be integrated in the LNB (no more SWM) It would have an F81 input for DECA from satellite and/or outdoor LTE antenna, an RJ11 input for DSL, and an RJ45 input for ethernet from an indoor LTE antenna, along with F81/DECA and RJ45/ethernet outputs, and a wireless antenna.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

While I'm sure that someday we could see electronics so small as to have tuners to IP built into the LNB, I don't expect it soon. Basically it would be both LNB and H44 Genie-light in the outdoor LNB package. With all the heat related issues--and no way to attach the hard drive for a full genie arrangement. 

More likely in my mind is a small gateway that also is the power supply to the LNBs. Since there will be an interior "block" for power, why not just make it a power/gateway device that is inside.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

I also doubt that they would go full ethernet/IP directly out of the LNB. Any cost savings from not including the tuner in the gateway would be swallowed up by the drastically increased cost of the LNB, and it's pretty clear their goal is to have satellite installed on as many customers as possible anyway. If the cost difference was *that* dramatic, they could simply have a gateway that didn't include satellite tuners for customers who were not getting a dish installed.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

The chip used in a DSWM LNB already includes a DSP for digital filtering; the same DSP resources that are used for digital demodulation in a tuner. Broadcom has been shipping satellite SoCs with 8 demodulators since 2011 - using a fab process dating from 2008 - so many more are easily possible there just hasn't been a demand for more. Broadcom uses a more modern process on their cable QAM tuners which demodulate up to 32 QAM1024/QAM4096 channels in a cable modem. Granted, cable channels are narrower than satellite transponders, but the QAM4096 modulation used in DOCSIS 3 has a far higher computational requirement than satellite's 8PSK so overall a cable tuner and satellite tuner are probably similar in total computational requirements.

So I don't really see cost or heat as a concern with this SoC implemented in a modern fab process, and the benefits would be significant as it would allow AT&T to use identical equipment for cable, Uverse DSL/fiber, or possible future LTE delivered video inside the house. They may not do this from day one, maybe at first you'll have a little box that includes tuners that sits between the dish and the gateway inside your house, but I'm pretty confident the tuners will move into the LNB.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> The chip used in a DSWM LNB already includes a DSP for digital filtering; the same DSP resources that are used for digital demodulation in a tuner. Broadcom has been shipping satellite SoCs with 8 demodulators since 2011 - using a fab process dating from 2008 - so many more are easily possible there just hasn't been a demand for more. Broadcom uses a more modern process on their cable QAM tuners which demodulate up to 32 QAM1024/QAM4096 channels in a cable modem. Granted, cable channels are narrower than satellite transponders, but the QAM4096 modulation used in DOCSIS 3 has a far higher computational requirement than satellite's 8PSK so overall a cable tuner and satellite tuner are probably similar in total computational requirements.
> 
> So I don't really see cost or heat as a concern with this SoC implemented in a modern fab process, and the benefits would be significant as it would allow AT&T to use identical equipment for cable, Uverse DSL/fiber, or possible future LTE delivered video inside the house. They may not do this from day one, maybe at first you'll have a little box that includes tuners that sits between the dish and the gateway inside your house, but I'm pretty confident the tuners will move into the LNB.


Have you noticed how hot the SWiMs get? Or the SoCs in the receivers? Put those puppies out in the hot sun and just watch what happens.

I suspect there is a lot more going on than you think; by the time a transponder is picked, demodulated, and the symbols picked out and processed, it could be more than what goes on with a cable channel. Then there is the converting to an IP stream, putting it out on the ethernet, etc. Plus--enough CPU left for some UI.

At the same time--you still got a power brick inside somewhere.

So why make a single use device--an LNB gateway, when you already have LNBs and gateways? Then you don't have to solve the outdoor RJ45 problem, you don't have to run ethernet cable outdoor--you can continue to use the coax you already have.

Yes, what you describe is possible. Why would anyone want to? 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> So I don't really see cost or heat as a concern with this SoC implemented in a modern fab process, and the benefits would be significant as it would allow AT&T to use identical equipment for cable, Uverse DSL/fiber, or possible future LTE delivered video inside the house. They may not do this from day one, maybe at first you'll have a little box that includes tuners that sits between the dish and the gateway inside your house, but I'm pretty confident the tuners will move into the LNB.


But they can already do that by putting the satellite tuners into the gateway. It's just a shell game, moving costs from one side of the wall to the other, and if enough customers are going to have a dish installed, then it will make more economical sense to save money on LNBs and outside equipment and spend the "extra" money on the gateway inside.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Tom Robertson said:


> Have you noticed how hot the SWiMs get? Or the SoCs in the receivers? Put those puppies out in the hot sun and just watch what happens.
> 
> I suspect there is a lot more going on than you think; by the time a transponder is picked, demodulated, and the symbols picked out and processed, it could be more than what goes on with a cable channel. Then there is the converting to an IP stream, putting it out on the ethernet, etc. Plus--enough CPU left for some UI.
> 
> ...


The SWM LNB already has three high power analog SWM chips integrated in it, and it takes the heat just fine. And no need for outdoor ethernet cable, when coax carries ethernet just fine via MoCA/DECA and is already rated for outdoor use.

I get that you guys are skeptical...I disagree but no point in going back and forth, either it will happen or it won't...


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> They can't "not count" video streams toward the cap, at least not unless they do it for everyone (i.e. for Netflix et al) because that would violate net neutrality as well as the conditions of the merger (which said they'd accept net neutrality even if it was struck down as well as specifically agreeing to not do exactly this)
> 
> Based on the plan AT&T submitted to the FCC last year, I think the idea is to offer fixed wireless broadband to millions of people in more rural areas - the kind of places where you can't get DSL or even in many cases cable TV. In these areas the density of cellular devices per tower is far lower and once the towers are upgraded to LTE could easily support the 10-20 Mbps they're talking about providing for full time in-home internet connections. They'd probably have some sort of cap, but it would still allow for a reasonable amount of video streaming.


and when rain fade makes it switch to LTE will ATT be able to bill you $1000 for a few hours of TV at $10 a GIG.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> The SWM LNB already has three high power analog SWM chips integrated in it, and it takes the heat just fine. And no need for outdoor ethernet cable, when coax carries ethernet just fine via MoCA/DECA and is already rated for outdoor use.
> 
> I get that you guys are skeptical...I disagree but no point in going back and forth, either it will happen or it won't...


SWM bandwidth is much higher than the DECA bandwidth. There is overhead involved in IP. It just makes so much more sense to leave SWM as it is and have the tuner inside.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

The only thing I don't like about IPTV is that if the RG goes down everything goes down. Even though I think Ethernet is a cool technology since you would be able to use your own devices if AT&T did an APP. I was thinking if they went to SAT-IP wouldn't they need an Ethernet cable going to the RG? Then you could have Ethernet cables going from the RG to other Ethernet enabled devices? Unless they did video over WIFI or the coax cable would go to the coax input of the RG? Not sure if RG"s still have coax inputs. Or would they do something like an Ethernet multi-switch?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

JosephB said:


> SWM bandwidth is much higher than the DECA bandwidth. There is overhead involved in IP. It just makes so much more sense to leave SWM as it is and have the tuner inside.


Yeah and I think due to mdu and commercial locations they would stick with something more versatile than putting tuners in a lnb.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JosephB said:


> SWM bandwidth is much higher than the DECA bandwidth. There is overhead involved in IP. It just makes so much more sense to leave SWM as it is and have the tuner inside.


How do you figure? Each DSWM channel requires 51 MHz on the wire, and carries less than 40 Mbps (of which only 5-8 Mbps contains the HD channel of interest) MoCA 2.0 requires 150 MHz on the wire and carries 400 to 800 Mbps! Enough room to carry up to 100 HD channels at once, though obviously you'd never design anything to handle nearly that many.

It is SWM that is very bandwidth inefficient, because satellite transmission itself is quite inefficient. Directv's HD transponders carry barely 1 bit per Hz - not surprising, given that it makes a 45K mile round trip to get to you. MoCA 2.0 carries 3-5 bits per Hz, and doesn't waste bandwidth on an entire transponder plus guard band but instead carry only the video/audio data for the channel you want. DECA is far more bandwidth efficient, even with the small TCP/IP overhead, which amounts to only 2.8% at a typical MSS of 1460 bytes.

Not that bandwidth efficiency matters either way, A 24 channel DSWM chip can output 23 HD channels or 11 (bonded) 4K channels, and while MoCA 2.0 can carry far more, there's no need for it to do so.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> Yeah and I think due to mdu and commercial locations they would stick with something more versatile than putting tuners in a lnb.


Why would they be forced to use these LNBs, when they aren't forced to use SWM LNBs today? There's no reason you can't build a switch that inputs four legacy coax and outputs DECA, just like today they input four legacy coax and output SWM.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

It occurs to me that I was involved in similar discussions a little over a year ago, when I argued that Directv would move quickly to integrate DSWM into a LNB and others suggested it would be several years before it was cheap enough or ran cool enough. The SWM 13 LNB entered test markets a few months later, even more quickly than I suggested


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

This isn't the same thing. We have never seen anything even a spec alpha product that moves tuners to an lnb or switch. I just don't see it happening for the complexity of what the receivers would have to do (determining priority etc) and which would control what and other issues. The genie system is what they will stick with IMHO. 

I look at this gateway thing they are talking about as a DIRECTV Wired Broadband Internet Connection Kit kind of device. But it will also be a splitter for sat signals. And have ports to plug in phones. And be kind or a router. And it'll be an actual modem too if you have att service.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

For the last several days, I've been receiving a Security Warning when I log into my DIRECTV account. LastPass FF Toolbar asking me if it is OK to send my credentials for directv.com to att.com. 

While I understand AT&T now owns DIRECTV, I intentionally severed all my ties with AT&T years ago and am not happy with this development. 

(Note: I tried to attach a screen capture of the warning, but am getting a 'website firewall' message preventing me from uploading that .png file).


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

trh said:


> For the last several days, I've been receiving a Security Warning when I log into my DIRECTV account. LastPass FF Toolbar asking me if it is OK to send my credentials for directv.com to att.com.
> 
> While I understand AT&T now owns DIRECTV, I intentionally severed all my ties with AT&T years ago and am not happy with this development.
> 
> (Note: I tried to attach a screen capture of the warning, but am getting a 'website firewall' message preventing me from uploading that .png file).


Then you are in a quandary. Admit DIRECTV is now AT&T or don't log into DIRECTV again. 

I told Lastpass to send it thru. I'm not going to leave DIRECTV any time soon.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

I know. Not much I can do to change that DIRECTV is now owned by AT&T.

I have said 'Yes' to LastPass, but I still have to click on Yes each time.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

trh said:



> I know. Not much I can do to change that DIRECTV is now owned by AT&T.
> 
> I have said 'Yes' to LastPass, but I still have to click on Yes each time.


Yeah, I thought it would have cleared for me by now as well. I might have to dig into Lastpass to understand what setting I need to adjust.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

from https://lastpass.com/support.php?cmd=showfaq&id=5766



> If you are seeing a *LASTPASS SECURITY WARNING* asking you if you allow your credentials for one website to be sent to another, this is occurring because the website you are visiting has a hidden URL that it works with. This means that your information will be sent to both URLs.
> E.g. If there is a form on the webpage http://abc.comthat has an action attribute that points to http://def.com, then we ask if it's ok for abc's credentials to be sent to def.com. <form action="http://def.com">
> This warning gives you a chance to deny access to your credentials if you do not trust both websites. If you trust both websites, then it is safe to click 'OK'.
> If you do not want the warning to appear on that webpage again:
> ...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

They are probably moving DIRECTV website into an att domain and that's probably what's causing that.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Or AT&T is already collecting our data for their partners at the NSA.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

trh said:


> Or AT&T is already collecting our data for their partners at the NSA.


That started long before the merger...

Peace,
Tom


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

trh said:


> Or AT&T is already collecting our data for their partners at the NSA.


Who says they weren't already getting it from Directv, either with Directv's cooperation or via hacking into them?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Do you really think the NSA cares how much your DirecTV bill is?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Do you really think the NSA cares how much your DirecTV bill is?


They might want to know what you watch, which Directv probably collects from DVRs sending info back to them via the internet connection. Considering how stupid some of the publicized criteria is for getting on watch lists, they might use stuff like whether you watch Al Jazeera News :bang


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> ...they might use stuff like whether you watch Al Jazeera News :bang


Barney Fife would be able to vet a list that short.


----------



## Gocanes (Jul 15, 2007)

Skyboss said:


> Long Term AT&T wants to dump land based communications anyway, and this makes sense for a world that will become increasingly connected at all times.
> 
> The only thing that concerns me is the absurd pricing schemes associated with wireless data which is bound to change. Sorry cell providers, but data delivery doesn't cost that much and you're ripping us off.


AT&T is not going to dump land based communications. There isn't enough spectrum in existence to have the bandwidth to provide service to all locations wirelessly without either installing so many cell sites that you might as well just run the wires all the way to the premises or using highly directional "dish type" radio antennas to allow for extremely high frequency re-use. LTE beam shaping isn't precise enough for a completely wireless high speed system. LTE systems work because people aren't using that much bandwidth simultaneously. A future where people have multiple 4k streams going simultaneously will need a ton of bandwidth to each home.

If you could broadcast with enough power to eliminate rain fade, satellite is the ideal way to distribute broadcast content to take the load off of data infrastructure while not having to run cable everywhere.

On your other point, how do you know how much it costs to deliver data. Do you have any idea how much it costs to purchase, install and maintain cellular infrastructure? Once the infrastructure is there, the direct costs aren't that high but they have to pay off all of that equipment. Then, once it is paid off the next generation is available and it starts over again.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Gocanes said:


> If you could broadcast with enough power to eliminate rain fade, satellite is the ideal way to distribute broadcast content to take the load off of data infrastructure while not having to run cable everywhere.


IMHO, if DirecTv were to use KU band instead of KA or higher for its HD distribution, with the power of the current satellites, rain fade could be reduced to all but the largest storms. In states prone to those (like mine), the installation of the Alaska/Hawaii dishes would cure the problem. A local apartment complex uses those, and they rarely lose the standard def KU signals, while the HD signals disappear for 10 to 15 minutes. It was the major reason I switched to Cable after being with DirecTv since its inception.


----------



## Ivanem23 (Aug 25, 2015)

Telefonica of Spain interested in acquiring Sky Brasil's operations http://nextvbrasil.com/telefonica-pode-comprar-operacoes-da-sky-do-brasil-3214/


----------

