The End of DIRECTV?

[Juan]

unless those areas dont have internet

The populated areas are the ones who can't have dishes..i.e. apartments, condos, town houses etc..rather than the lucky few who have a good line of sight..a whole slew of new customers will be a available

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[mdram]

The populated areas are the ones who can't have dishes..i.e. apartments, condos, town houses etc..rather than the lucky few who have a good line of sight..a whole slew of new customers will be a available

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

and directv created directvnow for those areas

by eliminated new satellites, it will also eliminate a large customer base, eventually.
one where there are only 2 choices, directv or dish.
vs the many choices in areas with internet
why compete against 20 when you can compete against 1?

 

[Juan]

and directv created directvnow for those areas

by eliminated new satellites, it will also eliminate a large customer base, eventually.
one where there are only 2 choices, directv or dish.
vs the many choices in areas with internet
why compete against 20 when you can compete against 1?

The rural areas are not profitable enough to stand by themselves...its all about making money

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[mdram]

The rural areas are not profitable enough to stand by themselves...its all about making money

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

true, but that was the purpose of satellite. more coverage for less infrastructure
it cost pennies per month per sub over the lifetime of a sat. much cheaper than installing a cable network

 

[Bruce]

true, but that was the purpose of satellite. more coverage for less infrastructure
it cost pennies per month per sub over the lifetime of a sat. much cheaper than installing a cable network

If that was the only costs involved (building, launching, maintaining Satellites) I could see them keeping DirecTV as is, but do not forget the other costs-Employees, no more installs no more need for so many employees.

This is how corporations think, why I left that world a long time ago.


Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys

 

[Tampa8]

true, but that was the purpose of satellite. more coverage for less infrastructure
it cost pennies per month per sub over the lifetime of a sat. much cheaper than installing a cable network

But that's not the comparison for At&t. Short term it's no boxes to maintain, install, have made, etc. It's not launching Satellites and importantly employ far less people to get it done. In return send the same content via the existing internet as with Directv Now. There is zero doubt Directv Now is a trial balloon and it looks like At&t liked the results. I also bet there is zero chance At&t cares about reaching everyone what they care about is the lower cost to reach as many as possible two different things. But they are also looking to the future that has just about arrived to send entertainment solely by cellular but not just to cell phones and tablets. And look for cell companies to incorporate OTA when ATSC 3.0 is implemented.

 

[mdram]

possibly, but at the cost of how many customers? and will you make up for them in new subs?
remember its 15% of the us population base that has no broadband access
those people are either with dish or directv, or nothing

turn off the sats and dish will see a huge subscriber bump, and directv a huge loss

 

[SamCdbs]

IMHO,

- There are millions of people who cannot get appropriate internet service at a fair price, and many of those same people cannot get OTA TV either. The dish, back to the days of BUD, brought those people what others took for granted. They remain a market, and somebody, be it DISH and/or the next buyer of DirecTV (it does change hands a lot) will serve it.

- The technology for "everybody" watching TV on the internet, just is not there yet.

- In my area, and I believe many areas, internet = the cable company. And cable companies are EVIL. It goes out for days at a time. They don't care. That is what cable is, people that provide the lowest possible service.

- From Tiger-Phil (something that 0.3% of the population tried to watch) to 100 other, just read awful announcing to understand the inability of the internet to get it done.

- All of the internet TV math presuposes you are going to buy the internet anyway. Well, a lot of people, millions actually, do not use the internet. So its internet bill plus TV bill, and the math is totally different.

 

[Juan]

true, but that was the purpose of satellite. more coverage for less infrastructure
it cost pennies per month per sub over the lifetime of a sat. much cheaper than installing a cable network

Its not that...its the cord cutters...fewer potential customers...you don't need internet to cut the cord

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[mdram]

Its not that...its the cord cutters...fewer potential customers...you don't need internet to cut the cord

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

that is true, but 99% of people that say 'i cut the cord" just switch to streaming.

 

[CSM]

One way to look at is keep SatelliteTV around to work out the bugs of DTV over IP also while shifting them over to DTV over IP. Also their is the cost savings of maintaining the truck fleet, gas, truck insurance and the warehouses that keep the SatelliteTV equipment. You could keep the streaming boxes at the call centers since they are small. They would also not have to worry about the OSHA rules for replacing the LNB's if they went bad.

Also I read a post that NashGuy did over at another forum and he brought up a good point about DTV over IP is not meant for cord cutters since its the full premium service of DTV. I also never thought of rural customers like Juan said would AT&T consider them a profitable segment? However, their is Hughes Net and Via Sat Satellite internet for rural customers.

 

[Inclined Orbit]

The ATT 5yr plan will allow them to build out fiber, 5G or other ways to deliver content to a large portion of their subscribers before turning off the sats. Just a few years ago when I had ATT DSL that peaked at 1.5mb, I asked several times if they had plans to run fiber in my area for faster Internet and each time they said no, forget about it. Then all of a sudden a little more than a year ago ATT trucks are all over town pulling fiber into our neighborhoods around here. I suspect similar things will be happening in other areas.

 

[mdram]

The ATT 5yr plan will allow them to build out fiber, 5G or other ways to deliver content to a large portion of their subscribers before turning off the sats. Just a few years ago when I had ATT DSL that peaked at 1.5mb, I asked several times if they had plans to run fiber in my area for faster Internet and each time they said no, forget about it. Then all of a sudden a little more than a year ago ATT trucks are all over town pulling fiber into our neighborhoods around here. I suspect similar things will be happening in other areas.

building out 5g/fiber to the rural subs spread all over the country is not feasible in 5 years

especially since att does not even service much of the country with any internet

 

[Juan]

One way to look at is keep SatelliteTV around to work out the bugs of DTV over IP also while shifting them over to DTV over IP. Also their is the cost savings of maintaining the truck fleet, gas, truck insurance and the warehouses that keep the SatelliteTV equipment. You could keep the streaming boxes at the call centers since they are small. They would also not have to worry about the OSHA rules for replacing the LNB's if they went bad.

Also I read a post that NashGuy did over at another forum and he brought up a good point about DTV over IP is not meant for cord cutters since its the full premium service of DTV. I also never thought of rural customers like Juan said would AT&T consider them a profitable segment? However, their is Hughes Net and Via Sat Satellite internet for rural customers.

Dish owns hughesnet

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[Juan]

building out 5g/fiber to the rural subs spread all over the country is not feasible in 5 years

especially since att does not even service much of the country with any internet

I wonder if people said the samething about phone service in the 1800's?

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[mdram]

I wonder if people said the samething about phone service in the 1800's?

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

and it took alot longer, and gov subsidies, to make it to rural areas

 

[Inclined Orbit]

I suspect ATT has a business model that shows loosing a percentage of their customers when the sats are turned off and adopting a Netflix model will be more profitable than continuing building and launching satellites, employing installers, uplink site personnel, warehouses for equipment, etc. They can (and will) lay off a lot of employees in the process, and by the way, more ATT layoffs are coming this January!

building out 5g/fiber to the rural subs spread all over the country is not feasible in 5 years

especially since att does not even service much of the country with any internet

 

[navychop]

I wonder if AirGig will be cheaper to deploy than 5G. And if either will really use drones for part of the install.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[mdram]

I wonder if AirGig will be cheaper to deploy than 5G. And if either will really use drones for part of the install.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

some of that could depend on who owns those utility poles, rents for the space, ect, then what to do where the lines are buried.

its not as simple as just plopping something up there

 

[CSM]

Dish owns hughesnet

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

I didn't know that Dish owned them. However, AT&T did say you can use any internet provider with DTV over IP but they would still prefer you to use theirs.