Direct TV fixed wireless Broadband

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Bedford11, Aug 21, 2015.

  1. Aug 21, 2015 #1 of 585
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
    Been waiting on this for a long time, says starting by years end. Anybody got any word on the rollout of this, I am so ready to drop my slooooow satellite internet.

    3. So How Fast Will It Be?
    The filing echoes what AT&T said back in September — speeds of 15-20Mbps, which is more than sufficient for streaming video and most online applications. However, it’s worth noting that this number was given long before the FCC voted to revise its definition of broadband to 25Mbps.

    http://consumerist.com/2015/03/03/what-we-know-about-attdirectvs-proposed-wireless-broadband-service/

    http://www.dallasnews.com/business/technology/headlines/20140523-a-fast-evolving-technology-helps-att-in-directv-deal.ece
     
    c_l_phillips72 likes this.
  2. Aug 21, 2015 #2 of 585
    Aridon

    Aridon Mentor

    190
    25
    Mar 12, 2007
    Enjoy the super low data caps.
     
  3. Aug 21, 2015 #3 of 585
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
    Could be no worse than satellite internet. Have you anything official from AT&T that shows data caps? With TV coming over the wireless loop it will have to be very large.

    AT&T guy told me he" thought" it would be 300gb or higher with the cloud DVR TV service.
     
  4. Aug 21, 2015 #4 of 585
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,060
    1,666
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Fixed wireless broadband is wholly separate from the data packages you get on phones/tablets, even though they originate from the same source, and won't be subject to the same pricing or caps you have on an AT&T phone. The reason is because AT&T can control where geographically it is sold, and it will be "fixed" (i.e. the antenna will only work with the tower(s) nearest your house, if you try to take it with you when you travel it won't work)

    When towers are upgraded to LTE in rural areas with low population density, there is a lot of spare capacity that would otherwise go unused. AT&T (and Verizon et al as well no doubt) will monetize that by selling fixed wireless broadband. You won't be able to get it in the cities or suburbs, only in areas with low population density where the towers have that spare capacity. Of course the tower will have to be upgraded to LTE and have a fiber backhaul, so it will take a few years to roll out everywhere AT&T intends to offer it.

    AT&T left a lot of those rural areas on Edge instead of upgrading to 3G, because GSM cells are smaller and would have required additional towers. LTE cells are comparable in size to 2G, so they skipped the 3G upgrade in many of those areas and will take them directly to LTE.
     
  5. Aug 21, 2015 #5 of 585
    bobnielsen

    bobnielsen Éminence grise

    8,473
    92
    Jun 29, 2006
    Bainbridge...
    This sounds a little like what Clear(wire) was offering (and is now going away since they were purchased by Sprint. I had it for several years but the speeds were more like 4 Mbps. If they had an option to use an external antenna I suspect the speed would have been higher.
     
  6. Aug 21, 2015 #6 of 585
    JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,408
    52
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    AT&T said in their FCC filings that it would have caps "on par" with their current wired broadband offerings. With U-Verse, there are no caps, and with DSL there are caps in the 250-300GB range.

    Speeds will be in the range that AT&T originally said in the filings (10-20Mbps). The FCC's redefinition of broadband has nothing to do with it.
     
    brett1198 likes this.
  7. Aug 21, 2015 #7 of 585
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
    I am assuming if you subscribe to the AT&T Direct TV cloud television service thru the Fixed wireless service that I will be able to get the tv service on my tablet anywhere that I travel??

    Also I will no longer have to have the internet satellite dish in the yard nor the satellite tv dish mounted on the house, is this correct?

    Looks like a lot less hardware involved, shouldn't the price be cheaper also?
     
  8. Aug 22, 2015 #8 of 585
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,060
    1,666
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    There's no way AT&T or anyone else has remotely enough bandwidth to give everyone the kind of TV service they get via Directv today through the "cloud". That's a fantasy that won't come true for at least a decade at least. Even bigger fantasy that it would be cheaper because there's less hardware on the customer end. What matters is the total cost of everything involved, not just the equipment on the customer end.
     
  9. Aug 22, 2015 #9 of 585
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
    A local AT&T guy turned me on to these links and said it was coming a lot sooner than most think.

    However, AT&T sees its new advantage in scale leading to far more than cross-promotional selling. As part of the company's product roadmap, it plans to "bring legacy U-verse and DirecTV customers to a new and common customer experience with personalization features, user controls and the ability to integrate managed and unmanaged content." This means converging its current CPE platform and transitioning "to a more efficient software model in the future."
    In a lot of ways, AT&T's strategy sounds similar to the one pursued by Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ), if approached in a much different way. The shift to a New IP model will allow AT&T to make its video portable and maximize the advantage of its broadband network assets for distribution. (See Verizon Builds Toward OTT Launch .)

    Guess who?
    • A new, direct-to-home, all-software head-end for satellite providers. Offering MPEG-2, H.264 or HEVC in superior quality with enhanced statistical multiplexing, Envivio Muse and its new all-software Envivio Spark Multiplexer have been selected by a major US satellite operator to move its operations to private cloud with software-based processing to optimize costs


    • A new Cloud DVR solution combining all the latest processing techniques, from efficient software-defined storage, the use of the latest compression standards to packaging and even transcoding on the fly, resulting in up to 26X reduction in necessary storage capacity. The software allows operators to offer start over, time shifting and to offer network personal video recording to any screen



    The service will have to be cheaper to compete with all the new Apple TV, Sling TV etc. that will entering the market.

    http://www.lightreading.com/video/multi-screen-video/atandt-has-its-mobile-video-moment/d/d-id/717607

    http://news.sys-con.com/node/3405738

    http://www.multichannel.com/prfeed/envivios-innovations-help-service-providers-accelerate-roi-their-video-services/392870
     
  10. Aug 22, 2015 #10 of 585
    Naveb

    Naveb New Member

    23
    6
    Jul 7, 2013
    Kansas
    Pixius offers a similar service in rural Kansas. A radio receiver antenna is mounted on the roof or side of house. It points toward a cell phone tower which broadcast wireless broadband up to 10 Mbps. There are no data caps. If AT&T offers similar service with higher data speeds, I will be very interested.
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. Aug 24, 2015 #11 of 585
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
    No set top box, all cloud based over broadband internet?

    Reducing the number of home visits and eliminating duplication in support functions will help it make cost savings, and the telco also outlined a plan to eliminate complexity from its operations. It will focus solely on the DirecTV architecture within the home and plans to roll out a single IP video distribution platform.

    Cheaper too.

    In addition, it believes its new scale in TV can help it reduce content acquisition costs.
    "We have some room to negotiate," on the cost of content, Stephens said. "Our 6 million U-verse customers' content costs us about $17 per month more than our DirecTV customers."
    However, he insists there is an upside for content owners. "It's not just about a zero sum game with content providers," he said, noting that AT&T can provide them with information about who is watching what, and help them with targeted advertising.

    http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=490811&G=5&C=5&page=2

    http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=490811
     
  12. Aug 24, 2015 #12 of 585
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,060
    1,666
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    That's kind of shocking to me. I would never have thought it was that big a difference negotiating with 6 million customers and negotiating with 20 million customers. Even if there is zero difference going from 20 to 26 million, AT&T will be saving $1.2 billion a year when they start paying the same price for Uverse customer content that Directv does! That's pretty nice, and that's before the savings they get from having a common hardware/software platform for both, integrate billing and other back office tasks to eliminate redundancy, etc.
     
  13. Aug 24, 2015 #13 of 585
    west99999

    west99999 Icon

    1,586
    103
    May 11, 2007
    Unless they convert those Uverse subscribers or somehow combine both services to the point where the content holders will look at them as all the same they want save anything.
     
  14. Aug 24, 2015 #14 of 585
    CraigerM

    CraigerM Well-Known Member

    1,670
    104
    Apr 15, 2014
    St. Louis
    Does it sound like AT&T is moving DTV to SAT-IP? If so I wonder how that would work? I guess they would keep both IPTV over wireline in addition to SAT-IP and those two IP system would be kind of like having one video delivery platform like Stankey said? Would they have to come out to a persons home and switch out the multi-switch with a SAT-IP type of multiswitch? I looked some of the diagrams up online they showed one that took coax connections from one end and Ethernet out of the other. Or maybe the HD server box will have the tuners and the other equipment in the home will be IP Ethernet/Wifi only?
     
  15. Aug 24, 2015 #15 of 585
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,060
    1,666
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    They have "combined them to the point where the content holders will look at them the same" by buying Directv. When Directv's negotiators come knocking on the door next time they'll be negotiating for 26 million customers, instead of 20 million. Disney can hardly say "we want to negotiate Directv and Uverse separately" just because they feel like it, anymore than they could tell Comcast they want a little contract for each state Comcast does business in, versus a national contract that covers all of Comcast's customers.
     
  16. Aug 24, 2015 #16 of 585
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,060
    1,666
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Yes, but just because the marketing material shows ethernet out for SAT-IP don't make the mistake of thinking that's how it must be. That's really not practical for outdoor installations, so I doubt you'll see any real-world SAT-IP installs that actually have ethernet over twisted pair coming out of the LNB. That's the difference between marketing fluff created by marketers and actual solutions created by engineers who have to deal with real world problems like rain and RJ45 connectors not getting along :) (Yes, if they put a cover around it like the NID on the outside of your house they can get around that problem, but cat5 twisted pair being unshielded has other issues that make RG6 better suited for the outdoor part of the install)

    Whether the LNB directly outputs IP, or whether it feeds SWM into a gateway which outputs IP, what matters is getting Directv content converted to IP because at that point it is for all practical purposes identical to Uverse so the same equipment can be used for either one, which is what AT&T wants because it will save them money.
     
  17. Aug 25, 2015 #17 of 585
    CraigerM

    CraigerM Well-Known Member

    1,670
    104
    Apr 15, 2014
    St. Louis
    Sorry, I should have added that the diagrams I saw had the Sat-IP server, convertor or multi-switch on the inside. I don't think the SAT-IP server had the HD DVR in it. Looked like they had it in the attic and the Ethernet cables coming from their they weren't on the outside of the house. I did a Google image search for Sat-IP. I keep forgetting that AT&T could go with an all ip set-up with coax. Maybe have tuners in the gateway then the devices connected to that wouldn't have tuners in them? The only bad thing about that if that Media Gateway their talking about goes down you would be screwed. However advantages to the other devices being all IP and no tuners would be you could move them to different rooms and use video with Ethernet or video over WIFI in tablets, laptops. PC's game consoles, TV's.
     
  18. Aug 25, 2015 #18 of 585
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,060
    1,666
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    That's no different than if your LNB goes down. There is always going to be a single point of failure somewhere.
     
  19. Aug 25, 2015 #19 of 585
    CTJon

    CTJon Godfather

    974
    118
    Feb 5, 2007
    And none of that means that the cost to the consumer will go down.
     
  20. Aug 25, 2015 #20 of 585
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,060
    1,666
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Since it is driven by the (so far) ever escalating content costs, that much is certain.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements