1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AT&T talks merger with DirecTV

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by Johncv, May 1, 2014.

  1. May 9, 2014 #41 of 214
    HarperVision

    HarperVision TiVo's Italian Cuz!

    5,275
    3
    May 14, 2007
    Paradise...
    Yes they do, I believe it's HughesNet. http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/packages/internet/hughesnet
     
  2. May 9, 2014 #42 of 214
    jwbelcher

    jwbelcher New Member

    489
    0
    Nov 13, 2007
    Orlando, FL
    Hughesnet used to be called DirecWay back when it was owned by DirecTV. I believe it was spun off and is now part of EchoStar.
     
  3. May 9, 2014 #43 of 214
    JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    You just listed all the reasons DirecTV doesn't do satellite internet.

    HughesNet was formerly part of the same parent company as DirecTV. However, due to the very limited market, it's not a money maker. Latency sucks (guaranteed minimum 500ms ping due to the speed of light and 44,472 mile round trip to space and back), capacity sucks, and satellites are expensive and so is the in-home equipment. With all of that, the only real market is for folks who can't get DSL or cable. Hell, now, LTE is even price competitive, and beats satellite internet at latency (caps are about the same).

    Some of DirecTV's satellites were actually intended to be for internet access, but I believe it was when News Corp bought a controlling interest (or maybe Liberty, don't remember...it was when the management changed at any rate) they decided they needed to get into HD quick and to forget about the internet stuff. They repurposed the Spaceway satellites for local and national HD coverage and spun off Hughes to Echostar.

    Even with HughesNet, DISH knows satellite internet isn't a viable competitor nationally. That's why Charlie Ergen bought up all that wireless spectrum. Satellite will serve a niche, but it won't keep him rich.
     
  4. May 9, 2014 #44 of 214
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,426
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    This. The latency is the big killer. You can get some crazy bandwidth over satellite, but it's also crazy expensive. The US military can bring gigabit speeds into virtually anywhere in the world, but you can bet that costs millions upon millions of dollars. And it doesn't scale out well, as even a spot beam might be 50 or 100 miles wide, where a cable node might be for one block or building.
     
  5. May 10, 2014 #45 of 214
    JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    Well in the military's case, it doesn't matter if it's a spot beam or not, since they are the only user on it.
     
  6. May 11, 2014 #46 of 214
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,426
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    True.
     
  7. May 13, 2014 #47 of 214
    Johncv

    Johncv Active Member

    1,545
    1
    Jun 11, 2002
    Chula Vista, CA
    What going to change when AT&T buy DirecTV? Look like it going to happen.

    Like to see a better box than the crappy Genie box I use now. :p Want a Roamio but I know it not going to happen. :rolleyes:
     
  8. May 13, 2014 #48 of 214
    JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    DirecTV is so big, and AT&T is so conservative, it will take a while before you see any changes. I suspect over time the U-Verse video product will go away and of course over time AT&T's fingerprints will be all over the hardware and service, but it won't be immediate at any rate.
     
  9. May 13, 2014 #49 of 214
    Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    37,473
    173
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    I'm betting that when this happen AT&T phases out U-verse TV and switches all their TV customers over to DirecTV. Basically they will move all linear TV to the existing DirecTV infrastructure and use their VDSL infrastructure for internet and VOD. This will allow them to better compete with cable companies because with their VDSL network dedicated to just internet they should be able to offer internet speeds that are similar to cable companies (i.e. 30-60Mbps)
     
  10. May 13, 2014 #50 of 214
    moyekj

    moyekj Well-Known Member

    11,143
    31
    Jan 23, 2006
    Mission...
    What about customers that can't get satellite reception? I'm guessing they will leave existing U-verse customers as is at worse even if they no longer promote the service.
     
  11. May 13, 2014 #51 of 214
    moedaman

    moedaman New Member

    236
    0
    Aug 21, 2012
    30 - 60Mps is so last year. ;) Comcast just doubled my speed from 50/10 to 105/20. And what about the upload speed? Unless ATT goes completely FTTH (which it won't), can they match what the cablecos are doing?
     
  12. May 13, 2014 #52 of 214
    Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    37,473
    173
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    Perhaps. I doubt the number of people in that camp is very large though.
     
  13. May 13, 2014 #53 of 214
    MikeAndrews

    MikeAndrews Registered abuser

    14,222
    1
    Jan 17, 2002
    Northern...
    Not a chance. The UVerse UI, DVR, and performance is much better than DirecTV. It's the best next thing to a TiVo.
     
  14. May 13, 2014 #54 of 214
    tarheelblue32

    tarheelblue32 Active Member

    3,647
    5
    Jan 12, 2014
    Raleigh, NC
    I would have to cut down a whole bunch of trees in my back yard to get a satellite signal, and that isn't going to happen. I like my trees where they are.
     
  15. May 13, 2014 #55 of 214
    Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    37,473
    173
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    VDSL has a theoretical max of 55Mbps down and 3Mbps up. However there is a newer VDSL2 spec that goes up to 200Mbps max, with any portion of that being provisioned to up or down.

    But no matter what cable will always have the fatter pipe. With DOCSIS 3.0 you can bind an unlimited number of channels so if they went pure IP on a 1000Mhz system the theoretical throughput would be over 7Gbps.
     
  16. May 13, 2014 #56 of 214
    Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    37,473
    173
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    Well they may merge their DVR code into a new box for the DirecTV system. I'm talking about using the existing DSS infrastructure for broadcasting linear TV.

    DirecTV has two major disadvantages over cable... Lack of internet and lack of real VOD. U-Verse has both of those but is very limited in it's linear video capabilities because of constrained bandwidth. By shifting all the linear TV over to DSS and using it's VDSL infrastructure strictly for internet and VOD they will be able to compete more directly with cable.

    Honestly I really think this is a good move for both companies. It allows them to better compete with cable companies and might actually give consumers a better alternative.
     
  17. May 13, 2014 #57 of 214
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,426
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    Nope. Not going to happen. There are stupid people out there who just won't get satellite, but more realistically, there are people who live in the woods, and a lot of people who live in MDUs and can't mount satellite dishes. However, from what I have seen AT&T has done a poor job of setting MDUs up with U-Verse, even though it's an ideal setting for a VDSL service, and in some cases, they could even put the VRAD immediately adjacent to or in a building and offer really fast VDSL connectivity on the same platform they use for wiring streets.

    Given that they have an IPTV platform, they should also get more aggressive with doing gigabit FTTB, where they can hand off the fiber to ethernet for the final run to an apartment or condo. They also have the advantage of being able to mix FTTN, FTTB, and FTTH on the same platform with varying provision speeds.

    Not that I like U-Verse, I think it's a wretched POS, but they definitely aren't going to dump it.
     
  18. May 13, 2014 #58 of 214
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,642
    34
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    We have been DirecTV customers for 12.5 years (we are switching to FIOS and TiVos in late summer) and so have lived through 3 different owners of DirecTV. None of the changes in ownership have made one bit of difference in the overall service. The biggest difference is that when News Corp owned DirecTV they killed the relationship with TiVo in favor of their own DVRs. I don't expect AT&T will have any more effect than Hughes, News Corp or Liberty did. Likewise, I don't expect Uverse will change. This is about programming contracts, back office savings, and overall profitability, not about merging or combining services.
     
  19. May 14, 2014 #59 of 214
    JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    I don't buy that. First off none of those prior companies fully purchased DirecTV. They only owned controlling interests. If AT&T buys every share of stock and integrates it, even if it's operated as a unit and not merged with U-Verse, there will be significant changes. That's just the way AT&T operates.
     
  20. May 14, 2014 #60 of 214
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,642
    34
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    I think Sir Rupert would disagree with your characterization. :)

    News Corp had a fairly major impact on a lot of the business. They shut down DirecTV Brazil and Mexico, transferring customers to the corresponding SKY services. They sold off Hughes Network Solutions to SkyTerra (later acquired by Echostar). They sold their interest in PanAmSat. All of this had the effect of making DirecTV a satellite TV company only, instead of the technology conglomerate that Hughes had been. This was in keeping with News Corp's goal of dominating satellite TV in the Western Hemisphere, and treating DirecTV as "SKY America." The only thing that happened that viewers noticed was the move into HD programming, which would have happened no matter who owned the company.
     

Share This Page