Directv 16 Launch Schedule
- Thread starter nelson61
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 193
- Views 24K
Being intimately familiar with the management of uplinks, my opinion is no. Directv has outsourced a number of broadcast equipment maintenance tasks in the past and the ones I know of that were canceled and done internally saved a lot of $$.
To meet your 4 year phaseout, they would have to move 5 million customers per year from satellite to their so called streaming services. No way in hell is that going to happen.
That is 20,000 per day, 5 days per week, 52 weeks per year.
Its not "my" phaseout, its ATTs. So tell me, if you announced you were going to paint your house by a certain date and I kept telling you over and over again its impossible, what would you think of me? Why would I know more about your personal plans than you when I don't live in your house or know you? What can you actually offer on the subject of ATT shutting down satellites except for your feelings?
Which becomes even more interesting when this product we are being transitioned to doesn’t exist yet
And like I stated also. If you google Directv uplink layoffs there is a bunch of threads of people being let go and replaced with cheaper labor. For all we know this is happening to these same “people” you know and they are making crap up because they are getting replaced or outsourced.. 5 to 10 years to transfer everyone to streaming is realistic. 4-5 to a product that doesn’t exist yet and just spent hundreds of millions to launch a bird to support that product. Doesn’t pass the smell test
To be clear also. They haven’t announced anything. There is no official press release stating any of this
From Directv management, engineering and broadcast ops current employees. I also read a public statement from ATT many moths ago that their 5yr plan was to transition to broadband delivery of content and move away from satellites. I don't remember the exact wording or where I read this and it may have been an internal publication, but after reading it I started checking with current employees and they all back up the statement and are preparing for the end of satellite delivery. End of my post on this topic, see you in 5 yrs without DTV over satellite, get your own inside info somewhere else, have a nice day.
I think that is where you get the latest info is finding out what’s happening at the Directv and Uverse TV broadcast centers. How are they being configured?
Your reading Inter company mail ?
I know I don't have the time during the day to read the att intercompany mail that I get.
You better short at&t because they are going to have to write off 40 billion if your sources are correct.
Sent from my SM-G955U1 using the SatelliteGuys app!
DirecTV lost about 1.25 million subs in 2018, more than the prior year's losses, to finish 2018 with about 19.2 million subs. Even if AT&T didn't try to lure their subs away from satellite over to other platforms, it's not crazy to imagine that they would lose another, say, 9 million over the next five years (subs either "cutting the cord" or switching to a non-AT&T MVPD or vMVPD channel package), taking the count down to 10.2 million.
Now imagine if they were successful in converting 2/3 of those 10.2 million subs who stuck with them over to one of their non-satellite platforms (including an OTT streaming version of full-scale DirecTV that has yet to launch). That would leave only about 3.4 million subs on DTV satellite by the end of 2024. Perhaps that would be a small enough customer base that AT&T couldn't justify continuing to operate their satellite MVPD as opposed to do something else with those assets.
I'm not saying this scenario WILL happen, I'm just saying that it seems fairly plausible to me and could perhaps explain AT&T's supposed plans to be out of the US satellite TV business in five years.
Now imagine if they were successful in converting 2/3 of those 10.2 million subs who stuck with them over to one of their non-satellite platforms (including an OTT streaming version of full-scale DirecTV that has yet to launch). That would leave only about 3.4 million subs on DTV satellite by the end of 2024. Perhaps that would be a small enough customer base that AT&T couldn't justify continuing to operate their satellite MVPD as opposed to do something else with those assets.
I'm not saying this scenario WILL happen, I'm just saying that it seems fairly plausible to me and could perhaps explain AT&T's supposed plans to be out of the US satellite TV business in five years.
OR ...
Cutting the cord ... catches up with the rest and people realize that they are no cheaper than cable or Sat in the long run ...
By the time you have all the channels that the Cable/Sat companies offer, your at the same price point.
Cutting the cord ... catches up with the rest and people realize that they are no cheaper than cable or Sat in the long run ...
By the time you have all the channels that the Cable/Sat companies offer, your at the same price point.
What if another scenario is they want to get rid of live TV services and become just like Netflix's model and they just want their Warner Media streaming service?
I could ask the same question to you ...
Why spend $50 Million dollars to let it be gone in 5 more years (one persons estimate ... 10 years from most).
Of course we know alot of it was so they could get more subs and the Time Warner content.
Bingo, right on the nose. Streaming companies also depend on the end user having FAST Internet. When fast internet service is required for Streaming, this makes streaming as a replacement service extremely expensive per channel.
Lastly, there are GOING to be a lot (likely tens of millions) with substandard internet for at least a decade, especially considering we as a country, are depending on for profit companies to provide Internet connections. This means low density residences will likely never get the internet they would want, this makes Streaming and lots of other Internet delivery impractical or impossible.
Just this week Verizon admitted to stockholders 5G will only be used in High Density areas, this flies in the face of pundits and Tech people, constantly telling us "5G is the answer to providing Fast internet to even low density areas." (Stopthecap.com)
Not at all...the internet belongs to the consumer..not the company streaming the channel....since the vast majority of people already have internet..its not really an " added expense"
Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
They got zero Time Warner content from buying Directv for $50 BILLION. They got that content from buying Time Warner at an even higher price.
One of their stated goals from buying Directv was to get better contracts with networks, but the savings they claimed ($14/month per customer) are chickenfeed in comparison to the price. They need years of Directv's profit to justify it.
They could have created a streaming TV product and gave it away for free for years to build a customer base if that was their end goal, and spent a lot less than $50 billion.
All good questions/points. Hindsight is 20/20. My guess is that, if AT&T leadership knew back in 2014 what they know today, they wouldn't have purchased DTV. They've always indicated that buying DTV was about achieving scale in the TV business, about getting lots of customers and contracts with the networks/content providers, not really about DBS as a distribution technology.
What I don't think they realized in 2014 is that, in the future, TV would be about owning content and selling it directly to consumers (as opposed to being a middleman redistributing other companies' content), hence their later purchase of Time Warner. I think it would have made a lot more sense for them to have skipped the DTV acquisition and instead gone directly to purchasing Warner and/or other major content owners for the purpose of then launching their own Netflix competitor. But what's done is done. And AT&T leadership will never admit that buying DTV was a mistake, they'll always try to spin it as somehow being a bridge to their future as a major TV provider.
