AT&T Should sell DIRECTV to DISH
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 277
- Views 22K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
I'm not talking about the names of packages, but the actual channels in them. Directv Now is missing some channels that are available on Directv, and there are some bigger things like NFLST, MLBEI etc. that are not available on Directv Now. They can't try to pass it off as a substitute if it doesn't have the same lineup, same locals, same 'extras' like NFLST, international channels and so forth. Even then I'm highly skeptical that they are going to tell people "you can't have satellite because you have AT&T fiber". Are they going to force people to subscribe to AT&T for internet to get TV from AT&T? I think they'll let them have what they want, though they might incent them to choose internet by making it cheaper (no $15/month advanced receiver fee, maybe no contract or at least not a 24 month contract) or making them pay for the satellite install up front.
This "researcher" gives no reason why he thinks they should make this their goal. It won't save them money, so what's the point? These researchers can write whatever they want, but if they don't give any reasons it isn't worth anything just because multichannel.com wrote an article about it.
OK, but I explained in detail any potential small differences that I believe *may* exist in the same-named packages on AT&T TV vs. on DTV sat.
Beyond that, international channel packages are already available on DTV Now, so I'm sure they'll just transfer over to AT&T TV. I expect that special sports packages like MLBEI to be there too (at least for in-home viewing, with the available team based on your billing and IP/geolocation addresses). NFLST is a special thing and who knows how that's all going to shake out, other than to say that it will exist on at least DTV sat this coming season. (Note that AT&T Uverse TV has never had access to NFLST but that didn't mean it wasn't seen by AT&T or consumers as a direct substitute for DTV.)
As for basic cable channels that aren't currently included in either Plus or Max, I believe that they'll either get added to one of both packages by the time that AT&T TV launches or they'll be available within add-on "Extra" packs. I definitely expect channels from A+E Networks and AMC Networks to get plugged into Plus and Max.
As for all those popular channels in the Discovery family (including HGTV, Food, TLC, ID, etc.), I'm not sure at this point whether they'll get put into Plus and Max or simply be offered in their own separate "Discovery Extra" pack for $5-8. Why do I think that's a possibility?
From 2018: Discovery may launch its own streaming service, too – TechCrunch
From 2019: BBC and Discovery team up on a new streaming service focused on factual programming – TechCrunch
Given that, like me, you couldn't come up with any plausible alternative explanation for the appearance of Plus and Max on DTV sat, I take it that you agree with my prediction that those packages will become the new default options for new DTV customers. Those old packages (Entertainment, Xtra, etc.) are living on borrowed time.
You could be right that they'll simply incentivize customers to opt for AT&T TV because it's cheaper. But I tend to think that satellite TV won't even be presented as an option among the "services available at your address" on ATT.com if that address qualifies for AT&T Internet or Fiber. (And if it qualifies for either of those services, my guess is that there's a better than 90% chance that it's also served by at least one other broadband provider, such as cable.) I imagine, though, that if someone calls up and insists on DTV satellite installation at that address, they'll sell it to him/her.
If they have the same new package options for both satellite and IP that would mean that both are seen as equal for Directv's future, but doesn't imply anything about the ability of AT&T fiber customers to choose satellite. Even with equivalent packages they aren't equivalent products - i.e. satellite has a real DVR not cloud DVR, it works without internet or even electricity if you have a generator, it is mobile and can be used in a DVR/vacation home. The only advantage of IP delivery is not having satellite's install cost passed along to you (which doesn't matter after it is installed) and working when it rains hard.
Of course, AT&T would have to actually make up their minds to stick with one over the other. When they first bought DirecTV, they tried stopping Uverse TV installs unless you lacked LOS to D* sats. When they lost too many customers, they started allowing and even encouraging Uverse installs again. If things don't go well when they roll out their new IP-based service, I expect them to blink and sell everything they can. They have too much debt not to.
I haven't been paying much attention to talks of ATT selling DTV to Dish, etc. However, last night speaking to a friend who is a contractor to ATT/Directv and most other satellite broadcasters said he was researching some stuff and found they had filed paperwork with Govt that would lead you to believe they are looking at a merger between Directv and Dish. If I find out more details I'll post here.
Yeah, if they bungle the roll-out of this new IP-based service and it gains a reputation over its first year as being buggy and unreliable (which I think is a real possibility based on everything I've seen so far with DTV Now), then they'll have a real mess on their hands and that could result in consumers demanding satellite over streaming. And, as you say, AT&T is in debt and needs the business, so I don't know that they would be in a position NOT to shift some marketing focus back to DTV satellite at that point in such a scenario.
But -- assuming that they offer the same packages on streaming as satellite, but with lower overall pricing for the former without a long-term commitment -- new customers who have the option will just naturally choose streaming over satellite from AT&T (a small group of DBS enthusiasts notwithstanding). The only reason that won't happen is if the streaming service proves somehow inferior.
Pretty sure that was the plan all along because of the $14/month per customer difference in what they paid for Uverse content vs Directv content at the time they bought Directv. That was, after all, one of the main reasons they bought Directv.
As they renegotiated contracts and cut that $14 down it became less of a factor. Now there should be little difference in content cost between Uverse and Directv since there are probably few original Uverse contracts left that haven't been replaced by an overall Directv/Uverse/DirectvNow contract. That $14 difference was why they didn't want to add new Uverse customers at first, but when there's little or no difference there's no reason to prefer one delivery method over another...so they can leave it up to the customer's preference.
I expect they will stop new Uverse TV installs not long after the new IP product is released (i.e. once they have the kinks worked out) but they will not have any reason to try to force existing Uverse TV customers to switch just like they won't have any reason to try to force existing satellite customers to switch. Probably equipment attrition (not being able/willing to replace broken boxes) will act to slowly convert the Uverse TV customers until the number gets small enough (under a million maybe?) that they'll announce a drop dead date for a forced conversion so they can retire the Uverse TV infrastructure.
Yes, although keep in mind that there are network efficiency issued too when you're running two different streaming TV platforms on the same network. Uverse TV benefits from multicast on some (all?) linear channels; we don't know if or when multicast might be implemented on the new AT&T TV platform on their own network. Another point to keep in mind is that when a Uverse TV customer records 3 shows at once, all 3 streams must be delivered to his home for local recording. With AT&T TV, all the recording will be done in the cloud.
I've been saying the same as you, that new Uverse TV sales will cease either immediately when AT&T TV is launches or as soon thereafter as AT&T is satisfied that the new platform is working/scaling well. They'll give existing Uverse TV subs a long while to switch over. Just how long will probably be based not just on equipment but network efficiency considerations too (especially in those more bandwidth-constrained neighborhoods still on FTTN rather than FTTH).
I don't see any reason they wouldn't use multicast for the new product on the networks they control, though that only helps for live TV not for cloud DVR playback or on demand which year by year would constitute a larger and larger share of overall viewing hours.
The biggest reason the Directv via IP product would be more desirable for them for new installs especially in FTTN areas is that it can use HEVC for everything, which Uverse TV's aging hardware can't. I don't know for sure it WILL use HEVC for everything, but if it doesn't at first it will eventually.
I think it would be cool if they did DTV over managed IPTV either using the new interface that DTV over satellite has or use the DTV Now uses and use same bitrate they use for DTV but I guess they would be only able to that in the FTTH areas?
Ah, yes, good point about HEVC. I forgot about that. I'm sure that, like DTV Now already does, it will continue to always and only use HEVC for those client devices that support it. The C71 box (which will be AT&T's preferred TV-connected client) supports HEVC, as do most other most other TV-connected device models introduced in the past few years (certainly everything that advertises 4K capability).
Agree with your comment about multicast for the new platform but, given that individual multicast streams require much greater network bandwidth/resources than do individual unicast streams, I'm not sure if AT&T would simultaneously run multicast for both Uverse TV and AT&T TV in a given area. So there might be some future switchover point? Who knows really.
Well, at least with their HEVC-encoded streams that they were serving to my Apple TV 4K, DTV Now is already able to provide better-looking HD broadcasts than DTV satellite, even while using lower bitrates (since it's HEVC rather than H.264 as on satellite). Now, if you're streaming DTV Now to an older/simpler devices, like a Roku Express, that requires an H.264 stream, I don't know how the picture quality and bitrate there compares to DTV satellite. Maybe not as good?
I don't see at&t selling DIRECTV, they will run it into the ground. But if they did sell it, I hope is not to any investment company that will just cut it up and auction it's parts.
Hopefully a creative and innovative company could buy it and transform it into a service that people would be attracted to.
Hopefully a creative and innovative company could buy it and transform it into a service that people would be attracted to.
DTV over IP will be primary and it sounds like DTV Now will be phased out?
AT&T’s planned DirecTV streaming service may run on third-party hardware
AT&T’s planned DirecTV streaming service may run on third-party hardware
Offhand, I’d say the numbers of DTV customers would ensure that even if Dish bought them, and decided to standardize on Dish hardware, the old DTV system would run for many years. The cost to Dish of new Hoppers, Joeys etc would be huge. Add in truck rolls and increased customer service costs (support and initial training). Even with churn removing most DTV customers in what, 3-5 years?, just moving all new customers to Hoppers would be a BIG hit to cash flow. Would reduced programming costs and other synergies offset that quickly enough?
I’m beginning to wonder why, from a business standpoint, Dish would see this as a good future. Maybe it would just mean Charlie “won” and that is sufficient?
Might it not be cheaper to buy piecemeal in a going out of business sale?
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
I’m beginning to wonder why, from a business standpoint, Dish would see this as a good future. Maybe it would just mean Charlie “won” and that is sufficient?
Might it not be cheaper to buy piecemeal in a going out of business sale?
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
That's the problem, it is too late in the life of satellite to try to migrate customers from Dish to Directv, let alone the other way around (Directv has nearly 20 million customers, including hundreds of thousands of commercial customers with fairly complex installs) Given that after T16's launch (in a few hours from now) Directv's satellites wouldn't need to be touched for at least a decade, which Dish can't say, and Directv has far more bandwidth including lots of room for 4K if/when that ever happens, that I can't see it making sense to standardize on Dish's hardware/satellites even if Directv didn't have double the customers Dish does.
Charlie Ergen is a businessman, and obviously a pretty successful one. He isn't going to want to spend an extra few billion retiring Directv's infrastructure for Dish's more limited infrastructure just to say "I won", because you don't get to be a billionaire by throwing away huge piles of money playing childish games.
People keep focusing on "well eventually there won't be enough customers to support two satellite companies". That's true, but you don't have to merge them. One of them will eventually go out of business - profits will be declining, the board will see the writing on the wall and set a date to close it down and sell the assets before it starts losing money. Based on having half as many customers and a more expensive infrastructure (two arcs) that will need replacements much sooner than Directv's, that's Dish. Then its customers who need/want satellite will come to Directv without Directv having to pay a cent. And if it works the other way around the same would apply.
I know there are people out there probably dreaming "if only I could get Hopper on Directv" but the HS17 already has 16 tuners just like the Hopper 3 does. Directv allocates them differently because of the way they plan to do 4K. They are prepared in case 4k really takes off. The longer we go with zero real 4K channels the less likely that looks, so maybe it will be a fool's errand like their preparation for 3D, but a future that has dozens of 4K channels is one Dish is simply unable to participate in due to their lack of satellite bandwidth.
I can't say for sure, but it is possible a software update could give the HS17 15 tuners, if Directv decided some time in the future that there will never be very many 4K channels, and devoting one full transponder per 4K channel would be fine. If it wasn't for their plan to do transponder bonding to allow for even more than the 36 4K channels that one per reverse band transponder would allow, the HS17 would have had 15 tuners instead of 7.
Charlie Ergen is a businessman, and obviously a pretty successful one. He isn't going to want to spend an extra few billion retiring Directv's infrastructure for Dish's more limited infrastructure just to say "I won", because you don't get to be a billionaire by throwing away huge piles of money playing childish games.
People keep focusing on "well eventually there won't be enough customers to support two satellite companies". That's true, but you don't have to merge them. One of them will eventually go out of business - profits will be declining, the board will see the writing on the wall and set a date to close it down and sell the assets before it starts losing money. Based on having half as many customers and a more expensive infrastructure (two arcs) that will need replacements much sooner than Directv's, that's Dish. Then its customers who need/want satellite will come to Directv without Directv having to pay a cent. And if it works the other way around the same would apply.
I know there are people out there probably dreaming "if only I could get Hopper on Directv" but the HS17 already has 16 tuners just like the Hopper 3 does. Directv allocates them differently because of the way they plan to do 4K. They are prepared in case 4k really takes off. The longer we go with zero real 4K channels the less likely that looks, so maybe it will be a fool's errand like their preparation for 3D, but a future that has dozens of 4K channels is one Dish is simply unable to participate in due to their lack of satellite bandwidth.
I can't say for sure, but it is possible a software update could give the HS17 15 tuners, if Directv decided some time in the future that there will never be very many 4K channels, and devoting one full transponder per 4K channel would be fine. If it wasn't for their plan to do transponder bonding to allow for even more than the 36 4K channels that one per reverse band transponder would allow, the HS17 would have had 15 tuners instead of 7.
I was watching the latest Cordcuttersnews podcast and he thought what the analysts where talking about was selling DTV to Dish when they switched all the DTV satelliteTV customers to DTV over IP that they could then sell DTV to Dish.
Then only a few assets would have value, not the company as a going concern. Sats, slots, transponders.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
