What, you mean I can actually get ATT service where I live then ?
ATT service is SOOOOOO much better than whats available here.
Directv to shift away from Satellite?
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 624
- Views 43K
- Status
ATT service is SOOOOOO much better than whats available here.
We are less than 2 weeks away from the AT&T-Time Warner decision and I am betting that D* is on the chopping block for them. The turner networks are too valuable to pass up especially CNN plus AT&T looks as if they want a wireless only future for broadband, phone, and television...
There's no way AT&T will give up Directv. The value of Time Warner goes way down if they have only a few million video subscribers and can't negotiate good contracts with others. One of the things I found most interesting about the Directv purchase is that AT&T said their content cost averaged $14/month higher for Uverse TV customers than what Directv was paying for equivalent packages. If they sold off Directv they are even smaller than they were before since many Uverse TV customers have left in the meantime, content will again be far more expensive for them which would negate any advantage from owning TW.
I’m a DirecTV installer for AT&T, I receive dozens of emails regarding 5G and the future of satellites. Eventually satellites will become obselete in urban areas, rural is a different story. I personally can’t wait for 5G to come out, it’s the way of the future. And no this will not cause layoffs, AT&T is already creating learning material for us to learn about 5G deployment.
to Satellliteguys Theattguy!Can you discuss anything about that full version of DTV over the internet that is coming this Fall? Thanks.
And they will continue to (note, not lay off) SURPLUS people every year ...
You mentioned Satellites will become obsolete in urban areas ....
You said that wrong .... As long as theres Sat service available to Rural areas, it will also be available in Urban areas ... they can't send the signal to one and not the other.
They just won't push selling the Sat side of it when the time comes, much like they are not pushing U Verse anymore.
Yes, 5G is the future, but I will have Sat service as long as I can for a multiple number of reasons.
By the time that 5G actually becomes common place I and a lot of the people I currently work with will be retired or decided to move on.
The guy with the least amount of time in my area has 17 years in, the company quite back filling people in my side of the business and continues to hire U Verse techs (who a lot of stay for a short time and then find different work as the conditions are not to thier liking.
Welcome to the Site !!!
Look around, enjoy yourself.
Join the Pub, lose the ads and the Bartender will serve you quickly ....
I actually think he is correct, once there is reliable wireless available in urban areas for all intent Satellite would be obsolete there. I am about as big a Satellite proponent as there is, I have had DISH just about since their begining same with Satellite radio. But if wireless could deliver what Satellite does, programming and reliability I'm in. Keep in mind that is not streaming or not necessarily streaming. There is already prototypes of digital receivers to handle program guides, DVR, etc for home use and of course all your same programming can go with you on mobile devices.
You are correct of course this is not just around the corner but there is going to be quite push for it.
5G is oversold. For cells, of minimal use. Fixed, yes. But that costs money for “towers/antennas” AND antennas at EACH location.
I suspect T-Mobile has made a BRILLIANT move, with 600 (and some 700) MHz bands to use “5G.” Longer range, greater penetration. Fits both bills.
I suppose Mr. L calculated that buying Sprint for the mid band was cheaper than a piecemeal auction to get those frequencies. A middle choice, for some higher speeds for mobile coverage.
And I not only think satellite delivery of TV will survive, I think it will rebound. There are inherent efficiencies in the delivery over IP. And other ease of use advantages.
I suspect T-Mobile has made a BRILLIANT move, with 600 (and some 700) MHz bands to use “5G.” Longer range, greater penetration. Fits both bills.
I suppose Mr. L calculated that buying Sprint for the mid band was cheaper than a piecemeal auction to get those frequencies. A middle choice, for some higher speeds for mobile coverage.
And I not only think satellite delivery of TV will survive, I think it will rebound. There are inherent efficiencies in the delivery over IP. And other ease of use advantages.
Once its here and been out there where you can see what is what, then I'll consider it.
Incorrect, it wouldn’t be profitable for AT&T to install satellites in a major city that’s has 5G. You are talking about a connection in the Multi-Gigabit range with nearly zero latency, which is strong enough to stream a 3D video in 4K. Why would they continue to spend money on satellites at that point?
So far, from what we've been told, it works very poor in areas with trees, can't go thru house walls or around corners.
Right now, it sounds like its a hope and a dream.
They have at least one more Sat going up, after that, its unknown.
Jimbo, we will find out soon enough. Here are some speed test I’ve found.
- Waco's 5G speeds were 1.2Gbps from 500 feet (150 meters) over a 400MHz channel, with 9-12 millisecond latency. That was with "hundreds of simultaneous connected users," according to AT&T.
- Kalamazoo had 1Gbps speeds at 900 feet (275 meters) in "line of sight" conditions, and no negative impact from rain or snow. AT&T notes that the signals can penetrate "significant foliage, glass and even walls" better than expected, but it's unclear what that specifically means.
I mentioned this previously, but if thats the case (and I hope it is) any word on where and how close the nodes would be ?
Are we talking like phone lines, 1 node every other pole ?
That would take forever to build.
If it only goes 900 or so feet, thats not very far.
How many people work off a tower ... does it slow down according to how many people are using it ?
I haven't been to work in the last month and a half, so I haven't been able to see the info coming to the company emails about this stuff.
The small cell technology cans(nodes) you are talking about are fairly easy to install. You can place them on light post, telephone poles, on buildings, etc. Costly, but easy to implement. And from what I’ve heard the goal is for the average user to have speeds of 800 MBPS.
“The average Internet connection in the United States hit 18.7 megabits per second (Mbps).” - Speedtest.net
It is being released in Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston right now. We shall see!
“The average Internet connection in the United States hit 18.7 megabits per second (Mbps).” - Speedtest.net
It is being released in Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston right now. We shall see!
Jimbo, first off I am jealous. We just got put on 6 days, wish me luck :/.
And 5G doesn’t require cell towers, the small cell cans are considered miniature cell towers. They require a lot of maintence too from what I’ve been hearing, get ready to start climbing telephone poles lol.
And 5G doesn’t require cell towers, the small cell cans are considered miniature cell towers. They require a lot of maintence too from what I’ve been hearing, get ready to start climbing telephone poles lol.
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
