# No DirecTV anymore



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I just called to sign up for DirecTV satellite and was told it was no longer available at my address and my only choice was DirecTV stream. Guess they are killing off their satellite service.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Nooooo 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Davenlr said:


> I just called to sign up for DirecTV satellite and was told it was no longer available at my address and my only choice was DirecTV stream. Guess they are killing off their satellite service.


Did you call 1-800-531-5000?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I called 1-800-DIRECTV


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

have you tried 866-595-1331??? i had no issues getting DTV sat service at my address!!! living in LA!!!


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Ill keep that handy. Trying FuboTV right now.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

Whoever you talked to on the phone doesn't know what they are talking about. DIRECTV is nationwide. You need to call 1-800-531-5000 if you want to get DIRECTV service.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

It was their customer service rep in the Philippines after entering my address and zip code in his computer.
I called back 3 times, and never could get an American, so I signed up for FUBO.
I tried signing up online, but they dont have any way to order 4K equipment online.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

That's the problem. You got someone in the freakin’ Philippines. Call back and ask to speak to someone in the United States.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I did. 3 for 3 in the Philippines. If FUBO doesnt work out, I might just call Solid Signal or a local installer.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

try the number i posted it's the loyality dept.. all of the CSR'S are in merica. there trying to shove the streaming down everyone's throats!!! the ones in the Philippines are pretty clueless!!!


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> I did. 3 for 3 in the Philippines. If FUBO doesnt work out, I might just call Solid Signal or a local installer.


Solid signal will charge you full price per equipment piece. There is no deals


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Dtv sat isn't going away anytime soon!!!!


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

dtv757 said:


> Nooooo
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


Here's to hoping they launch more birds when these ones dye out. I don't think they know how many avid dtv fans are out there!!!


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

You also need to call in and tell them that you want 4k minis as well.. I don't know why they don't have the 4k minis on the site. Makes no sense to me. They don't even offer the genie 2 unless you hit x amount of TVs I think it's 5 or 6..


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

krel said:


> Here's to hoping they launch more birds when these ones dye out. I don't think they know how many avid dtv fans are out there!!!


They do. They are losing several hundred thousand of them a year


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Just tried to sign up online, and got an error "This shouldn't have happened, please call us"
FWIW, DirecTv stream Entertainment package with the unlimited DVR costs $2111.52 over two years, and DirecTV satellite with a Genie and 1 4K mini costs $2388.80 over two years, so really not much difference. Lots of money to watch two channels during the week, and some football games and car races on the weekend.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> Just tried to sign up online, and got an error "This shouldn't have happened, please call us"
> FWIW, DirecTv stream Entertainment package with the unlimited DVR costs $2111.52 over two years, and DirecTV satellite with a Genie and 1 4K mini costs $2388.80 over two years, so really not much difference. Lots of money to watch two channels during the week, and some football games and car races on the weekend.


I get 1896 for Stream Entertainment for 2 years with the DVR add on (79x24)


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

We have 10% tax add on plus some fcc fee.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> We have 10% tax add on plus some fcc fee.


Then your SAT numbers seem low I got 2244 before taxes and fees


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I dont know, their website said it was 79.18 for the first year, with a $5 discount for paperless billing, and $119.90 for the second year, plus tax and fcc fee. In either case, its not that different. I am going to hold off until I see if CNN PLUS launching next year has the program I watch in the morning. I can watch it on the CNN GO app now, but I have to get up at 4AM to watch it, since I cant record it. I was thinking of getting an ATSC1.0 transmitter, and running the streaming box into it, and using my Tivo to record the program. Then I wouldnt have to pay anything.

And I could skip "In 2016, I was working in an Amazon warehouse when my brother passed away"...If I see that commercial one more time, Im going to cancel Amazon Prime. That is just so annoying when they run the same commercial 4 times an hour.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> I dont know, their website said it was 79.18 for the first year, with a $5 discount for paperless billing, and $119.90 for the second year, plus tax and fcc fee. In either case, its not that different. I am going to hold off until I see if CNN PLUS launching next year has the program I watch in the morning. I can watch it on the CNN GO app now, but I have to get up at 4AM to watch it, since I cant record it. I was thinking of getting an ATSC1.0 transmitter, and running the streaming box into it, and using my Tivo to record the program. Then I wouldnt have to pay anything.
> 
> And I could skip "In 2016, I was working in an Amazon warehouse when my brother passed away"...If I see that commercial one more time, Im going to cancel Amazon Prime. That is just so annoying when they run the same commercial 4 times an hour.


What happened to YTTV?


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Davenlr said:


> Just tried to sign up online, and got an error "This shouldn't have happened, please call us"
> FWIW, DirecTv stream Entertainment package with the unlimited DVR costs $2111.52 over two years, and DirecTV satellite with a Genie and 1 4K mini costs $2388.80 over two years, so really not much difference. Lots of money to watch two channels during the week, and some football games and car races on the weekend.


The cost differential really becomes an issue as more equipment is added. I have four TV's in my house. I pay DirecTV Stream $0 for each TV. God only knows what it is with DirecTV now per TV.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

raott said:


> The cost differential really becomes an issue as more equipment is added. I have four TV's in my house. I pay DirecTV Stream $0 for each TV. God only knows what it is with DirecTV now per TV.


$7 per room. So for three rooms (first is free) its $14, or $4 more than the cloud DVR fee from stream.



compnurd said:


> What happened to YTTV?


Had it all set up. $10 discount for going through Tmobile, 4K service for $9.95 for a year, Red Zone channel for $10....then they tried to apply my monthly payment to google pay instead of the credit card on file. I dont have google pay, so they cut if off. When I called them, they said they could turn it back on, but I would have to pay the full price for it (no Tmobile discount) and $20 for 4K since they couldnt reapply the 1 yr promo. All because their billing system screwed up. So I basically told their CSR where he should put it. He said he would TRY to get it turned back on today, but I am not holding my breath. I really dislike Google to begin with, and this really made me hate them. Im not a conspiracy theorist, but this SAME THING happened to a friend of mine who also had the Tmobile discount. They found some excuse to accidentally turn off his service and then refused to honor the discount. Google is a greedy monopoly, and I REALLY wish some small non-corporate giant would come up with a decent service. Sling is close, but their video quality is in the toilet, but I may end up having to go with them in the end, because DirecTv does not have Red Zone.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> $7 per room. So for three rooms (first is free) its $14, or $4 more than the cloud DVR fee from stream.
> 
> Had it all set up. $10 discount for going through Tmobile, 4K service for $9.95 for a year, Red Zone channel for $10....then they tried to apply my monthly payment to google pay instead of the credit card on file. I dont have google pay, so they cut if off. When I called them, they said they could turn it back on, but I would have to pay the full price for it (no Tmobile discount) and $20 for 4K since they couldnt reapply the 1 yr promo. All because their billing system screwed up. So I basically told their CSR where he should put it. He said he would TRY to get it turned back on today, but I am not holding my breath. I really dislike Google to begin with, and this really made me hate them. Im not a conspiracy theorist, but this SAME THING happened to a friend of mine who also had the Tmobile discount. They found some excuse to accidentally turn off his service and then refused to honor the discount. Google is a greedy monopoly, and I REALLY wish some small non-corporate giant would come up with a decent service. Sling is close, but their video quality is in the toilet, but I may end up having to go with them in the end, because DirecTv does not have Red Zone.


21 dollars for 4 rooms


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

compnurd said:


> 21 dollars for 4 rooms


And that is where the difference becomes too big for me. That's pushing almost an extra $250 a year, or almost $500 over two years.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

raott said:


> And that is where the difference becomes too big for me. That's pushing almost an extra $250 a year, or almost $500 over two years.


Oh yeh I know I have 9 TV's right now


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> I called 1-800-DIRECTV


A voice number for ordering DIRECTV satellite service is top center of the https://www.directv.com/satellite web page.

Note that the number may change right before your eyes. I'm not sure what that's about but I'm guessing it is some sort of WFH situation.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Ive got the number from couple other users. Just weighing me options. $2000+ is a lot to pay to watch two channels during the week and a couple football games on the weekend end, then nothing at all during the summer. Might reconsider competely and just go with Sling for $35 plus red zone til football is over and see what I can find in the free realm.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> Ive got the number from couple other users.


It is best to use the number on the website as the number changes often. There's clearly no "best number to call".


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> Ive got the number from couple other users. Just weighing me options. $2000+ is a lot to pay to watch two channels during the week and a couple football games on the weekend end, then nothing at all during the summer. Might reconsider competely and just go with Sling for $35 plus red zone til football is over and see what I can find in the free realm.


Not sure about new customers but DirecTV offeres discounts to existing loyal customer.

There's a thread about it already but I doubt you will be paying full price...

Haven't paid full price in years

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Just curious, if I sign up for Choice and get Red Zone and Sunday Ticket, when football season is over, can I downgrade to Entertainment?


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

compnurd said:


> They do. They are losing several hundred thousand of them a year


I'm sure that price and poor csrs are why people are fleeing!!! Though here's to hoping that things change now tgp is involved. I had a great experience this time after the buyout...


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

dtv757 said:


> Not sure about new customers but DirecTV offeres discounts to existing loyal customer.
> 
> There's a thread about it already but I doubt you will be paying full price...
> 
> ...


Signed up again got the new customer deals the prepaid visa card genie 2 upgrade at no cost since they gave me an hr 54_ 200 that was acting out freezing up and locking up he'll they even ate the cost to transfer my service. Though I was supposed to wait a year but either one of us was clear on that so they credited my move.. I have to give em kudos for that!!! I always called the loyalty dept had good experience


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Davenlr said:


> Just tried to sign up online, and got an error "This shouldn't have happened, please call us"
> FWIW, DirecTv stream Entertainment package with the unlimited DVR costs $2111.52 over two years, and DirecTV satellite with a Genie and 1 4K mini costs $2388.80 over two years, so really not much difference. Lots of money to watch two channels during the week, and some football games and car races on the weekend.


Have you called and told em they were crazy if they thought that your paying for stuff that you don't own


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I havent called at all since me first attempt, since I am on a FUBO TV trial right now, and they have Red Zone. Probably will stick with them and their 4K service until after football season is over. Also still waiting on an escalation on YouTubeTV complaint. They are all greedy B*'s. 
@krel how long did it take to get service once you ordered? Technically, all they would have to do is ship me a HS17 and two 4k genies, since the dish, LNB, cables, and everything is already installed and working, but I know they love those truck rolls.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Davenlr said:


> I havent called at all since me first attempt, since I am on a FUBO TV trial right now, and they have Red Zone. Probably will stick with them and their 4K service until after football season is over. Also still waiting on an escalation on YouTubeTV complaint. They are all greedy B*'s.
> @krel how long did it take to get service once you ordered? Technically, all they would have to do is ship me a HS17 and two 4k genies, since the dish, LNB, cables, and everything is already installed and working, but I know they love those truck rolls.


I got installed the very next day!!! My transfer of service was done the next day to.. they will not mail boxes to you!!! So you'll be stuck with a truck roll!!! They want to make sure that everything's working and the tech needs to activate the boxes on your acct. It's best to have a truck roll anyways if somethings not working the tech can replace it right there...my first 4k mini was losing signal to the TV and the tech said it was a bad box and swapped it out on the spot... vs having to call in and dealing with them makes a big difference lol


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

raott said:


> And that is where the difference becomes too big for me. That's pushing almost an extra $250 a year, or almost $500 over two years.


And not only that, but don't forget about sales tax added on to that over time.

However, most all of us here are savvy enough to call in and get 12 month or other discounts to offset the costs. Not all of us get them, but most get something. I haven't heard of Stream handing out discounts like Sat.

I currently have two different $35/mth discounts, and another $10/off for 12 months. That's $80/mth totaling $960/yr. (+ $48 in tax that i don't have to pay). Not to mention my free grandfathered DVR service compared to others for another $10 per month + tax that I don't pay either. Oh and I forgot free 4K programming and STMax this year again.

I'm sticking with Sat service, but of course my views may not reflect the views of others here.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Yea I'm sticking with SAT too 

As mentioned above amazing loyalty discounts 

Reliable service , sports in 4K, and so much more . Even Discounts on premiun sports packages etc .. 

20 year happy customer here 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I almost was...but their customer support was their downfall. I found that SlingTV has all the channels I watch for $35 a month, and for an extra $21, I get Red Zone, 20 more sports and news channels, and some kids channels the 8 yr old will watch all day. So $56 plus tax and 3 rooms. Thanks for the tips and numbers. I have them stored in my phone in case things change.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Sticking with sat to. Things seem to be improving since tgp took over. Here's to hoping that dtv will go back to the dtv of what it once was


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Davenlr said:


> I almost was...but their customer support was their downfall. I found that SlingTV has all the channels I watch for $35 a month, and for an extra $21, I get Red Zone, 20 more sports and news channels, and some kids channels the 8 yr old will watch all day. So $56 plus tax and 3 rooms. Thanks for the tips and numbers. I have them stored in my phone in case things change.


I'm gonna agree with you that att wrecked dtv. There customer service was the pitts!!! The last installer I had went on a big rant on how att screwed up dtv LoL. And dtv is the only one that carries the dodgers as I am planning on moving out of taxiforina in a few years


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

dtv757 said:


> Yea I'm sticking with SAT too
> 
> As mentioned above amazing loyalty discounts
> 
> ...


With all your isp issues ide can em!!! I could never see you streaming!!! If it were me ide be calling and demanding em to fix there crap before football starts


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

I also found it interesting an att rep stopped by and asked how everything was. I said it's fine everything's working as it should be. Then he tried talking me into bundling my dtv with there cell service I was like um no thanks...


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

krel said:


> Sticking with sat to. Things seem to be improving since tgp took over. Here's to hoping that dtv will go back to the dtv of what it once was


Yes improving so much the OP Cant get the service anymore


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

compnurd said:


> Yes improving so much the OP Cant get the service anymore


Agree!!! Though I had no problems going through the loyalty dept....


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

krel said:


> You also need to call in and tell them that you want 4k minis as well.. I don't know why they don't have the 4k minis on the site. Makes no sense to me. They don't even offer the genie 2 unless you hit x amount of TVs I think it's 5 or 6..


I ordered for 6 TVs recently and they installed an HR54 and non 4k minis which I also requested. The guy didn't even have them on the truck. After spending almost 3 hours on the phone and trying to "talk" them into giving me what I originally wanted and then telling them that I'm NOT going to pay for an upgrade, they gave me what I want (though I still need to call them to have it removed from my bill when it hits).


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Yes improving so much the OP Cant get the service anymore


Good help is hard to find for $5/hr when the place up the street will pay you $10.


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> I ordered for 6 TVs recently and they installed an HR54 and non 4k minis which I also requested. The guy didn't even have them on the truck. After spending almost 3 hours on the phone and trying to "talk" them into giving me what I originally wanted and then telling them that I'm NOT going to pay for an upgrade, they gave me what I want (though I still need to call them to have it removed from my bill when it hits).


An "upgrade" with a DVR that is six years old and refurbished. And, they probably outsourced the truck roll. No wonder people are leaving in droves.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

jal said:


> An "upgrade" with a DVR that is six years old and refurbished. And, they probably outsourced the truck roll. No wonder people are leaving in droves.


People are leaving in droves because they simply want to save money. For most people DirecTV Stream (or another streaming service) would work fine. On top of that is the 2 year commitment which people don't want to do (and I just did it, so what do I know?). While this kind of stuff is annoying and the hardware is, as you say dated, I don't think a lot of people are leaving because of it. The reason I left for awhile was that I was trying to save money. It's as simple as that. Most people would not really need a truck roll once they have their stuff in place, so they'd never notice this type of issue.

So DirecTV sees this and it's why they are pushing Stream. I've been saying for years, that eventually Sat will be niche, perhaps only offered to new customers if they cannot do Stream, because of lack of broadband or some other logistical situation. But they can't do that yet, mostly because the disparity in channels is still there. If they can get that solved, that's what will happen. Might not be in the next 2 years, but it will be within the next 5.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

I tried Directv Stream over the weekend at relative's home for the 3rd time. Still not impressed. Tried it on Samsung Apps and Firestick. Startup, slow. Open guide for first time of the day, and takes a while to load. Scroll up or down, guide needs to load. Note this is on Century Link 300mbps and previously same with Xfinity 1gb at a different location. FF and RW, awful.

Sat and CATV much, much faster on all accounts.

Now I do understand there is an Osprey box but then its $ and/or commitment. Is it faster? I can't see doing Stream in the near future.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NR4P said:


> I tried Directv Stream over the weekend at relative's home for the 3rd time. Still not impressed. Tried it on Samsung Apps and Firestick. Startup, slow. Open guide for first time of the day, and takes a while to load. Scroll up or down, guide needs to load. Note this is on Century Link 300mbps and previously same with Xfinity 1gb at a different location. FF and RW, awful.
> 
> Sat and CATV much, much faster on all accounts.
> 
> Now I do understand there is an Osprey box but then its $ and/or commitment. Is it faster? I can't see doing Stream in the near future.


The Osprey box is much faster, and, is pretty close to Satellite or cable in usability. If usability with Sat is an A, I'd give Stream with the Osprey box a B, and I'd give using the app on a streaming box a C-. But, do customers to spend $120 on another streaming device, even if it makes using Stream much more seamless? I don't know the answer. Seems pricey to me when you can buy a Firestick or Roku for $30. I think if DirecTV ever offered a free Osprey (didn't they do this at one time) and then you could purchase more for $50, I think that would help them quite a bit.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

NR4P said:


> I tried Directv Stream over the weekend at relative's home for the 3rd time. Still not impressed. Tried it on Samsung Apps and Firestick. Startup, slow. Open guide for first time of the day, and takes a while to load. Scroll up or down, guide needs to load. Note this is on Century Link 300mbps and previously same with Xfinity 1gb at a different location. FF and RW, awful.
> 
> Sat and CATV much, much faster on all accounts.
> 
> Now I do understand there is an Osprey box but then its $ and/or commitment. Is it faster? I can't see doing Stream in the near future.


I have one TV that I utilize Directv Stream with a firestick 4K. I don't personally see any slowness issues. Is it an older model firestick?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> The Osprey box is much faster, and, is pretty close to Satellite or cable in usability. If usability with Sat is an A, I'd give Stream with the Osprey box a B, and I'd give using the app on a streaming box a C-. But, do customers to spend $120 on another streaming device, even if it makes using Stream much more seamless? I don't know the answer. Seems pricey to me when you can buy a Firestick or Roku for $30. I think if DirecTV ever offered a free Osprey (didn't they do this at one time) and then you could purchase more for $50, I think that would help them quite a bit.


I agree with your grading of the boxes and services. As to pricing, yeah $120 is too high but that's what EBay is for. Same box is about $50 there and well worth it if you are going to have DirectStream.


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> I just called to sign up for DirecTV satellite and was told it was no longer available at my address and my only choice was DirecTV stream. Guess they are killing off their satellite service.


Couple of possibilities here:
1) You contacted the streaming folks, and they lied to you about DirecTV satellite availability...
but just maybe...
2) Since DirecTV satellite started insisting on a truck roll for new customers, they've relied on the USPS address database to verify physical addresses.
I've had DirecTV satellite at the same address continuously since '94, the first decade contracted through rural provider Pegasus.
I got several calls from DirecTV about 10 years ago, telling me that my service address was non-existent according to the USPS, which was and is still the case.
They were concerned that I was subscribing illegally and using a concocted service address to receive service.
There is a discrepancy between the county records, to whom I pay property taxes to, who have the address listed on the title to the property... and the "equivalent" address on the USPS database, which differs by both the number, changed by the county before I acquired the property, because of some numerical mapping that the county did in accordance with alignment to geometrical coordinates, "31133" became "31111", and also identified as "AV" by the county, but "RD" by the USPS.
The USPS database never got updated, likely because the house is an RFD area where mail has never been delivered directly to the property, but to a remote PO Box.
Mail addressed to either the legal or USPS address does get delivered to that PO Box because the addresses of many of the very few homes there are in the same predicament and the PO Box folks are well aware of the problem.
Whatever accounts / transactions I can't do exclusively online, which is basically none, I provide a different mailing address for another out-of-state property I also own, so only junk mail gets delivered to the PO Box.
I had the DirecTV representatives look up the "new" address on the county records and confirm its existence, which was the one on my account that was in question.
They inputted the "old" 31133 RD address into the USPS database, which it recognized, but indicated that no delivery service was available, likely because it never was.
Though the DirecTV folks were convinced that the "new" address was the valid one, they insisted that they still had to schedule a physical truck roll or would have to disconnect my service.
They alternately tried to enter both addresses to generate the service ticket... and it rejected both.
I asked if I were a new customer trying to get DirecTV at the house, would I be able to, and they answered that they couldn't figure out how they could, so they did not shut off the service, because they realized they probably couldn't turn it back on, and said they would escalate the issue.
I got a follow-on call later on, where I basically had to explain the situation to the representative, and I told him that if he wanted to shut it off and lose the $3K per year I was paying them, to go ahead, but that I was done.
He said that he was simply going to sign off that the problem had been resolved.
I've never heard another word about it...


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

raott said:


> I have one TV that I utilize Directv Stream with a firestick 4K. I don't personally see any slowness issues. Is it an older model firestick?


Its a 4K model Firestick.
Turn on TV, first thing you need to do is go to FS Apps and launch Directv Stream. It takes a few seconds to load. Then scroll to guide, left then click, then down then click. Then Guide starts to load. Quite a few clicks just to start Directv Stream and see the guide.

Much slower than CATV or SAT.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NR4P said:


> Its a 4K model Firestick.
> Turn on TV, first thing you need to do is go to FS Apps and launch Directv Stream. It takes a few seconds to load. Then scroll to guide, left then click, then down then click. Then Guide starts to load. Quite a few clicks just to start Directv Stream and see the guide.
> 
> Much slower than CATV or SAT.


Fire stick isn't good hardware Try and ATV or an Osprey


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

NR4P said:


> Its a 4K model Firestick.
> Turn on TV, first thing you need to do is go to FS Apps and launch Directv Stream. It takes a few seconds to load. Then scroll to guide, left then click, then down then click. Then Guide starts to load. Quite a few clicks just to start Directv Stream and see the guide.
> 
> Much slower than CATV or SAT.


Ah OK&#8230;..I get it and agree with that. That's why the FS is only on one TV. My other three have the Osprey box.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

krel said:


> Sticking with sat to. Things seem to be improving since tgp took over. Here's to hoping that dtv will go back to the dtv of what it once was


Genuinely curious, as I always keep my options open, what has improved? I'm unaware of any price, package, or equipment changes.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> I agree with your grading of the boxes and services. As to pricing, yeah $120 is too high but that's what EBay is for. Same box is about $50 there and well worth it if you are going to have DirectStream.


I bought mine (when I had Stream) on eBay and that's fine for those of us here who know about that, but the average person probably wouldn't even be thinking that way. They will see $120? And there's a free app on a box I already have? I'll go that way. And then be disappointed when it doesn't work as seamlessly as promised. I'm old school, I like channel numbers, and the app doesn't give you channel numbers. That's a problem for many who switch from cable/Sat to something like Stream. I mean, I go back to the days when here in NY I never said I'm going to watch CBS. I'd say I'm going to watch channel 2. And having cable or sat for as long as I can remember, I had the channels numbers memorized. TBS = 247, ESPN = 206 and so forth. So the switchover to the Osprey box was seamless. Now, using the app, I actually had to search up a channel or scroll through the guide to find it. I could no longer type in 247 and go directly to the channel. The younger folks, who are used to just going directly to a show they watch, that's fine. They either search or use voice. Us older folks, it's much less intuitive. But I also realize, that I may not be the target audience. But they also have to realize, that the younger folks don't watch TV the traditional way anyway.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> I bought mine (when I had Stream) on eBay and that's fine for those of us here who know about that, but the average person probably wouldn't even be thinking that way. They will see $120? And there's a free app on a box I already have? I'll go that way. And then be disappointed when it doesn't work as seamlessly as promised. I'm old school, I like channel numbers, and the app doesn't give you channel numbers. That's a problem for many who switch from cable/Sat to something like Stream. I mean, I go back to the days when here in NY I never said I'm going to watch CBS. I'd say I'm going to watch channel 2. And having cable or sat for as long as I can remember, I had the channels numbers memorized. TBS = 247, ESPN = 206 and so forth. So the switchover to the Osprey box was seamless. Now, using the app, I actually had to search up a channel or scroll through the guide to find it. I could no longer type in 247 and go directly to the channel. The younger folks, who are used to just going directly to a show they watch, that's fine. They either search or use voice. Us older folks, it's much less intuitive. But I also realize, that I may not be the target audience. But they also have to realize, that the younger folks don't watch TV the traditional way anyway.


It's odd they do not make the interface more consistent between the app and the box. I believe the box (which defaults to the familiar channel numbers) allows you to see the alphabetical order as well, yet the app does not allow channel numbers to be displayed.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Fire stick isn't good hardware Try and ATV or an Osprey


Which is all fine and good, but now your asking the user to invest another $120 for an Osprey (yeah there's the ebay route) or $200 for an ATV. The Osprey at least get's you directly to Stream (so it's similar to have Sat works), but even ATV, it's still a few clicks to get to the actual content, even if it might be quicker than a FS. Again, for a newbie who doesn't watch TV the traditional way that's no biggie. For those of us who are used to turning on our TV and our content is already there, the Osprey is the way to go.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

raott said:


> It's odd they do not make the interface more consistent between the app and the box. I believe the box (which defaults to the familiar channel numbers) allows you to see the alphabetical order as well, yet the app does not allow channel numbers to be displayed.


Ever think that:
A) The idea is to sell you an Osprey so that if you want the more traditional TV experience you can get it there (plus have the ability to watch Netflix, etc there as well)

B) For a newer generation of content viewers, channels might not matter as much, so the app works as expected for them (in the same way that YTTV, Hulu and other similar types of apps work).

TV channels are important to me, but might not be what everyone cares about these days.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

raott said:


> Genuinely curious, as I always keep my options open, what has improved? I'm unaware of any price, package, or equipment changes.


I'll agree with you on the pricing and hardware changes as there have been none!!! For me it's the customer service that's improved.. not having to deal with clueless idiots.. I could go on... I'll try to post more later.. everyone knows that att made dtv a disaster!!!


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> Which is all fine and good, but now your asking the user to invest another $120 for an Osprey (yeah there's the ebay route) or $200 for an ATV. The Osprey at least get's you directly to Stream (so it's similar to have Sat works), but even ATV, it's still a few clicks to get to the actual content, even if it might be quicker than a FS. Again, for a newbie who doesn't watch TV the traditional way that's no biggie. For those of us who are used to turning on our TV and our content is already there, the Osprey is the way to go.


They aren't asking anyone to do anything


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

compnurd said:


> They aren't asking anyone to do anything


Who "they"? You are the one who suggested "Try and ATV or an Osprey" ... asking the user to invest (yada yada yada).


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> Who "they"? You are the one who suggested "Try and ATV or an Osprey" ... asking the user to invest (yada yada yada).





James Long said:


> Who "they"? You are the one who suggested "Try and ATV or an Osprey" ... asking the user to invest (yada yada yada).


Sigh


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Fire stick isn't good hardware Try and ATV or an Osprey


Back to a box, shell out cash or a commitment. Then looking at the packages, only 4 HBO's for example.
I think Stream is a nice alternative but, not seeing the gotta have it over other alternatives if I need to add 3 or 4 more boxes, one for each TV.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NR4P said:


> Back to a box, shell out cash or a commitment. Then looking at the packages, only 4 HBO's for example.
> I think Stream is a nice alternative but, not seeing the gotta have it over other alternatives if I need to add 3 or 4 more boxes, one for each TV.


There is no commitment.. you just pay 5 bucks a month for two years.. if you cancel before you just pay the balance of the box.. its just an interest free loan.. Dont want there box.. use what you got.. But not there fault if you have a under powered streamer Regarding HBO you get access to HBO Max.. Dont really need 15 HBO's in the guide


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> I bought mine (when I had Stream) on eBay and that's fine for those of us here who know about that, but the average person probably wouldn't even be thinking that way. They will see $120? And there's a free app on a box I already have? I'll go that way. And then be disappointed when it doesn't work as seamlessly as promised. I'm old school, I like channel numbers, and the app doesn't give you channel numbers. That's a problem for many who switch from cable/Sat to something like Stream. I mean, I go back to the days when here in NY I never said I'm going to watch CBS. I'd say I'm going to watch channel 2. And having cable or sat for as long as I can remember, I had the channels numbers memorized. TBS = 247, ESPN = 206 and so forth. So the switchover to the Osprey box was seamless. Now, using the app, I actually had to search up a channel or scroll through the guide to find it. I could no longer type in 247 and go directly to the channel. The younger folks, who are used to just going directly to a show they watch, that's fine. They either search or use voice. Us older folks, it's much less intuitive. But I also realize, that I may not be the target audience. But they also have to realize, that the younger folks don't watch TV the traditional way anyway.


I read that the DTV Stream app for Roku recently had channel numbers added (or at least the ability to sort by channel number -- not sure if the numbers themselves are actually displayed since the Roku remote has no number buttons). Also, the Roku app was the first, I believe, months ago to add the thumbnail preview during FF and rewind, along with the ability to pause and rewind live TV. So it seems like, second to the Osprey, Roku (at least a fairly zippy recent model Roku) appears to be the best platform for using DTV Stream.

I agree about their own box being too high at $120. Although I can understand that it might always offer the best overall user experience (mainly because it has a remote customized for the service). To promote customer satisfaction and retention, they should be trying harder to get more of their own boxes in users' hands. Maybe that will happen whenever they finally roll out the 2nd-gen version.

Look at the Verizon Stream TV box, which like the Osprey is a customized Android TV box. It's already on its 2nd gen, with specs that are probably close to what will be in the 2nd-gen Osprey. And Verizon sells it for $60. DTV Stream should be selling theirs for about that price. And as I've said before, offer an _optional_, renewable one-year contract that throws in one free box (new customers only) plus a free unlimited DVR upgrade (reg. $10/mo).


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I have two of them I got from ebay for $40 each. They are decent boxes. Remote buttons are pretty stiff, but the overall UI is fantastic. It would still be better if they released the same exact APK to Android and Google TVs which all also have guide and DVR and number buttons and could be used natively on the TV. That MIGHT have convinced me to stay and pay the extra $20 a month for the service over Sling.


----------



## DanoP (Sep 29, 2006)

Roku is a disappointment IMO. And I have the Ultra. The Ultra sure isn't Ultra fast as it is slow scrolling the guide and filling in content. Sorting by channel number helps. I also tried ATV and found that unsatisfactory as I don't think there is any sorting option, it's all alphabetic. The new remotes don't have FF or reverse jump capabilities. Much faster than Roku though. Osprey on Ebay is the clear choice for just $50. And of course you can use it for Netflix, Prime Video, etc. etc. Android based.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Davenlr said:


> I have two of them I got from ebay for $40 each. They are decent boxes. Remote buttons are pretty stiff, but the overall UI is fantastic. It would still be better if they released the same exact APK to Android and Google TVs which all also have guide and DVR and number buttons and could be used natively on the TV. That MIGHT have convinced me to stay and pay the extra $20 a month for the service over Sling.


Funny you mentioned no more DTV. I ran my neighbors address and the only option they had was DTV stream and not DTV sat service...


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Omg crazy 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

dtv757 said:


> Omg crazy
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


That's what i thought to!!! Just ran my address same results!!! just nuts!!!


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

My address has ATT Fiber available. Do all you others getting the "Satellite not available" also have ATT Fiber availability? Maybe they are trying to push people to get ATT Fiber by denying them satellite?


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Davenlr said:


> My address has ATT Fiber available. Do all you others getting the "Satellite not available" also have ATT Fiber availability? Maybe they are trying to push people to get ATT Fiber by denying them satellite?


Can't get ATT fiber here.. it's just nuts. Though they want me to bundle my wireless with my DTV sat service. I just tell em NO!!!!


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Well, that blows that theory. I have no idea why they wont sell DirecTv satellite service at many locations, including mine. Granted, I am not displeased, as I am getting Red Zone and all the channels I normally watch, including lots of college games on Friday and Saturday, and 200 hours of DVR space with Sling for $56 a month so I am saving a fortune. I just thought it was strange, as I would have bought Sunday Ticket...then it turns out Green Bay packers have been on national TV every single game so far...and I get Cowboys locally...so that would have been a big waste of money too.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

I just punched in my next door neighbors address at DirecTV.com and DirecTV Satellite is still an option. CenturyLink is the phone provider and Spectrum is the CATV provider.

The website also showed this-

“Internet

Looks like high-speed internet isn’t available at your address. However, you can still get great TV service.”

Everyone on our street can obtain Spectrum Broadband. We have the 200 down plan.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

I checked a few addresses in my city ... still showing D* an option .. 

Website says "no high-speed internet available " one would think they would link to the other baby bell (verizon in my area ) 



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

codespy said:


> The website also showed this-
> 
> "Internet
> 
> Looks like high-speed internet isn't available at your address. However, you can still get great TV service."


I believe its saying that cause you do not live in ATT broadband area but it should still link to Century link ...

I think when you enter an address on the wrong cable co they link you to the correct one ..

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Yea I went to optimum /altice (NY NJ CT cable co ) entered an address in pungo VA and it auto re redirected me to cox (the correct cable co for my area in VA) . The phone companies should do the same. 

If att broadband not available auto redirect to the correct baby bell . 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

dtv757 said:


> I believe its saying that cause you do not live in ATT broadband area but it should still link to Century link ...
> 
> I think when you enter an address on the wrong cable co they link you to the correct one ..
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


Well we used to have Centurylink DSL until about 5 years ago. We paid for the 6MB plan, but download speeds never exceeded 1.5MB as we were at the end of the line. Obviously way low and not close to 'broadband standards'. It's probably a good idea they didn't try to link it.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

krel said:


> That's what i thought to!!! Just ran my address same results!!! just nuts!!!


Where are you going on the site to check your address? Are you going all the way through picking packages and giving your name at checkout?

EDIT: Never mind, I found it by googling Directv availability. Like others, mine shows only DirecTV Stream.

I put my parent's house in as well. They live in a very rural area. DirecTV Stream was the only option listed for their house as well.


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

Michael H.. said:


> Couple of possibilities here:
> 1) You contacted the streaming folks, and they lied to you about DirecTV satellite availability...
> but just maybe...
> 2) Since DirecTV satellite started insisting on a truck roll for new customers, they've relied on the USPS address database to verify physical addresses.
> ...


I suspect that searching on "DirecTV", even with "Satellite" in the search string, results in being redirected to the AT&T site, which would understandably list only the streaming option.
It doesn't mean that DirecTV satellite is not available, just not listed or accessible through the redirected site.
This is the DirecTV satellite site local channel availability GUI, and unless it comes up with "no service", it is a good bet that DirecTV satellite service is available.
Interestingly, the address I mentioned in the quoted narrative above, that DirecTV satellite says is non-existent, returns with results that service is available, even though when progressing through ordering service, it rejects the address, not as "no service", but as "not a recognized address".

Local/Network Channel Availability


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

raott said:


> Where are you going on the site to check your address? Are you going all the way through picking packages and giving your name at checkout?
> 
> EDIT: Never mind, I found it by googling Directv availability. Like others, mine shows only DirecTV Stream.
> 
> I put my parent's house in as well. They live in a very rural area. DirecTV Stream was the only option listed for their house as well.


i went through the site picked packages and put my address and zip code in!!! Wonders f the sites screwed up or if they took it down...

EDIT just had to put in my name pone number and e-mail addy and the DTV packages popped up it reconized my adrees on it's own


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

Well folks, hi from the past .... been a long time. Hope everyone is doing well!

Just dropping in and seeing what's new with DirecTV and ... well, this thread makes me sad. I can't believe what's happened to my beloved DirecTV.

I switched to FiOS a little over 10 years ago when we moved into a FiOS neighborhood, and haven't really looked back. I do remember DirecTV fondly, and thankfully, that's how I'll continue to remember it. The days of DirecTiVo, then the HR20, all the way up through the HR34. So many innovations -- but don't think there's been much in the last 10 years, so it appears.

I'm unfortunately thinking DirecTV doesn't have much of a future, at least via the current satellite network. It seems to me, and maybe I'm off base, but the smart play would be for them to partner up with something like Starlink, and just do straight streaming over low-earth orbit satellite Internet. I've been beta testing Starlink for almost a year now at our seasonal getaway, and I have to say -- it's pretty darn tremendously good. No issue streaming whatsoever using an Apple TV. I even have Channels DVR setup so I can stream from my home DVR... works great.

Moving from geosynchronous TV-dedicated satellites in the sky to a low-earth-orbit constellation of IP-based satellites seems to make a lot of sense.

Anyway, just wanted to say hello and chime in on how sad it is that one basically has to fight their way into new service from DirecTV. It's kinda crazy -- I just looked at their website and it really looks like a 2-bit operation now. I mean, even the pulldown for "Satellite" on the website has typos; it changes from "Explore Satellite" to "Shop Satellite" after pulling the menu down. Same with the phone # on the page - it changes after load. Just sloppy.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Thats awesome you have fios. Wish it were available at my current location I currently suffer from horrible horific docsis ... 

But I love my directv! Love all the 4K sports but you do have a point not much new hardware since genie 2 . 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Low earth satellites are really pissing astronomers off. I am not sure dedicating an entire fleet of satellites covering the entire earth just to offer TV to 5% of the surface is a good use unless they can also make use of them in other parts of the globe to also provide TV to say, Africa, Europe, India... but then you run into all sorts of issues with multiple governments and their "fcc" rules. Nothing wrong with Geostationary satellite, the problem is AT&T. 
The only upgrade they have made since I left when they bought DirecTv was adding a couple 4K channels. 
If I owned it, I would make job one generating new high paying customers. There are two satellite companies. I would push all my SD only customers to either upgrade or switch to DISH.
1: Invest in equipment to upconvert HD to 4K HDR
2: Take the top 10 popular channels and convert them to 4K HDR and upload them to the 101 KU satellite with AV1 codec. Nothing pisses people off more than losing TV during rain. KU has much better coverage. 
3: If bandwidth is still available on 101, keep adding the AV1 HD versions of the next most popular channels until the bandwidth is covered (but not overly compressed).
4: Get rid of all SD channels that have an HD equivalent and use the KA satellites with the old codec for compatibility with current equipment.
5: Get Tivo to create a new DVR capable of the new AV1 codec and direct reception of 4K, and send those out to your 4K customers for a direct swap with their current 4K Genie/HS17/HR54. Customers would be charged a premium to rent this box and get 4K from 101, with less rain fade, and the best PQ available anywhere.
6: New customers, two year contract, but even month to month, not cheap to start, then a big second year jump
7: Allow customers with currently installed and working dish to rejoin without contract if they rent the new 4K box, and do not require a truck roll. Offer to let them purchase the new box (own). People who own the equipment are more likely to stay.
8: Have an opt out for locals like DISH for those that can get locals with antenna. The new box could incorporate an ATSC 3.0/ATSC 1.0 tuner for those folks.
9: Have a complimentary DirecTV Stream fallback (if internet speed allows) for rain fade events. Could advertise 100% reliability.
10: Offer a 4K package including one of the new boxes for a premium monthly fee. Which covers all the channels on the 101 satellite plus their choice of one of the other non-4K packages.

Just an idea. Losing Sunday Ticket exclusivity is going to cause some major churn. They need something to sell you cannot get anywhere else unless you live in a major city with access to uncapped Gig speed Fiber.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

^^ I wish more areas had FTTH ! 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> Low earth satellites are really pissing astronomers off. I am not sure dedicating an entire fleet of satellites covering the entire earth just to offer TV to 5% of the surface is a good use unless they can also make use of them in other parts of the globe to also provide TV to say, Africa, Europe, India... but then you run into all sorts of issues with multiple governments and their "fcc" rules. Nothing wrong with Geostationary satellite, the problem is AT&T.
> The only upgrade they have made since I left when they bought DirecTv was adding a couple 4K channels.
> If I owned it, I would make job one generating new high paying customers. There are two satellite companies. I would push all my SD only customers to either upgrade or switch to DISH.
> 1: Invest in equipment to upconvert HD to 4K HDR
> ...


I love all these ideas!! The new TiVo box should incorporate TiVo Stream capabilities so that you can use D* Stream as a fallback on the same box (and if they could figure out a way to make it seamless, (i.e with rainfade it automatically give you the option to go to Stream, same way they give you the 4K option for sports that broadcast on 4K if you go to the non-4K channel)). Anyway, I think these ideas are brilliant and would make this a truly top of the line system. The only thing I might change, is, if you want to pay for the TiVo box up front, you can waive your 2 year commitment. Let's say $299 up front. This way, if you leave, you still paid for the box upfront. Might also stop some of the churn since you committed real money ahead of time.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

just LOL at all of this.. Tivo will never release another piece of hardware


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

compnurd said:


> just LOL at all of this.. Tivo will never release another piece of hardware


Bet Sony or Samsung would then. Someone would take up the project.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> Bet Sony or Samsung would then. Someone would take up the project.


No one wants to release expensive set top hardware.. Samsung stopped even making Blu Ray players The world is moving towards cheap streaming sticks and cloud everything Why would Samsung or Sony take on that cost when all they need is Directv Stream to have an app on there TV which they already do. Tivo is working on a TV OS as its next foray


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Because people in Bum Screw dont have internet fast enough to stream, and those that do usually have caps making it really expensive to stream 4K content all month.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> Because people in Bum Screw dont have internet fast enough to stream, and those that do usually have caps making it really expensive to stream 4K content all month.


basically yeh.. Your talking a minority of the population.. Even Comcast and Spectrum are getting out of hardware


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> Because people in Bum Screw dont have internet fast enough to stream, and those that do usually have caps making it really expensive to stream 4K content all month.


While I love your ideas, I have to agree with @compnurd . Sure there's a population that still can't get good internet. But that's changing, and with the current infrastructure initiatives, it's going to change sooner rather than later. The future IS streaming. And I'm saying this as a person who's tried streaming and went back to satellite AND has a solid internet connection. I just think there's a bit more work on the streaming side to make it work the way I want it to. But it will get there, and I expect by the time my 2 year commitment to DirecTV Sat is over, it will be there and I'll jump back. Just watch TV and you almost never see ads for DirecTV Satellite. They are pushing Stream as their go to, and that's pretty smart. So why would anyone invest in a device strictly for Satellite? A hybrid device would most likely be a smarter move. And also we need to consider that the youngins' don't watch TV like an old timer like me does. So at some point traditional TV will probably be phased out quite a bit. I talked about that in the channels thread about channel consolidation that's coming soon. There's no reason why NBC/Universal needs 5 or 6 different channels that essentially play reruns of old shows the majority of their time on the air. Yet they have USA and Bravo and a few others that do just that. And with each big network having a streaming platform and them investing in content that's strictly for that platform (and less for traditional channels), that's the future.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> While I love your ideas, I have to agree with @compnurd . Sure there's a population that still can't get good internet. But that's changing, and with the current infrastructure initiatives, it's going to change sooner rather than later. The future IS streaming. And I'm saying this as a person who's tried streaming and went back to satellite AND has a solid internet connection. I just think there's a bit more work on the streaming side to make it work the way I want it to. But it will get there, and I expect by the time my 2 year commitment to DirecTV Sat is over, it will be there and I'll jump back. Just watch TV and you almost never see ads for DirecTV Satellite. They are pushing Stream as their go to, and that's pretty smart. So why would anyone invest in a device strictly for Satellite? A hybrid device would most likely be a smarter move. And also we need to consider that the youngins' don't watch TV like an old timer like me does. So at some point traditional TV will probably be phased out quite a bit. I talked about that in the channels thread about channel consolidation that's coming soon. There's no reason why NBC/Universal needs 5 or 6 different channels that essentially play reruns of old shows the majority of their time on the air. Yet they have USA and Bravo and a few others that do just that. And with each big network having a streaming platform and them investing in content that's strictly for that platform (and less for traditional channels), that's the future.


People seem to think these companies owe something to them because they dont have fast internet or unlimited data or live in the boondocks.. They dont lol.. No company is going to invest millions in R/D and production on hardware for something that is dying


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

I think xfiniry still invests in x1 hardware and routers etc 



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I have no problem with streaming. I am lucky though, my Gig internet connection has no caps. If you have Xfinity, you have (or soon will) have caps. If you stream all your video in a house of 4, and two of those are console gamers with 15GB DLC updates on every game multiple times a month, see how fast you blow through that 1.2TB cap. So add $30 a month (for now) to your internet bill. Then, when everyone streams and dumps Xfinity TV and phone, see what the price of the internet will be to make up for the loss. 

Streaming is fine, but the internet companies (or ATT/satellite) will make up for the loss with higher prices and caps. Hopefully, if I dont change my service at all, if ATT adds caps, Ill be grandfathered in with my no-cap service. I watch lots of 4K sports, and we blew through 2TB of data last month.

The one failing of streaming is they are back to 2010 on their cloud DVR. FF has no compensation for overshoot, Most have horrible UIs. They have a LONG way to go.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

compnurd said:


> People seem to think these companies owe something to them because they dont have fast internet or unlimited data or live in the boondocks.. They dont lol.. No company is going to invest millions in R/D and production on hardware for something that is dying


There's a reason why we haven't seen any new DirecTV Sat hardware in a number of years.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> I have no problem with streaming. I am lucky though, my Gig internet connection has no caps. If you have Xfinity, you have (or soon will) have caps. If you stream all your video in a house of 4, and two of those are console gamers with 15GB DLC updates on every game multiple times a month, see how fast you blow through that 1.2TB cap. So add $30 a month (for now) to your internet bill. Then, when everyone streams and dumps Xfinity TV and phone, see what the price of the internet will be to make up for the loss.
> 
> Streaming is fine, but the internet companies (or ATT/satellite) will make up for the loss with higher prices and caps. Hopefully, if I dont change my service at all, if ATT adds caps, Ill be grandfathered in with my no-cap service. I watch lots of 4K sports, and we blew through 2TB of data last month.
> 
> The one failing of streaming is they are back to 2010 on their cloud DVR. FF has no compensation for overshoot, Most have horrible UIs. They have a LONG way to go.


I think at some point, caps will go away, especially for folks have both internet and TV through the same company. Remember when mobile companies went from unlimited data to paying for tiers of data, and then back to unlimited? That's what will eventually happen. They will just charge more and call it "unlimited". It makes little sense for a company that is an ISP AND a streaming company to cap usage, because it kills the ability to stream for their customers. More than likely they will build that extra $30 into an unlimited plan, built for streaming. Comcast, you have to realize is not in the streaming business (though they do own Peacock as part of NBC/Univ) For Comcast, they want to still lead you to cable, so yeah, kind of makes sense to charge a cap. But for someone with both a streaming product and is an ISP, might not make sense.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> There's a reason why we haven't seen any new DirecTV Sat hardware in a number of years.


Oh I know and a reason we wont


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> I have no problem with streaming. I am lucky though, my Gig internet connection has no caps. If you have Xfinity, you have (or soon will) have caps. If you stream all your video in a house of 4, and two of those are console gamers with 15GB DLC updates on every game multiple times a month, see how fast you blow through that 1.2TB cap. So add $30 a month (for now) to your internet bill. Then, when everyone streams and dumps Xfinity TV and phone, see what the price of the internet will be to make up for the loss.
> 
> Streaming is fine, but the internet companies (or ATT/satellite) will make up for the loss with higher prices and caps. Hopefully, if I dont change my service at all, if ATT adds caps, Ill be grandfathered in with my no-cap service. I watch lots of 4K sports, and we blew through 2TB of data last month.
> 
> The one failing of streaming is they are back to 2010 on their cloud DVR. FF has no compensation for overshoot, Most have horrible UIs. They have a LONG way to go.


My Directv Stream UI handles overshoot fine and both YTTV and Stream UI's blow Directv out of the water


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> I think at some point, caps will go away, especially for folks have both internet and TV through the same company. Remember when mobile companies went from unlimited data to paying for tiers of data, and then back to unlimited? That's what will eventually happen. They will just charge more and call it "unlimited". It makes little sense for a company that is an ISP AND a streaming company to cap usage, because it kills the ability to stream for their customers. More than likely they will build that extra $30 into an unlimited plan, built for streaming. Comcast, you have to realize is not in the streaming business (though they do own Peacock as part of NBC/Univ) For Comcast, they want to still lead you to cable, so yeah, kind of makes sense to charge a cap. But for someone with both a streaming product and is an ISP, might not make sense.


Bingo Thats what my cable company did last year.. Added a new tier for 15 bucks more with more speed and unlimited Data.. its now there most popular package


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> For Comcast, they want to still lead you to cable, so yeah, kind of makes sense to charge a cap. But for someone with both a streaming product and is an ISP, might not make sense.


Well, they told me my Tivo with cablecard would no longer be able to get any new channels because those are being sent over IP now, so I suppose they dont charge for those channels but I see them also getting away from using old fashioned cable. My bosses bill for TV and internet with them just jumped from $174 to $205 a month, and seriously, she has one X1 box, and two tiny little adapters in the bedroom and kitchen. ATT just laid fiber in front of her house. She has already called me (im her IT guy) and wants to switch to ATT fiber when it gets turned on, and a cheaper streaming service (probably will set her up with DirecTV stream since she likes channel numbers and has DirecTv satellite at work). She also still pays $75 a month for a LANDLINE PHONE... I was shocked. Going to set her up with an OOMA and port her number once the fiber internet is put in. I cant believe anyone is still paying $75 a month for a landline phone... She has an iphone, dont know why she even NEEDS a landline, but she wants to "keep my old number"...So OOMA is probably the cheapest way to do that.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

compnurd said:


> My Directv Stream UI handles overshoot fine and both YTTV and Stream UI's blow Directv out of the water


I liked the DirecTV Stream UI, but I hate the UI on YTTV. Are you using their Osprey box for the overshoot correction? I dont recall it working on a Roku but its been several months since I had it. The $10 fee for the cloud DVR on top of the package price was just too much for me.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> I liked the DirecTV Stream UI, but I hate the UI on YTTV. Are you using their Osprey box for the overshoot correction? I dont recall it working on a Roku but its been several months since I had it. The $10 fee for the cloud DVR on top of the package price was just too much for me.


Really $10 a month is a deal breaker? I guess you have to draw the line somewhere. From what I could see the UI for DirecTV stream is FAR superior to YTTV, especially with the Osprey box, but even streaming on Roku it was better. I'd gladly pay that extra $10 for a really good DVR (and while there were things that I didn't like, like no ability to pad and hit or miss auto padding on live sports), it really worked very well.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

$10 a month on top of the already $16 higher package cost for the channels I needed plus no Red Zone were the reasons I canceled. I am currently paying $56 , including Red Zone, and 200 hours of DVR space. Lots cheaper.
DirecTv had some padding, YouTubeTV padded really good. My current provider does not pad yet at all. You are right, that is a major feature missing from every cloud DVR service Ive tried.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> 1: Invest in equipment to upconvert HD to 4K HDR


What does one gain for the bandwidth and processing power spent? Synthesizing HDR and WCG from content that doesn't have it is surely a lot more trouble than it is worth. AI upconversion isn't a great value and charging extra to get the quality that you've become accustomed to isn't going to look good on paper.


> 2: Take the top 10 popular channels and convert them to 4K HDR and upload them to the 101 KU satellite with AV1 codec.


There aren't any popular channels available in either 4K or HDR/WCG, so back to point 1.


> 3: If bandwidth is still available on 101, keep adding the AV1 HD versions of the next most popular channels until the bandwidth is covered (but not overly compressed).


Judging from the testimony in recent PQ comparisons, they've already passed the point of overcompression.


> 4: Get rid of all SD channels that have an HD equivalent and use the KA satellites with the old codec for compatibility with current equipment.


Do they still have the Advanced Receivers available to replace all of the SD receivers? It appears they're having problems replacing HD receivers that go bad without forcing the upgrade of all SD receivers.


> 5: Get Tivo to create a new DVR capable of the new AV1 codec and direct reception of 4K, and send those out to your 4K customers for a direct swap with their current 4K Genie/HS17/HR54. Customers would be charged a premium to rent this box and get 4K from 101, with less rain fade, and the best PQ available anywhere.


They started that journey over ten years ago and it was an overwhelming disappointment (as has been the case with most major TiVo collaborations).


> 6: New customers, two year contract, but even month to month, not cheap to start, then a big second year jump


The hardware and installation costs DIRECTV around $800 on average. They can't wait to get that back until some time in the future.


> 7: Allow customers with currently installed and working dish to rejoin without contract if they rent the new 4K box, and do not require a truck roll. Offer to let them purchase the new box (own).


Given the relative complexity of a modern installation, self-installing makes little sense. It is also complicated by the fact that the new Genie 2 they give you makes all of the other equipment you might have unusable. Given the writing on the wall, would you be interested in investing hundreds in hardware that might not have any value after the next technology shift (perhaps to AV1 or similar) or because of some questionable change in DIRECTV policy?


> 8: Have an opt out for locals like DISH for those that can get locals with antenna. The new box could incorporate an ATSC 3.0/ATSC 1.0 tuner for those folks.


This makes a lot of sense but contracts are difficult enough to strike without that added frustration. There's little question that there should be an OTA option for those who are interested. Cost concerns make inclusion of ATSC 3.0 capability nonsensical at this time but this certainly supports that the tuner should be external.


> 9: Have a complimentary DirecTV Stream fallback (if internet speed allows) for rain fade events. Could advertise 100% reliability.


You pick your poison and have to live with it. I think it likely that DIRECTV Stream will sooner than later separate from DIRECTV DBS so that would be a rather short-term option.


> 10: Offer a 4K package including one of the new boxes for a premium monthly fee. Which covers all the channels on the 101 satellite plus their choice of one of the other non-4K packages.


Given that there's not enough 4K content to support three channels, this is clearly a pipe dream.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Ill bet you hate puppies and kittens too.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> Ill bet you hate puppies and kittens too.


That would seem obvious from my avatar. 

Feel free to offer rebuttal.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Off topic but I suffer from docsis its  even with all devices hard wired ethernet. Constsnt random outages. They even admitted they have bandwidth issues on an outage message...

My D* is more reliable i wish more areas had FTTH fiber broadband.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

dtv757 said:


> Off topic but I suffer from docsis its  even with all devices hard wired ethernet. Constsnt random outages.
> 
> My D* is more reliable i wish more areas had FTTH fiber broadband.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


Yeh and we have covered 1000 times what you need to do.. As pretty much everyone here who has Docsis has confirmed the complete opposite. As stated people with FTTH have just as many issues as DOCSIS customers to.. Browse a Verizon or Frontier forum sometime.. Its a disaster But yeh lets go off topic again for your rant about something you refuse to address


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

dtv757 said:


> Off topic but I suffer from docsis its  even with all devices hard wired ethernet. Constsnt random outages.
> 
> My D* is more reliable i wish more areas had FTTH fiber broadband.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


I used to have the same issues as you. I finally got comcast to come out here and run a new cable (it was like 100' to the pole) and the problems disappeared.
After that I never had any drop outs or issues with Docsis (motorola modem) when I had comcast. It think rather than the docsis your issue is the local company and their infrastructure.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

I read fios DSLR and reddit almost daily rarely do I see an outage post 

On dslr there is 1 post about an outage every other post is a out customization , or how does fios work , construction etc ...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

They have already ran a new line from the pedestal to the house multiple times.. 

Garbage in = garbage out plain and simple 



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

dtv757 said:


> They have already ran a new line from the pedestal to the house multiple times..
> 
> Garbage in = garbage out plain and simple
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


Then keep complaining.. Whining on here isnt going to fix it


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Davenlr said:


> 1: Invest in equipment to upconvert HD to 4K HDR


What the heck does this buy versus having your TV upconvert HD to 4K? Only a lunatic would think this makes sense.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Then keep complaining.. Whining on here isnt going to fix it


Especially since it doesn't seem to be a widespread issue


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

dtv757 said:


> They have already ran a new line from the pedestal to the house multiple times..
> 
> Garbage in = garbage out plain and simple


Not sure where you are located but are there no other ISP's in your area?


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> Not sure where you are located but are there no other ISP's in your area?


No fios not available

Had DSL 3 MBPS it was rock solid 0 issues never an outage but too slow for modern 4K era

LTE home broadband and 5G home broadband not available either . I want to burn this docsis cable to hell

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

dtv757 said:


> No fios not available
> 
> Had DSL 3 MBPS it was rock solid 0 issues never an outage but too slow for modern 4K era
> 
> ...


Your in Virginia Beach.. How is LTE Home Broadband not available? Verizon and T Mobile offer it in there entire footprint


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

According to Spectrum's website it is available in Norfolk as well.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Your in Virginia Beach.. How is LTE Home Broadband not available? Verizon and T Mobile offer it in there entire footprint


I put my address in it says not available

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

And it's not just me we suffer from constant outages at my work office too . 

All the time at least 15 multi day outages YTD

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> What the heck does this buy versus having your TV upconvert HD to 4K? Only a lunatic would think this makes sense.


Then I suppose all the people at Fox Sports are lunatics because that is EXACTLY what they are doing. If instead of calling folks names, you read the post, you would see it said:


> 2: Take the top 10 popular channels and convert them to 4K HDR and upload them to the 101 KU satellite with AV1 codec.


Note the HDR in there? Only a professional upconverting system can do that. It is what Fox Sports does with College Football on Saturday (the one on DirecTV satellite 4K channel), and Thursday Night Football. It would also do a LOT better job than all but the best consumer TVs. Also note the AV1 codec to give the broadcast a much higher bandwidth.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

dtv757 said:


> I think xfiniry still invests in x1 hardware and routers etc


Yes. Pay TV hardware (i.e. "cable boxes") aren't going to disappear any time soon, but they do appear to be dwindling down to running on one of two OS platforms: X1 (Comcast, Cox, Rogers, Shaw, Videotron) or Google's Android TV Operator Tier. DirecTV Stream has embraced the latter and it looks like even DISH satellite will do so with their next round of hardware coming out soon (probably unveiled in CES in a month).


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Apple TV OS is pretty popular with high end users on AVS also.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> What the heck does this buy versus having your TV upconvert HD to 4K? Only a lunatic would think this makes sense.


Eh, I see your point, although the computers that do professional HD-to-4K upscaling tend to produce better results than the chips inside the average 4K TV. If I watch a 1080i football game from my local CBS that my TV upscales to 4K, it doesn't look as good as the "fake 4K" live football that Fox and NBC distribute that's upscaled from 1080p.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Davenlr said:


> Apple TV OS is pretty popular with high end users on AVS also.


Yes, but I'm not talking about retail streaming devices but the OSes being used in hardware that's customized and offered by pay TV operators to their customers.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Your in Virginia Beach.. How is LTE Home Broadband not available? Verizon and T Mobile offer it in there entire footprint




































Verizon "high speed internet" = 3Mbps DSL


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

dtv757 said:


> View attachment 31901
> 
> View attachment 31903
> 
> ...


I would go in store


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yes. Pay TV hardware (i.e. "cable boxes") aren't going to disappear any time soon, but they do appear to be dwindling down to running on one of two OS platforms: X1 (Comcast, Cox, Rogers, Shaw, Videotron) or Google's Android TV Operator Tier. DirecTV Stream has embraced the latter and it looks like even DISH satellite will do so with their next round of hardware coming out soon (probably unveiled in CES in a month).


Comcast is no longer procuring X1 cable boxes. Everything will now run over there gateway to either a client type device or app

my cable company just did similar. No longer buying MG1/2 hardware. Everything is now on a TiVo Stream 4K device with cloud DVR. App is coming soon. Media ok just jumped that route also

considering the changes we have seen to DIRECTV Stream software over the last few months. I would bet this next box is there last. If we even see it at all


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> I would go in store


It might be different up there in Mars (PA) but down here ... Retail stores are not what they use to be ... went a few months ago to get a simple charger there was no greeter and the rep had to interrupt their current customer to ring me up ... i would say a commination of c19 protocol and amazon killed retail . There was not even a manager in the store ... yes this was a corp store .

a customer wanted help to transfer their information to their new device and was told do it at home... not the retail of a year years ago when there was non sales staff


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Eh, I see your point, although the computers that do professional HD-to-4K upscaling tend to produce better results than the chips inside the average 4K TV. If I watch a 1080i football game from my local CBS that my TV upscales to 4K, it doesn't look as good as the "fake 4K" live football that Fox and NBC distribute that's upscaled from 1080p.


Where is Directv going to get the 1080p feed? The networks don't distribute that, they distribute 1080i or 720p.

His plan also depends on dumping MPEG2 SD to use all that bandwidth on 101. If you do that, you can increase the bandwidth to channels you wish were upscaled to 4K so you are passing people exactly what Directv gets from the networks. I'll bet the latest 4K TVs would do a much better job of upscaling if they had a better starting product. If that's still not good enough for you, then you can buy an AVR to do an even better job (and presumably some can "upscale" to HDR as well)


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dtv757 said:


> Off topic but I suffer from docsis its  even with all devices hard wired ethernet


It would be much better if you would use the term "Cox broadband" rather than DOCSIS. DOCSIS is NOT the problem and you need to point the finger at the real source.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> If that's still not good enough for you, then you can buy an AVR to do an even better job (and presumably some can "upscale" to HDR as well)


Now isn't a good time to be looking for a new AVR (especially if you're a Yamaha fan).

TV upscaling is probably the best solution but you're still not going to get a good HDR/WCG out of it.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Where is Directv going to get the 1080p feed? The networks don't distribute that, they distribute 1080i or 720p.


Not that much difference, quality-wise, between 1080i and 1080p. DTV could de-interlace a 1080i signal to 1080p. In fact, that's what they do on all 1080i channels before streaming them from their DTV Stream servers. So what the OP was proposing would be to do one additional step and upscale that 1080p stream to 4K.

I'm not arguing that that's the best use of bandwidth, or makes sense business-wise, or whatever. I was just responding to your narrow criticism that such a practice would make no sense at all. My point is simply that, if you have a 4K TV, everything displayed on your screen is getting upscaled to 4K. And that the pro-quality upscalers (and de-interlacers) that TV networks and pay TV services possess generally do a better job than the processors that come inside consumer TVs.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> Comcast is no longer procuring X1 cable boxes. Everything will now run over there gateway to either a client type device or app
> 
> my cable company just did similar. No longer buying MG1/2 hardware. Everything is now on a TiVo Stream 4K device with cloud DVR. App is coming soon. Media ok just jumped that route also
> 
> considering the changes we have seen to DIRECTV Stream software over the last few months. I would bet this next box is there last. If we even see it at all


Yeah, I keep up with what Comcast is doing. They've been on a long, slow transition from QAM to managed IPTV for years now. But yes, they are still producing and giving out X1 boxes. The Xi5 and Xi6 models (the latter of which is also used as their Flex streaming box) were rolled out a few years ago and are IPTV-only. They lack QAM tuners or internal hard drives and rely solely on IP video and cloud hard drive. But they're still considered X1 boxes; they run the X1 OS and X1 apps and come with the standard X1 voice remote. (And the Flex OS is really just X1 with a different home screen UI and simple remote control, both customized for OTT streaming as opposed to cable TV.)

And Comcast just recently announced a next-gen X1 box that it will deploy globally. It's called the XiOne. Like the Xi6, it's IPTV/OTT only and supports 4K HDR. The XiOne also supports wifi 6 as well as Dolby Vision and Atmos. They're deploying it first in certain European markets to their Sky cable customers and in the US as the new Flex box (directly replacing the Xi6 for that use-case). They say it will eventually be given out as an X1 device for Comcast cable TV customers in the US, as well as to their X1 syndication partners, which includes Cox in the US and Rogers, Shaw and Videotron in Canada.

It wouldn't surprise me either way what DTV Stream does with regard to their own TV box. Maybe you're right that their next-gen Android TV box will be their last. Heck, I wouldn't be shocked if they just ended up scrapping it at this point. Who knows. For that matter, who knows what the long-term future of DTV Stream is. I assume that if/when DTV merges with DISH that DTV Stream would be included in the deal. Who knows.

But Comcast is definitely not getting out of the video STB game. They're sticking with X1/Flex for the long haul and will use it to ride the ongoing transition from cable TV to streaming, ensuring that they have a distribution/billing relationship with as many of their broadband customers as possible. You may have heard that they're now partnering with Hisense to deploy X1/Flex as a smart TV OS. Their new XClass TVs are currently sold at Walmart. Now that they're dipping their toe in direct-to-consumer retail devices, it wouldn't surprise me to see them eventually sell the XiOne at retail nationwide too, perhaps with one year of free Peacock Premium included as they do on the XClass TVs.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> So what the OP was proposing would be to do one additional step and upscale that 1080p stream to 4K.


Going from 1080i SDR to 2160p with HDR/WCG represents a significant amount of processing.

Starting with 720p doesn't make it any easier.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I keep up with what Comcast is doing. They've been on a long, slow transition from QAM to managed IPTV for years now. But yes, they are still producing and giving out X1 boxes. The Xi5 and Xi6 models (the latter of which is also used as their Flex streaming box) were rolled out a few years ago and are IPTV-only. They lack QAM tuners or internal hard drives and rely solely on IP video and cloud hard drive. But they're still considered X1 boxes; they run the X1 OS and X1 apps and come with the standard X1 voice remote. (And the Flex OS is really just X1 with a different home screen UI and simple remote control, both customized for OTT streaming as opposed to cable TV.)
> 
> And Comcast just recently announced a next-gen X1 box that it will deploy globally. It's called the XiOne. Like the Xi6, it's IPTV/OTT only and supports 4K HDR. The XiOne also supports wifi 6 as well as Dolby Vision and Atmos. They're deploying it first in certain European markets to their Sky cable customers and in the US as the new Flex box (directly replacing the Xi6 for that use-case). They say it will eventually be given out as an X1 device for Comcast cable TV customers in the US, as well as to their X1 syndication partners, which includes Cox in the US and Rogers, Shaw and Videotron in Canada.
> 
> ...


SO with Comcast big difference here The XiOne is not in the same line as the MG Hardware. They may still be selling but they are not buying anymore MG1/2 Hardware.. There is a big difference from little streaming boxes compared to how X1 was with a MG1/2/3 unit as the home hub And yes i wonder if they maybe scrap the next Stream Box


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> SO with Comcast big difference here The XiOne is not in the same line as the MG Hardware. They may still be selling but they are not buying anymore MG1/2 Hardware.. There is a big difference from little streaming boxes compared to how X1 was with a MG1/2/3 unit as the home hub


Yes, as I say, the hardware has changed with the loss of QAM tuners and hard drives as Comcast gradually transitions to an IPTV-only future. But it's all still X1, which refers essentially to the software/OS.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Going from 1080i SDR to 2160p with HDR/WCG represents a significant amount of processing.
> 
> Starting with 720p doesn't make it any easier.


True. I think we'd all agree that content actually captured in 4K HDR/WCG is definitely better than anything captured in lesser formats and then artificially upgraded.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I think we'd all agree that content actually captured in 4K HDR/WCG is definitely better than anything captured in lesser formats and then artificially upgraded.


Not to be flippant, but DUH!


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, as I say, the hardware has changed with the loss of QAM tuners and hard drives as Comcast gradually transitions to an IPTV-only future. But it's all still X1, which refers essentially to the software/OS.


So if they are using IPTV for X1, why are they still 720p and compressed to hell, even on 1080i original channels? They should be able to really let it rip in picture quality if they arent constrained by MPeg2/4


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Not to be flippant, but DUH!


I could have said the same to your prior post:

_Going from 1080i SDR to 2160p with HDR/WCG represents a significant amount of processing.

Starting with 720p doesn't make it any easier._


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Davenlr said:


> So if they are using IPTV for X1, why are they still 720p and compressed to hell, even on 1080i original channels? They should be able to really let it rip in picture quality if they arent constrained by MPeg2/4


Well, as I say, Comcast is in a long slow transition from QAM to managed IPTV. They still have a fair number of boxes/adapters in use that are QAM-only. Basically, they run their cable TV service in parallel on both QAM and IPTV. There are a small but growing number of HD channels introduced in the last few years that are IPTV-only, so those are unavailable to folks on pre-X1 hardware (or on a TiVo). Older X1 hardware can do both QAM and IPTV. The latest X1 boxes are IPTV-only. Comcast could choose to encode the IP version of channels at a higher bitrate, with better PQ, but AFAIK, they don't; they look pretty much the same as the QAM version.
At some point, Comcast will force all those older QAM-only devices to be swapped out for IPTV-capable boxes and they'll drop QAM channels from their network completely and go all-IP. Perhaps at that point, we'll see them improve their PQ.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> There are a small but growing number of HD channels introduced in the last few years that are IPTV-only, so those are unavailable to folks on pre-X1 hardware (or on a TiVo).


I think some examples of IPTV-only HD channels may be in order here. The delivery method doesn't much matter but we do need to be talking about linear channels.

DVR capability is a major issue that you may be overlooking. Is it reasonable/legal to warehouse months of everything including local channels? I seem to recall that previous efforts to engage in this met with a lot of pushback from the content owners when done at the cableco level.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

I do remember hearing about some push back on IPTV when I beta tested IPTV a few years ago (in a different state) from big red. 

It was smooth I did notice like a 30 second delay between the IPTV and the QAM ... had both active for a few months... 

Great PQ and fast GUI.

"3 day lookback" was a really cool feature but content owners got it scaled back .. its similar to the "72 hour rewind" thing in DirecTV but originally was everything not just select shows . 

It had voice remote 4k vod and all kinds of stuff. It had a really long live buffer too I remember one day being able to rewind back like 4 hours 

Again as long as its reliable like a fiber ISP, IPTV can work great 

But not via docsis too many horror stories (not only cox but Optimum too .. ) 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

dtv757 said:


> I do remember hearing about some push back on IPTV when I beta tested IPTV a few years ago (in a different state) from big red.
> 
> It was smooth I did notice like a 30 second delay between the IPTV and the QAM ... had both active for a few months...
> 
> ...


Oye vey


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> I think some examples of IPTV-only HD channels may be in order here. The delivery method doesn't much matter but we do need to be talking about linear channels.


Definitely linear channels. So far, the IPTV-only channels on Comcast's systems have mostly just been HD versions of some less-popular channels that Comcast was already carrying in SD on QAM. e.g. C-SPAN 2, Discovery Life, etc. It varies from one area to another. When Comcast adds these IPTV-only channels to a local line-up, there's fine print on the monthly bill saying that you need an X1 box or the Xfinity Stream app to receive them.

See the following threads:
More New HD Channels - Comcast XFINITY TV | DSLReports Forums

is there a list of channels that are IPTV vs. standard cable signal? | Xfinity Community Forum


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Comcast_Xfinity/comments/nzfer4



harsh said:


> DVR capability is a major issue that you may be overlooking. Is it reasonable/legal to warehouse months of everything including local channels? I seem to recall that previous efforts to engage in this met with a lot of pushback from the content owners when done at the cableco level.


Comcast's cloud DVR will automatically delete recordings after 365 days. You can be sure that Comcast's carriage contracts with the various network groups give them permission to store cloud DVR recordings on their servers. They're a huge corporation -- the biggest MVPD in the nation, and one that owns several channels to boot -- and you can bet that their lawyers made sure they had those rights nailed down before they ever launched cloud DVR years ago.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

dtv757 said:


> I do remember hearing about some push back on IPTV when I beta tested IPTV a few years ago (in a different state) from big red.
> 
> It was smooth I did notice like a 30 second delay between the IPTV and the QAM ... had both active for a few months...
> 
> ...


Yeah, I remember reading posts on another forum a few years back from beta testers of Verizon's IPTV service. Sounded promising. The platform was using some of the OnCue tech that they had acquired from Intel (which sold it after abandoning plans to launch their own service, which would've been similar, I think, to the now-defunct Layer3 TV).

Apparently Verizon realized which way the pay TV winds were blowing and decided that it didn't make much sense for them to offer a next-gen replacement for their own FiOS TV service. Instead, they just partnered with Google to sell YouTube TV to their own broadband (and mobile) customers, while also continuing to offer FiOS TV to the dwindling number of customers who want it. (Well, those who get the new fixed wireless Verizon 5G Home broadband service can't get FiOS TV; their only cable TV choices are OTT services such as YTTV, DTV Stream, etc.)


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

It might have been that And or bad leadership 

Somehow it was under Marnie Walden and she wasted billions on things like AOL, YAHOO , go 90 etc ..

I think big red got rid of all those things .

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

dtv757 said:


> It might have been that And or bad leadership
> 
> Somehow it was under Marnie Walden and she wasted billions on things like AOL, YAHOO , go 90 etc ..
> 
> I think big red got rid of all those things .


Yeah, I think it was all those things combined. Verizon got burned trying to get into video and decided to mostly walk away from it all rather than double down as their competitor AT&T unwisely did with DTV, AT&T TV and Warner.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

BTW, prices for most DTV Stream packages will reportedly increase in January.

Entertainment: remains at $70
Choice: increases to $90 (+$5)
Ultimate: increases to $105 (+$10)
Premier: increases to $150 (+$10)

They seem to be getting less competitive against YTTV, not more. Maybe they'll add some new channels and/or improve the feature set to soften the blow, like include the unlimited DVR at no additional cost.










EDIT: Corrected price of Entertainment above from $65 to $70.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> So far, the IPTV-only channels on Comcast's systems have mostly just been HD versions of some less-popular channels that Comcast was already carrying in SD on QAM. e.g. C-SPAN 2, Discovery Life, etc.


Those "channels" are Comcast's doing. They're applying their special formula of PQ destruction to the same old HD feeds that they've been getting all along.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> BTW, prices for most DTV Stream packages will reportedly increase in January.
> 
> Entertainment: remains at $65
> Choice: increases to $90 (+$5)
> ...


Think entertainment is $70, but if they dont include some DVR space for free with those price increases, they are going to wish ATT kept control when they lose all their money.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> BTW, prices for most DTV Stream packages will reportedly increase in January.
> 
> Entertainment: remains at $65
> Choice: increases to $90 (+$5)
> ...


Everyone on the YTTV Reddit is expecting it to go to 70 or 75 in the spring


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Everyone on the YTTV Reddit is expecting it to go to 70 or 75 in the spring


Good thing they cut me off then. I would have canceled anyway.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Davenlr said:


> Think entertainment is $70, but if they dont include some DVR space for free with those price increases, they are going to wish ATT kept control when they lose all their money.


Oops, yeah, Entertainment has always been $69.99 (which I just shorten to $70) and that's where it's staying next month while the other packages all increase in price.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> ... they are going to wish ATT kept control when they lose all their money.


The optimist in me saw the sale of control to TPG to be a positive that would allow TPG to focus on operating the satellite and streaming services without paying attention to AT&T's other service offerings.

The pessimist in me saw the sale as a way of AT&T hiding the true state of the service. The pessimist is supported by the lack of reporting of subscriber counts and other details. The only "shareholders" of DirecTV are two companies, AT&T and TPG. I hoped that AT&T's ownership stake would lead to continued reporting of all statistics, but I only see reporting of revenues and profit. Both numbers were extremely less than was was reported for the prior year when reported for the third quarter.

The optimist in me thought that there was no way that TPG would spend $7.6 billion unless they were going to get a huge return on their investment. They want DirecTV to succeed. But they bought it knowing of the challenges AT&T faced.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> The pessimist is supported by the lack of reporting of subscriber counts and other details.


Absence of reporting is not necessarily an indicator of a poor result. It just means that any claims or projections one way or the other are not well supported.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> Absence of reporting is not necessarily an indicator of a poor result. It just means that any claims or projections one way or the other are not well supported.


The numbers actually reported are pretty bad. A company is more likely to brag about good numbers and not talk about weak numbers unless required by regulators.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> The numbers actually reported are pretty bad. A company is more likely to brag about good numbers and not talk about weak numbers unless required by regulators.


Since DIRECTV reports to just two shareholders, broad public exposure of financial details is probably of little impact. The percentage of money invested by either company isn't significant in either of their respective buckets and I expect that most have subconsciously written it off already.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> Everyone on the YTTV Reddit is expecting it to go to 70 or 75 in the spring


Yeah, my guess is that YTTV goes to $70 next year but also adds A&E, History and Lifetime. At which point they'll have nailed down all the mainstream, popular channels that constitute what we used to call "Expanded Basic Cable," with the exception of the RSNs, which look like they're going to become, in the next year or two, something like HBO and Showtime, i.e. optional add-ons available both via cable TV distributors as well as via a standalone streaming app. Once that happens, it's possible that YTTV will offer them again but outside their base package.

YTTV, it appears to me, is well on its way to becoming the next-gen replacement for traditional cable/satellite. I think we'll increasingly see smaller MSOs throw in the towel on their own cable TV service and just become YTTV resellers. No one is able, or at least willing, to compete with them on price, not even Comcast. So funny that Comcast is now a YTTV reseller too via their Flex streaming platform!


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, my guess is that YTTV goes to $70 next year but also adds A&E, History and Lifetime. At which point they'll have nailed down all the mainstream, popular channels that constitute what we used to call "Expanded Basic Cable," with the exception of the RSNs, which look like they're going to become, in the next year or two, something like HBO and Showtime, i.e. optional add-ons available both via cable TV distributors as well as via a standalone streaming app. Once that happens, it's possible that YTTV will offer them again but outside their base package.
> 
> YTTV, it appears to me, is well on its way to becoming the next-gen replacement for traditional cable/satellite. I think we'll increasingly see smaller MSOs throw in the towel on their own cable TV service and just become YTTV resellers. No one is able, or at least willing, to compete with them on price, not even Comcast. So funny that Comcast is now a YTTV reseller too via their Flex streaming platform!


Its a mixed back though because if you want some features such as unlimited streams and 4K your up another 20. Until YTTV locks down RSN's also they arent going to take over the world And as it stands right now the NHL and MLB dont support the standalone RSN model... which is probably 80% of RSN viewership


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> Its a mixed back though because if you want some features such as unlimited streams and 4K your up another 20.


My hunch is that those features aren't important to the great majority of customers and potential customers. There's very little 4K available from cable channels so far and at least Fox Sports (and NBC Sports too?) lets you watch their 4K sports live for free with a cable login via their authenticated app. I would bet that those subs who really need more than three concurrent YTTV streams are people who are splitting a subscription between different households (which is easy to do thanks to YTTV's individual profiles), in which case upping the total bill by $20 isn't that big of a deal because you're still getting a great overall value (e.g. 2 households paying $42.50 each).



compnurd said:


> Until YTTV locks down RSN's also they arent going to take over the world And as it stands right now the NHL and MLB dont support the standalone RSN model... which is probably 80% of RSN viewership


Bally has reached a deal with 12 NHL teams for their proposed standalone direct-to-consumer streaming RSN. The big fight is with MLB who is talking about launching their own such service come spring 2023.

MLB May Brush Back Sinclair With Its Own Streaming Service: Report

The NBA and NHL are both supposedly in talks with the MLB about it. Who knows how it will all play out but it seems highly likely that, one way or another, we'll see in-market games available via standalone streaming within the next couple years. The leagues have to go with where consumers are shifting, and that's away from the cable bundle.

Until that happens, yes, there's a significant chunk of consumers who will want to stick with cable or DTV (either sat or Stream) in order to watch the RSNs. But the majority of cable subs don't care about RSNs, which still gives YTTV a lot of room for growth in the near-term.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> My hunch is that those features aren't important to the great majority of customers and potential customers. There's very little 4K available from cable channels so far and at least Fox Sports (and NBC Sports too?) lets you watch their 4K sports live for free with a cable login via their authenticated app. I would bet that those subs who really need more than three concurrent YTTV streams are people who are splitting a subscription between different households (which is easy to do thanks to YTTV's individual profiles), in which case upping the total bill by $20 isn't that big of a deal because you're still getting a great overall value (e.g. 2 households paying $42.50 each).
> 
> Bally has reached a deal with 12 NHL teams for their proposed standalone direct-to-consumer streaming RSN. The big fight is with MLB who is talking about launching their own such service come spring 2023.
> 
> ...


But the majority of cable subs don't care about RSNs, which still gives YTTV a lot of room for growth in the near-term.

I think you are really really really really really really underestimating that


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> But the majority of cable subs don't care about RSNs, which still gives YTTV a lot of room for growth in the near-term.
> 
> I think you are really really really really really really underestimating that


Well, there's a big chunk of US households -- my guess is at least half -- who either don't watch sports or who watch very casually on the major broadcast nets (e.g. championship games, maybe Sunday NFL) and maybe ESPN. But then of course a lot of those households don't have cable at all. And then among avid sports fans, some are mostly just into college sports (and/or NASCAR, golf, soccer, etc.) and don't really care about MLB, NHL or NBA. This is especially true outside major metro areas, particularly in the South where SEC football reigns.

If the majority of cable TV viewers watched RSNs very much, I don't think DISH (one of the nation's largest MVPDs) would have dropped them. I don't think they suffered a huge drop in subscriber levels after that happened.

I don't deny that there's a sizable percentage of cable TV subs who regularly watch RSNs for at least one pro sport. I just doubt that it's over 50% of them.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH put the estimated viewership of RSNs closer to 10% and were willing to back their research with the decision to let the RSNs leave. They still have the major national sports channels, just not the overpriced RSNs.

There seems to be a lot of support for the "no RSN" packages that DIRECTV offers.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

compnurd said:


> But the majority of cable subs don't care about RSNs, which still gives YTTV a lot of room for growth in the near-term.
> 
> I think you are really really really really really really underestimating that


You are correct, that is one reason I wont sub to DirecTV or DISH, they force you to pay for the RSNs (and DirecTV Stream adds it in the base price), and I have NOT ONE IOTA of interest in watching the Texas Rangers, when my team is the St Louis Cardinals and THEY are blacked out on MLBTV because they are 350 miles away and they are afraid I might watch a game on TV instead of driving to the ballpark. So I dont watch baseball anymore. And I dont subscribe to any package on a service making me pay for it.

As for 4K, the only sources are Fox Sports (available with their app). NBC might have something too, as well as ESPN but not on their apps.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I know I care less about the RSNs when I see the RSN fees added to DIRECTV and cable bills. It is one of the reasons why I don't buy cable TV. (There is also a high locals fee in my area and one cannot opt out of locals on cable.)


----------



## dstout (Jul 19, 2005)

Davenlr said:


> You are correct, that is one reason I wont sub to DirecTV or DISH, they force you to pay for the RSNs (and DirecTV Stream adds it in the base price), and I have NOT ONE IOTA of interest in watching the Texas Rangers, when my team is the St Louis Cardinals and THEY are blacked out on MLBTV because they are 350 miles away and they are afraid I might watch a game on TV instead of driving to the ballpark. So I dont watch baseball anymore. And I dont subscribe to any package on a service making me pay for it.
> 
> As for 4K, the only sources are Fox Sports (available with their app). NBC might have something too, as well as ESPN but not on their apps.


You don't get the Cardinals with the RSN package on DirecTV?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

dstout said:


> You don't get the Cardinals with the RSN package on DirecTV?


Yea, just checked on DirecTV's site, they added Midwest now that Fox Sports doesnt own it anymore apparently. They didnt have it when I was a subscriber.
On the other hand, DirecTV Stream does not have it...they only have:








AT&T SportsNet Southwest
AT&T SportsNet Southwest
Astros








Bally Sports Oklahoma
Bally Sports Oklahoma
Thunder








Bally Sports Southwest
Bally Sports Southwest
RangersMavericksStars

And...they told me they would not sell me DirecTV satellite at my address...so...Sling I stay.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Bally has reached a deal with 12 NHL teams for their proposed standalone direct-to-consumer streaming RSN. The big fight is with MLB who is talking about launching their own such service come spring 2023.


The Teams may have an antitrust case there as they should be able to market and sell there own in market right just like they do with the RSN's now. And the cubs really need to make that play as they own there own network and have talked about selling as an direct-to-consumer streaming as well.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

And, I'm the opposite. RSNs are important to me and the NY area has THREE different RSNs, two of which are of major importance and one MSG Network is on VERY few systems including a lot of streaming services. Now, if there was the unlinked ability to see those games on a stand alone streaming service (i.e. no longer need a cable or sat sub to watch), then that would be different. If I could get YES or MSG just buy going to their apps, I'd pay for that and not worry about it else where. My guess though is that while a lot of folks want no part of RSN fees, I'd be willing to bet, that you won't see any type of discount for NOT having them on your bill (because, well, they'll get away with that). Indeed here in the NY area, Comcast has dropped the MSG Networks from their system and have been blitzing the airwaves with commercials claiming that while Comcast no longer carries MSG, they have NOT given their customers back any money. So sadly for you folks who don't want any part of RSNs, I'm guessing you won't see much or any savings. And it's not just the RSNs, but ESPN and other sports networks that charge a lot of money for carriage.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> My guess though is that while a lot of folks want no part of RSN fees...


There's probably another set that doesn't want to pay $9-12/month for the one RSN that they're interested in.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

harsh said:


> There's probably another set that doesn't want to pay $9-12/month for the one RSN that they're interested in.


That's absolutely true. But, I do wonder if, as I said, will you get that "discount" if suddenly RSNs disappear from your system? Comcast isn't giving their customers a discount. Though, if RSN's are a separate tier, then there's an obvious opt out.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> That's absolutely true. But, I do wonder if, as I said, will you get that "discount" if suddenly RSNs disappear from your system? Comcast isn't giving their customers a discount. Though, if RSN's are a separate tier, then there's an obvious opt out.


I'm not entirely convinced that Comcast is charging an amount appropriate to what these "local" offerings are costing them. I think it may well be a red herring behind which they're not exposing the full subscription cost in their advertising. Think of it as being similar to DIRECTV's "Whole Home Fee".


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> You are correct, that is one reason I wont sub to DirecTV or *DISH, they force you to pay for the RSNs* (and DirecTV Stream adds it in the base price), and I have NOT ONE IOTA of interest in watching the Texas Rangers, when my team is the St Louis Cardinals and THEY are blacked out on MLBTV because they are 350 miles away and they are afraid I might watch a game on TV instead of driving to the ballpark. So I dont watch baseball anymore. And I dont subscribe to any package on a service making me pay for it.
> 
> As for 4K, the only sources are Fox Sports (available with their app). NBC might have something too, as well as ESPN but not on their apps.


Dish dropped the RSN's.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NR4P said:


> Dish dropped the RSN's.


When DISH dropped the RSNs did they lower your bill?


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> Because people in Bum Screw dont have internet fast enough to stream, and those that do usually have caps making it really expensive to stream 4K content all month.


Well that's entirely my point about the LEO constellations ... it solves the internet problem. TV streaming is just one "service" on top of that network. And it doesn't need to be a "satellite dedicated" streaming service at that - anything that can ride an IP network would be functional.

I agree wholeheartedly; a LEO constellation "just for" TV doesn't make any sense at all. But a general purpose Internet constellation, on which you can run TV streaming over-the-top? Well, that begins to make a lot more sense.

And I totally get the astronomers' concerns, but they've already done some good stuff to help there. Question is - is the value to the world greater than the value to amateur astronomers? There's a tipping point in there somewhere ...


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

The question remains, how slow is the LEO satellites data rate going to drop if everyone in the country starts streaming 4K video? I can see them adding some serious caps real quick once that starts happening.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dmurphy said:


> And I totally get the astronomers' concerns, but they've already done some good stuff to help there.


Between what's up there now and the thousands of satellites that Starlink, Amazon and Boeing plan to add to the blanket, this is just the beginning.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Steveknj said:


> People are leaving in droves because they simply want to save money. For most people DirecTV Stream (or another streaming service) would work fine. On top of that is the 2 year commitment which people don't want to do (and I just did it, so what do I know?). While this kind of stuff is annoying and the hardware is, as you say dated, I don't think a lot of people are leaving because of it. The reason I left for awhile was that I was trying to save money. It's as simple as that. Most people would not really need a truck roll once they have their stuff in place, so they'd never notice this type of issue.
> 
> So DirecTV sees this and it's why they are pushing Stream. I've been saying for years, that eventually Sat will be niche, perhaps only offered to new customers if they cannot do Stream, because of lack of broadband or some other logistical situation. But they can't do that yet, mostly because the disparity in channels is still there. If they can get that solved, that's what will happen. Might not be in the next 2 years, but it will be within the next 5.


i wonder if they would launch more birds or if they would lease space. i remember ATT yelling and screaming that there were not launching anymore birds. wonders if TGP will???


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Davenlr said:


> The question remains, how slow is the LEO satellites data rate going to drop if everyone in the country starts streaming 4K video? I can see them adding some serious caps real quick once that starts happening.


iv'e seen PQ drop when a server is getting hit hard


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

krel said:


> i wonder if they would launch more birds or if they would lease space.


You can't launch a new bird if you haven't placed an order for it yet. Turnaround (including launch) can easily take years.

If you're looking to lease Ku bandwidth, that should be doable. Leasing Ka bandwidth seems likely to be a difficult task at best given they way DIRECTV divvied up the bandwidth.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

harsh said:


> You can't launch a new bird if you haven't placed an order for it yet. Turnaround (including launch) can easily take years.
> 
> If you're looking to lease Ku bandwidth, that should be doable. Leasing Ka bandwidth seems likely to be a difficult task at best given they way DIRECTV divvied up the bandwidth.


They dont need new satellites. They will just send out new boxes with the AV1 codec, and put twice as many channels per transponder


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

krel said:


> i wonder if they would launch more birds or if they would lease space. i remember ATT yelling and screaming that there were not launching anymore birds. wonders if TGP will???


Will never happen


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If DIRECTV needs space they can use reverse band.

I agree that a satellite launch would be unlikely. Survival is needed before new satellites.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> They dont need new satellites. They will just send out new boxes with the AV1 codec, and put twice as many channels per transponder


It seems unlikely that anyone is going to leap-frog h.265 (HEVC) at this point. AV1 has a lot of promise, but it may be a few years before it is realized. HEVC has been around for almost nine years so these paradigm shifts don't happen overnight. In contrast, AV1 was introduced just four years ago and the first suitable SoC showed up in summer 2019. The BCM7366 chip used in the Genie 2 was released in 2013 and the receiver debuted four years later.

DIRECTV isn't building many (if any) new boxes now. What makes you think they have the resources to design and manufacture a whole new product line and get them in the hands of subscribers should an immediate need arise? A change like this would necessarily involve an across-the-board replacement of all HD receivers and Minis and that represents a huge majority of their STB lease fleet.

Even if they lost a satellite or two, they're probably still covered in terms of HD (Ka) capacity as James points out. The best use of their resources probably lies in replacing SD receivers. They've been very hesitant to actively do so but it does need to be done and the longer they wait, the longer they have to support MPEG2 (circa 1996).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Davenlr said:


> They dont need new satellites. They will just send out new boxes with the AV1 codec, and put twice as many channels per transponder


If they were going to ship out new boxes, they'd put VVC on them instead and get even better compression. But they aren't going to ship everyone new boxes, they haven't even retired MPEG2 yet! They will NEVER retire MPEG4.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> If they were going to ship out new boxes, they'd put VVC on them instead and get even better compression.


Looking at the Mile High Video video, AV1 doesn't significantly outdo HEVC in 4K video and it actually does significantly worse than HEVC in HD and lower resolutions (where the lion's share of DIRECTV's programming should be for the foreseeable future).

While VVC offers the best compression in the comparison, EVC is computationally much more economical and offers a little less compression than VVC but still much greater than AV1.

It must not be overlooked that finding SoCs that support these recent standards is going to be an issue for a while yet.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> It must not be overlooked that finding SoCs that support these recent standards is going to be an issue for a while yet.


Well if people are dreaming that Directv is going to replace every single receiver, they'd have enough volume to have Broadcom design them a custom SoC with exactly the functionality they want.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Well if people are dreaming that Directv is going to replace every single receiver, they'd have enough volume to have Broadcom design them a custom SoC with exactly the functionality they want.


I'm guessing the BCM7218X would meet their needs if AV1 didn't represent a significant bandwidth sacrifice for the content that DIRECTV offers. I don't think economical VVC or EVC SoCs are available yet.

Custom SoCs are probably the domain of much larger companies with a lot more customers. RockChip or AMlogic may be more hungry competitors in that market.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Well if people are dreaming that Directv is going to replace every single receiver, they'd have enough volume to have Broadcom design them a custom SoC with exactly the functionality they want.


The first barrier for new receiver is need. DIRECTV has plenty of satellite receivers recovered from former customers for any new customer and replacement needs. Going through and replacing all existing receivers in the field is a huge expense that would need to have a benefit that would outweigh the cost. It is easy to wake up from the dream when one feels the pinch of such an expense.

But since we are entertaining the unlikely, how many millions of chips do you believe Broadcom would want DIRECTV to order to get them to do a custom design? 20 million? 30 million? Or would a 5-10 million chip order be good enough? I doubt the new chip would be plug and play into the old motherboards so get the manufacturers involved in spinning up production on X million receivers to place those new chips in.

Or (more likely) find a way to work with the chips and capabilities of the current top of the line receivers. Even if that means the designers can't do everything they want. There is a limit as to how much DIRECTV can spend. That limit is set by how much they can recover.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> I doubt the new chip would be plug and play into the old motherboards so get the manufacturers involved in spinning up production on X million receivers to place those new chips in.


Wouldn't the point of doing custom silicon be to make it as compatible as possible with existing designs? I don't imagine there's a lot of pin-out and functional difference in chips designed for satellite receivers as it is.

I think the larger concern is introducing those with simple equipment to the idea that they may have to pay $20+ to get the same functionality that they have now or that those using HD all along have to pay $20+ more for the same equipment (in the event that those who upgrade aren't burdened with Advanced Receiver fees).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> The first barrier for new receiver is need. DIRECTV has plenty of satellite receivers recovered from former customers for any new customer and replacement needs. Going through and replacing all existing receivers in the field is a huge expense that would need to have a benefit that would outweigh the cost. It is easy to wake up from the dream when one feels the pinch of such an expense.
> 
> But since we are entertaining the unlikely, how many millions of chips do you believe Broadcom would want DIRECTV to order to get them to do a custom design? 20 million? 30 million? Or would a 5-10 million chip order be good enough? I doubt the new chip would be plug and play into the old motherboards so get the manufacturers involved in spinning up production on X million receivers to place those new chips in.
> 
> Or (more likely) find a way to work with the chips and capabilities of the current top of the line receivers. Even if that means the designers can't do everything they want. There is a limit as to how much DIRECTV can spend. That limit is set by how much they can recover.


They'd need one SoC per TV, and they have a lot more TVs than they have customers. So it is easily north of 50 million they'd need to replace everything. Ironically the HS17s that some people here keep whining about because they don't support connecting to a TV would prove to have been a wonderful investment as that's the only receiver they would NOT have to replace!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> They'd need one SoC per TV, and they have a lot more TVs than they have customers. So it is easily north of 50 million they'd need to replace everything.


Estimating an average four receivers per subscriber? The fun detail in any estimate is the higher one goes the more it would cost DIRECTV overall to replace everything, the lower one goes the less likely they would get a price break on building new receivers. DIRECTV didn't repossess every SD only receiver to deploy HD receivers. I don't see them swapping out working HD receivers unless there is a substantial financial benefit.



slice1900 said:


> Ironically the HS17s that some people here keep whining about because they don't support connecting to a TV would prove to have been a wonderful investment as that's the only receiver they would NOT have to replace!


Ahh ... the HS17 can become the replacement! And all of the whiners can continue to whine. 

I wish the HS17 was more like the Hopper 3 ... a whole home sized box of tuners that could be shared by four or more TV located boxes. Perhaps that is the direction DIRECTV should look ... building a better HS for satellite customers and clients that would work with an HS17, the new theoretical HS and direct Internet content from channel providers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> They'd need one SoC per TV, and they have a lot more TVs than they have customers.


They don't all have to be the same SoC with the ability to power a 7+ tuner DVR. AMlogic and RockChip offer some fairly inexpensive client SoCs that support Android that could be used on the client side.


> Ironically the HS17s that some people here keep whining about because they don't support connecting to a TV would prove to have been a wonderful investment as that's the only receiver they would NOT have to replace!


This may be dependent on how they parse any data (such as closed captioning) that is typically embedded in the video stream. I'm guessing that the HS17 is rendering the CC text currently and the clients aren't able to do it on their own. Asking an SoC to parse multiple video streams using the CPU is surely too much to ask.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> They don't all have to be the same SoC with the ability to power a 7+ tuner DVR. AMlogic and RockChip offer some fairly inexpensive client SoCs that support Android that could be used on the client side.This may be dependent on how they parse any data (such as closed captioning) that is typically embedded in the video stream. I'm guessing that the HS17 is rendering the CC text currently and the clients aren't able to do it on their own. Asking an SoC to parse multiple video streams using the CPU is surely too much to ask.


The HS17 only decrypts the video stream, it isn't capable of decompressing it, so obviously the CC processing happens on the client. Not sure why you think that's something even remotely difficult, it is probably the easiest thing about the whole task!

But yes the SoCs that Directv would need en masse would be capable of decompressing a single stream and output to HDMI. Basically the same thing that set tops / HDMI sticks like Roku do, the only extra thing it needs they don't have is ability to handle DECA via RF input. Directv really wouldn't need a custom SoC, Broadcom will already have something that does that.

Heck, I wouldn't be shocked if the SoCs inside a Roku have a tiny block of functionality in a corner able to handle DECA decode that's ignored when they don't wire an RF input to it. Just like the SoC in Directv's current clients has the ability to handle ethernet but can't since there's no RJ45 input.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> The HS17 only decrypts the video stream, it isn't capable of decompressing it, so obviously the CC processing happens on the client.


It isn't obvious to me (but it isn't unlikely either).


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Frankly a new generation of hs17 that allowed you to use a Roku or appletv or nivada shield as the clients is what they should head towards…. For so many reasons…


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

In todays supplier crunched market, leveraging other STB’s from Roku, Google, Apple and others would be nice.

You can already get Deca RF data data on the same home network that the other boxes are on. They just need software to find it and tune in / control it.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> Frankly a new generation of hs17 that allowed you to use a Roku or appletv or nivada shield as the clients is what they should head towards…. For so many reasons…


The existing HS17 would work perfectly. They'd just need to create an RVU app for Roku etc.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Frankly a new generation of hs17 that allowed you to use a Roku or appletv or nivada shield as the clients is what they should head towards…. For so many reasons…


This is unworkable for a few key reasons:

These devices aren't DECA and having an exclusive LAN is perhaps more important as the typical home LAN gets loaded up with IoT, Wi-fi calling and other unpredictable loads.
Support would be complicated due to app, device and especially remote control differences.
RVU has thus far been an unqualified bust for third parties.
TV Fees charged on a third party device is a big ask -- especially given the added costs of supporting those devices in all of their many configurations.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Slightly off topic but I think fios charges $20 to use an apple TV as an STB 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> This is unworkable for a few key reasons:
> 
> These devices aren't DECA and having an exclusive LAN is perhaps more important as the typical home LAN gets loaded up with IoT, Wi-fi calling and other unpredictable loads.
> Support would be complicated due to app, device and especially remote control differences.
> ...


They could require it be connected to a gigabit port (indicating a gigabit switch which won't have a problem handling a few sub 10Mbps HD streams or even a few 30Mbps 4K streams) or Wifi 6 if wifi is used, so you know it can handle it.

RVU being a bust outside Directv isn't a problem - they'd obviously have to develop/support the app themselves but once it is done would not need much in the way of updates other than maybe tweaks to handle changes in the OS on Roku, Apple TV, etc. That's no different than HBO having to support HBO Max on all those platforms and so on.

Most remote controls support basic arrowing and select/OK to navigate menus, and those can be used for play/stop/FF/rev if there aren't separate buttons. Sure, you don't have a dedicated "guide" button so it would be more of a pain (like down arrow to access a "Directv functions" menu then select guide) but that's the price you pay for not using Directv's hardware I guess. It wouldn't be that hard for Directv to make a remote that's compatible with Roku, Apple TV, etc. since they all use bluetooth these days, to keep the people who like the "button for everything" type remotes like Directv's.

The TV fee is the biggest hurdle, but that's already a hurdle with Directv when people compare to streaming products like Sling TV that allow streaming to several devices "for free" (it really isn't since they have one level that's a single stream and a more expensive level with 3 or 4 streams) Obviously charging $7/month on a client that cost them $50 to build is a big profit center for Directv, but someday they're going to need to rethink how they price their product or cheaper competition will take all their customers.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> This is unworkable for a few key reasons:
> 
> These devices aren't DECA and having an exclusive LAN is perhaps more important as the typical home LAN gets loaded up with IoT, Wi-fi calling and other unpredictable loads.
> Support would be complicated due to app, device and especially remote control differences.
> ...


Nothing but poor excuses that can easily be solved. Easily. 

Simple example…. DIRECTV stream works on an Apple TV…


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> They could require it be connected to a gigabit port (indicating a gigabit switch which won't have a problem handling a few sub 10Mbps HD streams or even a few 30Mbps 4K streams) or Wifi 6 if wifi is used, so you know it can handle it.
> 
> RVU being a bust outside Directv isn't a problem - they'd obviously have to develop/support the app themselves but once it is done would not need much in the way of updates other than maybe tweaks to handle changes in the OS on Roku, Apple TV, etc. That's no different than HBO having to support HBO Max on all those platforms and so on.
> 
> ...


DIRECTV should move to a Netflix style pricing. One to two streams (recorded or live etc) included. Extra fee for three of four. Then more after that. 

I’d like to see them fully integrate stream with sat too myself. 

You buy the service and then chose the hardware and delivery and pay upfront the one time costs for whichever method you choose. Simple and done.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> They could require it be connected to a gigabit port (indicating a gigabit switch which won't have a problem handling a few sub 10Mbps HD streams or even a few 30Mbps 4K streams) or Wifi 6 if wifi is used, so you know it can handle it.


A correctly configured network would absolutely be able to handle it, but that's absolutely a mixed bag in terms of what's going on in the typical home LAN and something that Customer Service can't hope to address.


> RVU being a bust outside Directv isn't a problem - they'd obviously have to develop/support the app themselves but once it is done would not need much in the way of updates other than maybe tweaks to handle changes in the OS on Roku, Apple TV, etc. That's no different than HBO having to support HBO Max on all those platforms and so on.


If Samsung, a member of the RVU Alliance, couldn't make a go of it, what makes you think that Apple, Roku and Amazon are likely to have significantly better luck?


> Most remote controls support basic arrowing and select/OK to navigate menus, and those can be used for play/stop/FF/rev if there aren't separate buttons. Sure, you don't have a dedicated "guide" button so it would be more of a pain (like down arrow to access a "Directv functions" menu then select guide) but that's the price you pay for not using Directv's hardware I guess. It wouldn't be that hard for Directv to make a remote that's compatible with Roku, Apple TV, etc. since they all use bluetooth these days, to keep the people who like the "button for everything" type remotes like Directv's.


This would require the addition of certain "keys" to the set that the device's own software can interpret. The bozo here is likely to be Apple since all other solutions are Android-based that we know can support all manner of keyboards. I'm pretty sure Apple supports digits, but I'm not sure their options extend much beyond that.


> The TV fee is the biggest hurdle, but that's already a hurdle with Directv when people compare to streaming products like Sling TV that allow streaming to several devices "for free" (it really isn't since they have one level that's a single stream and a more expensive level with 3 or 4 streams) Obviously charging $7/month on a client that cost them $50 to build is a big profit center for Directv, but someday they're going to need to rethink how they price their product or cheaper competition will take all their customers.


Fees have been a very big part of the DIRECTV revenue model for quite a few years (around the advent of "Advanced" fees). To shut off or limit that revenue source is not something that would require a significant overhaul (though it would make comparisons to streaming services a bit more apples to apples). That programming providers view every STB as someone who might view their content, that model is going to be hard to get rid of with installs ranging from 1 to 12 TVs or more.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Nothing but poor excuses that can easily be solved. Easily.


Do you have a solution for my first point (insuring that the home LAN is stable enough to carry the whole home traffic)?


> Simple example…. DIRECTV stream works on an Apple TV…


DIRECTV Stream doesn't use RVU so your example doesn't make sense without replacing RVU in the whole home environment.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Nothing but poor excuses that can easily be solved. Easily.
> 
> Simple example…. DIRECTV stream works on an Apple TV…


Yup So just sign up for Directv Stream problem solved


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> A correctly configured network would absolutely be able to handle it, but that's absolutely a mixed bag in terms of what's going on in the typical home LAN and something that Customer Service can't hope to address.


So what? Directv can tell people "use our set tops and we'll fully support you, use your own set tops and we will only support you as far as the HS17 and you're on your own with issues on the client side". i.e. exactly the same as a Netflix or Sling TV subscriber today.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> So what? Directv can tell people "use our set tops and we'll fully support you, use your own set tops and we will only support you as far as the HS17 and you're on your own with issues on the client side". i.e. exactly the same as a Netflix or Sling TV subscriber today.


Netflix, Sling TV and DIRECTV Stream don't use RVU and we've heard stories about how fussy DIRECTV is about Ethernet connections for Whole Home.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> The TV fee is the biggest hurdle, but that's already a hurdle with Directv when people compare to streaming products like Sling TV that allow streaming to several devices "for free" (it really isn't since they have one level that's a single stream and a more expensive level with 3 or 4 streams)


Not quite. Sling has two base packages, they are $35 each. Sling Orange is 32 channels including ESPN and is limited to one stream. Sling Blue is 43 channels, is a different set of channels and is limited to three streams. (Some channels are in both packages.) When one buys both ($50) the Orange channels are still limited to one stream and the Blue channels are still limited to three streams - a total of four streams. One is not paying extra and getting additional streams of the same channels.



slice1900 said:


> So what? Directv can tell people "use our set tops and we'll fully support you, use your own set tops and we will only support you as far as the HS17 and you're on your own with issues on the client side". i.e. exactly the same as a Netflix or Sling TV subscriber today.


That sounds good to me. Limit the number of streams (20 in one home with 3 outside of the home?) but only charge for "supported" clients leased or purchased from DIRECTV. Think outside the receiver box.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Yup So just sign up for Directv Stream problem solved


Zero chance I’d use DIRECTV stream over DIRECTV sat. I’d use both if one cost but between the two I’m sat all the way. It’s the most stable delivery system I have and ever had have. It doesn’t happen to often but a few times a year I’ll loose internet for a bit. Like a couple nights ago at midnight for 30 minutes. Why would I ever choose that where I rely on DIRECTV stream and spectrum internet for my service both?

To be clear the only reason I have any live channel provider is sports. If I didn’t care about sports I’d just have Netflix or HBO max or Disney plus or…. Etc…. So stability and reliability are paramount.

And now 4K as well. I’m lucky because I get a ton of 4K. My Lakers and Dodgers both have a lot of home games in 4K on DIRECTV sat and it’s definitely better than Hi Definition.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Agree DirecTV sat very reliable... docsis broadband not so much 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

dtv757 said:


> Agree DirecTV sat very reliable... docsis broadband not so much
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


Move on


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

dtv757 said:


> Agree DirecTV sat very reliable... docsis broadband not so much
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


I keep seeing your whines about docsis broadband, yet I’ve been on it for over 6 years with nary a burp. Your problem is your isp, take your complaints there.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Zero chance I’d use DIRECTV stream over DIRECTV sat. I’d use both if one cost but between the two I’m sat all the way. It’s the most stable delivery system I have and ever had have. It doesn’t happen to often but a few times a year I’ll loose internet for a bit. Like a couple nights ago at midnight for 30 minutes. Why would I ever choose that where I rely on DIRECTV stream and spectrum internet for my service both?
> 
> To be clear the only reason I have any live channel provider is sports. If I didn’t care about sports I’d just have Netflix or HBO max or Disney plus or…. Etc…. So stability and reliability are paramount.
> 
> And now 4K as well. I’m lucky because I get a ton of 4K. My Lakers and Dodgers both have a lot of home games in 4K on DIRECTV sat and it’s definitely better than Hi Definition.


A few times a year I lose SAT for 15 or so
Min. Due to storms My modem has been online for 264 days Previous reboot was a power outage


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> I keep seeing your whines about docsis broadband, yet I’ve been on it for over 6 years with nary a burp. Your problem is your isp, take your complaints there.


I have had cable internet for over 20 years and it has been rock solid always. Whether I lived in NY/NH/NC or PA. Any major issues were usually in my house which I fixed Whining on a non ISP forum never fixed it


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

compnurd said:


> A few times a year I lose SAT for 15 or so
> Min. Due to storms My modem has been online for 264 days Previous reboot was a power outage


Everyone’s internet is different- depending on where they live. There’s no two cable internet infrastructure systems alike anywhere. Consider yourself lucky for your far superior internet service compared to anyone else.

We have 200M Spectrum, but storm outages in spring and summer this year created over 25-30 hours of internet outage as Spectrum does not have backup power systems around me. And, most times were prime time after work. 

Yea I could call and complain and tell them to add backup power to their systems- and they will tell me to pound sand and hang up. In the meantime, my wife and family would have a s#itfit due to no internet and stare at me that they are inconvenienced.

I’ve never had a DirecTV Sat storm outage due to rain fade for 15 minutes straight, in 23+ years with the service- and we get nasty storms and tornadoes. You must get hurricanes by you for your satellite to be out that long. Our satellite maybe went out for a total of 20 minutes all year under numerous storms, but we still have OTA integrated for our local channels so no loss there.

Along with our whole home generator and our DirecTV receivers, we can always stay on top of local bad weather reports and be informed on the worst of storms. Internet during that? Hell no.

Lastly, as everyone’s internet around me goes out at those times, then the population defaults back to their cell phones using Data. Try loading up a weather page or anything else at that time? It doesn’t happen- no bandwidth left.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

I called those docsis idiots the other day to report a pedestal was open/exposed on a street (saw it while I was driving ) they didn't even take my call seriously...

Told the issue said a pedestal is open and exposed in front of address X . Rep said ok have a good day and ended the call. 

Waited on hold 20 min and call lasted 45 seconds . 


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

30 hours ... I think we have gone over 14 total days(YTD) at my work this year from separated docsis outages 


It's bad. . Total days usually it's down for 2-3 days at a time . 



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Hurricanes are hit and miss

Isabel was bad for my area, it was around when I first had D* the dish got knocked out the roof and didn't have power for 1 week and no D* for about 3 weeks .. but most others as you mentioned only loose signal briefly. 

I remember one snow storm docsis was knocked out 3 days but D* worked perfectly. 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> Netflix, Sling TV and DIRECTV Stream don't use RVU and we've heard stories about how fussy DIRECTV is about Ethernet connections for Whole Home.


Why are you so focused on RVU? That's just a different streaming protocol that's "open" (even though only Directv uses it) The streaming protocol Netflix, Amazon and so forth use is not open, but no more or less difficult to implement in an app than RVU. It doesn't take any more work to support an RVU app than an Amazon app.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dtv757 said:


> I called those docsis idiots the other day ...


You have been informed many times that docsis is a telecommunications standard and the issue (if any) is with your ISP's specific implementation or configuration of their network, not the standard itself. If you feel that you must continue to make off topic complaints about your ISP service please focus on your ISP. Docsis works fine for subscribers worldwide.

That being said, I believe you have made your point that your ISP is not meeting standards. We have a cable forum where you can post further rants and complaints. This thread in a DIRECTV topic area is about DIRECTV.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

dtv757 said:


> I called those docsis idiots the other day to report a pedestal was open/exposed on a street (saw it while I was driving ) they didn't even take my call seriously...
> 
> Told the issue said a pedestal is open and exposed in front of address X . Rep said ok have a good day and ended the call.
> 
> ...


The one at work has been completely full of water before and internet still worked. As others have said, docsis is not your problem.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dtv757 said:


> I called those docsis idiots the other day to report a pedestal was open/exposed on a street (saw it while I was driving ) they didn't even take my call seriously...


"Those" are Cox idiots, not DOCSIS idiots. Your local Cox franchise (a broadband and TV provider) is not representative of DOCSIS (a communications standard).

That's like blaming the USPS for junk mail.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Mr Long said talk about D* 

So the original post was about some addresses can no longer order D* sat . Which is sad . Hopefully D* will find a way to grow (subscribers) again i know times are different now with streaming stuff ... 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Why are you so focused on RVU?


Because that's the protocol that DIRECTV uses exclusively for Whole Home service. Focusing on other protocols or services doesn't make sense.


> That's just a different streaming protocol that's "open" (even though only Directv uses it)


RVU uses their proprietary Remote User Interface (RUI) technology to render entire frames on the server to be overlaid (with appropriate transparency) in hardware on the client. The underlying transmission protocol is DLNA (and all the bits it incorporates by reference). Rendering transparency may not be possible on many devices.


> The streaming protocol Netflix, Amazon and so forth use is not open, but no more or less difficult to implement in an app than RVU. It doesn't take any more work to support an RVU app than an Amazon app.


Netflix and YouTube use Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH). For mobile applications, they may fall back on RSTP. I'm not sure what Amazon uses but it is most likely wide "open".


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dtv757 said:


> So the original post was about some addresses can no longer order D* sat .


It seems pretty clear that DIRECTV would rather new customers sign up for DIRECTV Stream. There's no shame in that.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

I think one of my Samsung TVs has RVU. Is that still supported ? So in theory I could have an extra receiver? That tv already has ethernet 

This might be another topic but any drawbacks for RVU and genie 2?

I found this thread I will read it ...










RVU vs C61K


Planning on upgrading to 4K service. I have two LG TV's with the RVU app. It seems there are problems with the C61K so it is it better or worse to go with the RVU app.




www.dbstalk.com






Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> Because that's the protocol that DIRECTV uses exclusively for Whole Home service. Focusing on other protocols or services doesn't make sense.RVU uses their proprietary Remote User Interface (RUI) technology to render entire frames on the server to be overlaid (with appropriate transparency) in hardware on the client. The underlying transmission protocol is DLNA (and all the bits it incorporates by reference). Rendering transparency may not be possible on many devices.Netflix and YouTube use Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH). For mobile applications, they may fall back on RSTP. I'm not sure what Amazon uses but it is most likely wide "open".


No set top still being supported by its manufacturer is unable to render transparency. What RUI is doing is doing is no different than what a web browser using HTML and CSS does. You're either feigning ignorance or demonstrating it by continually harping on this as if it would be some insurmountable problem for Directv.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

dtv757 said:


> I think one of my Samsung TVs has RVU. Is that still supported ? So in theory I could have an extra receiver? That tv already has ethernet
> 
> This might be another topic but any drawbacks for RVU and genie 2?
> 
> ...


No They haven't allowed activations on a RVU TV in years


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Ok thanks 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

dtv757 said:


> Agree DirecTV sat very reliable... docsis broadband not so much
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


it's more like your provider sucks and not your docsis


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 18, 2005)

I see rain fade far more often than I see my cable internet go out but it would suck to lose both.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Mike Lang said:


> I see rain fade far more often than I see my cable internet go out but it would suck to lose both.


But when your cable goes out the outage is often much longer than rain fade lasts.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> But when your cable goes out the outage is often much longer than rain fade lasts.


True. But my cable has gone down 3 days total in the last 4 years


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Mr long said keep the topic about D* 



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> True. But my cable has gone down 3 days total in the last 4 years


Same Cant really tell you the last time it has gone down


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dtv757 said:


> Mr long said keep the topic about D*


As noted in the OP, the TS was lamenting that if you want to subscribe to DIRECTV going forward, you need broadband access. If you don't have reliable broadband, the chances of getting DIRECTV going forward seem to be fading fast (until the broadband situation is cleared up).

I suspect that the dwelling on broadband Internet is mostly your fault for failing repeatedly to identify/acknowledge the true source of your troubles.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

slice1900 said:


> But when your cable goes out the outage is often much longer than rain fade lasts.


remembers the days of living back in the north east. people loved hitting phone pole and knocking everything out  . we would fire up the gentset and our lights were on and our DTV service. cable would be down for days!!!


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 18, 2005)

Rain fade has always been enough of a problem that I keep an OTA TiVo running but streaming has helped a lot in recent years.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

lparsons21 said:


> True. But my cable has gone down 3 days total in the last 4 years


You're lucky. Not only does mine have some random outage every month or two, they have a monthly "maintenance" slot one Wednesday at midnight every month. They don't always use it, but when they do it may be down as long as six hours.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 18, 2005)

I can't even remember the last time my cable internet went out. It's been many months. It helps that our stuff is all underground. When it does go out, the app always knows about it and gives an accurate time for a fix. Usually within an hour.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

My app would show the ETR when it was a maintenance window. I don't recall having any advance notice of such windows. My cable Internet has been out for a couple of weeks and the app just says something is wrong and wants me to reboot the modem. Little do they know why and no one has appeared on my property to repair the problem (a cut underground lead to the house). The utility locator failed to mark the buried cable and it was apparently cut when my new fiber internet was buried a couple weeks back. But that is "no Xfinity Internet anymore" not "no DirecTV anymore". 

Fiber is costing me $1 more per month for five times the speed and I can upgrade if I need more bandwidth. No need to repair. New year, new ISP, happy me.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

James Long said:


> Fiber is costing me $1 more per month


Who is your internet provider now?


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Yay welcome to Fiber !!! 



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Who is your internet provider now?


A regional company called "Surf Broadband". They have been doing commercial fiber for several years and are now installing residential fiber to expand their service area.


----------

