Bally Sports RSNs Are Reportedly Preparing For Bankruptcy

[Bruce]

I love it.

Lets see. The super profitable linear TV industry, including DBS, cable, and the networks,

Networks will always be there, Cable for awhile, specially since they have a lot more subscribers then satellite TV, DBS is deadman walking, did not DirecTV announce no more new Satellites, what happens when the last one fails, by then anyways, they will not have any subscribers left based on the rate of those leaving now.

are all going out of business within the decade. Meanwhile, HBO Max, like all other streamers, is bleeding money, but ignore that, it’s the FUTURE!!!!

Warner/Discovery problems are not just due to HBOMAX, box office failures, Advertising is way down, loss of per sub fee for all their cable channel are also some of the problems.

And evil DirecTV is going to lose "3-4 million" subscribers, or more people than subscribed to ST in the first place.

They lose about 500,000 a quarter now, so that is, roughly, 2 million a year, then the ST subscribers are 2 Million, so hence 4 million, I was being generous in saying 3-4 million.

For someone who claims to be so intelligent, you would believe that you would have some math skills, but I guess not.

And if one just holds one's breath and stomps ones feet enough, they will sell ESPN at a loss to him.

Right.

And yet, for all your stomping on the ground about luxury TV and nothing is better, seems like a lot of news of content going to streaming lately.

 

[SamCdbs]

ft based on the rate of those leaving now.

The strawberry fallacy.

Warner/Discovery problems are not just due to HBOMAX, box office failures, Advertising is way down, loss of per sub fee for all their cable channel are also some of the problems.

Just. So HBO Max, the FUTURE!!!!!! is a part of the problem.

Of course it is.

They lose about 500,000 a quarter now, so that is, roughly, 2 million a year, then the ST subscribers are 2 Million, so hence 4 million, I was being generous in saying 3-4 million.

No, what you said was "because of ST" more people would leave than actually ever had ST. Which is just wrong on so many levels.

For someone who claims to be so intelligent, you would believe that you would have some math skills, but I guess not.

Stop the personal attacks, right now.

B

And yet, for all your stomping on the ground about luxury TV and nothing is better, seems like a lot of news of content going to streaming lately.

And it continues to lose money.

EXACTLY what has to happen for streaming to ever make money?

The question you won't, and can't answer.

 

[Bruce]

EXACTLY what has to happen for streaming to ever make money?

The question you won't, and can't answer.

Ask Netflix.

And how much profit has DirecTV made since AT&T bought them for 67 Billion?

 

[SamCdbs]

Umm, as we have explained, there is a difference between asset purchase cost, and revenue. Really basic business school stuff. DirecTV remains highly profitable, as does DISH, most every cable provider, the OTA networks, and the chains (Sinclair, Gray, NexStar, Scripts, etc.) that carry them outside the largest cities.

The thing that can't make a profit?

Streaming.

What, exactly, has to happen for streaming to make a profit?

 

[Bruce]

Umm, as we have explained, there is a difference between asset purchase cost, and revenue. Really basic business school stuff. DirecTV remains highly profitable, as does DISH, most every cable provider, the OTA networks, and the chains (Sinclair, Gray, NexStar, Scripts, etc.) that carry them outside the largest cities.

The thing that can't make a profit?

Streaming.

What, exactly, has to happen for streaming to make a profit?

And you again are ignoring the fact that Netflix, the King of Streaming, after years of losses, makes a profit.

And we are starting to see moves towards profitability from other services, Peacock getting rid of it’s free tiers with the hope of getting more subscribers to pay, also just read along with having every SNF game, they will get a exclusive NFL game to only be on Peacock every season.

Paramount, combining Showtime and raising prices.

We will know about Disney plans in a week when the quarterly report is due.

Since I answered your question, how will Traditional Providers stop the losses of subscribers before they are no longer profitable?

 

[SamCdbs]

No, not ignoring the exception. Everyone else loses money. Streaming, as an industry, loses money.

You say that, within a few years, an entire industry, including DBS, cable, networks, OTA station chains, etc. will all go broke. Replaced by an industry that doesn't even make money today.

What exactly has to happen for streaming to make money? Let alone drive 100 mega-profitable companies out of business?

 

[ncted]

No, not ignoring the exception. Everyone else loses money. Streaming, as an industry, loses money.

You say that, within a few years, an entire industry, including DBS, cable, networks, OTA station chains, etc. will all go broke. Replaced by an industry that doesn't even make money today.

What exactly has to happen for streaming to make money? Let alone drive 100 mega-profitable companies out of business?

As with most things in business, I suspect it is discipline. Right now, they are all acting more or less like startups still, and a lot of money gets wasted at that stage of the game. Netflix has learned some expense discipline, and WBD is having some forced on them by new management, but the rest are still learning how this is all going to work. For a number of them, it isn't going to work in the long run, sorry to say.

They need to balance having enough new, desirable content to keep people subscribing without having more content than their customers will ever actually watch. With linear this was easier for them as they only had so many hours of programming to fill. If they wanted more, they would just startup a new channel and shove it down everyone's throats come contract renegotiation time. If they want less, they just show more reruns. Now, a single streaming company can add or remove 5 linear channels' worth of content at the drop of a hat.

 

[Bruce]

You say that, within a few years, an entire industry, including DBS, cable, networks, OTA station chains, etc. will all go broke.

Why do you keep putting things in your posts that I or anyone else never wrote.

This is what I have written, DBS yes, especially DirecTV which is losing customers at a rate faster then Dish, Comcast and Charter.

DirecTV has also announced they will never design, build, launch a new satellite, kind of hard to run a Satellite business if you never launch a new one.

Also, they are losing subscribers 500,000 a quarter, that will at least increase for the next year at least with the loss of Sunday Ticket.

At the end of the fourth quarter, rumor is DirecTV as a whole (Uverse, Stream) has 12.8 Million Subscribers, Uverse has about 2-2.5 million left ( they had 3.1 million when TPG bought 30% of the company), Stream has about 1 million, so the Satellite part has under 10 million, so at a 2 million a year leaving ( and it does not go up, but it will), that is just 4 years before unprofitablity and 6 years no one left.

Dish is a different story, the market can bear one satellite company, I do not believe they need to merge with DirecTV, the rate of loss is less, at 800,000 leaving every year, in 4 years that is 3.2 million, still leaves them with 4 million, then they can start picking up rural customers that left DirecTV.

Cable will be fine, they have broadband.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Well, I'm out. This thread has run its course!

 

[Bilbo1]

No, not ignoring the exception. Everyone else loses money. Streaming, as an industry, loses money.

You say that, within a few years, an entire industry, including DBS, cable, networks, OTA station chains, etc. will all go broke. Replaced by an industry that doesn't even make money today.

What exactly has to happen for streaming to make money? Let alone drive 100 mega-profitable companies out of business?

Amazon was founded in 1994, and here is an article from 2004 saying 2003 was their first profitable year.

Amazon records first profitable year in its history

CEO Jeff Bezos credited the company's low prices, free shipping options and wide variety of products for its strong quarterly results.

www.computerworld.com

But, are you even asking the right question? Does it matter if the streaming portion of the business is profitable in a company that streams content it produces internally, if that company is profitable overall? Ideally each profit center (subsidiary) is profitable.

Also, streaming isn’t replacing 100s of mega profitable businesses. It may replace 5, maybe 10. It’s not going to replace the production studios, sports leagues and other content sources, but will just be another distribution channel for the content they produce.

Of your list, only DBS is going away for sure. That is largely because satellites are not an efficient content delivery pipe. This is obvious from the fact that both DirecTV and Dish have launched streaming services and neither are planning to launch new satellites. Maybe Elon’s Star link may become a thing, but it’s not DBS.

Cable may or may not go away. Land based infrastructure as a content pipe is necessary for content delivery. The big question there is whether cable companies choose to outsource the content part of the business or not. If they do, that may be the break even moment for streamers like YouTube TV, Sling, Fubo, or DirecTV Stream.

But, the industry is changing. Lots of people are going to make money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SamCdbs]

Amazon was founded in 1994, and here is an article from 2004 saying 2003 was their first profitable year.

So were millions of other companies, most of which didn't make it.

Further, streaming is unique. It has basically no costs, other than content. Its customers pay for the delivery system (an ISP) and pay for its receive equipment (a smart TV or STB). And, unlike most every other type of business, it has no build out. No one is sitting around, waiting for streaming to come to their town. It was available, nationwide, on day one.

And yet, it loses money. There does not seem to me to be this point where this changes. For DBS or cable, which have billions tied up in delivery systems, the profitability point is when it started to make more than the debt service on that infrastructure. Same with most any business. Not streaming. Yet it doesn't make any money.

But, are you even asking the right question? Does it matter if the streaming portion of the business is profitable in a company that streams content it produces internally, if that company is profitable overall? Ideally each profit center (subsidiary) is profitable.

Well, if you are making millions selling your product to linear TV providers, and then losing millions (billions actually) selling your product via streaming, it doesn't take a genius to figure of what needs to be done.

Also, streaming isn’t replacing 100s of mega profitable businesses. It may replace 5, maybe 10. It’s not going to replace the production studios, sports leagues and other content sources, but will just be another distribution channel for the content they produce.

Of your list, only DBS is going away for sure. That is largely because satellites are not an efficient content delivery pipe. This is obvious from the fact that both DirecTV and Dish have launched streaming services and neither are planning to launch new satellites. Maybe Elon’s Star link may become a thing, but it’s not DBS.

Of course. It is not "my list". The OP has stated, many times, that every OTA network, every cable company, DBS, every "cable" channel, every local TV station, essentially every form of video entertainment will be out of business within 10 years. I just challenge that uninformed and ridiculous statement.

 

[Bruce]

Of course. It is not "my list". The OP has stated, many times, that every OTA network, every cable company, DBS, every "cable" channel, every local TV station, essentially every form of video entertainment will be out of business within 10 years. I just challenge that uninformed and ridiculous statement.

No I have not, starting to make me a little angry with your lies, only have said that about DBS, nothing other then that you wrote is true, instead of debating me on the subject, you are making up things I have never written in a effort to put me down.

Yet everything thing I have predicted so far has come true, which I have proven with links which you never provide.

Things that you have written-
RSNs will never be offered as streaming services because of cable/sat deals
NFLST will continue to on DirecTV once they do a side deal with whoever wins it for those with icky or no broadband
NFLST , once streaming, will not be offered as a standalone service
Monday Night Football will not be on ESPN+
Once it was on the schedule you kept saying it was the Manning Cast only
Majority of Content from Live TV is not on Streaming Services
ESPN will not be offered as a streaming service-yet to be proven

And I give DirecTV 5-7 years at the most if no merger.

Go ahead, tell me why I am incorrect, but just debate, you do not need to attack and make up stuff.

 

[navychop]

Don’t streamers have to pay for bandwidth too? I don’t see ISPs doing it for free. So there is an incremental increase in costs with a growing customer base?

 

[Bruce]

Don’t streamers have to pay for bandwidth too? I don’t see ISPs doing it for free. So there is an incremental increase in costs with a growing customer base?

Yes, but those costs have been coming down.

Where streaming saves the most is no upfront costs, services like YTTV do not have to design/build/launch Satellites, do not have to lay cable like Comcast, do not have to make electronics for the service and do not have to install at customers homes.

I read that each new install costs Dish/DirecTV $600-800, YTTV just tells someone to buy a Roku.

My son works on teams that designs and maintain apps, the expense for that is no where near what it costs Dish to maintain their service.

 

[ncted]

Don’t streamers have to pay for bandwidth too? I don’t see ISPs doing it for free. So there is an incremental increase in costs with a growing customer base?

The thing with bandwidth is the more you use, the less it costs per unit of measure. Also, a lot of non-Live content is stored in CDN servers housed in peering points or in the ISP's own data centers. With Live streaming, multicast and other methods allow them to limit how much bandwidth is actually needed to (mostly) only what is absolutely necessary. With YouTube in particular, Google (Alphabet) owns its own nationwide fiber network which allows them to bypass a lot of the backbone providers. Anyway, it is not a zero cost thing, but it just gets cheaper and cheaper with time so far.

 

[Bilbo1]

Of course. It is not "my list". The OP has stated, many times, that every OTA network, every cable company, DBS, every "cable" channel, every local TV station, essentially every form of video entertainment will be out of business within 10 years. I just challenge that uninformed and ridiculous statement.

The part of the list… OTA networks, DBS, cable company, cable channels, local TV station… will see significant changes in the next 10 years. That is mostly the content distribution/delivery part of the business.

There is clearly a move to direct-to-consumer distribution by what are now the OTA networks, except Fox. These OTA networks also own many (most?) of the cable channels. The OTA networks also own major production companies. Guess whose business will look much different in 10 years?

Speaking of production companies, last year, Amazon bought MGM. They are definitely all in on building a content library and production studios.

What’s uninformed and ridiculous is to assume that in 10 years, the world of content distribution will look anything like what it did 5 years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SamCdbs]

You are correct that Fox is making a different bet on the future than the other three networks, all of which are currently bleeding money from their current positions. My money is on Fox. Literally.

The linear distribution of channels, both OTA channels and "cable" channels in a bundle will remain the main form of television for decades to come. Yes, many, eventually most people will supplement that with streaming. And, yes, many people will choose to get their bundle of linear channels from a firm like YouTubeTV or DirecTV Stream. But linear TV remains what it has been for 70 years. A license to print money.

 

[Bilbo1]

You are correct that Fox is making a different bet on the future than the other three networks, all of which are currently bleeding money from their current positions. My money is on Fox. Literally.

Fox will be the first to go. They have no production company to develop programs/ create content and their only real asset is their NFL rights. They should be an acquisition target for a streamer interested in NFL rights, but You Tube/Google got Sunday Ticket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bilbo1]

The linear distribution of channels, both OTA channels and "cable" channels in a bundle will remain the main form of television for decades to come. Yes, many, eventually most people will supplement that with streaming. And, yes, many people will choose to get their bundle of linear channels from a firm like YouTubeTV or DirecTV Stream. But linear TV remains what it has been for 70 years. A license to print money.

Paramount+ and Peacock have both added linear channels in their services. Of course, the look more like Pluto’s channels and less like a cable channel, but it’s a start. Paramount has the local CBS channel.

So, yeah, linear channels are going to be a part of the picture. Streamers are already preparing for that.

Without knowing details of carriage agreements, one has to assume there is a limit to what channels and content the streamers can put on their apps and sell direct to consumers. I figure that will be the big issue for the next carriage agreement cycle. Cable cos will want exclusive channels/content that networks will want to charge a premium for. The compromise is lower costs and allow the channel/content on the streamer without authentication.

As streaming services gain customers, they need the cable companies less and less. That shifts the balance of power to the networks in carriage renegotiations. Keep in mind that most streamers were just starting up during the most recent renegotiations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[meStevo]

Kinda sounds like MLB is ready to move on, if the status quo can't be maintained.

MLB Could Take Back Bally Sports’ Local TV Rights

Major League Baseball is exploring all of its media options — including taking back local TV rights to 14 teams

frontofficesports.com