Direct TV fixed wireless Broadband

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

  1. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,035
    1,656
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    I think ATSC 3.0 on mobile is all hype no substance. No phones have a TV tuner built in, not in the US and not for other standards elsewhere like DVB-T or ISDB-T. Why would that change with ATSC 3.0?

    The idea of subscription services delivered over ATSC to avoid using cellular data is silly, when people get bigger and bigger buckets of data every year. Especially in a thread about fixed wireless that will feature broadband level data allotments. Using ATSC 3.0 for mobile services to avoid using mobile data solves a problem that existed 5-10 years ago, but not really today and definitely not in a few years when ATSC 3.0 stations actually appear.
     
  2. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    51,836
    2,507
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    What you used 17 years ago is not the same as the fixed wireless AT&T and others are working on.
     
  3. texasbrit

    texasbrit Well-Known Member

    5,622
    180
    Aug 9, 2006
    I laughed when I saw the comment from Rise Broadband. Available here in Allen TX $50 for 5Mbps, although most people get 2Mpbs or less in practice. Pathetic.
     
  4. KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    5,391
    1,063
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    Please stop repeating this false claim. Nearly every phone sold in Japan supports 1seg (the mobile segment of a station's ISDB-T signal), even non-smartphones. (That's actually how most people got information following the earthquake and Tsunami since 1seg is more than just live TV, it can be watched in portrait mode with the video on the top half of the screen and the bottom half of the screen displaying interactive text broadcasted by the station)

    DVB-H also got some traction starting in the mid-00s on phones sold in the western european countries that offered a DVB-H service. In DVB-H's case though, it didn't help that in many countries it was treated as a seperate service, and in some countires they were subscription only services similar to the old MediaFLO service we had, and right when it started getting traction, the app explosion happened and they were just offering things people can get for free with apps from the individual networks.

    As for not in the US, that's because for ATSC we chose a standard that didn't support in motion reception and still required a large external antenna in most areas outside of the immediate suburbs (so unlike countries where 1seg/ISDB-T and DVB-H are the standard, there was no point in including an ATSC tuner). Even the early standalone battery powered portable ATSC TVs failed because of it (compared to pocket analog TVs which remained popular up until the transition). And when ATSC M/H came around, only very few markets got it, only one or two stations broadcasted it in those markets, and it still required an external antenna. Some mobile chipsets like Qualcomm's Snapdragon series included support where ATSC M/H could be integrated, but since the coverage was only in limited areas, as well as stubborn carriers who rather have you subscribe to a higher data plan to stream the content instead, none of the US carriers included it on the phones manufacturers customized for their bands.

    As for claims about not wanting to watch TV on the go, if no one wanted to watch TV on the phone, things like WatchESPN, WatchABC, WatchDisney, Fox Now, Fox Sports Go and provider apps wouldn't be some of the most popular mobile phone apps... (Not to mention the annual complaints when people with AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile find out that they can't watch their in-market NFL games on their phones)


    What ATSC 3.0 is proposing is a mobile system similar to what 1seg or ATSC M/H offers. Mobile specific streams using codecs and resolutions that most phones can handle natively, with the possibility of interactive services similar to 1seg that can be used for content like emergency information. (As opposed to our current mobile alert system that just gives a vague text of what the alert is, when it expires and telling you to check local media for details) i.e. during a hurricane, instead of everyone going on the mobile networks to get the latest information, local stations can broadcast interactive radar images, evacuation maps, routes and locations of shelters.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2017
  5. Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
    AT&T will not have a monopoly with its fixed wireless and DirecTV Now service, So, So much is happening/changing in the industry. Who knows who will survive. With the promise of much better antenna reception and the new features the new standard could be a net plus for fixed wireless and DirectTV Now.
    Local broadcasters want and will get their share with ATSC 3.0, local broadcasting is so important to citizens, Cell phones with tv tuners in 2019/20.
    it's unlikely that 3.0 broadcasts will be widespread until later in 2018 and early 2019. And it could take far longer than that before the transition from ATSC 1.0 to ATSC 3.0 is completed.

    ATSC 3.0 is not only going to be a cord cutter’s dream come true, it’s likely to give wireless network providers a taste of added competition.

    the signal strength of upcoming ATSC 3.0 broadcast promises to be stronger than today’s digital broadcast. Those of us who switched from analog to digital over-air broadcast TV learned quickly that our present digital signal strength is weaker than analog. But the new digital standard will make up for this with the inclusion of an adaptable frequency feature that the ATSC says will specialize in, allowing signals to travel further and to penetrate deeper into buildings and basements within range.

    That means broadcast TV promises to be relevant again, even as you travel the subway. In the near future you’ll be able to pull out your tablet, run your network TV app and start watching a local sporting event.

    ATSC 3.0: Cord Cutter’s Dream or Tiered Internet Nightmare?

    Free Over-the-Air TV Is Going to Get Better

    Sinclair, Nexstar Team on ATSC 3.0 Launch in 97 Markets

    ATSC 3.0 chips in the iPhone and other smartphones? Don’t hold your breath | FierceCable

    “The real competitors these days are not the local newspaper and not iHeartRadio or Entercom — they’re Google and Facebook,
    “We’re playing in the land of the giants.”

    Inside Sinclair: CEO Nixes Fox News Rival Rumors, Talks Tribune and Big Ambition for Broadcast Biz

    DirecTV Now Carries More Than 100 Live Local TV Channels | Multichannel

    Television is smack in the midst of a technological rebirth on the order of a Mars mission,

    Q&A: Renu Thomas on Disney|ABC’s Technology Future

    The transition is already underway. Disney/ABC Television is moving its TV channels to a cloud-based virtual master control.

    Virtualization Will Turn Broadcasters into Orchestrators

    Optimistic Outlook On Multicast’s Prospects | TVNewsCheck.com

    He did not commit to a vote on the ATSC 3.0 proposal before the end of the year but said that was the goal depending on where the facts led them, as was improving the standard.

    Ajit Pai Promises Action on Smaller Spectrum Winners | Broadcasting & Cable
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2017
  6. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,035
    1,656
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Anyone know the patent licensing story on ATSC 3.0? Any hope for getting it into cellular chipsets hinges on it being free or almost free to do so. I recall reading that a decade ago ATSC 1.0 patent licensing costs were $10-$20 per device. ATSC 3.0 needs to be pennies before it would be considered in phones. FM has no traction in phones despite zero patent licensing costs.
     
  7. KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    5,391
    1,063
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    Wrong again, all of these devices have their FM chip enabled:
    Supported Devices – NextRadio
     
  8. chances14

    chances14 Member

    92
    14
    Nov 7, 2014
    atsc 3.0 has the ability for broadcasters to encrypt their their programming. Meaning they could require you to pay them for access to it. Seems like a cord cutter's nightmare to me
     
  9. KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    5,391
    1,063
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    They can already encrypt their programming with ATSC 1.0, many Ion stations have a bunch of encrypted streams for the airbox service on their signal. Although the rules state that they have to offer at least one stream in the clear.

    There's just no money in it because then you have to establish an infrastructure to handle authorizations and sales, most likely design and distribute your own set top boxes, as well as lower your advertising rates if you're no longer free to air, so it's mostly limited to 3rd party services like Airbox leasing space from other stations to offer existing channels like Showtime and Starz. Outside of Airbox, which is still barely a blip on the radar, most of the other attempts at having a subscription OTA service quickly folded.

    Encryption of OTA isn't anything new either, they were able to do it during the analog era with services like SelecTV, ONTV, Preview, WHT, Z Channel and others, but once cable was seen as more than just "Community Antenna TV" and reached the big cities with a wider selection of programming, they too eventually folded. (i.e. while Long Island got cable in the 60s and 70s, and most of Manhattan got it in the 70s as a way to deal with multipath, many portions of the outer boroughs of NYC didn't get cable until the 80s, once that happened WHT quickly folded)
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2017
  10. longrider

    longrider Well-Known Member

    4,181
    216
    Apr 21, 2007
    Elizabeth, CO
    You were not kidding about ION stations, your comment got me curious so I took a look:

    ion59.jpg
     
    KyL416 likes this.
  11. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,035
    1,656
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    By "no traction" I mean few people use it. I don't know anyone who listens to FM radio on their phone. Or at all for that matter, except in their car. If it was a big deal you wouldn't see the chips disabled in so many phones or on certain carriers, the people would be choosing to buy phones or select carriers that have it enabled. But no one cares.
     
  12. KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    5,391
    1,063
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    Did you even read the list? No carrier is opting out of it anymore, models from AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, US Cellular as well as virtual carriers likes Virgin, Cricket and Boost are on it. And this isn't just some random niche phones, it's mainstream models like every Samsung Galaxy since the S5, the HTC One line, LG, among others. If you go down some of the lines you see the list of carriers grow as newer models cameout, some of it took longer due to stubborness, others were more technical because until recently some of the chipsets they needed for their specific bands and technologies didn't support FM at all.

    This list is just what devices support Next Radio though, there's other models that support FM but for various reasons not Next Radio. Either due to using a non-standard implementation of FM that doesn't expose the tuner to 3rd party apps, or because official updates for the model ended. (i.e. the original Galaxy SII supports FM, but updates for it ended after 4.1.2, while NextRadio requires 4.2)

    The big odd one out is the iPhone, which for obvious reasons couldn't even enable the chip anymore if they wanted to, unless you only want to receive a station while you're standing in front of their tower.

    As for why to use it. Here's a big example, since more and more teams are now on FM instead of AM, going to a MLB or NFL game. Due to rights, these games are not available on their web streams, the only way to get them in real time is with an actual radio, since even if you subscribed to the league's streaming audio services, you would be hearing the commentary on a minute or more delay because of buffering and latency.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2017
  13. Aug 1, 2017 #553 of 585
    CTJon

    CTJon Godfather

    971
    117
    Feb 5, 2007
    Love all this "cord cutter" discussion - what people are suggesting is cutting 1 cord and replacing it with 1 or many more cords. I wonder, and time will tell, how many who leave the cable / sat world come back after a while due to inconvenience of many or too technical solution. The only thing that is really wrong with the current world is cost. In my family people have trouble figuring out how to switch from DTV to Blue Ray player. I'd hate to see what would happen if I added a couple of other sources.
     
    boukengreen likes this.
  14. Aug 1, 2017 #554 of 585
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,035
    1,656
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    I think there are two classes of people who will benefit most from cord cutting:

    1. people who have relatively narrow interests
    2. people who have a ton of TVs

    The former because they could get by with really skinny packages and not care that they don't have sports, cable news, or kids programming for example. The latter because the monthly equipment/TV fees will really add up if you have a dozen TVs whereas putting a set top or even two set tops on each is a lot cheaper in the long run.
     
  15. Aug 1, 2017 #555 of 585
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    51,836
    2,507
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    What is the point of having "a ton" of TVs if one doesn't watch them? Disconnected TV sets (used for gaming, DVD/Blurays, etc) don't count against a traditional subscription so one could trim unused sets and keep a traditional subscription in key locations where subscriptions are needed. But that is cord trimming, not cord cutting.

    And going from a traditional subscription to SlingTV, DIRECTV Now or other package services is just cord swapping ... trading off the long commitments for reduced content.

    As far as "narrow interests" go, I see a lot of compromise in getting a "skinny" package. For me it would be the easiest way of subscribing to channels I do not watch. I only watch one sport (NASCAR) so I have no need for RSNs. But the channels I do watch require more than one bundle.
     
  16. Aug 1, 2017 #556 of 585
  17. Aug 4, 2017 #557 of 585
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
  18. Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
  19. texasbrit

    texasbrit Well-Known Member

    5,622
    180
    Aug 9, 2006
    !0 mb/sec? 160Gb per month? Hardly earth shattering. And in any case, the wheels are rapidly coming off the streaming business.
    I agree with ctjon's post. So how many services do I need to get the channels I want? All the program providers think they can make more money by distributing the programs themselves, cutting out the middle man. Cord cutting is turning into multiple cords....
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements