When AT&T shuts down sat TV, what will become of the DBS allocated spectrum?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by tkrandall, Apr 23, 2019.

  1. Apr 24, 2019 #21 of 107
    NashGuy

    NashGuy Active Member

    664
    136
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    DBS is a one-trick pony, only capable of delivering linear TV channels, which themselves constitute a dwindling (but still large) portion of the total video content Americans consume.

    Cable is still around and has a long life ahead of it because it offers not just traditional linear cable TV but also fast and reliable broadband service, over which all kinds of media and communications can be delivered, including all of that video entertainment that cannot and won't ever be found on linear TV channels.
     
  2. Apr 24, 2019 #22 of 107
    James Long

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

    49,142
    1,663
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    "Huge amounts" and "tons" are emotional portrayals. Here are some real numbers ...

    The peak subscriber count for UVERSE was 2014 ... 5.9 million subscribers. DIRECTV had 20.3 million (end of 2014). In the year of the merger (2015) UVERSE dropped 300k, DIRECTV dropped just over 500k. Losing a half million is not gaining a ton. The gain did not come until 2016. DIRECTV rebounded in 2016 to reach the satellite service's peak subscriber count of 21 million. UVERSE lost slightly more than the 1.2 million satellite gained, and DIRECTV NOW launched adding 267k customers. 2016 was the last year there was a net gain of subscribers across all three services.

    In 2017 DIRECTV lost 554k, UVERSE lost 662k and NOW gained 888k. Net loss 288k. That is where UVERSE leveled off.
    In 2018 DIRECTV lost 1.2 million, UVERSE gained 50k and NOW gained 436k. Net loss 750k.

    Today's report was a 544k loss of "Premium TV" subscribers in the quarter and an 83k loss for DIRECTV NOW.
     
  3. Apr 24, 2019 #23 of 107
    James Long

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

    49,142
    1,663
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Nope. Satellite can deliver content to anywhere from zero to infinity viewers per feed simultaneously. The primary benefit comes when many people are watching the same feed, but there is nothing preventing a channel from having an audience of one. As encoding continues to improve don't be surprised if "satellite streaming" fills the bandwidth freed up.

    Anyone who supports and promotes IP multicast should also support satellite delivery. The best way of getting the same signal to infinite subscribers is broadcast. With broadcast if you can receive the signal you get the content. And the potential millions of other subscribers (billions, trillions, keep counting to infinity) getting the same signal do not degenerate the signal each subscriber receives. Try that over the Internet. :D
     
    SamC likes this.
  4. Apr 24, 2019 #24 of 107
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,338
    1,390
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    I know what the hype is, you need to consider the physics involved before naively swallowing the story they are feeding their investors.
     
  5. Apr 24, 2019 #25 of 107
    NashGuy

    NashGuy Active Member

    664
    136
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    You need to decide if Jeff Bezos is dumb enough to pour billions of dollars into Iridium 2.0. He didn't get to be far, far richer than you and me by being dumber than you.
     
  6. Apr 24, 2019 #26 of 107
    CraigerM

    CraigerM Well-Known Member

    1,585
    93
    Apr 15, 2014
    St. Louis
  7. Apr 24, 2019 #27 of 107
    NashGuy

    NashGuy Active Member

    664
    136
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    I don't even know what this means.

    AT&T already does this over the internet. It's called Uverse TV, which uses multicast IP. :D
     
  8. Apr 24, 2019 #28 of 107
    James Long

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

    49,142
    1,663
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    He is talking about business devices - not home use. But my opinion of 5G remains unchanged from the dozens of times we have discussed this theory in the past.
     
  9. Apr 24, 2019 #29 of 107
    CraigerM

    CraigerM Well-Known Member

    1,585
    93
    Apr 15, 2014
    St. Louis
    You mean business devices having the 5g modem built in and home devices not having the 5g modem built in? In the home you would still need a 5g modem?
     
  10. Apr 24, 2019 #30 of 107
    James Long

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

    49,142
    1,663
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    And there is the problem. If you knew what I am talking about you would not be so eager to dismiss satellite delivery.

    I was talking about the Internet, not the internet. If you don't know the difference then you really don't understand the issues with multicast over uncontrolled networks.
     
    KyL416 likes this.
  11. Apr 24, 2019 #31 of 107
    CraigerM

    CraigerM Well-Known Member

    1,585
    93
    Apr 15, 2014
    St. Louis
    Managed and unmanaged IPTV right? I was thinking could they do DTV over managed IPTV with DTV being 8 to 10 mbps? However, they would probably only be able to do that with FTTH.
     
  12. Apr 24, 2019 #32 of 107
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    5,391
    1,059
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    There you go again making incorrect claims about multicast. Like I said earlier, U-Verse TV is NOT multicast over the internet, it's on AT&T's closed network and functions on the local level, so NO, AT&T does NOT already do this over the internet..

    If you don't know the key differences between that and the Internet, and why that matters when it comes to multicast delivery, you really need to refresh yourself on how the internet actually operates on a technical and physical level.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2019
  13. Apr 24, 2019 #33 of 107
    NashGuy

    NashGuy Active Member

    664
    136
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    Please elucidate us on the difference of "the internet" spelled with a lower case i vs. "the Internet" spelled with an upper case I.


    I completely understand that and it makes ZERO difference to any of the arguments I posted above. Although your semantics are confused -- multicast is absolutely an internet-based protocol. AT&T Uverse TV absolutely does use multicast over the internet but only on portions of the internet under AT&T's control; their multicast streams do not travel across non-AT&T-managed portions of the internet. Multicast can only be provisioned over a given provider's own portion of the internet.

    But Uverse TV is based on an older, less flexible managed IPTV platform. The future is to blend OTT -- for access across any network -- with multicast IP on popular linear channels on your own network (to reduce traffic). Read this article to gain a better understanding of how this approach has already been used for over two years by a pay TV provider in Iceland:
    https://www.v-net.tv/2017/07/13/mul...un-for-migration-to-an-all-http-video-future/
     
  14. Apr 24, 2019 #34 of 107
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    5,391
    1,059
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    Clearly you don't because you just replied with more incorrect things...

    IP and internet are NOT one in the same.... i.e. Your home network also uses IP protocols for LAN traffic, and unless you really screwed up when configuring your local network and firewall, that doesn't use the internet at all.

    Again, that's NOT the Internet, it's AT&T's closed network. If you don't know the difference and why that affects multicast, just stop trying to say otherwise, and maybe you'll learn why from the people who actually know these things, instead of confusing others here who aren't familiar with it by making more false/debunked claims.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2019
    SamC likes this.
  15. Apr 24, 2019 #35 of 107
    James Long

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

    49,142
    1,663
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Kids these days ...
     
  16. Apr 24, 2019 #36 of 107
    NashGuy

    NashGuy Active Member

    664
    136
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    Ad hominem and other non-fact-based content-free responses reveal your ignorance.
     
  17. Apr 24, 2019 #37 of 107
    NashGuy

    NashGuy Active Member

    664
    136
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    Make Satellite TV Great Again, grandpa!
     
  18. Apr 24, 2019 #38 of 107
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    5,391
    1,059
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    Seriously, are you just trolling at this point? You always result to this "I know you are but what am I" response anytime you get called out on being wrong.

    Since you still don't get what James was referring to and rather attack him for it. When you were talking about multicast for popular linear content via future satellite ISPs, that's what satellite TV has been pretty much doing since the beginning by broadcasting content to all of their subscribers/customers so the same bandwidth is consumed no matter how many people are watching a channel. And they have since built on it by pushing content to hard drives for major VOD, 4K VOD, along with interactive streams that don't require an internet connection for things like local weather, severe weather alerts, sports experiences, scoreguide 1.0, etc.


    You did this same "I Know you are but what am I" crap when you got called out for falsely claiming that broadband is available everywhere Charter/Comcast/Cox etc serve, refused to believe that Verizon had a 3 Mbps DSL policy for remote terminals and halted expansion of FiOS, resulting in higher prices with caps from people lucky enough for a cable option in those FiOS-less Verizon areas, and then asked for proof about what at the time was a major headline involving Spectrum and New York State:
    AT&T To Launch Full DTV Using The Internet This Fall

    BTW for those who haven't been following that saga, last week Spectrum settled with New York State, and this time they won't get away with cherry picking areas where it's "profitable" as part of the requirement to expand to unserved and underserved areas, and must meet multiple deadlines for progress, and if they fail to meet the new requirements, they're out. New York can get away with it because their public utility commission regulates everything, but if you're in a state where there is no PUC or the PUC has limited power, you're screwed. Like here in PA, only telco service is regulated and their "broadband" obligation is met if they provide 1 Mbps speeds. Cable is under no obligation to serve everywhere they have a franchise, nor do they have minimum service requirements. (i.e. Blue Ridge Cable still has some analog only systems that are running on 400 MHz networks, one of which has a lineup that doesn't make it to channel 50)
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2019
    APB101, SamC and MysteryMan like this.
  19. Apr 25, 2019 #39 of 107
    Richard

    Richard Legend

    280
    15
    Apr 23, 2002
    South Texas
    Unfortunately, this is very typical of the FUD that people have been posting on here recently. It's hilarious how uninformed people really are.
     
  20. Apr 26, 2019 #40 of 107
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    25,726
    485
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    what is more hilarious, those poster [for hype ?] bring the FUD again and again without hesitation to search the forum and read posts about the subj
     

Share This Page

spam firewall