Thread regarding AT&T layoffs

If I remember correctly, Randy wanted DTV for the customer base, not the service.
Then he wanted Xandr to place smart ads on an over the top product.
Then he wanted TW to fill the OTT service with premium content.

The strategy can still work but first he needs to destroy the families that built their livelihoods on the premise that they joined a Telecom Company and not a Media Company.

Y'all boys know what all a good D4 channel bank ca n do? That's where the $ is....wait for it....

FTTP takes a lot of capital but has high return on investment. I absolutely agree we would have been far better off spending some of the funds used to but DTV on more FTTP.

FTTP is a tough sale, just look at Google Fiber. Most people use their phones for internet, streaming video at home just don't need that kind of speed. Yea, if you're a competitive gamer or stream and upload 8k videos, fiber is for you.

I still have Uverse on my FTTP platform at home.

(1) The world is more and more cloud based. Only your grandma wants a cable like service. Everyone else has been cutting the cord for years. We made a mistake buying dish and should have moved off Uverse to a streaming model 5 years ago. We are late to the game and our competitors are eating our lunch. (2) We should have made TW divest the LOB we didn't want before the acquisition. Now we are trying to sell lines of business but at a loss. (3) We should continue to invest in fiber but to the node not prem except for businesses and communication intensive households. In most areas we will not see adoption so the capital expense would be wasted. (4) For residential service we need to move to a cellular based (drawing off the fiber @ the terminal) model where we send a router to the customer who does a plug and play adoption. It cuts a lot of expense and modernizes the network.

No and no. 1. How did Fios work out for Verizon? Huge capital expense. They ended up selling and getting out of businesss. 2. Tied to number 1. My Uverse was ok at the time but limited on 2 bonded copper pairs. And it was competing against streaming services that have matured and left us playing catch-up. Its like al of a sudden deciding to build a new car brand - you better have a product that really differentiates itself from what all the other car manufacturers have - otherwise the market leaves you behind.

yes on both, totally

Kind of interesting to see a comment I made on another post get turned in to its own post by someone else lol. This company is so F’d.

who cares now really

Agree with bullet #1 as trying to leverage last mile copper in FTTN deployments crippled us as our largest competitor (Verizon) and many other smaller one’s recognized the futility of this and all but abandoned maintenance of and divested themselves of those last mile infrastructures in favor of aggressive PON buildout’s.

Don’t agree with bullet #2 at all. OTT video was always the FMO. Traditional broadcast, legacy IPTV and satellite deployments have a lot of infrastructure and labor overhead and are not sustainable in a highly competitive market. OTT was always the endgame, hence the purchase (and subsequent destruction) of DTV. Even our “new” AT&T TV offering is simply a rebranded DTVNow service with a slick set-top and remote.

Wireless deals with 50 states, wireline is something around 20. IPTV or uverse was due to morph into something else that is more easily broadcast on mobile and individual platforms.