MM wave distance might surprise you. Dense foliage can be a problem but in the 80s my company was testing some stuff in the 50GHz range and over a 10km path we had huge signals sticking 30dB out of the noise floor of a spectrum analyzer. This was using tiny horn antennas about 3in long at each end.
AT&T disappointed with offers for struggling DirecTV
- Thread starter MitchDeerfield
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 442
- Views 46K
Won't bandwidth be a problem. Let's say you have 200 people on one 5G site at a time. Will that cut down on the usefulness.
I see two parts to that question. One would be the IP pipe that feeds the site and you only have a finite amount of Internet bandwidth to go around before speed gets limited to each user. The second would be how the RF side is designed. If each user or carrier has a fixed amount of transmit power from the site then it should work the same up to the maximum number of users its designed for. If the site transmitter shares a fixed power level to be divided among all users then the more users on the system, the less power each one will have available, but I can't imagine a design like that.
A mm wave 5G site would be for fairly short range and I can't see 200 users connecting to just one site.
I'm seeing the antennas going up everywhere on telephone polls. What is the distance each array can travel. These are not going up as high as usual cell sites which can go 150 feet in the air. Buildings are an issue so would each neighborhood of a 2 mile radius need 5 sites per carrier?
I would bet 5G antennas on utility poles is ultimately what 5G will come to serve. More for fixed wireless in this capacity. Cable and telecoms won't have to run lines to the house and bury them or anything like that. Simply run a line to the antenna on the utility pole and then ship the customer a modem and antenna that they can stick in the window. No truck roll, no having to have someone on the premises to let them in, basically self install by the customer and the telecom companies run the line to the utility pole whenever.
BUT... again this doesn't help areas that don't have anything to run to the utility pole. If all the area has is tin cans and a string, that ain't going to carry much whether it's 5G, 4G, 3G, 2G whatever.
BUT... again this doesn't help areas that don't have anything to run to the utility pole. If all the area has is tin cans and a string, that ain't going to carry much whether it's 5G, 4G, 3G, 2G whatever.
I agree with 5g frequencies...the plan is to reuse 3g frequencies eventually..will it still be called 5g? No idea
Does this make it look like AT&T wants to focus on HBO/Max and not have its other TV services? Could the future of video be just content and not channels?
WarnerMedia buys You.i TV ahead of HBO Max global expansion | FierceVideo
WarnerMedia buys You.i TV ahead of HBO Max global expansion | FierceVideo
Yep, and we have movement already towards that.
CBS:All Access, HBO Max, Peacock, Hulu basic, AMC+ and the upcoming Discovery+ services are all in that mode. At the moment they are mostly VOD and with some live content.
The one big missing content is sports. And that is a big nut to crack because it is highly likely that when/if they come out with apps for that the subscription fee is likely to end up being higher than the consumer is willing to spend. First up as a check on that is Sinclair’s RSN’s that will have an app sometime in the next year. If that is successful then others will come along. Of course for many sports there has to be some give in the current idiotic blackout rules IMO.
At some point the leagues will control their own apps. MLB NFL NBA will charge to view. Just go direct to the consumer. This is years away though as the current contracts are still through networks.
I wonder how the people that are used to legacy TV will like that? They will have to get used to a different way of watching TV. Maybe soon the DVR will be obsolete?
Or pay a higher price.
Folks that have no access to broadband can't depend on VOD services like Hulu and NetFlix - they still depend on DirecTV for any form of TV, and they will be forced to pay whatever price DirecTV says they have to pay.
That's why getting broadband to those under served areas would be so nice. Most people just need a dumb pipe and funnel in whatever TV entertainment they want to see at a given moment. That's why Starlink is so appealing to these areas. And why it would be - at least from a consumer standpoint - a great idea for cable and telecom companies to actually run lines to these areas that have nothing. The first one that reaches these customers is probably going to have a customer for life.
They will need to get broadband to the outskirts. This is why we need the FCC to regulate the internet as a utility.
Sports and News are really the only content examples that require happening "live".
I've said before, Sinclair needs to develop their own RSN app - they already have some app development experience with their Stirr app - and offer that as an OTT package to customers that don't want to subscribe to DirecTV or cable ... although, maybe Sinclair is tied into a contract with the cable operators that prevents them from doing such?
The sports TV world is going to come crashing down and Covid-19 probably accelerated that - and I'm a sports fan. But for way, way, way too long ESPN looked at their books and saw how many people were subscribing to ESPN because they had to and they assumed that their viewership was in the hundreds of millions, when in real life, it's not really that high. ESPN has doled out money for these various sports contracts thinking that they had an inflated number of viewers and the cord cutting world is showing, if consumers have a chance to cut ESPN and save a lot of money a lot of them take it.
I agree. But the government isn't actually known for speeding things through. If the FCC mandates such a thing, then MAYBE in 50 years some areas will start to see cable companies running lines in the area.
Define "soon." My parents were born in 1956 and can't understand anything other than linear TV. They HAVE to have a DVR with a "clicker." My Dad is an EE and just retired this year. My siblings and myself tried to get them used to several streaming services and they just couldn't do it. They'll pay whatever price (just like with their beloved daily newspaper) to get their old fashioned TV experience.
I'd say 20 years before liner TV dies completely.
It will die sooner if there is no money in it. I give it 10 years tops. Sure the infrastructure will still be there but cable companies are not going to support something hemorrhaging money. I can see them bundling better deals to hold on to people but stand alone cable is going away.
I suppose there may come a day when they just tell people like my parents "Sorry, you're SOL."
I still can't understand why they take the damn newspaper. Everything in that thing is outdated instantly.
I still can't understand why they take the damn newspaper. Everything in that thing is outdated instantly.
