Direct TV fixed wireless Broadband

I'm not sure why anyone thought it would be different. Networks were getting paid by the 80% or whatever of households who had cable or satellite, and aren't going to accept less without a lot of kicking and screaming. So long as streaming was only to people who already paid for cable/satellite, or never were going to anyway, it made a network look like they were on the cutting edge of technology and expanded their viewership.

Now that cable/satellite subscriptions have begun to fall due to streaming, networks are having to revisit how it affects their bottom line. The streaming providers are not going to be able to make the great deals that let them undercut traditional cable/satellite providers any longer they're going to charge the same rates no matter the deliver method. The networks will also move towards offering their own content direct to consumers for those who want to pick and choose instead of getting a traditional package - at a higher price than they charge third party providers because they have to compensate for the fact that previously almost everyone was paying them. Now only those who want their content will pay them.

These last few years will be looked back on as the golden age of streaming, when you still could save a bunch of money by cutting the cord without having to give up programming.

 

No cord-cutter has reported higher bills relative to PayTv. Concessions made? Of course, such as no sports programming. But cord-cutting isn't really an option for sports fanatics, including those that want to watch the local baseball team

 

Or they'll simply have to absorb the costs. And if they can't, declare bankruptcy.

Look at SportsNetLa. It thought it could get all PayTv providers to charge every PayTv subscriber 5 dollars a month (increasing every year at a rate well above inflation) for the Dodgers. DTV and other distributors balked. And SportsNetLa will have to write off hundreds of millions of dollars it has promised the Dodgers thru 2037.

And 70% of the LA area is content with not having access to Dodgers baseball

 

Sports is a different story. They aren't going to be able to make a bunch of people who don't watch pay for them as is happening today. However, most of that money goes to the teams - players and owners. They'll get less.

It isn't like non-sports networks are rolling in cash. They do all right, but there isn't a lot of room for them to make major concessions. If they do, it'll be in the form of producing fewer / lower quality shows. People point to Netflix as an example of streaming's "success". They've racked up over $20 billion in losses so far, and are on target to lose another $2.5 billion this year. That's obviously not sustainable, at some point the share price will collapse if they don't show profits, and that means either they raise prices, get more customers, or cut back on original shows.

 

I'd love to count the number of articles saying the old cable / sat world is dead. Sure there are people for whom doing without sports or some other part of the entertainment world is fine. Whatever Disney does will not be cheap - that isn't their thing. I'd bet that 5 years from now most people are still on cable/sat and more and more companies are offering their own thing. No alternatives will offer the convenience and ease of the old way. Forgetting about ESPN which maybe separate - how many things does Disney come out with that would make you want to subscribe monthly? How many companies can produce their own series that would be worth monthly subscriptions? How many people can keep track of what service has what shows and what DVR has which things they recorded.

 

Is there a reason that Verizon does not do something like this.

 

They are, but their plans appear to involve major cities, not the rural areas that AT&T is targeting.

 

Verizon is too busy trying to recover after their "number 1 network" was exposed when they went to unlimited data and their network slowed considerably. Easy to have the fastest network when nobody is allowed to use it

 

Will this service ever come to states/areas that do not have AT&T wireline services. Or is this AT&T areas only.

 

It won't be limited to just AT&T's wireline footprint, because it is based on cellular technology - where they're already in 50 states. They might have some additional regulatory hurdles in some states they don't already sell internet services though.

 

Got it.

 

What about range how far from the tower's is this useful.

 

Editor's Corner—The economics of fixed wireless, from LTE to 5G, and what it means for Verizon | FierceWireless

Kohler cautioned that actual, real-world speeds are often determined by receivers’ distance from Rise towers. He said most Rise customers live 3 to 4 miles away from the company’s towers. As for customers’ receivers, often called customer premises equipment (CPE) Kohler said that an LTE receiver typically costs $100 to $200, or around half the cost of most nonstandard receivers.

 

so has anyone come across someone that is actually using At&t's fixed wireless service yet?