1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

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

  1. KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    And the people who have no other option but satellite isn't just limited to rural areas in the middle of nowhere. We live in a populated suburban area where most of the lots are about half an acre, only three houses from the main road which has cable service. The local cable company refused to wire our block unless we either get half the block to sign up for service our we personally pay for the run at $1000 per 100 feet, the latter option also meant that if we do that, there's no stopping our neighbors from signing up the day after it's installed and not having to pay thousands of dollars up front like we would have had to. DSL didn't become available until 2006, we're still limited to just 3mbps down/768kbps up, and Verizon has no plans to upgrade our area to newer technologies like ADSL2+ that would support 6mbps+.

    Of course when the cable company provided details to the FCC for their broadband map they just gave them their franchise area and didn't omit the multiple blocks they refuse to serve, so the map is full of false data for our area when it comes to what speeds are available.
  2. peds48

    peds48 Genius.

    Jan 10, 2008
    While 70%+ might have "broadband". All "broadband" is not created equal. Many can't get more than 1MB-3MB service in their area. .

    Which begs the question, how can they call this "high speed"?

    Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk
  3. keyoctave

    keyoctave Mentor

    Jan 9, 2005
    Just have to add my 2 cents on this...

    I live in what some would call a rural area but only a 20 min drive to a small city. I live in a housing development that is not served by cable. Its DTV, Dish or OTA if you want to watch programming. In fact, the county's (that I live in) only cable company (Charter) does not even offer high def to its customers. They do get high speed internet with no limits. There is Verizon 4g service in my area but it is weak at my house. I have a sprint tower only 0.3 miles from me, so I use a 3g modem (they have not upgraded to 4G yet) hooked to a router for my internet. This costs me $80 a month with a 12Gb limit! I can pay $50 a month for 6Gb but that really cuts down on what you can do. How in the hell can people in this kind of situation be able to stream anything? And don't say 'move somewhere else'. It seems the internet service providers only care about where to make the most money and leave large area's in the country with sub-standard service costing a lot more to obtain.
    I really don't feel the least bit sorry when some of you bitch about your 'slow' 3 meg unlimited download speeds. I only wish!!
  4. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    Jul 5, 2007
    If it's faster than 56k dial-up service then they consider it "high speed." They still use the 1990s as a reference. :grin:
  5. wingrider01

    wingrider01 Hall Of Fame

    Sep 9, 2005
    could be limited to a 56K dial up, yes there are those still in existance
  6. jdskycaster

    jdskycaster Legend

    Sep 1, 2008
    To answer the original question. Yes. The bottom line is money talks and the likes of Google, Apple, Intel and others have more of it in their coffers than ever before.

    Does the NFL care if some percentage of Direc's customers cannot access NFLST? Absolutely not! If they did then they would also give a rats behind about the millions of customers with Dish or cable that also cannot access it. Will Direc lose NFLST? Probably not they are just now going to have to pay a little more dearly for it and possibly accept larger losses (or smaller gains depending on whose numbers you believe). I personally agree with those that feel there is room for more than one player in this game. Direc with NFLST and someone like Google offering more limited packages online.
  7. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    3 Reasons Why Google Won't Steal Sunday Ticket From DIRECTV

  8. TBoneit

    TBoneit Hall Of Fame

    Jul 27, 2006
    The point that Google could only provide Sunday ticket is Bogus as I see it. Most of the people that would watch it via Google most likely have An antenna or basic cable or some other way of getting locals.

    The Point about Google being disruptive to the status Quo? How is is Google providing Sunday Ticket significantly different that DirecTV doing so.

    Nothing there that made me think Google would not or could not go after Sunday Ticket.

    One point that was wrong is that there is a Decent infrastructure these days.

    I have no knowledge of the inner workings of Sunday Ticket, Having said that Is there anything to Stop the Cable companies from forming a new company backed financially by the cable industry to bid for and outbid DirecTV?
    Or as a alternative Include Dishnetwork as a partner to provide it to areas they do not cover?
    Or as a method to drive up the price to empty the DirecTV coffers?

    Or Google and Dishnetwork with Dish once again offering it in Areas with bad Internet coverage. Especially With Dishes Investment in Wireless bandwidth.

    I expect that All the D* and Football fans will disagree with me of course.

  9. Mildred

    Mildred New Member

    Sep 19, 2013
    New York
    Just got an account here because I came upon this thread and wanted to share my $.02.


    Yes, the internet in general will kill DirecTV's business, though it will be a slow slog, as DirecTV, Dish, Cable, and content providers all do their best to stymie death of their golden goose.

    We have finally already reached a critical mass of cord cutting (http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/cord-cutting-no-longer-a-urban-myth-pay-tv-operators-drop-316000-subs-in-past-year-1200574763/). Cable subscribers are clearly on the way down, and substantially, and satellite is now bleeding year over year. This trend is accelerating and will continue. Admittedly, we are VERY early days in this, but I think the tea leaves have hit a special point and cable & sat providers now can no longer live in denial about where things are heading.

    Focusing on the tiny number of satellite internet users misses the big picture. Most people have broadband, and it is almost universally capable of streaming HD video.

    Usage caps are a red herring. Few people have them, and although there has been some experimentation with them, it's inevitable that bandwidth will get cheaper over time, as it always has. When Time Warner tried usage caps in my area a few years back people went ape over it and TW was forced to capitulate. Now I may be on the cusp of having residential fiber optic (and this is rolling out slowly over the country).

    An increasing number of people are cutting the cord not due to economic reasons, but partly on principled ones, or just a general sense that $70-80+/month for locals (which are free over antenna) plus a couple of channels they watch is not a good use of money.

    AppleTV, Roku, Chromecast, SimpleTV, Aereo, just a few of the products that make this all far less painful than it used to be. And you've Netflix putting out top-tier self-made series themselves, Amazon putting out its own series, and Hulu as well. This trend will continue.

    Unfortunately for people who don't cut the cord, the remaining costs are shared among them. I recently dropped DirecTV but was one of the "lucky" ones this year to note a new $2 "regional sports fee". I never watch sports on TV. I hate charges like that. Now they don't have my $2. When more people leave they are out X * $2, and ultimately will have to spread the loss out among existing subscribers, raising their $2 to something higher.

    Cable & Satellite costs are going up, in direct contrast to increasingly ubiquitous high speed internet and alternative options.
  10. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
  11. KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    They already have one, it's called iNDemand, they provide Center Ice, Extra Innings, League Pass, Direct Kick along with PPV events and movies to most cable providers.

    However their sports packages are severely lacking compared to DirecTV. MLB and NHL share the same 14 SD and 9 HD channels so dual feeds are rare and on busy nights you have games not carried in HD and late games joined in progress. NBA and MLS share 10 SD and 9 HD channels too. Very few cable systems have the bandwidth to offer all 18 HD feeds and only offer the packages in SD with 1 or 2 HD feeds.

    Verizon customers would beg to differ, they stopped the rollout of FiOS in new regions several years ago. The only new areas are ones that are part of existing franchise agreements they have yet to complete like portions of Philly, NYC and Boston. There's still many areas stuck with their 3mbps DSL service with no plans to expand the rollout of ADSL2+ that would support 6mbps service and no alternative like cable as an option.
  12. peds48

    peds48 Genius.

    Jan 10, 2008
  13. FLWingNut

    FLWingNut Godfather

    Nov 19, 2005
    I love these doomsday scenarios. Radio was going to kill live music, TV was going to kill the movie industry, the VCR was going to kill commercial TV, Blockbuster was going to kill the movie industry, and the Internet was going to kill Everybody...

    While the 'net has, indeed, changed the way traditional media (newspapers, magazines, radio, the record industry, TV) do business, all those businesses are still with us. As it will be with pay TV. Some of us have no desire to start acquiring multiple boxes for different platforms, worrying about data caps, having to work to find the shows you want, etc. There will always be the appeal of having your TV entertainment choices integrated in one box, with a guide you can search with a delivery system that is reliable.

    Having said that, I not anti-internet. Far from it. I use it daily, it has a ton of wonderful uses. For me, though, I can't say it will ever replace TV>
  14. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    Well, print media is a shell of what it once was (perhaps a perfect storm of dishonest and biased reporting and the internet), and the music industry is still trying to figure out the best way to deal with reduced profits given the new distribution paradigm.

    In both cases it has taken years to get to where we are today. I believe we really are seeing the beginning of the end of the cable/sat monopoly though.

    Oh, and DVD replaced VHS. Blue-ray was supposed to replace DVD, but it hasn't happened. My bet is that both will die a slow death like the CD has as folks turn to streaming or downloading movies.
  15. Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    May 30, 2006
    Yeah I agree. Media companies are already preparing, adapting and trying to figure out what might be the best model possible. You don't have to be a visionary to realize the possibilities, to rid themselves of one provider with a static customer base. They just need to figure out a way to fully monetize it, to find that audience, and eventually consolidate it (which I'm sure they will) and things will really take off.

    The technology might be slightly behind, but I also agree that bandwidth will increase over time as cable and telecom companies realize people want more, and the way we view TV through the internet will only get better, it's inevitable if past technological innovation is any indication.

    People who think otherwise will use confirmation bias until they realize it's already happened.
  16. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    Feb 14, 2013
    DVD replaced VHS with an essentially identical technology from a usage standpoint. The form factor was different, the quality was higher, but people still bought/rented things to insert in a player and watch on a TV. Claiming that's a change is like claiming that plastic grocery bags replaced paper bags...people still use them the same way.

    The Internet succeeds where it can drop the price down to zero. That's what killed newspapers, not biased reporting (if you think newspapers are biased now, Google 'yellow journalism' and see what real bias is - by comparison the newspapers today are way way better) News, by definition, cannot be copyrighted, because you cannot copyright facts. Facts are free on the Internet, with a much bigger degree of slant in both directions than you can get from any newspaper thrown in as a bonus! That's why newspapers are in big trouble. Music was free for a while, thanks to Napster, even though it wasn't legal many didn't know/care at the time. The only reason the labels agreed to let Apple set such a low price and sell per song which later became a model for all music downloads is that they were competing with 'free' and knew they couldn't charge what they did for CDs and expect enough people to choose it over free but illegal.

    Television is different, because even though it is legal to tell someone the score of a game or what happened in the latest Mad Men episode, people want to actually watch the program not just see reports of it. The internet can't drop its value to zero. Yes, there are illegal downloads, but it is much easier to police now than it was during the days of Napster. People might eventually switch from cable or satellite to a set top like Apple TV or Roku that lets them order seasons, assuming the sports leagues are willing to let them stream it and the Internet can handle the load of 100 million people streaming the Super Bowl at once. But we're not there yet, so the cord cutters are those who don't like TV too much and assign a low value to it. The people paying $150/month for TV aren't the ones cutting the cord, unless they lose their jobs and need to make serious cutbacks.

    Whether cable/satellite go away as distribution models and are replaced by the Internet will depend on what the content owners want to do. They will sell their stuff in whatever way they think will make them the most money. At the moment, it is bundling a lot of stuff together and making people who don't care about sports pay for them anyway. In the past they keep increasing prices and people keep paying for it, so they will keep doing it until they ending up losing more in terms of lost subscribers than they gained in terms of more money per subscriber. The Internet is an alternative means of selling their content, that's all. It is not particularly efficient to send the same bitstream to millions of people individually instead of to thousands or millions of people at once, so ending up with the Internet as a distribution model will only happen if that inefficiency is overcome by being able make more money that way.
  17. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA

    Good spin. However, my point was the basic 'you can't stop progress'. I never said content would be free. But imho delivery systems are going to change. That was my only intended point.
  18. FLWingNut

    FLWingNut Godfather

    Nov 19, 2005
    And my point is that there are a ton of people who don't want to be that proactive in finding content. The current model is simple, and that's an attractive point for many.

    Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app
  19. JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    Jul 21, 2008
    commercial locations are big with directv and lot's of them have ST and other sports packs as well.

    Also lot's of them that have HD use component switcher systems some even have the sound boxes that you can put on the table top and you can pick the feed that you want sound on.

    Lot's of the IP boxes do not have component out.

    Also bandwidth can be an issue with pulling down 8-16 HD feeds at the same time to one site much less more places on the same node / others when not use an multicast system.
  20. mike1977

    mike1977 Legend

    Aug 26, 2005
    It'd be nice if this threat brought a change...channels would go back to a M-F schedule with more variety, reruns of shows would be uncut, advertising over a show would be eliminated and bumpers would be back in style.

Share This Page