DBSTalk Forum banner
161 - 180 of 382 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,100 Posts
That is good news. Now they need to do away with that 90 day time limit. At least match YTTV 9 month time period.
Agreed. That's another of the improvements I've been saying for a year or more that they should make to the service: extend the unlimited cloud DVR to at least 9 months (same as YTTV), although one year would be best (same as Xfinity's cloud DVR).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,588 Posts
Not everyone is like that though. And accodring to the website you are not elgible for the free unlimited Cloud DVR.
Folks in the DirecTV support forum claim that existing customers will indeed get free unlimited Cloud DVR. We shall see if that's true. It's supposed to roll out over the next few days.
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
24,453 Posts
DISH doesn't get to count Boost subscribers as DISH TV subscribers.
I was using Boost to support the idea that DISH's revenue stream isn't limited to pay TV. DIRECTV sells only pay TV and service plans.
Can you name one where DISH/Echostar does not already own or have rights to a similar patent and needs DIRECTV's technology?
The feature that gives DVRs the ability to record back-to-back programs on the same channel using the same tuner. I'd dearly love to have that capability with my OTA tuners.
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
24,453 Posts
One of those - AMC. Advanced Modulation and Coding, using for A3 transponders mostly for Ka sats, but they're using it on a few tpns of Ku sats.
What practical advantage does this technology from 30 years ago offer over what DISH is using?

If I'm not wrong, AMC was developed by NASA which adds to the red herring factor.
Second (by TiVo, but DTV have an agreement of using it) - indexing of video PID files. They making I-frame marks instead of harsh time marks by dish indexing (remember dish litigation ? failed!); trick play is intensively using the marks
TiVo patents are covered under the TiVo license. Bad example.

"Skip to tick" may or may not be related.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,492 Posts
The feature that gives DVRs the ability to record back-to-back programs on the same channel using the same tuner. I'd dearly love to have that capability with my OTA tuners.
That's patented by DIRECTV? Wow. They should sue DISH for infringement since I can record back-to-back programs on my DISH Hopper on any of the four major networks (24/7). I have not tried that on random satellite channels lately (such as recording a marathon on a cable channel without burning two tuners for the overlaps). But the technology is there ... they just have to use it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,492 Posts
DISH satellites are going to last FOREVER!
Merging with DIRECTV will not replace DISH satellites (without the greater expense of changing dishes if you are still on that DISH receivers can receive DIRECTV satellites train of thought). But if DIRECTV wants to sell any usable Ku DBS satellites to DISH for a good price a deal could be made. With or without the licenses at 110 and 119. The companies do not have to merge for DISH to buy DIRECTV assets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,100 Posts
Merging with DIRECTV will not replace DISH satellites (without the greater expense of changing dishes if you are still on that DISH receivers can receive DIRECTV satellites train of thought). But if DIRECTV wants to sell any usable Ku DBS satellites to DISH for a good price a deal could be made. With or without the licenses at 110 and 119. The companies do not have to merge for DISH to buy DIRECTV assets.
Why would DTV sell to DISH the only one or two sats that they have which will outlast the DISH fleet into the late '20s-early 30s? Because DTV will obviously need their own sats to continue operating. I know you think their customer base will whittle down to zero within 3 or 4 years but I really don't think it will.

The reality is that both businesses need each other and that becomes only more true for each side as the years go by. They would be better off riding out the rest of their existence together than apart. Which is why, as Ergen has repeatedly said, a merger between DTV and DISH is inevitable. He knows what he's talking about.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,492 Posts
Why would DTV sell to DISH the only one or two sats that they have which will outlast the DISH fleet into the late '20s-early 30s? Because DTV will obviously need their own sats to continue operating. I know you think their customer base will whittle down to zero within 3 or 4 years but I really don't think it will.
DIRECTV doesn't need the Ku satellites they could become a Ka only service. They don't have to lose customers before liquidating selected assets. Selling assets while remaining in business as a Ka competitor to DISH would be easier for the government to accept, give DIRECTV some money (return on their investment) and help DISH. No merger required.

DISH doesn't need a merger. Mr Ergen's never stated that a merger was needed for DISH to survive. Consider it a prediction that eventually DISH will control DIRECTV. On Mr Ergen's terms. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,100 Posts
DIRECTV doesn't need the Ku satellites they could become a Ka only service. They don't have to lose customers before liquidating selected assets. Selling assets while remaining in business as a Ka competitor to DISH would be easier for the government to accept, give DIRECTV some money (return on their investment) and help DISH. No merger required.
Not sure that plan would be feasible (and even if it was, it would be sub-optimal in terms of profitability for both sides versus simply merging). DTV's newest sat, T16, was launched in 2019. They wouldn't sell that one. The next-newest is the T15, launched in 2015, and it supports both Ku and Ka. Then there's the T14, launched in 2014, which is Ka-only, so likely wouldn't be sold under your "DTV-goes-Ka-only" scenario. Older than that and we're getting into sats launched in 2009 and earlier, meaning that their expected lifespan isn't any greater than anything DISH already is using.

So the only sat I could possibly see DTV selling to DISH under the scenario you proposed would be the T14 T15, which is expected to operate until 2029. That might last DISH long enough to see them to the point where cable TV via DBS ceases to be a viable business. But again, it's a sub-optimal alternative to both businesses merging years before that point. Cable TV via DBS as a nationwide consumer service will remain viable longer if there's only one such business operating in the latter half of the 20s than if there are still two fighting it out with each other to see who bleeds out first.

EDIT: Corrected "T14" to "T15" in the second para (see strikethrough).
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,492 Posts
Ok ... back up a step and tell me how a merger changes the situation? According to you DISH will still need new satellites. How does a merger increase the feasibility of DIRECTV giving up theirs? Or are you suggesting the new company spend money moving DISH subscribers over to DIRECTV? Sure - that will help profitability. :rolleyes: Or are you expecting the companies to hold hands and go over the cliff together like Thelma and Louise?

I'm still not seeing a reason for a merger other that what I previously stated (to help DIRECTV and TPG). DISH don't need no stinking merger. Especially a stinky one like the one being suggested in this thread.
 

·
Godfather
Joined
·
798 Posts
Ok ... back up a step and tell me how a merger changes the situation? According to you DISH will still need new satellites. How does a merger increase the feasibility of DIRECTV giving up theirs? Or are you suggesting the new company spend money moving DISH subscribers over to DIRECTV? Sure - that will help profitability. :rolleyes: Or are you expecting the companies to hold hands and go over the cliff together like Thelma and Louise?

I'm still not seeing a reason for a merger other that what I previously stated (to help DIRECTV and TPG). DISH don't need no stinking merger. Especially a stinky one like the one being suggested in this thread.
The big question is ‘where does the subscriber drop off stop?’ At some subscriber level, a company cannot operate profitably. Combining the companies could put the combined one over that threshold.

15 years ago, I saw a value add for satellite over cable in the fact that satellite offered more HD. D10 was about to come online. A DVR and free Sunday Ticket, for essentially the same price, such a deal. Today everyone has a full suite of HD. It took about 10 years for everyone to catch up. I’d still be a DirecTV customer today if they renewed my discount and my price didn’t double. Went to DirecTV Now, got my free Apple TV’s, and paid 1/3 my new D* bill.

My question about the future of satellite is what is the benefit that the customer will pay for? I get rural people that can’t get service any other way, but is that enough? When will the subscriber losses stop?

So, if subscriber losses don’t stop, a merger might be enough to allow the combined company to continue. Of course, cost of combining the systems will be non-trivial, but each company will need to buy new satellites and replace nonfunctional equipment anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
24,453 Posts
They should sue DISH for infringement since I can record back-to-back programs on my DISH Hopper on any of the four major networks (24/7).
I specifically said OTA and spoke of recording marathons on local subchannels and you're holding up PTAT as the answer.

The DISH scheduler will always demand two tuners (even if you zero the padding at both ends) to record consecutive programs on the same channel outside the decidedly narrow scope of PTAT.

The scheme used by DIRECTV can record back-to-back programs on the any one channel and tuner with full padding.

DISH's answer was giving the Hopper 3 a ton of tuners but that doesn't extend to how they treat OTA where the limit is two tuners.
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
24,453 Posts
Why would DTV sell to DISH the only one or two sats that they have which will outlast the DISH fleet into the late '20s-early 30s?
Because it is TPG's responsibility to liquidate DIRECTV and DISH would appear to be the logical choice from a synergy standpoint.
Because DTV will obviously need their own sats to continue operating.
DIRECTV has been angling for many years to unburden themselves from dependence on the 110W and 119W slots. It is their failure to make the transition sufficiently attractive thus far that has prevented it. This most recent "free upgrade" program has been available since 2019 where it was intended to solve the problem by 2020.

DIRECTV has also placed their "spare" satellite, DIRECTV 15, into service to handle international programming from 103W so the plot thickens.

It isn't as if DIRECTV (since before AT&T) hasn't tried to sour the teat with some of the worst SD PQ extant but there are still lots of AVC-incapable receivers out there.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,492 Posts
I specifically said OTA and spoke of recording marathons on local subchannels and you're holding up PTAT as the answer.
Ok ... calm down. No reason to be so ... harsh.

Are you claiming DIRECTV has a patent that allows them to record overlapping OTA programming that somehow DISH would be able to use but only with DIRECTV's permission? If so, please provide the patent number. Also, before wasting your time looking up the number tell us why dish would NEED that allegedly patented process. OTA is a minor part of their service. OTA is a minor part of DIRECTV's service as well. As any DIRECTV customer about how well OTA works on DIRECTV through whatever method DIRECTV kinda supports today. Even if you find the alleged patent, I don't believe DISH needs that patent.

The goal of DISH Network is not to make you, one customer, happy. Their goal is to keep most of their customers happy enough not to leave and make their service appealing enough that they can attract new customers to replace those who choose to leave. Not being able to record back to back OTA isn't a deal breaker and if you believe it is, why are you paying DISH?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,279 Posts
If Directv wanted to sell Dish satellites and slots they have a perfect candidate. D8, which is currently using national beams to broadcast MPEG2 SD duplicate locals to a couple dozen markets at 119. It has fuel life until 2034, so Dish would get a lot of value out of it, and if they were selling off the 110 & 119 transponders to Dish they wouldn't have any use for D8 so they might as well sell it.

Any ideas that Directv would abandon 101 and go Ka only can only come from someone who is completely clueless about Directv. Why would they abandon the middle of their 99/101/103 area? What possible gain is there for them in doing that? Also, EVERY Directv receiver looks to 101 when it starts up. If they dropped 101 they'd have to update firmware to have them look at 99 or 103 instead, but that would break every single receiver is that powered off or otherwise not used when the firmware updates went out. They'd have to wait at least a couple years after making the change and still have people who were upset the receiver they kept as a backup or in a cabin only turned on to have something to do when it rains all day wouldn't work like it had before.

So forget the idea, Directv will NEVER abandon 101. And if they did, Dish would need new dishes/LNBs to use it so it doesn't even do them any good anyway.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,492 Posts
EVERY Directv receiver looks to 101 when it starts up. If they dropped 101 they'd have to update firmware to have them look at 99 or 103 instead, but that would break every single receiver is that powered off or otherwise not used when the firmware updates went out.
An issue that remains whether or not the companies merge. A merger doesn't free up the Ku satellite at 101 any faster than making DIRECTV a good offer.

A firmware update is not impossible but considering how slowly DIRECTV has moved to get people off of 101 I agree that decommissioning 101 would be unlikely. To further expand the "not impossible" I'm sure there is a old Ku satellite owned by DISH or DIRECTV that could be put at 101 to serve as a beacon to the old receivers theoretically left unplugged for years. Such a beacon satellite would also allow DIRECTV to keep the licenses without considering the slot abandoned.

So forget the idea, Directv will NEVER abandon 101. And if they did, Dish would need new dishes/LNBs to use it so it doesn't even do them any good anyway.
DIRECTV's Ku satellites could rebroadcast DISH transponders. Moving it to a DISH location was part of the "not impossible" scenario.

The argument in this case is would a merger make a difference? Would a combined DISH/DIRECTV make that move? (Move 101 to a DISH location and put something else there as a beacon.) If your answer is "great idea but DIRECTV would never go for it" then you would agree that a merger would make a difference. If your answer is "it will never happen merger or no merger" then we are back to the point I was making - a merger isn't going to make a difference.
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
24,453 Posts
Are you claiming DIRECTV has a patent that allows them to record overlapping OTA programming that somehow DISH would be able to use but only with DIRECTV's permission?
That DIRECTV implemented the feature and DISH didn't suggests that this is almost likely the case. In coarse terms it shouldn't be particularly difficult to tack the beginning of the next program onto the tail of the previous one.
Also, before wasting your time looking up the number tell us why dish would NEED that allegedly patented process.
I explained previously that it could extend the utility of the DVRs that weren't Hopper 3s and often double the utility of the OTA tuner dongle on all Hoppers and the Wally.
OTA is a minor part of their service.
I might buy into that very questionable claim if DISH hadn't made such a big deal of opting out of LiL.
OTA is a minor part of DIRECTV's service as well.
This is mostly DIRECTV's fault for their on-again off-again interest and insufficient supply as opposed to a commentary on the value of OTA reception in a world where they only LiL a fraction (a respectable 20% in my market) of the available local channels. Used OTA tuner adapters for DIRECTV receivers are currently listed on eBay for as much as $199.99 + shipping! This suggests a pretty healthy demand given that the original retail price was $69.
As any DIRECTV customer about how well OTA works on DIRECTV through whatever method DIRECTV kinda supports today.
DIRECTV has never officially supported OTA. They've offered admirable (except for their size) products but not a lot of help and updates have been sparse. I would point out that interest in these OTA solutions from subscribers of both services always rockets when there is an LiL carriage dispute.
Even if you find the alleged patent, I don't believe DISH needs that patent.
That's nonsense. Intellectual property is something that DIRECTV has paid a lot for and they well know that if they don't defend it, they risk losing their investment.
Not being able to record back to back OTA isn't a deal breaker and if you believe it is, why are you paying DISH?
I didn't say it was a deal breaker for me (although you might get that idea about mwdxer). I offered it as something to refute your summary dismissal of the value of DIRECTV's IP portfolio.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,492 Posts
That DIRECTV implemented the feature and DISH didn't suggests that this is almost likely the case.
You are starting with a bad assumption. Once you have taken the wrong fork in the road it doesn't matter how far you drive, you can't get to the right destination until you correct the error and get back on the right path.

The decision whether or not to implement a feature or decisions on how to implement a feature are not 100% driven by patent restrictions. Assuming that DISH didn't do something only because they were legally blocked from doing something is a bad assumption. The added assumption that a merger would cause DISH to change their processes and perform the recordings the way you want them to is just another bad assumption.

If you are going to claim that a merger would allow DISH to use a DIRECTV patent then there should at least be a valid patent behind your claim. Otherwise it is just noise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,100 Posts
Ok ... back up a step and tell me how a merger changes the situation? According to you DISH will still need new satellites. How does a merger increase the feasibility of DIRECTV giving up theirs? Or are you suggesting the new company spend money moving DISH subscribers over to DIRECTV? Sure - that will help profitability. :rolleyes: Or are you expecting the companies to hold hands and go over the cliff together like Thelma and Louise?

I'm still not seeing a reason for a merger other that what I previously stated (to help DIRECTV and TPG). DISH don't need no stinking merger. Especially a stinky one like the one being suggested in this thread.
Good god man, I've written this up multiple times already, including in this thread. Just go back and read my earlier posts if you really want to understand. The upshot is that by combining forces rather than fighting each other in a battle to the death, DISH+DTV will be able to cut costs, reduce competition/churn, negotiate better channel rates thanks to a larger subscriber base, and therefore enjoy a higher level of profitability. What each side has complements the other. DISH has better technology (Hopper and Joey DVRs) while DTV has a newer satellite fleet with greater capacity which will remain operational into the 2030s, long after DISH's last sat burns out.

It's not absolutely necessary at this point that either side merge with the other, although doing so would be optimal versus the current situation. As time goes by, though, a merger will become increasingly necessary due to DISH's looming satellite burn-outs and both sides' dwindling subscriber bases.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,492 Posts
Satellites mean nothing without subscribers. You seem to easily dismiss DIRECTV's freefall of subscriber count. Your earlier posts claimed "increased revenues" for a combined service. Being one service does not increase combined revenue.

There would be some reduction in costs with a combined service but nothing immediate. DIRECTV cannot shut down their system and move everyone over to DISH and DISH can't shut down their system and move over to DIRECTV. The conversion cost burns up any savings. Customer Service is scalable at both companies. Where is any massive cost savings coming from? Firing upper management? Using the word "synergy" doesn't change the balance sheet.

I believe you are overestimating the life of DIRECTV as a company and underestimating the life of DISH satellites. I believe you are completely overlooking the fact that AT&T is looking for a way to get DIRECTV off of their books (moderately successful with the sale to TPG) and TPG would like to do the same. DISH is not looking to get out of the satellite business. DISH doesn't need no stinking merger. DISH and Mr Ergen can wait for a better deal.

It really isn't a battle to the death.
 
161 - 180 of 382 Posts
Top