Why don't you provide us a list of DBS satellites launched after 2000 that lived less than 15 years, and how many total satellites are in the group you use (i.e. if you limit it to US only, to the Americas, worldwide, etc.)
AT&T completes DIRECTV spinoff.
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 123
- Views 18K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
Why don't you provide us a list of DBS satellites launched after 2000 that lived less than 15 years, and how many total satellites are in the group you use (i.e. if you limit it to US only, to the Americas, worldwide, etc.)
No, buying a cable TV service in 2015 that was delivered not by a broadband-capable pipe (e.g. coaxial cable or fiber) but rather by an increasingly outdated delivery system (satellite and rooftop dishes that can handle only TV, not broadband) was a colossal mistake. Cable/pay TV penetration had already peaked in the US earlier in the decade, with an increasing share of video consumption happening via OTT streaming. It was a really dumb move on AT&T's part. That said, AT&T didn't do themselves any favors in the way that they mis-managed DirecTV after purchasing it.
I think AT&T's plan from the time they purchased DirecTV was to merge it and Uverse into an OTT service, i.e. one that could be sold and delivered nationwide over any broadband connection, not just over their own IP network as is the case with the now-antiquated Uverse TV managed IPTV platform. That's why AT&T purchased Quickplay and launched DirecTV Now way back on Nov. 30, 2016. That product was s-l-o-w-l-y developed, with multiple branding changes, and eventually resulted in what would be called DirecTV Stream five years later. That project was mis-managed and/or under-resourced and took WAY too long to turn it into a reliable high-quality product with any meaningful marketing behind it. Meanwhile, Google took the lead in OTT cable TV with YouTube TV.
They bought the customers..not the service...the idea was to migrate directv over to internet...the error was creating a standard cable like internet service rather than a bunch of netflix style apps...HBO was great..just too little..too late..so they sold 15% to someone who could help
Yes, I do think they bought DTV with the intention to shift it over from DBS to OTT delivery but it was still a stupid move given what they paid combined with the fact that cable TV was already in long-term, likely irreversible, decline. If they wanted to offer a nationwide OTT cable TV service, it would have made much more sense financially NOT to buy DTV with its fleet of satellites, etc. and instead just transitioned their existing Uverse TV service from managed IPTV to OTT. Or perhaps they could have bought PlayStation Vue from Sony, rebranded and tweaked it, and encouraged their existing Uverse TV customer base to shift over to it during a 6-month phase-out. (I'm still wondering at what point we'll see them begin phasing out Uverse TV and trying to shift those customers over to DTV Stream.)
Whether it was a good idea for AT&T to buy Warner Bros. and launch the Netflix-style HBO Max service, eh, that didn't work out either. But it was a better long-term bet than doubling down on the fading cable/satellite TV business. And there was really zero connection between the two. If they wanted to get into the content and direct-to-consumer streaming game with HBO Max, there was no need at all to have first purchased DTV.
No where near as many customers plus uverse needs to switched to fiber before they can be switched...ATT only sold 15 %... long term it could still be profitable
If at&t wanted Directv so they could move the customer base to streaming, that was a colossal mistake. The DTV base population as a whole will have the least access to high speed broadband. That's why they have satellite TV. Maybe at&t was planning to vastly increase their fiber footprint to more rural areas, but then got bogged down.
No..you forgot about the plan for fixed 5g wireless internet in rural areas..it was a good plan..just too early...Dish network is working on a similar 5g plan
The problem is not the hype, it's the ability to build it out to the places that need it. The big cities are easy. The sticks are hard.
In the day absolutely true!...They did electricity, phone, and highways all the way out west....That was then, this is now. How things change
