Article: "Netflix hints at some good news for customers after big change to pricing"

[Don in CT]

Warner also, CNN, TBS, TNT, all the former Discovery suite of Channels, Food Network for example, etc.

Universal NBC, SyFy, USA, MSNBC, NBC RSNs MSNBC, etc.

All of them have lost up to 30 Million per sub fees.

Warner is $44 Billion in debt.

Comcast $100 Billion in debt.

Those were 2 separate deals. Discovery first bought the Scripts networks then Warner.

 

[Bruce]

Those were 2 separate deals. Discovery first bought the Scripts networks then Warner.

I know that, but they are all losing per sub fees, no matter who bought who when.

If Discovery never merged with Warner, I believe they would of been just fine, all the content on Discovery+ was paid for by their cable deals, hence why it was profitable from the beginning.

All the content they make is so incredibly inexpensive , they could of survived another 20 million per fees gone and having Discovery+ making up the difference.

But they wanted to be bigger, took on Warner, since then another 8 million became cord cutters, hence why they stopped making new content for TNT, the last new series they had on was imported from the UK.

 

[Don in CT]

I know that, but they are all losing per sub fees, no matter who bought who when.

If Discovery never merged with Warner, I believe they would of been just fine, all the content on Discovery+ was paid for by their cable deals, hence why it was profitable from the beginning.

But they wanted to be bigger, took on Warner, since then another 8-10 million became cord cutters, hence why they stopped making new content for TNT, the last new series they had on was imported from the UK.

Discovery needed to be big enough not to be eaten so they took on Warner. I know there was talk about maybe Paramount and Discover merging but I doubt that would be allowed to fly.

 

[Bruce]

Discovery needed to be big enough not to be eaten so they took on Warner. I know there was talk about maybe Paramount and Discover merging but I doubt that would be allowed to fly.

Doubt Paramount would of, they are more likely to be acquired, then buying someone else.

The rumors from work are getting stronger about Apple buying Paramount, but I am still incredibly skeptical, every time a media company is up for sale, Apple is always mentioned, but nothing ever happens.

But it would make sense, Paramount would not cost as much as Warner, not as much debt, has a popular streaming service it could merge Apple TV with, a studio to make content, movie distribution and great IP ( Star Trek for one) that the Apple crowd likes.

Plus Apple has all that cash, so it should be able to dictate the deal with the banks.

But again, Apple keeps inviting themselves to the party, but never dances with anyone.

 

[Don in CT]

Doubt Paramount would of, they are more likely to be acquired, then buying someone else.

The rumors from work are getting stronger about Apple buying Paramount, but I am still incredibly skeptical, every time a media company is up for sale, Apple is always mentioned, but nothing ever happens.

But it would make sense, Paramount would not cost as much as Warner, not as much debt, has a popular streaming service it could merge Apple TV with, a studio to make content, movie distribution and great IP ( Star Trek for one) that the Apple crowd likes.

Plus Apple has all that cash, so it should be able to dictate the deal with the banks.

But again, Apple keeps inviting themselves to the party, but never dances with anyone.

I can't see the government allowing it.

 

[savarese04]

I can't see the government allowing it.

why not? there's no antitrust concern here. they allowed Amazon to buy MGM. Amazon does not own a network and runs a streaming service and has popular streaming devices. The government has no standing to stop Apple from buying Paramount. Apple does not own a network and runs a streaming service and has less popular streaming devices. Given that, they have no leg to stand on.

Everyone talks about Apple buying Disney. To me, that would raise more antitrust concern even though there's no reason to block that deal. The government would probably stop Amazon from buying Paramount or Paramount from getting swallowed up by another media company.

 

[Don in CT]

why not? there's no antitrust concern here. they allowed Amazon to buy MGM. Amazon does not own a network and runs a streaming service and has popular streaming devices. The government has no standing to stop Apple from buying Paramount. Apple does not own a network and runs a streaming service and has less popular streaming devices. Given that, they have no leg to stand on.

Everyone talks about Apple buying Disney. To me, that would raise more antitrust concern even though there's no reason to block that deal. The government would probably stop Amazon from buying Paramount or Paramount from getting swallowed up by another media company.

Apple owning the CBS television network would be the problem.

 

[Bruce]

Apple owning the CBS television network would be the problem.

I do not see why, they do not own one now.

If it was Comcast wanting to buy Paramount, that would be a issue because of NBC.

I was amazed that let Discovery merge with Warner, because that did cause job loss, but Apple, which is considered more of a hardware/tech company buying a media company should not be as big of a deal.

And again, I still doubt it, sooner or later, I keep expecting Apple to do some kind of deal with all the cash it is hoarding, but it never happens.

But buying Paramount would make sense.

 

[Juan]

Incorrect. You, as most of the agenda driven fan boys do, make up some number for the supposed high cable bill.

The average cable bill, with all the wonderful content, if $116. Not the hundreds and thousands you fan boys claim.

Answered many time, although it is so self-evident it really does not need to be explained to those without an agenda.

Here we have a perfect example. The SAME material will be on two different streamers, plus real TV. The consumer wants some things only on, say, Max, and some things only on Netflix. And, being normal, also wants some things, like ESPN, only on real TV. However some other content will be on all three. He pays THREE TIMES for the same content.

He is being cheated by Big Media. The bundle protected him. ONE bill. ONE provider. ALL the content, in one place, for a fair price. In fact, due to the magic of the bundle, more content that will exist, as NO ONE THING IS POPULAR ENOUGH TO COVER ITS COSTS (this is why streaming loses money) and thus, when Big Media kills off real TV, will cease to be made.

Big Media, after all, wants to sell you as little as possible, for as much as possible.

Unlike linear TV providers, who protect the consumer.

Yeah, a A LOT MORE CONTENT. ESPN, Fox Sports, the actual networks, the wonderful local RSN.

All for just, by your math, (actually its less than that) for just a few pennies more.

The consumer, protected.

Less every day. But I'm glad to pay a few pennies for the Golden Batchelor. Someone else watches it, and is likewise paying a few pennies for stuff I like. A symbiotic relationship. We are protected, and we all get the content we want.

Unlike streaming, where no one thing is popular enough to cover its costs. And will eventually cease to be made. Just reruns, Hallmark style female movies (the cheapest type to make) trashsports, and cheaply acquired foreign content. Or, more or less, what Netflix is today.



Well, since the majority of people still, despite all your incorrect projections, still want and have the bundle, you would get what most people get. The real networks, your local sports teams, ESPN, Fox Sports, Fox News, and almost a hundred other channels of greatness.

But you can save those pennies, and watch Korean anime, or eurosoccer, or cicket, or MAC football, or Star Wars rips offs. Using what most use as a supplement as your only thing.

And telling us about it, daily.

Cable/satellite you pay for content AND delivery...streaming the fan boys only count the cost of content and ignore the cost of delivery( internet).. if you add content and delivery together for streaming it is as expensive as satellite/cable if not more

 

[Juan]

why not? there's no antitrust concern here. they allowed Amazon to buy MGM. Amazon does not own a network and runs a streaming service and has popular streaming devices. The government has no standing to stop Apple from buying Paramount. Apple does not own a network and runs a streaming service and has less popular streaming devices. Given that, they have no leg to stand on.

Everyone talks about Apple buying Disney. To me, that would raise more antitrust concern even though there's no reason to block that deal. The government would probably stop Amazon from buying Paramount or Paramount from getting swallowed up by another media company.

Amazon owns Amazon Web Services a internet backbone

 

[Don in CT]

Cable/satellite you pay for content AND delivery...streaming the fan boys only count the cost of content and ignore the cost of delivery( internet).. if you add content and delivery together for streaming it is as expensive as satellite/cable if not more

And even with cable tv I still need internet. So what is the cost without the cable tv.

 

[Jimbo]

And it goes ON and ON and ON ...
Same discussion, same arguments ....
May as well Copy and Paste this info.

 

[Don in CT]

And it goes ON and ON and ON ...
Same discussion, same arguments ....
May as well Copy and Paste this info.

Let’s just say that everything is expensive.

 

[Bruce]

Cable/satellite you pay for content AND delivery...streaming the fan boys only count the cost of content and ignore the cost of delivery( internet).. if you add content and delivery together for streaming it is as expensive as satellite/cable if not more

Not this again, you keep bringing up the cost of internet in multiple threads, I do not know why you keep trolling here with the same discredited theory over and over on this site.

The internet is now needed, much like a utility, bills, taxes, news, correspondence, information, shopping , handing problems and yes, entertainment.

In my case, since I work from home, the internet makes me money, my salary easily surpasses what broadband costs every month.

I bet if you did a poll, Cable/Satellite TV vs Broadband, if you had to give up one, which one will be, the plus with Broadband, you can still get TV, with Cable/Satellite TV, you do not get broadband.

The vast majority would give up Cable/Satellite.

 

[savarese04]

Amazon owns Amazon Web Services a internet backbone

Putting aside the fact that AWS is not an "internet backbone", I am not sure what your comment has to do with anything.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Putting aside the fact that AWS is not an "internet backbone", I am not sure what your comment has to do with anything.

Actually, AWS is a backbone.

What AWS Customer Should Know About the AWS Global Backbone - Konekti Systems LLC

At re:Invent, various Amazon speakers tout the security, availability, and performance of the AWS Global Backbone, a private Internet Protocol (IP) network purpose-built for moving customer data across the world. The talks are pure gold for network engineers as Amazon is very transparent in...

konekti.us

 

[ncted]

Not this again, you keep bringing up the cost of internet in multiple threads, I do not know why you keep trolling here with the same discredited theory over and over on this site.

The internet is now needed, much like a utility, bills, taxes, news, correspondence, information, shopping , handing problems and yes, entertainment.

In my case, since I work from home, the internet makes me money, my salary easily surpasses what broadband costs every month.

I bet if you did a poll, Cable/Satellite TV vs Broadband, if you had to give up one, which one will be, the plus with Broadband, you can still get TV, with Cable/Satellite TV, you do not get broadband.

The vast majority would give up Cable/Satellite.

If the Internet was only used for TV content delivery, his point would be valid. Alas, it is not, nor is it.

 

[SamCdbs]

And even with cable tv I still need internet. So what is the cost without the cable tv.

Well, since people lived for 10s of 1000s of years without it, no one "needs" the internet.

But, on a less hyperbolic note, no, no one really "needs" HD video quality internet, which did not even exist not 20 or even 15 years ago. If you have kids in school, or are in school yourself, or work from home (AKA pay for infrastructure your boss should provide for you at work) or so on, you need a certain level of basic internet. For everyone else, it can be a way of paying bills, reading mail, and so on, but that level is far from an HD quality level needed to support multichannel HD video, but that is a luxury. No one "needs" that.

This is why the cost of such internet should be included when foolishly talking about how much money one "saved". You paid for the delivery system too. Include that cost.

There are no savings. Just a consuming public, unprotected. Now having to pay for the same content, two or three or more times.

 

[Bruce]

If the Internet was only used for TV content delivery, his point would be valid. Alas, it is not, nor is it.

That I agree with.

But my point is, once he runs out of another inconsequential thing about streaming, he will circle back to something he has brought up before multiple times and was proven incorrect.

 

[Juan]

Putting aside the fact that AWS is not an "internet backbone", I am not sure what your comment has to do with anything.

I guess you understand what the internet backbone is..thats is exactly what AWS does...


The Internet backbone may be defined by the principal data routes between large, strategically interconnected computer networks and core routers of the Internet. Wikipedia