https://apnews.com/article/comcast-cable-spinoff-cnbc-msnbc-0d012a413e6dd863966f8d7aa0a9624d
https://apnews.com/article/networks-cnbc-msnbc-comcast-new-company-00bf676f225f1c89026ef15bf8915ec9
This is to protect Peacock according to Comcast.
QuoteComcast's corporate reorganization means that there will soon be two television networks with "NBC" in their name — CNBC and MSNBC — that will no longer have any corporate connection to NBC News.
How that affects viewers of those networks, along with the people who work there, still needs to shake out. Their new corporate leader, Mark Lazarus, visited the set of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" as the plan was being announced on Wednesday and spoke to network staff members during a morning conference call to address concerns.
Comcast is spinning off most of its cable networks, also including USA, Oxygen, E!, SYFY and the Golf Channel, into a separate company. That recognizes how streaming is considered the future and the cable networks are a drag on the bottom line.
In the space of a lifetime, the networks went from upstarts aside a legacy operation like NBC to profitable superstars to castoffs.
Even 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.
As for channels like USA Network, take away the occasional sports (which NBC will likely do), and the channel is MeTV with more recent Law & Order reruns.
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.
As for channels like USA Network, take away the occasional sports (which NBC will likely do), and the channel is MeTV with more recent Law & Order reruns.
Also NBC built the NBC News Now feed as part of the move to initially to distinguish themselves from MSNBC and CNBC for TV apps. Also to boost attention to Peacock app.
https://www.nbcnews.com/now?icid=now_hp_header&cl_system=mapi&cl_system_id=023690a4-ecd5-4638-a41c-a49435b263e2&clreqid=023690a4-ecd5-4638-a41c-a49435b263e2&kbid=159814
https://nbcnews.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4401797202971-What-is-NBC-News-NOW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Talking
Here is the original name for MSNBC and its "America's Talking Network" that was born 3 decades ago it provided the framework where MSNBC talk shows run from.
I don't see how spinning off CNBC will work. All of NBC's business reporting is directly tied in with correspondents with CNBC, except with Christine Romans, who is billed as "senior business correspondent" with NBC News (she does regular reports on the Today show). Even if CNBC really is spun off, the naming/logo would be a problem.
I don't see this spinoff/sale going well, much less very easily. Another issue would be the possible acquisition of any/all spunoff channels (especially those really closely tied to NBC) by a competing media group.
The next big question, 'Who will be interested in buying them?'.
Mike
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?
Quote from: mgk920 on November 22, 2024, 11:25:32 AMThe next big question, 'Who will be interested in buying them?'.
Mike
I'd buy them for $0.53... not even a dollar, that's how broke I am.
This is really just a symptom of the changes to the TV industry.
Previously "everyone" paid for the whole slate of channels. Take it or leave it. There really were just three sources, one and only one local cable company, DirecTV, and DISH. And they were, at least in channel line up terms, 99% the same.
So Big Media, such as Comcast, could spool up a package of channels and make "everyone" pay for them all.
Despite the fact that about 1M people actually watch MSNBC. "Everyone" has to pay.
Now, choice. There are plenty of choices out there for linear television delivery, and, with almost no infrastructure costs, more to come. So you want a set of linear channels without MSNBC, or whatever channel you wish to name, it will soon exist, if it doesn't already. DirecTV, which is the market leader, recently made a deal with Disney to allow it to sell channels in "genre packs". As the contract with other companies expire and are renewed, this will be rolled out. Don't have kids, don't have to pay for kids channels. Don't like sports, don't have to pay for the sports channels, don't care about the news, don't pay for the news channels.
Not to mention the so-called cord cutters who do away with linear packages of channels and just watch the (vastly money losing) streaming services only. And also not to mention that streaming really is the place that 1000th time over reruns should be, obsoleting channels like USA (TNT, TBS, FX, etc.). These channels are now just toxic assets to their owners.
And also not to mention that there are news/commentary channels out on the internet for FREE, funded by people with one axe or another to grind, mostly either to the right of FNC or the left of MSNBC, but a few that are not either.
At the end of the day, in this story, as with the collapse of the regional sports model, and the coming collapse of the national sports model, the "general rerun" channel model, and so on, we are right where we thought we were going. Less choice. Because the costs to produce the kind of entertainment YOU wanted took spreading the cost out across "everyone", many genres will simply go away and no longer be produced.
We will look back on the cable era as the good ole days.
Well, 95% of us. There will always be a few old men who want to tell you how much money they are saving. About which I don't care.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 22, 2024, 01:25:20 PMAt the end of the day, in this story, as with the collapse of the regional sports model, and the coming collapse of the national sports model...
It is going to be interesting to see how far off the national sports model collapse will be. Right now, I think the only thing proping up the traditional networks is the NFL. The NFL knows this and has almost all of the leverage in those rights. If a network lost the NFL now, I am not sure it would actually survive because there would not be enough viewership to prop up its infrastructure.
The problem is that Amazon, Apple, Netflix, etc. don't really need the NFL (or any other sports league)...at least right now. So the NFL really can't leverage them, and I think they know they can't go their own way. If the NFL went to its own streaming service, 1/2 of Americans would shrug their shoulders and do something else on Sundays.
https://www.mediaite.com/media/elon-musk-floats-buying-msnbc-from-comcast-how-much-does-it-cost/
Interesting but the spin co is still putting their board and management together. How Elon Musk is making himself a candidate for one of SpinCo's brands is interesting.
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on November 22, 2024, 02:40:11 AMI don't see how spinning off CNBC will work. All of NBC's business reporting is directly tied in with correspondents with CNBC, except with Christine Romans, who is billed as "senior business correspondent" with NBC News (she does regular reports on the Today show). Even if CNBC really is spun off, the naming/logo would be a problem.
I don't see this spinoff/sale going well, much less very easily. Another issue would be the possible acquisition of any/all spunoff channels (especially those really closely tied to NBC) by a competing media group.
I assume that this would be similar to how the old Fox properties (namely, 20th Century Studios) were handled in the sale to Disney? And yet, the FOX network and ABC (Disney's flagship network) share Hulu for their programming streams, so it's rather ironic how things worked out there.
Quote from: mgk920 on November 22, 2024, 11:25:32 AMThe next big question, 'Who will be interested in buying them?'.
Mike
Stellantis, maybe... (the joke would make sense, given that NBC is the Chrysler of TV networks, with CBS being Ford and ABC as GM)
Quote from: vdeane on November 22, 2024, 12:43:05 PMQuote 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 currently uses NBC news for its news gathering, as well as schedules a few NBC news journalists for their opinion shows (Andrea Mitchell is a prominent one, and Chuck Todd had MSNBC shows previously). While they say that NBC news will continue to provide news gathering for MSNBC and CNBC, the amount of time is undetermined.
Quote from: Henry on November 22, 2024, 09:56:19 PMStellantis, maybe... (the joke would make sense, given that NBC is the Chrysler of TV networks, with CBS being Ford and ABC as GM)
Then one would expect ABC to come out with their own device which they will restrict access to their programming to.
Quote from: brad2971 on November 23, 2024, 12:40:47 AMQuote from: vdeane on November 22, 2024, 12:43:05 PMQuote 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 currently uses NBC news for its news gathering, as well as schedules a few NBC news journalists for their opinion shows (Andrea Mitchell is a prominent one, and Chuck Todd had MSNBC shows previously). While they say that NBC news will continue to provide news gathering for MSNBC and CNBC, the amount of time is undetermined.
One might also think that NBC might slim down their news operation or at least the cost of it since they won't be able to spread out the cost amongst MSNBC or CNBC. We've seen that at ESPN where they have cut some well paid announcers to pare down their costs.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on November 23, 2024, 12:41:50 PMQuote from: brad2971 on November 23, 2024, 12:40:47 AMQuote from: vdeane on November 22, 2024, 12:43:05 PMQuote 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 currently uses NBC news for its news gathering, as well as schedules a few NBC news journalists for their opinion shows (Andrea Mitchell is a prominent one, and Chuck Todd had MSNBC shows previously). While they say that NBC news will continue to provide news gathering for MSNBC and CNBC, the amount of time is undetermined.
One might also think that NBC might slim down their news operation or at least the cost of it since they won't be able to spread out the cost amongst MSNBC or CNBC. We've seen that at ESPN where they have cut some well paid announcers to pare down their costs.
Also consider the other thing NBC is protecting Peacock as their flagship app. Plus NBC News just built NBC News Now and their local news equivalents like KNBC, WNBC, NBC Bay Area as their news feed on Peacock.
https://www.nbcnews.com/now
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/01/22/cable-news-decline-column-00136657
This article showed that the median age for Cable News is between 67-71 according to this article. This is a partial clue why NBC wanted to spin off MSNBC and CNBC to another company.
QuoteYet the demographic claim that the cable news' aged audience will die off goes only so far. As Los Angeles Times reporter Stephen Battaglio recently wrote, the median age of the CNN, Fox and MSNBC audiences is, respectively, 67, 68 and 71. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing for the industry. The 50-plus age group constitutes 43 percent of the television audience. While it's true the older demographic's days are numbered, nature has a way of replenishing its ranks by turning people in their late 40s into cable news-friendly senior citizens. According to the Census Bureau, the numbers of baby boomers in the over-65 category won't start slowing until 2030, which will give the cable news business another decade to tinker with the formula before any demographic end game arrives. The demographic bulge of boomers may also explain why the median age of the cable news audience is old: There are just so many of them out there!
Quote from: mgk920 on November 22, 2024, 11:25:32 AMThe next big question, 'Who will be interested in buying them?'.
Mike
I could see Disney/ABC buying them, merging MSNBC and CNBC into a single channel that does business from 9-5 and news/opinion the rest of the day. USA could absorb FX. Oxygen could absorb Freeform. ESPN could either keep the Golf Channel as is or absorb the programming into their other channels.
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 23, 2024, 04:15:20 AMQuote from: Henry on November 22, 2024, 09:56:19 PMStellantis, maybe... (the joke would make sense, given that NBC is the Chrysler of TV networks, with CBS being Ford and ABC as GM)
Then one would expect ABC to come out with their own device which they will restrict access to their programming to.
That's already the case. If you miss a show over the air, you can't watch online next day unless you have either Hulu or a cable subscription. Free with ads has to wait a week. This is true even for news (although they at least have next-day audio podcasts, at least usually). NBC is similar, but excepts the nightly news, and Peacock had a free tier until last year. CBS still allowed free with ads next-day last I checked, which is remarkable as they could have used that to push CBS All Access and later Paramount+.
I'm surprised there isn't a way to stream your local ABC station live on either Hulu or Disney+. Peacock has a plan that allows it for NBC and Paramount+ has a plan that allows it for CBS. But nothing for ABC.
Quote from: bing101 on November 22, 2024, 09:03:16 PMhttps://www.mediaite.com/media/elon-musk-floats-buying-msnbc-from-comcast-how-much-does-it-cost/
Interesting but the spin co is still putting their board and management together. How Elon Musk is making himself a candidate for one of SpinCo's brands is interesting.
(https://i.imgur.com/hqycYme.png)
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 23, 2024, 09:03:47 PMQuote from: bing101 on November 22, 2024, 09:03:16 PMhttps://www.mediaite.com/media/elon-musk-floats-buying-msnbc-from-comcast-how-much-does-it-cost/
Interesting but the spin co is still putting their board and management together. How Elon Musk is making himself a candidate for one of SpinCo's brands is interesting.
(https://i.imgur.com/hqycYme.png)
Agreed CNBC and MSNBC are not on sale.
The NFL.
You want to watch it live outside Sunday Ticket? Can't be on a TV, or a computer, or even on a tablet.
you have to watch it (not cast it from) your phone!!! OVER CELLULAR!!!!
I think it's grimly funny seeing traditional cable TV go into a tailspin. The industry has been asking for it thanks to its price-gouging of customers for the past decade or so. Despite the growth of cord-cutting and younger adults shifting to alternative sources for entertainment the pay TV companies just kept raising prices. DirecTV is buying Dish Network, but honestly I can't see any kind of long term future possible for satellite TV.
If MSNBC ends up going defunct I'd say "good riddance." I'd like to see the other news-as-anger-pornography channels follow suit. They're at the core of what has ruined political discourse in this nation. The US could end up becoming an autocratic police state. These cable "news" channels put us on that path.
At the very least "MSNBC" is due for a name change anyway. I don't think Microsoft has been involved with the channel in the past 20 or so years. If Elon Musk gets hold of the network and flips it from being the main left wing "news" channel into another competing right wing "news" channel that may speed up the network's demise.
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 24, 2024, 09:43:54 AMNow 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'm not sure that's a viable business model. And my guess is that rural internet service will improve significantly over the coming years making other options much more appealing.
I missed the announcement DirecTV abandoned its takeover bid for Dish. In previous merger attempts the government stepped in to block it. This latest time the government was going to let it go through since the two companies now have much smaller customer bases. Instead bond holders of Dish and DBS pushed back, ultimately killing the deal.
Speaking of the future of satellite TV, I live in flyover country. Small cities like Lawton are doing sort of "okay." Small towns in Oklahoma are withering. They're dealing with worse problems than limited quality of Internet access. Many of these towns have lost their local police departments. They're struggling just to keep their lone public school open and staffed. Kids who are born and raised in these towns often leave for good when reaching adulthood. The median age of residents just keeps getting older and older. The local tax base shrinks. Taking care of things like keeping the streets paved turns into a luxury.
It costs a LOT of money for a pay TV provider to launch satellites into orbit. Then there's all the other stuff that goes with it (specialized hardware, technicians to install and aim dishes, etc). Both DirecTV and Dish have steadily shrinking customer bases. Any customers who can switch to a rival IP-based service like YouTube TV or Hulu Live is doing so. That leaves people who live out "in the sticks" paying ever more money to cover the business costs of a pay TV product that isn't very good. A bunch of people living in small towns can't afford the price hikes. They settle for whatever they can get from an outdoor antenna. Some who can afford the price hikes are splitting the difference, paying a premium to get Starlink Internet and then using that extra bandwidth to get services like YouTubeTV. The financial math just doesn't look for DirecTV and Dish going forward (especially Dish).
Well, of course, the original business plan for DBS was based on serving rural communities. All of the cost considerations can be met with rural communities alone. DBS became the fastest growing consumer electronics product in history, because, in the opinion of many people, it provided a superior product to what the local cable bandit did in suburban and even urban communities. This surprised everyone, including the people that owned the DBS companies at the time.
There is no real question that that is going away. But the original math that said DBS can be profitable only with communities and individuals with out ANY cable service (and thus in today's terms with out ANY internet service either), which are millions of people, with many millions more "served" by a Rinky Dink cable company who provides the least service possible and which owes its existence to the fact that "whatever they can get from an outdoor antenna", is NOTHING AT ALL.
And there is the point, isn't it. There is no real reason that every single person in the country could not have, 70 years ago, gotten "all" the channels with an antenna. Except the Bigs, be they Big Media, Big Government, Big Business, or whatever, didn't give a darn about if people in Appalachia or the Ozarks, or across the Plains or such like, had TV or not.
I'm sorry, I don't think those people care if rural Americans (or poor urban Americans for that matter) have the internet or not.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: vdeane on November 24, 2024, 02:51:31 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 24, 2024, 04:34:17 PMQuote from: vdeane on November 24, 2024, 02:51:31 PMQuote 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 24, 2024, 09:43:54 AMQuote 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.
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 25, 2024, 11:44:56 AMQuote 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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 27, 2024, 12:00:07 PMQuote 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.
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, Montréal 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.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 27, 2024, 03:25:02 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 28, 2024, 05:04:02 AMQuote from: hbelkins on November 27, 2024, 03:25:02 PMQuote 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/
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.
Quote from: vdeane on November 22, 2024, 12:43:05 PMQuote 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.