DirecTV Eyes Wireless Phone Service May expand relationships with AT&T & Verizon Despite several failed stints at trying to offer broadband (via DSL, satellite and even BPL), new DirecTV owner Liberty Media continually hints that they're keeping the possibility open. While that has yet to happen, the company, speaking this week about their recent earnings report, hinted they'd be interested in expanding their relationship with Verizon and AT&T to include bundled wireless phone and 3G data services. Of course reselling AT&T (SBC) and Verizon services hasn't exactly worked out so well for the company in the past.
|
  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Pointless What does DirecTV have to gain by doing this? People who want cell phone service can almost always get a better price by going straight to the cell providers themselves.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|  | | | Re: Pointless Free data / video in a cap / data free zone? | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by pnh102:What does DirecTV have to gain by doing this? People who want cell phone service can almost always get a better price by going straight to the cell providers themselves. I agree. Also, if DirecTV wants to sell AT&T and AT&T wants to sell DirecTV.. um... what's the point? packages or not.. deals specific to your service or not, I'm still stuck on why each company wants to sell the others service.
Sometimes the old adage of "stick to what you do best" should be visited. | |
|
| | Pointless I agree DirecTV isn’t a viable competitor in the TV market. I wouldn’t see the gain att or verizon would have from this considering they have TV offerings themselves. DirecTV/Dish Network comparison finically to cable providers IS NO comparison. They (DirecTV) would gain by doing something NEW like offering PS3 or Xbox 360 features through their service. Just a thought may not work something though. | |
| | | | Re: Pointless I agree I assume you meant that DirecTV isn't a viable competitor in the telephone market, rather than "TV" as you said...?
DirecTV is a giant in the pay-TV industry. | |
| | | | How is Direct now a viable competitor to Cable? Most people could give a flying rip about Ondemand. Many people now days has TV and Internet through different providers. Comcast has high prices and horrible picture. Not to mention can't compete at the moment in HD despite there ads. Direct is much better than Comcast or any cable company. I have just moved back to Satellite from Cable. This time I went with Direct.
Cable is a Satellite. Except they degrade the picture down to Analog versus Satellite keeping it Digital. | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: Pointless I agree said by Big Dawg 23:How is Direct now a viable competitor to Cable? Most people could give a flying rip about Ondemand. Number seem to say different. I'd assume you're not an average TV viewer, by stats alone.. you live in MN where MN's are actually on the lowest rung of the ladder when it comes to TV viewing habits in the country. Also, a lot of people who are fans of many TV series use OnDemand to catch their shows with out needing the DVR at about $18 a month. With the number of OnDemand programs served, I think you're wrong.
Many people now days has TV and Internet through different providers. Again, you're not keeping up with stats. The triple plays are very popular and out pacing anything phone has been doing.
Comcast has high prices and horrible picture. Really? In MN? First off, you're in Charter territory according to your profile. And secondly, the Comcast system in the very state you live is an A/B rated system and is one of the better rated systems in the country as far as quality and offerings. To say Comcast has horrible picture is a bit over the end... no, a LOT over the edge. I think you have Charter and Comcast confused.. becuase charter IS crap in Northfield AND the rest of MN.
Not to mention can't compete at the moment in HD despite there ads. Direct is much better than Comcast or any cable company. Some would disagree.. I've had satellite before and experienced crap for picture reliability and horrible customer service experiences.. To be honest, your post is pretty one sided and slanted. I'm not saying cable is perfect, but I can assure you that Satellite has plenty of it's own problems. DirecTV isn't gold.
Cable is a Satellite. Except they degrade the picture down to Analog versus Satellite keeping it Digital. No it's not.. not hardly.. and more systems, than none, are all digital now.. I think you should pull out of 1999 and bring yourself into the times. Your post jumps around between bandwagoning comcast for all that's wrong, and applying your service with charter in it's place.
For some people, satellite works.. for some people, cable works. For me, I'm sticking with cable and it's faults over satellite. I don't want a box on every TV. I want my local programming.. I want the weather channel, living in MN, to have MN weather for severe weather season. I want to feel connected to my town and not have national programming on everything. I want my community channels so I can see the city meetings.. I want to easily have more than 4 televisions on my account and don't care to be forced to rent a receiver OR own my own and pay them to use my own equipment. And, I don't want an ugly dish on my house. I also don't want to be charged for HD tiers and be treated as a premium service. I don't want to play the cell phone-like game when it comes to upgrading. (ie: the 300 upgrade fee for an HD DVR since I'm not a new customer) Those are just some of the reasons that *I* won't use satellite. Having satellite just so I can have some networks up-converted to HD and pay a premium for it.. no thanks. And, DirecTV customer service is no better than cable.. so there is a wash. The $10 to $20 savings extra for cable, to me, is worth it. | |
| | | | | | Re: Pointless I agree Comcast HD quality is horrible. It's true. Have a look:
»www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthre···=1008271
3 per QAM is putting HD where it doesn't belong.
DirecTV and DISH are using MPEG-4 now which allows them to have more channels with better quality than cable. | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Pointless I agree Not every system, including the one mentioned, does 3 HD per frequency. Some systems have many channels at 2 per, still, and some at 3 per. The ones at 3 per do have a reduced quality.. yes. Competition and the race to it brings that. However, it's a temporary step and cable will move back to 2 per frequency, which is fine without MPEG-4. If you recall, Satellite was doing similar methods of compression prior to launching the new birds.. cable used to have a much better PQ on HD than Satellite too.
When cable moves to SDV, reclaims the analog, or upgrades to the 1GHz systems, HD quality will return back to normal, which is the same as satellite.
I have comcast cable.. I know the quality.. I don't need to get my talking points from AVS forum.. in my opinion, that place has worse bitchers and whiners than BBR.  | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Pointless I agree Nice try, but the "3 per QAM" is coming from the Comcast Media Center which is a distribution hub for most, if not all Comcast systems and others.
Don't count on SDV solving all of the problems either. They'll most likely use it to cram more channels down their already narrow pipe. | |
| | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: Pointless I agree said by fifty nine:Nice try, but the "3 per QAM" is coming from the Comcast Media Center which is a distribution hub for most, if not all Comcast systems and others. Nice try is right.. try again when you know what you're talking about please. For the record, I'm very familiar with the CMC.. have YOU ever been there?
Let me repeat that in case you missed it.. not all HD channels in all systems are 3 per QAM.
Further, you say "don't count on SDV..." ..."They're **likely** to use it to cram more...." You don't know what you're talking about.. you're speculating.. but, like you said.. "nice try".. | |
| | | | | | | |
2 edits | Re: Pointless I agree said by fiberguy:said by fifty nine:Nice try, but the "3 per QAM" is coming from the Comcast Media Center which is a distribution hub for most, if not all Comcast systems and others. Nice try is right.. try again when you know what you're talking about please. For the record, I'm very familiar with the CMC.. have YOU ever been there? Let me repeat that in case you missed it.. not all HD channels in all systems are 3 per QAM. Nope, never been to the CMC. Don't need to go there.
I also never said ALL are 3 per QAM.
quote:
Further, you say "don't count on SDV..." ..."They're **likely** to use it to cram more...." You don't know what you're talking about.. you're speculating.. but, like you said.. "nice try"..
Okay boss. Whatever you say. I'll keep your advice about AVS Forum's "talking points" in mind next time I compare bitrates from master control and HITS. I'd post anon from work, but saying exactly where I work would be too easy.
BTW Service Electric also does 3HD per QAM, including some of our channels. Even some of the "talking heads" channels like CNN and Fox don't look all that good. Universal HD is barely tolerable. They didn't butcher HDNet which is a good thing, but I have to wonder for how long this is going to be the status quo.
I guess I'm spoiled with full bitrate master control feeds at work, so when I get home I just watch blu-ray or some other high quality HD source. Even SD looks horrible with lots of macroblocking and soft picture on some channels.
And yes I know the sat companies had problems initially which is why they went to MPEG4.
In fact lots of content providers are going to MPEG4. We just did a bunch of MPEG4 upgrades and lots are still going on. It actually looks pretty good. Cable companies should invest in advanced technology like MPEG4 instead of bandaids like SDV and legal efforts to blockade competitors like FiOS. Maybe if they innovated rather than stifled innovation I'd have more respect for Comcast and other cable companies with similar business models. | |
| | | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Pointless I agree When you're done living in Utopia and come back to the real world, you'll understand what it takes to transition a nationwide network.
Be proud of what you have in the NJ/NY area.. fine. However, no matter what you hint of and flash out under the radar to indicate your worthiness doesn't impress me that much.
The 3 per QAM just started happening in a relatively recent period of time when it comes to the world of a nationwide network. In order to compete and survive, you have to take what you have and get services to people that want them. I never once said that they were good quality.. but, for the purpose of HD, it still works.. and that's what they need to survive right now.
You do understand that the DirecTV didn't just flip a switch and make HD happen, right? ... it took years of planning and work to launch the sats. It also took Fios over a decade of pillaging and robbing states and customers of money and tax breaks to finally get around to building Fios. So, since we're talking about Comcast, it's all about them being greedy and the evil corporation, I suppose. (and people wonder why Comcast, and others, don't like talking about their plans becuase the moment they even squeak it out, customers think it's on the horizon and around the corner.
Also, for the record.. "I also never said ALL are 3 per QAM" is what you said. I said they all were not, and you said "NICE TRY"... and then said that they all came from the CMC, which is not true either.
Clearly, you know what you're talking about in your business.. I'd suggest you not embarrass yourself when it comes to what Comcast does. | |
|
| |  jt4
@comcast.net | cable sends a dual signal analog and digital . if you have a box digital if not analog. i like the idea i can plug cable tv right into the back of my tv. i have cable friend has direct tv next door i dont see any difference in pic quality. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Pointless I agree said by jt4 :
i have cable friend has direct tv next door i dont see any difference in pic quality. To be fair, some cable systems do over compress.. so there is an issue there. However, where the real problem exists is that anger to a company for what ever issue they experienced with a company tends to blur their physical vision so they think that all digital cable is bad.. when it's not. | |
|
| | | | Direct tv has Ondemand and it is download based. | |
| | | | | | Re: Pointless I agree said by Joe12345678:Direct tv has Ondemand and it is download based. And the irony of it is that a lot of DirecTV on demand customers are actually getting their broadband from the cable company.  | |
|
| | | I have Dish Network, and it is quite viable. I get a much better price compared to what Comcast would charge me for the same channels, HD looks great, and my receiver (ViP722) allows me to download content via my broadband connection. Yeah, I don't have on-demand video, but I can get Netflix with either a Roku box or another compatible streaming device, pay Netflix under $9/mo., and stream all I want. And I'd STILL get a better deal than with Comcast. | |
| |  rawgerzIn Debt we trustPremium
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA | They should actually be thinking about offering receivers that DO NOT SUCK!!
Finally broke down and went with 2yr agreement just for HDTV and ended up with the HR22. This thing is no way an improvement over the r10 tivo that replaced it besides the on demand option. Two steps forward and three back.
Can't wait for the new directivo's to come!! 
--
You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority. | |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | The TV and the Phone are Dead This is just so much more regurgitation. The time has come to start putting these old-skool devices to bed.
We don't need a wireless phone offering that includes data. We need wireless data that that carry anything we want to buy/have/subscribe to. "Clear" might someday become one of the first of these networks, it's built for data -- but they're not there yet. Give it a year and see what kind of devices have appeared. If it's healthy, we'll see what we see for today's Internet -- an infinite spectrum of data uses.
Likewise, we don't need a TV network hacked to provide data, we need a data network that can carry anything we want participate in. Verizon FIOS is a good example of that, but too bad it's only available everywhere else but where you need it -- it's an amazing red-lined neighborhood-skipping patchwork that ought to be available anywhere a dial-tone can be heard.
Unfortunately, the 100+-year-old dial-tone is still with us, (Everywhere). We need to give up the old and bring in the new.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: The TV and the Phone are Dead said by funchords:Unfortunately, the 100+-year-old dial-tone is still with us, (Everywhere). We need to give up the old and bring in the new. Lets see where our infrastructure is in 100+ years. I'm continually amazed at some of the nearsighted proclaimed technologists that don't understand why we can't build out a huge network to every single person/residence across the country.
FWIW, I tend to agree with your viewpoints regarding transparent infrastructures that need to be capable of handling any flavor of data thrown at them. I believe we'll get there, but it won't happen overnight. | |
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: The TV and the Phone are Dead said by openbox9:I'm continually amazed at some of the nearsighted proclaimed technologists that don't understand why we can't build out a huge network to every single person/residence across the country. Nearsighted or not, any lack of understanding on their part can be explained by the fact that we've done it ... numerous times.
Electricity
Highways and Streets
Telephone
Water and Sewer (mostly)
Postal Service
Broadcast Radio and Television
PS: (Why the shot at me? I don't claim to know everything, or even anything very much. I'm here for the same reason as anybody else -- to learn and grow and debate and evolve.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: The TV and the Phone are Dead said by funchords:Nearsighted or not, any lack of understanding on their part can be explained by the fact that we've done it ... numerous times. Electricity Highways and Streets Telephone Water and Sewer (mostly) Postal Service Broadcast Radio and Television None of those happened overnight, hence my comment about lets see where we are in 100+ years.said by funchords:PS: (Why the shot at me? I don't claim to know everything, or even anything very much. I'm here for the same reason as anybody else -- to learn and grow and debate and evolve.) It wasn't intended to be a shot. In fact, my post stated that I agreed with your data non-specific infrastructure concept. Please don't take it as an insult as I respect your educated viewpoints, even though I may not always agree with them.
My post was geared toward the large population of forums like this that expect massive networks to be built out overnight to every man, woman, and child in this country. All of the infrastructure examples that you highlighted above took decades to build up, and end-user network access will be no different. | |
| | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: The TV and the Phone are Dead Thanks! | |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | What happened to Sat phones? What every happened with the satellite phones? I know they were very expensive ($2k?)to buy when they first came out but when mobile phones first came out they were too. | |
| | | | Re: What happened to Sat phones? They are still very expensive and don't really work indoors. | |
|
 WeSRT4
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL
 ·AT&T Southeast
| FOCUS This is the way companies go belly up. They can't keep their eye on the ball and focus on what they do best. Reselling phone service doesn't work. It's been proven time and again. Provide your customers with what they want and excel in doing so.
. | |
|
| |
|
|
