Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by tstarn, Dec 9, 2006.
I think D* can get more mileage out of offering more HD channels (national) and at a higher resolution and bitrate than anything. Can interent speeds over satellite really compete w/ cable, DSL, and FIOS?
They aren't talking about Internet over the sats. They are talking about Internet over power lines, something Google has invested in as well. It's already rolled out there in testing markets.
I can see the tagline now:
DirecTV broadband...powered by Google
It would also allow them to offer a VOIP type phone service as well, the "triple play" that cable talks about so much.
I'm actually getting more excited about the prospects with Malone. But I have to get years of bad TCI taste out of my mouth first.
hhmm.. I caught the "interent power lines". I must of read something into that wasn't there. lol.... It's still early. I was thinking to myself "Haven't they already tried that once?"
Thanks for the clarification.
What's TCI btw?
im worried abotu mexican siution
ase evral of you now
Sky mexico absorb diretv mexico custumers ( buy of leints oficlaly nto emrger)
directv isn alowe o oepre inemxico any,more
as aprt fot eh deal newcorpo /diretv latina emrica ah teh } lieka btu 42% of sky emxico (previsuly newcorp was srackejodler buy its own in ky emxico)
what wodul ahepn with teh alebl in emxico
sky label si news coporation properety
in rbsiul, diretv altianmeria tok 7" of the fusion of sky brasil adn diretv brasuil but eh rband taht suvie and tecnology is sky
ritgh nowq they are int eh rpoces of miratign anlients to ky aptklaform staeltie, adn emr eg eorptions
itn ahtc ases
mayeb related with these case
the aleb surving was sky rbsil
but a ftwer al these rumso start ou they decide to annoubnce a temrpoly name of thew comapañy called sky+directv(ofr the meoemtn)
in emxico e arin a staretgic moemnt ebtw hany nad april w ofoerigns woduwel star
1 or 2 new dth
iptv oferigns for telphonc compnys sua as the big telmex an small amxccom
mayeb a dspaperence form mcrowave
n april rpoility o ftelphoen numebrs (fianllu0
My guess is that if it's Sky that owns them now that it would stay with Sky (part of News Corp), if it's DirecTV that owns them then it will behanded over to Liberty.
TCI was the cable company that Liberty and Malone owned in the 80's/early 90's that was known as the most backward cable system and Malone ran it into the ground. That's why many people have feared him taking over DirecTV. Perhaps he's learned something in the past 15 years.
Internet over powerlines it's really caled Broadband Powerline "BPL" to me is the the worst idea ever because it will mess up radio comunications 60 Hz up to 85 MHz!
As a ham radio OPS and and many other users, will get awfull BPL radio polutions and rasiing the radio noise floor at it worst.
Please boycott BPL.
You can find out on www.arrl.org and just click on BPL information.
I think Directv should be going to be better off going to fiber optic which is much cleaner and much faster bit rate.
Not really sure you're going to talk Sat based distribution company into stringing lines to every home in the US. Seems like it sort of defeats the whole idea of what they are all about to me.
Agree about potential upside. Obviously, News Corp. stopped caring about the future the second they decided to dump D*. Now, if Liberty really wants it that bad, they have to have some sort of plan for making it better, etc. One would hope that can only mean good things down the road...if Malone has turned over a new leaf in terms of the his thinking about owning a distribution company.
I don't see why everybody thinks TV, phone and internet need to be bundled. I'd rather see each develop in the best way by itself.
Several attempts at BPL have shut down because it wasn't economically viable. Additionally, the interference can work both ways--BPL systems will be vulnerable to interference from other services, and the licensed services have priority (or at least did until the FCC became overrun by opportunists).
Bob Nielsen (aka N7XY)
Yeah, that sure does seem to be the case for the past few years.
Carl (aka N7KUW)
I really don't see much advantage to bundling these services. It's really just a lot of marketing hype from the cable companies, which are trying to make up for years of bad service and skyrocketing prices.
If I were to buy a bundle of services from Comcast in this area, it would cost me more than I'm paying to buy them separately. Comcast charges $42.95 per month for cable modem service, which is $10 more than BellSouth charges for comparable DSL service. And I've heard a lot of complaints about those cable broadband connections going down frequently.
And if you want DVRs, be prepared to pay for it - $10 a month for the first DVR and $5 for each additional one. That's $15 a month I would pay for two DVRs, compared to compared to getting it free from DirecTV with the Premiere package(or $5.99 for those with a basic service package).
I don't know what Comcast is charging for bundled phone service, but land-based phone service is a declining business anyway. The growth is in wireless, where cable has no advantage. A lot of people are dropping their land lines and going strictly with cell phones.
Wireless Internet service is also gaining in popularity - many municipalities are setting up their own wireless systems, which can offer service at a price the cable companies won't be able to match.
Another factor to consider is whether really want your phone, Internet, and TV all coming over the same wire. If that wire should go down, which is a common occurrence with cable, you lose connectivity to all of those services until the problem is corrected. And when you're dealing with a cable company, good luck getting it fixed.
Agree about Triple Play (and crappy cable service). The only real upside is the first year is low cost ($99 for all three, without pay channels), but it goes up after that. Here in Philly, we're going to have Wifi city-wide very soon ($20 a month, but it's not clear if you can share it with other computers in your home). Scary part: The city government is in charge (but Earthlink is the tech provider). If you can network your account for $20 a month, that's pretty cheap. I pay $30 a month now, for 3m service via DSL. So why would I want to hook up with cable for broadband? Don't get it. Now FIOS (fiber), that may be a different story.
One thing to keep in mind is that FIOS, WiFi, DSL are all technologies available to folks that live in populated areas. The area I live in barely qualifies for DSL, and I doubt I will ever see FIOS or WiFi. Cable OTOH, can provide decent Internet service, and has existing infrastructure in most rural communities. So when they start advertising bundled services for a better rate, Sat providers cannot compete. I looked at my cable companies "triple play" before committing to the HR20, and I could have saved some money for the first year, but after that it was about even with what I was paying now. Some folks like having one provider for many services, one bill, one number to call for service, etc. Personally, I would rather have enhanced content, I could care less how many service providers I have. I would rather see Malone focus on enhancing the base of content and services that D* provides now, rather than chasing new services and technologies that do not really fit well with their core business.
Good points. Triple Play is obviously a media darling, but unless there is a clear benefit (other than price alone), why bother? Sounds good on paper. If you factor in my phone bill, DTV bill and DSL, we're talking $200 plus (not counting my business line). If I were to move to Comcast for all three, it would be $99 for a year, but that doesn't get me all the pay services I receive with D, which no doubt would add another $40 to the bill, plus the cost of limited DVRs (capacity-wise), and we have three operating right now (2 R10s and the HR20).
Unfortunately, perception is reality when it comes to the Holy Grail otherwise known as Triple Play.