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

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Athlon646464, Aug 28, 2013.

  1. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Yada Yada Yada DBSTalk Gold Club

    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    I just found this on Comcast's (not who I use) support site:

    Netflix Movies (HD): These guys are around 3.8Mbit, which means it's about 3600MB for a 2 hour HD movie.
    Netflix Movies (SD): Each of these movies are around 500-700MB each, depending on the length of the movie.
    Netflix TV Shows (HD): A 30-minute TV show will be about 1500MB.
    Netflix TV Shows (SD): A 30-minute TV show will be about 400MB.
    If you do the math, that means you can stream about 3 seasons of Entourage and 40 movies in HD. However, that's not to account for standard Internet usage, so with YouTube, Facebook, and all of the other things you and your household may use, that's looking to drop the number down to about 20 HD movies, which is still a substantial amount for most people.

    Not even close to your claim.
  2. sdk009

    sdk009 Icon

    Jan 19, 2007
    Kihei, Maui, HI
    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.
  3. Diana C

    Diana C Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    Mar 30, 2007
    New Jersey
    Well, at 1.8 gigabytes per hour, and a 20GB cap, he'd only be able to watch about 11 hours of TV per month, assuming he did nothing else on the Internet at all...certainly not a viable option.
  4. KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    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.
  5. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    Feb 14, 2013
    I realize it is a bit behind the people in the stadium now. However, you're wildly off with your 3-4 second claim. Directv's hop up to and back down from the satellite only adds 0.25 seconds what Google would have (~45k miles round trip to the Directv bird and back down to your dish) because Google would have all the other delays for encoding, satellite transmission from the stadium identical to what Directv (or your local TV station) has.
  6. SledgeHammer

    SledgeHammer Icon

    Dec 28, 2007
    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 :).
  7. sregener

    sregener Godfather

    Apr 17, 2012
    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.
  8. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Yada Yada Yada DBSTalk Gold Club

    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    Not my math at all - I clearly quoted Comcast in my post. And in another post I gave you my experience with caps.
  9. JohnBoy

    JohnBoy New Member

    Sep 8, 2011
    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.
  10. maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    Nov 1, 2010
    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.
  11. sregener

    sregener Godfather

    Apr 17, 2012
    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.
  12. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    Feb 14, 2013
    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 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 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)
  13. photostudent

    photostudent Godfather

    Nov 8, 2007
    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.
  14. Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    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.
  15. peds48

    peds48 Genius.

    Jan 10, 2008
    and even if bits are bits, what makes the difference is the encoding method
  16. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    Feb 14, 2013
    No, that is not true at all. Go learn the difference between broadcasting and point to point transmission.
  17. 1948GG

    1948GG Icon

    Aug 4, 2007
    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.
    1 person likes this.
  18. Gocanes

    Gocanes AllStar

    Jul 15, 2007
    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.
  19. jacksonm30354

    jacksonm30354 Icon

    Mar 29, 2007
    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.

    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.
  20. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Yada Yada Yada DBSTalk Gold Club

    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    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.

Share This Page

spam firewall