Social Feed

I think AT&T is too invested in Directv to just sell them off.

Part of the whole reason why AT&T bought Directv was to have another product and service to sell to customers in a bundle so they can tighten their grip on that customer and stop customers from churn.

AT&T wants your cell phone business, home internet and Tv service. They want home phone also but nobody wants a home phone these days.

There will be a point where Directv doesn't make any sense to use satellites. A few things will have to happen.

#1 AT&T must install fiber to every customer in their foot print.

#2 Directv now needs to go to an internet based set top box solution. Literally plug the genie into eithernet and not connect the satellite.

#3 enough internet providers must offer faster internet so any customers outside of the AT&T footprint can get Directv now.

#4 5g technology must be deployed, where AT&T can use Directv now technology to serve customers via the cellular network.

Claude Greiner said:

I think AT&T is too invested in Directv to just sell them off.

Part of the whole reason why AT&T bought Directv was to have another product and service to sell to customers in a bundle so they can tighten their grip on that customer and stop customers from churn.

AT&T wants your cell phone business, home internet and Tv service. They want home phone also but nobody wants a home phone these days.

There will be a point where Directv doesn't make any sense to use satellites. A few things will have to happen.

#1 AT&T must install fiber to every customer in their foot print.

#2 Directv now needs to go to an internet based set top box solution. Literally plug the genie into eithernet and not connect the satellite.

#3 enough internet providers must offer faster internet so any customers outside of the AT&T footprint can get Directv now.

#4 5g technology must be deployed, where AT&T can use Directv now technology to serve customers via the cellular network.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I would agree that AT&T isn't anywhere near the point -- yet -- where they would be OK with spinning off DTV satellite service. It still accounts for a huge majority of their pay TV subs and all those accounts give AT&T a seat at the "big boys' table" when it comes to negotiations with channel providers. But AT&T also knows that satellite TV's best days are behind it at this point. They also know that the traditional cable TV bundle is beginning to crumble a bit (smaller bundles and more a la carte options exist) and average prices are coming down, putting pressure on margins for distributors like AT&T.

So what technology can currently replace satellite as a nationwide pay TV distribution system? The only option is OTT TV -- streaming over the internet to any device, regardless of who provides the internet service (i.e. it could be AT&T or Comcast or T-Mobile or Verizon or Charter, etc.). AT&T is done with managed IPTV -- Uverse TV -- because (among other reasons) it's restricted to deployment over their own wireline home internet network. AT&T needs a next-gen TV system that is nationwide (to transition as many of those nationwide satellite subs over to as possible, and also to bundle with their nationwide wireless phone service). Their wireline footprint is not nationwide -- it's basically just the South, the Midwest, plus California. So the only possible successor to satellite TV is OTT TV. (And because of the internet-based nature of OTT TV, it also allows for the dynamic insertion of more lucrative targeted ads, an advantage it has over satellite.)

I generally agree with your points. Specifically:

#1. AT&T doesn't necessarily need fiber throughout their entire footprint but they do need to upgrade homes from slow legacy DSL to speeds fast enough to sustain OTT streaming video plus other internet activity. So that could be fiber-to-the-home, or fiber-to-the-node (formerly branded as "Uverse internet"), or fixed 5G. On their recent quarterly call, AT&T said they only have 800,000 homes left on legacy DSL, down from 4.5 million four years ago. Meanwhile, they are continuing to aggressively expand their fiber-to-the-home network, which is now available to about 8 million locations and is targeted to hit 12.5 million by the middle of 2019.

#2. Yes, I agree about the need for an AT&T-supplied STB for their OTT TV service and AT&T has said they plan to roll that out late this year. (The CEO refers to it as their "home-centric" OTT TV service.) I think it may be marketed/branded as a different service from DTV Now but it will use the same underlying distribution platform. Here's a link to the STB that AT&T submitted to the FCC months ago which may be what they offer customers. Yes, it will be a simple self-install, just plug it in and connect it to your home network/internet via either wifi or ethernet. DirecTV to Launch Android TV-Based OTT Set-Top Box (EXCLUSIVE)

#3. This isn't really a problem. According to the following report (see chart 5), 89% of Americans in mid-2016 (two years ago) had at least one wired broadband internet provider with download speeds of 25 Mbps or greater available to them. (AT&T recommends a minimum 12 Mbps connection at home for DTV Now users.) 25 Mbps is fast enough to support 2 or 3 simultaneous DTV Now streams at its top HD quality (although in a multi-person household with lots of other folks online at the same time, a higher download speed may be needed). That said, it is true that a significant number of rural Americans do not have a broadband provider available where they live. That's why AT&T has said that satellite TV will shift to being mainly a product targeted at rural dwellers.
https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/US Broadband Availability Mid-2016 formatted.pdf

#4. 5G connections (whether mobile or fixed home) will certainly provide greater bandwidth for watching video. But today's 4G LTE connections from AT&T and others are already up to the task of allowing mobile viewing of services like DTV Now. Here are AT&T's stated bandwidth requirements for DTV Now:

• 150 Kbps - 2.5 Mbps - Minimum broadband connection speed for Mobile devices
• 2.5 - 7.5 Mbps - Recommended for HD quality

So, given all the above, I'd say AT&T is pretty much ready to begin pushing OTT as their primary TV distribution platform. They just need to finish developing their new streaming platform, which is finishing up beta testing for DTV Now currently.

NashGuy said:

This isn't really a problem. According to the following report (see chart 5), 89% of Americans in mid-2016 (two years ago) had at least one wired broadband internet provider with download speeds of 25 Mbps or greater available to them. (AT&T recommends a minimum 12 Mbps connection at home for DTV Now users.) 25 Mbps is fast enough to support 2 or 3 simultaneous DTV Now streams at its top HD quality (although in a multi-person household with lots of other folks online at the same time, a higher download speed may be needed). That said, it is true that a significant number of rural Americans do not have a broadband provider available where they live. That's why AT&T has said that satellite TV will shift to being mainly a product targeted at rural dwellers.
https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/US Broadband Availability Mid-2016 formatted.pdf

Click to expand...

That quotes advertised speeds. If they checked what speed they were actually getting during peak evening hours (when most people will want to watch TV) the numbers would look quite a bit different, and for 'live' streaming like DTV Now (as opposed to prepackaged streams like Netflix where the app can buffer many minutes ahead) other users in the household can affect you (i.e. when they load a big web page) much more easily if you don't have a lot of headroom.

slice1900 said:

That quotes advertised speeds. If they checked what speed they were actually getting during peak evening hours (when most people will want to watch TV) the numbers would look quite a bit different, and for 'live' streaming like DTV Now (as opposed to prepackaged streams like Netflix where the app can buffer many minutes ahead) other users in the household can affect you (i.e. when they load a big web page) much more easily if you don't have a lot of headroom.

Click to expand...

I've done lots of speed tests over the years in the prime evening viewing hours on both Comcast and AT&T and my speeds were almost always at or above (the vast majority of the time, above) the quoted download speed for my service tier.

I know you want to believe that there's just no way that AT&T can successfully shift millions of their pay TV customers over to OTT streaming. But the reality is that millions more people than use D* satellite are already successfully streaming OTT video from Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, Hulu, HBO, Showtime, Sling TV, YouTube TV, PS Vue and other sources every evening. And the available amount of bandwidth in our networks is only ever going to rise in response to Americans' increasing internet usage.

AT&T said not long ago they would be launching another streaming TV service this summer, this one without the Directv brand. Maybe they were already planning to drop Directv?

Jackonearth said:

AT&T said not long ago they would be launching another streaming TV service this summer, this one without the Directv brand. Maybe they were already planning to drop Directv?

Click to expand...

No ....
That would be the ATT branded streaming service ...
Its been talked about here quite a bit.

NashGuy said:

I've done lots of speed tests over the years in the prime evening viewing hours on both Comcast and AT&T and my speeds were almost always at or above (the vast majority of the time, above) the quoted download speed for my service tier.

Click to expand...

That's great for you, but that is TOTALLY dependent on where you are. Talk to Comcast or AT&T customers in other locations and you'll get a completely different story. Places that have completed a DOCSIS 3.1 upgrade or have fiber to the home should be fine, but that's nowhere near 89% of the country.

Jimbo said:

No ....
That would be the ATT branded streaming service ...
Its been talked about here quite a bit.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to the "AT&T Watch" service that was announced by the AT&T CEO during this testimony in the current merger trial? That's the new $15 bundle of channels that won't include any sports channels. I think it was later reported that it wouldn't include any locals either. I'm sure it will basically boil down to the Turner channels plus other popular channels that aren't owned by ABC/Disney, NBC/Comcast, Fox or CBS. So it'll look a lot like the Turner nets plus several of the nets on Philo.

But I can't figure out why AT&T would want to launch the new $15 bundle as an entirely separate service/app/brand, though. Why not make it the starter tier within DTV Now, which would make it far easier to later upsell customers to any of the larger, more expensive bundles already available in DTV Now? That's why I've been predicting that AT&T Watch will actually be the new brand name for all of DTV Now. (I'm guessing that the CEO accidentally let the new name slip on the stand.) Once the updated DTV Now app, with cloud DVR and the new UI, debuts sometime before the end of June, it will also include the new $15 starter bundle and the whole thing will get rebranded as AT&T Watch. Probably makes more sense from a marketing perspective anyway. As things stand now, they have to explain to folks that "No, you don't have to put a dish on your roof to subscribe to DTV Now." Plus, if AT&T is forced to sell off their satellite service, well, at least their shiny new OTT service would no longer share a brand name with it.

Now, beyond AT&T Watch, there's another brand name that AT&T recently registered, "AT&T TV". I think that's going to be like a higher-end version of DTV Now aimed more at traditional cable TV subscribers who mainly watch at home and want a dedicated STB and remote control to come with the service. AT&T TV will effectively replace Uverse TV and, since it will be OTT and available nationwide to anyone with a home broadband connection, it will eventually replace D* satellite as well, although it will take several years to get the bulk of satellite subscribers transitioned over to it. But once that happens, I could easily see AT&T dumping their satellite TV business. At some point, someone is going to end up with possession of both the D* and E* satellite TV businesses, just as Sirius and XM satellite radio ended up merging. The market just won't be big enough to sustain two separate operators.

slice1900 said:

That's great for you, but that is TOTALLY dependent on where you are. Talk to Comcast or AT&T customers in other locations and you'll get a completely different story. Places that have completed a DOCSIS 3.1 upgrade or have fiber to the home should be fine, but that's nowhere near 89% of the country.

Click to expand...

And yet it doesn't seem to be holding Netflix back. If OTT distribution works for them, it can work for AT&T too.

NashGuy said:

Are you referring to the "AT&T Watch" service that was announced by the AT&T CEO during this testimony in the current merger trial? That's the new $15 bundle of channels that won't include any sports channels. I think it was later reported that it wouldn't include any locals either. I'm sure it will basically boil down to the Turner channels plus other popular channels that aren't owned by ABC/Disney, NBC/Comcast, Fox or CBS. So it'll look a lot like the Turner nets plus several of the nets on Philo.

But I can't figure out why AT&T would want to launch the new $15 bundle as an entirely separate service/app/brand, though. Why not make it the starter tier within DTV Now, which would make it far easier to later upsell customers to any of the larger, more expensive bundles already available in DTV Now? That's why I've been predicting that AT&T Watch will actually be the new brand name for all of DTV Now. (I'm guessing that the CEO accidentally let the new name slip on the stand.) Once the updated DTV Now app, with cloud DVR and the new UI, debuts sometime before the end of June, it will also include the new $15 starter bundle and the whole thing will get rebranded as AT&T Watch. Probably makes more sense from a marketing perspective anyway. As things stand now, they have to explain to folks that "No, you don't have to put a dish on your roof to subscribe to DTV Now." Plus, if AT&T is forced to sell off their satellite service, well, at least their shiny new OTT service would no longer share a brand name with it.

Now, beyond AT&T Watch, there's another brand name that AT&T recently registered, "AT&T TV". I think that's going to be like a higher-end version of DTV Now aimed more at traditional cable TV subscribers who mainly watch at home and want a dedicated STB and remote control to come with the service. AT&T TV will effectively replace Uverse TV and, since it will be OTT and available nationwide to anyone with a home broadband connection, it will eventually replace D* satellite as well, although it will take several years to get the bulk of satellite subscribers transitioned over to it. But once that happens, I could easily see AT&T dumping their satellite TV business. At some point, someone is going to end up with possession of both the D* and E* satellite TV businesses, just as Sirius and XM satellite radio ended up merging. The market just won't be big enough to sustain two separate operators.

Click to expand...

I don't know ANYONE that would go for that $15 package as the MAIN TV programming, theres next to nothing in it. Particularly if its true that the locals are not in it either.

I don't see them selling D* or D Now.
Remember that that $35 package of channels on D* Now is just the beginning, those prices will be going up as well.... there will come a time in the near future that streaming will cost just as much as the Cable /Sat bill.

NashGuy said:

And yet it doesn't seem to be holding Netflix back. If OTT distribution works for them, it can work for AT&T too.

Click to expand...

C'mon, I KNOW you know the difference between live and prepackaged streaming, right? Netflix can buffer many minutes ahead so it can survive hiccups in your internet connection far better.

slice1900 said:

C'mon, I KNOW you know the difference between live and prepackaged streaming, right? Netflix can buffer many minutes ahead so it can survive hiccups in your internet connection far better.

Click to expand...

Sure, I understand that live streaming is more challenging. I also know that lots of smart engineers and lots of money on edge cloud hardware, interconnection agreements, etc. are working to overcome that challenge.

The proof is ultimately in the pudding. Tell me about your personal experience using DTV Now or other live streaming vMPVDs., not your theoretical objections as to why live OTT services can't ever work well or be a viable alternative in the marketplace vs. traditional cable/satellite/telco TV.

I can tell you about mine, as a beta tester for DTV Now. Throughout Feb., Apr., and May, it's been WAY more reliable for live TV than satellite (either D* or E*) ever were for me. I could count on one hand the number of times when a live channel failed to begin streaming in a timely manner on DTV Now. (And even then, it was just a very momentary fluke, remedied by switching channels and then back.) My only real gripe was with the cloud DVR, which they were/are still developing, although that's gotten better. But for live TV (which is actually behind by about 60 seconds), DTV Now has been very solid, with HD picture quality that blows Comcast out of the water and is probably slightly better overall than D* satellite.

And again, AT&T and the other vMVPDs are still relatively new. They're continually learning and improving their services, and as more subscribers join, more money is poured into improving the platforms.

The future of all video is OTT unicast streams for on-demand/cloud DVR and at least some live linear channels, with multicast streams being used for some popular live linear channels where technically feasible and efficient (e.g. when the viewer is connected to a network owned by the vMVPD).

Jimbo said:

I don't know ANYONE that would go for that $15 package as the MAIN TV programming, theres next to nothing in it. Particularly if its true that the locals are not in it either.

Click to expand...

Then you probably don't know any cord-cutters. Look, there a lot of younger folks out there who no longer even watch traditional TV channels. Netflix, YouTube, maybe HBO, and they're good. Some of those folks would be happy to add an inexpensive package of channels that gets them CNN, TBS, TNT, plus lifestyle programming from HGTV, Food, scripted series from AMC, etc.

And then there are cord-cutters who already get their locals for free with an antenna. This $15 package would make a very nice complement to that -- think about it, it would be a lot like what cable TV looked like back in the 80s, back before the number of channels exploded. Is it for big sports fans? No, since there's no ESPN, FS1, NBCSN, various RSNs, etc. But half of the US viewing public doesn't care that much about sports anyhow. And keep in mind that AT&T lets you add HBO to their packages for another $5/mo. If that extends to this new $15 package, wow, that's a great deal. (Also, this $15 package will be free for AT&T's most expensive unlimited mobile wireless customers.)

Imagine if AT&T followed in the footsteps of Sling TV, which offers the $130 AirTV Player that lets you integrate local OTA channels with Sling's streaming channels. If there were a similar device that you could buy for DTV Now/AT&T Watch, you could conceivably pay just $20 a month for your local HD channels plus HBO, CNN, TBS, TNT, and maybe 30 other popular channels, and all of it would be integrated into one UI on a single box. Plug in a USB hard drive to record the OTA stuff and use cloud DVR to record the OTT channels. If executed and marketed properly, that could have huge uptake.

NashGuy said:

Then you probably don't know any cord-cutters. Look, there a lot of younger folks out there who no longer even watch traditional TV channels. Netflix, YouTube, maybe HBO, and they're good. Some of those folks would be happy to add an inexpensive package of channels that gets them CNN, TBS, TNT, plus lifestyle programming from HGTV, Food, scripted series from AMC, etc.

And then there are cord-cutters who already get their locals for free with an antenna. This $15 package would make a very nice complement to that -- think about it, it would be a lot like what cable TV looked like back in the 80s, back before the number of channels exploded. Is it for big sports fans? No, since there's no ESPN, FS1, NBCSN, various RSNs, etc. But half of the US viewing public doesn't care that much about sports anyhow. And keep in mind that AT&T lets you add HBO to their packages for another $5/mo. If that extends to this new $15 package, wow, that's a great deal. (Also, this $15 package will be free for AT&T's most expensive unlimited mobile wireless customers.)

Imagine if AT&T followed in the footsteps of Sling TV, which offers the $130 AirTV Player that lets you integrate local OTA channels with Sling's streaming channels. If there were a similar device that you could buy for DTV Now/AT&T Watch, you could conceivably pay just $20 a month for your local HD channels plus HBO, CNN, TBS, TNT, and maybe 30 other popular channels, and all of it would be integrated into one UI on a single box. Plug in a USB hard drive to record the OTA stuff and use cloud DVR to record the OTT channels. If executed and marketed properly, that could have huge uptake.

Click to expand...

Awful lot of IF's ....

I believe a big part of OTT is to force the watching of commercials. Make it either impossible or inconvenient.