The End of DIRECTV?

[SamCdbs]

AT&T, back to even its previous incarnation as "the phone company" has always been more fascinated with technology than it has been a good marketer.

So, here we have the classic issue. What makes you different?

Until very recently, DirecTV was a part of what, to most people, was a choice between three. DirecTV, DISH, and one and only one cable company. And there are plenty of reason to recommend DirecTV. (and the other two, depending on one's situation, not going to that argument). And DirecTV rose from zero to 20M customers.

Now, flash forward to the end of the life of the current satellites. Assume, for the sake of argument, that all the technological and other issues are solved.

Dear AT&T, you ain't special. There will be 10s of 1000s of companies doing exactly the same thing. There would never be 20M customers with any one service.

Collect underpants,
???,
Profit.

 

[wvman]

Yes, I think thats a common issue, people watch what they like channel wise ...If they didn't have whatever channel, Someone would want it, so you can never win with everyone.

Many years ago I sat down with my old Cable Company list of channels and marked channels I watch regularly and those that I watch once in a while and looked at the list and it was about 25 in total. that's even the fringe watching channels ....
Then I went and looked at the C-Band side for those channels and invested in C-Band ... this was before D* was around.

People will say that you should be able to go with ala carte,, but that option is never gonna be good for the sub as you would end up paying much more for those channels due to the way channels are paid for ...
Most of those Shopping channels and "junk" channels are there because of the agreements made to watch the Channels you all Want ... those Junk channels are owned by the companies that also own the channels that you NEED.

My biggest gripe are the commercials. There so many of them that they're fighting for air time, and some of the channels are even cutting them short in order to get more in the same time slot. What's even worse are the ones like the anti-bags under your eyes commercial that last for several minutes. I get so aggrivated with these commercials I either change channels or pop in a DVD and forget about the program I was watching.

I think it's about time the FCC imposes limits on the duration and frequency of the commercials since the service is a subscription service. I read an article a while back that said television commercials literally turned into a trillion dollar industry. The providers could literally give you the programming free and still make tons of money off advertisements.

I'm not a bit happy when I find a movie want to watch, which isn't easy these days, and every 10 minutes they go to a commercial, especially when the commercial break is longer than the time between them. If you've noticed, classics like "Gone With The Wind" have been chopped to pieces due to their left wing sensorship over something said or done they perceive as a racial slur, with complete disregard for filthy language.

Even Grit filters out certain parts of a movie because of comments some perceive as inappropriate. If it had been a rapper calling for the death of a cop or the president, it would have been allowed no matter how offensive it was. That's one reason I dumped all pay TV services.

 

[slice1900]

The thing is, Directv Now was reasonably priced when it came out ... they want to move everyone to D* Now now ... Get rid of the Sats .. thats thier plan anyways, BUT as soon as they get a good streaming base on D*N, they go and RAISE PRICES, so now its not as good a deal as it was ...THEN 2 months later (maybe 3-4) they raised them again.

That's because they were (and still are) LOSING MONEY on Directv Now (not my speculation, AT&T has stated this) Like all the other streaming MVPDs, they are trying to grab market share now and outlast the competition

Why in the world would you believe that a service that costs less than half what Directv satellite does could possibly be profitable? They still pay the same $10+ per month for locals, the same nearly $10 per month for ESPN, etc. They don't get discounts because it is streaming.

 

[CSM]

I read a post responding the article at CordcuttersNews about either the end of DirecTV over SatelliteTV or about DTV Now and they suggested that DTV Now was actually testbed for DTV over IP and that will be replaced by DTV over IP because it might be confusing to some people having those two DTV streaming services because why would they need two accounts thinking they would be the same streaming service.

 

[TheTechGuru]

Sounds like those of us that live outside the reach of unmetered broadband need to be prepared to get back into C-Band/FTA satellite...

The govt needs to force AT&T to replace all copper (including rural) with fiber if they want to do this.

 

[Claude Greiner]

The end will begin when we see 1 box that will do U-verse, Directv Now, and Directv Satellite. Depending on the area the box will either get a satellite connection, internet connection or both.

It will be 1 platform and will all work the same no matter if the content is delivered by fiber or satellite

 

[bamasat]

( as has been & was mentioned)

AT&T purchased the satellite company for base number american channel negotiations and for Latin American business growth opportunity(s).
For the most part-
-That IS the summary.
Nothing more / nothing less.

-cross buy internet implementation (sales of internet from other "participating partner" telcos) is also already being used in certain non " piped" At&t areas considering tv and cell phone bundles with potential current D-now customers and the new form of transitioned sat customer prequel to come.

The Pebble in the water has already been thrown


Sent from my Moto Z3 Play using Tapatalk

 

[Inclined Orbit]

Ever since ATT acquired Directv most employees including DTV Latin America don't think they have much interest in the Latin American business growth and in fact fear they will spin off the Latin American side. DTVLA seems more like a caboose at the end of the train that they would like to unhook and pull away from.

( as has been & was mentioned)

AT&T purchased the satellite company for base number american channel negotiations and for Latin American business growth opportunity(s).
For the most part-
-That IS the summary.
Nothing more / nothing less.

-cross buy internet implementation (sales of internet from other "participating partner" telcos) is also already being used in certain non " piped" At&t areas considering tv and cell phone bundles with potential current D-now customers and the new form of transitioned sat customer prequel to come.

The Pebble in the water has already been thrown


Sent from my Moto Z3 Play using Tapatalk

 

[CSM]

Saw this article and it had info on the T-14 and its T-15 and T-16.

“No more satellites” says DirecTV owners

The most recent launches of DirecTV satellites for US viewers were DirecTV 14 on Dec 6th 2014. DirecTV-14 has a 15-year planned mission lifetime, or until 2029, and operating from 99 degrees West. On May 27th last year DirecTV-15 was launched to 103 deg West, and in theory, good until 2032.

DirecTV-16 is reportedly being built by Airbus Defence & Space, but – as yet – the contract has not been announced.

 

[nelson61]

DirecTV-16 is reportedly being built by Airbus Defence & Space, but – as yet – the contract has not been announced.

And it likely not be announced since construction must have been completed and it is waiting for a ride (probably by Airiane since they typically piggy back two satellites and the big launch variable is when two of the right size are available at the same time a rocket is ready). So, their posted launch schedules are usually a bit vague.

From Directv's October 2108 filing requesting permit to launch ---

"DIRECTV has begun construction of T16 at its own risk and expects the satellite to be ready for launch and operation in the first quarter of 2019."

 

[slice1900]

Airbus mentioned the contract a couple years ago. It takes a LONG TIME to build these satellites, they can't just order one up and have it ready in a couple months.

Airbus doesn't do the press releases, the company paying for the satellite does - if they want to. Directv always did press releases in the past because they had something to crow about - the new satellite would add locals for more markets, more HD, or support future 4K broadcasts. T16 doesn't do anything new, it simply replaces existing capacity. So I guess they figured not really worth a press release when they contracted for its construction like past satellites.

 

[Jimbo]

Sounds like those of us that live outside the reach of unmetered broadband need to be prepared to get back into C-Band/FTA satellite...

The govt needs to force AT&T to replace all copper (including rural) with fiber if they want to do this.

Well THAT ain't gonna happen ...

 

[navychop]

I suppose it’s POSSIBLE that T16 could be sold to someone else for other uses, if it’s flexible enough. Either before or after launch.

Doubtful. But maybe AT&T would do it if they could.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[bamasat]

Ever since ATT acquired Directv most employees including DTV Latin America don't think they have much interest in the Latin American business growth and in fact fear they will spin off the Latin American side. DTVLA seems more like a caboose at the end of the train that they would like to unhook and pull away from.

Information is From one a the very few white shirts actual mouth and face to face at time of waiting for approval.
Primary aquirement was for american channel negotiation numbers .
The reference to Latin America is from outside the US to eliminate any confusion.

Also the use of other
" partner telcos " is very recent.


Sent from my Moto Z3 Play using Tapatalk

 

[slice1900]

Here's another point for those who believe that Directv will try to entice/force existing satellite customers to switch to the upcoming IP version of Directv - it will almost certainly cost less. The programming cost will be identical, so why would they want to make less money? If customers WANT to switch, sure, I doubt they'll have any problem with it. But they aren't going to go looking for customers to convert so they can make less money. Even if you assume there's cost associated with having to go out to their house every few years because their LNB has gone bad or their Genie crapped out, a small $10/month difference would more than make up for that.

We don't know what the new product's pricing will be, but I think it is safe to assume it won't be the same as the satellite product. If nothing else, they would have to drop the $15/month "advanced receiver fee" since there is no Genie included...

 

[mdram]

Here's another point for those who believe that Directv will try to entice/force existing satellite customers to switch to the upcoming IP version of Directv - it will almost certainly cost less. The programming cost will be identical, so why would they want to make less money? If customers WANT to switch, sure, I doubt they'll have any problem with it. But they aren't going to go looking for customers to convert so they can make less money. Even if you assume there's cost associated with having to go out to their house every few years because their LNB has gone bad or their Genie crapped out, a small $10/month difference would more than make up for that.

We don't know what the new product's pricing will be, but I think it is safe to assume it won't be the same as the satellite product. If nothing else, they would have to drop the $15/month "advanced receiver fee" since there is no Genie included...

again. the ip version is not even in the thought of many users. as they have directv because there is no cable, and therefore no internet.

 

[slice1900]

again. the ip version is not even in the thought of many users. as they have directv because there is no cable, and therefore no internet.

I know that, but there are a lot of people who think Directv is going to be doing everything they can to get existing satellite customers who can switch to switch to the IP product. For reasons they can't seem to specify other than because "satellite is old tech" or because they have some weird idea that Directv is going to shut down satellite in a few years despite having satellites that won't need replacement for at least a decade.

Often accompanied by a fantasy that all those rural areas you are talking about will have high speed 5G in just two or three years.

 

[NashGuy]

The end will begin when we see 1 box that will do U-verse, Directv Now, and Directv Satellite. Depending on the area the box will either get a satellite connection, internet connection or both.

It will be 1 platform and will all work the same no matter if the content is delivered by fiber or satellite

I can't imagine what the rationale would be to continue installing, operating and supporting Uverse TV once AT&T next year launches a new DirecTV-branded streaming service that comes with its own dedicated thin-client box. Uverse TV runs on an outdated platform and they haven't really advertised or improved it in years. I would bet that the forthcoming service -- which will be offered nationwide, regardless of who your broadband provider is -- will be structured to give AT&T better margins than is the case with Uverse TV. Surely it will be the default option they seek to bundle with new sign-ups for AT&T Internet.

Maybe he had bad information, but when I asked a local AT&T installer back in the spring about the future of Uverse TV, he responded that they would stop installing it for new customers at some point in 2018. I'm guessing that's been pushed back to 2019 now, to follow the launch of the upcoming new streaming DirecTV service.

 

[nelson61]

Going to be a while for streaming to all.

Microsoft had a recent presser where they compared their broadband speed numbers collected from actual connections (office, edge, etc) to the published FCC numbers.

They report example county where FCC says there is 100 percent broadband and they report 2 percent.

FCC says something like 27 million lack broadband. Microsoft data says it is something like 150 million.

Why the difference?

FCC uses self reporting data provided by the broadband providers . The broadband providers puff their coverage with a wink and nod.
Microsoft uses hard data from actual connections.

 

[mdram]

Microsoft says the rural broadband divide is worse than you think