DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket

[Bruce]

BTW, checked again this morning. ESPN is still linear only.

Give it 2 years, by then they would lose, at least, another 16 million customers in per sub fees, no choice but try and recoup some of that by also offering a OTT version.

 

[Juan]

What does a 13 year old picture have to do with anything?

From your link- Date taken: 18 November 2009

Take a current pic, based on losing 11 million Subscribers, I would bet most of those Dishes to be gone.

Probably streaming or have Comcast since they have 17 million subscribers.

It just proves directv was everywhere

 

[Bruce]

It just proves directv was everywhere

Nope and they lost a lot since then.

DirecTV in 2009-18,081,000 subscribers /Households
Households in the United States in 2009-117,180,000

Another swing and a miss by you.

 

[Don in CT]

It just proves directv was everywhere

How many dormant dishes remain on roofs.

 

[Juan]

Nope and they lost a lot since then.

DirecTV in 2009-18,081,000 subscribers /Households
Households in the United States in 2009-117,180,000

Another swing and a miss by you.

Huh?..i only showed you could get directv anywhere

 

[Yespage]

Most people do not need 1G, but I have it, heck, if 2G was available I would have it instead.

Just ordered the new ipad pro because it has the M2 chip and it is 20% faster, did not need it, my 2021 Pro I bought 18 months was just fine, but the new one is faster, the 2021 model will go to my daughter.

Fine. Speed is speed. Someone needs to drive the economy.

Now looking at the new Apple TV, it has a 10/100/1000 ethernet port, unlike the Roku Ultra which only has a 10/100 port, which is just fine, never a issue, but the new Apple TV is faster.

You can only stream one thing at a time via the device, so a Gb port really is a waste of capacity. On a router, makes sense for a computer, but it makes no sense to have a Gb port on a streaming device when 4K streams don't remotely approach the 100 Mb limit. In other words... it isn't faster! Effectively paying to ride a high speed train at normal speed.

 

[Bruce]

Fine. Speed is speed. Someone needs to drive the economy.

You can only stream one thing at a time via the device, so a Gb port really is a waste of capacity. On a router, makes sense for a computer, but it makes no sense to have a Gb port on a streaming device when 4K streams don't remotely approach the 100 Mb limit. In other words... it isn't faster!

Not a disagreement, the point is-it is faster and I ( and many others) want it, not saying it makes sense, I know I do not need it.

As far as 4K Streams goes, my Sony Z9K came with 12 free movies from Sony Bravia Core, it’s minimum speed is a recommended 120 down, you can tell the difference, picture is better, as is the sound, I think it is the only streaming service that uses DTS instead of Dolby Digital+.

To get the faster speed on the TV ( only has a 10/100 port) you have to use wi-fi or buy a Ethernet Adapter for the USB 3.0 port.

 

[Yespage]

That is the answer.

Not that long ago, there was no streaming. And most everyone paid for cable, DISH, or DirecTV. Where were these people back then? The number of ST subscribers back then was about the same.

When ST goes to streaming, at the end of the day, a leopard cannot change its spots. Cheap is as cheap does.

I prefer the term "opportunistic". I've never really given ST a second thought... costs too much and the Patriots have had good national coverage. But is a deal comes around that makes it worth my while, I'd look into. But I'm certainly not leaving Dish, my awesome but antiquated 722K receiver, and best package available anywhere... to get Sunday Ticket on Directv. If ST moves to Apple+ or Amazon, I don't need to make a notable shift in my viewing habits, take on a two year contract, to consider adding ST. I just need to flip a switch.

So you are absolutely wrong when it comes to availabiity as some people are quite happy with certain arrangements with their entertainment. The advent of Red Zone has also provided a method for some people to have quasi ST access where they were. With ST moving out into the wild on the Internet, people that got to like RZ or NFL+ might very well consider stepping up.

It isn't likely that tens of millions will open up their check books (do people still have check books? ), but the idea that removing ST from a pigeonholed location and putting on a much more broadly available network (Internet) is reducing the number of people that will have access is silly.

The biggest problem, and I don't think I've seen you raise this, will actually be "password sharing". Directv is solid, digitally encrypted, and very hard to share. ST online will be a bit tricky when a bunch of people decide to share accounts for it.

Of course, this is media, there is no perfect distribution option. But right now, Directv inhibits access to most of America, because it isn't as simple as just "signing up for Directv".

 

[Yespage]

Not a disagreement, the point is-it is faster and I ( and many others) want it, not saying it makes sense, I know I do not need it.

As far as 4K Streams goes, my Sony Z9K came with 12 free movies from Sony Bravia Core, it’s minimum speed is a recommended 120 down, you can tell the difference, picture is better, as is the sound, I think it is the only streaming service that uses DTS instead of Dolby Digital+.

To get the faster speed on the TV ( only has a 10/100 port) you have to use wi-fi or buy a Ethernet Adapter for the USB 3.0 port.

I need to correct myself... being a generation back. 1080p doesn't approach 100 Mb, 4K does. My bad. Just ignore that post... and really any other post I've made. You really shouldn't believe anything I say. I'm just not that bright, as evidenced by me posting in this thread.

 

[Jimbo]

What speed?

200

 

[Juan]

200

Wow..i get 800 for that price

 

[Jimbo]

Wow..i get 800 for that price

Exactly ....
Internet prices are all over the place.

 

[Jimbo]

Nope and they lost a lot since then.

DirecTV in 2009-18,081,000 subscribers /Households
Households in the United States in 2009-117,180,000

Another swing and a miss by you.

Wow ...
Do you EVER quit ?

Every time someone post something, you have to go out and prove them wrong ....

Must be nice to Know Everything ...

 

[Jimbo]

Wow..i get 800 for that price

I just looked at my internet web page and they have changed thier plans considerably ...
I would call in and discuss it, but I am on a 12 month plan and don't think they would change me because of that commitment.
Apparently, right now I could get what I currently have for $49, for a year probably and its $99 after, which is still $30 cheaper than when I signed up.

Edit:
I just ran a Speed Test and they must have raised my speed, it says I'm at 400 now.

 

[SamCdbs]

So you are absolutely wrong when it comes to availabiity

No, not really. It really is as simple as calling DirecTV.

The basic truth is that this is totally unlike having a restaurant chain in California and opening up more in Texas. ST has, for decades, been available to 99% of the country.

As we see from Amazon’s failing TNF package, the internet, isn’t.

but the idea that removing ST from a pigeonholed location and putting on a much more broadly available network (Internet) is reducing the number of people that will have access is silly.

Actually it is correct. 99% of people CAN get DirecTV and ST if they want it. Those that don’t, like you explain above, don’t want it. There are MILLIONS of people who CANNOT get or afford the level of internet needed. This move, thus, simple math, reduces the availability of the product.

The biggest problem, and I don't think I've seen you raise this, will actually be "password sharing". Directv is solid, digitally encrypted, and very hard to share. ST online will be a bit tricky when a bunch of people decide to share accounts for it.

You are correct. I try to shy away from discussions like this, but since you brought it up, Yes, password sharing is a huge problem for the whole streaming “industry”. When they actually try to go for profit (only two streamers have ever made a cent, Netflix and Hulu) the level of security will have to be ramped up greatly.

The larger problem is the commercial side. DirecTV is a physical object, has a binding contract with its customers, and is well secured. There are over one million bars in the USA. There is very little reason for a quiet neighborhood type place with a regular local customer base, to pay the commercial rate for ST. I know the place I frequent the most, we just watch ESPN+ or the Apple baseball or whatever on somebody’s password.

There are not enough ASCAP spies to enforce it.

But right now, Directv inhibits access to most of America, because it isn't as simple as just "signing up for Directv".

What would be the other steps?

 

[Yespage]

No, not really. It really is as simple as calling DirecTV.

The basic truth is that this is totally unlike having a restaurant chain in California and opening up more in Texas. ST has, for decades, been available to 99% of the country.

As we see from Amazon’s failing TNF package, the internet, isn’t.

Actually it is correct. 99% of people CAN get DirecTV and ST if they want it. Those that don’t, like you explain above, don’t want it. There are MILLIONS of people who CANNOT get or afford the level of internet needed. This move, thus, simple math, reduces the availability of the product.

That isn't math, that is a red herring. You are more interested in what is possible verses what is. Most people don't have Directv (and can't get ST as a result). Sure, they could likely get it, but they don't, likely because of the cost.

Most people do have internet/broadband (and would be able to get ST if it went to streaming). They could get it... and actually do!

You are correct. I try to shy away from discussions like this, but since you brought it up, Yes, password sharing is a huge problem for the whole streaming “industry”. When they actually try to go for profit (only two streamers have ever made a cent, Netflix and Hulu) the level of security will have to be ramped up greatly.
The larger problem is the commercial side. DirecTV is a physical object, has a binding contract with its customers, and is well secured. There are over one million bars in the USA. There is very little reason for a quiet neighborhood type place with a regular local customer base, to pay the commercial rate for ST. I know the place I frequent the most, we just watch ESPN+ or the Apple baseball or whatever on somebody’s password.

There are not enough ASCAP spies to enforce it.

What would be the other steps?

Lock access to x number of devices. That probably wouldn't be hard. Password pirates would scream bloody murder though.

 

[NashGuy]

You are correct. I try to shy away from discussions like this, but since you brought it up, Yes, password sharing is a huge problem for the whole streaming “industry”. When they actually try to go for profit (only two streamers have ever made a cent, Netflix and Hulu) the level of security will have to be ramped up greatly.

Eventually, I suspect that all the SVODs will have security in place to prevent account sharing the way that vMVPDs like DTV Stream already do today. Note that DTV Stream gives you a large (unlimited?) number of simultaneous streams on your home network but only 2 or 3 additional streams outside the home network, and I believe those are restricted to mobile devices. So the tech exists, it's just a matter of a company's willingness to enforce it on their customers.

Netflix is the first SVOD edging toward something like that because, well, it's the largest and most mature of them. In its core English-speaking markets, there's not much room left for subscriber growth for its existing product, so now they're looking to increase revenue and wring out additional subs via a cheaper ad-supported option as well as by charging password-sharers. Makes sense. And what Netflix is doing now will eventually be done by all of them as they shift from an emphasis on growth (i.e. the mad rush to stake out a big enough piece of the global SVOD market to survive) to profits.

I think a fair system would be something like so: include 4 simultaneous in-home streams (locked to your home network) playable on any kind of device, plus 2 additional out-of-home streams playable only on mobile devices (app for phones, tablets and possibly laptops too). Offer one or two additional add-on streams, playable anywhere on any kind of device (which could be shared with another household for use on their TV), for an extra $3-4/mo per stream. If you wanted to watch the service on a TV at your vacation cabin, well, you'd need to cough up a few extra bucks that month to buy an add-on stream. (Attempting to log into your account in the TV app away from home would present you with an option to add an extra stream for either one month or an ongoing basis.) If you can afford a vacation, surely an extra few bucks isn't going to break the bank.

 

[Don in CT]

Wow..i get 800 for that price

Upload?

 

[Don in CT]

Actually it is correct. 99% of people CAN get DirecTV and ST if they want it. Those that don’t, like you explain above, don’t want it. There are MILLIONS of people who CANNOT get or afford the level of internet needed. This move, thus, simple math, reduces the availability of the product.

I highly doubt that 99% of the country has an unobstructed view, don't live in an apartment building or with co-op boards restricting what you can put on your house.

 

[Juan]

Eventually, I suspect that all the SVODs will have security in place to prevent account sharing the way that vMVPDs like DTV Stream already do today. Note that DTV Stream gives you a large (unlimited?) number of simultaneous streams on your home network but only 2 or 3 additional streams outside the home network, and I believe those are restricted to mobile devices. So the tech exists, it's just a matter of a company's willingness to enforce it on their customers.

Netflix is the first SVOD edging toward something like that because, well, it's the largest and most mature of them. In its core English-speaking markets, there's not much room left for subscriber growth for its existing product, so now they're looking to increase revenue and wring out additional subs via a cheaper ad-supported option as well as by charging password-sharers. Makes sense. And what Netflix is doing now will eventually be done by all of them as they shift from an emphasis on growth (i.e. the mad rush to stake out a big enough piece of the global SVOD market to survive) to profits.

I think a fair system would be something like so: include 4 simultaneous in-home streams (locked to your home network) playable on any kind of device, plus 2 additional out-of-home streams playable only on mobile devices (app for phones, tablets and possibly laptops too). Offer one or two additional add-on streams, playable anywhere on any kind of device (which could be shared with another household for use on their TV), for an extra $3-4/mo per stream. If you wanted to watch the service on a TV at your vacation cabin, well, you'd need to cough up a few extra bucks that month to buy an add-on stream. (Attempting to log into your account in the TV app away from home would present you with an option to add an extra stream for either one month or an ongoing basis.) If you can afford a vacation, surely an extra few bucks isn't going to break the bank.

Sounds great but what happens when you go on vacation...or move..or change internet providers