The End of DIRECTV?

[slice1900]

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.

The reason is because of the way the FCC allows providers to report. If a cable company has a single customer in a given area (not sure if it is a zip code or broken down smaller) eligible for 10 Mbps service, they count that area as "having broadband". Doesn't matter if 99% of the customers in that area can't get service that fast - or any service at all!

There has been some talk over the years in the FCC for them to request reporting be done differently, but the broadband providers always push back. They claim it would be "too expensive" to provide detail down to the house - nevermind that most providers allow you to type in your address on their web page and they'll tell you what level of service you can get! The real reason is because they don't want it known how many people don't have broadband, because then they might be required to do something about it.

Microsoft would have pretty good data, even if not everyone has a Windows PC enough do that they can figure out the speed based on delivery of Windows updates, etc. I'd definitely believe that over the useless info in the "official" broadband map the FCC shows.

 

[slice1900]

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.

When AT&T first announced the "Directv over IP" product, it was supposed to arrive in Q4 of this year. Now they seem to be saying Q2 of next year, which is probably why they pushed back stopping new installs of Uverse TV.

 

[al]

The reason is because of the way the FCC allows providers to report. If a cable company has a single customer in a given area (not sure if it is a zip code or broken down smaller) eligible for 10 Mbps service, they count that area as "having broadband". Doesn't matter if 99% of the customers in that area can't get service that fast - or any service at all!

There has been some talk over the years in the FCC for them to request reporting be done differently, but the broadband providers always push back. They claim it would be "too expensive" to provide detail down to the house - nevermind that most providers allow you to type in your address on their web page and they'll tell you what level of service you can get! The real reason is because they don't want it known how many people don't have broadband, because then they might be required to do something about it.

Microsoft would have pretty good data, even if not everyone has a Windows PC enough do that they can figure out the speed based on delivery of Windows updates, etc. I'd definitely believe that over the useless info in the "official" broadband map the FCC shows.

It is by census tract. We are a small WISP, and have the ability to report to a specific address, but that is not what the FCC asks for.

 

[NashGuy]

When AT&T first announced the "Directv over IP" product, it was supposed to arrive in Q4 of this year. Now they seem to be saying Q2 of next year, which is probably why they pushed back stopping new installs of Uverse TV.

Yes, that's what I'm thinking too. Although, who knows, maybe AT&T is crazy enough to keep Uverse TV around too but it's essentially been a zombie service for awhile now and I can't see the point in operating that separate platform any longer than it takes to herd the sheep over to the new service.

 

[NashGuy]

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

150 million?! I can believe that the FCC number is too low but 150 million people is about 45% of the total US population! Less than 20% of Americans are defined by the government as "rural" residents, and those areas of course are the places where lots of homes aren't wired with cable or fiber.

At any rate, here's a good little overview that talks about the three most promising developments that could bring broadband to rural America in the coming few years.
Microsoft, SpaceX, and T-Mobile's various plans to bring broadband to rural America | ZDNet

 

[slice1900]

150 million?! I can believe that the FCC number is too low but 150 million people is about 45% of the total US population! Less than 20% of Americans are defined by the government as "rural" residents, and those areas of course are the places where lots of homes aren't wired with cable or fiber.

At any rate, here's a good little overview that talks about the three most promising developments that could bring broadband to rural America in the coming few years.
Microsoft, SpaceX, and T-Mobile's various plans to bring broadband to rural America | ZDNet

If you think it is only rural people who don't have broadband you haven't been around much. There are a lot of areas served by smaller cable companies that haven't upgraded their infrastructure in years, and their DSL options aren't any better. There are people in the middle of big cities that don't have good broadband, especially if they are in a poorer area. Cable/telcos tend not to invest in upgrades in those areas because there are fewer broadband subscribers.

There have been stories about companies planning to bring broadband to the rural US since the early 2000s. There have been a lot of companies talking about using satellites. History is littered with failures people were touting as solving the problem soon from Teledesic in the 90s to Google "Loon" project (they still talk about it every year or so, so maybe you can't call it a "failure" yet, but it sure isn't coming anytime soon) ZDNet wrote multiple articles about them, too.

 

[nelson61]

If you think it is only rural people who don't have broadband you haven't been around much. There are a lot of areas served by smaller cable companies that haven't upgraded their infrastructure in years, and their DSL options aren't any better. There are people in the middle of big cities that don't have good broadband, especially if they are in a poorer area. Cable/telcos tend not to invest in upgrades in those areas because there are fewer broadband subscribers.
.

I was one of them. The fiber optic was a half mile away and they told me there were not enough good customers to pay for the node in my area. $225,000 investment.
I was buttering up the local boss for two years and had finally convinced them to do it.
Then a big storm came along and wiped out everything and the government stepped in with an investment tax holiday and everybody got fiber optic instead of replacing the old copper lines.

 

[navychop]

By definition, once channels 38-51 are vacated by TV stations, there is no white space for T-Mobile to use. It’s just bandwidth, carved up differently.

I seem to recall reading somewhere about drawbacks to using the so called whitespace between TV channels in use. So that idea might be another broadband over power lines.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[ncted]

If you think it is only rural people who don't have broadband you haven't been around much. There are a lot of areas served by smaller cable companies that haven't upgraded their infrastructure in years, and their DSL options aren't any better. There are people in the middle of big cities that don't have good broadband, especially if they are in a poorer area. Cable/telcos tend not to invest in upgrades in those areas because there are fewer broadband subscribers.

There have been stories about companies planning to bring broadband to the rural US since the early 2000s. There have been a lot of companies talking about using satellites. History is littered with failures people were touting as solving the problem soon from Teledesic in the 90s to Google "Loon" project (they still talk about it every year or so, so maybe you can't call it a "failure" yet, but it sure isn't coming anytime soon) ZDNet wrote multiple articles about them, too.

Yeah, redlining in urban areas is a big problem with internet service.

 

[mwdxer1]

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

I still use satellite as well as the Roku & Fire TV as add-ons. It gives me programming not available elsewhere.

 

[mwdxer1]

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.

I still have my BUD, mainly for the diginets. I have read, the satellite service to TV stations, those years are numbered too as more services go to some form of fiber or streaming. So I am wondering what will still be up there in 5-10 years?

 

[mwdxer1]

If you think it is only rural people who don't have broadband you haven't been around much. There are a lot of areas served by smaller cable companies that haven't upgraded their infrastructure in years, and their DSL options aren't any better. There are people in the middle of big cities that don't have good broadband, especially if they are in a poorer area. Cable/telcos tend not to invest in upgrades in those areas because there are fewer broadband subscribers.

There have been stories about companies planning to bring broadband to the rural US since the early 2000s. There have been a lot of companies talking about using satellites. History is littered with failures people were touting as solving the problem soon from Teledesic in the 90s to Google "Loon" project (they still talk about it every year or so, so maybe you can't call it a "failure" yet, but it sure isn't coming anytime soon) ZDNet wrote multiple articles about them, too.

Century Link have talked about bring DSL out here for 10 years and yet we still do not have it. But we have Spectrum (Charter) and it is good with no caps.

 

[NashGuy]

If you think it is only rural people who don't have broadband you haven't been around much. There are a lot of areas served by smaller cable companies that haven't upgraded their infrastructure in years, and their DSL options aren't any better. There are people in the middle of big cities that don't have good broadband, especially if they are in a poorer area. Cable/telcos tend not to invest in upgrades in those areas because there are fewer broadband subscribers.

There have been stories about companies planning to bring broadband to the rural US since the early 2000s. There have been a lot of companies talking about using satellites. History is littered with failures people were touting as solving the problem soon from Teledesic in the 90s to Google "Loon" project (they still talk about it every year or so, so maybe you can't call it a "failure" yet, but it sure isn't coming anytime soon) ZDNet wrote multiple articles about them, too.

Broadband -- as defined by the FCC as at least 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up -- is very, very widespread throughout urban and suburban areas. Yes, I'm sure you can find isolated instances of individual who reside outside of areas defined as "rural" by the federal government who don't have access to wired broadband service but, again, I'd say they're a tiny fraction of those non-rural residents. All credible data that I've seen -- as well as my personal observations via travel and acquaintances -- support that view.

You're welcome to believe whatever you like -- and decry all the available data sets as "fake news" -- but the onus is on you to link to credible data that supports your view. But then, as we both know, you never really do that.

 

[bluegras]

DIRECTV NOW is Asking For Public Testers For Their New Streaming Player - Cord Cutters News

Directv is looking for public testers for their new streaming box from cord cutter news

 

[wvman]

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.

The problem with FTA is companies like Charter going after the C-Band satellites. Charter files for C-Band tests in Florida | FierceWireless They're looking to expand their coverage by utilizing C-Band satellites to broaden their coverage area. If their test are successful, and they can convince the FCC to give them the C-Band spectrum, FTA will eventually be a thing of the past.

Here the plan.

1. Shrink the amount of the 3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum allocated for satellite use and reallocate for 5G cellular use. This is almost certain to happen, since North America's four main C-band satellite operators are all on board with giving up 200 MHz of spectrum and reaping the profits of doing so. The FCC could require them to give up more than 200 MHz of spectrum, however.
2. After shrinking the C-band spectrum for satellite use, allowing wireless internet companies to share the remaining C-band spectrum with satellite users.

I knew when the FCC forced everything to go digital, there was more up their sleeve than their watch, but at the time, it wasn't clear what they were up to.

 

[nelson61]

Broadband -- as defined by the FCC as at least 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up -- is very, very widespread throughout urban and suburban areas. Yes, I'm sure you can find isolated instances of individual who reside outside of areas defined as "rural" by the federal government who don't have access to wired broadband service but, again, I'd say they're a tiny fraction of those non-rural residents. All credible data that I've seen -- as well as my personal observations via travel and acquaintances -- support that view.

You're welcome to believe whatever you like -- and decry all the available data sets as "fake news" -- but the onus is on you to link to credible data that supports your view. But then, as we both know, you never really do that.

I'd say Microsoft is a credible source with hard facts, not opinions.

 

[slice1900]

You're welcome to believe whatever you like -- and decry all the available data sets as "fake news" -- but the onus is on you to link to credible data that supports your view. But then, as we both know, you never really do that.

If you choose not to believe Microsoft's ACTUAL MEASURED DATA, over self-reported data from ISPs that is known to be flawed - admitted to by both the present republican chair of the FCC and the past democrat chair of the FCC - then I don't know what would convince you.

Let's see you provide some credible data showing the picture you claim, that isn't from the FCC? Surely other internet companies like Google or one of the big CDNs like Akamai has some data. You're just doing a lot of hand waving and ad hominem attacks.

 

[raoul5788]

Let's keep the posts about the subject and not each other.

 

[wvman]

I'd say Microsoft is a credible source with hard facts, not opinions.

Is this the same Microsoft selling an operating system loaded with vulnerabilities that require constant updates and patches to keep it operable after being released to the public with full knowledge of that their software is defective, while using John Q. Public as a "Guinea Pig" to test their OP system..... ?

Not to mention the fact that Microsoft forces their customers to purchase a new OP system every few years, rather than building on the one we already own. Isn't that a bit like letting three wolves and a lamb decide what's for supper?

 

[JSheridan]

Broadband -- as defined by the FCC as at least 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up -- is very, very widespread throughout urban and suburban areas. Yes, I'm sure you can find isolated instances of individual who reside outside of areas defined as "rural" by the federal government who don't have access to wired broadband service but, again, I'd say they're a tiny fraction of those non-rural residents. All credible data that I've seen -- as well as my personal observations via travel and acquaintances -- support that view.

You're welcome to believe whatever you like -- and decry all the available data sets as "fake news" -- but the onus is on you to link to credible data that supports your view. But then, as we both know, you never really do that.

We are less than 20 miles from the capital of one of the largest states in the country and there's nothing but 6/.6 DSL around here. And just a few miles from here there's nothing at all except satellite internet available. That's the way it is almost everywhere around here so I definitely wouldn't call that isolated.

I think it's funny how folks that live in the city think that everybody's got fast internet like they do but that's not the case at all.