Will the plan come together? (VOD, BPL, 100HD)

[MikeR]

Thought this was an interesting report on the overall view of Directv's approach to negating some of the inherent cable advantage.

Personally, the D* approach seems to be coming together. Hr20 capabilities, DOD, BPL/Homeplug, WiMax...
Although it did focus entirely on Cable vs. Satellite, Fios is the wildcard in some affluent/poplulated areas.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0082/t.8585.html
Your thoughts?

Edit: I do not consider the U-verse offering as a contender in the content delivery field...

[PlanetBill]

Those who have hooked up their box to a home network will also be able to stream online video to their TV sets later this year

Streaming online video, like you tube or from my pc? Or is this refering to DOD...

[Earl Bonovich]

From the PC...

But my gosh... why would you want the ultra compressed, tiny versions from youtube on your 50+" TV ? ;)

[gully_foyle]

I do not consider the U-verse offering as a contender in the content delivery field...Good, because it isn't and never will be. I live in an SBC franchise, but I'd never consider U-verse as it stands, even if it ever got out in the real world. Mainly the design is obsolete -- one (1) HD channel, switched, to the household plus a few SD channels and DSL-level internet. I have better than that now with DSL + DirecTV.

It's like they lay fiber then choke it to death. What part of gigabit bandwidth did they not understand? Apparently most of it.

[bwaldron]

Your thoughts?


DirecTV can perhaps do enough to stay in the game, but trying to really compete with cable/FIOS in the on-demand and "triple play" world just won't work IMHO, other than in rural areas where customer choice is currently more limited.

On the other hand, I'm sure that there are many customers like myself, for whom such features are not the driver of their provider choice. I have FIOS available to me, and as such am bombarded with attractive teaser-rate package deals from them and the local cable company. I'm staying with DirecTV, though, as they meet my programming needs (esp. sports) the best.

I don't think that on-demand and ISP services should be the key part of DirecTV strategy; they should focus primarily on their core competence/service IMHO.

[syphix]

From the PC...

But my gosh... why would you want the ultra compressed, tiny versions from youtube on your 50+" TV ? ;)Free pr0n?


:);)

[bwaldron]

Free pr0n?

In which case the tiny version may in fact look better ;)

[PlanetBill]

From the PC...

But my gosh... why would you want the ultra compressed, tiny versions from youtube on your 50+" TV ? ;)

home video's etc...

[Stuart Sweet]

From the PC...

But my gosh... why would you want the ultra compressed, tiny versions from youtube on your 50+" TV ? ;)

Exactly what I ask myself, yet people download iTunes programming and stream it to appleTV, and the quality is not much better.

[1948GG]

DirecTV can perhaps do enough to stay in the game, but trying to really compete with cable/FIOS in the on-demand and "triple play" world just won't work IMHO, other than in rural areas where customer choice is currently more limited.
I don't think that on-demand and ISP services should be the key part of DirecTV strategy; they should focus primarily on their core competence/service IMHO.

Actually, I think the working in rural areas is the exact opposite of where it will work, in the urban/suburban areas where the wealth of highspeed IP services make it more feasible. If anyone could figure out the proper mix of 'broadband' via sat (Hughes make a valiant try with Spaceway, I think that eventually the idea and market will meet at some lonely country road at some future time!) for the truely remote rural market, but Wimax may provide a good stopgap/filler in the 'near-suburban' environment.

The 'mix' of services available to folks in this country are simply too large and varied for ONE template to work, even when one partners up with the incumbent telco, power company (BPL), or whoever. It will only work in a limited number of locations, and the potential customer probably knows already who can/will provide satisfactory service (although many people, particularly in the U.S., are pretty lazy still when it come to making those types of decisions thanks to generations of 'ma Bell' thinking).

I've consulted with a few companies that tried to be 'clearing houses' of telecommunications services and such, and it's basically a real mess out there. You have 50 states with 50 PUC's (utility commissions), and literally hundreds of subsections within each of those 50 states, and where each state representative has at least 5+ dedicated lobbyists from all the telcos and cablecos operating in their state (and a few that don't! they are always on the lookout for more handouts!).

So it's really going to come down to personal choice/initiative; I'm sure that the partnering with the telco will get them maybe 80% of the target audience with DSL or enhanced DSL, with reasonable speeds and such. That last 20% is going to be a bugger though.

A slight detour here: I still don't think folks quite have their minds wrapped around this 'streaming' thing quite totally; I tried a couple of times explaining before, but here it goes again. Speed is not really that big of a factor/issue, when pushing bits out to folks, above certain minimum (with DSL, say 768k/128k). The amount of data that can be streamed through that connection in 24 hours is massive, in a week, jaw-dropping. With tons of space left over for the usual email, web browsing, etc. And that speed is currently available at least 10 miles from the host connection (the central office or DLC/DSLAM concentrator box).

That's all one needs; the 'mix' of the satellite bandwidth 'push' (on heavily requested items) and ground-based links, will prove to be very flexible, now that the concentration point (that DVR) is at the customers location. IF it's done right. It can easily be done wrong. But lots of people have been thinking of the right ways to do this, have come up with the equation templet's long ago.

[wavemaster]

The whole problem with cable is there is a finite amount of data that can be pushed through it.

This is the reason comcast and others are shutting down "unlimited accounts" for over-usage on the CM's. All of a sudden the kid across the street surfing porn is pixilating the content on another neighbors feed.

I heard a recent press release saying comcast would have 400 hd channels in 07 and 800 in 08. Not sure where the content will come from (I guess they will start bringing in channels from other countries) but there is no way they will stuff it down the pipe they have now.

[Lord Vader]

I heard a recent press release saying comcast would have 400 hd channels in 07 and 800 in 08. Not sure where the content will come from (I guess they will start bringing in channels from other countries) but there is no way they will stuff it down the pipe they have now.

Easily, they'l just slow everybody down to dial-up speed to allow for more overpriced, under quality cable channels for which they'll require you to get a digital cable box or pay ungodly extra fees.

[Ken S]

A slight detour here: I still don't think folks quite have their minds wrapped around this 'streaming' thing quite totally; I tried a couple of times explaining before, but here it goes again. Speed is not really that big of a factor/issue, when pushing bits out to folks, above certain minimum (with DSL, say 768k/128k). The amount of data that can be streamed through that connection in 24 hours is massive, in a week, jaw-dropping. With tons of space left over for the usual email, web browsing, etc. And that speed is currently available at least 10 miles from the host connection (the central office or DLC/DSLAM concentrator box).

That's all one needs; the 'mix' of the satellite bandwidth 'push' (on heavily requested items) and ground-based links, will prove to be very flexible, now that the concentration point (that DVR) is at the customers location. IF it's done right. It can easily be done wrong. But lots of people have been thinking of the right ways to do this, have come up with the equation templet's long ago.

I have to disagree with you here at least for the future.

The current model is expensive and doesn't realy work for true DoD. It "kind of" works for SD programming when you do things like what they're doing with the Vudu box, but that all breaks down when you get to high-quality, high-definition programming. The bandwidth necessary to push that type of content though to the end-user at a speed where the wait to start viewing isn't at least an hour is a minimum of 10x what you suggest.

There's another problem with the current model...it requires users or the content transmitters to support relatively expensive and large hard drives to hold the pre-requested content from the satellite and any requested programming. It gets worse with the inability to share content easily to multiple viewing locations even in the same home.

Today's patchwork technology won't work in a few years. Unfortunately, you're absolutely correct about the mess that has been made politically and business-wise. I am a long ways from being a fan of Verizon, but they appear to be the only major player that has been willing to make the kind of capital expenditure necessary to get us to the next level and supply the bandwidth necessary for the applications people are going to want to run down the road. I'm hoping that AT&T has been smart enough while planning their UVerse product to make it easily upgradeable to a fiber to the home solution.

The wild-card in this is, of course, wireless technology. How fast and far can it go and stay competitively priced? I guess we'll see.

It wasn't that long ago there were "pundits" claiming we really didn't need any more computer power than a 386 and, of course, no phone line could support speeds over 28.8/56K.

P.S. I'm not trying to start a war...just a discussion. I agree on many of your points...just not on the "we've got enough now" stuff :)

[kareztt]

All things considered I am a big DirectTV fan, I have many beefs with Charter, the local provider. I love the CE thing (software developer), Charter would never do that. The DOD thing would be cool but the content needs to be fresh, not sure what the cycle time and quantity of programming will be but I'm already bored with what's on there, I am sure it will change. It's going to cost me though since I have the lowest tier of DSL and just can't quite keep up with SD never mind HD DOD. The media features on the HR20 are a nice idea but the UI is sad. I have 10K plus songs and the library is useless going through it letter by letter. It can be done much better even given the limited number of keys on the remote. All in all though I'm a big fan of the HR20, I'm contemplating getting another and getting rid of the Tivo version, would not have said that a year ago. Like others have said re-task the "Active" button, it's useless. The thing to us consumers though is that D* is really getting a compelling product with the new HD stuff (bring it on please) which can only be good for us consumers since competition is a great driver of innovation and usually help keeps prices down. All in all I'm a very happy camper. Keep up the good work Earl.

[nataraj]

Don't have the link. But this is reported on CED today.

D* made a presentation - they consider triple play to be a significant competetor and don't know how they can compete - in terms of price. They also expressed hope of a merger with E* in the long term - if Serius / XM merger goes through.

[nataraj]

Good, because it isn't and never will be. I live in an SBC franchise, but I'd never consider U-verse as it stands, even if it ever got out in the real world. Mainly the design is obsolete -- one (1) HD channel, switched, to the household plus a few SD channels and DSL-level internet. I have better than that now with DSL + DirecTV.

U-Verse is switching from FTTN to FTTH.

[MikeR]

U-Verse is switching from FTTN to FTTH.

Where did you read that?

This is the latest deployment info...

"Of the eighteen million homes that we've announced to pass by the end of next year, approximately a million of those are fiber to the prem," he clarifies. "The rest would be fiber to the node." Despite the added capacity, those customers will see the same speeds their VDSL brethren see, as the company wants to create "a consistent user experience across the board," according to Warnock. "

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Ask-DSLReports-UVerse-in-BellSouth-Territory-87545

[Ken S]

Where did you read that?

This is the latest deployment info...

"Of the eighteen million homes that we've announced to pass by the end of next year, approximately a million of those are fiber to the prem," he clarifies. "The rest would be fiber to the node." Despite the added capacity, those customers will see the same speeds their VDSL brethren see, as the company wants to create "a consistent user experience across the board," according to Warnock. "

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Ask-DSLReports-UVerse-in-BellSouth-Territory-87545

"Consistent user experience". = We want everyone to run slowly because it's less expensive for us.

[ToddD]

The model that everyone should be afraid of is Fios. A full Fiber to the home distribution system. When there newest changes are done (That's right they are improving a system that is not even fully deployed) they will have the bandwidth to give a gigabit to each user. This will be split between Internet, TV (IPTV) and Telephone (VOIP). They will have the fastest internet and can offer just about every Hd feed there is......nothing can compete with a full fiber plant......

[bwaldron]

The model that everyone should be afraid of is Fios. A full Fiber to the home distribution system. When there newest changes are done (That's right they are improving a system that is not even fully deployed) they will have the bandwidth to give a gigabit to each user. This will be split between Internet, TV (IPTV) and Telephone (VOIP). They will have the fastest internet and can offer just about every Hd feed there is......nothing can compete with a full fiber plant......

For DirecTV to compete against FIOS, they need to do it with programming. That's why the HD launch and associated marketing barrage is so important. Sunday Ticket exclusivity is very important here, as well as the other sports packages which Verizon does not carry.

They can also compete by providing superior customer service -- which is not a Verizon strength. DirecTV is ahead in this area now, but there is plenty of room for improvement.

If FIOS had the sports programming I desire, I would likely be a customer of theirs today.

[1948GG]

I have to disagree with you here at least for the future.

The current model is expensive and doesn't realy work for true DoD. It "kind of" works for SD programming when you do things like what they're doing with the Vudu box, but that all breaks down when you get to high-quality, high-definition programming. The bandwidth necessary to push that type of content though to the end-user at a speed where the wait to start viewing isn't at least an hour is a minimum of 10x what you suggest.

You're thinking too fast. The kind of VOD that the cablecos have is fairly fast, but at least in what I've seen, hogs system bandwidth and the price (although a loss leader at present) looks to be very expensive


There's another problem with the current model...it requires users or the content transmitters to support relatively expensive and large hard drives to hold the pre-requested content from the satellite and any requested programming. It gets worse with the inability to share content easily to multiple viewing locations even in the same home.

'Expensive'??? That's the biggest plus by putting the equipment at the subscriber location; expensive is fast interconnects, the type of hardware for subscriber DVR's is cheap and getting cheaper as we talk. Drive technology in particular is dropping like a lead balloon dropped off the Empire State Building. IF people are willing to simply make their selections and wait a bit (for those that aren't on the satellite) then it's still far faster (even for HD!) than the mail system (i.e., Netflix). That's the market you're trying to penetrate.

If you want something like the 'future' (I helped design and build part of the CUBE system in Houston over a quarter century ago), then wait for FiOS.

The wild-card in this is, of course, wireless technology. How fast and far can it go and stay competitively priced? I guess we'll see.

I tended to think that as well, but as the current regulatory and competitive things sort out (no to mention the technology hasn't move as fast as I thought, probably because of the first two), it's still a 'shared' system with limited capability. But it hopefully will still make an impact in the rural settings.

Although I spent half my career in microwave and satellite, I saw the 'handwriting' on the wall in the mid-80's, after AT&T/MaBell lost most of their court cases, was broken up, and real competition started. Since, about 90% in Fiber, jumping back to satellite only when folks begged me to (fix major problems!). Fiber will win eventually, for urban/suburban use. If those deploying it have VERY deep pockets, and don't make too many errors in the execution (and hit the learning curve rather quickly).

Verizon seems to be doing that; good, because 3/4's of my wealth is in Verizon (old GTE) stock! But it will take them at least a decade to really make inroads against coaxial cable, and maybe never in those outer-suburban and rural markets. Right now, they're 'skimming' the best makets only, on a very targeted basis. But for the 'foreseeable' future, satellite still has a very good outlook.

The biggest 'wild cards' in satellite are, of course, bandwidth. But stepping back a few years, two possibilities were very evident:

Ka-band
reverse-band

DirecTV is 'betting the farm' on Ka band. Everybody here with a (newer) system is part of that bet.

The reverse-band (utilizing the uplink frequencies for downlink as well), the FCC will be looking at that very heavily in the next few years. Could be done on BOTH Ku and Ka. Would it help DBS? I think just like now, it'll give them a couple of years vrs. the cable competition. Clocks ticking. Move fast. No, VERY fast!

[nataraj]

Where did you read that?

Some mag (Sound & Vision ?). Anyway, we are not talking short term ... we are talking long term.

Here are the things that will happen in the long term (3 to 5 years) ...

- AT&T and Verizon will deploy primarily FTTH. AT&T is already talking about Gigabit networks - so may be single fiber to home instead of splitting 32 ways.
- D* and E* will merge
- Cable Cos will start deploying IPTV

The other things that could happen in the next decade or so ...
- VOD will become the primary vehicle for delivery
- Channels as we know they will disappear. Only News & sports channels that deliver live programming will remain

In this scenario, what will the sat company do ?

[Dusty]

Some mag (Sound & Vision ?). Anyway, we are not talking short term ... we are talking long term.

Here are the things that will happen in the long term (3 to 5 years) ...

- AT&T and Verizon will deploy primarily FTTH. AT&T is already talking about Gigabit networks - so may be single fiber to home instead of splitting 32 ways.
- D* and E* will merge
- Cable Cos will start deploying IPTV

The other things that could happen in the next decade or so ...
- VOD will become the primary vehicle for delivery
- Channels as we know they will disappear. Only News & sports channels that deliver live programming will remain

In this scenario, what will the sat company do ?


Sat companies won't go down without a fight. They probably will try WiMax. The worst case, they become a nitche player. There is still a place for them to provide contents for rural communities and mobile contents.

[nataraj]

They probably will try WiMax.

WiMax can't deliver video - multiple HD video at that.

[Dusty]

WiMax can't deliver video - multiple HD video at that.

I didn't exactly mean that. WiMax gives them a chance to participate in triple-play (internet + VoIP). It will be good enough for a while and in many places. WiMAX may not be suitable for real time HD, but it still beats Netflix. Theoretically, WiMAX can go up to 70Mbps in shorter distance. I don't know if anyone will deploy it that way.

[marksman]

The model that everyone should be afraid of is Fios. A full Fiber to the home distribution system. When there newest changes are done (That's right they are improving a system that is not even fully deployed) they will have the bandwidth to give a gigabit to each user. This will be split between Internet, TV (IPTV) and Telephone (VOIP). They will have the fastest internet and can offer just about every Hd feed there is......nothing can compete with a full fiber plant......

I think long-term the winner will be a wireless solution. Running fiber to every house is extremely expensive and will take years of higher prices to recoup the costs.

We shall see how it goes, but a hard-wired solution is not likely to be the ultimate one down the road.