AT&T explores Direct TV sale again
- Thread starter DJMooty
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 50
- Views 6K
What magic does ATSC 3.0 do about distance from a broadcast station? Either you or I is misunderstanding what ATSC 3.0 brings to the table, but methinks you are incorrect.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,890
- 20,364
What magic does ATSC 3.0 do about distance from a broadcast station? Either you or I is misunderstanding what ATSC 3.0 brings to the table, but methinks you are incorrect.
I have not read anything about 3.0 increasing range, if rural folks cannot get OTA now, I doubt 3.0 will change much.
I still say StarLink has the most potential for change in TV and Internet habits as far as the rural communities go.
Not unless it somehow travels much further than UHF does today. I am out of reach for Atlanta's transmitting towers.
I should have hit refresh before I made that third opinion in a row. (Say....where is an "embarrassed" emoji when you need one?)
Hum... where to start? Dish has always wanted to buy directv. Couldn’t because of fcc. Att bought directv because both companies were loosing money and thought maybe they both could lose money together. One of the biggest things that make directv unprofitable is the NFL Sunday ticket. That costs them over 400 mil to keep that. Exclusive to them so you have to have them. Fact they don’t even make that back off their sports subscribers.
satellite will always be around. As long as there are old people who like to flip through channels it’s not going anywhere soon. Some areas just cost too much for providers to go into. Don’t care about the technology still has limits. Internet is more of a threat than tv. I don’t know how well that Leo satellite systems are gonna work. They’ve had satellites there in the past and end up coming into our atmosphere.
I don’t know much, but if Charlie ever got the chance to buy directv he would. Don’t matter the cost. Hell he bought blockbuster and look where it is today. 1 location.
satellite will always be around. As long as there are old people who like to flip through channels it’s not going anywhere soon. Some areas just cost too much for providers to go into. Don’t care about the technology still has limits. Internet is more of a threat than tv. I don’t know how well that Leo satellite systems are gonna work. They’ve had satellites there in the past and end up coming into our atmosphere.
I don’t know much, but if Charlie ever got the chance to buy directv he would. Don’t matter the cost. Hell he bought blockbuster and look where it is today. 1 location.
The subscribers is what Charlie would want, and it would give Dish more critical mass for negotiations and make the combined company more likely to get through the streaming phase because with the exception of Disney and Time Warner, not other content owners are ever going to make as much money streaming their content as they do and can by providing rights to MVPD's as they do today. The only non-content provider streaming service (and I mean not a huge content owner like Diseny or Time Warner or NBC Universal) that could survive is Netflix because all the streaming MVPD's have all lost subscribers in the last quarter and NONE are profitable yet, so they are pretty much DONE for the future. Netflix will survive, but still with huge costs, along with Amazon Prime, and Hulu, and Disney+ and that's about it for streaming by 2026 or sooner unless the virtual MVPD's start making money, which seems impossible now.
There is no mandate for stations to transition to ATSC 3.0 and many stations DO NOT PLAN to go ATSC 3.0 along with all the broadcast networks, who also are O&O's in the biggest markers, against it--its costs. Since ATSC 3.0 adaption is NOT mandated, several local broadcasters are not willing to take the financial plunge, so ATSC 3.0 will be spotty, and maybe full voluntary transition by 2030? By then who knows what broadcast TV will look like.
ATSC 3.0 brings a lot of decent tech like using IP and all its advantages, but with no mandate for stations to transition to ATSC 3.0, don't hold your breath of ATSC 3.0 to be ubiquitous as ATSC 1.0.
ATSC 3.0 brings a lot of decent tech like using IP and all its advantages, but with no mandate for stations to transition to ATSC 3.0, don't hold your breath of ATSC 3.0 to be ubiquitous as ATSC 1.0.
Starlink - costs and full load performance are unknown. Other orbital competitors are coming.
It will be a whole different world in a couple of years And ATSC 3 will be an insignificant part of it. ATSC 3 will never be much of a player in rural areas. That ROI has been determined some time ago.
It will be a whole different world in a couple of years And ATSC 3 will be an insignificant part of it. ATSC 3 will never be much of a player in rural areas. That ROI has been determined some time ago.
YouTube wouldn't give us 4K without stuttering until we went with 50 Mbps from our isp. Starlink touts 1 gig but beta testing has results between 30 and 60 Mbps. When it is wide spread use it won't mathematically support everyone getting 4K service let alone more than on HD broadcast at once. Unless speeds improve.
Early SpaceX Starlink LEO Broadband Speedtests Disappoint
The original promise of "fibre-like" broadband speeds from SpaceX's future mega constellation of small Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Starlink satellites may not materia
www.ispreview.co.uk
Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
Yeah, and ATSC 3.0 consists of proprietary IP/patents and requires payments of license fees from local stations for use of those IP's, and a great many of those patents are held by Sinclair One Media who own Sinclair Broadcast Group, one of the biggest owners of local broadcast stations in the US. While paying royalties for tech is not new in tech, a station paying money to a one of their biggest competing broadcasters is a really big thorn in the craw of stations finding ATSC 3.0 distasteful if only for that reason. While a great many local stations may not like such an arrangement, I can certainly see why Fox, Disney, NBC/Universal, and CBS certainly would not like paying competitors to use ASTC 3.0, but the big broadcasters main objection is just the cost of transition alone after having spent a boatload on HD not so long ago, and the big broadcaster's costs are not limited to transmitters, but all their facilities requiring new cameras and switchers and edit bays, and it goes on and on. Too much money for too little return from their point of view.
We should have just added HDR (as the big broadcasters suggested) to the current ATSC 1.0, which CAN be done, and that would have really made a difference in PQ without making Sinclair even more rich for all the nosy targeted ads and data they can mine from us via the web because ATSC 3.0 will be broadcast in IP and, ideally, sent throughout our LAN's to TV's and other devices with all that data being sent back to the broadcaster via our network and internet connection.
