NO. some of us are with directv because we had dish, and dont want to go back.
at least not until things change.
now if direct was spun out, and bought dish, and sent charlie away, maybe
DOJ Wants AT&T To Sell DTV Or Turner
- Thread starter CSM
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 62
- Views 5K
- Status
NO. some of us are with directv because we had dish, and dont want to go back.
at least not until things change.
now if direct was spun out, and bought dish, and sent charlie away, maybe
Yeah, I would agree that AT&T isn't anywhere near the point -- yet -- where they would be OK with spinning off DTV satellite service. It still accounts for a huge majority of their pay TV subs and all those accounts give AT&T a seat at the "big boys' table" when it comes to negotiations with channel providers. But AT&T also knows that satellite TV's best days are behind it at this point. They also know that the traditional cable TV bundle is beginning to crumble a bit (smaller bundles and more a la carte options exist) and average prices are coming down, putting pressure on margins for distributors like AT&T.
So what technology can currently replace satellite as a nationwide pay TV distribution system? The only option is OTT TV -- streaming over the internet to any device, regardless of who provides the internet service (i.e. it could be AT&T or Comcast or T-Mobile or Verizon or Charter, etc.). AT&T is done with managed IPTV -- Uverse TV -- because (among other reasons) it's restricted to deployment over their own wireline home internet network. AT&T needs a next-gen TV system that is nationwide (to transition as many of those nationwide satellite subs over to as possible, and also to bundle with their nationwide wireless phone service). Their wireline footprint is not nationwide -- it's basically just the South, the Midwest, plus California. So the only possible successor to satellite TV is OTT TV. (And because of the internet-based nature of OTT TV, it also allows for the dynamic insertion of more lucrative targeted ads, an advantage it has over satellite.)
I generally agree with your points. Specifically:
#1. AT&T doesn't necessarily need fiber throughout their entire footprint but they do need to upgrade homes from slow legacy DSL to speeds fast enough to sustain OTT streaming video plus other internet activity. So that could be fiber-to-the-home, or fiber-to-the-node (formerly branded as "Uverse internet"), or fixed 5G. On their recent quarterly call, AT&T said they only have 800,000 homes left on legacy DSL, down from 4.5 million four years ago. Meanwhile, they are continuing to aggressively expand their fiber-to-the-home network, which is now available to about 8 million locations and is targeted to hit 12.5 million by the middle of 2019.
#2. Yes, I agree about the need for an AT&T-supplied STB for their OTT TV service and AT&T has said they plan to roll that out late this year. (The CEO refers to it as their "home-centric" OTT TV service.) I think it may be marketed/branded as a different service from DTV Now but it will use the same underlying distribution platform. Here's a link to the STB that AT&T submitted to the FCC months ago which may be what they offer customers. Yes, it will be a simple self-install, just plug it in and connect it to your home network/internet via either wifi or ethernet. DirecTV to Launch Android TV-Based OTT Set-Top Box (EXCLUSIVE)
#3. This isn't really a problem. According to the following report (see chart 5), 89% of Americans in mid-2016 (two years ago) had at least one wired broadband internet provider with download speeds of 25 Mbps or greater available to them. (AT&T recommends a minimum 12 Mbps connection at home for DTV Now users.) 25 Mbps is fast enough to support 2 or 3 simultaneous DTV Now streams at its top HD quality (although in a multi-person household with lots of other folks online at the same time, a higher download speed may be needed). That said, it is true that a significant number of rural Americans do not have a broadband provider available where they live. That's why AT&T has said that satellite TV will shift to being mainly a product targeted at rural dwellers.
https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/US Broadband Availability Mid-2016 formatted.pdf
#4. 5G connections (whether mobile or fixed home) will certainly provide greater bandwidth for watching video. But today's 4G LTE connections from AT&T and others are already up to the task of allowing mobile viewing of services like DTV Now. Here are AT&T's stated bandwidth requirements for DTV Now:
- 150 Kbps - 2.5 Mbps - Minimum broadband connection speed for Mobile devices
- 2.5 - 7.5 Mbps - Recommended for HD quality
That quotes advertised speeds. If they checked what speed they were actually getting during peak evening hours (when most people will want to watch TV) the numbers would look quite a bit different, and for 'live' streaming like DTV Now (as opposed to prepackaged streams like Netflix where the app can buffer many minutes ahead) other users in the household can affect you (i.e. when they load a big web page) much more easily if you don't have a lot of headroom.
If there was only a big technology company that’s been looking to get into the tv business for years that could easily purchase dtv and do wonders with the product
And their satellites. If only.
And their satellites. If only.
I've done lots of speed tests over the years in the prime evening viewing hours on both Comcast and AT&T and my speeds were almost always at or above (the vast majority of the time, above) the quoted download speed for my service tier.
I know you want to believe that there's just no way that AT&T can successfully shift millions of their pay TV customers over to OTT streaming. But the reality is that millions more people than use D* satellite are already successfully streaming OTT video from Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, Hulu, HBO, Showtime, Sling TV, YouTube TV, PS Vue and other sources every evening. And the available amount of bandwidth in our networks is only ever going to rise in response to Americans' increasing internet usage.
Generally speaking , on ATT internet , you will get way better than what your being charged for .... for example if your asking for 50 mg, you will get 60mg ... if your asking for 100, it's usually 110 or better.
I think they said that UVerseTV takes up about 20 mbps and if UVerseTV customers got rid of UVerseTV their internet speed would automatically go up 20 mbps but would AT&T charge extra for that? Also I have 50 mbps AT&T Internet but sometimes I only get 25 mbps to 30 mbps on WIFI and other times I would get 45 mbps to 50 mbps.
AT&T said not long ago they would be launching another streaming TV service this summer, this one without the Directv brand. Maybe they were already planning to drop Directv?
WIFI varies according to set ups, your always gonna lose speed on wifi.
No it would not cost any difference...
When you get att service, your buying a package of internet speed (for lack of better way of putting it) ..
If you have say 25 mg service (internet wise), if you have TV you'll be on a 32-45 mg profile ... this way if you have TV service and you drop the TV, your internet speeds just improve.
No ....
That would be the ATT branded streaming service ...
Its been talked about here quite a bit.
That's great for you, but that is TOTALLY dependent on where you are. Talk to Comcast or AT&T customers in other locations and you'll get a completely different story. Places that have completed a DOCSIS 3.1 upgrade or have fiber to the home should be fine, but that's nowhere near 89% of the country.
The problem I have with streaming is that whenever two companies are involved and there is a problem they will inevitably point fingers at each other. I tried steaming Netflix when DVDs through the mailbox became a problem. About 20% of the time Netflix would load to 12% and stall. I would have to re-load or even unplug the unit to get it going. I finally called Netflix with this problem and sure enough I was told that it could not possibly be their problem and I should call my internet provider, at the time Time-Warner. I replied, "you really want me to call Time-Warner and tell them that I do not have a problem with any internet site on my computer or even numerous news and weather channels on the Roku but I do have a problem with Netflix and they say it is your fault! How do you think that conversation is going to go?"
I just used an antenna for a while and now have Directv.
I just used an antenna for a while and now have Directv.
I agree with Juan, sounds much more likely a router problem. Internet sites from a computer, news, weather etc are nothing like streaming Netflix and the problem of partially loading is a symptom of the router not handling the traffic. If you have a new highly rated router then perhaps not but older ones or even some new ones will work with mundane stuff but choke sometimes with heavier streaming. Can't count out the Roku having a problem either. In this case I have to agree with Netflix it is very unlikely their stream has any problems, much more likely something at your house, or the cable company having a good speed but with drop outs. Streaming is where drop outs become more noticed.
Well, save me some reading time if you don't mind. What's the reason AT&T is launching another streaming TV service when Directv Now is so popular?
I've had Netflix for years, never a problem. What you're talking about is either an internet connection problem or more likely a network problem. If you get your router from your ISP, go to the office and swap it out. You could also try moving your router closer to the streaming device. Also make sure you're using the 5Ghz band for streaming. If the 5Ghz signal is weak, you could try the 2.4Ghz band or just move your router closer and use the 5Ghz band. Otherwise, it may be time to get a new router. Or get your ISP out there to check your connection and maybe set you up with a new router.
- Status
