DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket

[NashGuy]

In all markets / systems?

Looks like as of March of this year, 200 Mbps was the minimum available speed in "nearly 85%" of Charter's service area.

Charter brings 200 Mbit/s minimum speeds to 17 more markets | Light Reading

The move, covering nearly 6 million homes, doubles the starting download speed of its broadband service - from 100 Mbit/s to 200 Mbit/s.

www.lightreading.com

But again, that's the *minimum* speed. Is there any cable-connected address anywhere in the US, from any provider, that can't get a *maximum* available speed of at least 200 Mbps? Because that's quite a lot of bandwidth. Enough for at least 20 simultaneous HD streams.

 

[Juan]

Looks like as of March of this year, 200 Mbps was the minimum available speed in "nearly 85%" of Charter's service area.

Charter brings 200 Mbit/s minimum speeds to 17 more markets | Light Reading

The move, covering nearly 6 million homes, doubles the starting download speed of its broadband service - from 100 Mbit/s to 200 Mbit/s.

www.lightreading.com

But again, that's the *minimum* speed. Is there any cable-connected address anywhere in the US, from any provider, that can't get a *maximum* available speed of at least 200 Mbps? Because that's quite a lot of bandwidth. Enough for at least 20 simultaneous HD streams.

In cable
Its UP TO 200 meg
Depends how many users on the node at any given time

 

[dtv757]

In cable
Its UP TO 200 meg
Depends how many users on the node at any given time

Agree I suffer from Docsis .. they say its "gig" but its 10000x Trash and this is hard wired Cat 6 (home run no splitters) the line outside has been re run 3x from the pedestal. Wish more areas had FTTH.
(browser)

https://www.speedtest.net/result/12219110560.png

(speed test windows app)

https://www.speedtest.net/result/d/19a933c6-6f27-41ca-bd9e-b4444cd3b720.png

 

[Jimbo]

Agree I suffer from Docsis .. they say its "gig" but its 10000x Trash and this is hard wired Cat 6 (home run no splitters) the line outside has been re run 3x from the pedestal. Wish more areas had FTTH.
(browser)

https://www.speedtest.net/result/12219110560.png

(speed test windows app)

https://www.speedtest.net/result/d/19a933c6-6f27-41ca-bd9e-b4444cd3b720.png

200 mg here is a pipe dream .... 1 major reason is cost.
I'm not spending $100 a MONTH for just internet.

 

[dtv757]

200 mg here is a pipe dream .... 1 major reason is cost.
I'm not spending $100 a MONTH for just internet.

I'm paying $120 m/o for this trash

Its more expensive and less reliable than my DirecTV
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Jimbo]

I'm paying $120 m/o for this trash

Its more expensive and less reliable than my DirecTV
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I guess they say I have 100 mg ... so if I have 100 mg now, 200 wouldn't make that much difference.

 

[Juan]

200 mg here is a pipe dream .... 1 major reason is cost.
I'm not spending $100 a MONTH for just internet.

80 a month gets me 800 meg

 

[Jimbo]

80 a month gets me 800 meg

In Russia ?

 

[dtv757]

80 a month gets me 800 meg

Fios ? I think fios is 80/mo

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Juan]

Fios ? I think fios is 80/mo

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Comcast

 

[Juan]

Fios ? I think fios is 80/mo

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Fios is a 100 for the triple play with 1gig

 

[Jimbo]

Hmmm, I wonder if it would possibly be cheaper for me to add a Double play here and get internet and TV (which I won't use) for less than I am just Broadband from them ..... (where I'm at obviously)

 

[dtv757]

Fios is a 100 for the triple play with 1gig

100 for a triple play

That's amazing !!! Like I wrote above im paying 120 just for horific docsis broadband.

Hopefully I can move in a few years to a fios area

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[dtv757]

Anyways enough broadband talk lets get back on topic

Nfl ticket!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[NashGuy]

In cable
Its UP TO 200 meg
Depends how many users on the node at any given time

Whatever. Ultimate point of these posts about the availability of broadband access is that the vast majority of American homes and businesses can get it if they want it and that limiting distribution of a popular sports package, such as NFLST, to broadband isn't a real impediment to its adoption. Among the households that would pay anything for NFLST, my bet is that an even higher percentage of that group has broadband and already streams some amount of video entertainment than is the case for the overall American public.

All that said, wouldn't surprise me if whichever streaming power (Amazon, Apple, etc.) that ends up with the next NFLST exclusive decides to continue offering access to it by businesses through DBS, probably through an arrangement with DTV since that's the existing status quo. (Of course, that's assuming they choose to sell the package to businesses for public viewing at all.) But as for residential customers, nah, Amazon, Apple, etc. have no interest in distributing to that segment outside of OTT streaming.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Whatever. Ultimate point of these posts about the availability of broadband access is that the vast majority of American homes and businesses can get it if they want it and that limiting distribution of a popular sports package, such as NFLST, to broadband isn't a real impediment to its adoption. Among the households that would pay anything for NFLST, my bet is that an even higher percentage of that group has broadband and already streams some amount of video entertainment than is the case for the overall American public.

All that said, wouldn't surprise me if whichever streaming power (Amazon, Apple, etc.) that ends up with the next NFLST exclusive decides to continue offering access to it by businesses through DBS, probably through an arrangement with DTV since that's the existing status quo. (Of course, that's assuming they choose to sell the package to businesses for public viewing at all.) But as for residential customers, nah, Amazon, Apple, etc. have no interest in distributing to that segment outside of OTT streaming.

assuming they choose to sell the package to businesses for public viewing at all if they don't then what are they going to send people out to check places to so they don't have an home sub at there business?

 

[slice1900]

assuming they choose to sell the package to businesses for public viewing at all if they don't then what are they going to send people out to check places to so they don't have an home sub at there business?

They do that now, but I doubt it requires actually visiting the business unless they have reason to believe something is being fudged. If there is a business at 123 Main St showing games on NFLST, and Directv has no record of a commercial account at that location, or there is a commercial account there but it doesn't subscribe to NFLST, then if that location shows NFLST they can send somewhere then to verify it for legal purposes and then sue them.

It would work the same way if there were streaming packages sold for NFLST, they'd require you to provide the proper business name and address when you subscribe so they will know if that a business at a given location is legally subscribed or not. They don't really care if it is being illegally shown by a home sub, or receivers belonging to some other business or some pirated stream from a shady place on the internet. All they have to establish is that it is being shown somewhere that isn't legally entitled to do so. How they are accomplishing that is irrelevant from the point of the lawsuit.

 

[Don in CT]

In Russia ?

In Soviet Russia, Internet surf you!

 

[SamCdbs]

They do that now, but I doubt it requires actually visiting the business unless they have reason to believe something is being fudged. If there is a business at 123 Main St showing games on NFLST, and Directv has no record of a commercial account at that location, or there is a commercial account there but it doesn't subscribe to NFLST, then if that location shows NFLST they can send somewhere then to verify it for legal purposes and then sue them.

It would work the same way if there were streaming packages sold for NFLST, they'd require you to provide the proper business name and address when you subscribe so they will know if that a business at a given location is legally subscribed or not. They don't really care if it is being illegally shown by a home sub, or receivers belonging to some other business or some pirated stream from a shady place on the internet. All they have to establish is that it is being shown somewhere that isn't legally entitled to do so. How they are accomplishing that is irrelevant from the point of the lawsuit.

The difference being, of course, that a DirecTV receiver and its dish is a physical thing, easily identifiable and somewhat bulky.

A smart TV looks a lot like a TV. Given there over 60,000 bars in the USA, it is naive to believe that a situation dis-similar to what went on in the wild-west days of the BUD will not exist.

Almost unenforceable.

 

[Bruce]

The difference being, of course, that a DirecTV receiver and its dish is a physical thing, easily identifiable and somewhat bulky.

A smart TV looks a lot like a TV. Given there over 60,000 bars in the USA, it is naive to believe that a situation dis-similar to what went on in the wild-west days of the BUD will not exist.

Almost unenforceable.

If Amazon gets it and sells to Businesses , there are plenty of Amazon employees that would rat out Bars and Restaurants for a slight bonus in their checks.