Social Feed

Jagosaurus
Last reply · posted in Internet Television (IPTV) Discussion Forum
I have a buddy asking me the most price aggressive way to access live (not just VOD) TNT via OTT providers? DVR is a bonus.

I'm personally a Vue sub ($45 Access non football season, $50 Core during football). I know there are cheaper overall options but Vue fits my family needs... well, wife compromise... best. Things are always changing so I'm not certain of current options for his TNT use case.

That said, I mentioned Sling TV to him for TNT. Looks like the $25 package includes it. What would DVR capabilities add? Still +$5?

Looks like Turner channels are missing from Philo.

Seems YouTube TV, Hulu TV, & Direct TV Now will be in the same range as Vue.

Unless I'm missing something, $25 Sling is his best option?

In case you're wondering, this is for AEW (All Elite Wrestling). Turner is back in the rasslin biz 20 years later (since WCW).
14 Replies · 2600 views
N
It looks like current content from TNT, TBS and other AT&T-owned basic cable channels will be included in their forthcoming on-demand streaming service rumored to be called "HBO Max". But I doubt that it will include any of the sports content from TNT and TBS (if one can consider professional wrestling to be a sport). I also doubt it will include live streams of anything beyond HBO, if that.
harshness
I also doubt it will include live streams of anything beyond HBO, if that.
I doubt that is the case but we're talking about AT&T Watch TV, not HBO Max (some manner of trial balloon that AT&T is lofting to see if anything they can assemble from frankenparts might get traction).
N
I doubt that is the case but we're talking about AT&T Watch TV, not HBO Max (some manner of trial balloon that AT&T is lofting to see if anything they can assemble from frankenparts might get traction).

AT&T Watch TV definitely DOES include live streams of TBS, TNT and several other cable channels. HBO Max will not, at least at first; it will focus on on-demand content, like Netflix. But one of the head honchos at AT&T recently said that they will eventually offer the option to subscribe to live channels in the HBO Max app (much like Hulu has a live TV option).

My hunch is that Watch TV is going to die soon and essentially merge with DirecTV Now to become AT&T's new flagship cable TV service, probably simply named AT&T TV. They'll include the live HBO channels, plus HBO Max on-demand content, in with the Watch TV line-up and raise the package price from $15 to $30. That will be the Starter tier, with DTV Now's Plus and Max tiers sitting above it at their current regular prices of $50 and $70. Plus and Max have somewhat skimpy line-ups right now because AT&T had yet to finish up their contracts with certain network families (A+E, AMC, Discovery) when they first announced those packages on DTV Now. But that should be rectified by the time they appear in the "new" AT&T TV service that will launch in late July or August.
harshness
AT&T Watch TV definitely DOES include live streams of TBS, TNT and several other cable channels. HBO Max will not, at least at first; it will focus on on-demand content, like Netflix. But one of the head honchos at AT&T recently said that they will eventually offer the option to subscribe to live channels in the HBO Max app (much like Hulu has a live TV option).
Link?
My hunch is that Watch TV is going to die soon and essentially merge with DirecTV Now to become AT&T's new flagship cable TV service, probably simply named AT&T TV.
DIRECTV Now is an unqualified disappointment (they lost 350,000 customers in six months) and it includes all of the channels in Watch TV already so I'm not sure how they would "merge". AT&T needs Watch TV to boost their wireless attractiveness so I doubt it is going anywhere.

I think AT&T needs to find a sweet spot in between Watch TV and DIRECTV Now that hits a $35 price point (SlingTV and Philo territory). I think some partitioning like SlingTV is doing will go a long way towards "not paying for what I don't watch".
N

I assume you mean about the plans to eventually merge live cable TV (i.e. DirecTV Now) into the forthcoming WarnerMedia SVOD (i.e. HBO Max)?
John Stankey's challenge: Making AT&T's $100 billion bet on Time Warner pay off

DIRECTV Now is an unqualified disappointment (they lost 350,000 customers in six months) and it includes all of the channels in Watch TV already so I'm not sure how they would "merge". AT&T needs Watch TV to boost their wireless attractiveness so I doubt it is going anywhere.

DTV Now was an experiment in OTT live TV for AT&T and mainly a way for them to develop and beta test their new cloud-based streaming video platform, which will find its REAL use in powering their upcoming service.

What I mean by merge is that DTV Now and Watch TV would no longer be two separately branded services. The two channel packages in DTVN -- Plus and Max -- and the single package in Watch TV would form the three tiers of a newly branded service that would have slightly different features and options from either DTVN or Watch TV, both of which would be discontinued when the new service launches. This is what I think will be the new streaming service that is set to launch in Q3. But if the Watch TV package becomes the Starter tier in this new service, I would bet that it will (like Plus and Max) include HBO as well as the upcoming HBO Max on-demand service. Going forward, HBO Max will be the absolute bedrock of AT&T's video strategy and they're not interested in selling ANY new video subscriptions that don't include it.

The name has yet to be announced or leaked but I think it will be called AT&T TV, based on the fact that they trademarked that name awhile back (last year?) and it fits the standard naming pattern: AT&T Wireless, AT&T Internet, AT&T Fiber. What else would you name your new flagship cable TV service intended to go with those other products than AT&T TV?

So I would imagine a new unified product line-up that looks like this:

HBO Max: $16-17
AT&T TV - Starter*: $30
AT&T TV - Plus*: $50
AT&T TV - Max*: $70

*All AT&T TV packages would include HBO Max.

As is the case currently with DTV Now, AT&T TV will come with 20 hours or so of cloud DVR included. But you'll also be able to expand that, probably an extra 100 hours of storage for $10/mo. And just as Sling TV has add-on Extra packs (Sports Extra, Heartland Extra, Hollywood Extra) of various niche channels that aren't included in its main Blue and Orange tiers, I expect AT&T TV will do the same, giving customers the option to add small groups of additional channels to their base tier for an extra $5-10/mo for each Extra pack.

Note that AT&T Wireless's most expensive package includes free Watch TV plus one free premium subscription, such as HBO. The next step down package just gets free Watch TV. If Watch TV goes away, I would expect that the top wireless package would get the AT&T TV Starter tier for free (or a $30 monthly credit off any AT&T TV tier) while the package just below it gets HBO Max for free. No more giving away free subscriptions to competitors' services (e.g. Showtime, Starz, etc.).

I think AT&T needs to find a sweet spot in between Watch TV and DIRECTV Now that hits a $35 price point (SlingTV and Philo territory). I think some partitioning like SlingTV is doing will go a long way towards "not paying for what I don't watch".

Note that Sling TV does not include local affiliates of ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox, except in major markets where the affiliate is actually owned by the network and Sling is given no choice but to include the local if they want access to that network's cable channels (ABC grouped with ESPN and Disney; NBC grouped with USA, NBCSN, MSNBC, etc.; Fox grouped with FS1, FS2, etc. Sling doesn't carry any CBS affiliates anywhere.) Not including most local affiliates nationwide really helps Sling keep their prices down, given that locals typically account for about $12 of a cable bill.

Meanwhile, Philo at $20 is missing locals plus any sports channels. It's just composed of cable channels that aren't owned by any of the big 4 networks or AT&T, so it's missing a LOT of what people tend to want in a cable TV package. It's really more of a supplement to other sources. AT&T Watch TV is the closest competitor to it, trading away some less popular channels in Philo in exchange for AT&T's own channels (CNN, TBS, TNT, TruTV, etc.).

It would be great for consumers if you could get a bundle costing only $35 that includes your major locals (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox) plus maybe the 20 or so most popular cable channels across all companies, including ESPN, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, AMC, HGTV, Discovery, ID, Food, FX, USA, Nickelodeon, History, TV Land, TLC, A&E, History, Hallmark, TBS, TNT and Cartoon. But it's just not possible, at least not yet. (Maybe in a few more years after cable TV has lost millions more subscribers.) Right now, all those different companies that own the networks won't allow anyone to just cherry-pick a few of their most popular channels and put into a low-cost package because then everyone would get that package and all of their less-popular channels would die off. So they instead require that more of their channels be shoved into the base package so that they can get paid more, which of course drives up the package price. If you want something for under $50, something's gotta give: either lose one or more major channel group or lose your locals. Actually, even at $50, YouTube TV still lacks Viacom channels (as do Hulu with Live TV and PS Vue).

I don't think AT&T is finished building out their Plus and Max packages yet. Right now, they're still missing channels from the Discovery, A&E, and AMC groups. I know they just renegotiated their contract with A&E, so I definitely expect those channels (A&E, History, Lifetime) to get added. I think AMC channels (AMC, BBC America, IFC) will as well. Discovery's channels (which include HGTV, Food, Animal Planet, ID and TLC) are too popular to not have at all, so they'll either get included in Plus and Max or Discovery will give AT&T permission to offer them as their own separate Extra pack. Discovery's CEO has talked publicly for months now about selling just their channels as a standalone service for $5-8/mo and they've also announced plans to launch their own on-demand service (in conjunction with BBC) next year for about $5/mo. So it's not out of the question that they'll allow AT&T TV to distribute their live channels that way, as their own little a la carte bundle.
harshness
DTV Now was an experiment in OTT live TV for AT&T and mainly a way for them to develop and beta test their new cloud-based streaming video platform, which will find its REAL use in powering their upcoming service.
So AT&T is building their OTT future on top of the steaming pile known as DIRECTV Now? Stankey better have a backup plan to pay off that $200,000,000 in debt.

If you read the entire CNBC article (with the knowledge that CNBC is a competitor), they seem to be suggesting that nobody at WM knows how this is supposed to work. This is why I'm of a mind that what we're hearing is pretty much just a succession of trial balloons.
So I would imagine a new unified product line-up that looks like this:

HBO Max: $16-17
AT&T TV - Starter*: $30
AT&T TV - Plus*: $50
AT&T TV - Max*: $70

*All AT&T TV packages would include HBO Max.
I've seen package lists that don't include Cinemax in at least the Starter package. In all cases, there would be only a few of the HBO and Cinemax themes rather than the whole offering.
I don't think AT&T is finished building out their Plus and Max packages yet. Right now, they're still missing channels from the Discovery, A&E, and AMC groups. I know they just renegotiated their contract with A&E, so I definitely expect those channels (A&E, History, Lifetime) to get added. I think AMC channels (AMC, BBC America, IFC) will as well. Discovery's channels (which include HGTV, Food, Animal Planet, ID and TLC) are too popular to not have at all, so they'll either get included in Plus and Max or Discovery will give AT&T permission to offer them as their own separate Extra pack. Discovery's CEO has talked publicly for months now about selling just their channels as a standalone service for $5-8/mo and they've also announced plans to launch their own on-demand service (in conjunction with BBC) next year for about $5/mo. So it's not out of the question that they'll allow AT&T TV to distribute their live channels that way, as their own little a la carte bundle.
I think the point of the article was that they haven't really started fleshing out what the offerings will be.

What makes DIRECTV Now unpalatable isn't the channels, it is the packaging, delivery and the customer service associated with it. Adding HBO is just putting lipstick on it.

The other OTT bundlings that we've heard about (named for the corresponding DIRECTV package) won't fly as they appear to be the same money (ignoring the numerous fees and charges) for much fewer channels.

I see why the analysts are shaking their heads.
N
So AT&T is building their OTT future on top of the steaming pile known as DIRECTV Now? Stankey better have a backup plan to pay off that $200,000,000 in debt.

If you read the entire CNBC article (with the knowledge that CNBC is a competitor), they seem to be suggesting that nobody at WM knows how this is supposed to work. This is why I'm of a mind that what we're hearing is pretty much just a succession of trial balloons.I've seen package lists that don't include Cinemax in at least the Starter package. In all cases, there would be only a few of the HBO and Cinemax themes rather than the whole offering.I think the point of the article was that they haven't really started fleshing out what the offerings will be.

What makes DIRECTV Now unpalatable isn't the channels, it is the packaging, delivery and the customer service associated with it. Adding HBO is just putting lipstick on it.

The other OTT bundlings that we've heard about (named for the corresponding DIRECTV package) won't fly as they appear to be the same money (ignoring the numerous fees and charges) for much fewer channels.

I see why the analysts are shaking their heads.

Eh, whether or not what AT&T is about to do will be successful is an open question. I'm just predicting (based on a lot of public statements and rumors over the past year, plus analysis of their current offerings vs. competitors' offering) what they WILL do pretty soon this year. It's going to be an expanded (and probably rebranded) version of DirecTV Now, with an optional set-top box and full-function cable TV remote designed specifically for use with this service. (But folks will be able to just use an app on whatever device they like if they don't want to take the box.) This isn't going to be marketed as a "cord-cutter" streaming service. It will be AT&T's full-blown main TV service. And the same packages it offers -- Plus, Max, etc. -- will be the new default options on DTV satellite as well. You may not "get it" yet but once all this is announced, I think you'll understand what they're doing. (Though you still may not *like* it or think it's worth what they'll charge for it.)

They're pretty well on their way in terms of fleshing out what will be in HBO Max, even if all the details aren't set yet. It's supposed to launch in beta this fall, with the final product a go by next March. As for AT&T TV, I think that's pretty much locked and loaded at this point. They might still be dotting the I's and crossing the T's on one or two final carriage contracts and finalizing the initial marketing rollout plans but they're getting very close. I expect it to launch in August, if not late July.

As for Cinemax, I don't know if any of its linear channels will show up in the Starter and Plus packages. Currently, only its main channel is part of the Max package. But the WSJ recently reported that Cinemax content is going to be part of the HBO Max SVOD, so Starter and Plus subs will still get on-demand access to Cinemax content that way. I actually think that they want to slowly phase out most of those linear premium channels anyway as the HBO and Cinemax brands become thought of as sub-brands within the broader HBO Max service/app. Note that the Plus and Max packages in DTV Now right now only include the HBO, HBO Family and HBO Latino linear channels.
harshness
Eh, whether or not what AT&T is about to do will be successful is an open question. I'm just predicting (based on a lot of public statements and rumors over the past year, plus analysis of their current offerings vs. competitors' offering) what they WILL do pretty soon this year.
Assembling all that out of what we've been given is a herculean task indeed.
This isn't going to be marketed as a "cord-cutter" streaming service. It will be AT&T's full-blown main TV service.
The DIRECTV part of that service showed packages with less channels and more dollars involved.
And the same packages it offers -- Plus, Max, etc. -- will be the new default options on DTV satellite as well. You may not "get it" yet but once all this is announced, I think you'll understand what they're doing.
Until it is announced, I don't think anyone (including AT&T) knows what it will contain. This is a recurring theme in the article.
It's supposed to launch in beta this fall, with the final product a go by next March. As for AT&T TV, I think that's pretty much locked and loaded at this point.
You're contradicting yourself here. We know AT&T has a TV track record of missing release dates by months leaving them consistently late to the party. They can't have it within a year and be planning to beta test in the Fall.
They might still be dotting the I's and crossing the T's on one or two final carriage contracts and finalizing the initial marketing rollout plans but they're getting very close. I expect it to launch in August, if not late July.
I expect that given their recent past, where they are starting from and the number of fronts that they're battling on, you're throwing darts just like Stankey is. The question is whether the wall is made of horse hair or hardwood; whether a relatively expensive suite of services (in terms of cost per channel) has a place in the modern pay TV landscape. I think today's DIRECTV is proving that it isn't sustainable.

Adding the requirements of unicasting at the subscriber numbers needed makes it seem all the more difficult. Going from 1.5 million to tens of millions subscribers in a short time is unprecedented. All of this speculation seems to assume that the competition isn't prepared to adjust or even steal their thunder with time proven models and that's a serious oversight.
N
I'll give you this: you never let lack of knowledge on a specific topic stand in your way of offering an opinion.
harshness
I'll give you this: you never let lack of knowledge on a specific topic stand in your way of offering an opinion.
That's the magic of opinion.

To assemble sound bites and clippings of claims and promises isn't easily defensible; especially given the applicable historical performance of the company and the documented analyses of Mr. Stankey's MO. History must be carefully factored in when forming an opinion and making predictions and I think you may be taking that evidence much too lightly.
osu1991
Pub Member / Supporter
Last reply · posted in The Chit Chat Club

The number-one US state for EV growth, according to the June 22 Yardi report?
Oklahoma.


:eek


It has no ZEV mandates and "minimal" incentives, Yardi says, but also has cheap electricity, high multi-car household rates (so, for example, a non-Lightning Ford F-150 pulls their trailers), and a consumer base willing to switch.
119 Replies · 1244 views
meStevo

Never realized that Tesla is losing to BYD at manufacturing too, which IMO is Tesla's biggest accomplishment and area of innovation. Nice writeup about the state of play and how we got here though. I have no faith that we're moving any productive direction though sadly, most changes and efforts feel reactionary rather than rooted in making use of the time being bought by tariffs, with few exceptions.

So: how are the cars so cheap, and what is being cut to get there? The best public accounting comes from the Rhodium Group, which compared BYD, Geely, and Leapmotor against Tesla's Chinese operation, a fair comparison because it removes labor costs and shipping from the equation entirely. Their estimate is that BYD builds a car for about $4,700 less than Tesla builds a Model 3 in Shanghai, roughly 15 percent of the Model 3's price. The breakdown is the interesting part. Direct government grants account for about $292 per vehicle, which is 5 percent of the gap. The biggest single factor is vertical integration: BYD makes about 80 percent of its top-tier components in-house, against 37 percent for Tesla, and that eliminates roughly $2,369 per vehicle in supplier markups. Lower overhead, meaning cheaper engineering talent and administrative cost spread across enormous volume, accounts for another $1,719. And BYD pays its suppliers on 155-day terms, against Tesla's 60, which is worth about $214 per car in float. When people say the Chinese advantage is subsidies, the per-vehicle number says otherwise. When people say it is slave wages, the Tesla Shanghai comparison says otherwise too. The advantage is mostly that BYD decided, twenty years ago, to make its own batteries, its own motors, its own power electronics, and its own semiconductors, and Western automakers decided the opposite.​
harshness
Let's tell it like it is. GM's EV efforts are coming from SAIC. The brain trust is almost entirely in China, and GM is hanging off of SAIC's shirt tails.

It is a lot like asserting that the Corvette was designed by Chevrolet when most of it came from the Cadillac CTS-V.
  • Like
Reactions: osu1991
T

Never realized that Tesla is losing to BYD at manufacturing too, which IMO is Tesla's biggest accomplishment and area of innovation. Nice writeup about the state of play and how we got here though. I have no faith that we're moving any productive direction though sadly, most changes and efforts feel reactionary rather than rooted in making use of the time being bought by tariffs, with few exceptions.

So: how are the cars so cheap, and what is being cut to get there? The best public accounting comes from the Rhodium Group, which compared BYD, Geely, and Leapmotor against Tesla's Chinese operation, a fair comparison because it removes labor costs and shipping from the equation entirely. Their estimate is that BYD builds a car for about $4,700 less than Tesla builds a Model 3 in Shanghai, roughly 15 percent of the Model 3's price. The breakdown is the interesting part. Direct government grants account for about $292 per vehicle, which is 5 percent of the gap. The biggest single factor is vertical integration: BYD makes about 80 percent of its top-tier components in-house, against 37 percent for Tesla, and that eliminates roughly $2,369 per vehicle in supplier markups. Lower overhead, meaning cheaper engineering talent and administrative cost spread across enormous volume, accounts for another $1,719. And BYD pays its suppliers on 155-day terms, against Tesla's 60, which is worth about $214 per car in float. When people say the Chinese advantage is subsidies, the per-vehicle number says otherwise. When people say it is slave wages, the Tesla Shanghai comparison says otherwise too. The advantage is mostly that BYD decided, twenty years ago, to make its own batteries, its own motors, its own power electronics, and its own semiconductors, and Western automakers decided the opposite.​
That's how Ford did it- vertical integration. He even set up a rubber plantation in S. America
osu1991

The Cybertruck was supposed to make the F-150 obsolete. It wasn't supposed to be boring, like a Ford or a Chevy. It was supposed to be "more truck than truck." It turns out, people just wanted trucks that were trucks, and CEO Elon Musk announced on X earlier this morning is that the Cybertruck is dying.


Ending production in middle of next year at gigatexas for cybercab production.
Scott Greczkowski
Staff member HERE TO HELP YOU! Cutting Edge
Last reply · posted in The Chit Chat Club
Sometimes a thread gets so many posts in it that is can cause issues for the server so that why today we introduce The Song Name Game Part 3!

So let the game continue!

The last song was added by Bobby who posted...

One Meat Ball - Andrews Sisters

CONTINUE ON AND HAVE FUN! WELCOME HOME TO SATELLITEGUYS.US!

Here are the original rules for the game as posted by WebbyDude back in 2006. http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads/68645-Song-Name-Game

Just name a song title and the band who performed it. The next person does the same thing, but needs to list a song title or band name which includes a word from the previous entry. Pick songs from any genre.

Example:

Long Live Rock and Roll -- Rainbow

Rainbow in the Dark -- Dio

Another example:

Ride the Lightning -- Metallica

Lightning Strikes -- Ozzy Osbourne


Get it?


An additional note: we all know that song titles, sometimes, use profane words. Because this is a family friendly website it is advised that you clean up that title up a bit. This is accomplished by using something like sh!t instead of the real word. Thanks....
68760 Replies · 2685463 views
  • Like
Reactions: c-spand
long_time_Dish
No Time - The Guess Who
H
TIME Won't Let Me-The Outsiders
  • Like
Reactions: ClarkGable
ClarkGable
Time In A Bottle - Jim Croce
harshness
Message in a Bottle - The Police
  • Love
Reactions: dishstaller
dishstaller
Knights In White Satin - The Moody Blues
TWiT Tech Podcast Network
Last reply · posted in TWiT Tech Podcast Network
1 Replies · 7 views
dishstaller
These AI companies have over $3 trillion in debt. Derail that and you will see a stock market crash like we have never seen before.
Bruce
Supporting Founder Lifetime Supporter
Last reply · posted in Internet Television (IPTV) Discussion Forum
Comcast is the first to report, with a massive 274,000 loss in video subscribers.

In the 3Q of 2016, Comcast had 21.42 million video subscribers and was the #1 provider, now at 10.39 million and is the #3 Provider, YTTV is #2 ( who also surpassed DirecTV-8 Million and Dish-under 5 Million), Charter/Spectrum is #1.

14 Replies · 697 views
  • Like
Reactions: Howard Simmons
dishstaller
Losing 144,000 internet customers surprises me more.
ncted
Comcast called fiber pricing "irrational" because the ROI is over three years. What is irrational to me is Comcast internet is based on lines they put in the ground decades ago at this point, for the most part. Is copper that much more expensive to maintain?
B
Comcast called fiber pricing "irrational" because the ROI is over three years. What is irrational to me is Comcast internet is based on lines they put in the ground decades ago at this point, for the most part. Is copper that much more expensive to maintain?
yes. even copper lines in a house degrade over 70 years, I doubt coax would last that long. Fiber Optic on the isp side will last over 70 years with very dedgration
(((Garyd)))
yes. even copper lines in a house degrade over 70 years, I doubt coax would last that long. Fiber Optic on the isp side will last over 70 years with very dedgration
The fiber coming in to the house looks like 300 ohm old TV wire I think that is the weak point.
Bruce
Losing 144,000 internet customers surprises me more.
They have been losing broadband subscribers for about 4 years now.

IMG_2176.webp
  • Like
Reactions: MikeD-C05
B
The fiber coming in to the house looks like 300 ohm old TV wire I think that is the weak point.
I agree, even it fails the isp will come and install another one
  • Like
Reactions: Jimbo
Bruce
Charter lost 77,000 TV subscribers, the bigger news, it lost 233,000 broadband subscribers.

You would believe both companies would of learned from what happened with their TV services, which was ignore that cord cutting was a thing, allowed competition ( streaming) to get a foothold in the industry.

Now, in today's world, there are more households in the United States without a paid live TV than those with.

Both companies charge too much, delayed upgrades, all because they believed no one would leave them, only game in town, competition started with the 5G services, Fiber soon after, enough said, Cord Cutting 2.0 is here.

  • Like
Reactions: dishstaller
dishstaller
Got to admit I never thought I'd see the day that cable lost internet subs.
Ronnie-
Got to admit I never thought I'd see the day that cable lost internet subs.
I think the cable companies didnt either, back when they had no real competition in their footprint.

But today, for many, maybe even most, cable isnt the only choice, or even the best.
  • Like
Reactions: NYDutch and Mr Tony
Tom Speer
Staff member Pub Member / Supporter Cutting Edge
· posted in DIRECTV Cutting Edge Information
We are looking to find DirecTV Stream customers who are interested in pre-beta testing new Stream hardware and software, and who enjoy the testing process. You must agree to provide rigoorous feedback to DIRECTV on a regular basis. See the Welcome to the Cutting Edge message.
0 Replies · 20 views
ewindowman
Lifetime Supporter
Last reply · posted in DISH Network Support Forum
Looks like dish is Bankrupt. Filling tomorrow Tuesday June 30th
454 Replies · 15670 views
nelson61
Washington Post

SpaceX has held talks with Boost's parent company EchoStar in recent months about launching its own signature wireless service through a deal with the company, according to two people familiar with the negotiations.
Musk, the SpaceX CEO, has discussed the deal personally, meeting with EchoStar chairman Charlie Ergen last month, according to the people. The potential deal may result in SpaceX acquiring Boost Mobile or SpaceX gaining access to its network, which it leases from AT&T and T-Mobile US, the people said.
Access to those lease agreements would be a coup for SpaceX. The back door would allow Musk to make a play for a U.S. wireless market that equity research firm MoffettNathanson estimates is worth $235 billion. But the proposed service may need consent from those carriers for the service to actually launch, the people said.
Scott Greczkowski
Washington Post

SpaceX has held talks with Boost's parent company EchoStar in recent months about launching its own signature wireless service through a deal with the company, according to two people familiar with the negotiations.
Musk, the SpaceX CEO, has discussed the deal personally, meeting with EchoStar chairman Charlie Ergen last month, according to the people. The potential deal may result in SpaceX acquiring Boost Mobile or SpaceX gaining access to its network, which it leases from AT&T and T-Mobile US, the people said.
Access to those lease agreements would be a coup for SpaceX. The back door would allow Musk to make a play for a U.S. wireless market that equity research firm MoffettNathanson estimates is worth $235 billion. But the proposed service may need consent from those carriers for the service to actually launch, the people said.
Can't remember where or who I saw predict this. :D

It wouldn't surprise me to see Elon soon own all of DISH / Echostar in the future.
Bruce
It wouldn't surprise me to see Elon soon own all of DISH / Echostar in the future.
Again, why would Musk want a TV Service, specially one that is losing over a million subscribers a year.

Phone service…maybe, but not TV.
Scott Greczkowski
Again, why would Musk want a TV Service, specially one that is losing over a million subscribers a year.

Phone service…maybe, but not TV.
I know he wants TV. He wants to deliver EVERYTHING to EVERYWHERE.
Bruce
I know he wants TV. He wants to deliver EVERYTHING to EVERYWHERE.
Again, if so, why would he want Dish/Sling of all the providers?

He could deliver anything without actually owning, for example, watching the Lions game in my Tesla Y on it's screen via the YT app, while on the way to my future in-laws on Sunday.
M
Is Dish like Iran in one way...they both will totally collapse by end of week :)
Foxbat
Other than the price, my experience with Boost is not that different than what I experienced with my years with Cricket. I will be curious to see what happens if SpaceX takes the reins.
S
Again, if so, why would he want Dish/Sling of all the providers?

He could deliver anything without actually owning, for example, watching the Lions game in my Tesla Y on it's screen via the YT app, while on the way to my future in-laws on Sunday.
dish has new sats dtv does not
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
R
dish has new sats dtv does not
Hate to say this no one is ordering Satellite TV. Both DISH and Direct no new customers.
After 25 years with centurylink DSL 80 speed i changed to Xfinity 300 speed for $50 wow lightning fast for streaming. Still have DISH 27 years with them. Americas 250 package for $103. What you think of superbox or vseebox for streaming is it legal?
Still dish is easy to operate and change channels. What will Charlie Ergen do with new super satellites with loosing customers with satellites and boost?
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
comfortably_numb
What you think of superbox or vseebox for streaming is it legal?

NO.
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
TWiT Tech Podcast Network
· posted in TWiT Tech Podcast Network
0 Replies · 21 views