# Wow - DirecTV loses 346,000 DirectTV/U-verse subs in 3Q18



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Wonder if this is the beginning of the end for the satellite service. That's a pretty large number of subs.

In our case, the only real reason we keep DirecTV is for sports (NFL Sunday Ticket).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Wonder if this is the beginning of the end for the satellite service. That's a pretty large number of subs.
> 
> In our case, the only real reason we keep DirecTV is for sports (NFL Sunday Ticket).


I wish they broke out the difference between Directv & Uverse, but note what the AT&T said about that - they are focusing on profitability. So probably they are pulling back on giving people big discounts to sign up or to keep them.

The deal chasers are going to find better deals in the streaming world right now, so they probably wouldn't last beyond the end of their contract anyway.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DIRECTV satellite lost roughly a million subscribers over the past year.
DIRECTV NOW gained roughly a million. UVerse lost just under 30k over the past year.
Overall AT&T|DIRECTV gained 70k subscribers.

It isn't the end of the world ... but if they keep losing a million subscribers per year they won't have satellite subscribers in 20 years. 

(For just the quarter DIRECTV lost 359k with UVerse gaining 13K. DIRECTV NOW gained 49K.)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> DIRECTV satellite lost roughly a million subscribers over the past year.
> DIRECTV NOW gained roughly a million. UVerse lost just under 30k over the past year.
> Overall AT&T|DIRECTV gained 70k subscribers.
> 
> ...


And keep in mind that AT&T hasn't *really* started yet to shift their customer base over from DBS to OTT. DirecTV Now is still a bit rough and they're continuing to work out the kinks with price-sensitive cord-cutters playing the role of live beta testers. Meanwhile, they're doing internal alpha testing right now of the premium OTT service that will be slotted as a replacement for DBS, with plans to gradually roll it out to consumers in 2019. (I suspect it will only debut in a given market once all the major locals are signed up.)

DTV DBS might last another 20 years if it loses subs at its current rate but the losses will accelerate in the coming years for a variety of reasons. As I've said before, I'll be surprised if DBS (from any company) exists in the US a decade from now. I'm still sticking with my 2025-2028 time frame for the end.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DIRECTV NOW is a good safety net for AT&T|DIRECTV catching people leaving DIRECTV satellite. If the new "satellite replacement" is as good as some predict it could be another good choice.

BTW: 2Q numbers were DIRECTV lost 286k, UVerse gained 24k and DIRECTV NOW gained 342K.


----------



## BigCTM (Jul 31, 2007)

Part of the issue is that DirecTV no longer exists. It's basically AT&T. I knew back when it happened that DirecTV would never be the same and we are seeing it this year more than ever. They roll out a new interface for their DVRs full of bugs and they are in no hurry to fix them it seems. Some of the bugs have existed for more than 6 months. So, naturally people start leaving. I have a huge discount right now. Otherwise I would have left already. I have been with them forever too it seems. 

The other issue is that none of the competition seems that much better. I am not interested in streaming until it's basically forced down my throat. No way am I ever going to Comcast. AT&T and Comcast both have awful service but Comcast is the worst. My parents have the X1 and they hate it. Many are going to cloud based DVRs but I still prefer the local ones. Would probably try Dish but I honestly hope the issues (like missing recordings) get worked out.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

wait they still sell U-Verse ViDEO ? thought att was phasing it out in favor of D*? good to hear they still using U-verse

here are the 2nd quarter results

https://www.leichtmanresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/LRG-Research-Notes-3Q-2018.pdf


----------



## tylorert (Sep 7, 2016)

James Long said:


> DIRECTV NOW is a good safety net for AT&T|DIRECTV catching people leaving DIRECTV satellite. If the new "satellite replacement" is as good as some predict it could be another good choice.
> 
> BTW: 2Q numbers were DIRECTV lost 286k, UVerse gained 24k and DIRECTV NOW gained 342K.


How did U-Verse gain coustomers?!?!?! The service is worse than if Peter griffan and Homer Simpson built a TV / internet service


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> And keep in mind that AT&T hasn't *really* started yet to shift their customer base over from DBS to OTT. DirecTV Now is still a bit rough and they're continuing to work out the kinks with price-sensitive cord-cutters playing the role of live beta testers. Meanwhile, they're doing internal alpha testing right now of the premium OTT service that will be slotted as a replacement for DBS, with plans to gradually roll it out to consumers in 2019. (I suspect it will only debut in a given market once all the major locals are signed up.)
> 
> DTV DBS might last another 20 years if it loses subs at its current rate but the losses will accelerate in the coming years for a variety of reasons. As I've said before, I'll be surprised if DBS (from any company) exists in the US a decade from now. I'm still sticking with my 2025-2028 time frame for the end.


Directv loses money on Directv Now. Supposedly the average streaming MVPD package costs $54 for programming, but most streaming MVPDs sell for less. They're using the standard internet model of "lose money now and build up a subscriber base, worry about profit later".

Cord cutting will eventually slow down once the price differential disappears after the options inevitably shake out as the weak hands call it quits. I very much doubt PS Vue lasts more than a few years, for instance.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

tylorert said:


> How did U-Verse gain coustomers?!?!?! The service is worse than if Peter griffan and Homer Simpson built a TV / internet service


AT&T is still expanding their fiber network, so they might be Uverse adds on fiber.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Comcast report this morning.

The company added 363,000 internet customers in the period, up 70% from a year earlier, but lost 106,000 cable subscribers.


----------



## VaJim (Jul 27, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Wonder if this is the beginning of the end for the satellite service. That's a pretty large number of subs.
> 
> In our case, the only real reason we keep DirecTV is for sports (NFL Sunday Ticket).


...and there other ways to watch NFL that don't cost anywhere near what DTV charges.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

I called last month. Politely stated I might cancel, after 20 years. I essentially got a new customer deal for next 12 mos, with 12 mos commitment. Best deal ever. They are trying to keep people. If its costs, get to Loyalty dept and you may be surprised.


----------



## VaJim (Jul 27, 2006)

NR4P said:


> I called last month. Politely stated I might cancel, after 20 years. I essentially got a new customer deal for next 12 mos, with 12 mos commitment. Best deal ever. They are trying to keep people. If its costs, get to Loyalty dept and you may be surprised.


DTV needs to get rid of the 2 year commitment and I 'might' consider coming back.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

VaJim said:


> DTV needs to get rid of the 2 year commitment and I 'might' consider coming back.


I would think that both Dish and Directv could do that in a way similar to what Mediacom does. They basically have two types of deals, one with commitment the other without. Cost is higher with the no commitment one and I think the annual 'bump' is higher too.

For info, the "bump" is $10/month/service and is done at the beginning of the 2nd and 3rd year.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

VaJim said:


> ...and there other ways to watch NFL that don't cost anywhere near what DTV charges.


Yes, "stealing" is of course always cheaper than paying for something.


----------



## sstv (Jul 30, 2006)

Watching TV is a long stream of Ads with a little bit of programing. Profit from advertising is at a all time high, so more Ads. I watch CNN and HLN a lot and I noticed that when I switched channels to go to CNN/HLN an Ad would almost always be playing or so it seems. Program content has decreased according to Google so more Ads can be run.
I think people are fed up with this and are going the Streaming route to avoid Ads.
SSTV


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

Not surprised to see the loss if you have experienced the decline of customer service since the AT&T acquisition.

I went back to cable (Comcast) after having satellite for 21 years. It is my only choice for reliable internet. Added TiVO and am still saving money over DirecTV. Comcast customer service is much better if you deal one on one with a local service center. I can walk to mine.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Directv loses money on Directv Now. Supposedly the average streaming MVPD package costs $54 for programming, but most streaming MVPDs sell for less. They're using the standard internet model of "lose money now and build up a subscriber base, worry about profit later".
> 
> Cord cutting will eventually slow down once the price differential disappears after the options inevitably shake out as the weak hands call it quits. I very much doubt PS Vue lasts more than a few years, for instance.


Well, per yesterday's call, AT&T is already addressing that issue with DTVN. Gone are the big promo deals (glad I got that free Apple TV 4K while it was offered!), and they've raised prices by $5 across the board. They're not interested in chasing after the super-price-sensitive demo that churns through various vMVPDs, they say. Their targeted ad platform will be more lucrative with a stable, sticky customer base.

Meanwhile, they're talking about revisiting channel line-ups. I tend to think we'll see some channels here and there shed from DTVN next year -- possibly even a total shake-up of their packages, with the most expensive tier disappearing -- once their new premium streaming service debuts. Makes sense to me to have DTVN positioned as their budget offering -- fewer channels, fewer features, BYO box -- with the upcoming premium service being essentially their flagship OTT option that customers can comfortably move into from DTV satellite and Uverse TV.

I don't think of these vMVPDs as "cord cutting," they're just a less expensive way to get cable TV, albeit with certain compromises. I think you're right that not all of them will survive (another one, Vidgo, is launching imminently) but there will continue to be enough of them with different channel packages and feature sets at different price points that they will continue to grow, stealing customers away from more expensive traditional "full service" cable and satellite TV. Eventually the lines are going to blur between what constitutes an MVPD and a vMVPD -- the upcoming "premium" OTT DirecTV service being a prime example -- with everyone trying to cater to a range of budgets.

Meanwhile, as a substantial chunk of cable subscribers transition to skinnier bundles, we'll see more linear cable channels die off in the coming years. Cable network groups like Viacom are already hedging their bets as they not only operate their linear channels like MTV and Paramount Network but also seek to become content providers to OTT platforms like Netflix and Facebook Watch.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

sstv said:


> Watching TV is a long stream of Ads with a little bit of programing. Profit from advertising is at a all time high, so more Ads. I watch CNN and HLN a lot and I noticed that when I switched channels to go to CNN/HLN an Ad would almost always be playing or so it seems. Program content has decreased according to Google so more Ads can be run.
> I think people are fed up with this and are going the Streaming route to avoid Ads.
> SSTV


If you think streaming is going to be free of ads for much longer then you're in for a rude awakening. It is easy to prevent people from skipping ads when streaming, but DVRs guarantee that you never need to see an ad while watching cable/satellite.

So it is easy to see why the networks want to be leaving streaming mostly free of ads for now until they can get people switched. Then they've got captive eyeballs who will be left without any way to avoid watching the ads.

When I watch news I'll typically just pause it, then watch a half hour program I've recorded, then watch the news (or you could record it, but I don't record news since I don't know when/what I will want to watch - and it goes stale QUICK) Using Tivo's quickplay (sped up 30%) and skipping ads, a half hour of news takes 10-15 minutes to watch. If I watch it on 1xFF with captions enabled, I can get through it 4-5 minutes. Try that with streaming...


----------



## Microphone (Jan 30, 2007)

Phil T said:


> Not surprised to see the loss if you have experienced the decline of customer service since the AT&T acquisition.
> 
> I went back to cable (Comcast) after having satellite for 21 years. It is my only choice for reliable internet. Added TiVO and am still saving money over DirecTV. Comcast customer service is much better if you deal one on one with a local service center. I can walk to mine.


I don't know what to do. I see two conflicting opinions here on Comcast and both have validity. I know (I think) that Directv has been and still is better, at least for my needs, than Comcast. DTV has a bunch of little extras that puts them over the top.

But like Phil, I rely on Comcast for my internet. I used to have antiquated DSL up until I saw the light this past summer and got 60 megs (low for Comcast) download and it's 10 times as fast/lightning like and the two of us who sometimes stream in the house can see the crispness difference. For me NHL Center Ice and MLB Extra Innings....it used to be easy to tell the TV version from the streaming version. Now they're a dead heat comparing them with NHL.TV & MLB.TV.

What's making this a problem is this 1995/23 year customer of DTV is now finding, for the first time in 4-5 years, that Directv won't give me any discounts to speak of (unless $6 off of Cinemax for 6 months is a deal to you). When I do the Comcast math for their first two year sucker sign up, the math isn't even close, they win by a lot now that DTV isn't handing those discounts out (at least to me). But the "even after 2 years" Comcast bundle rate with my TV/Phone/Internet still, in today's dollars, beats the DTV rate. There is no bundle possibilities on this end with ATT/DTV except with my mobile phone and I don't need unlimited data.

I can't believe I'm typing this...I'm actually looking at Comcast as a possible option. Please, someone talk me off the bridge. Tell me their DVR's suck compared to DTV or that I get far less HD programming. ANYTHING.


----------



## Richard (Apr 24, 2002)

slice1900 said:


> If you think streaming is going to be free of ads for much longer then you're in for a rude awakening. It is easy to prevent people from skipping ads when streaming, but DVRs guarantee that you never need to see an ad while watching cable/satellite.
> 
> So it is easy to see why the networks want to be leaving streaming mostly free of ads for now until they can get people switched. Then they've got captive eyeballs who will be left without any way to avoid watching the ads.
> 
> When I watch news I'll typically just pause it, then watch a half hour program I've recorded, then watch the news (or you could record it, but I don't record news since I don't know when/what I will want to watch - and it goes stale QUICK) Using Tivo's quickplay (sped up 30%) and skipping ads, a half hour of news takes 10-15 minutes to watch. If I watch it on 1xFF with captions enabled, I can get through it 4-5 minutes. Try that with streaming...


with a DVR, you still see the ads as you skip ahead, even that is unacceptable to me. I pay for the No Ad tier for both Hulu and CBS All Access. If they ever get rid of the No Ad option, I will quit watching those shows, or just wait a year and watch them on Netflix.

Live TV is dead (at least for me).


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Microphone said:


> I'm actually looking at Comcast as a possible option. Please, someone talk me off the bridge. Tell me their DVR's suck compared to DTV or that I get far less HD programming. ANYTHING.


If you care about picture quality, they're in the process of switching to a new unified delivery platform that converts 1080i channels to 720p. There's a bunch of complaints about it on their forums from users in systems that were switched over.

As for the amount of HD programming, that widely varies, it depends on how up to date your local system is.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Richard said:


> with a DVR, you still see the ads as you skip ahead, even that is unacceptable to me. I pay for the No Ad tier for both Hulu and CBS All Access. If they ever get rid of the No Ad option, I will quit watching those shows, or just wait a year and watch them on Netflix.
> 
> Live TV is dead (at least for me).


You only see ads if you fast forward, not in if you do 30 second skip (or Tivo skip mode, but that's only available for certain things) I care 99% about the time wasted by ads, which both FF and skipping fixes, and only 1% about accidentally seeing a bit of ad.

I guess you missed the news that Netflix is toying with ad insertion, though I suppose they'll probably let you pay more to avoid them.


----------



## Microphone (Jan 30, 2007)

KyL416 said:


> If you care about picture quality, they're in the process of switching to a new unified delivery platform that converts 1080i channels to 720p. There's a bunch of complaints about it on their forums from users in systems that were switched over.
> 
> As for the amount of HD programming, that widely varies, it depends on how up to date your local system is.


KYL, just the stuff I wanted to know. I could list out the pro and cons of me switching for everyone but.......

Every channel my wife and I watch of DTV is in HD on Comcast. I realize my NHL & MLB packages are in SD there except for the HD game of the day, but I would just buy the streaming packages.

But if they're converting 1080 stuff downward, those are things I didn't know, thank you.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Microphone said:


> Is it kosher to ask the forum link so I could see any other issues?


Here's one of the larger threads about it, if you search for "720p" on their forums you'll find a bunch of others:
Comcast downgrading all 1080i HD channels to 720p - Xfinity Help and Support Forums - 2806786

Also the HD comparison lists you find online are the best case scenario of what Comcast offers, to find what's actually available in your area you should go to their website and enter your address:
XFINITY TV Local Channel Line-up


----------



## Richard (Apr 24, 2002)

slice1900 said:


> You only see ads if you fast forward, not in if you do 30 second skip (or Tivo skip mode, but that's only available for certain things) I care 99% about the time wasted by ads, which both FF and skipping fixes, and only 1% about accidentally seeing a bit of ad.
> 
> I guess you missed the news that Netflix is toying with ad insertion, though I suppose they'll probably let you pay more to avoid them.


They are just testing it, they never said they were going to implement it. They are also looking into cheaper plans, so that might be why, show ads to those that pay less. Plus, these were not traditional ads for consumer products, they were ads for other shows on Netflix. HBO does the same thing already with their on Demand shows. You get to sit through ads for other HBO shows before you can watch what you want to.


----------



## Microphone (Jan 30, 2007)

KyL416 said:


> Here's one of the larger threads about it, if you search for "720p" on their forums you'll find a bunch of others:
> Comcast downgrading all 1080i HD channels to 720p - Xfinity Help and Support Forums - 2806786
> 
> Also the HD comparison lists you find online are the best case scenario of what Comcast offers, to find what's actually available in your area you should go to their website and enter your address:
> XFINITY TV Local Channel Line-up


I took that line out of there as I found that, but thanks again Kyl.

What's difficult and I know it's not just Comcast, it's Charter, Directv, Dish.....I just wish I could find on my own the "after promotion price" price on all these packages/bundles, as I know they are real wake up calls.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

I canceled because the price got way to high, its that simple.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tylorert said:


> How did U-Verse gain coustomers?!?!?!


I think they are doing it just to spite those people claiming that UVerse is shutting down and forcing people to DIRECTV. 



jimmie57 said:


> Comcast report this morning.
> The company added 363,000 internet customers in the period, up 70% from a year earlier, but lost 106,000 cable subscribers.


I am one of them. I added Xfinity for internet within the last quarter. But I did not subscribe to TV. Xfinity is constantly sending me offers to add a streaming version of their TV package. I'll pass.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Richard said:


> They are just testing it, they never said they were going to implement it. They are also looking into cheaper plans, so that might be why, show ads to those that pay less. Plus, these were not traditional ads for consumer products, they were ads for other shows on Netflix. HBO does the same thing already with their on Demand shows. You get to sit through ads for other HBO shows before you can watch what you want to.


That are already doing it on my Netflix. Once I get to the end of watching something it inserts the "preview" they call it of some Netflix original show. Right now the work around it is to hit the back button and then start playing the next thing you were going to watch.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Microphone said:


> I can't believe I'm typing this...I'm actually looking at Comcast as a possible option. Please, someone talk me off the bridge. Tell me their DVR's suck compared to DTV or that I get far less HD programming. ANYTHING.


Among the major cable-channel TV providers, DirecTV (satellite) probably has the best HD picture quality. (Google Fiber TV may be better but I wouldn't categorize them as "major".) Comcast's HD picture quality, on the other hand, is pretty damn bad. They _really_ over-compress their signals. And, as noted above, they downgrade all the 1080i channels to 720p, with the exception of local broadcast channels (although I've read that they're beginning to downrez those too).


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

I compared Comcast picture quality with DirecTV side by side for 15 days before I switched on a Sony XBR-65X750D. I also compaired the Comcast X1 DVR vs TiVo Bolt VOX with Hydra. There was a slightly better picture on DirecTV using this HR17 and C61K but honestly not enough to keep me. 

I much prefer the TiVo over the Comcast box, especially the commercial skip feature which will skip an entire block with one button push. Also the TiVo is quicker and more responsive then the Comcast box. Yes, purchasing the TiVo’s and subscription will cost you a bit more, but you will make it up by not renting Comcast equipment. 
Also no monthly charges for remote TiVo mini receivers. 

There is some speculation about the future of TiVO with Comcast given the two companies recent patent battles.

I just know for me, right now, it is the best solution and I have been very happy I made the switch a year ago.

I have had one 10 minute outage of Comcast and two TiVo reboots in a year. Much better then the rain and snow fade and software downloads fiascos from DirecTV.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Phil T said:


> There was a slightly better picture on DirecTV using this HR17 and C61K but honestly not enough to keep me.


That likely means the 720p switchover didn't hit your local Comcast system yet. From the comments in the threads on the Xfinity forums, the picture quality difference post-switchover is very noticible.


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

KyL416 said:


> That likely means the 720p switchover didn't hit your local Comcast system yet. From the comments in the threads on the Xfinity forums, the picture quality difference post-switchover is very noticible.


I know I still get 1080i on some channels. I keep my TiVo locked on 3840x2160p. 
If picture or price gets out of control I can go OTA only with my same setup of a Bolt VOX and 2 minis.


----------



## linkstorinks (Aug 13, 2014)

I guess my viewing habits are very different than most. I also was one of those that ended my 14+ year sub to Dtv last month and am in my first month of paying for SlingTV. I haven't missed DTV much and thus far the savings have really made me realize how much more I was paying for things we didn't really utilize that much. Plain and simple I watch sports (NHL, NFL, NCAAHKY, MLB, NCAAFB) and news and that's about it. 

My wife on the other hand records and records shows like no other. I even figured out prior to leaving DTV was that I would record games and by the time that I actually got to them I either knew the score or didn't care because there was another game on that I didn't. Only rarely did I find myself going back and watching such, mainly World Juniors for hockey I would watch as many as I could because of intrigue of the Euro players I could not see on a somewhat regular basis, etc. 

I was one of the customers that probably fell through the cracks on the transferring of my account because for the credits I got were falling off and agreed to a new contract for them for 1 year back in 2017. I never liked being tied down just in case and the just in case came to fruition just as I suspected it eventually would. I could not log into my account for well over a week, talked to numerous CSR's, retention, the whole jist. Nobody could do or really seemed to care as in years past, really just brought up the time to pass the torch moment. I never ask for the world in credits, etc. as some of the stats post etc. I will run my equipment for the most part to its end before I ask to replace it. 

My wife and I did a trial run on services while we waited for our shutoff date to test out a service (SlingTV) prior to them disconnecting to make sure that is what we wanted to do. Although Dtv did turn off services 2 days early as well, which is another story as I specifically stated the date that I wanted it to shut off as it was all pre-paid through that I stated. That was another nail in the coffin for me as they were just doing as they pleased it seemed and have read numerous accounts of this as well. Never paid late, auto pay for 14 years and nada, we will cut you off early instead. 

Long story a little shorter, I was able to buy the amount that we were paying monthly in firesticks, etc. for the same amount that we were paying for leased receivers and as I stated some we rarely watch TV on. So pay once to equip what you want and where you want, then factor in the savings for what programming we were paying for and it made complete sense. Also not factoring in that we have fiber internet as well from a local company and would and still have that regardless what TV provider(s) we choose. Our internet price has been grandfathered in, and that customer service is top-notch if there is any company that wants to charge me more I would be happy to pay them more. Had 1 service call with them in the years I have been with them, and that was on Oct. 3rd same time I was testing out the streaming to quit Dtv. Called at 6pm and they had a tech out in 20 mins. and replaced an old piece of equipment that was supposed to have been swapped out a month ago but was missed probably when Verizon cut all the provider lines in our neighborhood. But have to say it was top notch and it truly comes from the top down 100% and he didn't have a sidekick trying to sell me an new phone service either!

So glad that AT&T and T-mobile merger never happened as a long time T-mobile (aerial) customer of 21 years. I can envision what is happening, outsource our CSR's and then get everyone to switch hopefully to a bundle or DTN, mis-bill, no techs show up to buy time and then we can just put the blame on the ISP's because it isn't a storm you cannot get service. Just brave the wave of the switch and hope the life jackets hold until help arrives or we will just buy a new helicopter to try and save us to make the investors think we are Michael Phelps.


----------



## sean8102 (Aug 3, 2018)

slice1900 said:


> AT&T is still expanding their fiber network, so they might be Uverse adds on fiber.


Without a doubt that has got to be the major reason why. I'm sure most customers that get AT&T Fiber are bundling it with U-verse IPTV. Doubt anyone that can get 1 gigabit fiber is going to think to also get a satellite dish for their TV service when they can get their TV service delivered over that same fiber line.


----------



## Microphone (Jan 30, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Among the major cable-channel TV providers, DirecTV (satellite) probably has the best HD picture quality. (Google Fiber TV may be better but I wouldn't categorize them as "major".) Comcast's HD picture quality, on the other hand, is pretty damn bad. They _really_ over-compress their signals. And, as noted above, they downgrade all the 1080i channels to 720p, with the exception of local broadcast channels (although I've read that they're beginning to downrez those too).


Read a bunch of forums/articles on this, thanks all for your help walking me off the bridge. That is a major stumbling block. D* is 1080 with a goal (I think) of getting more 4K content. Comcast seems like their goal is compressing everything from 1080 to 720. Pass.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

I think Comcast’s No. 1 goal is its Internet.

I am in Michigan. Wayne County. County seat is Detroit.

I have subscribed to 150GB download. It was recently bumped up to 250GB download. It is excellent.

AT&T, here, is not a competitor on Internet. Its television is better for what it offers on HD. Now I can’t say anything of experience with U-verse; but I have been subscribing to DirecTV since 1998. And I really appreciate the upgrading of the channel lineup of programmers who were carried only in SD whose HD was finally delivered to us subscribers. The only programmers carried in HD, from this area Comcast, not made available in the format by AT&T’s DirecTV are C–Span HD and UP HD.

The rest of this topic has me thinking of a subscriber’s personal needs. And I think people making changes explain really well their reasons. I am staying put, for now. I have my reasons for doing that.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Microphone said:


> Read a bunch of forums/articles on this, thanks all for your help walking me off the bridge. That is a major stumbling block. D* is 1080 with a goal (I think) of getting more 4K content. Comcast seems like their goal is compressing everything from 1080 to 720. Pass.


My understanding is that when Comcast upgrades a market to DOCSIS 3.1, the cable TV goes to 720p at a 3 Mbps constant rate with MPEG4 compression for every HD channel. That's just under half the bit rate of the aveage Directv HD channel - and Directv doesn't lock them down with constant bit rate so they can jump over 10 Mbps when needed.

It would be that low rate - and especially the fact that its constant - that reduces the image quality much moreso than 720p. After all, about half the channels we watch are 720p, and it can look really good when given enough bandwidth. My local Fox and CBS stations (which are 720p and 1080i, respectively) used to have no subchannels, and both were stunning OTA.

Comcast squishing everything doesn't preclude them delivering 4K - or far better quality HD - in the future. They plan to do that via IP though, since they can make far more efficient use of their capacity via DOCSIS 3.1's 192 MHz QAM channels than via old school 6 MHz QAM channels - probably 2-3x more efficient I'd guess. But that's in the future, so if you care about picture quality you don't want to consider Comcast until they arrive at that future (which might be years away)


----------



## tomski35 (Sep 7, 2007)

I've been with DTV 18+ years. My current bill is $192 and change. I have been out of contract a few years and can't remember the last time I had a six month discount. Went through all the fun when they rolled out HD and when they introduced their own DVRs. 

I called last week and asked if they could help reduce my monthly bill. Saw on other threads that some receive anywhere between $20 and $75 plus premiums. They suggested I drop to a lower tier. Ultimately, they offered $5 of HBO. I politely declined. 

I'll start a PS Vue trial tomorrow. If the quality is any good at all, I'll put my account on hold and try for a month or two. The $100+ savings can go toward additional ATVs to support my system. I'll just have to put up with a one month DVR.

We'll see. If that doesn't work, I'll give DTN a shot. At least they don't charge an additional $23 for HD, DVR and Whole Home. Not to mention the $7/mo for each additional box. Worst case I try YouTube.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

tomski35 said:


> I'll start a PS Vue trial tomorrow. If the quality is any good at all, I'll put my account on hold and try for a month or two. The $100+ savings can go toward additional ATVs to support my system. I'll just have to put up with a one month DVR.


PS Vue now supports Apple's TV app on the ATV box (as well as iPhone and iPad). Which is nice. You can use the TV app to have a central place to keep track of shows you're watching from a range of apps (including stuff in your PS Vue cloud DVR). The Sports tab in the TV app shows you current and upcoming games and should take you right to the live stream, whether that's in the PS Vue app or another app.

PlayStation Vue is now integrated with Apple's TV app


----------



## Microphone (Jan 30, 2007)

tomski35 said:


> I've been with DTV 18+ years. My current bill is $192 and change. I have been out of contract a few years and can't remember the last time I had a six month discount. Went through all the fun when they rolled out HD and when they introduced their own DVRs.
> 
> I called last week and asked if they could help reduce my monthly bill. Saw on other threads that some receive anywhere between $20 and $75 plus premiums. They suggested I drop to a lower tier. Ultimately, they offered $5 of HBO. I politely declined.
> 
> ...


The idea of You Tube TV looks so attractive to me. It's channel lineup, however, really lacks.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Microphone said:


> The idea of You Tube TV looks so attractive to me. It's channel lineup, however, really lacks.


I think Google was pretty smart in focusing the channel selection for YouTube TV heavily around locals, sports and news, plus a pretty generous cloud DVR. If you're already getting on-demand entertainment content from Netflix and/or Hulu and/or other on-demand services, then sports, news and live local channels are the main reasons (for most folks) to even have cable TV. For younger consumers who don't really care about that stuff, then they probably aren't interested in channel-based TV at all. They'll just watch Netflix, YouTube, etc.

That said, I'm not sure why YouTube TV doesn't offer an upgrade tier that would add the most popular missing entertainment channels from Discovery/Scripps, Viacom, A+E and Hallmark. Of course, you can get stuff stuff (minus Viacom) through a separate Philo subscription.


----------



## bills976 (Jun 30, 2002)

I'll be part of this statistic in the fourth quarter. I just cancelled last night after being a customer since 2007. I suspended my service back in May to trial streaming.

For me, it was a combination of price increases and terrible software on the HR24. Performance really regressed over the past few years, and with Sunday Ticket available via streaming, leaving DirecTV was finally an option for me. I had no interest in the genie since I have a single TV, and I'd have to pay for whole home. 

I'm now going with Hulu Live TV with an upgrade to commercial free, OTA, and a streaming subscription to NFL Sunday Ticket.


----------



## Microphone (Jan 30, 2007)

I got a TIVO for a 40th birthday present and 17 years later I've never looked back, as DVR's are the most important part of my TV viewing. Non live sports TV viewing with commercials is a few times a year event, when the power/signal goes out and I have to use On Demand. My wife watches a lot of TV and really uses the DVR a lot. I just can't see training her (or me) to 100% stream yet because of that.


----------



## tivofan2018 (Oct 19, 2018)

slice1900 said:


> I wish they broke out the difference between Directv & Uverse, but note what the AT&T said about that - they are focusing on profitability. So probably they are pulling back on giving people big discounts to sign up or to keep them.
> 
> The deal chasers are going to find better deals in the streaming world right now, so they probably wouldn't last beyond the end of their contract anyway.


i thought that AT&T was trying to push all of it's uverse customers over to DTV. but then again i read some where that DTV was trying to kill the DTV brand and push everyone over to DTV now because it's cheaper to maintain the DTV. no boxes to monitor ect ect


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

This last Sunday's outage of NFLST pushed me closer to the edge of leaving AT&T (I won't call them DirecTV anymore because it's disrespectful to what DirecTV was).

I did a chat with AT&T yesterday, and they're "refunding" my account $67 for the NFLST outage. 

They kept me for a little while, but I'm exploring options. AT&T is pitiful.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

tivofan2018 said:


> i thought that AT&T was trying to push all of it's uverse customers over to DTV. but then again i read some where that DTV was trying to kill the DTV brand and push everyone over to DTV now because it's cheaper to maintain the DTV. no boxes to monitor ect ect


Eventually they will kill off Uverse, but for now as they extend the reach of their fiber they are adding a small number of Uverse TV customers each month.

They aren't going to kill off the Directv brand, or convert people to Directv Now which is a very poor substitute for many customers. They are going to introduce a new version of Directv over IP similar to Directv Now, but it will be equivalent to the satellite version - including using Directv supplied client boxes at each TV. It will be cheaper for them to install since they won't need to send someone out, just ship the equipment and let the customer hook it up.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> AT&T is still expanding their fiber network, so they might be Uverse adds on fiber.


In my town (Irvine, CA) they are new construction only. While I'd love to get a new, larger house (and AT&T fiber), all the new houses are out in the boonies and come with a hefty, hefty tax rate. Last house I checked out was in the middle of nowhere, which is odd, since Irvine is a big city, centrally located to everything lol, that house had a 1.75% tax rate, a big sticker price and multiple HOAs.

So I'm stuck with paying $109.95/mo for *non-working* Cox Docsis 3.1 Gigabit + Phone. My service hasn't worked for 2 weeks now and they kept refusing to send a tech out because there was a "known outage". Yup. The computer blocks them from setting an appointment until they consider the outage cleared. Which it is now. FINALLY. Except my service still has 75%+ packet loss. At least they finally agreed to send out a tech tomorrow.

Can't wait for this joker to blame the outage on my Decora coax wall plate like all the previous techs before him. Odd since the gigabit service worked fine through the wall plate up until 2 weeks ago. Lol. Just like it has for the past 20 yrs (on slower speeds for that time frame obviously).

Back to the original point haha... I don't see Irvine letting AT&T dig up the streets to run Fiber. Google Fiber came in here too before they went belly up and they just got into a few apartments and condos.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Maybe you should keep a long coax cable handy so you can bypass the wall plates etc. and go direct through the living space as a test if he claims it is the wall plate or in-wall wiring.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Maybe you should keep a long coax cable handy so you can bypass the wall plates etc. and go direct through the living space as a test if he claims it is the wall plate or in-wall wiring.


I'm a neat freak lol, so all my wires and cables are in wall / hidden. The wall plate that the cox coax comes out of is "fake", I did a hacky job on it back in the day and its kinda glued to the wall instead of me using an old work box, so its a pain to take off and re-glue. I guess since I'm gonna take it off again it might be time to fix it the right way and just get the old work box. Not really in the mood to deal with that stuff right now though, but I guess it would make it easier to deal with in the future... then again, I seem to remember that particular wall is a sheer wall which is why I did the fake plate in the first place. Annoying cuz I know it's nothing in my house that's causing the problem. The techs just change all the coax fittings, etc. and call it a day, but they won't hook their meters up through the wall plates.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

SledgeHammer said:


> I'm a neat freak lol, so all my wires and cables are in wall / hidden. The wall plate that the cox coax comes out of is "fake", I did a hacky job on it back in the day and its kinda glued to the wall instead of me using an old work box, so its a pain to take off and re-glue. I guess since I'm gonna take it off again it might be time to fix it the right way and just get the old work box. Not really in the mood to deal with that stuff right now though, but I guess it would make it easier to deal with in the future... then again, I seem to remember that particular wall is a sheer wall which is why I did the fake plate in the first place. Annoying cuz I know it's nothing in my house that's causing the problem. The techs just change all the coax fittings, etc. and call it a day, but they won't hook their meters up through the wall plates.


Use a low voltage bracket, no box needed!


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> They aren't going to kill off the Directv brand, or convert people to Directv Now which is a very poor substitute for many customers. They are going to introduce a new version of Directv over IP similar to Directv Now, but it will be equivalent to the satellite version - including using Directv supplied client boxes at each TV.


If they can't even get an app on an existing platform to be stable and reliable for DirecTV NOW, I'm not sure I would bet too heavily that building their own streaming device OS platform (even if it's just modified Android) + self-designed hardware + yet another app is going to have better results.

After 2 years of being live with DTVN, they still have one of the most disappointing cloud DVR implementations in the streaming market today.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

sstv said:


> Watching TV is a long stream of Ads with a little bit of programing. Profit from advertising is at a all time high, so more Ads. I watch CNN and HLN a lot and I noticed that when I switched channels to go to CNN/HLN an Ad would almost always be playing or so it seems. Program content has decreased according to Google so more Ads can be run.
> I think people are fed up with this and are going the Streaming route to avoid Ads.
> SSTV


I agree. ATT should pay us to watch programming with ads and ATT should charge the networks to carry their programming with ads. After all, doesn't the networks charge the selling companies to carry their ads? I guess that means that advertisers really only need us.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

studechip said:


> Use a low voltage bracket, no box needed!


Yes those orange brackets that cost like 77 cents at Lowes work great for this.


----------



## Grandma D (Nov 2, 2018)

slice1900 said:


> I wish they broke out the difference between Directv & Uverse, but note what the AT&T said about that - they are focusing on profitability. So probably they are pulling back on giving people big discounts to sign up or to keep them.
> 
> The deal chasers are going to find better deals in the streaming world right now, so they probably wouldn't last beyond the end of their contract anyway.


All AT&T is after is more money. They have gotten so big, all they want is money, and heck to all of us. That is one reason I left DirecTV.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Grandma D said:


> All AT&T is after is more money. They have gotten so big, all they want is money, and heck to all of us. That is one reason I left DirecTV.


Do you think smaller companies don't want money? That's business.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Eventually they will kill off Uverse, but for now as they extend the reach of their fiber they are adding a small number of Uverse TV customers each month.
> 
> They aren't going to kill off the Directv brand, or convert people to Directv Now which is a very poor substitute for many customers. They are going to introduce a new version of Directv over IP similar to Directv Now, but it will be equivalent to the satellite version - including using Directv supplied client boxes at each TV. It will be cheaper for them to install since they won't need to send someone out, just ship the equipment and let the customer hook it up.


This is what I've been telling people. DirecTV over IP, will be equivalent to SAT DirecTV from what I understand, only be delivered using IP rather than SAT. I'm going to at least stick around until I see what that service is, how it works and what the pricing is.

For me, streaming just doesn't work the way I want it. For one, there's not one service that offers all the channels I watch, one service has one, another has some others. The biggest issue is local RSNs, in which I would need the three NY area ones. The streaming services that have them are missing some of the other core channels I watch. Second is many limit concurrent streams. Five people live in my house, and some of these services only offer 3 concurrent. Third is DVR service, which is much more limited than having a standalone DVR, often content is deleted (I have stuff on my DVR over a year and frequently record movies that might sit on the DVR for awhile) and space is limited.

Dish is not really an option, since they are missing some of the RSNs, which is the reason I left them many years ago.

So my option would be DirecTV and Optimum. I currently have my internet through Optimum, which is fine, but I wonder how their TV service is and how their DVR is and what kind of pricing I could get (and considering I have 3 DVRs and access to them from many rooms what that could cost me to keep that sort of thing active). So for me, I'll pay the fee for DirecTV for now with service getting worse and worse.

I honestly think that AT&T wanted DirecTV for their subscriber base, which they hope to port over to their coming 5G service. I wonder how expensive it is to maintain those satellites as compared to maintaining their 5G structure? I would think in the long run it would be much cheaper to do 5G. I have also been saying that they will start to sunset SAT customers over the next ten years as 5G becomes more prevalent.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

As discussed before, satellites are cheap. Broadcast technology (one to millions) is efficient. And satellite customers are not bandwidth limited ... you can watch as many HD channels as you want simultaneously without limits. Even 5G will have limits.

Streaming will work for those with a couple of TVs. But one to one connections between servers and display devices is inefficient and introduces a cost per connection that isn't present with satellite. Satellite's distribution is a cost per channel available plus paying the channel for the retransmission rights. Streaming's distribution requires the distributor to pay for each customer's connection at their end. While the cost of a replacement satellite may appear to be expensive, it is affordable when looking at the big picture.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steveknj said:


> I honestly think that AT&T wanted DirecTV for their subscriber base, which they hope to port over to their coming 5G service. I wonder how expensive it is to maintain those satellites as compared to maintaining their 5G structure? I would think in the long run it would be much cheaper to do 5G. I have also been saying that they will start to sunset SAT customers over the next ten years as 5G becomes more prevalent.


Converting customers from satellite to anything non-satellite would be stupid. Once they have a satellite customer installed, it costs them exactly $0/yr to maintain them. That number is non-zero for all other possible solutions.

The only benefit to getting rid of satellite comes at least a decade from now, when they'd need to replace a satellite.

For new installs satellite costs more because they need to visit the customer's home to install the dish, so they will probably prefer non-satellite installs once they get that new service running smoothly. But they'll still have satellite as an option, but someday maybe new customers will have to pay something up front for that install instead of having it free.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Of course it doesn't cost AT&T $0/yr to support their existing base of DBS subs. There are always some number of DVRs that fail (often the hard drives) or other issues that need to be addressed (like when I had a tech come out to see if anything could be done to mitigate my continued rain fade problems).

That said, it does seem unlikely that AT&T would proactively target their current DBS subs with messages trying to get them to switch over to the forthcoming streaming service (although I wouldn't rule that out if AT&T has a target date by which they're trying to get X% of their base on OTT rather than DBS). And I do expect that DBS subs calling in asking for retention discounts or looking to get replacement or upgraded hardware will be pitched the new streaming service (which will supposedly have somewhat lower regular monthly pricing) as an option to migrate to. If it's going to cost AT&T something to keep a current sub on DBS, I'm sure they'd instead rather just spend a modest amount to send them the new OTT STB (probably the C71) and transition them over to what they see as their future platform.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Converting customers from satellite to anything non-satellite would be stupid. Once they have a satellite customer installed, it costs them exactly $0/yr to maintain them. That number is non-zero for all other possible solutions.
> 
> The only benefit to getting rid of satellite comes at least a decade from now, when they'd need to replace a satellite.
> 
> For new installs satellite costs more because they need to visit the customer's home to install the dish, so they will probably prefer non-satellite installs once they get that new service running smoothly. But they'll still have satellite as an option, but someday maybe new customers will have to pay something up front for that install instead of having it free.


I'm curious as to how the cost can be "exactly $0/yr to maintain"? Surely their must be some cost that is non-zero. But I certainly could be missing something.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mjwagner said:


> I'm curious as to how the cost can be "exactly $0/yr to maintain"? Surely their must be some cost that is non-zero. But I certainly could be missing something.


Because once the satellites are in orbit, adding another customer doesn't cost them anything since the broadcasts wash over your roof whether you have a dish up there or not.

Now true there are costs associated with maintaining the broadcast centers that receive the programming (which is needed for IP) and sending it up to the satellites (which IP doesn't, but this is a fixed cost that isn't affected by the number of satellite subscribers) And yeah, they might need to fix your dish (but IIRC they charge for that)

I guess a more accurate statement would be that satellite has $0 in additional fixed costs to support a customer - it would cost them the same to deliver whether they had 1 or 100 million subscribers. Streaming costs more to deliver the more customers there are, and will inevitably lead to hassle when people experience glitches and they call Directv and are told "its your ISP's fault" and they call their ISP and are told "its Directv's fault". At least with satellite its a one stop shop, they don't have much room to finger point and pass the buck.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

As I stated: "Satellite's distribution is a cost per channel available plus paying the channel for the retransmission rights. Streaming's distribution requires the distributor to pay for each customer's connection at their end. While the cost of a replacement satellite may appear to be expensive, it is affordable when looking at the big picture."

Expanded: DIRECTV receives a feed from a channel. Most channels are received via satellite from the distributor - the same feeds used to feed DISH and cable systems (as well as other systems using a headend to customer design). That feed is passed through one of DIRECTV's broadcast centers and transmitted to satellite. The cost of receiving and retransmitting that channel is fixed - it is the same whether one person is watching or a billion people are watching.

Delivery via streaming requires a content delivery network (CDN) capable of serving each individual viewer. The source of the stream can either be the service (for example, DIRECTV NOW could receive each channel via satellite at a headend or various headends at data centers around the country to serve their customers) or at the content provider (for example, a provider such as ABC/Disney could provide a CDN for their channels and allow DIRECTV NOW customers to connect to their CDN using DIRECTV NOW credentials). The cost of receiving and retransmission of each channel is per customer. One person watching requires the CDN to be built to serve one person - one billion watching requires the CDN to have the capacity to serve one billion streams. Regardless of who owns the CDN the network must be paid for as part of the subscription price.

If the CDN does not have the capacity to serve all of their subscribers then the system fails. The per-viewer capacity limit is not present on satellite. CDNs need to be robust enough to handle peaks where "everyone is watching something". Satellite doesn't have that problem since they can handle an unlimited number of viewers 24/7.

Streaming providers hope that subscribers don't watch their content at the same time. Their system works best when they have a few million subscribers paying and a few thousand people watching at their peak times. A family watching five different things at the same time (or even the same thing on five devices) kills their profitability.

As streaming grows streaming providers are going to need to grow their CDNs to keep up with the demand. Every streaming customer that moves from watching an hour a week of streaming to 10 hours a week puts a demand on their network. Every streaming family that moves from watching 10 hours a week to 100 or 200 hours a week threatens to break their network. It will cost money to keep up - and the streaming customers will end up paying.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

James Long said:


> As I stated:


You should send that in a memo to AT&T. All good and valid points.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Because once the satellites are in orbit, adding another customer doesn't cost them anything since the broadcasts wash over your roof whether you have a dish up there or not.
> 
> Now true there are costs associated with maintaining the broadcast centers that receive the programming (which is needed for IP) and sending it up to the satellites (which IP doesn't, but this is a fixed cost that isn't affected by the number of satellite subscribers) And yeah, they might need to fix your dish (but IIRC they charge for that)
> 
> I guess a more accurate statement would be that satellite has $0 in additional fixed costs to support a customer - it would cost them the same to deliver whether they had 1 or 100 million subscribers. Streaming costs more to deliver the more customers there are, and will inevitably lead to hassle when people experience glitches and they call Directv and are told "its your ISP's fault" and they call their ISP and are told "its Directv's fault". At least with satellite its a one stop shop, they don't have much room to finger point and pass the buck.


So to summarize, the cost is actually not "exactly $0/yr to maintain". It is some non-zero amount. Each customer does cost something even if it is a small amount. 
Based on your argument one could surmise that in fact as the number of subscribers increase the actual cost per subscriber goes down, approaching zero but never actually zero. On the other hand, as the subscriber numbers decrease (which is unfortunately the situation D and the other sat companies find themselves in) the cost per subscriber actually goes up.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> As I stated: "Satellite's distribution is a cost per channel available plus paying the channel for the retransmission rights. Streaming's distribution requires the distributor to pay for each customer's connection at their end. While the cost of a replacement satellite may appear to be expensive, it is affordable when looking at the big picture."
> 
> Expanded: DIRECTV receives a feed from a channel. Most channels are received via satellite from the distributor - the same feeds used to feed DISH and cable systems (as well as other systems using a headend to customer design). That feed is passed through one of DIRECTV's broadcast centers and transmitted to satellite. The cost of receiving and retransmitting that channel is fixed - it is the same whether one person is watching or a billion people are watching.
> 
> ...


Well since it's even cheaper for the sat companies to deliver content to the individual subscriber then the OTT providers they are apparently gouging their customers even more than I thought.... LOL...I guess they need to have some way to pay all those AT&T "executives"...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mjwagner said:


> Well since it's even cheaper for the sat companies to deliver content to the individual subscriber then the OTT providers they are apparently gouging their customers even more than I thought.... LOL...I guess they need to have some way to pay all those AT&T "executives"...


The reason OTT MVPDs charge less is because it is new so they're in the "customer acquisition" stage. They are all losing money on it. The pricing will not stay as low as it is once things shake out and the weak hands like PSVUE throw in the towel. This is why AT&T bought Directv, they wanted to insure they had scale and were not one of the weak hands that would be forced to give up.

Because of competition they will never make the profit margins that Directv does on satellite, but Directv has chosen to shoot for higher income customers than Dish has. Thus Directv's ASP is $128/month versus Dish's at $85 (I saw that figure recently, not sure if Dish was the source or if someone was guessing) Obviously Dish doesn't cost 50% more than Directv, so the average Directv subscriber is choosing a higher level of service with bigger packages, more receivers or whatever.


----------



## WB4CS (Dec 12, 2013)

James Long said:


> As I stated:........(truncated for space).


Thank you for dishing out that knowledge! I had no idea that streaming services worked that way. I assumed that it worked similar to an IP multicast. I think of satellite as similar to a multicast... one "data stream" with many clients digesting that data. In a one-to-many data stream, the client (your receiver) and server (the satellite) don't need to establish a connection. So it shouldn't matter how many clients are receiving that stream simultaneously. That's how I would have assumed streaming, like DTVN, worked. But it sounds like OTT streaming is more like a peer-to-peer (one-to-one) connection, where the stream I'm watching is being delivered exclusively to my device?

Blame it on the network engineer who's lifelong hobby has been RF/Radio/Satellite (me) to want to really understand how this works LOL. Not to mention, I was planning on canceling DTV tomorrow and going full-on DTVN after testing it out for a week.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TheRatPatrol said:


> You should send that in a memo to AT&T. All good and valid points.


I am sure AT&T understands the math. But they also understand that they have to follow the customer's preferences. They could refuse to offer OTT services, but as long as people are leaving cable and satellite for OTT AT&T might as well try to capture that market.



mjwagner said:


> Well since it's even cheaper for the sat companies to deliver content to the individual subscriber then the OTT providers they are apparently gouging their customers even more than I thought.... LOL...I guess they need to have some way to pay all those AT&T "executives"...


A for profit company makes money. The difference between a fair profit and gouging is a matter of opinion. How much do you believe AT&T should profit per customer per month? $10? $1? 50 cents? Most of a DIRECTV customer's payment goes to the content providers, not profits.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> I am sure AT&T understands the math. But they also understand that they have to follow the customer's preferences. They could refuse to offer OTT services, but as long as people are leaving cable and satellite for OTT AT&T might as well try to capture that market.
> 
> A for profit company makes money. The difference between a fair profit and gouging is a matter of opinion. How much do you believe AT&T should profit per customer per month? $10? $1? 50 cents? Most of a DIRECTV customer's payment goes to the content providers, not profits.


It's not up to me, it's up to the marketplace...and it's deciding, at an ever increasing clip based on the most recent numbers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mjwagner said:


> It's not up to me, it's up to the marketplace...and it's deciding, at an ever increasing clip based on the most recent numbers.


The market is ignorant. They don't know the profit margin. A claim of "gouging" is not supported by facts - only feelings.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> The reason OTT MVPDs charge less is because it is new so they're in the "customer acquisition" stage. They are all losing money on it. The pricing will not stay as low as it is once things shake out and the weak hands like PSVUE throw in the towel. This is why AT&T bought Directv, they wanted to insure they had scale and were not one of the weak hands that would be forced to give up.
> 
> Because of competition they will never make the profit margins that Directv does on satellite, but Directv has chosen to shoot for higher income customers than Dish has. Thus Directv's ASP is $128/month versus Dish's at $85 (I saw that figure recently, not sure if Dish was the source or if someone was guessing) Obviously Dish doesn't cost 50% more than Directv, so the average Directv subscriber is choosing a higher level of service with bigger packages, more receivers or whatever.


The profit margins have been and will continue to be squeezed. The increased competition and near frictionless provider switching costs with the OTT providers will continue to keep pressure on prices. Will prices go up some, highly likely. How much and how fast none of us know. For large segments of tv entertainment consumers the days of $100+ monthly bills are over. As I've said many times, all of this is good news for consumers.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> The market is ignorant. They don't know the profit margin. A claim of "gouging" is not supported by facts - only feelings.


The marketplace is certainly ambivalent and doesn't care about the details for sure. But it is the final arbiter. The consumer will vote with their pocketbook as always. I personally don't really care whether D, Dish, cable cos, or any of the OTT providers continues or goes belly up. I do find the industry and the changes it is currently going thru very interesting which is why I'm still here participating in these discussions.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mjwagner said:


> The profit margins have been and will continue to be squeezed. The increased competition and near frictionless provider switching costs with the OTT providers will continue to keep pressure on prices. Will prices go up some, highly likely. How much and how fast none of us know. For large segments of tv entertainment consumers the days of $100+ monthly bills are over. As I've said many times, all of this is good news for consumers.


There are economies of scale in delivering TV via streaming, both on the delivery side (because you can amortize fixed costs across more subscribers) and the content acquisition side (Directv before acquisition paid $14 less per customer for content than Uverse TV did for the same stuff, because their size gave them more leverage)

The weaker players will throw in the towel, and we'll be left with a few big players. They'll still make profit, they aren't going to allow themselves to be commoditized. Enjoy the cheap streaming you can get today, once cord cutting accelerates to the point more people are streaming than getting traditional cable/satellite there will be a big shakeout and the low prices you can get today for Directv Now, Sling etc. will not last.

Narrowly focused providers like Netflix probably won't need to increase their prices, but the only content they will have is their own original stuff. All the movies and back catalog TV shows people originally subscribed to them to get will be pulled into streaming options run by the studios like Disney's.

These companies exist to make money, not to give the best deal to consumers. I don't get why people see streaming as freeing them from the shackles of evil profit centered companies. There may be a shakeup and you get DIFFERENT evil profit centered companies, but they'll still make as much money off you as they did before, or you'll choose to have access to less content as a way of saving money.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> Converting customers from satellite to anything non-satellite would be stupid. Once they have a satellite customer installed, it costs them exactly $0/yr to maintain them. That number is non-zero for all other possible solutions.
> 
> The only benefit to getting rid of satellite comes at least a decade from now, when they'd need to replace a satellite.
> 
> For new installs satellite costs more because they need to visit the customer's home to install the dish, so they will probably prefer non-satellite installs once they get that new service running smoothly. But they'll still have satellite as an option, but someday maybe new customers will have to pay something up front for that install instead of having it free.


I would think the reason they would want to convert from satellite to non-satellite would be to make their cellular/data service customers "sticky".
Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile are always working to poach each others customers and locking in the TV service would discourage "jumping"

That said, the brother-in-law went to Direct Now or whatever they call it three weeks ago and then had them rip out the Directv satellite.
This week, the sister-in-law informs me that the techs will be returning to reinstall the satellite system.

She likes the simplicity and fast clicks of satellite - period- end of story for the brother-in-law.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

How is a customer getting video via IP more sticky than one getting video via satellite? The reason they bundle is for discounts, not because they fear losing their TV if they switch to a different ISP.

Once you go to some sort of streaming, there are more options at more price points so such a customer is probably less sticky than a Directv satellite customer.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I object to the term "convert" as it makes it sound like AT&T|DIRECTV is making customers move from one service offering to another. The guide change would be example of an actual conversion ... DIRECTV forced customers to change equipment and no longer offers the old guide. DIRECTV is quietly converting customers from MPEG2 to MPEG4 ... at some point non-MPEG4 receivers will lose channels. That is a conversion. But other "conversions" are questionable.

Soon after AT&T bought DIRECTV we heard that AT&T was actively converting UVERSE customers over to DIRECTV. But they never stopped people from signing up for UVERSE and the recent quarterly reports show an increase in UVERSE subscriber count. If they are converting UVERSE customers to DIRECTV they are doing a lousy job. Now the forum chatter has shifted to AT&T|DIRECTV converting customers to DIRECTV NOW or to the still not yet available "satellite equivalent" OTT offering. But have any DIRECTV customer been forcibly removed from satellite delivery by AT&T|DIRECTV?

What AT&T|DIRECTV is doing is offering options. AT&T|DIRECTV would prefer that their customers sign up for the more profitable DIRECTV satellite service than UVERSE. The company have not forced customers to switch (although zealous salespeople may have crossed the line in their encouragement to sign customers up for DIRECTV satellite). AT&T|DIRECTV would prefer that people "cutting the cord" and leaving UVERSE and DIRECTV satellite continue to send AT&T money each month ... so they offer DIRECTV NOW. Not as profitable as the other services but better than completely losing the customer.

It is an option. Perhaps the passive "allowing a customer to convert" would be better than the active term "converting". AT&T|DIRECTV is not forcing the change.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> How is a customer getting video via IP more sticky than one getting video via satellite? The reason they bundle is for discounts, not because they fear losing their TV if they switch to a different ISP.


I look at it as provider side bundling. When I had Frontier as a DSL ISP they forced me to also have their phone service. DSL only (no dialtone) was not possible when I signed up. Years ago Comcast rates for Internet were much better if you bundled with TV service. Now the Internet only rates are affordable - with some discount for bundling.

It seems that the data providers (ISPs) have a natural audience for TV services. A forced bundle where one (for example) would get DIRECTV NOW as part of their AT&T wireless service (whether they want it or not) is on the horizon. Discounts such as zero rating data used to view DIRECTV content over AT&T is present. Even if they still charge a separate optional fee for DIRECTV NOW the zero rated data makes the service more affordable than competitive services that are not zero rated. A customer could keep their DIRECTV NOW if they left AT&T Wireless ... but they most likely would not keep their zero rated data.



slice1900 said:


> Once you go to some sort of streaming, there are more options at more price points so such a customer is probably less sticky than a Directv satellite customer.


One of the biggest selling points of streaming is no commitment. The closest I have seen to commitment on streaming service are annual rates. Otherwise come and go as you please.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

AT&T Says the Streaming Version of DIRECTV Will Launch in 2019 - Cord Cutters News

DirecTV Launching Proprietary Streaming Media Device in 2019 - Media Play News

Yeah, looks like their plan would be because streaming is cheaper for them than SAT.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> AT&T Says the Streaming Version of DIRECTV Will Launch in 2019 - Cord Cutters News
> 
> DirecTV Launching Proprietary Streaming Media Device in 2019 - Media Play News
> 
> Yeah, looks like their plan would be because streaming is cheaper for them than SAT.


Gotta wonder how much interest folks will have in this. I have none.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> Gotta wonder how much interest folks will have in this. I have none.
> 
> Rich


Some people either can't have a dish where they are or refuse to have one for various reasons. Though the main reason Directv is offering this is it will be cheaper for them to install since they just ship you clients. No installer visit, no Genie = savings for Directv.

Once they have this going smoothly this will probably be the product they offer first and only install the satellite version if you ask for it. Might make you pay more up front or take a longer commitment for the satellite version to offset their added cost.

I can't see any reason why someone with Directv satellite would want to switch, nor would Directv have any incentive to want you to switch. Sure, you avoid rain fade but the internet isn't 100% reliable so there will still be outages. Plus I can't imagine the experience with a cloud DVR instead of a Genie will be as good.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

The first article says this is different from DirecTV now and the second says delivering DirecTV now. I believe the first article.
Many questions - DVR, capabilities etc. Will there be whole home and how does that really get setup? If it really has all the capabilities of Directv why wouldn't new people be interested?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Some people either can't have a dish where they are or refuse to have one for various reasons. Though the main reason Directv is offering this is it will be cheaper for them to install since they just ship you clients. No installer visit, no Genie = savings for Directv.
> 
> Once they have this going smoothly this will probably be the product they offer first and only install the satellite version if you ask for it. Might make you pay more up front or take a longer commitment for the satellite version to offset their added cost.
> 
> I can't see any reason why someone with Directv satellite would want to switch, nor would Directv have any incentive to want you to switch. Sure, you avoid rain fade but the internet isn't 100% reliable so there will still be outages. *Plus I can't imagine the experience with a cloud DVR instead of a Genie will be as good.*


Aside from sports, what possible use is a DVR to someone who streams? Someone who has no need for a Guide or channels? The only time I actually need a DVR is for games. I can't imagine caring about how well a cloud DVR works.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CTJon said:


> The first article says this is different from DirecTV now and the second says delivering DirecTV now. I believe the first article.
> Many questions - DVR, capabilities etc. Will there be whole home and how does that really get setup? If it really has all the capabilities of Directv why wouldn't new people be interested?


Aside from sports (something I can't get past) why do we need more streaming boxes? Boxes that, in all likelihood won't be nearly as good as the Nvidia Shield, the Apple TV boxes or the new Fire TV devices. You don't need a whole home system, every box does that easily. ATVs connect to each other, FTVs connect to each other, no MRV dedicated system needed. No DVR really needed. I'm not gonna be interested. Now if they came up with a streaming box that was as reliable for sports as D* is I'd be interested but that's not gonna happen.

It's interesting to watch folks try to cope with all these changes we're seeing. Everybody wants channels and DVRs and Guides and an MRV system. You don't need them.

Aside from sports, of course. I can't get past that. 

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> Aside from sports (something I can't get past) why do we need more streaming boxes? Boxes that, in all likelihood won't be nearly as good as the Nvidia Shield, the Apple TV boxes or the new Fire TV devices. You don't need a whole home system, every box does that easily. ATVs connect to each other, FTVs connect to each other, no MRV dedicated system needed. No DVR really needed. I'm not gonna be interested. Now if they came up with a streaming box that was as reliable for sports as D* is I'd be interested but that's not gonna happen.
> 
> It's interesting to watch folks try to cope with all these changes we're seeing. Everybody wants channels and DVRs and Guides and an MRV system. You don't need them.
> 
> ...


You shouldn't think of this new box that AT&T is testing out as a "streaming box" that's a direct competitor to Roku/Apple TV/Fire TV. Think of it more like Comcast's X1. I don't think the forthcoming streaming DTV will be aimed at cord-cutters; AT&T already has DTV Now to serve that segment. Nor is it aimed at folks like you who have already pretty much moved on from the linear channel-based TV paradigm.

This new service and box will be for all those people (and there are still tons of them) who want channel-based cable TV with a remote control designed for it (with 0-9 and channel up/down keys), along with a full-service DVR and a UI that brings in VOD plus whatever apps they use on the side (Netflix, Prime Video, etc.). They want a UI that puts their "cable TV" front and center, not buried inside its own little app on a box that wasn't really designed for it.

People keep getting hung up on the fact that this is another OTT service but that just describes the delivery technology behind the service, which is ultimately unimportant to the average user. What they care about is the feature set and user experience.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Rich said:


> why do we need more streaming boxes?


So they can charge you a rental fee for the box = ca$h grab.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Rich said:


> Gotta wonder how much interest folks will have in this. I have none.
> 
> Rich


If it works the same as my existing setup and it's cheaper (plus the box offers things like what a Roku, ATV has), I'd definitely give it a shot. But that's a big if. But based on the comments from the CEO, it certainly sounds like their plan would be to push new customers to this service and eventually port over existing users....which is pretty much what I figured they'd do.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> You shouldn't think of this new box that AT&T is testing out as a "streaming box" that's a direct competitor to Roku/Apple TV/Fire TV. Think of it more like Comcast's X1. I don't think the forthcoming streaming DTV will be aimed at cord-cutters; AT&T already has DTV Now to serve that segment. Nor is it aimed at folks like you who have already pretty much moved on from the linear channel-based TV paradigm.
> 
> This new service and box will be for all those people (and there are still tons of them) who want channel-based cable TV with a remote control designed for it (with 0-9 and channel up/down keys), along with a full-service DVR and a UI that brings in VOD plus whatever apps they use on the side (Netflix, Prime Video, etc.). They want a UI that puts their "cable TV" front and center, not buried inside its own little app on a box that wasn't really designed for it.
> 
> People keep getting hung up on the fact that this is another OTT service but that just describes the delivery technology behind the service, which is ultimately unimportant to the average user. What they care about is the feature set and user experience.


I know, it's gonna be like the Altice 1 box. Yet another box I have no interest in.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TheRatPatrol said:


> So they can charge you a rental fee for the box = ca$h grab.


Yup, seems like every cable/sat provider is gonna have one. Desperation.

Rich


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Some people either can't have a dish where they are or refuse to have one for various reasons. Though the main reason Directv is offering this is it will be cheaper for them to install since they just ship you clients. No installer visit, no Genie = savings for Directv.
> 
> Once they have this going smoothly this will probably be the product they offer first and only install the satellite version if you ask for it. Might make you pay more up front or take a longer commitment for the satellite version to offset their added cost.
> 
> I can't see any reason why someone with Directv satellite would want to switch, nor would Directv have any incentive to want you to switch. Sure, you avoid rain fade but the internet isn't 100% reliable so there will still be outages. Plus I can't imagine the experience with a cloud DVR instead of a Genie will be as good.


Until I know for sure what the service will be offering, I can't say, but, like I said, it offers similar functionality, and costs less, there's no reason to NOT switch over. As I've been saying, AT&T's bread and butter is their own infrastructure, not what they inherited from DirecTV. They may not want to throw more money at satellite at this point when they have an infrastructure that they've built and they think is the future. And, since they are seeing huge drops in subscribers, why would they continue to support a sinking ship? Sure it's profitable now, but will it still be in 5 years? And how much R&D are they going to put into SAT? New DVRs for SAT? I'm guessing that's the kind of thing that costs a lot of money to develop too. At least for me, internet streaming has become pretty robust. I hardly ever hiccup on streaming anything from Netflix or AP these days and they tend to have good PQ and SQ now.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> If it works the same as my existing setup and it's cheaper (plus the box offers things like what a Roku, ATV has), I'd definitely give it a shot. But that's a big if. But based on the comments from the CEO, it certainly sounds like their plan would be to push new customers to this service and eventually port over existing users....which is pretty much what I figured they'd do.


I think they're gonna do anything they can to retain subs. This is just a step in that direction. Lowering the monthly cost to next to nothing makes D* much easier to take for me. Be interesting to see what happens when all the credits I have start dropping off in a month or so. Once the football season ends...

Rich


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

CTJon said:


> The first article says this is different from DirecTV now and the second says delivering DirecTV now. I believe the first article.
> Many questions - DVR, capabilities etc. Will there be whole home and how does that really get setup? If it really has all the capabilities of Directv why wouldn't new people be interested?


I think they plan on testing the boxes with DirecTV Now, they are looking for beta testers.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steveknj said:


> And how much R&D are they going to put into SAT? New DVRs for SAT? I'm guessing that's the kind of thing that costs a lot of money to develop too.


They have already done all the R&D they'll ever need to do for satellite. They've simplified things and driven down the cost over the years, and the Genie 2 + clients is the end result. You can't get any simpler than that for satellite.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> They have already done all the R&D they'll ever need to do for satellite. They've simplified things and driven down the cost over the years, and the Genie 2 + clients is the end result. You can't get any simpler than that for satellite.


No if they can actually get it working like it's supposed to.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> AT&T Says the Streaming Version of DIRECTV Will Launch in 2019 - Cord Cutters News
> 
> DirecTV Launching Proprietary Streaming Media Device in 2019 - Media Play News
> 
> Yeah, looks like their plan would be because streaming is cheaper for them than SAT.


Streaming is not cheaper than satellite. In some cases it can make them more money on new customers. But that's a slippery slope since satellite services is why streaming doesn't cost them as much as it does other companies. Without sat service streaming would be even more expensive. But they don't want to lose sat because that's simply a cash cow now...


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Streaming is not cheaper than satellite. In some cases it can make them more money on new customers. But that's a slippery slope since satellite services is why streaming doesn't cost them as much as it does other companies. Without sat service streaming would be even more expensive. But they don't want to lose sat because that's simply a cash cow now...


Now is the operative word. At what number of subscriber loss is it no longer a cash cow? At what point does the need to keep bringing out new equipment (and the R&D costs associated with that. Sat maintenance. Equipment upgrades and maintenance and so forth make it no longer a cash chow? And with Sat they may be dependent on a lot of outside factors. From an AT&T standpoint, they will control their streaming box from top to bottom? There would no longer be a need for expensive installations, no longer a need to have upgrade programs on equipment (kind of like the old model from 15 years ago huh?), and they will control the whole 5G network. Only thing out of their hands could potentially be the internet connection (and I would bet that they will be pushing hard to bring their own 5G infrastructure in with the box when it's introduced. I think a lot of us really WANT Sat to continue. it's what we know. But you have to look for the future (and in some ways I applaud AT&T for being somewhat forward thinking, something that is lacking in many facets of corporate America). Yeah, Satellite will be around for awhile, maybe almost permanently, especially in those rural areas where there's no alternative. But it's going to be increasingly less important to AT&T, to the point where I would imagine that they are going to eventually stop pouring money into it and focus on it's other resources. If I come back here in 5 years and the number of Sat customers is still steady or rising, I'll be shocked.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> If I come back here in 5 years and the number of Sat customers is still steady or rising, I'll be shocked.


That is an easy bet since the subscriber levels are already dropping. But both systems can remain profitable even with less customers. "Satellite maintenance" is the occasional replacement. After launch there is not much to do.

AT&T is not the first to offer a satellite/cable OTT replacement product. We have yet to see how "satellite equivalent" their proposed service will be. Or how acceptable it will be to the consumer. At the moment it is all speculative. But people are leaving satellite and cable so AT&T might as well try to capture those people as they leave. I would not be surprised to see other providers (such as Xfinity) offer an OTT service.

What I keep coming back to is bandwidth. No ISP is unlimited bandwidth. Take your ISP and divide it by 25mbps (or 15mbps depending on the quality you want) and you have the limit of TVs you can run simultaneously. With decent broadband a small home probably won't notice any problems. But the more simultaneous feeds one attempts the worse the service will get. That isn't a problem with satellite.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> That is an easy bet since the subscriber levels are already dropping. But both systems can remain profitable even with less customers. "Satellite maintenance" is the occasional replacement. After launch there is not much to do.
> 
> AT&T is not the first to offer a satellite/cable OTT replacement product. We have yet to see how "satellite equivalent" their proposed service will be. Or how acceptable it will be to the consumer. At the moment it is all speculative. But people are leaving satellite and cable so AT&T might as well try to capture those people as they leave. I would not be surprised to see other providers (such as Xfinity) offer an OTT service.
> 
> What I keep coming back to is bandwidth. No ISP is unlimited bandwidth. Take your ISP and divide it by 25mbps (or 15mbps depending on the quality you want) and you have the limit of TVs you can run simultaneously. With decent broadband a small home probably won't notice any problems. But the more simultaneous feeds one attempts the worse the service will get. That isn't a problem with satellite.


Even a fairly large residential environment shouldn't be any problem with the current technology. You will more than likely run out of simultaneous streams that you are allowed to run before you hit performance bottlenecks. I have a fairly large home. I have run all 5 of my PSVue simultaneous streams on different live channels driving 5 different tv's in 5 different rooms just as a test and had no issues at all. I have 50m internet service. Most services, like DirecTV Now as an example, limit you to 3 simultaneous streams. Now if everyone on my cable internet line was doing the same thing at the same time...who knows. My cable internet provider has been adding a ton of customers in our area. So far I have never seen any speed hiccups. It's always measured right around 50m whenever I have measured it. Net is the problem won't be in my house but downstream. It certainly could become an issue if my isp doesn't plan for and keep up with the overall load.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

If you added up all the costs for Directv to operate a satellite business, ignoring things that are duplicated between satellite & streaming like broadcast centers, billing, customer service etc. the cost of building/launching satellites dwarfs everything else. Worrying that they will halt R&D on equipment is stupid, that's not where the money is.

Especially since the same clients will be used on streaming and satellite products. Not sure what R&D you think they will miss out on. The Genie 2 will be used only for satellite, but what exactly do you think they would be doing with it if they were investing a lot? They will refine it every year or two with a bigger hard drive, faster CPU, more RAM, and new wireless standards but it will remain basically the same product. What will it be missing out on?

I've posted the math for satellite replacement showing how little it costs them several times - at current subscriber levels they could keep replacing satellites forever as needed for about 50 cents per customer per month. They won't of course - I'm willing to bet when T16 launches early next year it will be Directv's last satellite launch. And that's OK, their core satellites (T11, T12, T14, T15, T16) should last until about 2030 or so. That might be when they shut off the lights, or if it is still profitable for them they might keep going another ten years at a reduced service level (i.e. dropping local markets over time as T11 and T12 fail) until they lose too many satellites and have to call it a day.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> Now is the operative word. At what number of subscriber loss is it no longer a cash cow? At what point does the need to keep bringing out new equipment (and the R&D costs associated with that. Sat maintenance. Equipment upgrades and maintenance and so forth make it no longer a cash chow? And with Sat they may be dependent on a lot of outside factors. From an AT&T standpoint, they will control their streaming box from top to bottom? There would no longer be a need for expensive installations, no longer a need to have upgrade programs on equipment (kind of like the old model from 15 years ago huh?), and they will control the whole 5G network. Only thing out of their hands could potentially be the internet connection (and I would bet that they will be pushing hard to bring their own 5G infrastructure in with the box when it's introduced. I think a lot of us really WANT Sat to continue. it's what we know. But you have to look for the future (and in some ways I applaud AT&T for being somewhat forward thinking, something that is lacking in many facets of corporate America). Yeah, Satellite will be around for awhile, maybe almost permanently, especially in those rural areas where there's no alternative. But it's going to be increasingly less important to AT&T, to the point where I would imagine that they are going to eventually stop pouring money into it and focus on it's other resources. If I come back here in 5 years and the number of Sat customers is still steady or rising, I'll be shocked.


Let me know when they are under about 8 million customers. That's when I'd start looking closer if they will be sustainable at say 4 to 5 million customers. I'd bet they would be...


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Here is my viewpoint.... feel free to disagree with me...

For the most part, I place the blame on the content providers rather than the multichannel distributors. The content providers, whether it be the local stations, the national $ports networks, the regional $ports networks, or the cable-only channels, all want ever-increasing rights fees in addition to the advertising on the channel. How many disputes have occurred this past year because of fees, plus the resulting accusations and end user dissatisfaction? It's to the point that you can guess the responses and put them on a bingo card. And, because the contracts require that they be placed in a certain tier of programming, all those who are subscribed to the package pay up even if they have no interest in that channel. Could care less about E$PN or R$N, but love the Travel channel? Pay up. E$PN and the R$Ns are the most expensive channels on a per-subscriber basis outside of the premiums, and in some markets, you are paying for multiple R$Ns. And, yet, despite having multiple channels, one gets the feeling that there is hardly any compelling content on. How many of those 200+ channels are you actually watching on a regular basis? And, on the multiple news channels, how much of it is now actual solid news verses static and noise? I get more signal from a web article than I get from a radio or television broadcast.

The way we consume content has drastically changed. No longer is it a family gathered around a single television at the appointed hour. Now, it's family members watching on either their own television, tablets, or smartphones, watching on their own time. Want to watch the entire season of _Mystery Science Theater 3000_ or _Stranger Things_ in a marathon viewing? Go for it. There are also more options to entertain oneself that doesn't involve staring at a television such as playing computer games.

DirecTV is going to lose another subscriber early next year, as I will be cancelling the service and moving halfway across the country. My replacement? I took advantage of Hulu's Black Friday offer of $1 per month for 12 months with limited commercials plus Amazon Prime. But, most of it will be with my own personal media collection and my own media server.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

*shrug* I'll stick with satellite as long as I can. Streaming experience is not up to snuff. No trick play, you can't even do basic stuff like FF! And they'll force you to watch commercials which you can easily skip now.

Besides, people are kidding themselves if they think streaming is cheaper.

1) You need a faster internet. More $$$.
2) Netflix + Amazon Prime
3) HBO + Showtime
4) Disney
5) ESPN
6) Roku's or Apple TVs for each TV.
7) OTA for locals and something to record OTA, maybe guide data so you might need something like a Tivo… more monthly fees.

I'm not doing 1 through 7 lol, or anything close to that, but for somebody who expects to save money by streaming, get real. All those fees and month charges add up.

Streaming fees are kinda/sorta low now... but they'll climb just as fast as TV over time. When I started DirecTV, my monthly bill was $30/month.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> *shrug* I'll stick with satellite as long as I can. Streaming experience is not up to snuff. No trick play, you can't even do basic stuff like FF! And they'll force you to watch commercials which you can easily skip now.
> 
> Besides, people are kidding themselves if they think streaming is cheaper.
> 
> ...


I do trick play all the time and skip thru all commercials. I prefer the cloud DVR as I no longer have to manage conflicts or storage space.
1. Using the same internet I had before so no extra $.
2. Already had both so no extra $.
3. Didn't have before, don't have Now so no extra $.
4. Access to the Disney app comes with my PSVue sub so no extra $.
5. All the ESPN channels are included in my PSVue package so no extra $.
6. Already had streaming devices for all tvs so no extra $.
7. Not needed, get my locals thrust PSVue. That said, since I wanted a few of my "hyper local" channel sub-channels which I could not get through D I already had an HDHomeRun which is no charge so no extra $.

Saving $ was not the main reason I switched to PSVue from D over two years ago but in that time I have saved about $80 per month over what I was paying for D and now have a better experience, IMO, and have access on all of my tvs instead of just 3. Can the OTT prices go up in the future, sure. My guess is that D prices will also go up in the future too. None of us know what the future will hold. What I know for sure is I have put close to $2,000 in my pocket that I would have sent to D. I'd have to buy a lot of $50 streaming devices to use up that amount of money...


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> I do trick play all the time and skip thru all commercials. I prefer the cloud DVR as I no longer have to manage conflicts or storage space.
> 1. Using the same internet I had before so no extra $.
> 2. Already had both so no extra $.
> 3. Didn't have before, don't have Now so no extra $.
> ...


You're kind of spinning your "no extra $" thing . You're paying for Netflix and AP which are, what $14 + $99/yr? How much per month is the PSVue sub? How much hardware did you have to buy? It's not really "no extra $"... you already spent that money before when you had both options... now you dropped one of them. And how much did the HDHomeRun cost?

And the bigger question is what package and setup did you have before? If you had 17 TVs and every channel under the sun, then yeah...

I couldn't possibly save $80/month doing this since my bill is only $65/month for Preferred Xtra and one DVR. Never had a single problem with space.

For movies, I "download" them and stream them over DLNA to my TV. Huge PITA in my opinion. To watch DirecTV is 1 button press on 1 remote. To watch a streaming anything requires 3 remotes and probably at least 5 button presses:

DirecTV remote: 1 button, Power On (turns on TV and AVR w/ one button)
AVR remote: 1 button, switch to TV audio
TV remote: 1: bring up app picker, 2: scroll through to DLNA app (maybe a few clicks here) 3: open DLNA app 4: pick PC 5: pick Videos, 6: pick All Videos 7: pick movie

So its actually probably closer to 10 button clicks to get going vs. 1.

Dunno about you, but I like tight integration in my HT and minimal button presses . Like I said, I only pay $65/month and get all the content I want.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> You're kind of spinning your "no extra $" thing . You're paying for Netflix and AP which are, what $14 + $99/yr? How much per month is the PSVue sub? How much hardware did you have to buy? It's not really "no extra $"... you already spent that money before when you had both options... now you dropped one of them. And how much did the HDHomeRun cost?
> 
> And the bigger question is what package and setup did you have before? If you had 17 TVs and every channel under the sun, then yeah...
> 
> ...


You are right about one thing for sure: For sports trick play is terrible when using a streaming box or the TV apps. But trick play for sports is also pretty terrible with a Genie, what with the picture being obscured every time we click forward and the remote doesn't do clicking back very well either. I can click forward 30 seconds but when I try to click back I have to use more clicks than I would with a streaming box. Problems both ways, D* and streaming. For ordinary shows I don't see any issues with trick play.

The price? You list a bunch of apps. There's no reason you have to have all those apps active at the same time, if you're worried about money keep one app active. I pay less for D* with more equipment than you have but sports are the only thing keeping me with D*.

Mark has a cable replacement service, PS Vue. Yes, there is a monthly charge for this and every CRS. But you don't need that. I don't use a CRS, just don't see the need.

Rich


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> You're kind of spinning your "no extra $" thing . You're paying for Netflix and AP which are, what $14 + $99/yr? How much per month is the PSVue sub? How much hardware did you have to buy? It's not really "no extra $"... you already spent that money before when you had both options... now you dropped one of them. And how much did the HDHomeRun cost?
> 
> And the bigger question is what package and setup did you have before? If you had 17 TVs and every channel under the sun, then yeah...
> 
> ...


Not spinning at all. The only way to calculate savings is before vs after. All the things I listed as "no extra $" I had "before" so it is in fact no extra $ "after". And my D Bill was $120 per month before. After, my PSVue bill was $40. Last time I checked 120 - 40 is 80 unless you use different math...
I've said it before and I'll say it again, streaming isn't right for everybody. But for some, like me, it's better. For me the savings really was just a added bonus. Thankfully my wife and I are pretty well off so honestly we don't even notice $80 per month. But streaming better fits the way we consume entertainment. If it doesn't for you it's sll good. Choice and competition helps all of us.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> You're kind of spinning your "no extra $" thing . You're paying for Netflix and AP which are, what $14 + $99/yr? How much per month is the PSVue sub? How much hardware did you have to buy? It's not really "no extra $"... you already spent that money before when you had both options... now you dropped one of them. And how much did the HDHomeRun cost?
> 
> And the bigger question is what package and setup did you have before? If you had 17 TVs and every channel under the sun, then yeah...
> 
> ...


...and as for button presses, I use a Harmony Elite universal remote. One button press and it turns all the right equipment on and sets everything to the correct inputs...so theirs that...


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Out of curiosity I went and looked at my last bill from D. D was charging almost as much as what PSVue costs per month just for monthly "equipment Services". And that was with the last of a $10 per month discount. Once the discount rolled off I would have been paying D as much JUST for "equipment Services" as my entire PSVue bill...LOL - 

DIRECTV Equipment Services
4. Watch DIRECTV on Multiple TVs 21.00
4 TVs at $7 each; Save $7 off 1st TV
5. Advanced Receiver Service ‐ HD 10.00
6. Advanced Receiver Service ‐ DVR 0.00
$10 off $10 for 12 months (12 of 12)
7. DIRECTV Whole‐Home DVR Service 3.00
8. Mobile DVR Service 0.00
Complimentary
SUBTOTAL 34.00

...and with PSVue I have access on all of my TV's (6) not just 4 and we can watch simultaneously on up top 5...and D wonders why people are sprinting for the exits.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Over at Solid Signal Blog Stuart brings up a good point that what Donovan meant was they don't need anymore satellite's after they launch the T16 because they would have all the bandwidth that DTV needs. I think that would be enough to last them because it would take awhile to transition everyone over to streaming. I guess we could also tell the direction they are going in if they start promoting DTV over IP instead of DTV over SatelliteTV.

Has AT&T really launched its last satellite? - The Solid Signal Blog


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> I pay less for D* with more equipment than you have but sports are the only thing keeping me with D*.
> Rich


How'd you do that? Didn't you have like 17 boxes at some point? And the top of the line package?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Out of curiosity I went and looked at my last bill from D. D was charging almost as much as what PSVue costs per month just for monthly "equipment Services". And that was with the last of a $10 per month discount. Once the discount rolled off I would have been paying D as much JUST for "equipment Services" as my entire PSVue bill...LOL -
> 
> DIRECTV Equipment Services
> 4. Watch DIRECTV on Multiple TVs 21.00
> ...


Yeah, you do get hit hard with multiple TVs. I have the HD DVR, so I pay $20 on that... but I don't have the WHDVR fee as I'm on legacy billing. Discounts roll off, but you can always get them put back on. My $65 setup stickers for like $110 I think. This last time my promo fell off, it was harder to get it put back on... but I've been on "promo pricing" for I'd say close to 10 yrs. I was seriously one round of CSR roulette away from jumping to DISH.

Hopefully that'll work too with Cox for my 1Gbps internet when that comes up early next year. No way I'm paying full price on that! I was on promo pricing with them for years too on the 175Mbps plan, but when they came out with 1Gbps I took the promo pricing for that as it wasn't really that much more. Unfortunately with Cox, there isn't much competition in my area. AT&T only goes up to 100Mbps in my area.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

No, for me it would be cheaper and you are making alot of assumptions painting far too broad of a brush to make the assertion you made.

1) I don't need faster internet. In fact, the base package in my town is 100 down, which is more than enough.
2) Already pay for both, as do millions of others. It is not an added cost to go to streaming.
3 - 5) and 7) Are included in the streaming packages. Other than equipment, that is the true comparison.
6) Equipment is dirt cheap and there is no monthly fee. In fact, in way less than a year, it would pay for itself vs. Directv's equipment cost.

Bottom line....right now....satellite is way more expensive.



SledgeHammer said:


> *shrug* I'll stick with satellite as long as I can. Streaming experience is not up to snuff. No trick play, you can't even do basic stuff like FF! And they'll force you to watch commercials which you can easily skip now.
> 
> Besides, people are kidding themselves if they think streaming is cheaper.
> 
> ...


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> Besides, people are kidding themselves if they think streaming is cheaper.


If someone feels the need to have "all the stuff" -- all the cable channels, all the various add-ons -- yeah, you're probably not going to save any money trying to re-create that bundle via streaming when all the costs are added up. And you may end up with a more fractured user experience than if you just stuck with a traditional cable box.

But lots of folks, myself included, just don't see a lot of value in the traditional cable TV channel bundle. That's especially true of people who aren't big sports fans and don't need access to the 24/7 news/opinion channels on cable (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC).

I tend to subscribe to 3 or 4 ad-free streaming services at a time (Netflix 4K HDR, Hulu ad-free, Showtime/HBO Now/Prime Video) plus watch a little free live OTA TV plus some free ad-supported streaming services (YouTube, NBC News, etc.). All of that is accessed through various apps on my Apple TV 4K. I have access to more hours of quality content than there are hours each week that I want to spend watching TV. (And that's before Apple begins offering next year their slate of high-profile original series and films -- reportedly for free to Apple device owners.)

I spend around $30 to 40 each month on video services and get the cheapest standalone internet that offers download speeds of at least 40 Mbps (which is fast enough to handle even 4K Dolby Vision streaming from Apple, which is the most demanding thing I ever do). Depending on promotions, I've been able to get that year after year for anywhere from $30 to $50. Of course, I would subscribe to internet service even if I didn't rely on it for TV viewing.

The last traditional pay TV service I had was DirecTV satellite. I was paying way more for combined TV and internet back then than I do now and I had access to less content that I cared about, with lower picture quality, and a lot more ads. But that's just me. Everyone has different tastes in TV, so traditional cable/satellite is still a good choice for some.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> If someone feels the need to have "all the stuff" -- all the cable channels, all the various add-ons -- yeah, you're probably not going to save any money trying to re-create that bundle via streaming when all the costs are added up. And you may end up with a more fractured user experience than if you just stuck with a traditional cable box.
> 
> But lots of folks, myself included, just don't see a lot of value in the traditional cable TV channel bundle. That's especially true of people who aren't big sports fans and don't need access to the 24/7 news/opinion channels on cable (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC).
> 
> ...


Just curious. What is your average monthly bandwidth use?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

raott said:


> 1) I don't need faster internet. In fact, the base package in my town is 100 down, which is more than enough.


Depends on your town. In my town and many other peoples towns, the lower internet packages (100 is considered low), they come with a data cap. Do you have a data cap? Depending on your package, a lot of people either have to pay extra for more data or move to higher packages with higher data caps.

Do you also have more then 1 TV? Can 2 or more people stream 4K on 100mbps down while somebody else is playing a game or surfing the net?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

yosoyellobo said:


> Just curious. What is your average monthly bandwidth use?


Awhile back I looked at the past several months and figured my average was around 370 GB. I know that since moving to streaming as my primary form of TV well over a year ago, I've never had a single month where I hit even 500 GB of total data use. My monthly cap has always been twice that, 1 TB, with both Comcast and AT&T, the local broadband providers available here. So I never even use half of my allotment (and I think both providers will give you a couple of "courtesy" overage months per year if you go over). But then I live alone. I could see how a family of four could exceed a 1 TB cap.



SledgeHammer said:


> Depends on your town. In my town and many other peoples towns, the lower internet packages (100 is considered low), they come with a data cap. Do you have a data cap? Depending on your package, a lot of people either have to pay extra for more data or move to higher packages with higher data caps.
> 
> Do you also have more then 1 TV? Can 2 or more people stream 4K on 100mbps down while somebody else is playing a game or surfing the net?


I think a lot of folks overestimate the amount of bandwidth needed for streaming. 4K HDR streams typically run in the 13-16 Mbps range, although they may momentarily spike to higher bitrates in visually complex scenes. I've read that Apple iTunes streams may briefly hit 25 or even 30 even though, like Netflix and Amazon, they're usually around 15. Meanwhile, 1080p HD streams usually run in the 5-10 Mbps range. I'd bet that my 50 Mbps internet service could easily handle two screens streaming 4K HDR simultaneously. Or one 4K HDR stream plus two HD streams plus a couple folks surfing the web all at once.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> Depends on your town. In my town and many other peoples towns, the lower internet packages (100 is considered low), they come with a data cap. Do you have a data cap? Depending on your package, a lot of people either have to pay extra for more data or move to higher packages with higher data caps.
> 
> Do you also have more then 1 TV? Can 2 or more people stream 4K on 100mbps down while somebody else is playing a game or surfing the net?


100mbs is more than enough for 2 4k streams plus others surfing. But currently unless multiple people are going to simultaneously stream 4k movies it's not really an issue. I have 50mbps internet service and as a test got 5 simultaneous streams of live tv going using PSVue just to see how it would handle it. No problem whatsoever. Currently live tv is not 4k. It's normally 720p. Each of the 5 streams was perfect. Not something we normally do but it was nice to see it could handle it. The data caps though are definitely an issue for some people. Thankfully our isp doesn't have any data caps. That said, we went 100% streaming about 2 years ago. We have never gone over 600g in any month. But that's just us, YMMV. It is definitely an evolving environment.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

I don't have data caps. Neither the cable provider (spectrum) or fiber providers (AT&T and Google) have caps. That was my point....your original statement was overly broad. While you may be holding on to satellite, I assure you the millenials and Gen Z are not. Satellite isn't dead but it is in decline which will not be reversed.



SledgeHammer said:


> Depends on your town. In my town and many other peoples towns, the lower internet packages (100 is considered low), they come with a data cap. Do you have a data cap? Depending on your package, a lot of people either have to pay extra for more data or move to higher packages with higher data caps.
> 
> Do you also have more then 1 TV? Can 2 or more people stream 4K on 100mbps down while somebody else is playing a game or surfing the net?


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> Yeah, you do get hit hard with multiple TVs. I have the HD DVR, so I pay $20 on that... but I don't have the WHDVR fee as I'm on legacy billing. Discounts roll off, but you can always get them put back on. My $65 setup stickers for like $110 I think. This last time my promo fell off, it was harder to get it put back on... but I've been on "promo pricing" for I'd say close to 10 yrs. I was seriously one round of CSR roulette away from jumping to DISH.


I wouldn't be so confident that you can always put discounts back on. Everything I'm reading says that AT&T is getting *much* tougher with discounts. I'm about to find out myself and I don't have high hopes. I have $50 in discounts rolling off next month and I've already scheduled a Spectrum install. I've been with DTV for almost 20 years but I'm afraid the party is probably over. Adding tv to what I'm already paying Spectrum for internet+phone will be modest. The $50 discounts made it a wash but without them it's a no-brainer to drop DTV.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> How'd you do that? Didn't you have like 17 boxes at some point? And the top of the line package?


I had 12 HRs at one time and did have the top of the line package. I'm down to 5 HRs now and have the lowest package that still carries YES. I also got a bunch of credits and if they roll off and I'm not offered more I might cancel. My bill is around $45 a month at the moment.

I started streaming a few years ago. Took me a couple years to realize I didn't need D* for very much anymore. I did spend quite a bit on streaming equipment but not nearly as much as I did on D* equipment. Nice thing is, there are no recurring equipment charges. I have found a way to watch TV that fits our needs, I realize that doesn't fit everybody's needs.

I'm paying a lot more for the streaming video services that I use than I'm paying for D* at the moment. I could deactivate most of those services but I'm kinda lazy and it's just easier to leave them active. I didn't worry about how much D* cost me when I had all the HRs, why worry now?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bob Coxner said:


> I wouldn't be so confident that you can always put discounts back on. Everything I'm reading says that AT&T is getting *much* tougher with discounts. I'm about to find out myself and I don't have high hopes. I have $50 in discounts rolling off next month and I've already scheduled a Spectrum install. I've been with DTV for almost 20 years but I'm afraid the party is probably over. Adding tv to what I'm already paying Spectrum for internet+phone will be modest. The $50 discounts made it a wash but without them it's a no-brainer to drop DTV.


I'm in the same situation. I have a lot of credits that will come off next month when my comittment is over. If I can't get the credits restored I might give Altice (Optimum) a try. After the Super Bowl I won't be watching D* content very much. My thoughts alway turn to cancellation this time of year.

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

raott said:


> I don't have data caps. Neither the cable provider (spectrum) or fiber providers (AT&T and Google) have caps. That was my point....your original statement was overly broad. While you may be holding on to satellite, I assure you the millenials and Gen Z are not. Satellite isn't dead but it is in decline which will not be reversed.


As is yours . I have 1Gbps with Cox and it has a 1TB cap. You pay extra on top of the 1Gbps service to get an unlimited cap. You're also wrong about AT&T. AT&T has a 1Tb cap on the 300Mbps service in my area as they do on the 1Gbps. The unlimited data plan with them costs an EXTRA $30/month unless you combine TV & internet. Which is fine if you have DirecTV, but not fine if you have streaming and drop your TV . My parents have Spectrum and there is a data cap there too.

So you need to get in mind that service and terms and costs vary greatly depending on where you live.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> I started streaming a few years ago. Took me a couple years to realize I didn't need D* for very much anymore. I did spend quite a bit on streaming equipment but not nearly as much as I did on D* equipment. Nice thing is, there are no recurring equipment charges. I have found a way to watch TV that fits our needs, I realize that doesn't fit everybody's needs.


I just like it better for the trick play and tight integration and not having to deal with 10 different services and boxes and remotes. Since you watch sports a lot... don't you like to do the 30 second replay? Does that work with streaming? I don't watch sports, but sometimes on a regular show or movie, I'll re-wind it a bit to re-watch something cuz it was super cool or funny.

When my promo rolled off a month or two ago, I had probably the hardest time I've ever had in my 10yr+ promo career lol  getting it put back on... I had to play CSR roulette about 5 times and threaten to cancel and go to Dish. If it rolls off and they won't put it back, I'll make the jump to Dish I guess.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Bob Coxner said:


> I wouldn't be so confident that you can always put discounts back on. Everything I'm reading says that AT&T is getting *much* tougher with discounts. I'm about to find out myself and I don't have high hopes. I have $50 in discounts rolling off next month and I've already scheduled a Spectrum install. I've been with DTV for almost 20 years but I'm afraid the party is probably over. Adding tv to what I'm already paying Spectrum for internet+phone will be modest. The $50 discounts made it a wash but without them it's a no-brainer to drop DTV.


I'm not actually... I had to call 5 times this last time and use the "C" word multiple times with the last guy before he put it back on. For me, its a no brainer to stick with them for $60 - $65/month for my service. I can get similar service (actually better and better hardware) for $60 - $65 a month with Dish and get a Hopper 3 to boot.

Everybody said once AT&T took over, the promo party would go away... *shrug* AT&T overcharges for everything. I used to have a POTS line with them and they charged $40/month (for Zone 1 only!!), so I cancelled and went to Cox who are pretty much giving away unlimited phone. They wouldn't budge a cent on the POTS. Oh well.

When I still got my newspaper many years ago... they kept raising it and wouldn't budge a cent either, so I cancelled. I missed the nostalgia for a bit, but quickly got over it. I think they spent the next 6 months trying to woo me back pretty much offering me the paper for almost free.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> I just like it better for the trick play and tight integration and not having to deal with 10 different services and boxes and remotes. Since you watch sports a lot... don't you like to do the 30 second replay? Does that work with streaming? I don't watch sports, but sometimes on a regular show or movie, I'll re-wind it a bit to re-watch something cuz it was super cool or funny.


I have never used a streaming box for sports. I don't think any of the streaming boxes has a remote that will work well with sports. Yet another reason to stay with D*. But if I can't get the credits...

Rich


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

If you're on social media during live games or have mobile score/fantasy alerts enabled, you'll likely be spoiled too because streaming is always at least a minute behind satellite due to the way dynamic bitrate streaming has to be encoded.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> I have never used a streaming box for sports. I don't think any of the streaming boxes has a remote that will work well with sports. Yet another reason to stay with D*. But if I can't get the credits...
> 
> Rich


There's always Dish. Hopper 3 + two year price lock on promo pricing .


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> There's always Dish. Hopper 3 + two year price lock on promo pricing .


No YES on Dish. No YES, no Rich. I came to D* because Cablevision dropped YES in 2002.

Rich


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> My parents have Spectrum and there is a data cap there too.
> 
> So you need to get in mind that service and terms and costs vary greatly depending on where you live.


I have Spectrum, 100mb, with no data cap. I'm in an area that had Time Warner before the merger, so that may be the reason for no cap. Time Warner didn't have a cap here. Of course, all of that could change tomorrow.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> They wouldn't budge a cent on the POTS. Oh well.


POTS is tariffed and regulated, no one can offer discounts on the basic service, only the extras like caller ID etc.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Bob Coxner said:


> I have Spectrum, 100mb, with no data cap. I'm in an area that had Time Warner before the merger, so that may be the reason for no cap. Time Warner didn't have a cap here. Of course, all of that could change tomorrow.


I also have Spectrum and there is no data cap with Spectrum:



> *Does Spectrum have data caps?*
> Spectrum does not enforce any data caps-but this may not be by choice. When the FCC approved the merger of Charter, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House into the single brand of Spectrum, it ruled that the new provider couldn't charge overages or impose data caps for at least seven years. Although it may not last forever, that's great news for consumers now.


Which Internet Service Providers Have Data Caps?


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> Awhile back I looked at the past several months and figured my average was around 370 GB. I know that since moving to streaming as my primary form of TV well over a year ago, I've never had a single month where I hit even 500 GB of total data use. My monthly cap has always been twice that, 1 TB, with both Comcast and AT&T, the local broadband providers available here. So I never even use half of my allotment (and I think both providers will give you a couple of "courtesy" overage months per year if you go over). But then I live alone. I could see how a family of four could exceed a 1 TB cap.
> 
> I think a lot of folks overestimate the amount of bandwidth needed for streaming. 4K HDR streams typically run in the 13-16 Mbps range, although they may momentarily spike to higher bitrates in visually complex scenes. I've read that Apple iTunes streams may briefly hit 25 or even 30 even though, like Netflix and Amazon, they're usually around 15. Meanwhile, 1080p HD streams usually run in the 5-10 Mbps range. I'd bet that my 50 Mbps internet service could easily handle two screens streaming 4K HDR simultaneously. Or one 4K HDR stream plus two HD streams plus a couple folks surfing the web all at once.


I found this on the Xfinity / Comcast site.
In areas that include a data usage plan, 1 TB is included with Xfinity Internet at no additional charge, which by Netflix's estimates would represent 1000 hours of standard definition video streaming or 333 hours of HD video streaming of Netflix, or over 10 hours a day of HD streaming in any given month.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> POTS is tariffed and regulated, no one can offer discounts on the basic service, only the extras like caller ID etc.


AT&T (and all other carriers) is desperately trying to avoid POTS as much as possible. My elderly mom had POTS and switched to cable phone. Recently there were problems and she wanted to switch back. AT&T refused, even though the house is wired for POTS and had AT&T service only a couple of years ago. They said they are not signing up any new POTS service in our area regardless of circumstances.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bob Coxner said:


> AT&T (and all other carriers) is desperately trying to avoid POTS as much as possible. My elderly mom had POTS and switched to cable phone. Recently there were problems and she wanted to switch back. AT&T refused, even though the house is wired for POTS and had AT&T service only a couple of years ago. They said they are not signing up any new POTS service in our area regardless of circumstances.


It isn't profitable any longer because so many customers have left. They had to build out additional POTS capacity in the 90s when everyone wanted a second phone line for AOL, but customers went back to one line when they got broadband and zero lines when they decided a cell phone was good enough. The declining revenue can't support the maintenance on the lines, and they don't have the ability to raise prices to compensate.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> I also have Spectrum and there is no data cap with Spectrum:
> 
> Which Internet Service Providers Have Data Caps?


Interesting, I didn't even know Centurylink had a cap. I've certainly never been close to 1 TB in a month so that cap doesn't really affect me since I'm not a heavy streaming user.


----------



## BreadDawg (Sep 12, 2016)

KyL416 said:


> If you're on social media during live games or have mobile score/fantasy alerts enabled, you'll likely be spoiled too because streaming is always at least a minute behind satellite due to the way dynamic bitrate streaming has to be encoded.


It's funny you bring this up. I recently bought a new tv with firetv builtin on Black Friday to put on my patio. I used it for a few days with all of my apps signed in-it was a pretty good experience. Well, saturday night I am grilling and watching the Alabama/Georgia game and going in and out of the house and my LR tv was so far ahead of the patio firetv...it was a PITA! Well, I called DTV 2 days later and they just hooked up a mini/client on the patio, you are correct, streaming sports can be tricky...


----------

