Directv to shift away from Satellite?

[Jimbo]

I wonder if DTV customers using the dish will get this new DTV service using the internet for free so you could use that for bad weather backup?

More than likely Not ...
You'd think they would offer the same thing for D* Now, but thier not.

 

[Inclined Orbit]

Hmmm, where have I heard this before.......

AT&T to Introduce Broadband-Delivered OTT DirecTV Product

AT&T Communications CEO John Donovan told an industry audience Tuesday (May 15) that it plans to launch a broadband-delivered over-the-top DirecTV-branded product by the end of the year, bringing the number of subscription video products from the company to five.

At the MoffettNathanson Media & Communications Summit, Donovan said the offering would be different from its current DirecTV-branded over-the-top product DirecTV Now in that it will be basically the same DirecTV service currently available over satellite.

The new DirecTV broadband delivered offering will have the same look and feel of the satellite service, but will be a lot less expensive on the front end.

“We won’t roll a truck," Donovan said. “The CPE will be cheaper, it will be a thinner, lighter version and we will have lower operating costs. We anticipate passing a lot of those cost savings.”

 

[Inclined Orbit]

An OC192 is not a big deal these days and not all that expensive. Here is a picture of one in a right of way between some buildings. No lock, no fence around the vault and any kid on a bike could yank it out of the ground.

And who’s paying for this cheaper internet access? Google and Facebook aren’t paying for Comcast to install an OC192 interconnect to handle additional streaming data.

 

[CSM]

One advantage to having the full DTV over the internet is it would have more channel capacity and maybe we could also get the local HD sub-channels? Or would they just use the current DTV channel line-up and also not merge the DTV and UVerseTV channel lineups?

 

[Jimbo]

An OC192 is not a big deal these days and not all that expensive. Here is a picture of one in a right of way between some buildings. No lock, no fence around the vault and any kid on a bike could yank it out of the ground. View attachment 133018

Yup,
Typically they can be closed with a Can Wrench ....most of the time they are not, but they DO have a can wrench lock on them.

Although I don't think I've seen this particular ped.

 

[slice1900]

"We won’t roll a truck," His exact words when At&t announced the future was wireless broadband. (He's correct it is) I'm begining to think the real reason for this added delivery of service is a test run, see how it is received, how viable it is etc...
As mentioned this is the fifth service, sounds like they are trying to make decisions on the future.

They don't have to decide in the future, they can offer several options and let the customers choose what is best for them. The more market niches they fill -> the more customers they have -> the better their negotiating position with networks.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

They can pass all the savings on but the isp’s will just eat that savings up with all the data overages.

also

"We won’t roll a truck," His exact words when At&t announced the future was wireless broadband. (He's correct it is) I'm begining to think the real reason for this added delivery of service is a test run, see how it is received, how viable it is etc...
As mentioned this is the fifth service, sounds like they are trying to make decisions on the future.

and are they going to give an bar uncaped / unthrotted wireless at no added cost to replace the dish and let them have 8-16 boxes?

 

[Tampa8]

They don't have to decide in the future, they can offer several options and let the customers choose what is best for them. The more market niches they fill -> the more customers they have -> the better their negotiating position with networks.

Knowing the history of At&t I don't agree. Actually your first sentence is the opposite of what you are saying and is exactly what I am saying. They are offering many options for now as a guide to determine what the public will be willing to migrate to and test what would be needed if any of them were a primary delivery service. They long ago said wireless is the future and I have little doubt that is their goal. The question is how soon. Having that many separate ways of delivering entertainment isn't the goal of any business, it needs too many employees, too many headaches too much redunancy. They own one of the most valuable commodities today, about the most extensive cell service capable of delivering entertainment. They already maintain it, adding TV changes almost nothing to that maintenance cost. And they are always getting ready for the next advancement in Cell service anyway which would just bring along the TV service with it. Cell service is their core most valuable service. Contrast that to the extreme cost of launching satellites as they grow old, building or buying receivers and maintaining them, service calls and installs.

Further they are spending millions on rural home internet via wireless and not instead pushing Satellite internet along with now offering a non Directv Now product.
AT&T Launches First Wave of Fixed Wireless Internet Availability to Rural and Underserved Areas

What I am not saying is Satellite is dead. I believe there is still a large market for it. What I am saying is At&t may not be staying in it and that is the decision on the future they are making especially in light of the demands of the merger by the Government. They were not thinking of divesting of it now but the merger is forcing them to make decisions quicker than they wanted to.

 

[Tampa8]

also

and are they going to give an bar uncaped / unthrotted wireless at no added cost to replace the dish and let them have 8-16 boxes?

Couple of problems with that question. First what boxes for internet or wireless service? That need for equipment/receivers along with needing to replace Satellites are the exact reasons I say At&t does not see that type of service in their future.
Second you are thinking now, they are thinking the future where they can offer unthrottled service if you have their entertainment packages. Wireless and Entertainment are their goals. If that can be done in one service that people want that is what they will do. As I stated above it's just that they are being forced to make decisions now they wanted to make later because of the merger demands.

I am not a huge internet delivery fan especially not over the very reliable Satellite type of service. But a wireless service that can deliver what I want is what I think the future is, eventually. I don't that At&t is ready at this minute to sell off Directv. But there is no way that type of service is their long term goal.

 

[CSM]

I wonder if AT&T thought about doing DTV over managed IPTV at first but thought DTV over OTT would be better?

 

[slice1900]

Knowing the history of At&t I don't agree. Actually your first sentence is the opposite of what you are saying and is exactly what I am saying. They are offering many options for now as a guide to determine what the public will be willing to migrate to and test what would be needed if any of them were a primary delivery service. They long ago said wireless is the future and I have little doubt that is their goal. The question is how soon. Having that many separate ways of delivering entertainment isn't the goal of any business, it needs too many employees, too many headaches too much redunancy. They own one of the most valuable commodities today, about the most extensive cell service capable of delivering entertainment. They already maintain it, adding TV changes almost nothing to that maintenance cost. And they are always getting ready for the next advancement in Cell service anyway which would just bring along the TV service with it. Cell service is their core most valuable service. Contrast that to the extreme cost of launching satellites as they grow old, building or buying receivers and maintaining them, service calls and installs.

Further they are spending millions on rural home internet via wireless and not instead pushing Satellite internet along with now offering a non Directv Now product.
AT&T Launches First Wave of Fixed Wireless Internet Availability to Rural and Underserved Areas

What I am not saying is Satellite is dead. I believe there is still a large market for it. What I am saying is At&t may not be staying in it and that is the decision on the future they are making especially in light of the demands of the merger by the Government. They were not thinking of divesting of it now but the merger is forcing them to make decisions quicker than they wanted to.

As I've said many times, maintaining the satellite fleet costs them very little - about 50 cents per subscriber per month, replacing the core fleet every 15 years (which is conservative vs a satellite's typical lifetime) That's based on 20 million satellite subscribers, but even if 3/4 of their base eventually switched to another delivery method that would only be $2 a month. They like to talk about delivering TV over 5G because it impresses the analysts to talk about new stuff with new technology, but they aren't going to get rid of satellite anytime soon. Those people who want it or have no other choice will be willing to pay a few bucks a month to get it, and AT&T would be stupid not to keep taking their money.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

But I don’t believe they have any satellites in construction or any ground spares. So let’s hope what they have now keeps on working.

 

[rad]

But I don’t believe they have any satellites in construction or any ground spares. So let’s hope what they have now keeps on working.

T16 is currently under construction.

 

[Jimbo]

While I was working for D**, some internal communication/data stuff was transitioned from satellite to fiber and reliability seemed to suffer. Even though there were redundant paths, some fiber would get dug up in the middle of nowhere or a router would crash or something else would take it out. Then they would call and have the old satellite path put online while they figured out or fixed the problem with fiber circuits. Satellite rocks, fiber not so much.

Depends on what Fiber ....

The majority of your Locals and probably the National Networks as well are fed to D* thru Fiber.

 

[Tampa8]

But I don’t believe they have any satellites in construction or any ground spares. So let’s hope what they have now keeps on working.

As I've said many times, maintaining the satellite fleet costs them very little - about 50 cents per subscriber per month, replacing the core fleet every 15 years (which is conservative vs a satellite's typical lifetime) That's based on 20 million satellite subscribers, but even if 3/4 of their base eventually switched to another delivery method that would only be $2 a month. They like to talk about delivering TV over 5G because it impresses the analysts to talk about new stuff with new technology, but they aren't going to get rid of satellite anytime soon. Those people who want it or have no other choice will be willing to pay a few bucks a month to get it, and AT&T would be stupid not to keep taking their money.

In addition whatever the cost, 50 cents per subscriber (we will go with that I have no idea the actual cost) is 50 cents per subscriber less into the profits. I can not be convinced the cost of launching, maintaining satellites, along with producing and maintaining receivers and rolling trucks for install and repair is as inconsequential as some posters are saying.

BTW just for the satellites over a year at 18 million subscribers 50 cents a month is 900 thousand dollars a month. How the H is that "very little?"

 

[Inclined Orbit]

A whole lot of locals are received OTA to get into the DTV system.

Depends on what Fiber ....

The majority of your Locals and probably the National Networks as well are fed to D* thru Fiber.

 

[Jimbo]

A whole lot of locals are received OTA to get into the DTV system.

I would say that more than not are fed by Fiber this day and age .... I know our DMA (88 I think) has been fed to them by fiber since the late '90s.

I don't think its as many as you think ..... Probably the smaller cities, yes.
The major cities No.

 

[Jimbo]

In addition whatever the cost, 50 cents per subscriber (we will go with that I have no idea the actual cost) is 50 cents per subscriber less into the profits. I can not be convinced the cost of launching, maintaining satellites, along with producing and maintaining receivers and rolling trucks for install and repair is as inconsequential as some posters are saying.

BTW just for the satellites over a year at 18 million subscribers 50 cents a month is 900 thousand dollars a month. How the H is that "very little?"

Like I've mentioned before, 10 years ago we were told that it cost the company $168 for each truck roll.

 

[Inclined Orbit]

I don't have the bottom line on this and would not post the facts if I did, but I will say a "whole lot" is OTA. I live in the second largest city in the country and most if not all our locals get into the system via OTA.

I would say that more than not are fed by Fiber this day and age .... I know our DMA (88 I think) has been fed to them by fiber since the late '90s.

I don't think its as many as you think ..... Probably the smaller cities, yes.
The major cities No.

 

[rad]

I know Austin is OTA since when transmitters go down (which happens a lot here) DIRECTV puts up the don't call us slate.