Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by James Long, Jun 12, 2018.
Mergers: Little good will come to us...
AT&T Completes Acquisition of Time Warner Inc.
AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) has completed its acquisition of Time Warner Inc., bringing together global media and entertainment leaders Warner Bros., HBO and Turner with AT&T’s leadership in technology and its video, mobile and broadband customer relationships.
“The content and creative talent at Warner Bros., HBO and Turner are first-rate. Combine all that with AT&T’s strengths in direct-to-consumer distribution, and we offer customers a differentiated, high-quality, mobile-first entertainment experience,” said Randall Stephenson, chairman and CEO of AT&T Inc. “We’re going to bring a fresh approach to how the media and entertainment industry works for consumers, content creators, distributors and advertisers.”
Stephenson said the future of media entertainment is rapidly converging around three elements required to transform how video is distributed, paid for, consumed and created. Today, AT&T brings together:
Premium Content: Broadly distributed, robust premium content portfolio that combines leading movies and shows from Warner Bros., HBO and Turner, along with more targeted digital content from Bleacher Report, FilmStruck and AT&T’s investment in Otter Media, among others.
Direct to Consumer Distribution (D2C): AT&T has more than 170 million D2C relationships across its TV, video streaming, mobile and broadband services in the U.S., mobile in Mexico, TV in Latin America, in addition to D2C digital properties such as HBO NOW, Boomerang, FilmStruck and CNN.com.
High-Speed Networks: AT&T‘s leading wireless and fiber network, including investments in new technology such as 5G, will provide the network bandwidth required as customers increase engagement with premium video and emerging 4K and virtual reality content.
HBO Is Getting Bigger Budget Under AT&T to Challenge Netflix
AT&T Is Changing Time Warner's Name to WarnerMedia
thanks for the links .
Good news for us, I like HBO's shows.
Quite a long post but the upshot seems to be that you are quite sore at Verizon for not offering better internet service where you live and, because a significant minority of Americans are in a similar situation, OTT-delivered video is not in a position to unseat traditionally-delivered TV (mainly via cable and satellite). I'm sorry to hear about the situation you have to put up with where you live when it comes to internet service.
My mom has told me the story of how her father, in the early 1940s, wrote to the governor in an effort to get the family house in a small north Georgia town connected to the electrical grid. The governor came through and they finally got electricity when my mom was a young child. Gov. Talmadge may have been the only Democrat that my grandfather ever voted for!
I tend to think that broadband internet service is to America in the 21st century a lot like electrical service was in the 20th century. In both cases, it's taking awhile longer to reach those living in rural and small-town areas than they would like, but it's happening. With the advent of long-range 600 MHz 5G (T-Mobile), the possibility of AT&T's AirGig, the rise of rural cooperatives to fund fiber and fiber-fed 5G connections, long-range wireless broadband over TV white spaces and other unused or unlicensed spectrum, and the promise of SpaceX's Starlink and other low-earth-orbit broadband satellite systems, the connectivity landscape in the US is going to change a lot in the next decade.
Looking at where things stand now -- when most Americans have a choice of 2 or more home broadband providers, often with 1 TB data caps, although close to half have only 1 or 0 broadband choices -- and then, on the basis of that, trying to argue that the OTT revolution can't continue on to its logical conclusion is silly. I'm not saying that OTT TV is going to finish replacing traditional TV this year or next year. It's an evolutionary process and it's going to take several more years to play out, during which time, Americans will become ever-more connected, with more high-speed internet service options, more total network bandwidth, and better, more efficient cloud-based network management.
The internet is devouring television. There's no stopping it.
I think you overestimate what streaming can and will do easily. There’s a lot of places in dense areas that would be just as hard to supports if not harder than the boonies if all tv was only streaming. We are decades away from having that kind of bandwidth. And the costs will be ridiculous.
I still see streaming and sat and cable all being basically the same price in the next five years and that will just cause a lot of fragmentation and not kill any of the services...
Some implementation of multicast (one-to-many IP broadcasting) -- perhaps along with peer-to-peer edge micro-CDN tech -- will obviate peak video traffic bottlenecks as more and more viewers move to OTT/streaming-based video. Another thing that will free up bandwidth is when cable and fiber-based broadband providers stop devoting a significant chunk of their network bandwidth to traditional TV (e.g. QAM).
The move is already on among smaller cable co's (e.g. members of the NCTC) who are moving to solutions such as those offered by MobiTV, which this week unveiled a new cloud-based OTT replacement for traditional QAM TV. The cable co just needs to negotiate carriage contracts with the network providers (either individually or through the NCTC's collective bargaining), then let Mobi know which channels their service offers. Boom. Everything, including locals, are ingested and distributed through Mobi TV's cloud, OTT, to the cable co's subscribers via their retail devices such as Roku, Apple TV, iPhone and Android. Their system, BTW, supports multicast (at least in the form of LTE-Broadcast). It's "TVaaS" -- TV as a service -- as MobiTV calls it.
(P.S. One of the few major network providers who has yet to agree to participate in Mobi TV's new cloud-based TVaaS is Time Warner/Turner. I wonder why? Maybe because AT&T is going to try to get small cable co's to redistribute their OTT forms of DirecTV instead.)
You haven't said why you think streaming will "devour" television. What's the value proposition for consumers to choose streaming over linear? Why should streaming be cheaper than linear?
Yeah, we all agree that linear has not presented very many options to save money but that's because it hasn't had to. Once it has to compete with streaming there's no obvious win for either side...
Will 5G help any of this?
Not sure how accurate the info is, but I found this video interesting
Yup, and it's good for us. I couldn't be more pleased with what's going on now.
IIRC texasbrit lives in such an area. In Texas, of course, and where he lives seems to very densely populated. He has problems getting speeds that support streaming. Won't 5G have some impact on this problem? I gotta admit I haven't read much about 5G, I figure I'll learn about it when it's implemented.
Why did he use the word "devour"? Look at how we watch D*: Sports. Nothing more. Well, my wife does watch some Hallmark programs but she could get all of them from their app. We don't need anything from D* but sports. Yeah, "devour" fits, at least in my case. I get sports from a streaming service that covers what I need, I'm gone from D*.
Huh. Asked the same question...great minds...
Sure it will help but then if everyone jumps on it that will Pull it back down. I suspect we will see a balance in speed and price that finds itself for all forms and then it’ll all be like it was when there was just cable tv. Around the same price everywhere for the same content no matter how you get it. Only streaming will force more commercials. And have more direct marketing ads.
I saw this interesting video about transitioning from legacy video to IP video.
How Cable Operators Can Compete and Grow Revenues – Evolution Digital’s Brent Smith | FierceCable
How does 5G work in homes?
I found this article about 5g in homes but its for 5g in the U.K. I think its the same in the U.S.
Samsung is Trialling 5G in the UK This Year
In theory fixed wireless 5G to a home should be simple. Install a little antenna (outdoors if it is using the millimeter wave bands most 5G will) and a little gateway/router inside the home. From the perspective of the customer, it would work the same as cable internet or DSL.
Most of the 5G frequencies - probably all of them for fixed wireless use - are even higher in frequency that Directv's Ka band used for HD, so rain fade is a possibility though I'd think it would take some very heavy rain. The reason you get rain fade with satellite is because the signal has to travel through miles of rain, whereas with millimeter wave 5G it would travel through maybe a quarter mile or so at most.
There's a comment one of Stuart's articles on the Solid Signal blog from an AT&T supervisor involved in fixed wireless trials (may be LTE rather than 5G but doesn't matter for this) who isn't very optimistic about it:
The support issues are what you expect if they have a trial service and don't have a special number to call for support - obviously the CSRs aren't going to get trained on trial products. The OA registration issue is presumably something that can/will be fixed in software. But the 8 hour install times, if they can't get that down a LOT this will never take off. I wonder if this is why there have been a lot of rumors about AT&T backing off of their fixed wireless plans?
When I read about 5g many months ago, the plus for using it was it's ability to penetrate walls.
The negative was it only travels a short distance.