Social Feed

Inclined Orbit said:

The groups I worked with and the people still there that I know are well removed from any streaming activities. If I still worked there I would just call the Chief Technology Officer and ask what are we doing with streaming and OTT, but they are gone too.

Click to expand...

So now they are going back to promoting DTV over DTV NOW? The new DTV NOW ad promotes no dish and no bulky cable box.

CSM said:

So now they are going back to promoting DTV over DTV NOW? The new DTV NOW ad promotes no dish and no bulky cable box.

Click to expand...

I find that ad as being rather ODD ...
Your almost slamming your own service to move to your other service.
At least thats the way I see it.

Jimbo said:

I find that ad as being rather ODD ...
Your almost slamming your own service to move to your other service.
At least thats the way I see it.

Click to expand...

Well like the rep att said, "they are two different services marketed at two different demographics" but if thats the case why are they putting down one product while glorifying the other.

If you had a satellite service and rolled out a similar broadband service, and were going to eventually phase out the satellite service, how would you advertise your broad band service? Why would you load more customers on something that you might pull the plug on? It should be obvious what's happening here.

Pere845 said:

Well like the rep att said, "they are two different services marketed at two different demographics" but if thats the case why are they putting down one product while glorifying the other.

Click to expand...

Inclined Orbit said:

If you had a satellite service and rolled out a similar broadband service, and were going to eventually phase out the satellite service, how would you advertise your broad band service? Why would you load more customers on something that you might pull the plug on? It should be obvious what's happening here.

Click to expand...

It should be, but it seems that it isn't obvious to everyone. Some people seem to think having Directv available via streaming means they must be planning to shut down their satellite service once the streaming service is equivalent. Even though doing so would mean throwing away their existing investment in satellites - including one new one that's currently under construction. Once that new one is in orbit their existing fleet should be good for at least a decade.

After the new IP delivered version of 'full Directv' coming end of this year is available and the initial kinks are worked out, no doubt AT&T will sell it in preference to the satellite version - with no need to send an installer because they can just ship the customer clients for a self-install it will cost them less up front. But that doesn't mean they have any reason to quit selling the satellite service, let alone shut it down, they just need a way of recovering that extra cost. Perhaps they will make people pay it up front, or pay for it over time by requiring a longer contract term for satellite or via higher monthly fees. Once installed though the satellite customer actually costs slightly less to deliver service to - each IP/streaming customer requires additional network resources, as well as additional storage for their cloud DVR.

The cost to deliver satellite is really only incurred when a new one is built and launched, but after T16 is in orbit they shouldn't have to worry about replacement satellites for at least a decade, so satellite service will continue at least that long.

No doubt the DirecTV owned satellite fleet has some years left but they don't stay in orbit for free. Each satellite needs constant telemetry monitoring and station keeping every couple of weeks. ATT/DirecTV has disbanded the internal group that took care of station keeping so they probably contracted Intelsat or similar for that task and its not free.

Even with viable satellites in orbit it might be cheaper to walk away from them in 5yrs or whenever the parallel broadband service is fully built out. Many of the satellites are very DTV specific and could not be re-purposed for resale but the orbital slots are worth a fortune and ATT could be eyeing that.

slice1900 said:

It should be, but it seems that it isn't obvious to everyone. Some people seem to think having Directv available via streaming means they must be planning to shut down their satellite service once the streaming service is equivalent. Even though doing so would mean throwing away their existing investment in satellites - including one new one that's currently under construction. Once that new one is in orbit their existing fleet should be good for at least a decade.

After the new IP delivered version of 'full Directv' coming end of this year is available and the initial kinks are worked out, no doubt AT&T will sell it in preference to the satellite version - with no need to send an installer because they can just ship the customer clients for a self-install it will cost them less up front. But that doesn't mean they have any reason to quit selling the satellite service, let alone shut it down, they just need a way of recovering that extra cost. Perhaps they will make people pay it up front, or pay for it over time by requiring a longer contract term for satellite or via higher monthly fees. Once installed though the satellite customer actually costs slightly less to deliver service to - each IP/streaming customer requires additional network resources, as well as additional storage for their cloud DVR.

The cost to deliver satellite is really only incurred when a new one is built and launched, but after T16 is in orbit they shouldn't have to worry about replacement satellites for at least a decade, so satellite service will continue at least that long.

Click to expand...

Inclined Orbit said:

No doubt the DirecTV owned satellite fleet has some years left but they don't stay in orbit for free. Each satellite needs constant telemetry monitoring and station keeping every couple of weeks. ATT/DirecTV has disbanded the internal group that took care of station keeping so they probably contracted Intelsat or similar for that task and its not free.

Even with viable satellites in orbit it might be cheaper to walk away from them in 5yrs or whenever the parallel broadband service is fully built out. Many of the satellites are very DTV specific and could not be re-purposed for resale but the orbital slots are worth a fortune and ATT could be eyeing that.

Click to expand...

Unless the orbital slots are worth many billions of dollars I don't see how it could make business sense to try to forcibly move existing customers off satellite until the satellites are aged to the point where they might need to replace them. I realize station keeping etc. isn't free, but that cost is still pretty small compared to the long term cost of replacing satellites as needed, but even that is only 50 cents/month per customer at their current subscriber levels.

slice1900 said:

Unless the orbital slots are worth many billions of dollars I don't see how it could make business sense to try to forcibly move existing customers off satellite until the satellites are aged to the point where they might need to replace them. I realize station keeping etc. isn't free, but that cost is still pretty small compared to the long term cost of replacing satellites as needed, but even that is only 50 cents/month per customer at their current subscriber levels.

Click to expand...

Current subscriber numbers are dropping..not increasing..so the cost keeps going up...when enough are moved off satellite the satellites will be too expensive to maintain

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

slice1900 said:

It should be, but it seems that it isn't obvious to everyone. Some people seem to think having Directv available via streaming means they must be planning to shut down their satellite service once the streaming service is equivalent. Even though doing so would mean throwing away their existing investment in satellites - including one new one that's currently under construction. Once that new one is in orbit their existing fleet should be good for at least a decade.

Click to expand...

I'd put the end of the road for DBS somewhere around that decade mark, i.e. 2028. But it'll be a pretty bleak, long tail. Seeing rooftop dishes or knowing anyone who uses one will be a pretty rare thing by 2025. It certainly won't make sense to ever build and launch new replacement satellites (after, perhaps, the one you claim that AT&T will launch soon). As more and more Americans, including rural dwellers, gain access to broadband and OTT-delivered video alternatives (e.g. T-Mobile TV via long-range 600 MHz LTE/5G, as well as a cheaper "full DirecTV" via OTT), you'll see the numbers on DBS rapidly dwindle, increasing the per-sub costs for installing, operating and supporting the service. And during that time frame, I think you're going to see the continued erosion of the overall linear channel TV model too, as more and more viewers migrate to services like Netflix, Hulu, Disney's forthcoming OTT service, HBO (or whatever it morphs into as it becomes a portal for various AT&T-owned content), etc. Once a broad variety of live sports become available via standalone OTT services apart from traditional linear channel bundles, that's all she wrote. So DBS will be a shrinking slice of a shrinking pie.

The more interesting question, I think, is whether AT&T holds onto their DBS all the way until it dies or can they find a buyer for it in a few years? Dish and DTV use different satellites but there would be some sort of economy of scale, I would think, in a single company operating all of them -- one set of channel contracts, one set of in-home STBs, zero direct competitors. (Of course, for the government to approve such a merger, one or both operations would likely have to be in dire straits.)

I'm not convinced that Dish can survive another five years on their own. Sling TV isn't going to save them. Ergen is going to spend a little money to build out a fig-leaf of a 5G IoT network so that they can keep squatting on their spectrum in hopes that someone buys them out for it. But I don't see that happening. The last FCC auction to sell TV spectrum for refarming into cellular didn't fetch the kind of prices that many had anticipated. With the advent of 5G, plus low-earth orbit satellite internet (SpaceX, etc.), plus the expansion of fiber and symmetrical D3.1 cable internet (not to mention the opening up of various bits of unlicensed spectrum and whatever other technologies, such as AT&T's AirGig, end up bearing fruit), I don't see there being a huge hunger for Dish's spectrum to serve as additional last-mile pipes to consumers.

NashGuy said:

The more interesting question, I think, is whether AT&T holds onto their DBS all the way until it dies or can they find a buyer for it in a few years? Dish and DTV use different satellites but there would be some sort of economy of scale, I would think, in a single company operating all of them -- one set of channel contracts, one set of in-home STBs, zero direct competitors. (Of course, for the government to approve such a merger, one or both operations would likely have to be in dire straits.)

Click to expand...

One set of channel contracts would take years to reach - some of the contracts are as long as 10 years. It isn't like AT&T has one set of contracts yet, they aren't even close. It would also take many years to get to a place where you could have one set of STBs. Even if they wanted to merge today there wouldn't be much in the way of savings, because as you say satellite's market share will erode over time. Other than the usual corporate merger savings of using it as a way of shedding staff in support roles like accounting, call centers and so forth.

After AT&T spent all this money to acquire and integrate Directv - including making contracts that work for both satellite and streaming/IP - it wouldn't make sense to sell them. Once the T16 satellite is operational they won't need to worry about replacements until late next decade so it isn't like operating the satellite business is going to cost them all that much. The next generation clients look to be designed to used by both satellite and IP customers of 'full Directv' so they will already have the economies of scale on STBs - and from day one without having years of supporting two families of STBs. The Genie 2 will still be unique to satellite, but they could get around if they wanted to - put the tuners in the LNB and support attaching USB hard drives to clients for storage. Since the next generation clients will run the apps instead of the server running them, tuners and storage are all future Genies will be doing.

My guess is that they'll run the satellite service until it shrinks to a point where it isn't worth replacing the satellites, at which point they'll just announce a date when it will be shut down with at least a year's notice (since you know well in advance when a satellite will run out of fuel) and offer to switch them to the IP version.

slice1900 said:

One set of channel contracts would take years to reach - some of the contracts are as long as 10 years. It isn't like AT&T has one set of contracts yet, they aren't even close. It would also take many years to get to a place where you could have one set of STBs. Even if they wanted to merge today there wouldn't be much in the way of savings, because as you say satellite's market share will erode over time. Other than the usual corporate merger savings of using it as a way of shedding staff in support roles like accounting, call centers and so forth.

Click to expand...

Well, those "usual" merger savings aren't nothing. But a bigger deal would be the pricing freedom that would come from no longer having another DBS competitor to contend with. In a few years, about the only people I can imagine sticking with DBS will be those who really have no other option (i.e. no broadband provider which could also serve as an MVPD and/or allow for various OTT video services) and that number is going to keep dwindling. So if DTV and DISH were to merge, and could have that shrinking rural captive market all to themselves without competing over it on price (as happened with Sirius and XM Radio), that would be quite a boon to the survivor.

And as for a single set of STBs, I didn't mean replacing all of the old ones, I simply meant having the economy of scale of using only one model for all new/replacement STBs going forward. (Although, for replacements/upgrades, there may still be hardware differences in the home server/tuners depending on which rooftop dish/satellite fleet it was mated to.)

slice1900 said:

After AT&T spent all this money to acquire and integrate Directv - including making contracts that work for both satellite and streaming/IP - it wouldn't make sense to sell them.

Click to expand...

Maybe, although again, I have to ask: have you ever worked at DirecTV? Do you have any friends who do? Are you privy to the numbers their accountants pore over? You seem quite confident about their operational finances. But based on what? Meanwhile, Inclined Orbit, who has either worked there or at least knows guys who do, seems to have a different take on the future long-term feasibility of AT&T operating DBS.

BTW, what's your take on DISH?

NashGuy said:

BTW, what's your take on DISH?

Click to expand...

I think Dish drops satellite before AT&T does. Dish has barely half the satellite subscribers Directv does, and has two arcs of satellites to maintain instead one meaning increased cost, so the point at which it is no longer profitable will be reached for Dish years before it is reached for Directv.

Also, as Charlie Ergen gets older he may lose interest and cash out. Their major asset is wireless licenses, that's what someone would buy Dish for. The more years go by before it is sold the less likely it is the buyer would be interested in even purchasing the satellite business - five years from now he might not be able to find a buyer at any price.

slice1900 said:

I think Dish drops satellite before AT&T does. Dish has barely half the satellite subscribers Directv does, and has two arcs of satellites to maintain instead one meaning increased cost, so the point at which it is no longer profitable will be reached for Dish years before it is reached for Directv.

Also, as Charlie Ergen gets older he may lose interest and cash out. Their major asset is wireless licenses, that's what someone would buy Dish for. The more years go by before it is sold the less likely it is the buyer would be interested in even purchasing the satellite business - five years from now he might not be able to find a buyer at any price.

Click to expand...

Yeah. AT&T is a huge, diversified company (even more so now with the Time Warner acquisition). They can keep the lights on at DirecTV for a long, long time if they choose to.

Dish is basically DBS + undeveloped spectrum licenses + a skinny OTT service that makes very little money. I think Ergen sees the spectrum as the thing that would attract a potential corporate buyout but -- given that there's not a huge appetite for more spectrum from any of the major players right now, and the fact that everyone knows that DBS is in terminal decline -- I'm doubtful that he's going to find any takers. Sure, the spectrum could be sold off at the right price but I doubt anyone wants to acquire it if they have to pay very much for the DBS business too.

I'm doubtful that Dish is ever able to sell their DBS business until either AT&T buys it to combine in with DirecTV or some third party buys both DBS operations and combines them. (A third option is that Dish ends up buying DirecTV from AT&T.)

When considering how long either DBS operation can be viable, an important thing to keep in mind is the advent of low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellite internet service. (Yes, I know, "best laid plans" and all that...perhaps none of those planned services ever materialize.) Starlink, from Elon Musks' SpaceX, is one such service in the works. OneWeb is another. What's to keep such a service from partnering up with an OTT TV provider, such as DirecTV Now, or the forthcoming premium OTT DirecTV service, and offering it as a bundled service with their home internet? Or even as a standalone service available through their satellite IP pipe without also subscribing to "regular" web access? Why would anyone choose to have a rooftop satellite dish that could ONLY give them traditional TV service when instead they could have one that gave them that kind of service PLUS everything else that can be accessed via the internet? These LEO satellite ISPs plan to offer service everywhere throughout the US, including rural areas, during the early-to-mid 2020s.

NashGuy said:

Dish is basically DBS + undeveloped spectrum licenses + a skinny OTT service that makes very little money. I think Ergen sees the spectrum as the thing that would attract a potential corporate buyout but -- given that there's not a huge appetite for more spectrum from any of the major players right now, and the fact that everyone knows that DBS is in terminal decline -- I'm doubtful that he's going to find any takers. Sure, the spectrum could be sold off at the right price but I doubt anyone wants to acquire it if they have to pay very much for the DBS business too.

Click to expand...

I think that spectrum may be in high demand in the near future - all those holdings in the 2000-3500 MHz range are perfect for building out fixed wireless 5G. Low enough frequency to travel far enough to allow standard sized cells and they should have enough spectrum to cover them. Most towers in mid/large sized cities are rented not owned so a company just needs to pay someone to install antennas in the markets they want to cherry pick. Maybe Ergen is planning to have Dish do this itself and convert into a wireless internet company, who knows.

I agree the DBS business is a lot less attractive since it is now in obvious decline and converting them to Sling just means you have more customers in a low/no profit market segment with much lower barriers to entry than was true for cable/satellite. Directv sold out at just the right time, basically the peak of the market for satellite (whether AT&T was smart to buy them then or should have waited a few years to get a better price is a different discussion!)

NashGuy said:

When considering how long either DBS operation can be viable, an important thing to keep in mind is the advent of low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellite internet service. (Yes, I know, "best laid plans" and all that...perhaps none of those planned services ever materialize.) Starlink, from Elon Musks' SpaceX, is one such service in the works. OneWeb is another. What's to keep such a service from partnering up with an OTT TV provider, such as DirecTV Now, or the forthcoming premium OTT DirecTV service, and offering it as a bundled service with their home internet? Or even as a standalone service available through their satellite IP pipe without also subscribing to "regular" web access? Why would anyone choose to have a rooftop satellite dish that could ONLY give them traditional TV service when instead they could have one that gave them that kind of service PLUS everything else that can be accessed via the internet? These LEO satellite ISPs plan to offer service everywhere throughout the US, including rural areas, during the early-to-mid 2020s.

Click to expand...

Once fixed wireless 5G starts covering most rural areas, leaving only the REALLY rural areas (all the areas with the best dark sky viewing on the dark sky maps, basically) there won't be enough customers left to support something like this. I just don't see satellite internet (LEO or otherwise) as financially viable once wired or cellular internet is an option for 99.999% of the US population, even if that totals only 80% of the landmass.

slice1900 said:

Once fixed wireless 5G starts covering most rural areas, leaving only the REALLY rural areas (all the areas with the best dark sky viewing on the dark sky maps, basically) there won't be enough customers left to support something like this. I just don't see satellite internet (LEO or otherwise) as financially viable once wired or cellular internet is an option for 99.999% of the US population, even if that totals only 80% of the landmass.

Click to expand...

But 5g will never reach that penetration level..by the time they hit 50% ..they will be talking 6g

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

slice1900 said:

I think that spectrum may be in high demand in the near future - all those holdings in the 2000-3500 MHz range are perfect for building out fixed wireless 5G. Low enough frequency to travel far enough to allow standard sized cells and they should have enough spectrum to cover them. Most towers in mid/large sized cities are rented not owned so a company just needs to pay someone to install antennas in the markets they want to cherry pick. Maybe Ergen is planning to have Dish do this itself and convert into a wireless internet company, who knows.

Click to expand...

As you reference, Dish's spectrum holdings are low-band and mid-band, not the millimeter wave high-band stuff that will primarily be used for super-fast (1 gig plus) 5G. And the big wireless players, especially Verizon and AT&T, are pretty well stocked up on low-to-mid-band spectrum, which is why the bidding wasn't as aggressive as expected in the last FCC auction, when Dish stocked up on some more of that spectrum at relatively low prices. Furthermore, as CBRS and TV white space frequencies open up, and carriers also continue to exploit wifi frequencies with LTE-U, that will further ease any need to buy more spectrum licenses.

slice1900 said:

Once fixed wireless 5G starts covering most rural areas, leaving only the REALLY rural areas (all the areas with the best dark sky viewing on the dark sky maps, basically) there won't be enough customers left to support something like this. I just don't see satellite internet (LEO or otherwise) as financially viable once wired or cellular internet is an option for 99.999% of the US population, even if that totals only 80% of the landmass.

Click to expand...

So, what do you mean when you talk about fixed 5G covering rural areas? Because millimeter wave 5G -- which is what most of the hubbub is about -- won't ever broadly cover rural areas since it only travels short distances. I suppose you're referring to the type of 5G that T-Mobile plans to roll out over their low-band 600 MHz spectrum, which can travel quite far and serve huge rural areas. But at that frequency, the speeds will be much lower than at millimeter wave frequencies, although it's somehow technically still 5G and so, I guess, offers somewhat more bandwidth than regular LTE would on that same 600 MHz. (T-Mo is already lighting up 600 MHz in many areas with LTE and say they can switch those radios over to 5G with just a firmware update.)

T-Mobile has stated that they will for sure offer fixed wireless home internet to rural dwellers on their new 600 MHz spectrum soon. (In fact, that's part of their pitch to the feds to gain approval for their merger.) Should they be allowed to merge with Sprint, their total spectrum holdings would definitely exceed both Verizon and AT&T. So, as this article explains, that could put pressure on those two companies to buy some of Dish's spectrum, to play catch-up. But then the merger may be blocked or the combined T-Mobile/Sprint may be forced to sell off some of their combined spectrum to Verizon and AT&T as a condition of the merger to even the playing field. In either of those latter two scenarios, Dish would still be sitting with a bunch of spectrum that no one much cares to buy. Obviously, Ergen is hoping that the government allows the T-Mo/Sprint merger to sail through with no real conditions attached. I'm not sure that's in the cards, but who knows.

Assuming that Verizon and/or AT&T began competing with T-Mobile in the early 2020s to offer nearly-nationwide wireless home broadband service at pricing that matches what we typically see in metro areas from competing landline providers, then yes, LEO satellite internet would have a hard time gaining enough customers to be a sustainable business. But in that scenario, we're talking about rural Americans gaining widespread access to affordable broadband even sooner than would be the case with LEO satellite internet service. Which means that DBS will be doomed even sooner than I was anticipating before (at 2028). Because once folks have reliable broadband with high or no data caps, and AT&T is offering them virtually the same service OTT as via DBS, but at a lower monthly rate, why wouldn't they switch? Or switch to one of the other OTT vMVPDs? Or switch to a combo of on-demand OTT services such as Netflix, Hulu, Disneyflix, etc?

Again, rural dwellers without access to affordable, reliable broadband service will be the last bastion for DBS. AT&T knows that and has stated it. But once that rural digital divide is closed -- around, say, 2023-26 -- that's when DBS will truly become a rare things that survives only because of the ingrained habits of mostly elderly folks who don't want to switch it out for something better and cheaper because they dislike change. But it's hard to keep a large-scale operation afloat serving just that demographic, I'd think.

NashGuy said:

As you reference, Dish's spectrum holdings are low-band and mid-band, not the millimeter wave high-band stuff that will primarily be used for super-fast (1 gig plus) 5G. And the big wireless players, especially Verizon and AT&T, are pretty well stocked up on low-to-mid-band spectrum, which is why the bidding wasn't as aggressive as expected in the last FCC auction, when Dish stocked up on some more of that spectrum at relatively low prices. Furthermore, as CBRS and TV white space frequencies open up, and carriers also continue to exploit wifi frequencies with LTE-U, that will further ease any need to buy more spectrum licenses.

So, what do you mean when you talk about fixed 5G covering rural areas? Because millimeter wave 5G -- which is what most of the hubbub is about -- won't ever broadly cover rural areas since it only travels short distances. I suppose you're referring to the type of 5G that T-Mobile plans to roll out over their low-band 600 MHz spectrum, which can travel quite far and serve huge rural areas. But at that frequency, the speeds will be much lower than at millimeter wave frequencies, although it's somehow technically still 5G and so, I guess, offers somewhat more bandwidth than regular LTE would on that same 600 MHz. (T-Mo is already lighting up 600 MHz in many areas with LTE and say they can switch those radios over to 5G with just a firmware update.)

Click to expand...

As I've said before, there is ZERO difference in bit rate per MHz between LTE and 5G. The reason 5G "advertises" higher speeds is because it can use more MHz at once - the same reason why LTE has gone up and up in speed to beyond a gigabit. 1.2 Gbps LTE is the same bit rate per MHz as 150 Mbps LTE, it just uses more MHz at once. The only reason why you should care about 5G is because of latency - i.e. 'ping time' if you use it for internet. That's where it makes a big improvement over LTE. The increased speeds generate a lot of press but are an illusion created by all those millimeter wave bands opening up. If they'd opened up a few years ago LTE would have used them, big deal.

Rural areas are, well, rural so there aren't a lot of people trying to hit the same cell tower at once. Even fewer are trying to hit the same cell tower at once from the same direction, which is what really matters thanks to frequency re-use, so even though there's a lot less MHz available in Dish's mid bands (I don't think the 600/700 MHz range is useful for fixed wireless, there just isn't enough of it and frequencies that low are too valuable for mobile devices to waste on fixed wireless) versus millimeter wave, there will be very few users even with standard size rural cells. Sure, they won't be able to offer 1 Gbps, but no one needs 1 Gbps. I defy anyone to provide me with a use case for where a residential customer needs anything approaching that speed. Anyone who "upgrades" from 300 Mbps to 1 Gbps on their internet service is wasting their money unless it is to get a bigger cap, because they aren't using that extra speed (and that's assuming they are actually getting it at all (read the fine print))

Dish (or whoever buys their licenses) easily has enough spectrum to sell say 100 Mbps service in rural areas, which is more than enough for streaming TV plus other internet needs and more to the point is more than they get now and INFINITELY better than what they get now. GEO satellite internet is not competitive with that at any speed, due to its latency, and wired just isn't an option out there or we wouldn't be talking about how to get internet to rural customers...

Juan said:

But 5g will never reach that penetration level..by the time they hit 50% ..they will be talking 6g

Click to expand...

So? As I keep saying, there's nothing magical about 5G. It doesn't offer any improvements over 4G LTE aside from latency and a lot of millimeter wave spectrum coincidentally opening up around the same time. Someday 6G will come, but that won't mean that existing fixed wireless 5G deployments suddenly stop working, or that people with 5G fixed wireless internet will have any reason whatsoever to upgrade to 6G fixed wireless. There might be some even higher frequencies opening up which will allow them to advertise 50 Gbps with 6G, but in the real world people will still be using maybe a few hundred Mbps at most and have no need of multiple gigabits.

Heck, some early fixed wireless deployments are using LTE, but those will continue working once 5G is getting deployed - but those people would have a reason to upgrade because they'd get vastly improved latency with 5G versus LTE.

slice1900 said:

So? As I keep saying, there's nothing magical about 5G. It doesn't offer any improvements over 4G LTE aside from latency and a lot of millimeter wave spectrum coincidentally opening up around the same time. Someday 6G will come, but that won't mean that existing fixed wireless 5G deployments suddenly stop working, or that people with 5G fixed wireless internet will have any reason whatsoever to upgrade to 6G fixed wireless. There might be some even higher frequencies opening up which will allow them to advertise 50 Gbps with 6G, but in the real world people will still be using maybe a few hundred Mbps at most and have no need of multiple gigabits.

Heck, some early fixed wireless deployments are using LTE, but those will continue working once 5G is getting deployed - but those people would have a reason to upgrade because they'd get vastly improved latency with 5G versus LTE.

Click to expand...

the improvement is the placement of the tower..closer to homes..fixed 4g was an abysmal failure..fixed 5g is working great in Boston..there are only so many frequencies available unless you run fiber to the home (yes radio frequencies are transmitted (in the form of light) across a fiber)..wireless transmission has been around a looong time..in fact Tesla tried to broadcast power into homes..but that dag burn interference issue just keeps up popping up its ugly head

Juan said:

Current subscriber numbers are dropping..not increasing..so the cost keeps going up...when enough are moved off satellite the satellites will be too expensive to maintain

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Click to expand...

Where do you think the money came from to buy the wiretless licences.? A good part of it from the income stream dish is squirting out and will continue to do so for many many more years.

And at&t? They bought the DirecTV cash flow and more importantly, the customers (customers are sticky).

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using the SatelliteGuys app!

nelson61 said:

Where do you think the money came from to buy the wiretless licences.? A good part of it from the income stream dish is squirting out and will continue to do so for many many more years.

And at&t? They bought the DirecTV cash flow and more importantly, the customers (customers are sticky).

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using the SatelliteGuys app!

Click to expand...

POTS..as in plain old telephone service

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

slice1900 said:

(I don't think the 600/700 MHz range is useful for fixed wireless, there just isn't enough of it and frequencies that low are too valuable for mobile devices to waste on fixed wireless)

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. I believe it IS the 600/700 MHz range in which T-Mobile plans to offer fixed wireless home internet in rural areas. They have a lot of it now and are deploying it as fast as they can (even offering extra cash to TV stations to repack early and turn over their spectrum ASAP). But their stated plans so far do seem to indicate that it will pretty much only be rural areas where they'll offer that home service. I don't think they're going to "waste" that spectrum on fixed wireless in the metro areas (where most homes already have 2, and sometimes 3, home broadband options). In those denser areas, yes, it's probably better for T-Mo to use that spectrum to better serve mobile customers. Those lower range frequencies penetrate inside buildings quite well and that's historically been one of T-Mo's weaknesses (which is likely why they were the first carrier to aggressively embrace wi-fi calling).

slice1900 said:

Dish (or whoever buys their licenses) easily has enough spectrum to sell say 100 Mbps service in rural areas, which is more than enough for streaming TV plus other internet needs and more to the point is more than they get now and INFINITELY better than what they get now. GEO satellite internet is not competitive with that at any speed, due to its latency, and wired just isn't an option out there or we wouldn't be talking about how to get internet to rural customers...

Click to expand...

Yes, no argument there. (Look, I was never implying that gigabit speed internet is necessary for anyone. I tend to think it's a waste of money for most folks. I'm happy with my 50 Mbps service that never fails to stream 4K HDR at full quality.) So the question isn't what could theoretically be done with the spectrum that Dish owns. The question is whether anyone wants to buy it from them and then develop that spectrum and, if so, how would they use it? It isn't clear that either AT&T or Verizon care to spend the money for it since they didn't do so in the first place when the spectrum was up for auction not that long ago. Now, if T-Mo and Sprint do merge, and keep all of their current spectrum, that does change the competitive landscape, putting the newly merged company ahead of both Verizon and AT&T in total spectrum holdings. So either or both company may feel the need to buy Dish's spectrum to better compete against the New T-Mo in general, regardless of whether Verizon or AT&T would actually use any of that new spectrum for rural fixed wireless. (Perhaps they would just keep it all for mobile use, figuring that rural homes are such a small sliver of the overall market -- about 14% of the US population -- that it wouldn't make sense to compete there against existing landline broadband and T-Mobile fixed wireless, plus other emerging options, including LEO satellite and low-band TV white space spectrum. And perhaps AT&T ends up serving some rural areas with their AirGig tech if the economics make sense.)

As for Dish fully developing that spectrum themselves to become a full-fledged home and/or mobile internet provider, I don't see it. That would take a ton of capital and expertise that they don't have. They're only building out a relatively cheap narrowband IoT network on their spectrum to avoid forfeiting those licenses by the FCC build-out deadline of March 2020. If they were to actually develop their spectrum to its full potential, to be a major B2C service, they would need a major partner with deep pockets. You're probably talking about a merger or acquisition at that point.

So, in my view, buying Dish stock right now is a pretty risky proposition. It isn't at all clear that Ergen's bet on that spectrum is going to save the company from a long, slow decline.[/QUOTE]

NashGuy said:

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. I believe it IS the 600/700 MHz range in which T-Mobile plans to offer fixed wireless home internet in rural areas. They have a lot of it now and are deploying it as fast as they can (even offering extra cash to TV stations to repack early and turn over their spectrum ASAP). But their stated plans so far do seem to indicate that it will pretty much only be rural areas where they'll offer that home service.

Click to expand...

T-Mobile is doing their own thing, and they bought a bunch of 600 MHz spectrum so it probably makes sense for them to use it. I think AT&T or Verizon would have too many customers even in most rural areas to do fixed wireless with such large cells, but it may work for T-Mobile.

It isn't so much that it is impossible to do it with such a low frequency / large cells, it just limits the number of customers per cell. The MIMO stuff that lets you use multiple antennas doesn't work as well with lower frequencies (i.e. they are less directional) and AT&T and Verizon will want to reserve the valuable lower frequency areas for phones due to its ability to reach indoors.