And those numbers are greatly exaggerated. It's been pointed out that most of the internet providers base their numbers on the highest speed they offer in an area, not the speed subscribers can actually get. ATT saye they provide 1G in my area, but the best they will offer me is 25Mb
AT&T Wants to Move DIRECTV Customers to Streaming Services Like AT&T TV & HBO Max
- Thread starter Bruce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 62
- Views 7K
Actually, I think there is an agreement that they will give most everyone internet, (for a cost of course) ...
Sadly, we are putting in service for subs at a whopping speed of 5 mg and all the way down to 928 ...
Of course the majority of people are running 50 mg and up.
You guys keep talking about that, but it will be around for at least another 10 years or longer ... they wouldn't have sent up the last Sat if it wasn't going to use it.
I been with DirectV for 20+ years and for the most part it's been a good experience. However, times are changing and I believe the future is definitely going to be in streaming. I watched Thursday night football last night in 4K and I've never had quality at that level from Direct. It would be great if they would keep the satellite available as a legacy service...and I'm sure they will for a few years. But in the end, it just makes better sense, both financially and the technical ability for quick change.
I'm on an unlimited gigabit connection and I know everyone wont have that option, but really all you need is a 15Mbps connection for a single stream up to 4K. In this days and age broadband is a must have. I dont know the percentages, but I would guess 80% of people who have it available, do have it.
I'm on an unlimited gigabit connection and I know everyone wont have that option, but really all you need is a 15Mbps connection for a single stream up to 4K. In this days and age broadband is a must have. I dont know the percentages, but I would guess 80% of people who have it available, do have it.
Think of it this way, you own an online news service, would you buy a newspaper and then tell people "I have no intention of being in the newspaper business, I just want to convert the customer base to my business.". Would it never occur to you that if those people wanted to get their news via online, if they even had broadband access, don't you think they would already have done so? And one more thing, where in the world did you come up with that 15-20% figure? The FCC figures place it closer to 40%. That's the problem, people think broadband is everywhere, or almost everywhere. Well, it isn't.
One more thing, that comment about Netflix is irrelevant. Netflix was a startup business while AT&T blew billions to buy DTV in the hopes it could convert the customer base to streaming. That is a whole different ballgame and by the way Netflix is losing it's shirt and is going ever deeper in debt so no, the are not doing fine.
Bruce
Bender and Chloe, the real Members of the Year
Original poster
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,751
- 20,139
Post a link, here is mine-
Eighth Broadband Progress Report
Notwithstanding this progress, the Report finds that approximately 19 million Americans—6 percent of the population—still lack access to fixed broadband service at threshold speeds. In rural areas, nearly one-fourth of the population —14.5 million people—lack access to this service.
Expansion of networks technically capable of 100 megabit-plus speeds to over 80 percent of the population through cable’s DOCSIS 3.0 rollout
Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys
I see no issue If they want to move everyone to a streaming platform.
Wether Tv is delivered via traditional satellite or IP makes very little difference to most people.
Set top boxes can be designed to work and behave exactly the same wether the input is satellite or broadband.
What AT&T doesn’t seem to get is that before any of that can happen, they need to Be the customers internet service provider wether they be fiber to the customers home, or via 5G or other wireless means.
I hope they don’t think for one second they are going to convert subs to streaming and have to rely on the cable companies to provide a high speed connection.
The minute Comcast or any other cable provider changes their data caps, AT&T and all these other streaming providers are screwed.
The cable companies long term goal is to make streaming from 3rd parties more expensive than getting streaming from the cable company
Wether Tv is delivered via traditional satellite or IP makes very little difference to most people.
Set top boxes can be designed to work and behave exactly the same wether the input is satellite or broadband.
What AT&T doesn’t seem to get is that before any of that can happen, they need to Be the customers internet service provider wether they be fiber to the customers home, or via 5G or other wireless means.
I hope they don’t think for one second they are going to convert subs to streaming and have to rely on the cable companies to provide a high speed connection.
The minute Comcast or any other cable provider changes their data caps, AT&T and all these other streaming providers are screwed.
The cable companies long term goal is to make streaming from 3rd parties more expensive than getting streaming from the cable company
This report seems to set 3mb as the threshold. How about 12mb at least? We are just so far behind most european and asian countries it's not funny. And internet here is far more expensive than most other countries.
And there it is! That is the key here.
It just amazes me how many times I keep reading comments that paint ATT management as clueless. They know exactly what they're doing.
This is going to take years. Companies that don't have a roadmap for 5-10 years out are going to be doomed.
Those broadband maps and access maps are a lot of BS!!! The local cable company around here got a grant to hang fiber on the poles two years ago that just hangs on the poles and goes nowhere. Nobody is connected to it because they didn't get a grant to connect people. According to the all the broadband maps we all have 100 MB fiber which of course we don't.
Further, in the places where they have the fiber connected they are charging up to thousands of dollars to run the the fiber down people's driveways to their houses.
You are correct about the maps being a load of BS. Whole areas are shown as having high speed internet just because a small part of it has high speed. And in any cvase, I would like to see what sort of guarantee we have. Just because someone pays for high speed internet does not mean they get it. Here in North Dallas Spectrum offers most people 100mbps (their "self reporting" says 1g by the way) but people often report actual speeds at times below 5mb.
I keep hearing people going over their 1TB cap now. I can’t imagine what will happen if they go any lower.
Sounds reliable 
Wouldn't even work where I live. Only have access to 3mbps DSL and I'm not sure if it's even unlimited. It's CenturyLink not AT&T DSL.
Wouldn't even work where I live. Only have access to 3mbps DSL and I'm not sure if it's even unlimited. It's CenturyLink not AT&T DSL.
Spectrum starts at 200mbps. Anyone getting 5mbps is suffering from WiFi interference. I guarantee you those speed tests are not being done on a wired connection.
Sure, Spectrum offers 200mbs in some areas. In my area that is a pipe dream, besides Charter charges me $70 PLUS for my internet, if I bundle I can get internet VASTLY cheaper a Bundle is much cheaper.
With that said and Net Neutrality DEAD there is nothing stopping my internet provider from slowing down my connection to competing services. If AT&T really thinks the Cable company isn't going to use its monopoly to try to screw over competitors you are DREAMING.
I'll keep my Satellite service thanks.
John
Not here it doesn't. and i am talking about wired not wireless. And what about all the times we have outages so the speed is zero. No way can anyone depend on this. Spectrum here has a terrible reputation.Gets one star in the local reviews.
More people are going over all the time.
The issue as I see it are people are getting cheap internet plans to use with 3rd party streaming apps.
How much longer can the cable companies be used to provide internet only and being left out of getting a piece of the video business.
I say lower the data caps on the cheap internet plans and if the customer wants to stream through their internet provider, then not count that data.
I don't call $89-99 a month cheap for internet. It is as much or more than most of the tv packages.
They are, but they won't be once the majority of the companies come out with thier own streaming programs and pull thier programming from Netflix, once thier current contract are up.
