4 ms·
It's probably just cheaper to lose those customers than run two separate TV distribution networks. Plus I bet the future of satellite TV is "satellite" over th
by rhino369 11y ago
It's probably just cheaper to lose those customers than run two separate TV distribution networks.
Plus I bet the future of satellite TV is "satellite" over the internet. I had DirectTV's NFL sunday ticket this past season.
SlingTV is already doing it. IF I were DirectTV I'd get into that game yesterday.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- jeffdubin 11y agoU-Verse TV is basically just that -- except it's only over AT&T's Internet. They run it like a cable TV system, but it's really just IPTV. But what happens if they lose a satellite or two? Haven't we been told that it's only a matter of time before an errant satellite crashes into another, causing widespread damage via domino effect? I bet they'll dearly miss their FTTH subscribers at that point!
- labster 11y agoYou're thinking of Kessler syndrome: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome No, we haven't been told it's inevitable, as it is highly evitable with tracking and controlled descent. Eventually we'll be able to shoot down space junk with frickin laser beams ("ablate" it) and it will be a complete nonissue.