Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Is Google and the Internet a serious 'threat' to DirecTV?


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   SledgeHammer

SledgeHammer

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,325 posts
Joined: Dec 28, 2007

Posted 28 August 2013 - 11:53 PM

I don't give a rat's behind what Comcast claims, I am using Hughesnet and I see the results for myself in real-time.  We have a 20gb monthly allotment, and two hours of Netflix uses about a third of that allotment.  You seem to forget, the consumption is based on download speed and through put.  Hughesnet slows way down in the evening, because of traffic.  We share the bird(s) with all the other subscribers, not just my neighbors as is the case with fiber or DSL.

 

I don't mean this as an attack or anything personal, but the vast majority of the US has broadband. The latest study says 70%+. Yeah, so theres 30% of the US who chooses to live in remote areas. So obviously streaming is not an option for you. Do you get US Mail? Netflix sends out DVDs & Blurays too. Those would be unlimited for $8/mo (the price of one DTV PPV movie) -- well, 1 or 2 at a time or whatever. Not as convienient as PPV I'll admit. I'm willing to pay extra for my convienience, but not 800% more. Living in an actual town or city is a small price to pay for unlimited internet access I would think :).


Edited by SledgeHammer, 28 August 2013 - 11:55 PM.


...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#27 OFFLINE   sregener

sregener

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 626 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 29 August 2013 - 04:18 AM

How much of your 20gb does one Netflix movie use?  We're using Netflix & Amazon Prime more and more here and have yet to hit our 250gb cap.  I'm talking between the three of us at least 60 minutes per day, and usually more.  Also throw in at least 6 to 10 VOD's from D*.

 

Movies are compressed using optimal compression routines, which can't really be done in real-time.  But let's assume they could be.

 

Broadcast 1080i (CBS) really needs almost 19Mbps in MPEG2.  That works out to approximately 1.9MB/second.  Or 114MB/min.  Or 6.8GB/hour. So you can get 36 hours of that quality of video in if you do nothing else with your Internet.  MPEG4 is better, dropping the requirement to about 3.4GB/hour, and doubles the time to 72 hours under your cap.  720p is closer to 15Mbps, so you can watch more of Fox.

 

However, the real rates for Netflix and Amazon are closer to 8-10Mbps for HD, which is why you can watch over an hour a day and not hit your cap.



#28 OFFLINE   Athlon646464

Athlon646464

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • News Hound
  • 3,045 posts
  • LocationUxbridge, MA
Joined: Feb 23, 2007

Posted 29 August 2013 - 05:23 AM

Your math is off, that would put him way over a 20 GB allotment. At most he could do 5 HD movies which will put him at around 17.58 GB if you use 1 GB = 1024 MB. And even then, with VBR encoding the size isn't the same for every movie, an action movie with a lot of rapid movement and explosions will likely be larger.

 

Not my math at all - I clearly quoted Comcast in my post.  And in another post I gave you my experience with caps.


1 HR34-700, 1 C31-700, 1 C41W-100, 1 WVBR0-01, 1 HR24-500

Original install on Apr. 20, 2008 - C41W & WVB self installed on Dec. 27, 2014 - HR34 & C31 installed on Aug. 24, 2013 - HR24 installed on July 23, 2010

Press any key to continue, or any other key to cancel.


#29 OFFLINE   JohnBoy

JohnBoy

    New Member

  • Registered
  • 257 posts
Joined: Sep 08, 2011

Posted 29 August 2013 - 06:27 AM

MLBTV streams @ 4.5 mbps on the PS3 with decent quality and they show thousands of games throughout the year.

 

So I dont see how the NFL would have any problems doing it how the mlb does it and they only show games once a week...

 

Its best to ask someone who has bandwidth caps restrictions and also has mlbtv on how they manage.


Mas Ultra Package + NFL ST MAX (Go Bills) MLB Xtra innings (Go Yankees)
1  Genie HR 44 - 700
3   Mini Genie C41 - 100
1 AM21 OTA Tuner

#30 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,826 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 29 August 2013 - 08:07 AM

The numbers are a bit blurry. Is the 0.5% counted towards traffic in the U.S., or traffic global? Youtube's traffic in the United States is only a portion of its global presence. Also, one needs to know that these kinds of contracts are going to be geographically based. A football lover in Canada is not likely to be able to subscribe to a Youtube NFL channel, and you are also not likely to be able to even watch it with your U.S. account if you are visiting other countries abroad.

 

I also think they will probably not reach the 0.5%, maybe not even 0.1%, for the simple reason that youtube is SO widely used world wide. I also think that most football lovers, will just want to plop down on the couch, and watch the game. And more importantly, switch to the OTHER game during commercial breaks and swap back and forth. They arent going to want to bother with streaming, and they sure as hell aren't going to be happy if the NFL watcher's three teenage daughters are all online during the game.... ;)

 

So, its a nice ADDITION for people frequently traveling inside the US, but not a REPLACEMENT.

 


[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

I am the Stig.

#31 OFFLINE   sregener

sregener

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 626 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 30 August 2013 - 03:43 AM

MLBTV streams @ 4.5 mbps on the PS3 with decent quality and they show thousands of games throughout the year.

 

So I dont see how the NFL would have any problems doing it how the mlb does it and they only show games once a week...

 

MLB.TV sends out about 1.1 million games a week.  I'm guessing an NFL regular season game would be vastly more popular, and they'd all be on one day of the week, over only 6 hours.



#32 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 3,850 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 30 August 2013 - 12:33 PM

MLB.TV sends out about 1.1 million games a week.  I'm guessing an NFL regular season game would be vastly more popular, and they'd all be on one day of the week, over only 6 hours.

 

 

Exactly. How many streams would be required for NFLST, when you have "fewer than 3 million" subscribers, and most watch more than one game, those with man caves have more than one game on at once, most sports bars have all the games on. That's probably 10 million simultaneous streams, maybe more.

 

How many simultaneous streams does mlb.tv deliver? If they're only doing 1.1 million games a week, they aren't doing even 1% of what would be required for NFLST. And at 4.5 Mbps they are cutting back on quality versus what Directv delivers for NFLST. The two are not even comparable.

 

Let's say they compressed it down to 4.5 Mbps like mlb.tv. For 10 million simultaneous streams that's 45 Tbps. I tried to find out what the peak bandwidth usage across all broadband subscribers in the US is to see how it compares, but couldn't find any numbers - only percentages of a whole in articles listing Netflix as using 1/3 to 1/2 of it during the evening peak. Best guess I could make based on Netflix reporting that it delivered 4 billion hours in Q1 2013 is that Netflix would be averaging 33 Tbps if all the streams were HD (which they aren't, so the real figure is much lower, but that would also be average and not their peak in the evening)


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#33 OFFLINE   photostudent

photostudent

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 295 posts
Joined: Nov 08, 2007

Posted 30 August 2013 - 04:37 PM

I hadn't thought about the commercial customers.  Think about the bandwidth they would have to have to run a day of NFL on all their screens!!
 
YIKES!!  :)

I do not see way it an issue. It is all coming through the same cable. It is all digital bits. Bits is bits, either Internet or cable. If I can watch five different shows at my home via cable then a bar can stream five different football games. Of course the simple answer is for Direct to also sell Sunday ticket to cable subscribers. Many people do not have access to satellite service.

#34 OFFLINE   Doug Brott

Doug Brott

    Lifetime Achiever

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 28,929 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles
Joined: Jul 12, 2006

Posted 30 August 2013 - 05:43 PM

I do not see way it an issue. It is all coming through the same cable. It is all digital bits. Bits is bits, either Internet or cable. If I can watch five different shows at my home via cable then a bar can stream five different football games. Of course the simple answer is for Direct to also sell Sunday ticket to cable subscribers. Many people do not have access to satellite service.


Cable TV charges by package while Cable Internet charges by bandwidth (and also places limits on capacity). Additionally, the Commercial establishment would need to get "Cable" Internet to go with the claim of "bits is bits" and I'm not sure that is necessarily available at every bar that would want to show NFL games on Sunday. In any event, infrastructure would have to change at bars for this to even work for them.
DIRECTV Firmware Monitor - iPhone - Android - HTML5

DIRECTV employee since August 2011.
All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#35 OFFLINE   peds48

peds48

    🙈🙉🙊📡

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,245 posts
  • LocationLong Island, NY
Joined: Jan 10, 2008

Posted 30 August 2013 - 06:04 PM

I do not see way it an issue. It is all coming through the same cable. It is all digital bits. Bits is bits, either Internet or cable. If I can watch five different shows at my home via cable then a bar can stream five different football games. Of course the simple answer is for Direct to also sell Sunday ticket to cable subscribers. Many people do not have access to satellite service.

and even if bits are bits, what makes the difference is the encoding method


Here’s to the crazy ones.
The misfits. The rebels.
The the troublemakers.
The round pegs in the square holes.

The ones who see things different.
They’re not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status quo.


Think Differently 

#36 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 3,850 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 31 August 2013 - 08:51 AM

I do not see way it an issue. It is all coming through the same cable. It is all digital bits. Bits is bits, either Internet or cable. If I can watch five different shows at my home via cable then a bar can stream five different football games.

 

 

No, that is not true at all. Go learn the difference between broadcasting and point to point transmission.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#37 OFFLINE   1948GG

1948GG

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 907 posts
Joined: Aug 04, 2007

Posted 31 August 2013 - 03:35 PM

There are several things going on here, that would make/break such a proposal.  Many have brought up that the length and breath of internet access across the U.S. in general, is really pretty piss poor.  So even if we're talking DirecTV level of HD distribution (say 8-10Mb/s for a single channel) that is about double what even 50% of people have access to, either through DSL or cable.

 

And of course, there's all the 'caps' and such, and the cost of that access.  Which brings up the second big thing... cost.

 

Now, one can figure that the 'Wrath of Khan' pricing model will perhaps come into play.  And what, some are probably asking, what the **** is 'Wrath of Khan'?  Of course, the move (1982).  But before it was released on VHS, the 'typical' movie was selling at between $50-100 or thereabouts in the market.  Paramount decided that they wanted to 'goose' the sell-through, and priced 'Khan' at $29-35 or so (can't remember exactly what it was) but about 1/2 to 1/3'rd that of a typical VHS movie.

 

Folks came unglued.  It was 'sold out' across the country.  Paramount made a killing.  A light builb went off over their heads, 'hey if we drop the price we make up the amount we wanted to in VOLUME'.  No ****.  Marketing 101.

 

So, here we have NFL/ST, but no real way to market it in volume across the Internet 'as it exists today'.  Through DirecTV you have 100% (or close to it, obviously there are places in big cities with coverage problems just like there is way out west with those things called 'trees').  But it's pretty close to 100% coverage.  If folks want it today, they can pretty much get it anywhere.

 

Until Google wants to fiber-wire the whole of America (in lots of places they will be barred do to EXISTING laws and regulations in states and municipalities), and a few Trillion bucks later, they can do what satellite does.

 

Really, DirecTV is cost effective against most cabelcos anyway, so as I pointed out, it's already at 99+% (potential) penetration anyway.  And as to huge bandwidth folks like Google Fiber, FIOS (both Verizon and Frontier), I don't understand why they don't partner with DirecTV and forget about running their own 'TV' service, which they are at a distinct disadvantage to the huge cablecos (Comcast et. al.), and put the DirecTV bitstream on their fiber service.

 

DirecTV already has IP based DVR/Receivers running on large apartment/condo complexes around the country, it would be a minor bit of engineering to junk their current problematic 'tv service' and go with Direct.

 

But meanwhile, folks on internet service through other vendors, forget about it.  You think folks like Comcast are yelling now with the pitiful amount of bits flowing through their service because of Netflix?  This would really get them going at hyper levels.


  • Weaselboy likes this

#38 OFFLINE   Gocanes

Gocanes

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 71 posts
Joined: Jul 15, 2007

Posted 02 September 2013 - 09:19 AM

ST over the internet is just not practical today. Streaming live content that people want and expect to watch live is totally different than streaming movies or videos ala Netflix or Youtube. Football fans expect to watch the games live to the second. If it was even 30 seconds behind, think about all the "spoilers" there would be for your ST game(s) if you have a game on cable/sat/OTA at the same time, or are talking/texting with a friend who is at the game.

 

Netflix and Youtube work as well as they do because they buffer content ahead of where you're watching, so you don't see the minor and major hiccups that are a fact of life for the internet. If you're watching live, you can't buffer, so you'll be exposed to all those hiccups. When they happen you either have to miss some action or it has to pause and then you're no longer watching live.

 

No one has ever attempted to do something like this with live content, and there's no way the NFL is going to take the risk of being the first, no matter how much money Google dangles in front of them. It would do tremendous damage to the league if their most ardent football fans were forced off a solution that works pretty well for one that would work less well even for those with a 100Mb FIOS connection, let alone the people with poor or no broadband options.

 

I could see Google trying to make some deal where they have the rights to sell single games, but I doubt they'd be interested in selling the full ST package the NFL does over the Internet, or that if they are the NFL is willing risk the backlash if it doesn't work as well as Google might hope. It doesn't matter how many smart people Google gets to work on it, they can only control what happens up to the time the packets leave their control. Once it is out on the Internet, it may pass through a half dozen different providers on its way to your house. But the angry guy who is having problems watching his team is still going to blame the NFL for being greedy and making the deal. The NFL doesn't take risks like that.

 

ESPN3 does live games over the internet.  As far as delay goes, DirecTV is at least 10 seconds behind really live.  Watch a game on DirecTV and listen to the radio broadcast simultaneoulsy and you will see this easily.

 

The reason that high quality HD live broadcast over the internet isn't practical is because very few residential customers have an ISP that can provide the continuous 5+ Mbps bandwidth required for even 1 stream.  The oversubcription rate in the network design is too high.  Dedicated IPTV services like FIOS/Uverse stream the TV content on a dedicated closed network.  They don't stream it over the internet.  The TV content comes from servers which are networked to the home in a way that doesn't require crossing over into the internet backbone.



#39 OFFLINE   jacksonm30354

jacksonm30354

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 618 posts
  • LocationAtlanta
Joined: Mar 29, 2007

Posted 02 September 2013 - 12:43 PM

I don't mean this as an attack or anything personal, but the vast majority of the US has broadband. The latest study says 70%+. Yeah, so theres 30% of the US who chooses to live in remote areas. So obviously streaming is not an option for you. Do you get US Mail? Netflix sends out DVDs & Blurays too. Those would be unlimited for $8/mo (the price of one DTV PPV movie) -- well, 1 or 2 at a time or whatever. Not as convienient as PPV I'll admit. I'm willing to pay extra for my convienience, but not 800% more. Living in an actual town or city is a small price to pay for unlimited internet access I would think :).

While 70%+ might have "broadband".  All "broadband" is not created equal.  Many can't get more than 1MB-3MB service in their area. And that is not just in rural areas. That might be sufficient for 1 SD stream, but what about homes that have multiple tvs?  A large part of the 70% doesn't have access to the fast broadband necessary.  

 

Not my math at all - I clearly quoted Comcast in my post.  And in another post I gave you my experience with caps.

The OP does not have Comcast and it's 250GB limit.  He has HughesNet with a 20GB limit.  Your math works for Comcast, but not HughesNet.


Americast 1999-2001

DirecTv   2001-2010 3 HR22s, 1 R22

FoxTel    2010-2011 2 iQHDs

DirecTv   2012-2014 HR34, 2 C31-700s, H25

Comcast   2014-     Tivo Roamio Pro, 3 Tivo Minis, 2 Motorola DTAs.


#40 OFFLINE   Athlon646464

Athlon646464

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • News Hound
  • 3,045 posts
  • LocationUxbridge, MA
Joined: Feb 23, 2007

Posted 02 September 2013 - 02:04 PM

The OP does not have Comcast and it's 250GB limit.  He has HughesNet with a 20GB limit.  Your math works for Comcast, but not HughesNet.

 

You missed my point by taking the stats I quoted out of context.  I was using Comcast's stats to refute an earlier post claiming that 1 Netflix HD movie would put him over his limit.  

 

The math they use works for any connection, including AOL dial-up.


1 HR34-700, 1 C31-700, 1 C41W-100, 1 WVBR0-01, 1 HR24-500

Original install on Apr. 20, 2008 - C41W & WVB self installed on Dec. 27, 2014 - HR34 & C31 installed on Aug. 24, 2013 - HR24 installed on July 23, 2010

Press any key to continue, or any other key to cancel.


#41 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 2,635 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 02 September 2013 - 02:34 PM

While 70%+ might have "broadband".  All "broadband" is not created equal.  Many can't get more than 1MB-3MB service in their area. And that is not just in rural areas. That might be sufficient for 1 SD stream, but what about homes that have multiple tvs?  A large part of the 70% doesn't have access to the fast broadband necessary.

And the people who have no other option but satellite isn't just limited to rural areas in the middle of nowhere. We live in a populated suburban area where most of the lots are about half an acre, only three houses from the main road which has cable service. The local cable company refused to wire our block unless we either get half the block to sign up for service our we personally pay for the run at $1000 per 100 feet, the latter option also meant that if we do that, there's no stopping our neighbors from signing up the day after it's installed and not having to pay thousands of dollars up front like we would have had to. DSL didn't become available until 2006, we're still limited to just 3mbps down/768kbps up, and Verizon has no plans to upgrade our area to newer technologies like ADSL2+ that would support 6mbps+.

Of course when the cable company provided details to the FCC for their broadband map they just gave them their franchise area and didn't omit the multiple blocks they refuse to serve, so the map is full of false data for our area when it comes to what speeds are available.

#42 OFFLINE   peds48

peds48

    🙈🙉🙊📡

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,245 posts
  • LocationLong Island, NY
Joined: Jan 10, 2008

Posted 02 September 2013 - 09:08 PM

While 70%+ might have "broadband". All "broadband" is not created equal. Many can't get more than 1MB-3MB service in their area. .

.

Which begs the question, how can they call this "high speed"?


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk
Here’s to the crazy ones.
The misfits. The rebels.
The the troublemakers.
The round pegs in the square holes.

The ones who see things different.
They’re not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status quo.


Think Differently 

#43 OFFLINE   keyoctave

keyoctave

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 37 posts
Joined: Jan 09, 2005

Posted 02 September 2013 - 09:39 PM

Just have to add my 2 cents on this...

 

I live in what some would call a rural area but only a 20 min drive to a small city. I live in a housing development that is not served by cable. Its DTV, Dish or OTA if you want to watch programming. In fact, the county's (that I live in) only cable company (Charter) does not even offer high def to its customers. They do get high speed internet with no limits. There is Verizon 4g service in my area but it is weak at my house. I have a sprint tower only 0.3 miles from me, so I use a 3g modem (they have not upgraded to 4G yet) hooked to a router for my internet. This costs me $80 a month with a 12Gb limit! I can pay $50 a month for 6Gb but that really cuts down on what you can do. How in the hell can people in this kind of situation be able to stream anything? And don't say 'move somewhere else'. It seems the internet service providers only care about where to make the most money and leave large area's in the country with sub-standard service costing a lot more to obtain.

I really don't feel the least bit sorry when some of you bitch about your 'slow' 3 meg unlimited download speeds. I only wish!!



#44 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 447 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 03 September 2013 - 08:13 AM

Which begs the question, how can they call this "high speed"?

 

If it's faster than 56k dial-up service then they consider it "high speed." They still use the 1990s as a reference.  :grin:


Edited by pdxBeav, 03 September 2013 - 08:15 AM.


#45 OFFLINE   wingrider01

wingrider01

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,764 posts
Joined: Sep 09, 2005

Posted 03 September 2013 - 11:29 AM

Which begs the question, how can they call this "high speed"?


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk

 

could be limited to a 56K dial up, yes there are those still in existance


Edited by wingrider01, 03 September 2013 - 11:29 AM.


#46 OFFLINE   jdskycaster

jdskycaster

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 272 posts
Joined: Sep 01, 2008

Posted 03 September 2013 - 06:17 PM

To answer the original question.  Yes.  The bottom line is money talks and the likes of Google, Apple, Intel and others have more of it in their coffers than ever before. 

 

Does the NFL care if some percentage of Direc's customers cannot access NFLST?  Absolutely not!  If they did then they would also give a rats behind about the millions of customers with Dish or cable that also cannot access it.  Will Direc lose NFLST?  Probably not they are just now going to have to pay a little more dearly for it and possibly accept larger losses (or smaller gains depending on whose numbers you believe).  I personally agree with those that feel there is room for more than one player in this game.  Direc with NFLST and someone like Google offering more limited packages online. 



#47 OFFLINE   Athlon646464

Athlon646464

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • News Hound
  • 3,045 posts
  • LocationUxbridge, MA
Joined: Feb 23, 2007

Posted 19 September 2013 - 09:54 AM

3 Reasons Why Google Won't Steal Sunday Ticket From DIRECTV

 


1 HR34-700, 1 C31-700, 1 C41W-100, 1 WVBR0-01, 1 HR24-500

Original install on Apr. 20, 2008 - C41W & WVB self installed on Dec. 27, 2014 - HR34 & C31 installed on Aug. 24, 2013 - HR24 installed on July 23, 2010

Press any key to continue, or any other key to cancel.


#48 OFFLINE   TBoneit

TBoneit

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,291 posts
Joined: Jul 27, 2006

Posted 19 September 2013 - 12:22 PM

ha!

The point that Google could only provide Sunday ticket is Bogus as I see it. Most of the people that would watch it via Google most likely have An antenna or basic cable or some other way of getting locals.

 

The Point about Google being disruptive to the status Quo? How is is Google providing Sunday Ticket significantly different that DirecTV doing so.

 

Nothing there that made me think Google would not or could not go after Sunday Ticket.

 

One point that was wrong is that there is a Decent infrastructure these days.

 

I have no knowledge of the inner workings of Sunday Ticket, Having said that Is there anything to Stop the Cable companies from forming a new company backed financially by the cable industry to bid for and outbid DirecTV?

Or as a alternative Include Dishnetwork as a partner to provide it to areas they do not cover?

Or as a method to drive up the price to empty the DirecTV coffers?

 

Or Google and Dishnetwork with Dish once again offering it in Areas with bad Internet coverage. Especially With Dishes Investment in Wireless bandwidth.

 

I expect that All the D* and Football fans will disagree with me of course.

 

TBoneit


Remember when your kids were the TV set's remote control?

#49 OFFLINE   Mildred

Mildred

    New Member

  • Registered
  • 1 posts
  • LocationNew York
Joined: Sep 19, 2013

Posted 19 September 2013 - 01:38 PM

Just got an account here because I came upon this thread and wanted to share my $.02.

 

----

 

Yes, the internet in general will kill DirecTV's business, though it will be a slow slog, as DirecTV, Dish, Cable, and content providers all do their best to stymie death of their golden goose.

 

We have finally already reached a critical mass of cord cutting (http://variety.com/2...ear-1200574763/). Cable subscribers are clearly on the way down, and substantially, and satellite is now bleeding year over year. This trend is accelerating and will continue. Admittedly, we are VERY early days in this, but I think the tea leaves have hit a special point and cable & sat providers now can no longer live in denial about where things are heading.

 

Focusing on the tiny number of satellite internet users misses the big picture. Most people have broadband, and it is almost universally capable of streaming HD video.

 

Usage caps are a red herring. Few people have them, and although there has been some experimentation with them, it's inevitable that bandwidth will get cheaper over time, as it always has. When Time Warner tried usage caps in my area a few years back people went ape over it and TW was forced to capitulate. Now I may be on the cusp of having residential fiber optic (and this is rolling out slowly over the country).

 

An increasing number of people are cutting the cord not due to economic reasons, but partly on principled ones, or just a general sense that $70-80+/month for locals (which are free over antenna) plus a couple of channels they watch is not a good use of money.

 

AppleTV, Roku, Chromecast, SimpleTV, Aereo, just a few of the products that make this all far less painful than it used to be. And you've Netflix putting out top-tier self-made series themselves, Amazon putting out its own series, and Hulu as well. This trend will continue.

 

Unfortunately for people who don't cut the cord, the remaining costs are shared among them. I recently dropped DirecTV but was one of the "lucky" ones this year to note a new $2 "regional sports fee". I never watch sports on TV. I hate charges like that. Now they don't have my $2. When more people leave they are out X * $2, and ultimately will have to spread the loss out among existing subscribers, raising their $2 to something higher.

 

Cable & Satellite costs are going up, in direct contrast to increasingly ubiquitous high speed internet and alternative options. 


Edited by Mildred, 19 September 2013 - 01:40 PM.


#50 OFFLINE   Athlon646464

Athlon646464

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • News Hound
  • 3,045 posts
  • LocationUxbridge, MA
Joined: Feb 23, 2007

Posted 19 September 2013 - 01:44 PM

Just got an account here because I came upon this thread and wanted to share my $.02.

 

 

kgo_057.gif


1 HR34-700, 1 C31-700, 1 C41W-100, 1 WVBR0-01, 1 HR24-500

Original install on Apr. 20, 2008 - C41W & WVB self installed on Dec. 27, 2014 - HR34 & C31 installed on Aug. 24, 2013 - HR24 installed on July 23, 2010

Press any key to continue, or any other key to cancel.





Protected By... spam firewall...And...