News:

why is this up in the corner now

Main Menu

Comcast to Spin off MSNBC and CNBC

Started by bing101, November 21, 2024, 10:29:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

SEWIGuy

The "original math" was calculated at a time when there weren't as many options available with a decent ISP. And anyone who can afford Direct TV these days can likely afford an ISP.


Bobby5280

Quote from: SP CookAll of the cost considerations can be met with rural communities alone.

Again, rural communities in the US are generally in a serious state of demographic decline. These communities were in far better shape 30+ years ago when DBS service began.

Back in the 1990's digital satellite TV was often a bargain compared to local cable TV service. That's no longer the case. A basic "top 120" package from Dish, with no premium packages added, costs around $130 per month. Freaking ridiculous. Going forward, those prices are just going to keep going up higher and higher as Dish has fewer customers to amortize its costs and profit margin. Aging people living in small towns can absorb price hikes only so far, especially if they're living solely off social security checks. At some point they get forced to do without.

The federal government is trying to push broadband and even fiber into small towns and rural areas. We're reaching a point where fast Internet connections are mandatory for most kinds of businesses. The same thing goes for mobile phone coverage. A small town that lacks broadband Internet and doesn't even have good phone towers is going to die.

Satellite TV companies are at a competitive disadvantage in any location that has decent Internet access. Still, even out in the boonies, someone can install a Starlink setup and get fast Internet that way. They may ultimately end up saving money going that route versus the endless price hikes from DirecTV and Dish.

vdeane

Quote from: SP Cook on November 24, 2024, 09:43:54 AMThere are millions of people who live in flyover country.  People who cannot, and never will, get the type of internet that would allow them to replace DBS TV delivery. 
Gee, it sounds as if the government should require the build-out of wired broadband internet (preferably with funding attached) to rural areas just like it did with electricity and telephone service decades ago.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Scott5114

Quote from: vdeane on November 24, 2024, 02:51:31 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on November 24, 2024, 09:43:54 AMThere are millions of people who live in flyover country.  People who cannot, and never will, get the type of internet that would allow them to replace DBS TV delivery.
Gee, it sounds as if the government should require the build-out of wired broadband internet (preferably with funding attached) to rural areas just like it did with electricity and telephone service decades ago.

They did, and they even funded it. The ISPs took the money and then didn't build anything.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

SSOWorld

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 24, 2024, 04:34:17 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 24, 2024, 02:51:31 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on November 24, 2024, 09:43:54 AMThere are millions of people who live in flyover country.  People who cannot, and never will, get the type of internet that would allow them to replace DBS TV delivery.
Gee, it sounds as if the government should require the build-out of wired broadband internet (preferably with funding attached) to rural areas just like it did with electricity and telephone service decades ago.

They did, and they even funded it. The ISPs took the money and then didn't build anything.
And the funding will be stopped.
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

Bobby5280

Actually the telcos and ISPs have been building out a lot of new hardline infrastructure. The problem is the build-out has been pretty uneven, with small towns (as usual) getting the short end of the stick. I'm still getting my Internet from the local cable TV company (formerly Fidelity and now Sparklight). I was paying nearly $70 per month for 50Mb/s cable Internet service. Then AT&T ran a fiber line under my front street curb and BluePeak ran a fiber line through my back yard. Both started selling $49 per month 1 Gig plans. Fidelity had to match the price. But I'm in a small city with near 100,000 people in the city limits. I'm doubting small towns have that kind of competition.

People way out in rural areas have other options. I mentioned Starlink previously. Mobile phone carriers are also selling their own residential Internet packages too.

SP Cook

Starlink, et al, is an interesting fallacy.  DBS is like the rain.  The signal falls on the entire territory, it really doesn't matter how many people have their buckets out.   But, no, use a different satellite to get a single signal just for one person.  Right.

The blunt fact remains, pure and simple, DBS remains necessary for rural Americans, and will continue to be so for a very long time. 

brad2971

Quote from: SP Cook on November 24, 2024, 09:43:54 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 24, 2024, 09:26:11 AMDespite the growth of cord-cutting 

DirecTV is buying Dish Network, but honestly I can't see any kind of long term future possible for satellite TV.


Couple of things here.  We know where so-called cord cutting is.  EVERYONE who wants it, has it (leaving out the issue I will discuss below).  No one is sitting around and telling the wife "hon, in a year or two, we are going to be one of those 'cord cutters'"  Nope. If you want to be a so-called cord cutter and live on paid non-linear services alone, you do that now. 

And it loses money.  Billions of dollars. 

Since everyone who wants it, has it, that ain't changing.

Now on to satellite TV.  The government killed the merger, and DISH will probably now go slowly broke, but satellite TV will exist for decades to come. 

Why?  Well, back to almost on topic for the board.  Take a drive.  There are millions of people who live in flyover country.  People who cannot, and never will, get the type of internet that would allow them to replace DBS TV delivery. 

While the satellite dish will become an anachronism in cities and even suburbs, it will be part of rural America for decades to come.   

I don't know how to tell you this regarding profitability of streaming platforms, but...

https://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2024/10/08/streaming-tv-has-finally-become-profitable-returning-the-cable-playbook#:~:text=Disney%20recently%20joined%20Warner%20Bros,they%20replaced%2C%20says%20Wes%20Morton.&text=2024%20is%20the%20year%20that%20streaming%20TV%20finally%20achieved%20profitability.

BTW, this also includes the FAST app Pluto TV and DISH's Sling/Sling Freestream platforms as well.

hbelkins

Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 24, 2024, 11:55:21 AMThe "original math" was calculated at a time when there weren't as many options available with a decent ISP. And anyone who can afford Direct TV these days can likely afford an ISP.

Yeah, if you have a non-satellite ISP. For lots of communities and rural areas, HughesNet or Starlink are the only options.
Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: hbelkins on November 25, 2024, 11:44:56 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 24, 2024, 11:55:21 AMThe "original math" was calculated at a time when there weren't as many options available with a decent ISP. And anyone who can afford Direct TV these days can likely afford an ISP.

Yeah, if you have a non-satellite ISP. For lots of communities and rural areas, HughesNet or Starlink are the only options.

I am certainly not saying that there aren't areas that only have access through sattelite. What I am saying is that broadband access has been growing in rural areas, which means that services like Direct TV increasingly aren't the only option.

Scott5114

I never thought to look it up before, but apparently HughesNet is named after Howard Hughes. What is now DirecTV was formerly Hughes Electronics, which was part of his empire.

Strange that a major ISP is named after a guy who died in 1976, years before the Internet was a thing. Stranger still that of the two satellite Internet companies available to most rural Americans, Starlink's founder is the comparatively normal one.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Bobby5280

Quote from: SP CookThe blunt fact remains, pure and simple, DBS remains necessary for rural Americans, and will continue to be so for a very long time.

DBS won't remain if there aren't enough customers in rural locations to make companies like DirecTV and Dish profitable. The shrinking number of people living out there do not have limitless bank accounts. They'll drop service as basic subscription prices continue climbing toward $150, $200 or more. And that's assuming those residents can keep living in those areas even if they want to do so. Critical services, such as health care, are drying up in those areas.

hbelkins

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 27, 2024, 06:43:20 AMI never thought to look it up before, but apparently HughesNet is named after Howard Hughes. What is now DirecTV was formerly Hughes Electronics, which was part of his empire.

Strange that a major ISP is named after a guy who died in 1976, years before the Internet was a thing. Stranger still that of the two satellite Internet companies available to most rural Americans, Starlink's founder is the comparatively normal one.

It seems that Starlink's founder and the namesake son of the 45th and soon to be 47th president of the United States are considering teaming up to buy MSNBC, which would result in much hilarity.
Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

SP Cook

- Streaming, as an industry (add up all the major streamed services together) loses money.  That simple.  That isn't changing.  The claims of profit by services, other than Netflix, the only actually profitable service, are just an accounting trick.  If a show is on, say, CBS, and also on Paramount Plus, Paramount Global attributes all the costs to CBS.  That is not changing. 

- Musk buying MSNBC would, indeed, be interesting, but that is not what is happening.  It isn't for sale.  Rather, Comcast is splitting itself into two parts.  The second part is getting most of the toxic assets.  It is pretty much a way to shaft the creditors, as the spun off part will take a pro-rate share of the company debt, and then go broke.  Most big newspapers did the same thing.  Spun off their profitable TV stations, and then bankrupted the papers.

- Canada, one-tenth the size of the US, has a thriving DBS industry.  Totally separate fleet of satellites, and that number of people can cover the costs of it.   The number of people in rural America are PLENTY to make DBS profitable for many decades.


ClassicHasClass

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 27, 2024, 12:00:07 PM
Quote from: SP CookThe blunt fact remains, pure and simple, DBS remains necessary for rural Americans, and will continue to be so for a very long time.

DBS won't remain if there aren't enough customers in rural locations to make companies like DirecTV and Dish profitable. The shrinking number of people living out there do not have limitless bank accounts. They'll drop service as basic subscription prices continue climbing toward $150, $200 or more. And that's assuming those residents can keep living in those areas even if they want to do so. Critical services, such as health care, are drying up in those areas.

My folks lived about 45 minutes outside of Rapid City, SD and had Dish. After Dad died, we moved Mom back to California where in her apartment she's now on Xfinity. She pays less for that, gets internet, and gets more channels. The only reason they put up with Dish in SD was because CenturyLink service was abysmally bad.

vdeane

Quote from: SP Cook on November 27, 2024, 04:40:00 PMCanada, one-tenth the size of the US, has a thriving DBS industry.  Totally separate fleet of satellites, and that number of people can cover the costs of it.   The number of people in rural America are PLENTY to make DBS profitable for many decades.
Canada also has a VERY different media market than the US.  For one, the broadcast stations, cable providers, internet service providers, cell phone providers, streaming services, satelite TV providers, etc. are all the same companies.  The entire telecommunications industry is much more of an oligopoly there.  Also, the local stations are not independent - all of them are network owned and operated.  Local TV stations also don't have subchannels there, so while a major city here could see 50 channels OTA post-DTV, over there it's still the same number as in the analog days (if I had to guess, MontrĂ©al probably has the most OTA stations in all of Canada because they have full sets of both the English and French stations).  And markets not having a full set of stations is also much more common than in the US, especially since many small US markets now use subchannels to fill in the gaps.  The result of that is a LOT less cord cutting, as the OTA TV service and streaming services aren't as good as in the US.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Scott5114

Quote from: hbelkins on November 27, 2024, 03:25:02 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 27, 2024, 06:43:20 AMI never thought to look it up before, but apparently HughesNet is named after Howard Hughes. What is now DirecTV was formerly Hughes Electronics, which was part of his empire.

Strange that a major ISP is named after a guy who died in 1976, years before the Internet was a thing. Stranger still that of the two satellite Internet companies available to most rural Americans, Starlink's founder is the comparatively normal one.

It seems that Starlink's founder and the namesake son of the 45th and soon to be 47th president of the United States are considering teaming up to buy MSNBC, which would result in much hilarity.

I agree; it would be pretty hilarious how fast that money would go up in smoke. Liberals and progressives would just stop watching it, simply because Elon is involved (see how badly Twitter has tanked since he started actively getting involved in politics). So then the only demographic you could cater to is conservatives, but Fox News already exists, so there'd no longer be any target customer for XMSNBC (because you know he'd stick an X in there, like he does with every other thing he's involved with). Advertisers would step back, either out of fear of being associated with Elon, as they already did on Twitter, or because there's not enough people watching to be worth advertising to.

It would end up being a bigger debacle than buying Twitter was. This dude just isn't very good with money, despite having so much of it.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

bing101

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 28, 2024, 05:04:02 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 27, 2024, 03:25:02 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 27, 2024, 06:43:20 AMI never thought to look it up before, but apparently HughesNet is named after Howard Hughes. What is now DirecTV was formerly Hughes Electronics, which was part of his empire.

Strange that a major ISP is named after a guy who died in 1976, years before the Internet was a thing. Stranger still that of the two satellite Internet companies available to most rural Americans, Starlink's founder is the comparatively normal one.

It seems that Starlink's founder and the namesake son of the 45th and soon to be 47th president of the United States are considering teaming up to buy MSNBC, which would result in much hilarity.

I agree; it would be pretty hilarious how fast that money would go up in smoke. Liberals and progressives would just stop watching it, simply because Elon is involved (see how badly Twitter has tanked since he started actively getting involved in politics). So then the only demographic you could cater to is conservatives, but Fox News already exists, so there'd no longer be any target customer for XMSNBC (because you know he'd stick an X in there, like he does with every other thing he's involved with). Advertisers would step back, either out of fear of being associated with Elon, as they already did on Twitter, or because there's not enough people watching to be worth advertising to.

It would end up being a bigger debacle than buying Twitter was. This dude just isn't very good with money, despite having so much of it.

Yes we can partially trace Elon Musk getting involved in politics going back to when he hyped up SnailBrook, Texas as the states newest city if the state approves that.

https://awfulannouncing.com/nbc/peacock-stream-sports-rsn.html

Back to NBC Specifically, NBC was also in the process of putting their remaining regional sports networks like Philadelphia, Boston, Sacramento and San Francisco on Peacock app in 2025. And some of this is because they are transferring the NBA Broadcast contract from regional rights to national broadcast rights on peacock.

https://pr.nba.com/nba-walt-disney-company-nbcuniversal-amazon-prime-video-media-agreements/


vdeane

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 28, 2024, 05:04:02 AMI agree; it would be pretty hilarious how fast that money would go up in smoke. Liberals and progressives would just stop watching it, simply because Elon is involved (see how badly Twitter has tanked since he started actively getting involved in politics). So then the only demographic you could cater to is conservatives, but Fox News already exists, so there'd no longer be any target customer for XMSNBC (because you know he'd stick an X in there, like he does with every other thing he's involved with). Advertisers would step back, either out of fear of being associated with Elon, as they already did on Twitter, or because there's not enough people watching to be worth advertising to.

It would end up being a bigger debacle than buying Twitter was. This dude just isn't very good with money, despite having so much of it.
Especially since the only reason Twitter lasted this long was because nobody took him seriously; they assumed it was a revenge attempt and nothing more.  Now that people know the true aim, they'll be quicker to react.  Plus he's high-profile and unsubtle enough that the change wouldn't go under the radar like CNN's did.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

bing101

#44
Quote from: vdeane on November 22, 2024, 12:43:05 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on November 21, 2024, 10:48:13 PMEven with the spinoff, it's not hard to see that the new company will pull the plug on MSNBC shortly after the transaction concludes. While MSNBC collects $350-$400 million in cable retrans fees, once you factor in having to rebuild a news gathering organization if someone else purchases the spinoff, MSNBC, as a business asset, is worth very little.
Would the journalists working for MSNBC not stay with the network when it's spun off?
MSNBC is more focused on the political talk shows. Comcast moved the journalists from MSNBC to NBC News Now prior to the spinoff talks as part of a move to get more viewers over to Peacock app.




Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.