Maybe internet is DISH's opportunity!

[hectorshelagh2001]

With DirecTV picking up exclusive NFL rights it makes you wonder what road would open up for DISH as far as marketing goes ...

Voila ... DTV dropped all internet plans ...
Charlie ought to put all his energy (and the $$$ he saved on SPOT) into making DISH the ONLY DBS provider that offers internet.

:hi:

[raj2001]

Originally posted by hectorshelagh2001
Voila ... DTV dropped all internet plans ...
Charlie ought to put all his energy (and the $$$ he saved on SPOT) into making DISH the ONLY DBS provider that offers internet.

:hi:

I don't know about that. Echostar's partnership with StarBand pretty much fizzled out. I also don't see why TV and Internet access have to go together. I could understand why cable companies bundle them but I don't see why DBS companies have to bundle them, unless you're talking satellite access.

It's also a real tough market considering that cable has alot of advantages over DSL, especially in terms of availability. DBS companies are not going to be able to provide a good broadband alternative because DSL costs more for less bandwidth. Most people who have cable internet are also pretty happy with it, even though the TV side of the coin pretty much sucks, case in point being Cablevision and Optimum Online.

I think DBS companies should stick to providing good TV, which is what they're good at.

[MarkA]

Why? It's pointless. Satellite internet is behind the technology. It's slow (both high ping times and low throughput), and expensive. I'd take a guess that well over 90% of Americans have available landline broadband (DSL or cable). Heck, I live out in the middle of nowhere and could get DSL if I wanted. Most towns here in Montana have both DSL and Cable available. Satellite internet is aimed at too small of a market (and a market shrinking every day) to make it a wise business decision.

[Mark Holtz]

Satellite internet is the high-speed choice of last resort, and the lag time is usually unacceptable for any user, whether it be business or home user.

Unfortunately, the two high-speed alternatives, DSL and cable, have their own problems. In Sacramento county (which isn't very big compared to some southern California counties), there are three phone companies. SBC (formerly Pacific Bell) is the major provider for most of the Sacramento, but charges a hefty premium to co-locate equipment in their facilities, effectively locking out the competition in price. The other two phone companies, Surewest (formerly Roseville Telephone) and Frontier Communications (formerly Citizen's Utilities), qualify under the regulations as "small phone companies", and have effectively a monopoly on DSL. Since I'm in Surewest territory, it would cost me $50 per month for 384k down/128k up-literally half of SBC's transfer rates. In addition, there is three-mile limitation for ADSL/SDSL, and a six-mile limitation for IDSL (which is a glorified ISDN line).

The other alternative is AT&T Broadband/Comcast. After their last screw-up, I literally dropped them like a rock and went to DBS. If they wire me back up, they would most likely want to use the same line that is currently hooked up to my DBS receiver. After the local cableco switched from @Home to their own backbone, people noticed speed slowdowns, followed by speed caps and aggresive port scanning to see if you are running a server.

ISDN is the second-to-last resort for high-speed access. The speed limit is 128K.

Satellite Internet is the last resort. The high lag time makes it undesirable for both business and home users. If you are a business, you are most likely to have a T-1 line, co-locate your server at the ISP, or at the least, have the web site hosted at the ISP.

If you are a home user, you won't use satellite for high-speed access unless

[Jacob S]

How about wireless internet? Could they get into the market? Maybe they could distribute video in that way as well, into markets where locals are not yet available on satellite, and those would be the areas in which the internet would be needed anyways.

Maybe Dish should diversify too if the dealers should.

[Mark Holtz]

(It's way past my bedtime :yawn:)

Wireless Internet has been tried in several areas, but ever since the dot-com bust, noone has been willing to invest. You need to have the infrastructure in place AND a high-enough subscriber base AND try to price it competitively with existing Internet solutions.

The only wireless Internet solution that I'm familiar with is the San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose-based Ricchochet system which folded about a year ago due to lack of subscribers. Because of the terrain, that entire area is a nightmare for both cell phone providers and broadcasters, plus it's a wide-spread area. And, since you only have a limited amount of spectrum to use (per FCC rules), you've got a limitation right there.

How about DBS-like service, only for terrestrial use? That's the Northpoint proposal, not to be confused with the failed DSL venture. The ladies who run this company want to use the same spectrum that is used by both Dish Network and DirecTV. Northpoint claims that there will be no interference, and sticks by their "tests". Dish and DirecTV claim otherwise, and want more testing done, but Northpoint refuses. Northpoint also wants a government subsidy AND wants the licenses to operate FREE, but competitors want the licenses auctioned off. And, that's just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm too tired at the moment. (sigh)

And, slightly off-topic, but I know more about how this stuff works that I really should. Must be because I have a mechanical mind (formerly a industrial machinist) and I work with the Internet. I don't know everything, but have enough knowledge to know which direction to look for answers.

[Jacob S]

What if Dish and Direct could use these spectrums to share their satellite space their own selves, what would they think then? Why not do this to solve the locals and internet issue? Could sharing also be done with cell phone towers?