DIRECTV in Las Vegas

[Tampa8]

but with sat you cover 99% of the population, with ip you drop coverage to 60%? the more tvs people may have the more bandwidth they need

Not for the same cost. and I bet it would be closer to 80% not 60%. No satellites to develop, launch, maintain, etc etc. No equipment to develop install, maintain. There are other costs of course but At&t already has most of them anyway. I bet the cost per customer is astonishingly less than with satellite.
As for caps, that all depends. At&t could offer no caps just as they are doing now for Directv customers who also have At&t cell service. I will say however if it becomes the main source of getting TV I don't know how the pricing would be.
I think we have to forget about the goal being to be able reach everyone because it isn't the goal of Cell Service. If it was it would be done by now.

And another thing, what about the thousands and thousands of potential customers in cities and populated areas who don't want a dish on the roof, or can't or can't easily do it but do have access to data.

 

[mdram]

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-researc...ogress-reports/2015-broadband-progress-report

the number are worse than you think for broadband access

and its not no caps, its a 22gb cap, yeah worthless

 

[mdram]

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-researc...ogress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report

update

 

[Troch77]

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-researc...ogress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report

update

According to this it says 90% of Americans have access to 25 MBPS internet or Higher.

Thats doesn't sound bad to me at all.

 

[jliehr]

but with sat you cover 99% of the population, with ip you drop coverage to 60%? the more tvs people may have the more bandwidth they need

AT&T has proven with their POTS, DSL and Uverse that they only care about the large population centers. They will keep a satellite presence to keep regulators and the general public off them, but they are driving towards everything IP and selling you their "digital home". Directv purchase was about quick revenue stream and eliminating competition.

 

[mdram]

yeah it went up from 2015

still 25mbs is just enough for 1 4k stream, forget anythng else

 

[mdram]

AT&T has proven with their POTS, DSL and Uverse that they only care about the large population centers. They will keep a satellite presence to keep regulators and the general public off them, but they are driving towards everything IP and selling you their "digital home". Directv purchase was about quick revenue stream and eliminating competition.

dish will gain, att will lose, simple

 

[Troch77]

yeah it went up from 2015

still 25mbs is just enough for 1 4k stream, forget anythng else

And 4K streaming is so far from the normal it doesn't even matter.

 

[keenan]

dish will gain, att will lose, simple

Does Dish do real 4K? As I recall, their HD is only 1440x1080i.

 

[mdram]

havent heard, but iff att neglects sat tv, many will have no other choice

 

[Troch77]

Does Dish do real 4K? As I recall, their HD is only 1440x1080i.

Since its VOD streaming only I would imagine its Real 4K

Now if they Launched actual live 4K channel.
Well I'm sure it will be compressed the crap out of.

 

[mdram]

the have broadcast in 4k on occassion, last time i think was the olympics

 

[keenan]

Since its VOD streaming only I would imagine its Real 4K

Now if they Launched actual live 4K channel.
Well I'm sure it will be compressed the crap out of.

So DirecTV is the only satcaster doing actual 4K broadcasts then. Those in rural areas without access to high-speed broadband won't gain anything by going with Dish then if their desire is 4K. That's unfortunate as they are double-whammied on the 4K front if AT&T EOL's satellite service.

 

[mdram]

So DirecTV is the only satcaster doing actual 4K broadcasts then. Those in rural areas without access to high-speed broadband won't gain anything by going with Dish then if their desire is 4K. That's unfortunate as they are double-whammied on the 4K front if AT&T EOL's satellite service.

at this time, that is correct. have to see what happens between now and if/when directv gets thier act together.
lack of hdcp2.2 on the hr54 was a big miss

 

[keenan]

at this time, that is correct. have to see what happens between now and if/when directv gets thier act together.
lack of hdcp2.2 on the hr54 was a big miss

Yes, that was unfortunate, but now with the new overlords, who never miss an opportunity to save money however/where-ever they can, new 4K hardware with all the required protocols is unlikely IMO. It would not surprise me to see that now with AT&T calling the shots we have seen the last of 4K broadcasts via sat transmission, or at the very least, no expansion of more 4K sat-trans, all 4K in the future will be via broadband.

 

[Troch77]

So DirecTV is the only satcaster doing actual 4K broadcasts then. Those in rural areas without access to high-speed broadband won't gain anything by going with Dish then if their desire is 4K. That's unfortunate as they are double-whammied on the 4K front if AT&T EOL's satellite service.

Dish 4K requires High Speed Internet.
No actual 4K satellite programming .
On occasion they will have and event that would be 4K.
But in all Honesty what does Directv have in 4K thats a live satellite channel thats worth watching?
Seriously...

I got to be Honest, I think AT&T and Dish don't even buy into the 4K fad.
Why should they?
People pay too much as it is, and they know that.
Thats why everyone is cutting cost via streaming more.
And 4K streaming is demanding on your Internet speeds and Data, and people will nip that right in the butt and cut their quality right back HD even SD quality to keep data allowances in check.


I think 4K cable and Satellite is going to fall flat on its face.
Enthusiasts want 4K and believe thats the world and its the end if a provider doesn't have any 4K.

But I can tell you right now, I wouldn't drop a Penny more on 4K over 720p let alone 1080p.

I upgraded to a Hopper 3 with Zero interest in 4K.
Just like my last 4K tv purchase.
That wasn't a choice, It was a forced Technology.
And I've watched one 4K Netflix and wasn't impressed enough to justify even $2 a month more to Netflix.

 

[keenan]

Dish 4K requires High Speed Internet.
No actual 4K satellite programming .
On occasion they will have and event that would be 4K.
But in all Honesty what does Directv have in 4K thats a live satellite channel thats worth watching?
Seriously...

I got to be Honest, I think AT&T and Dish don't even buy into the 4K fad.
Why should they?
People pay too much as it is, and they know that.
Thats why everyone is cutting cost via streaming more.
And 4K streaming is demanding on your Internet speeds and Data, and people will nip that right in the butt and cut their quality right back HD even SD quality to keep data allowances in check.


I think 4K cable and Satellite is going to fall flat on its face.
Enthusiasts want 4K and believe thats the world and its the end if a provider doesn't have any 4K.

But I can tell you right now, I wouldn't drop a Penny more on 4K over 720p let alone 1080p.

I agree with all but your last point, 4K images on a large capable display are glorious and I'll take it where/when I can get it. And I agree, from here on out all 4K content will be via broadband, even Comcast is moving to IP delivery of their video product, they've even went so far as to lower all their linear-fed1080i cablenet channels down to 720p to conserve bandwidth for the switchover(and higher/faster broadband speeds;1 Ghz etc) and to enable their upcoming streaming product. The video provider world is going to broadband and there's no getting away from that I'm afraid.

 

[mdram]

The video provider world is going to broadband and there's no getting away from that I'm afraid.

sure there is, just move in next door to me, you wont have to worry about it

 

[keenan]

Sounds good !

 

[mdram]

wont have to worry, because there is no internet here